Is atheism against evolution?

Pappy o' daniel

Cultures with strong monotheistic religions have been more successful than pagan or non religious cultures(christianity in europe, islam in mideast), and individuals bloodlines in those cultures have thrived and reproduced successfully.
So, I'm wondering if religion is an aid to prospering, will discarding it hurt our chances?

Galvasean

Depends. Unless we can get an A&A dating website going I fear for our future..

Zillah

This is a very complicated issue and your question comes loaded with a pretty big assumption, namely: Evolutionary survival of the individual/genes is congruent with the memetic survival of the religious doctrine. Which is not neccessarily true. Its quite possible to have a religious doctrine which props up its own continued existence by consuming human lives like a rapacious monster. For example, medieval Christianity, ancient meso-american religions and modern radical Islam.

Also, your question is a little unclear. I'd ask "Is a genetic pre-disposition towards atheism an evolutionary disadvantage?" In a traditional tribal context, I'd say yes with confidence. The modern world? No idea, but I'd lean towards saying no.

Its all rather moot though, the future of our species will be determined technologically rather than evolutionarily from here on in.

Dave!

There are other examples of vestigiality in humans, eg. wisdom teeth, goosebumps. If humans no longer developed wisdom teeth, or got goosebumps in the cold/danger, would it hurt our survival chances? Doubt it. Just cos something served an evolutionary purpose before does not mean it continues to do so. But in the absense of pressure to 'lose' these vestiges of our past (eg. if we didn't have modern dental care [I'm speculating here], then the problems frequently associated with developing wisdom teeth might be enough pressure to select for those who do not develop them... hey maybe that's why they don't surface in everybody?), they're likely to remain there redundantly.

Mena

Galvasean wrote: »

Depends. Unless we can get an A&A dating website going I fear for our future..

Never fear, the wife and I are currently mid way through assembling an army of godless heathens.

Tim Robbins

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

Cultures with strong monotheistic religions have been more successful than pagan or non religious cultures(christianity in europe, islam in mideast), and individuals bloodlines in those cultures have thrived and reproduced successfully.
So, I'm wondering if religion is an aid to prospering, will discarding it hurt our chances?

I tried to set up a resident's committee once, and what became immediately apparent was:
1. How difficult it is to get people to agree even simple things.
2. Getting mechanisms to resolve disagreement.

Religion through indoctrination and having a set of rules, gave societies some sort of stable basis as individuals had shared beliefs systems. This made it easier for humans to interact with humans they didn't know.

Our brains find it difficult to work or think in groups that have more than 150 people. This is why people are racist, xenophobic and vote No to Lisbon for the most irrational reasons going.

So yes my view would be religions helped the progress the concept of state and nation state and make them viable and achievable. It's worth noting that it's hard to think of a state that when it was formed did not have one single Religion and belief system.

Dave!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

vote No to Lisbon for the most irrational reasons going.

Zombrex

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

So, I'm wondering if religion is an aid to prospering, will discarding it hurt our chances?

Our chances at what exactly? Evolving?

iUseVi

Anyone here see this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/07/research.highereducation

Apparently Humans don't evolve anymore. I can buy into that one...:D

Dades

iUseVi wrote: »

Human evolution has virtually ground to a halt, according to genetics expert Prof Steve Jones of University College London.

Mena

I thought the above picture was evidence for "Reverse-Evolution"

Goduznt Xzst

imo, if you remove religion, most humans will be led by socialization. Humans like to be told what to do and when to do it. We like to believe we are free, but we also feel secure in ruled systems with consistencies. Limitless freedom for everyone is a society most humans would hate and fear to live in.

The reason theistic cultures have thrived is that order has been secured by making posthumous promises that no mere human could make.

If you remove religion you end up with a system where every individual believes they could rule and do a better job.

Frankly, if I was to start up a country where I wanted to maintain power for my whole life I'd invent a God who only speaks to me and tell the people that if they are good and obedient citizens that my God will give them eternal life in the next realm. It's a perfect means of control and an easy way to guarantee that even if there is a rebellion, the majority of people will not join it out of fear of losing their chance at immortality.

Galvasean

iUseVi wrote: »

Anyone here see this story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/07/research.highereducation

Apparently Humans don't evolve anymore. I can buy into that one...:D

Ive always been of the opinion that we (humans) no longer have a specific natural selection criteria, making any sustained direction of evolution impossible.

iUseVi

Galvasean wrote: »

Ive always been of the opinion that we (humans) no longer have a specific natural selection criteria, making any sustained direction of evolution impossible.

Agreed. I actually find it rather depressing. But I don't expect the human race will stagnate, especially with all the research into genetics. Bring on the genetically altered super-humans! (with super powers:D)

EJLL

Galvasean wrote: »

Ive always been of the opinion that we (humans) no longer have a specific natural selection criteria, making any sustained direction of evolution impossible.

