In my continuing effort to understand why so many people who claim to prefer science over faith are so stuck on the idea that religion has never provided a net benefit to our species, I continue to search for corroborating evidence. If it's true, I want to know.
So far, I have found nothing.
What I find instead is article after article about scientists haggling over whether religion is an evolutionary adaptation or an evolutionary byproduct. To date I have found no scholarly debates about whether religion is rooted in evolution, on the one hand, or just in common error or criminality, on the other.
Since this is a relatively new field of study, I realize that no one paper proves anything about the evolution or non-evolution of religion, but what they collectively do prove is that the subject is taken seriously by a growing number of scientists. What I have yet to see is any indication whatsoever that related scientific fields are seriously considering the religion-as-crime hypothesis.
If you know of any, please share. Thanks.
Meanwhile, my latest finding:
[richard-sosis.uconn.edu]
.
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
14 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I don't think religion evolves. Religion adapts to the changing of human race. Religion has to adapt or die off.
xenoview
Level 8
Feb 23, 2022
0
You understand the definition of evolve is to adapt, right? And that everything has to adapt or die off?
@skado
"You understand the definition of evolve is to adapt, right?"
No. That isn't the definition.
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition:
1a : descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations
"adapt" is not mentioned.
@AtheistInNC
That’s a description of adaptation.
Ah, this is where that high school education and reading comprehension your English teacher harped on comes into play.
If something is "modified from preexisting species" it could be a mutation (which isn't an adaptation to the environment), or it could be just a change that happened through a re-combination of dominant and recessive traits which was just the luck of the DNA draw (which isn't an adaptation).
Change isn't necessarily "adaptation", but all adaptations are changes.
I can see why you are confused.
@AtheistInNC
The confusion you’re seeing is your own. A more careful reader (or more capable comprehender) will notice that my reply to xeno had nothing to do with his use of the word change, but only with his insinuation that something could adapt without evolving. In no way did I say or suggest that all change is adaptive.
Speaking of change… when you change what the other person said, and then argue against it as if the other person had actually said it, that’s a strawman fallacy. You can look it up. I see you’re handy with Google. While you’re there, maybe you can find some good tips on post-high-school remedial reading comprehension classes, or argumentation techniques for beginners. (Hint: I’m illustrating the ad hominem fallacy here to mimic your use of it for instructive purposes.) When people include snippy little suggestions about the other person’s competence, that’s the first clue that their motivation has more to do with ego maintenance than a sincere desire to explore the ideas. So, what will it be? I can continue talking with you about whether adaptation can occur without evolution, but I lose interest pretty quickly in ego contests.
@skado
Oh my. Speaking of big egos ... you have one, don't you?
You stated: "You understand the definition of evolve is to adapt, right?"
I quoted the definition of evolve and showed you were wrong.
You replied with "That’s a description of adaptation."
Once again, you are incorrect. And, being the conservative that doesn't understand the English language (or refuses to admit that he is, in fact, incorrect), you reply to my explanation with the conservatively crafted anal drivel above. I did not change what you said, and was not talking about what you said to xeno. I talked about what YOU said, and you changed the subject.
However, once a conservative erupts with anal drivel, conversation ends. You just can't admit that you are wrong, or don't understand concepts when presented. Please, stop anal driveling all over people, and go find the rock from under which you escaped.
While others may actively disagree with you and loudly voice their disagreements, I have to say that you make me laugh with your with your persistence to find evidence that religion has not benefitted mankind.
In an earlier post you laid claim that there was an evolutionary basis to religion, you cited various articles and publications, none of which contained any scientific evidence. Such articles and publications as previously point out to you were nothing other than those of groups of people who shared beliefs, essentially, no different than any religion. When asked to present scientific evidence you clearly failed to do so.
Heading a later post you stated that its contents were your “earnestly held opinions and no proofs are offered”. Did you not realize or don’t you know that is quite a turn around from previous posts?
Now you seem to be on a Don Quixote mission to find evidence that religion has not benefitted mankind. I find this interesting in view of the fact that YOU mentioned confirmation bias, it would seem that the term only applies to those who disagree with you. Any progress that benefitted mankind was achieved by those who exercised reason and used the tools that were available to them at the time.
