The Biological Value of Religion

[Mudhammam]

Hey there pickup_shonuff, I've only read your thread now, it's interesting. To start off I'd like to ask - Are you implying that evolution has created a sort of psychological predisposition to religion? And if the answer is yes, would that explain why some people remain religious even after tremendous amount of evidence is presented on the contrary?

Yes, precisely. You said it well. I do think that's an excellent question for 'science of religion' to address, and ties directly into everything else.

Religion is certainly useful in a variety of ways, even if based on lies - Religion gives people a sense of purpose and mysticism, may make them happier, helps people have a code of rules to live by, and for some it is a tool of power (politically speaking), it also helps people cope with fear of death and tries to explain mysteries, some that have already been explained, others that remain unexplained.

If evolution does shape some people to be religious/theists, could the next evolutionary stage, from a biological/psychological perspective, be the absence of religion/theism (and therefore atheism)? The age when people do not need religion - It's happening right now.

See my above response to Cato. I'm not so sure that will ever be possible--I say that simply as an observation, not really sure if it's a "good" thing one way or another.

I do not like to compare religion with politics, hobbies or any other topic - I think each case is an individual one and comparison is useless - Politics isn't comparable because it de facto shapes what happens in society (or at least it shouldn't be religion exercising this function) - And I'm as tolerant of political ideologies I don't like as I am with religion - I'll treat Marxists/communists the same way I treat Christians and Muslims - I accept they have the right to think like this or that but I do not adopt their views, and in some cases I find them reprehensible.

True, I was only making the point that I think I'm beginning to grow disenchanted with the way many atheists--and I include myself as one of them until very recently--seem to want to paint all religious people with a broad brush as either stupid, brainwashed, naive, dishonest, or what have you, and I was simply saying perhaps we should treat it in terms of those other things (politics, hobbies) on the singular point that within 'religion' exists great diversity of ideas--some useful, some harmful, some thoughtful, more true, others not, etc.

---

I honestly think that you're treating this as some kind of a logical discussion, which it isn't. People believe this stuff because it's been crammed into their heads since before they could think. It's not optional: they believe it, that's all.

That's certainly the case for many, and believe me, I'm as vehemently opposed to those types of--shall we call--coercive or dogmatic religions, as anyone... but can we paint all believers into that corner? I don't think so. I think a great many do come to belief through their own choice, a prime example being Leo Tolstoy (if you're not familiar with his conversion story, I'd recommend it... heavy stuff).