Homosexuality could be seen as an evloutionary form that, for obvious reasons, limits a persons ability to reproduce.
Other articles have hypothesised that homosexuality is a slight evolutionary step forward that has gone awry.

Goduznt Xzst

iUseVi wrote: »

Agreed. I actually find it rather depressing. But I don't expect the human race will stagnate, especially with all the research into genetics. Bring on the genetically altered super-humans! (with super powers:D)

I dunno. Even though there isn't the natural pruning of the weak any more, there is always the chance that humans will begin engineering our species evolution. It might seem unrealistic at the moment, but imagine a scenario like the movie gattaca where parents are told what there child will be like genetically if there genes are used, then they are given the option of a paid for combination of strong genes to have a much smarter, taller, stronger offspring, the only condition being that their offspring must then, in turn donate their eggs/sperm to be used for the next generation.

Eugenics is something that can be easily sold to people if they are shown the pitfalls of using their own, weaker genes to have a child. If a parent was told they can have a child that will live to 50 and then die of heart disease, or have a child that will live to 100 and be strong and intelligent, most would go for the latter.

Personally, I would sacrifice propagating my genes onto the next generation if it meant strengthening the species as whole.

iUseVi

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I dunno. Even though there isn't the natural pruning of the weak any more, there is always the chance that humans will begin engineering our species evolution. It might seem unrealistic at the moment, but imagine a scenario like the movie gattaca where parents are told what there child will be like genetically if there genes are used, then they are given the option of a paid for combination of strong genes to have a much smarter, taller, stronger offspring, the only condition being that their offspring must then, in turn donate their eggs/sperm to be used for the next generation.

Eugenics is something that can be easily sold to people if they are shown the pitfalls of using their own, weaker genes to have a child. If a parent was told they can have a child that will live to 50 and then die of heart disease, or have a child that will live to 100 and be strong and intelligent, most would go for the latter.

Personally, I would sacrifice propagating my genes onto the next generation if it meant strengthening the species as whole.

Indeed, that is the kind of thing I meant by "genetically altered super-humans". I didn't include a good description like yours though.

I think what you are describing could be called perhaps "implicit" genetic manipulation. There's also the notion of what might be called "explicit" genetic manipulation, where genes are specifically switched on and off to achieve certain results. This is of course probably a while in the future, but in this case the sky is the limit....four arms, two hearts, who knows?

CerebralCortex

Technological singularity for the win.

Wreck

I'm using this as my new excuse for why I never pull anymore.

jim o doom

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's worth noting that it's hard to think of a state that when it was formed did not have one single Religion and belief system.

eh, didn't ancient Rome have MULTIPLE gods & belief systems that were eventually all brought in to Christianity?

hairyheretic

jim o doom wrote: »

eh, didn't ancient Rome have MULTIPLE gods & belief systems that were eventually all brought in to Christianity?

A Pantheon of Gods and Goddess, but all under the same belief system I'd imagine. You could probably say the same for the Greeks, Chinese, Japanese, assorted central / South American empires and so on.

Generally when Christianity arrived on the scene it became convert or die, as long as they were in a position of strength. The local deities tended to be either converted into saints, or turned into devils.

Galvasean

Interesting...

polytheism -> monotheism -> atheism

The natural progression of things?

marco_polo

Galvasean wrote: »

Interesting...

polytheism -> monotheism -> Nondescript celebrities -> atheism

The natural progression of things?

Fixed

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

polytheism -> monotheism -> atheism [...] The natural progression of things?

I think it's more specific than that:

1. Lots of gods with known areas of competence. A bit like cabinet ministers. Frequently behave like humans and interact with them regularly.

|
|
\/

2. Fewer gods with more general areas of competence and meta-competence. Don't often behave like humans and interact less regularly.

|
|
\/

3. One god with omnicompetence. Doesn't behave like a human. Face-to-face interaction rarely, if at all.

|
|
\/

God disappears.

marco_polo

robindch wrote: »

I think it's more specific than that:

1. Lots of gods with known areas of competence. A bit like cabinet ministers. Frequently behave like humans and interact with them regularly.

|
|
\/

2. Fewer gods with more general areas of competence and meta-competence. Don't often behave like humans and interact less regularly.

|
|
\/

3. One god with omnicompetence. Doesn't behave like a human. Face-to-face interaction rarely, if at all.

|
|
\/

God disappears.

Very interesting perspective, I have never though about it quite like that before.

Dave!

I'm sure the nature of gods is related to scientific understanding. Thunder, sun, and rain gods are pretty good ways of explaining away natural phenomena, but when you're able to measure the composition of rain and explain where it comes from and predict when it will occur with the help of satelites, your deity soon becomes unnecessary.

There's no explaination for where the universe came from ('before' the big bang), nor is it known what it's like once you die, etc., so that's where god resides for the moment. I'm sure advancements in neuroscience and physics will push him back further in the future.