In the above post you state: “Since this is a relatively new field of study, I realize that no one paper proves anything about the evolution or non-evolution of religion, but what they collectively do prove is that the subject is taken seriously by a growing number of scientists.” Whilst that may be the case I am inclined to think that no scientist, even those who hold religious beliefs, is likely to support any claim without evidence. It seems that you are still clutching at straws!
Agreement or consensus among the followers of a religion, any religion or any belief system does not constitute evidence that any of their claims is based in reason or sicence. Pehaps you are hoping the some consenus among scientists will validate your quest for evidence that religion has/has not benefitted mankind in some way. Good Luck!
No scientist or group of scientists will stake their reputation on beliefs that have no scientific validity, this probably the reason that your quest has proven fruitless. Furthermore, why would you want to look for evidence that religion has not benefitted mankind? Let me know if you find any evidence that proves the bandersnatch has not benefitted mankind.
ASTRALMAX
Level 8
Feb 23, 2022
0
Talking past each other is not productive. if you're interested in joining this discussion you could try to steelman my point. Otherwise, what you're "laughing" at is something of your own creation.
@ASTRALMAX
Is this the question?
"Furthermore, why would you want to look for evidence that religion has not benefitted mankind? "
If so, I'll try to explain my intention better.
On November 15, I posted a poll Why not evolution? in which the greatest number of respondents (by a WIDE margin) indicated that the reason they did not believe religion had evolutionary roots was because they believed religions were invented by criminals to control people and take their money.
I was then, and am still, curious as to why they believe that.
I don't assume I'm right and they're wrong - I just want to learn what scientific principle, if nothing else, they base that belief on. When I go looking for answers about the origin of religion, all I find in the scientific department is talk about evolution. If there is evidence that religion was invented as a criminal enterprise, why am I not able to find scientific discussion to that effect?
I'm not trying to prove the origins of religion one way or the other - I'm happy to go by whatever the evidence says. But when I ask, even for evidence that such criminal beginnings are even being considered in scientific settings, all I get is ad hominems, personal insults, diversions of all sorts, but no sharing of evidence to support their claims. Meanwhile, I share article after article that demonstrate that, at minimum, an evolutionary origin of religion is being seriously discussed from a scientific perspective.
If the origin of any major human institution that has lasted for some six thousand years or so was due to nothing but criminal intent, I would think quite a few papers would have been written about that. Do you know of any?
The one positive aspect of religion is that it provides a sense of community and belonging, but unfortunately also comes with a lot of negative aspects as well.
Humans evolved as herd animals that instinctually gathered in groups for safety. Many people ignore that humans are animals with inborn instincts. Humans still feel a sense of comfort and safety when they belong to and gather in groups, because animal instincts still influence our behavior(s). Most instincts in humans are expressed through various emotions. Not all instincts are advantageous or appropriate in a modern society, because our technology is moving much faster than our ability to evolve as a species.
Humans are capable of rational thought and actions, but that does not mean humans are always rational or act rationally. We, as species, mostly don't.
Humans generally don't accept change all that easily, because from an evolutionary instinctual perspective the familiar is safe and change is threatening. I am sure most everyone here can see how that would apply to religion and religious tradition.
snytiger6
Level 9
Feb 23, 2022
2
I agree with all of this except for the last sentence. I don't think anyone here sees how that applies to religion. They apply it in ways that scientists don't, but still want to claim the science mantle.
Religion has, in incredibly numerous instances, provided the "why" for persecution & murder, both personally and at genocidal levels, and suppressed/hindered/destroyed knowledge that contradicted their stupid superstitions, to the detriment & wellbeing of us all.
And let's not even go to making billions feel bad/ashamed/ terrified because they have natural feelings & urges.
Compared to "comforting" our psyches?????? Really?
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Feb 23, 2022
2
Religious belief may have criminality but it is not rooted in that. Religious belief in my opinion was originally rooted in fear and a need to explain the unknown. What you are asking for will not be explained or studied by science because science does not give a damn about religions. Some special branch of science may touch upon this and I'm sure that apologetics will go there, but I avoid apologists.
