There has been an interest in "naturalizing" religion - explaining its emergence and perdurance (@Bitter Crank) as a natural phenomenon - going back at least to the late 19th century. Among the earliest and still continuing efforts are anthropological theories, especially ones that cast religion as a social adaptation, which is probably what your author tries to do as well. Later on cognitive scientists and evolutionary biologists joined in.

At some point a split emerged between "adaptationists" - those who, like Harrari, explain religion as a useful adaptation - and "spandrelists" - those who view it as a byproduct of other developments, in itself adaptationally neutral at best. Among the latter are Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, Robert McCauley, E. T. Lawson, Harvey Whitehouse - most are cognitive scientists, although the best-known "spandrelists" happen to be evolutionary biologists who are not really experts in this particular field - Richard Dawkins, who went so far as to call religion "a virus of the mind" and Steven Gould, who offered the spandrel metaphor (an architectural element that is not usually build for its own sake).

Adaptationist theories are advanced by anthropologists and some evolutionary biologists, such as Joseph Bulbulia, Richard Sosis, D. S. Wilson. I find some of the anthropological research such as that of Sosis and Bulbulia, particularly interesting, since it does not just offer tendentious interpretations, but subjects the hypothesis to an empirical test.

Some of those authors i am familiar with and i find their work severely lacking as to the others i'll have to research them myself and see what they say.

I own the book and am only part way through Part One. I love what I've read so far. You seem to put a positive spin on what the author said of religion. Some of the comments were not exactly flattering. On page 39, a caption next to a picture of the Pope reads, "The Catholic alpha male abstains from sexual intercourse and childcare, even though there is no genetic or ecological reason to do so". Page 34, "...and hocus pocus - the bread turned into Christ's flesh".

He doesn't argue that religion was necessary, just that fictional constructs had a use and were of benefit in ways.

thats true.

he does however say many times in the book that we need a new fiction to believe in our modern era that we live in. If we were to take everything in the book as though it was well thought out then that is the cause of me saying that our modern era needs a new collective fiction.

perdurance — SophistiCat

There has been a slight up-tick in the use of perdure in various forms. Keep up the good work!

he does however say many times in the book that we need a new fiction to believe in our modern era that we live in. If we were to take everything in the book as though it was well thought out then that is the cause of me saying that our modern era needs a new collective fiction. — christian2017

I suppose now that God is dead, and we have killed him, we could aspire to become ubermensch. Do you know of Thus Spoke Zarathustra? It's a book for all and none.

"I suppose now that God is dead, and we have killed him, we could aspire to become ubermensch. Do you know of Thus Spoke Zarathustra? It's a book for all and none. "

"Hitler's explicit condemnations of the slave race, his ravings about the Aryan elite, and his proposed Darwinist resolution, as well as Hitler's relationship to Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Richard Wagner signal a definite connection to Nietzsche's work."

http://marcuse.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm

I understand Hitler may have been taking Nietzsche out of context when using him for inspiration but i think the new collective fiction needs to be very well thought out.

I understand Hitler may have been taking Nietzsche out of context when using him for inspiration... — christian2017

There's no "may" about it, and if you understand the above, then why propagate the association between the two which has already done so much damage?

...but I think the new collective fiction needs to be very well thought out. — christian2017

Have you read the book? Or are you judging it by its cover, and by the propaganda?

there is may about it and thats where we disagree. I'd have to read mein kampf and various works by Nietsche and i just haven't gotten around to it. That being said what i just said doesn't prove you wrong.

there is may about it — christian2017

If you say so, christian2017. I trust your impartiality in this matter.

If you want an authority on Nietzsche, look up Walter Kaufman.

What does evolutionary biology purport to explain? It is a theory, first and foremost, about the origin of species. So the criteria it provides for evaluation are, either explicitly or implicitly, what is conducive to propogation. When applied to such questions as these, it invariably results in a kind of utilitarianism, as the kinds of explanations it provides can only be centred around the survival value of whatever trait or attribute it is discussing. Put bluntly, the name of the game is survival - and with this in mind, it then pronounces on what ought or ought not to be considered ‘natural’.

Interestingly, the co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, whilst completely accepting the principle as far it applies to the physiological origin of the species, also argued against the idea that the principle of natural selection can be applied to all of the attributes and traits of humanity, saying:

Although, perhaps, nowhere distinctly formulated, [Darwin’s] whole argument tends to the conclusion that man's entire nature and all his faculties, whether moral, intellectual, or spiritual, have been derived from their rudiments in the lower animals, in the same manner and by the action of the same general laws as his physical structure has been derived. As this conclusion appears to me not to be supported by adequate evidence, and to be directly opposed to many well-ascertained facts, I propose to devote a brief space to its discussion.

He then develops the argument based on abilities including mathematical, scientific and artistic, and moral and spiritual, saying that:

It appears then, that, both on account of the limited number of persons gifted with the mathematical, the artistic, or the musical faculty, as well as from the enormous variations in its development, these mental powers differ widely from those which are essential to man, and are, for the most part, common to him and the lower animals; and that they could [[p. 472]] not, therefore, possibly have been developed in him by means of the law of natural selection.

He concludes, most unfashionably,

we, who accept the existence of a spiritual world, can look upon the universe as a grand consistent whole adapted in all its parts to the development of spiritual beings capable of indefinite life and perfectibility. To us, the whole purpose, the only raison d'être of the world--with all its complexities of physical structure, with its grand geological progress, the slow evolution of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, and the ultimate appearance of man--was the development of the human spirit in association with the human body.

From Darwinism Applied to Man.

Of course as is well known, science now generally views Wallace as a genial eccentric with an interest in Victorian spirituality. But in culture, ‘selection’ is not always ‘natural’.

Does he bother to consider the connection between common religious practices - such as fasting, prayer and chanting - and ASC’s (Altered States of Consciousness)?

Mr. Harrarri does mention something to that effect