Is Evolution selecting out Religion?

[wcepler]

Is Evolution selecting out Religion?



**********************************************************************

Over the millennia, moments of truth have confronted Darwin's Origin of the Species. Sink of swim moments, such as a nose horn that's counter productively large, or a climate change that's under oxygenated or excessively warm, etc., etc., etc.



For millions of grown up human beings, even reading that first version of Origin of the Species (almost a rough draft) carried with it the intuition that this book is talking about reality. Kudos to Darwin, of course, but that's really an irrelevance. Who cares WHO wrote the book (plus many other contemporary minds were seeing identical things); the point is "though a glass darkly" is still SEEING THROUGH THE GLASS. Darwin was writing about reality.



One vast pattern in this glimpse into the soul of nature is that when certain things are sufficiently out of harmony with the n-dimensional process of evolution, they are "selected out". Meaning: Bye, Bye; so long; extinction time!



The void of extinction is unimaginable. It's a pit so deep that you never hear a splash when a species (or whatever) falls into it. The one thing you can take to the bank is that no life forms ever crawl back out of that abyss. Why should they? They aren't needed anymore and they stopped being able to pay their own natural way. They simply "aren't" and nature continues to nature uninterruptedly.



Many (most?) humans are horrified of a nature which is their true and transitory creator. It tortures them to think of themselves as human "beans" is a soup of legumes (human beans, supreme beans, green beans, etc.). The thought of being so enmeshed in nature that ultimately they are identity-less has inspired them to invent hide out alternatives.



Psychology has millions of variation of this theme, but institutionalized religion has been for millennia the grand and glorious one up reality to nature. But if nature = reality, one wonders where this happy hunting ground could be. How do you one up reality.



Self evidently, you don't. You don't one up anything for that matter, since there isn't any "you", at least not in the sense of that ego/self/identity thing which is a mere construction of thought. Indeed, the thinking about point of view IS human identity.



Philosophically, this is all reasonably obvious. Nature is totality and it's not "one up able" by separate selves or priests or sheiks or popes or men in dresses -- the oddly favorite attire of most professional religious types.



So if religion is a happy hide out that simply doesn't exist (and is populated only by delusional "creatures"), one wonders how much longer nature is going to allow it to hang around, i.e., when is reality/nature going to select it out.



Arguably, 99% of the human agony and sorrow now torturing our planet (starting with the ad nauseam Israeli / Palestinian conflict) is the acting out of religious fanaticism. Indeed, ALL religion increasing resembles some form of religious fanaticism.



Something like Buddhism is profoundly frying other fish and really shouldn't be grouped with the Armageddon nut cases, but wherever there is murder in the name of God (Christian, Islamic, Judaic, etc.) you can be sure you are dealing with religious fanaticism. It's almost as if there is a certain righteous stench about these people. And if they aren't directly fighting, they are escaping into some form of Catholic Denial, i.e., the Catholic Church has made it a science during these last six Bush/Republican years to not acknowledge the obscenely immoral antics of what one would think they should be seeing as the 3rd millennia anti-Christ. Such "above it all" indifference to the Bush Family evils is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the teachings of Jesus Christ, but this doesn't seem to bother the dress men.



But back to natural selection, i.e., reality. It is increasingly postulated by men and women of science that "religion" (certainly, religious fanaticism, which is the rule, not the exception) can no longer be tolerated by the vast, survival processes of evolution and even though the fundamentalists may take us to the brink, more sophisticated natural processes will find a way to select religion out of the planetary game.



Of course, the price of this selecting out may well be the end of humans, since we seem to be the only species that so abandonly kills in the name of God.



However, from the perspective of the Earth in general, this might well be like healing itself from a deadly cancer.



May we leave this gentle truth with the religious fanatics? We need the Earth (and Nature) infinitely more than the Earth needs us. Trust us, the beat will go on with or without religious books and buildings.



Indeed, in the big, big picture sense of things, if the whole human enterprise does result in an Armageddon like self destruction, this will be like a planetary sneeze.



We don't "have" a problem. We ARE the problem. And we are very "select-out-able".



**********************************************************************
W. C. Proteus

[skids]

1. What about all those religions...

...that view the Earth as diety?

