Religion - Evolution in action?

[*Classic*Charm*]

- hmm, name some? In particular name some that aren't founded in , or had their origins in some form of religion - i.e. I personally am not religious, would count myself as an athiest, but am still guided (both because it makes sense and because our laws are founded on them) by the 10 commandments. I suppose the question is, are our morals founded in religion, or did religion simply draw together the most logical moral principals, adopt them, and communicate them as their own?.

You think that every connection between people in the world is based on a religious teaching? LIFE EXPERIENCE! Try experiencing the death of a loved one. That is a life experience that brings people together in their ability to empathize, and often leads to an entirely new perspective on the world. I'm pretty sure that the emotions felt when someone close to you passes away weren't founded by some religious principle. If you're talking in terms of morals, how about when said loved one is murdered. If someone I love is killed by another, the pain and grief I feel is enough to teach me not to inflict the same suffering on another, therefore, I will not kill. For me, personally, and I think for many others, the ability to empathize is a far more effective way to learn such morals than by having someone tell me that to do this is wrong.

I think that morals, whether or not they have been labeled as such, are founded in personal experience. Someone felt the consequences of imorality, and it was bad enough that they determined that those actions led to those bad feelings. It's the same way one trains a dog: dog steals food, it hears the angry voice say "no". The dog doesn't like how he feels when he hears the angry "no", so he doesn't steal food again. He doesn't learn to stop stealing food because the dog training book said he's not allowed. (Obviously this is over-simplified, but I think you catch my drift)

It is when people don't understand that others are capable of feeling the same pain and grief and other emotions as themself that societies falter. You say you're guided by the 10 commandments because they make sense- why do they make sense to you? Because you understand how your actions affect others. You know that killing someone will cause pain not only to that person, but to everyone who knew and loved them, and you'll cause pain to those around you as well. It doesn't simply "make sense' becasuse one person decided it was so.

(And by the way, I was raised Catholic, and attend a Catholic school. My belief system, however, is slightly different than the one I have been taught to accept).

- in principle I agree, but this occurs after the point where religion has made a society successful, eventually people move beyond the need of a omnipotent force to guide/regulate them and find other means. I believe that the Greeks had an almost religious faith in the 'State' and their religion was secondary to this - however, they seem to be fairly unique in this respect.

If society able to move beyond the need for an omnipotent force, why do they need it in the first place?

As for the Greeks, you say they had a religious faith in the "state". What you're saying is that they believed in the principles of their community the way others believe in the principles of religion. That disproves what you're saying that religion makes a society successful. The Greeks were able to put their faith in their relationship with each other and their similar life experiences to create a successful society. Perhaps if the whole world were able to draw from our similar experiences instead of living by what has been simply commanded of us by religion, we would have the same bond that Greek society had.

[Adudaewen]

Technically, the Amish contribute nothing to society and the goal of reaching a new level of consciousness. They dig their feet in the ground and the watch the rest of humanity work hard to move forward.

I guess I always considered the Amish to be a society in and of themselves. They all work towards the betterment of their own society and community. All working together to achieve one goal, as one. I guess I wasn't clear in my post on that point. However, I look at them, at the peace they have and I have to admit I have felt a twinge of jealousy towards them. I consider them to be an amazing example of humanity at its best. And it is because they have dug their feet in. They found something that worked for them and the stick to it.

Yes, it would be nice for all people to live in peace with each other. The problem is that people misinterpret or warp the religion they follow. The so-called "terrorists" misinterpret what Allah would actually want. Christians think that getting born again (repenting etc.) would cleanse them of the wrongs they have committed.

On this point, I totally agree with you. The turmoil of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Crucades, bombing of abortion clinics and injury to doctors there, all of these things have stemmed directly from extremists using their religion to condone violence and the evils that followed. No religion is above the law, and violence in the name of Allah/God is still violence and is a sin according to both religions.

If Christians were all like zeppelin, then we would see some progress. He fully understands the religion he follows.

I agree. Red has a very strong grasp on his religion. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in the hope that I misunderstood your meaning, but I truly hope that you're not suggesting that I do not have an understanding of my religion since Red and I share many of the same values. It does sound like a slight, and a bit of an undercut at that.

[hyperborean]

I consider them to be an amazing example of humanity at its best. And it is because they have dug their feet in. They found something that worked for them and the stick to it.

