Those are valid points today, and do make the problem more complex. I’m looking at the problem from an evolutionary perspective, rather than from a contemporary perspective. If the capacity for religion in general, or god belief in particular are the direct or indirect result of evolutionary forces, that period of development took place when conditions were very different from now. Societies were nomadic, small, and relatively isolated. Everybody in the society by and large believed the same thing. Today, societies are stationary, massive, and in immediate contact with other societies, as well as constantly trading members, goods, and culture. We are really now a single, global, multicultural society. It is truly an apples to oranges comparison.

Now, there are choices, and competing cultures, so of course they will argue and of course they will try to justify their arguments with their religious beliefs. So that thing we call religion is in an existential transition. The last time that happened was around ten or twelve thousand years ago after the invention of agriculture. The agricultural lifestyle created a mismatch between traits that had evolved in a stable environment for hundreds of thousands of years, and the new, radically altered environment. What had been simple, animistic proto-religions, morphed into the institutionalized religions we know today. That is to say, our cultural capacity for religion stepped up its game to counterbalance the mismatch.

The transition we’re in today is environmental change on steroids. It appears to me that instead of ditching our counterbalance because it is obsolete (which it is) we need to bring it into the 21st century by first making it completely science compliant, and then making it globally universal. It’s not “That Old Time Religion” that I’m campaigning for. It’s certainly not religious literalism or religious fundamentalism that I’m suggesting we “need”. One of the human “superpowers” has been our capacity for rapid evolution through culture, to meet environmental changes that happened too rapidly for biological evolution to correct for. We need that power now more than ever. We don’t have to call it religion. It doesn’t matter what we call it. But it will need to do what religion has done for H. sapiens for pretty much as long as H. sapiens has existed. So I’m content to call it religion.

@skado
Force, fear, and shaming is what kept people in line in the time period you mention. The Bible proves it - stoning for all sort of infractions including sex outside of marriage and children disrespectful to their parents. Gods served a number of purposes, but one was undoubtedly to instill fear, set the stage for shaming, and to justify force. This scenario would assume the Judeo-Christian God since Gods from other religions such as the Greek pantheon were not necessarily perfect or flawless as the Judeo-Christian God was claimed to be.

I think that was the orginal purpose of Aesop's Fables whose origin probably predates Christianity by 500 - 600 years. Zen And The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance written by Robert Pirsig seems to be centered around the Mythos and Logos.

The following is a favorite quote from Benjamin Franklin during my time reevaluating my religious position. As I recall, he said it in relation to the Constitutional Convention and the writing of the US Constitution.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise."

I looked this up and makes more sense to me: so adding my 2c. I didn't need god scriptures for anything in my life. We have morality within us.

Q: Does belief in God strengthen a person to be moral?

Nope. If it did, then you wouldn’t have so many believers in so many different deities all doing so many horrific things to so many other people throughout all of human history.

Most people are born with a natural sense of empathy that lets them recognize other people as fellow human beings, feel sadness when they see other people suffering and feel joy when they are able to help other people. It’s a trait we as humans evolved to have as highly social animals that lets us work cooperatively to survive and prosper as a species. And that’s why just about every culture and society on Earth (regardless of religious beliefs or the lack thereof) has independently come up with the idea that we should treat other people the way that we want to be treated (the so-called “Golden Rule&rdquo.

At most, what religions do is attempt to codify this innate sense of empathy in a set of specific rules and regulations and then take credit for providing them in the first place. As if, say, nobody realized it was wrong to kill and steal and lie before God officially wrote it down on stone tablets and gave them to Moses.

Sadly, once religion is able to convince people that “God” is the one who is responsible for what we all know to be true on our own, it is able to then add in a bunch of wholly extraneous “moral commandments” and claim that they also came from God. Don’t have sex outside of marriage or masturbate. Don’t eat pork. Don’t drink alcohol or coffee or tea. Pray five times a day facing a certain direction. Don’t wear certain types of clothing. Fast a certain number of times a year. Pay tithing. Don’t watch certain types of movies. Perform various rituals. Don’t get divorced. Don’t have abortions or allow anybody else to have an abortion. Kill anybody who God says deserves to be killed. Etc., etc., etc.

People are naturally moral. At best, a belief in one “God” or another merely provides a justification for acting the way one would normally act. At worst, it provides a justification for doing acts that would otherwise be considered deeply immoral. Or, to quote the inimitable Steven Weinberg:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

Thanks for asking.