Anyway, evolution seems to at the moment be pushing us in a direction of anti-intellectualism, if anything. I think the film "idiocracy" is more than just a joke. Brains are no longer needed in a speicies whose survival may depend on a return to a grossly heirarchal social structure. Unless we start to see pronounced and promoted those genes that allow us to exceed the need for slavery, that's the way evolution will pressure us -- not towards enlightenment.

[lvx35]

16. Yeah, that's the side nobody wants to look at.

Many sceintists included. There's no saying where evolution is taking us, and whether or not its good. I mean, genocide is a highly effective way of moving evolution toward one genetic group, and mass media control is a fairly effective way of controlling memetic evolution. So there's no guaruntees.

I for one think that's why the hardline atheism vs. fundamentalist debate is so dumb, because it fails to take into account that religion is a successful meme for some very good reason, and any positive movement forward in that realm will have to harness the power of religion in a way that is harmonious with the scientific realities in which we live.

[TheMadMonk]

17. It's a successful meme, because it allows moral cowards to...

...surrender responsibility for their own actions.

"It's not me, it's my inherently evil human nature."

Or as the shaman/iman/cleric/priest/monk might put it: "You can not help the evil (as they define it) that you do. It is your nature to do that evil. The only way to escape the evil that lies within you, is to surrender your essential being (soul) to the spirits/the gods/God, as I/we, their/his anointed agent(s) will (for a small price) guide you.

The shill got his conscience salved when he knew he'd done something he shouldn't have. And the shammer (interesting coincidence? Sham/shaman?) got to eat without raisding a sweat.

[bemildred]

2. I hope so.

While you can see the advantages of conformity to ones culture in primitive settings, in modern technological settings I would think gullibility would be a distinct disadvantage. On the other hand, the well-educated seem to do a poor job of reproducing themselves, so maybe it works the other way.

[Igel]

3. Pathetic fallacy.

The Earth needs nothing. It simply is. It's no more anthropos than a glass of water.

Extinct species aren't "needed" any more than non-extinct species. Non-extinct species merely are. Reality, i.e., matter, doesn't give a rip about whether you or I breathe, or have ever lived. It doesn't care if we die. In the very, very, very long run, heat death wins. In the very, very long run the sun goes nova. In the very long run most species on earth go extinct, or at least cease to exist as they now are. In the long run we all die. Note that the time scale is far from linear.

As for evolution vs religion/superstition, I would point out that education and reproduction are currently inversely correlated. Unless the religious folk do something to dramatically reduce their reproductive rate, evolution says they will probably win. Unless secularism is something genetically conditioned, and makes sure that secularists' children have survive in greater numbers than those of the non-secular, then it's not a real improvement, in practical terms.

People like to somehow define evolution (as it involves humans) as something distinct from how it affects the rest of the biosphere. Those people are simply wrong. We can modify our environment artificially, but selection (within that environment) continues. Language, skin color, live birth, whatever.

[rock]

4. No.

Religion, per se, doesn't affect fecundity. (OK, in some cases it increases it.) For some strange reason religious people are perfectly rational (as rational as non-religious people) when it comes to crossing streets, plugging things into wall sockets, standing under heavy objects handing by a thin rope, and handling poisonous snakes (oops, scratch that last one).

[Nihil]

5. Sadly no.

"Religion" is simply an accepted superstition.
As such it is part of the human ethos.

IMHO the development of humanity is keyed around the rejection of
the traditional religion (e.g., Christianity) and moving forwards
to the mixture of ancient (e.g., nature worshipping 'pagans') and
modern religions (largely buddhist derivatives).

The sooner that people recognise that they do not depend on the
"holiness" of the local priest, the sooner that they will recognise
the godhead within (i.e., the ability of ALL to connect to the
Universe without expecting the intervention of some old bloke in a
dress to "do it for them").

If it ever came to pass that the truly spiritual aspect of humanity
was selected for/against then your question might have validity but
in the meantime, it is merely idealistic wishing.

[phantom power]

6. Who has more children....

A hard-core Catholic family, or an atheist family?
A Mormon family, or an agnostic family?
An evangelical protestant family, or a humanist family?

Natural selection favors any traits that result in the most children.

[Skinner]

7. I think the long-term trend does not look good for religion.

But IMHO, it is not clear whether religion will be completely selected out, whether non-belief will be selected out, or whether the two will eventually reach some sort of equilibrium point where both remain.

