My Evolutionary Theory of Religion

[Jagella]

As we all should know, religion goes back for at least tens of thousands of years. Neanderthals may have practiced a kind of religion. Since religion is so old, it is likely a product of our evolution.

Thanks to Darwin, we know that evolution occurs largely by means of natural selection. Natural selection is nature selecting those individuals who by chance have genes that confer to those individuals traits that allow them to reproduce. When they reproduce, those individuals pass down those genes that confer the survival advantages to their offspring. This is the basis for biological evolution.

Natural selection probably "chose" our remote ancestors who were able to think of things that may not have existed. For example, if a hominid heard a rustle in the bushes, that hominid might think of a lion there and flee even though the rustle may have been only the wind. If it was a lion, then if that hominid didn't flee she would be supper and never reproduce. So those hominids who could imagine lions who may not exist would be more likely to reproduce than hominids who were unable to think of imaginary lions. The gene that caused hominids to imagine lions that may not exist would then be passed down to future generations.

The ability to imagine that which does not exist had other advantages as well. In addition to our ability to flee possible threats, we could imagine useful things we might create. We could imagine tools, weapons, and shelters we did not yet have but that we could fashion and build. In other words, we could plan. When we evolved the ability to plan by imagining those things that didn't exist but that we could make, we acquired a very important survival advantage.

Unfortunately, no survival advantage is perfect, and with our ability to imagine what doesn't exist, we evolved the ability to imagine gods, angels, devils, ghosts, fairies, heavens, and hells. In this way superstition was born, and when some individuals had the ability to shape superstition in others, religion was born.

So my evolutionary theory of evolution is that religion evolved when a trait in some individuals enabled them to shape superstition in others. This trait confers tremendous survival advantages to those individuals who influence superstition, and they are more likely to reproduce. My theory explains why religion just won't go away. It won't go away because those who benefit most from religion, the clergy and other religious leaders, won't go away. They are very likely to reproduce because their ability to influence superstition in others grants them many survival advantages. That's why the clergy and apologists defend their religion with such great tenacity.

What strengths and weaknesses do you see in my evolutionary theory of religion?

[marco]

What strengths and weaknesses do you see in my evolutionary theory of religion?

I am not sure that the clergy benefit most from religion; they do have steady jobs, certainly, but one would surely expect "benefit" to involve more than money. Religion probably reflects the need in people to reach out, even at a straw, and God supplies something - for many.

Religion evolves as man progresses. The lovely Moon Goddess Selene is no more; we have trampled over her with our giant step for mankind. Our idea of heaven being above the clouds is changed, for we have gone beyond the clouds. To retain religion and our power to reason we must endow religious belief with more sophistication. Jesuits are adept at doing this, reading metaphor into much of the Bible. Obviously there are still those who see God with a big beard or with heated irons ready to burn the unbeliever or preparing mansions to await a precise number of guests. But front line troops of religion seem to have caught up with television and the Internet. For those, like Einstein, for whom Bible tales are childish there is pantheism and its clever offshoots. Religion does indeed evolve, as does God.

[Jagella]

What strengths and weaknesses do you see in my evolutionary theory of religion?

I am not sure that the clergy benefit most from religion; they do have steady jobs, certainly, but one would surely expect "benefit" to involve more than money. Religion probably reflects the need in people to reach out, even at a straw, and God supplies something - for many.

That "need to reach out" is known as superstition. The clergy are well aware of that supposed need, and they capitalize on it. True, not all the clergy get rich, but most con artists don't get rich. And you are right that the clergy's benefits are more than money, and they often enjoy social influence and sex. Sex, of course, is how the clergy pass down the religious-leader gene to the next generation perpetuating religion.

Our idea of heaven being above the clouds is changed, for we have gone beyond the clouds. To retain religion and our power to reason we must endow religious belief with more sophistication. Jesuits are adept at doing this, reading metaphor into much of the Bible. Obviously there are still those who see God with a big beard or with heated irons ready to burn the unbeliever or preparing mansions to await a precise number of guests. But front line troops of religion seem to have caught up with television and the Internet. For those, like Einstein, for whom Bible tales are childish there is pantheism and its clever offshoots. Religion does indeed evolve, as does God.

In other words, the lies of religion need to be updated to bamboozle each new generation.

[marco]

That "need to reach out" is known as superstition. The clergy are well aware of that supposed need, and they capitalize on it.

I hadn't seen that definition of superstition before. One learns as one lives. The clergy comprise a mixed bunch of good and bad, clever and naïve, fakes and saints. I've met some who are obviously sincere people, devoted to the service of others. There are bad ones, boring ones and buffoons as in all walks of life.

In other words, the lies of religion need to be updated to bamboozle each new generation.