We still need to move forward. Their level of thinking is far more primitive than many of us on this forum.

I agree. Red has a very strong grasp on his religion. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in the hope that I misunderstood your meaning, but I truly hope that you're not suggesting that I do not have an understanding of my religion since Red and I share many of the same values. It does sound like a slight, and a bit of an undercut at that.

Sorry for leaving you out. I should have mentioned you as well

[JCamilo]

The believe in progress is a bit of myth, but well...

Evolution (the biological,Darwinist) is not about moving foward or getting better. In a way, if you survive like an amoeba you are as "good" as a mammal. If the nature (and it does not) make vallue judgments.

And if we think very well, the superior "mammals" are not really superior in many aspects to a lot of other animals. Evolution is not about getting better, but getting different and more suited.

[Adudaewen]

We still need to move forward. Their level of thinking is far more primitive than many of us on this forum.

I guess that is what I always admired about them. What you see as primitive I guess I see as ideal. I admire their ability to flourish outside of the mainstream. Probably stems from my desire to have lived in a different, more simple time. As much as I love the fact that I can just hop on the internet and interact with people all around the world (like here), there is a part of me that wonders what life would be like without technology. I suppose that is the reason that I admire them.

Sorry for leaving you out. I should have mentioned you as well

lol, no worries. I guess I just took it a bit more personal than I should have, and I do appologize for that. After re-reading it this morning I realized how silly my post was. guess I was just grouchy last night.

[Bii]

You think that every connection between people in the world is based on a religious teaching? .

No - you've clearly misinterpreted the theory.

Try experiencing the death of a loved one. That is a life experience that brings people together in their ability to empathize, and often leads to an entirely new perspective on the world.

I have, actually. But you're point refers to small groups, not large. Think bigger picture and perhaps the theory will become clearer to you.

If someone I love is killed by another, the pain and grief I feel is enough to teach me not to inflict the same suffering on another, therefore, I will not kill. For me, personally, and I think for many others, the ability to empathize is a far more effective way to learn such morals than by having someone tell me that to do this is wrong. .

Indeed, but this is because your moral code (which in society is founded on hundreds of years of history in which religious dogma and principles have been enforced and passed down from generation to generation) makes this abhorent to you. That being said, for many people the experience of the death of a loved one could incite them to rage, revenge, and of which could incite them to kill. What holds them back? What is is that stands as the grounding point of your moral compass? Albeit that it may seem hard (and I also find it hard being a non-religious person), it is hard not to credit this to the highly prevalent religious system which exists, and has existed, in our society for so long it becomes impossible to separate this from your essential make up. Again, it is like asking the question why do I speak English, why is English the way it is, when you live in an English speaking country.

As for the Greeks, you say they had a religious faith in the "state". What you're saying is that they believed in the principles of their community the way others believe in the principles of religion. That disproves what you're saying that religion makes a society successful. The Greeks were able to put their faith in their relationship with each other and their similar life experiences to create a successful society. Perhaps if the whole world were able to draw from our similar experiences instead of living by what has been simply commanded of us by religion, we would have the same bond that Greek society had.

They had an almost religious faith in the state, that being the "State" not their community. And I considered the Greeks advanced and perhaps we have deteriorated from that position. Again, you misinterpret my point. Consider this, we live in a society which is largely dominated by religion. This is the position we are in. My question/post or whatever you'd like to call it, raises the question as to why we got here, as opposed to offering an alternative social situation. Start from where we are now and work backwards. How did we get here, and, if religion has no purpose why does it exist?

[Bii]

One of the main differencials of human kind is the capacity to care for childlings, to sacrifice for them, even when you are not the mother/father (many other primates already have this). The very mortherly instint is also something we can not call selfish in any way. In fact, I think it is very impossible to claim humankind is selfish or not, more like, we are both.

On the face of it the rearing of young is an un-selfish act, but if you think about it it's actually one of the most selfish things you can do. The child doesn't ask for life, so the reasons for producing young can only be selfish. However, on a deeper level the rearing of young is both about survival and has self-interest as it's motivation, by having a child you pass on your genetic information; by caring for your child you increase the chances of your genetic information surviving and passing on to the next generation - this is possibly more true for women who have the capacity only to bear one child every 9 months or so, and the process of pregnancy is very draining on the body so, the greater care you take of your surviving young, the less need there is to produce more; whereas for men, they can impregnanate a number of women, so their need to care for the children is less. It is believed that this is often why babies resemble their fathers, as the resemblance secures the fathers care (as the genetic link is clear) and protection.

