Has anybody read...

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You might as well try to outlaw sex.

I'd go for that.

No, I'm totally kidding.

But, seriously, I agree. This guy can argue all he wants that religion as we understand it is a delusion, but it doesn't change the fact that (most?) humans are fundamentally spiritual beings. You can't logically argue people out of belief.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

People that want to end all religion have no understanding of human beings. It is programmed into us. It is in our DNA. You might as well try to outlaw sex.

Are you saying this is your professional opinion? IF so, why is it wired in to us? What is its evolutionary advantage? Moreover, isn't this rather ironic in that religions, or at least many of them, urge us to overcome our animal nature, our natural state of being if you will, to connect with our transcendant side, whereas you are saying that our transcendant side is inherent in our animal, or natural, state of existence.

[Archaea]

I don't know if we're fundamentally spiritual, but guys are fundamentally sexual. So outlawing it won't make it go away. Although I understand a convention of religious women have it on their agenda. Don't the Quakers and Shakers outlaw procreation?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't know if we're fundamentally spiritual, but guys are fundamentally sexual. So outlawing it won't make it go away. Although I understand a convention of religious women have it on their agenda. Don't the Quakers and Shakers outlaw procreation?

Shakers, not the quakers.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by creekster

Are you saying this is your professional opinion? IF so, why is it wired in to us? What is its evolutionary advantage?

I did not write this summary. It's from http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/S...590899,00.html


In his book Darwin's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson, professor of biology and anthropology at Binghamton University in New York state, says that religiosity emerged as a "useful" genetic trait because it had the effect of making social groups more unified. The communal nature of religion certainly would have given groups of hunter-gatherers a stronger sense of togetherness. This produced a leaner, meaner survival machine, a group that was more likely to be able to defend a waterhole, or kill more antelope, or capture their opponents' daughters. The better the religion was at producing an organised and disciplined group, the more effective they would have been at staying alive, and hence at passing their genes on to the next generation.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Lisa.Kinzer

I did not write this summary. It's from http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/S...590899,00.html


In his book Darwin's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson, professor of biology and anthropology at Binghamton University in New York state, says that religiosity emerged as a "useful" genetic trait because it had the effect of making social groups more unified. The communal nature of religion certainly would have given groups of hunter-gatherers a stronger sense of togetherness. This produced a leaner, meaner survival machine, a group that was more likely to be able to defend a waterhole, or kill more antelope, or capture their opponents' daughters. The better the religion was at producing an organised and disciplined group, the more effective they would have been at staying alive, and hence at passing their genes on to the next generation.

So one might say that radical Islam (or other radical religions, for that matter) are an extremely high level manifestation of this desireable genetic trait.

[BarbaraGordon]

Well, I don't know because I think that was more an argument for the prehistoric evolutionary advantage of religion. I don't know what the argument for modern evolutionary advantage of spirituality is...but I think atheists have fewer children than theists, so they might be taking themselves out of the gene pool.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by creekster

So one might say that radical Islam (or other radical religions, for that matter) are an extremely high level manifestation of this desireable genetic trait.

I don't know about that. But one can argue that the more radical elements of Islam (conversion via conquest, executing apostates, etc.) tend to accelarate the "evolution", (i.e. growth) of the religion.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by creekster

Shakers, not the quakers.

From Wikipedia:
Once boasting thousands of adherents, as of 2006 the Shakers number four people living in Sabbathday Lake, Maine.

Sounds like their doctrine had the desired effect...

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Lisa.Kinzer

Well, I don't know because I think that was more an argument for the prehistoric evolutionary advantage of religion. I don't know what the argument for modern evolutionary advantage of spirituality is...but I think atheists have fewer children than theists, so they might be taking themselves out of the gene pool.

The possibility of atheists taking themselves out of the gene pool is similar in theory to what James Taranto (Wall Street Journal opinion columnist) calls "The Roe Effect".

The theory is that liberal women are more likely to have abortions (and generally less children in general) and therefore are gradually reducing the number of liberals in the gene pool. Obviously the effect isn't as extreme as with the Shaker's celibacy policy, but it's an interesting theory. A variation of the "Roe Effect" might also exist in the low birthrates among the non-immigrant, well-educated population of European countries coupled with the high birthrates among their immigrant/poor/less educated/extremely religious (i.e. Muslim) populations.