DenoPenno
Level 9
Feb 23, 2022
2
@ DenoPenno
That was mostly true a few decades ago, but today science gives a supersized damn about religion. Nothing gets a pass from the evolutionist's gaze.
Gee, isn't it obvious that religious belief has caused more trouble than it is worth? Religious belief has held back human progress in science and education; it has been the cause of countless wars; it promotes and defends the kind of flabby thinking that allows justification of the most idiotic, pernicious, and destructive impulses. For instance, the Christian Bible promotes the idea that mankind was placed here on Earth NOT to be good stewards of nature, but to exercise DOMINION over nature. This misguided view may well be our undoing. We are just beginning to find out what a terrible idea it is to screw with Mother Nature.
Flyingsaucesir
Level 8
Feb 23, 2022
1
It is not at all obvious. It is a topic of many books and scholarly research.
@TheMiddleWay When a mass movement such as religion takes hold of a culture to the extent that Christianity did in the West, then it becomes responsible for pretty much everything because of its ubiquity. Education, slavery, racism, dress codes….
@TheMiddleWay
In the early Catholic Church, education was not offered to the laity; it was only for the priestly class. And they said the mass in Latin so that the peons would have to always need the priests to commune with God. In modern times, both Catholic and Protestant churches have systematically denied the science of evolutionary biology, instead promoting the dangerous idea that man was placed here on Earth to dominate nature. We can argue about the degree to which religion has been the casus belli for so many wars; at the very least it has been a prime enabler in many atrocities. But all this will, I am afraid, pale in comparison to the destructive power of global warming, denial of which has been and continues to be greatest among religious believers. Some, in fact, are rubbing their hands in eager anticipation of the Apocalypse, believing that they will be spared, wafted up to Heaven in the Rapture. Here again the role of the believer is enabler, this time of the oligarchs of the fossil fuel industry, who insist on carrying on with business as usual.
@TheMiddleWay
It's more than our collective ignorance and apathy that transcends color, class, and creed. It's also selfishness and greed and denial. I know people who dote on their young grandchildren. They also know that global warming is an existential threat, that it's main cause is burning fossil fuels. Yet these loving grandparents do not hesitate to book another intercontinental vacation flight, even knowing that jet planes are gross polluters, producing ten times more greenhouse gases than trains, and hundreds of times more than sailing vessels. They genuinely love the kids, yet they behave in a way that places the kids' future in grave jeopardy. I marvel at their capacity for compartmentalism.
-
It is not really a matter for science, it is an issue for history, and like the old saw goes. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. Looking to science alone, is mainly looking in the wrong place.
-
It would be strange if religion did not have some benefits, since that would make it the only major part of the human condition, which did not have a lot of, both benefits and debits. Life is complex and most things have complex origins and complex interactions with all the other aspects of life, people therefore who look for simple answers are doomed to life long misunderstanding.
-
Most atheists/agnostics, being mortal humans, are interested mainly in what religion is today and what it will become in the near, half knowable, future, since that is the age in which we and our immediate descendants will live. Times change and things which once had a net benefit may with time become, great evils.
3a. One of the greatest advances in human history probably came, when we first learned to use fire, to cook otherwise inedible food, and to warm us in cold climate, without fire we would probably never have become numerous, nor without its help developed technology and civilization. So in the lost distant past, when the first trails of smoke rose each night into the sky, they probably signaled a truly huge leap forwards for humans. But that does not mean that air pollution is a good and needful part of human life, today or forever. Nor does it mean that it would be a good thing, if everyone on the planet today went out and started cutting up and burning forests.
-
You say. "I have found no scholarly debates about whether religion is rooted in evolution, on the one hand, or just in common error or criminality, on the other." That is because, it would probably be impossible to find anyone with able to hold the title of scholar, at least with genuine zeal, who would imagine that it could be that simple, or even that evolution and error/criminality are mutually exclusive, and it is one or the other, which is a false dichotomy only the simple minded or criminally corrupt would accept. And even that the study of evolution and error/crime do not belong in the alternate spheres of science or history and social science anyway.