In terms of looking after other people's children, there is usually some 'selfish' imperative for this, perhaps because there is financial benefit, or the individual is in some need of the protection/benefits from the power of the parents (I think this is more the case in primates), or even that the individual enjoys children and therefore they do it because they like it, it makes them feel good, and therefore it is selfishly motivated.

Perhaps the use of the term "selfish" gave the wrong impression. I am not thinking necessarily conscious selfishness but more the fact that people are motivated by 1) survival and 2) happiness. If you think about the choices you make in life they are inherently motivated by these things, albeit that it is sometimes a 'lesser of two evils' choice.

[JCamilo]

The argumentation is leading to that line that is impossible to have a non-selfish person, since every act she does will cause satisfaction - no matter if it is self-sacrifice. Obviously the word selfish lose any use to any argument in this case.
Everyone have motivation to do anything, but those motivations then do not need a set of moral laws (Just think how all animals act also because of Survival - Pleasure (replacing happiness) - do they need religion to survival? No.) In the end religion is a consequence, not the cause of human society, organization and moralization. Which is a bit of the flaw that some people are showing in their reasoning, but anyways - I would like to resume that the theory certainly holds some true, considering it is a analogy, that religion certainly develped traits that secured their survival (not humankind survival) and that it is extremelly important. And that they often adapted to the new times (either because of the philosophical/scientific changes or just political) to secure their existence.
Atheism growth in moderm society is however not an adaptation of religion, but a consequence of the weakening, therefore a "failure" of adaptation, opening space for less conversions.
More like an acceptable notion...

[Bii]

The argumentation is leading to that line that is impossible to have a non-selfish person, since every act she does will cause satisfaction - no matter if it is self-sacrifice. Obviously the word selfish lose any use to any argument in this case.

I agree, the term 'selfish' may not be appropriate due to the way it is interpreted through common use, but you've summarised my point exactly, ultimately every act is either to secure 1) survival (which is the primary goal) and 2) satisfaction or happiness. There is therefore no such thing as an 'unselfish act' - which is where religion comes in. Religion (whether you believe in it or not) encourages people to set aside their immediate desires/goals/needs etc, because there is either an all-seeing, all-knowing being which you can't escape who will punish you for your immoral ways (or anti-social, if you prefer), or you will be rewarded in the afterlife for your sacrifices, and for living an upstanding life in which you have had care for, and supported your fellow man. Ultimately both methods appeal to self-interest.

In the end religion is a consequence, not the cause of human society, organization and moralization.

Again, I agree with you. I don't think that religion is a cause of human society but rather a catalyst which has allowed society to balloon. Perhaps, if humans have an inherent capacity for faith - and by this I don't mean religious faith but rather an ability to believe in things which cannot be proven, or which they cannot fully understand (think of justice, time, perfection - these are all concepts which require some form of faith as, in essence, they don't really exist) - co-existing with a desire to flourish and develop society, that religion, in a sense, naturally follows?

[JCamilo]

I agree, the term 'selfish' may not be appropriate due to the way it is interpreted through common use, but you've summarised my point exactly, ultimately every act is either to secure 1) survival (which is the primary goal) and 2) satisfaction or happiness. There is therefore no such thing as an 'unselfish act' - which is where religion comes in. Religion (whether you believe in it or not) encourages people to set aside their immediate desires/goals/needs etc, because there is either an all-seeing, all-knowing being which you can't escape who will punish you for your immoral ways (or anti-social, if you prefer), or you will be rewarded in the afterlife for your sacrifices, and for living an upstanding life in which you have had care for, and supported your fellow man. Ultimately both methods appeal to self-interest.

I would point that depends. Several pratices of religion do not encourage to you put aside immediate desires/goals, etc. I would say that more than often a consequence of the society they appear is the interest to preserve the tradition, which mean preserving the tradition.

Again, I agree with you. I don't think that religion is a cause of human society but rather a catalyst which has allowed society to balloon. Perhaps, if humans have an inherent capacity for faith - and by this I don't mean religious faith but rather an ability to believe in things which cannot be proven, or which they cannot fully understand (think of justice, time, perfection - these are all concepts which require some form of faith as, in essence, they don't really exist) - co-existing with a desire to flourish and develop society, that religion, in a sense, naturally follows?