What people think has little to do with how evolution operates. Religions and laws are not the products of individual human consciousness so much as of the human collective unconscious.

@skado religion is from the human mind. Religion is a tool used to control humans, making them think and act in a controlled manner. You have guilty of sin and fear of hell.

@skado Yes but, science, moral philosophy, education systems, nation states, legal systems, and a basic ad populum conscensus are also all products of the human collective unconscious as well as the conscious.

The big difference being that since they include the conscious as well, they also produce, and are expected to produce justifcations and reasons for their claims. They do not as religion does therefore provide a ready tool for the criminally immoral, to create a self justifiing system which can be use to support anything they wish.

@skado Your reffered to the ‘collective unconsciousness’ a term coined by CG Jung. I have read The Four Archetypes and Man and His Symbols.

“ Jung on religion and evil – Jung had much to say about the notion of evil. He was very critical of the Church’s doctrine of the privato boni – evil as the absence of good. As to be expected after seeing how Jung tried to cope with his father’s religious crisis, he warns us against trying to be better than we are. Strive not so much for forced ‘goodness’ but for consciousness. Live not out of ideals we cannot keep, but from an inner centre which alone can keep the balance”

Joseph Campbell in The Hero With a Thousand Faces drew heavily on the writings of CG Jung, particularly, from The Four Archetypes and Man and His Symbols.

To imply or state that religion has an evolutionary basis (genetics/biological) without supporting scientific evidence is nothing short of fanciful arrant nonsense, viz, essentially no different that the ‘explanation ‘ postulated in your previous posts in which, when challenged, you failed to produce any evidence beyond what you believe, really? I refer to you to the following links to your posts.

1. In keeping with the standards that have become the norm on this site (if they were ever different) I...

The second link in which you posted a photo of an aboriginal tribe was nothing more than an emotive appeal which reminded me of an experience I had many years ago. See story below.

2. A recent interlocutor informed me that Evolutionary Psychology wasn’t real science, so if that’s...

You made claims in all the links but no evidence? Instead, from the last link above you jumped to the second with a photo of aboriginal people REALLY?

3. [agnostic.com]

I recall one Saturday morning many years ago exiting a supermarket with three carrier bags of shopping in each hand. Making my way to my car I was approached by a young woman who was carrying an armful of magazines. The magazines were titled Marxism Today and on the front cover of the magazine was a picture of hundreds of sheep. In big bold letters the caption at the bottom of the picture read: “Are You One Of The Sheep?”

She tried to engage me as I struggled under the weight of the carrier bags full of groceries. I put down all the shopping bags, she smiled thinking that she had got my attention, well she did. She began by asking me if I thought the politics in the UK is boring today. I told her that on the contrary I found current politics quite interesting.

I told her that the cover of her magazine had the best picture Marxists that I had ever seen. Wow! That certainly caused a massive transformation in the pretty young woman, she suddenly became the most venomous creature imaginable.

Everyone knows that you can change how a painting, photo or drawing is viewed by by simply adding a caption or words that reflect your interests and values.

I get the impression that when it comes to the Mythos and Logos you vacillate. Lately, you are leaning more towards the Mythos. I daresay you have a foot on both camps as in the middle way of Buddha.
In closing I have to say that you have failed to provide any scientific evidence. Do the honourable thing, man up, admit that you do not have any scientific evidence. Its called intellectual integrity and basic honesty.

@ASTRALMAX

Thanks.

Could you be more specific? Scientific evidence for what, precisely? I haven't claimed, nor do I believe that every word that proceeds from my mouth is backed by hard, scientific "proof". What I do believe, correctly or incorrectly, is that my view of religion is more aligned, in general, with objective reality (scientifically known and otherwise) than those who claim that religion was originated as nothing more than a criminal scam, has no positive value to our survival, and should be, could be, and will be discarded in the near future with no functional loss to our species.

A worldview that is based in a broad reading of science, art, and history, it seems to me, can come closer to aligning a person to objective reality than focusing on single-issue proofs. As mentioned above, Absolute, literal truth is the domain of science, but absolute literal truth is not the only, or even the most important domain that humans have functioned in, or are capable of functioning in. Arguably the single most important difference between H. sapiens and other species is their capacity for symbol use. Understanding reality in terms of symbol, metaphor, and allegory is the human superpower.

