My hypothesis

[ronedee]

The problem with your theory is that the "information age" has not given any info about the nonexistence of God. So, religion will thrive until it does. And if extinction is in the cards, it won't be because of Christians. It will be in spite of them.

Information indicating the nonexistentence of God is sufficient but not necessary for said information to be considered a selective pressure.

Selective pressure in your example is artificial selection. I will go a step further and say there is no longer "selective pressure", and only "artificial selection". The only thing that would achieve a "selective pressure" at this point in evolution is a [natural] catastrophic, life changing event.

So, in my hypothesis... God IS actually "selective pressure". And humans are "artificial selection".

---

Well, that could be any group. The major question goes unanswered.

42

Ein Sof

[Astonished]

Dawkins explains in his book a pretty decent hypothesis regarding how evolution actually supports the development of a religious mentality. Drawing on memes rather than genes (which behave similarly), the idea of listening to one's elders without question as a survival mechanism (such as warnings about avoiding danger) is what makes them not question abominably shitty ideas like religious belief. And also why it's key to have that done at a young age rather than in adulthood.

[Nihilist Virus]

Information indicating the nonexistentence of God is sufficient but not necessary for said information to be considered a selective pressure.

Selective pressure in your example is artificial selection. I will go a step further and say there is no longer "selective pressure", and only "artificial selection". The only thing that would achieve a "selective pressure" at this point in evolution is a [natural] catastrophic, life changing event.

So, in my hypothesis... God IS actually "selective pressure". And humans are "artificial selection".

---

42

Ein Sof

You are confused. I'm not describing artificial selection, and even if I was, artificial selection still presents selective pressures.

[surreptitious57]

God as a concept is fundamentally unfalsifiable and as long as it is then religion will always exist in one form or another. The argument that God will be made redundant in the information
age is fallacious because not everyone is necessarily seeking knowledge or understanding in these times. The belief of some is so central to their entire raison d etre that to contemplate a
life without it is a concept never seriously considered. Also nihilism with its emphasis upon the meaninglessness of everything in the grand scheme of things is not a concept everyone can
openly embrace. Now I can as I unconditionally accept reality for what it is. However I can understand why many prefer the false hope [ my perspective not theirs ] of religion to no hope
at all. This accounts for at least seventy per cent of the world population. And so whether atheists like it or not religion is not going to disappear any time soon regardless of anything else

[robvalue]

It's not going to disappear, but I think it's going to fade into obscurity. It's already happened in England. Seriously, anyone who's always lived in a religion-heavy country, come visit England. You'll find it hilarious and a blessed relief.

Vague "some sort of god" belief will no doubt perpetuate among non-criticial thinkers, but the attached obviously man-made religious stories will become less and less accepted. That's my prediction for the West.

[ronedee]

Selective pressure in your example is artificial selection. I will go a step further and say there is no longer "selective pressure", and only "artificial selection". The only thing that would achieve a "selective pressure" at this point in evolution is a [natural] catastrophic, life changing event.

So, in my hypothesis... God IS actually "selective pressure". And humans are "artificial selection".

---

Ein Sof

You are confused.  I'm not describing artificial selection, and even if I was, artificial selection still presents selective pressures.

You are right... you've confused me totally.

[Aoi Magi]

Religion won't die, it'll just change form.

[Astonished]

You are confused.  I'm not describing artificial selection, and even if I was, artificial selection still presents selective pressures.

You are right... you've confused me totally.

Not much of a challenge but whatevs.

True, religion might not be eradicated even if indoctrination stopped being fashionable and an entire generation grew up without any pressure to believe any of it any more sincerely than their comic book collection. But even if faith managed to conquer the world again, they can certainly never stamp out nonbelief. So while in theory, getting rid of religion (perhaps not all irrational belief systems but at least these that follow doctrine) will be possible, getting rid of nonbelief is most definitely impossible, as small a minority as it may be.

[ronedee]

You are right... you've confused me totally.

Not much of a challenge but whatevs.

True, religion might not be eradicated even if indoctrination stopped being fashionable and an entire generation grew up without any pressure to believe any of it any more sincerely than their comic book collection. But even if faith managed to conquer the world again, they can certainly never stamp out nonbelief. So while in theory, getting rid of religion (perhaps not all irrational belief systems but at least these that follow doctrine) will be possible, getting rid of nonbelief is most definitely impossible, as small a minority as it may be.

I hate to sound like an atheist here, but the lack of proof and evidence will keep both sides strong. 

No need for pressures, indoctrination or even dusty old books. "hard evidence"... or lack thereof is a powerful tool for everyone involved.  And we won't really know until the very end. 

Almost sounds like someone planned it that way.

[Mr Greene]

It has however provided the invisible community with the means to communicate.
It exposes blatant hypocrisy by the leaders of faith groups and allows rapid fact checking of claims as well as providing access to research data.

Well, that could be any group. The major question goes unanswered.

It depends on how you phrase the question;
If you go for a generic, deistic deity it is effectively impossible to disprove, it's also effectively meaningless.

However the Abrahamic deity comes with a whole load of baggage, primarily in the form of scripture. So you can ask 'Is the scriptural account accurate?'
The answer is an emphatic no based on the archaeology. There isn't a single accurate statement from Genesis to Ezra, the whole lot including all the prophets and the existence of the monotheistic kingdom of Solomon are utter fabrications.
As such the entire Abrahamic concept has to be called into doubt and without serious evidence should be dismissed.