It may be the case that religion is false. But remember that evolution does not favor truth or progress or complexity or morality or any other trait that humans deem to be "good." Evolution favors traits that are successful at replicating themselves. (If we have learned anything during the current administration, it is that an attractive lie can be much more successful than the truth.)

My impression is that the long-term trend does not favor religion. Obviously, right now it looks like religion is resurgent. But if you take a step back, it's apparent that the long-term trend is almost entirely downward for religion. Two- or three-hundred years ago, what percentage of the human population were non-believers? It's hard to know for certain, but I think it is apparent that the percentage of non-believers was much, much lower then than it is now.

Some have noted in this thread that believers tend to have more kids than non-believers. That seems true to me. From an evolutionary standpoint, this fact alone would seem to indicate that religion would triumph over non-belief. But if you look at the long-term trend, clearly non-belief has gained percentage points while belief has fallen behind. Clearly there is something else going on here, and I think it is this: Some of the children of believers are becoming non-believers.

So, it seems that the process of natural selection with regard to religion vs. non-religion is not occurring through biological/genetic evolution. Instead, this natural selection is taking place through the process of cultural evolution, with "memes" taking the place of genes.

How it all ends up is anyone's guess. Right now, I think non-belief will eventually win out. But there is a chance that religion could "mutate" to pick up some powerful new memes that cause it to increase its rate of replication. (It is no accident that the religions that tended to succeed in the past were the ones that were willing to murder people who did not share their belief. If Christianity had stayed true to the pacifism of Jesus Christ, I don't think it would have ever grown to be a major religion. Similarly, the Shakers here in the U.S., who did not have any children, saw their religion die out in a very short time.)

[trotsky]

8. And it's not just the percentage of non-believers increasing.

Believers themselves are, in increasing numbers, adopting the "cafeteria" approach to their religion's beliefs. Christians who don't believe that Noah really had all the animals on a boat, or that Mary was necessarily a virgin, or even that Jesus was divine - heretical ideas that would have gotten them a place on the fire right next to the atheist, but today are fairly common. People feel free to select those beliefs that make the most sense to them, rather than blindly accepting a whole dogma package. You can't tell me all those Catholic couples with 2 kids have only done the nasty twice. ;-)

[bananas]

9. Skinner, this crap isn't science and doesn't belong in the science forum

This is obvious flame-bait:
So if religion is a happy hide out that simply doesn't exist (and is populated only by delusional "creatures"), one wonders how much longer nature is going to allow it to hang around, i.e., when is reality/nature going to select it out.

Please move this thread to the Atheism/Atheology dungeon where it belongs.

[Skinner]

11. I tend to agree that the meat of this post is not science.

It does not seem to be based on a realistic view of natural selection.

But the question of whether natural selection could select for/against religion is a science question. At this point I am going to let it stay.

[Bridget Burke]

12. How about a special "wcepler" forum?

He's managed to start 15 flamebait threads with a post count of 22.

[Tesha]

10. Evolution almost never drives a trait to extinction

If we assume that evolution (natural selection) is actually
having an effect on how readily we believe in "religion",
then its unlikely that this trait would ever be entirely
eliminated, no matter how much pressure is brought upon
the trait.

Once a trait is created, even if it goes relatively unused,
it tends to remain latent in natural selection's armamentarium,
waiiting for an opportunity to once again help its species
(hosts) survive.

The famous example of that is that species of moths in
the UK. Orignially white, they eventually evolved into
much darker colors as the air got sootier during the
industrial revolution. But once we cleaned the air again,
they very rapidly returne dto their lighter colors. The
trait for whiteness hadn't been selected out, it simply
became latent for a century or two.

So a trait that creates a tendency for religiosity could
always make a resurgence if we let our guard down.

Tesha

[lvx35]

15. Trends suggest to me religion will just mutate.

All over the world, for pretty much all of history, people have chosen spiritual/religious traditions. I don't agree with the view that these were simply primitive attempts to explain the material world like science; when Jesus said "love thy neighbor as thyself" he wasn't trying to explain physics. However, the realities of the modern world are going to morph these religious memes dramatically, probably into much healthier modern forms. At least that's my take.

[bmbmd]

13. The Apostle paul may have spoken of this...

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;" 2 Thessalonians 2:3

[Orsino]

14. Religion is a cultural glue.

The most cohesive cultures will produce more babies. Ergo, religon serves some evolutionary purpose, as do many forms of peer pressure.