The irony in this is that it is scientifically, literally true!

My interest here is not to demonstrate my "manhood" or my integrity, or my honesty. Nor is it to prove that I'm right, and others are wrong. None of what I post here is about me or you or any other individual. My only goal is to generate conversation about subjects I find interesting (just like everybody else is doing). It's not an ego contest. I'm just as happy to be found wrong as to be proved right, because then I have learned something. I'm just curious why the group of folks who claim superiority by virtue of their capacity for reason and their allegiance to science hold so many views that science left behind in the previous millennium, and are so unfamiliar with the current scientific thinking, and are sooooo defensive of their adopted absolutes that they cannot simply engage in congenial discussion with fellow humans without resorting to personal character assassination, and obsessive hostilities.

Many of my ideas are formed from reading broadly rather than from reading safely. There is no practical way to convey a broad understanding without retracing every input that influenced my opinion. There is no hard proof I can refer to for a slam-dunk debate triumph. But I maintain that my general worldview is better aligned with current scientific thinking than is that of a person (not yourself) who only had a bad experience with a few ignorant religious fanatics, decided religion was bunk, and gave it no more thought.

When I ask people for scientific evidence that supports their view that religion has no evolutionary roots, I'm not asking for "proof" - I'm just asking for ANY scientific paper that demonstrates that a significant contingent of 21st century scientists (in relevant fields) are of the opinion that religion is nothing more than a criminal scheme for control and self enrichment. And as a show of good faith, I supply papers that demonstrate that scientists are at least talking about the hypothesis I find most plausible, but in return, all I get (for the most part) is demands for absolute proof, insulting innuendo, ad hominem arguments, and emotional hostilities.

If I were absolutely certain of my views I wouldn't be asking other people to inform me about theirs - I'd be out sailing and not worrying about it. When I see great disparities between my view and others' It's not my instinct to assume I'm right and they are wrong. My natural inclination is to wonder what they might know that I don't. So I ask.

When I get nothing but hostility and ego challenges in return... I am left to depend on my own view.

p.s. I have no idea what problem people are having with the photo of aborigines. I like to post visuals with my text just to make them more noticeable in the sea of mostly text-only posts. Usually they are chosen more for visual appeal than as any kind of absolute connection to the text. I thought a photo of a hunter/gatherer tribe was plenty related to an article about our evolutionary development.

Yep.

There is no other animal on the Earth that has achieved the dominance (for better or worse) that humans have, because only humans have invented the psychotechnology we now call religion. Earlier it was just called law.

There is not a human alive today whose sense of morality in matters involving non-kin and non-tribemates was not derived from previous generations of religious people.

None of this is to say that the cultural patch we call religion creates flawless results or is incorruptible. To the contrary - our animal nature (biology) is always stronger and more persistent than culture, and will always be trying, and to some extent succeeding, at overturning cultural constraints.

If you put a man in prison for murder to keep him off the streets, and he manages to escape with the help of a corrupt prison guard, the rational response is not to conclude that prisons are useless because they aren’t perfect. The sensible response is to try to reform prison culture.

@TheMiddleWay I don't understand what you mean. Did you take what I said to mean you are morally corrupt for doing some horrible thing and not doing some horrible thing?

What’s the correct definition?

@skado That is a L-O-N-G philosophical discussion. As a start go down to my last reply on this page.

If all humans had the moral sensibilities you do, we would survive and function exceedingly well.

The problem is… they don’t.

When I say “we need God” I’m not talking about you and me.

I’m talking about Homo sapiens.

I'm never surprised when scrolling, reading a brilliant reply and see your name pop up. Nothing I can add to that.

@skado
Yes, but the problem is, man chooses their god, and also the rules of his they'll follow, so they're generally never behaving better than they would be without him. This point has been made before here and everywhere else, so I'm not sure how it's not accounted for in your theory.
I think TMW (who won't respond to me, so whatever) missed the mark in his reply. When people say, "If someone only doesn't do X because god, then they're shitty people" they're not actually suggesting that people actually want to rape people, and if they stop believing in god, they will start raping, they're saying that people pick and choose the moral framework or the parts of the moral framework that align with their internal morality and the framework itself doesn't actually argument their behavior.