We quibble over "lies" since many - most - sincerely believe what they practise. But yes, with sophistication and progress comes the need to give religion a fresh coat of paint. Islam, of course, stays ever green.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 4 by marco]

That "need to reach out" is known as superstition. The clergy are well aware of that supposed need, and they capitalize on it.

I hadn't seen that definition of superstition before.

I think for the purposes of this discussion it's a good definition. Superstition is understood to be the tendency of people to desire magical powers they believe will help them. Some may wish to examine the guts of a chicken to see what the future holds, for example. Others might want to avoid an unexplored part of the jungle they believe harbors evil spirits. In such cases people "reach out" to try to acquire knowledge or safety or something else that the natural, everyday, humdrum world doesn't seem to provide.

Crafty people can and often do take advantage of such superstition. They may be able to convince people that they can provide esoteric knowledge or magical powers that the superstitious long for. If the crafty are successful in convincing the superstitious that they have such powers, then they can garner followers who will grant them things like wealth, power, and sex.

The clergy comprise a mixed bunch of good and bad, clever and naïve, fakes and saints. I've met some who are obviously sincere people, devoted to the service of others. There are bad ones, boring ones and buffoons as in all walks of life.

All such people can and often do take advantage of the superstitious. If they succeed in doing so, then they have a very significant survival advantage and are likely to reproduce. If they do reproduce, then they will pass down their genes to offspring creating a new generation of clergy and perpetuating religion.

We quibble over "lies" since many - most - sincerely believe what they practise.

Well, it's the sincere ones who scare me the most! But even sincere people often believe lies and may unwittingly spread that misinformation to others.

And I think we're seeing that spreading of misinformation in this very forum. No doubt many of those here are looking for hope and help that the natural world just doesn't seem to provide. They've been convinced by the clergy that religious practices like prayer and church attendance can eventually give them happiness and immortality. Since the desire for happiness and eternal life is so strong, they hold on to that misinformation with great tenacity posting whatever they can think of to fend off the criticisms of people like....like me!

[jgh7]

It's hard to take this seriously. I don't know how you would prove a genetic mutation occurred specifically for religious con-artistry. Perhaps you could say the general tactic of con-artistry provided for better procreation and thus was an evolutionary trait. But there's no way to prove that that was a genetic evolution rather than something learned on one's own or passed down through teaching/experience. I mean, if you could literally isolate a genetic mutation responsible for that, then it would be impressive.

[Jagella]

It's hard to take this seriously.

You're arguing a very common fallacy here. It's called "an argument from incredulity." Just because you personally cannot take my theory seriously doesn't make it wrong.

I don't know how you would prove a genetic mutation occurred specifically for religious con-artistry. Perhaps you could say the general tactic of con-artistry provided for better procreation and thus was an evolutionary trait. But there's no way to prove that that was a genetic evolution rather than something learned on one's own or passed down through teaching/experience. I mean, if you could literally isolate a genetic mutation responsible for that, then it would be impressive.

Just because you don't know how a genetic mutation for religious con-artistry occurred, doesn't mean it could not have happened. We do know that some people are very good at being religious leaders--but not everybody is good at it. Therefore I suspect that there is a unique gene for religious leadership/con-artistry. This gene does appear to confer a very obvious survival advantage.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Natural selection probably "chose"

Are you certain this is a good choice of words here? I mean, if "natural selection" can choose, then it would seem there is some sort of purpose? However, with evolution, I was under the impression that there was no sort of purpose, and that everything happened by chance?

Well, I guess it could be possible that "natural selection" came to be able to choose by chance, which would seem to mean there may be some sort of purpose in life, that also happened by, chance.

No matter, either way it is a miraculous tale, and on the same scale as the tales told in the Bible.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 7 by Jagella]

Just because you don't know how a genetic mutation for religious con-artistry occurred, doesn't mean it could not have happened.

Or, just because science cannot explain, how a dead body may have come back to life, would not "mean that it could not have happened."

Or, would this only apply with your point of view?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 8 by Realworldjack]

Natural selection is just what it says--nature's selection. This selection isn't conscious, of course. It is nature's selecting those individuals who reproduce and those who don't. This selection can take place via predation, disease, injury, relative weakness, or just dumb luck. If a buffalo can not run as quickly as the other buffalo in her herd, for example, then she may fall prey to lions while the faster buffalo survive to reproduce passing down their genes to offspring. So in this way nature selects for faster buffalo.

The clergy may be selected by nature because their ability to acquire wealth is generally more than good enough for them to attract mates with whom they can reproduce. Their children may have this "clergy gene" conferring the same survival advantage to them They will scam their followers out of money as they perpetuate religion.

Like I said, I think this theory explains why religion won't go away.