Religion - Evolution in action?

[Thorwench]

When I studied we learned that in Confuzianism religion and morals merge into a very unique system that does not have to rely on a deity (I state this as something I have been taught because I am no expert on Confuzianism and there may be someone who knows much better). When in the 18th century the philosopher Christian Wolff gave a public lecture in Halle on Chinese philosophy and their ability to come up with morals (by putting society above the individual) without needing a deity he was chucked out of Prussia for endangering state supporting religion and therefore the state which, in his case, was the king of Prussia. His contemporaries to my knowledge never disputed that the Chinese had such a system but thought Wolff's teachings dangerous because they feared that he and people like him would and could remove God entirely. An obvious question would be if religion's role in society is much more geared at the formation and upholding of political and social structures than usually admitted. I would think that people do not need religion to live in and to form successful societies (although it sometimes my help), they could always find non-religious values or beliefs (like the belief in the socially responsible state) to define their society. However, it may be that religion is useful and may even be indispensible in holding PARTICULAR societies, particular social structures together. We all know that in the middle ages the christian church taught the holy order of society: the farmer on the bottom, kings and cardinals on top. Anyone going against this gog given order was not only a trouble maker but was seen as a heretic (and they often really were). This could give rise to the understanding that religion can have very much an anti-evolutionist character.

[hbacharya]

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.

Established and long developed religions are what deride us morally and humanistcally, in fact it is religions that derail us from a right course. Hitler was a staunch Christian. He sided with Christianity to strip the world ofthe Jews. Everwehre it is religions, Islamis, Hindus, Christians, buddhists are in perpetual and unending clash with one another, and their reponse is unimaginable if their religioous sentiments are hurt, the single most powerful sentiment. Even within Christianity there are ceaseless conflicts among different sects. Yet we attach ourselves to it. It is like we know smoking is injurious to health, and alcoholism and prostitution are vices. Yet the addiction is too strong. I am not a Marxist, and will never be in fact, yet somewhere his quote that religion is an opium is germane here.

I beleive in humanism. given a choice, charity and religion, beleiveing in god or doing philanthrophic activities. I beleive that those who are atheisits and do not hold any religious beleifs yet are dedicated to chartiable works i like such persons, rather than popes, ministers, and all the rest of hypocrites.

Honesty is the highest virtue, and humanity an dto serve human beings is the greatest duty, and I have not been able to engage in any humanitarin works. I am highly intereswted in this. i do not know I have to depart from this world without doing something worth doing. If there is religion. this is the religion I belong to, and if there are any gods, it is people.

I may sound arrogant. I do not care. Yet this beleif is implanted in me.

[Bii]

The only question I have is how did you come to the conclusion that atheism is the next step on the evolutionary ladder?

Actually I've been giving this some thought and I'm not so sure that athiesm would be the next step. The reason I thought this to begin with was that I supposed, rather than it being a backward step, that humans would eventually be able to develop and live by a moral structure which allowed a large social group to exist because it was understood to be right for the individual rather than fear of consequences in the afterlife. However, on reflection I am beginning to think that faith is something humans could not live without, and if faith exists then some religion in some form must also naturally exist. I can't imagine that people could live without faith (and by faith I don't necessarily mean religious faith - people have faith in lots of things including science, the existence of gravity, that the sun will rise each morning, that they will be here tomorrow etc).

So - will religion last forever?.......

[JCamilo]

Actually, you must consider - Faith is actually the feeling of exaltation, mystery, etc. (Maybe I lack a bette word, but take it not as what faith is but what is the Need we relate with it).
There is nothing that replaces this use?
Yes.
Look to the crowd watching a Football Game - Look the admiration for a great artwork.
So, not perhaps, lots of people can live without faith without mising the "subjective" part our mind so much needs.

[hyperborean]

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.

So you posting random pictures of Earth means what? I'm not sure you understand what I meant by "god is dead".

I'm surprised you misinterpreted it...especially because "neo" is your avatar. I guess you don't know what the Matrix is really about either.

[Bii]

Actually, you must consider - Faith is actually the feeling of exaltation, mystery, etc. (Maybe I lack a bette word, but take it not as what faith is but what is the Need we relate with it).
There is nothing that replaces this use?
Yes.
Look to the crowd watching a Football Game - Look the admiration for a great artwork.
So, not perhaps, lots of people can live without faith without mising the "subjective" part our mind so much needs.

I understand your view but I was referring more to the ability of people to have faith - and by this I don't mean religious faith but rather the ability to believe in something without the proof, or evidence, or true understanding. Humans have an enormous amount of faith, faith that there will be a tomorrow, faith in justice, faith in beauty, faith in football (?!), faith in science, faith in other people, faith in the state, faith in their heroes, the list is pretty much endless. If people have faith then there will always be an environment in which religion will flourish.

[Dante Wodehouse]

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.

Ants, bees, and in some instances prairie dogs all live in larger communities than humans.