@JeffMurray Yes I agree fully with that. Most people are moral by nature, and have a full set of moral instincts, like empathy, discomfort with dishonesty and revulsion at suffering, so they do not go arround raping, stealing and murdering or even want to, while the small number of individuals who are damaged or suffer a genetic weakness tend to be criminal anyway, regardless of the legal or religious institutions pronouncements on morality.

Also skado's argument, confuses how we arrive at a moral philosophy as a society, with how we teach and enforce that moral code when once it is framed. I would hold that the state, the international community of states, the state's schools, and it legal systems are much better ways to teach and enforce morals than the churches, if only because they are institutions, larger, more complex and hopefully more under democratic control, therefore less likely to be corrupted by criminally intended groups and individuals. For example the USA recently survived, without a huge lot of difficulty, a coup attempt by a small group, would a church have survived so well, indeed I think that several churches have already fallen.

@JeffMurray, @skado Reply to Jeffmurray. Yes I agree fully with that. Most people are moral by nature, and have a full set of moral instincts, like empathy, discomfort with dishonesty and revulsion at suffering, so they do not go arround raping, stealing and murdering or even want to, while the small number of individuals who are damaged or suffer a genetic weakness tend to be criminal anyway, regardless of the legal or religious institutions pronouncements on morality.

Also skado's argument, confuses how we arrive at a moral philosophy as a society, with how we teach and enforce that moral code when once it is framed. I would hold that the state, the international community of states, the state's schools, and it legal systems are much better ways to teach and enforce morals than the churches, if only because they are institutions, larger, more complex and hopefully more under democratic control, therefore less likely to be corrupted by criminally intended groups and individuals. For example the USA recently survived, without a huge lot of difficulty, a coup attempt by a small group, would a church have survived so well, indeed I think that several churches have already fallen.

We need fiction. It’s the human superpower.
Without the capacity for symbolism we are just another ape. Language is fiction. Math is fiction.

@skado Math and language is real. We use both everyday. Gods are fiction, made up by humans to explain the unknown.

@xenoview
Many people, most people in history, have used God every day. Language and math are no less human-made than God is.

Please name a good value that is immune to corruption. Sin is philosophically undeniable.
There are behaviors that foster peace and happiness, and there are behaviors that miss that mark. This latter group was anciently named sin. But whatever we name it, it exists. We could give it a new name, and wait five minutes for someone to corrupt the meaning of the new name, and then rename it every five minutes forever.

Or we could maintain cultural continuity and call the corruptors of our culture out for their misdeeds.

@LenHazell53
I am entirely capable of misunderstanding. Please help me see what I misunderstood.

@TheMiddleWay

I get in a lot of trouble here because I use what I understand to be the original meanings of religious words while everyone else is using definitions supplied by modern religious fundamentalists. I'm not willing to let religious literalists define religion for me because, while they may represent a current popular trend, I see that trend as a very predictable attempt to subvert a message of generational wisdom and self transcendence, into a message of reversion to tribalism and self indulgence. I do hope you have not thought I'm speaking favorably of fundamentalism, as so many others here insist.

Where sin is weaponized guilt is solely in the halls of religious corruption. And I wouldn't fault any reasonable person for thinking of it as nothing more, especially if they were raised in fundamentalist cultures or in non-religious atmospheres viewing it from the outside.

But I will argue that there is plenty philosophical about the original concept of sin (not to be confused with "original sin" ) and that the modern practice of forgiveness being doled out by human intercessors is a corrupt reification of the otherwise authentic mythology. The difference is in a metaphorical instead of a literal reading, and mythology is ALWAYS metaphorical.

@skado The original and ONLY meaning of Sin is the religious one, it is a purely religious word and one designed to make people feel guilty about perfectly natural things. ONE DESIGNED TO MAKE PEOPLE FRIGHTENED AND ASHAMED OF BEING NORMAL. One designed to make people think that they need SALVATION that can only be offered by the church.
It is and always has been a tool of the church for the exploitation of the gullible and the hate filled.
Sin does not exist because people need to worship god, gods exist because religious clergy require an all powerful all seeing and above all threatening authority to terrify people in to believing that sex is evil, sexual behaviour is evil, anger is evil, ambition is evil, freedom is evil and non conformity is evil and WILL BE PUNISHED FOREVER unless you blindly and unquestioningly submit to the church and show your contrition with cold hard cash and free labour.
Religion was never about worshipping god, or about love, or grace. IT was always about money and power for the minority over the majority.