Responding to Religious Evolution

[MarcusOfLycia]

I've run into this topic more and more recently but haven't found any good articles/websites/organizations on the Christian side that refute it. That's not to say there aren't any, and any that people could point out would be appreciated! That's one of the main reasons I posted this. I'd like to do more reading on it.

The idea as I've understood it is basically that religion is simply an evolutionary thing; that it can be explained away as part of the evolutionary chain of events that lead to human beings. My last encounter with it was on Amazon.com forums of all places, just looking at some comments reviewing a book. It seemed like the thread exclusively contained atheists in the conversation, and they basically all agreed that religion and religious motivations are nothing more than biological drives hard-wired into us via natural selection and our own capacity to create myths.

Obviously, I disagree with this position. I also think its a little pretentious to assume (as they did many times) that people of another worldview are inherently intellectually inferior. However, I'm not educated in biological science or in psychology (I'm more of a physics/computer guy), hence the post. What are other's thoughts on it? Or do you know of this idea or responses to it?

Thanks!

[zoegirl]

Then all you would need to point out is that all that separates us from a society in which rape and murder is advocated is simple selection. If religion is nothing more than a current selection than all morality systems, including immorality, is equal. We are no superior than our ancestors that raped to procreate and murdered other tribesman. It's as simple and yet profound as that. There is no moral superiority, they are nothing more than genetic accidents that happened to survive and reproduce more than the others. (note: this is NOT the same as proclaiming that atheists are immoral, it is simply claiming that, according to their beliefs about how morality and religion evolved, there is neutrality to morality)

[PreciousEden]

The idea as I've understood it is basically that religion is simply an evolutionary thing; that it can be explained away as part of the evolutionary chain of events that lead to human beings. My last encounter with it was on Amazon.com forums of all places, just looking at some comments reviewing a book. It seemed like the thread exclusively contained atheists in the conversation, and they basically all agreed that religion and religious motivations are nothing more than biological drives hard-wired into us via natural selection and our own capacity to create myths.

Thanks!

If we are God's creatures, then wouldn't it be hard-wired into us?

This topic has always intrigued me, and I'm curious as well to see others responses!

[Echoside]

Then all you would need to point out is that all that separates us from a society in which rape and murder is advocated is simple selection. If religion is nothing more than a current selection than all morality systems, including immorality, is equal. We are no superior than our ancestors that raped to procreate and murdered other tribesman. It's as simple and yet profound as that. There is no moral superiority, they are nothing more than genetic accidents that happened to survive and reproduce more than the others. (note: this is NOT the same as proclaiming that atheists are immoral, it is simply claiming that, according to their beliefs about how morality and religion evolved, there is neutrality to morality)

I'm not sure exactly what this plans to accomplish. An atheist with any amount of intelligence would probably just respond with "yes.....what's your point?" Most atheists i've met accept that morality is "simple selection", any pointing out the logical conclusions that follow from a position they adhere to is rather useless. The only atheists i can imagine things like this having any effect on are people who should probably not call themselves atheists at all.

[zoegirl]

you would think so, but amazingly, many of them push back at this. There have been several discussion topics here about this. If they are intellectually honest they will admit this, but for most people, they don't ant to equate rape and murder with kindness. They are morally neutral in evolutionary solutions.

[Seraph]

Atheists will probably say that religion came about through people's fears of the unknown, mainly concerning what happens to us after death. It makes sense that they would think so, since if God did not exist this would probably be the most likely way that it was created. They have no evidence for it, but that would pretty much be the only answer in that worldview.

Of course, a Christian says that the ideas that make up Christianity were revealed to select groups of people throughout history, and their accounts of their revelations from God make up what we now call Christianity (as well as what was Judaism before the coming of Christ), while other religions are the result of mankind's desire to know God, but without the divine revelation portion.

Really it's just our word against theirs as to where religion comes from.

[puritan lad]

I would simply respond that, if this were true, then there is no sense in having a debate, because I have the Christian gene, and was born that way, so I cannot change. In such a case, there can be no such as free thought, free will, or rational discourse. Only genetic and epistemological determinism (all of our thoughts and actions are controlled by the impersonal laws of physics and biochemistry).

And my claim has been supported by scientific research. See http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147

[zoegirl]

good, that's an awesome response..

[MarcusOfLycia]

That's true, and its one thing I've tried reminding them of. Basically, in my eyes, it boils down to this: Either religion is more than psychology, or there is no such thing as meaning, no such thing as love, no such thing as truth, no such thing as freedom or free will or anything. Hell and the life in that sort of world seem to have a lot in common to me.

[Echoside]

I would simply respond that, if this were true, then there is no sense in having a debate, because I have the Christian gene, and was born that way, so I cannot change. In such a case, there can be no such as free thought, free will, or rational discourse. Only genetic and epistemological determinism (all of our thoughts and actions are controlled by the impersonal laws of physics and biochemistry).

And my claim has been supported by scientific research. See http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147

if this were true, then they also have the try to convert christians gene, and were born that way, so they cannot change. This is also why the "why don't all atheists go out and be immoral and party" question makes (from a purely logical standpoint regarding atheism) no sense.

[Canuckster1127]

At the risk of being perceived as playing Devil's advocate, I think it's important to note that, at least to my observation and awareness, there aren't very many atheists who are claiming a "religion gene" per se. They're noting that those peoples and societies who may have been more inclined toward spiritual belief and religious practice may have had characteristics that contributed to their survival as a society as opposed to those societies without those characteristics.

In that context, they're really just noting something that Christian (and even other traditions) have noted and claimed as a positive argument for the overall impact that religious belief can have upon a society. It's actually a different chorus than what hardline atheists have sung in terms of religion as an "opiate of the people" etc. in the past.

Of course also, as noted here by some, many of these same theorists are then making the statement that what was true in the past is no longer true today and that religion is a trapping from the past that now carries more negative impact than positive and they're smart enough to do without religion as a crutch even if it was helpful in the past.

Not everything that appeals to natural selection is necessarily physically genetic. There can be learned behavior reinforced within one population that is not in the other that contributes to its survival over others. Or changes in the environment may favor one as opposed to the other.

I think it's important that we understand and note those distinctions rather than just assuming that all atheists or secular humanist scientists are saying the same thing.

I don't think it helps for us to make too broad generalizations in portraying the positions of others in this regard.

[puritan lad]

While this is true, in an atheistic world the ultimate end of even learned behaviour is that it is impersonal data entered into a complex computer made of meat, and is still controlled by the laws of physics and biochemistry. Naturalism can account for nothing else. In the words of C.S. Lewis, just a meaningless flux of atoms.