Humans have the need of the "subjective part", which is where faith appeal, indeed. We will always need a system that will deal with those needs. Either be religious or artistic.

[hbacharya]

I have often wondered, and would like the thoughts of others on this, whether the predominance of religion in society is actually evidence of evolution in action. Not sure if I can get down my reasoning for this coherently but I'll have a bash.

What is it that makes the human race successful? The human race succeeds because of it's ability to live in large social groups; significantly larger than any other species on the planet. The ability to live in a large social group gives a number of benefits being protection, division of labour, sharing of resources, specialism of skills etc. However, humans are inherently selfish and ultimately the aim of most people (albeit that this is largely hidden under more complex emotional issues) is to ensure 1) their survival and 2) their happiness. So, for a race which is busy looking after no.1 the development of a large interactive, inter-dependent social structure seems unlikely. Here enters religion. Religion (amongst other devices) encourages individuals to set aside their immediate needs/wants/desires with the goal of a longer term guarantee of happiness (i.e. heaven) in the afterlife. So religion gives people a moral blueprint, which also happens to be a good way to live, if you live in a large social group.

The reason I think religion or a belief in religion is evidence of evolution in action is a comparitive issues. Imagine a time, say several thousand years ago, when you had two societies. One society functioned without religion, each person served their own personal need first, and the need of society second. The second society held religious views which allowed them to work more cohesively as a social group. Which society would succeed? The likelihood is that the society with religious belief would succeed and is more likely to thrive than the society without. In evolutionary terms survival of the fittest will out, therefore the society with religious belief would come to dominate and be prevalent - as it is in our society even if there are a number of religions and those religions do not necessarily agree. This would also be consistent with the regional nature of religion (which is, I accept, diminishing due to globalisation and the spread of an information culture) as people from the same global area generally have a coherent religious system, which in many ways will carry similarities to religious systems of their neighbours.

Not sure I've explained this overly well, and I'm certainly no expert on religion or evolution! However, I wonder whether there is any point asking people the question, 'Why do you believe in God'?, when this, in some respects, may be the same as asking 'Why do you speak English', if you were born in an English speaking country. Is religion evolution in action, or something more than that?
Is athiesm the next step in evolution?

Your ideas are illuminating, but there are some confusions too. Here your concern for religion seems good feelings and altrusim, and if so i agree and if religiosity has to do with Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and the rest of other religions i disagree. Not that there are bad elements in those religions and in their sacred scripts. They teem with ideas that fan our senses of altruism. I hav egone thru the Bible and the Vedas in Hinduism. I got inspired. But see the people taking religions as a tool for fundametalism and fanaticism, and the fact that millions died in Europe when Hitler took Christinaity as a weapon to annihilate the entire jewish world. So is in Hinduism in India where it strs up a sensation of enimity between Hindus and Muslims. In this sense religion does not come to be a good virtue.

Therefore, I am born of a strict orthodx Hindu parents, yet I do not feel I belong to it. I am not attrached to it.

[setPhree]

A well-posed and intriguing question I must say-- a strong thesis and excellent argument. The only question I have is how did you come to the conclusion that atheism is the next step on the evolutionary ladder? Perhaps a different, non-theistic philosophy/worldview (rationalism, humanism?)... but atheism in and of itself, according to your own argument, would just land Us back to where the human race started. In other words, climbing down the evolutionary ladder.

Whatever the next step is, I do not believe that any non-theistic philosophy/worldview is yet unified enough to replace long-developed and established theistic/supernatural religions. I do agree that We will eventually move away from organized religion (maybe We've already started) to a more human-centered/scientific view but the crossover will be so slow and gradual, due to religions' built-in defense against all such opposition, that the change will be undetectable except in hindsight.

[hyperborean]

16% of world population is "non religious". interesting statistic...maybe more and more people are considering that "god is dead".

[Reccura]

16% of world population is "non religious". interesting statistic...maybe more and more people are considering that "god is dead".

God is not dead. See those pictures? Every little thing has to be created, computers are created, telephones were created and invented, and the same thing goes for the first humans in this world. We are created.

[toni]

16% of world population is "non religious". interesting statistic..

.

But, as Shouty puts it, there are 3 kinds of lies,
lies, damn lies, and statistics.

maybe more and more people are considering that "god is dead".

Do you admit that He was alive?