[Bii]

Ants, bees, and in some instances prairie dogs all live in larger communities than humans.

Do you have some data to back that up? Current population is approx. 6.7 billion.

Also, in respect of ants and bees in particular their colonies are 'ruled' by a 'queen' - perhaps this is bee or ant equivalent to religion?

Do bees and ants have a concept of the future?

Are bees and ants self-motivated?

Are bees and ants like people?

[JCamilo]

But you do not have faith because there is a religion, religions are created because you have faith.
And we do not lose the capacity to have faith - Idealism does not depend on religion for example.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Do you have some data to back that up? Current population is approx. 6.7 billion.

Also, in respect of ants and bees in particular their colonies are 'ruled' by a 'queen' - perhaps this is bee or ant equivalent to religion?

Do bees and ants have a concept of the future?

Are bees and ants self-motivated?

Are bees and ants like people?

Yes, ant and bee populations exceed 6.7 billion by a huge margin. Obviously, no one has totaled them, but they have more hives/hills than humans have cities, and each hive/hill houses millions of ants/bees . Prarie dog populations do not. I was just talking about communities, not about overall size, in which case Prarie dog colonies are (as I have heard) about the size of a medium city as regards population. Also, ants and bees are not like people, but you just said any species, not just people. We are unique, so saying 'we can live in larger communities than any other species like us' is creating a category with one contestant. A queen cannot be compared to a religion; the queen does nothing but reproduce. Because the queen is the sole ant/bee capable of this, it is the hive/hill's sole means of becoming larger, and therefore is protected as the 'queen'.

[Bii]

But you do not have faith because there is a religion, religions are created because you have faith.
And we do not lose the capacity to have faith - Idealism does not depend on religion for example.

I entirely agree, faith comes first but the existence of faith, or the ability to have faith, fosters an environment in which religion can grow, albeit that this doesn't mean that everyone is religious, but rather that if everyone has faith, then some of those people will have religion. And your second point puts across exactly what I was trying to get at, but a bit more succinctly!

[Bii]

Yes, ant and bee populations exceed 6.7 billion by a huge margin. Obviously, no one has totaled them, but they have more hives/hills than humans have cities, and each hive/hill houses millions of ants/bees . Prarie dog populations do not. I was just talking about communities, not about overall size, in which case Prarie dog colonies are (as I have heard) about the size of a medium city as regards population. Also, ants and bees are not like people, but you just said any species, not just people. We are unique, so saying 'we can live in larger communities than any other species like us' is creating a category with one contestant. A queen cannot be compared to a religion; the queen does nothing but reproduce. Because the queen is the sole ant/bee capable of this, it is the hive/hill's sole means of becoming larger, and therefore is protected as the 'queen'.

You have an interesting point here, and now I wish I had the ability to look into the mind of an ant to see how it is that their societies are held together. My question, though, as to whether ants are like poeple still stands. We assume, I think, that ant communities are held together by instinct (in the absence of any more compelling evidence) - are our communities held together by 'instinct' also, but we dress it up as something else? If this is the case then it still doesn't explain the prevalence and existence of religion in our society. I can think of only two reasons why this situation would occur, this is either that:

1. There is a God, or
2. There is an evolutionary advantage to religion.

Unless you have some other thoughts? I suppose it is possible that there can be religion and neither of the above is true (look at the appendix - that still exists in every human but serves no valuable purpose!) but it seems strange that something can be so overwhelmingly intrinsic to our society and be there for no good reason whatsover.

Your point has definitely given me something to think about, and my hypothesis seems to need some amendment - not having taken account of the insects perhaps it is safer to say that humans are the most prevalent mammal, as opposed to species, but I'm not convinced this fits either?

I suppose the key point I'm trying to get to the bottom of here is : we live in a society dominated by religion - why did religion take such a stronghold and bring us to where we are today?

[sam96]

Well,What you r saying depends on the way u c religion.I mean,If u only regard religion as believing or not believing in god.Then,Religion isn't really evolution in any way.
But,If u c it as regulations that somewhat organize your life then it means evolution(just making sure i get it )
About the 2 societies,The first maybe more appropriately for a while.I mean,The other society will at a certain time need regulations and rules to organize its' "matters".
I think that the second society will have more suitable rules.For it is less likely to have inflexible or "not fully comprehended" rules or be used in an "exploiting" manner as religion might be used by certain people.

P.S.
I may have lost the point as usual .

[blackowl]

bii,
may i ask you to search the histories of religion. if you do so you will be faced selfishness of human being and also pls check maya's their religions totaly different as philosopy and their social lifes so interesting. also check budha. it is not a religion and if you are understand it very well you will look yourself from air (to everything) and you will critisize your as if you are another person

[cuppajoe_9]

Interesting essay dealing partly with that topic. Your analysis of it seems to depend on group selection, a notion which Richard Dawkins effectively did away with when he published The Selfish Gene.