I think the 'god of the gaps' and the receding god are good explainations.

Dades

Dave! wrote: »

I'm sure advancements in neuroscience and physics will push him back further in the future.

Only for people who pay heed to such trivialities. :pac:

Pappy o' daniel

Lots of interesting stuff posted. My own thinking would be that people naturally want to form groups. Groups aid peoples survival whether they're be religious or secular.

Most religions ridicule other religions and try to emphasise their differences, this would strengthen the bond in the group( as people would fear them and be more loyal to their own) and would lessen the chances of defecting to the other group.
Outside threats strengthen the group even further, I would say scientologists grow more
fervent anytime a joke about them is made.

So I don't think athiesm will impact peoples ability to survive and reproduce, unless the great spice wars spread to earth. (our valiant General, Tom Cruise shall rally earths defences!)

Soul Winner

Tim Robbins wrote: »

...and vote No to Lisbon for the most irrational reasons going.

What about voting Yes for the most irrational reasons?

jim o doom wrote: »

eh, didn't ancient Rome have MULTIPLE gods & belief systems that were eventually all brought in to Christianity?

Eh no. Check here!

"And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? For thou bringest certain STRANGE things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. Act 17:19-21


Paul was preaching to philosophers on Mars Hill in Athens a message which was to them a NEW doctrine about STRANGE Gods. So no, when Christianity came along it was brand new.

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

Lots of interesting stuff posted.

Interesting sure but very limited in scope. To view the human race and human history through the unilateral and limited microscope of the scientific world view only will of course result in what is observed being nothing more than a scientific explanation of reality. Unless the scientific opinion is the ONLY opinion that matters and the only way to view things then yes that is the right way to view it. But is it though? What about how the people who shaped our present world - namely our predecessors from a bygone past - without whom we would not have science as we know it today, universities, democracy and all these good things - how did they see things?

How did they view the world? Was it a right view then? Was their view restricted to what we now call the scientific world view? No it wasn't, and yet our current scientific community grew from it. Is the twig that grows atop a huge oak more important than the oak? Say the twig gets the idea that it doesn’t need the oak anymore? Is it right? Viewing things and having the scientific methods I think is a wonderful thing but don’t get too caught up in its ability, it is only a sprig in the orchard amongst huge oaks of world views.

It makes me curious to read here that we are so prone to view ourselves as equivalent to animal packs and so forth. I think we are much more complex than that even though we are also very similar in that regard but by no means restricted to it. I think the main problem with atheists these days is that they place way too much emphasis on science and the scientific method. Like I said I love science and the scientific method, I think it is a great tool for understanding the workings of the physical world and the cosmos but it is not the only way to view things or to prove things. What did we do before science as we know it today came along? We had what atheistic scientists call stupid religions in abundance, but it is from these stupid religious views - so called - that schools, colleges and universities emerged.

There are many philosophic viewpoints that still remain in universities today, don’t make the mistake that the scientific view is the only way to view the world because it isn’t. Every department in our universities be they scientific or otherwise have at their base a philosophy of how to operate. By themselves they are limited in their understanding of the world but together they make up an even stronger entity. Don’t cut off the hand because it is not a foot. Respect other philosophic views and learn from them. Science itself is predicated upon a philosophy. Which as a philosophy also cannot be verified by the scientific method.

Not sure why I posted this, just sort of came out. No offence meant by it.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Interesting sure but very limited in scope. To view the human race and human history through the unilateral and limited microscope of the scientific world view only will of course result in what is observed being nothing more than a scientific explanation of reality. Unless the scientific opinion is the ONLY opinion that matters and the only way to view things then yes that is the right way to view it. But is it though? What about how the people who shaped our present world - namely our predecessors from a bygone past - without whom we would not have science as we know it today, universities, democracy and all these good things - how did they see things?

How did they view the world? Was it a right view then? Was their view restricted to what we now call the scientific world view? No it wasn't, and yet our current scientific community grew from it. Is the twig that grows atop a huge oak more important than the oak? Say the twig gets the idea that it doesn’t need the oak anymore? Is it right? Viewing things and having the scientific methods I think is a wonderful thing but don’t get too caught up in its ability, it is only a sprig in the orchard amongst huge oaks of world views.

While your metaphor is all nice and colourful and what not, it doesn't escape the fact that a modern scientific world view is not actually dependent upon the world views that came before it in the way that an oak twig is. Sure, little stumpy proto-legs came before legs but that doesn't mean that legs aren't just plain old better. In the same way modern scientific thinking emerged from philosophy and theology but it is in no way dependent upon them, nor should it give them undue respect.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

...nor should it give them undue respect.

Nothing should get undue respect, only due respect, and science owes a lot of respect to theology and philosophy, maybe not because it makes science better but because it made science as we know it today possible. Without Christianity there would have been no universities in Europe at least and without universities there would have been no science as we know it today. Just something worth remembering whilst pondering the wonders of Science.