-
I also failed to find much science studying the relationship between politics and criminality, or news media work and criminality, probably because some things are not considered to be within the remit of science, though perhaps they should be. Which occurs because, politics, arts and news media are not usually considered by our culture as possibly criminal or anti social, and science fits within its parent culture. However I would be the first to suggest that that is a serious oversight.
-
If you deliberately look in the wrong place do not be surprised if you don't find what you are looking for.
Fernapple
Level 9
Feb 23, 2022
3
Sure, religion has had SOME positive effects on the world. Burning your house down has the positive effect of getting rid of unwanted clutter. Having your feet cut off has the positive effect of no longer needed to spend money on socks and shoes.
But religion has been a leading cause of human suffering throughout history. It's positive contributions will never out-weight its negative impact.
Charles1971
Level 7
Feb 23, 2022
9
Exactly. "Net Benefit" mean more benefit than not.
@TheMiddleWay But religion has been a leading cause of (man-made) human suffering throughout history.
Happy now?
@TheMiddleWay He said “a leading cause”, not “the leading cause”.
@TheMiddleWay The question I keep coming back to is “Is it true?” If not, then religion is an incalculable drain on human attention, human potential and Human Resources. Bare minimum. Or to put it another way: If religion is false then it is the enemy of truth. It is a war on truth. We would therefore be better off without it.
@TheMiddleWay The discussion here is not whether religion is the greatest contributor of all human suffering in the history of the world. We can do nothing to prevent earthquakes and most other natural disasters except try and protect ourselves and minimizing human-caused harm to the environment.
And I think you mean technology rather than science. Indeed technology has caused harm in many ways such as pollution and the ability to wage war more efficiently, but it has also saved countless lives and extended the lifespan of the vast majority of people on the planet. Consider how many people you personally know who are dead because of technology and compare that to the number of people you personally know who are alive because of technology.
Also, earthquakes (and other natural disasters) are typically not long-lasting. The do great harm to an area but come to an end. Religion is an on-going and enduring plague that hasn't ended for thousands of years. That's thousands of years of war, slavery, murder, torture, and oppression.
In my humble opinion, religion is and always has been primarily concerned with the accumulation and wielding of earthly power and wealth. No better way to do that then propagate belief in and fealty to a supreme authority thru his self-appointed proxies. This is how you command loyalty and co-operation thru the creation of an artificial kin group. The original predisposition to believe in a supernatural realm and entities may well have been an evolutionary adaptation or byproduct, which was then hijacked and exploited by an emerging priestly caste. So the “net benefit” of religion was the creation of various hierarchies that became less and less helpful as you descended down the pyramid. So a “net loss” for those residing at the bottom end of the scale. Which is to say, the vast majority of people who have ever existed.
NostraDumbass
Level 7
Feb 23, 2022
5
Why do the scientists who study it never arrive at that conclusion?
Informed scholars such as Dr. Darrel Ray and Dr. Clint Heacock arrive at these sorts of assessments all the time. Theirs are the voices I put the most stock in: steeped in a religious worldview who then “frontslid” towards unbelief.
Religion has caused more harm than benefit. That would be a net hindrance.
barjoe
Level 9
Feb 23, 2022
3
@Matias So what? It's not a scientific statement. Its in response to the OP saying "stuck on the idea that religion has never provided a net benefit to our species". My opinion. The saying goes, 'Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one'. A net benefit means more benefit than not. The onus for proof of that statement is on the poster, I just disagreed with it. When asked to argue the benefits of religion? I say to proponents, "Fuck Off!", How is that for scientific?
@Matias I don't have to justify my opinion. I believe in evolution not creationism. Do I have to justify that to thiests? There has never been proof of an existence of god. I say there is no god. Do I have to show evidence for that statement? I've seen that much of the evil in the world has been done in the name of "god" . I've seen little or none in the name of Satan. Do I have to show "evidence" of that? I don't have do justify anything. I prefer to just say Fuck Off. Its not worth the trouble to go any further than that. This is not a term paper and I don't need to add footnotes.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3036 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.