Religion is an evolutionary advantage

SkepticalOne: I'm not convinced indifference to survival is an evolutionary advantage.  

I mean, this whole argument assumes macroevolution is actually real.

The scientists over at scienceagainstevolution.org have some pretty convincing arguments that it isn't. Mainly that the earth cannot possibly be older than 2 billion years [1] [2] due to u238 decay times and the fact that uniformitarian dating methods are significantly flawed and based on a logical fallacy. [3] 

But, assuming the shaky premise that macroevolution exists, the argument is that religion was a mechanism that survived because it made people more altruistic and therefore less likely to kill each other because they feared retribution for their actions.

Look at the world around you for a minute and  ask yourself, do these people seem like kind, altruistic, loving individuals who will have my back and work collaboratively with me to advance the greater good? I'm sure that your answer will undoubtedly be "no effing way."

There is mounds of psychological research that proves that people, even many of those who are "religious," are selfish, pathological liars who cannot engage in basic empathy unless someone in authority forces them to with threat of punishment. In fact, the main reason most governments exist is because people got together and determined it was in their selfish best interest to have a third party to govern them because they knew they were completely incapable of governing themselves and being altruistic. And these same people then turn around and allow their governments to steal from them, control their every move, and send them off to die in a foreign war somewhere.

And you think that religion somehow was an evolutionary gene that stopped mass killing? Have you even read the history of the Catholic Church, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, basically any society that worshipped the emperor or ruler as a god or regent of God and therefore just let them do whatever it is they wanted?

And you think this somehow was an evolutionary advantage? 

IMHO, we are designed to worship because he world runs best when we worship God. Not just some random god that a person made up last week, but God proper. The one who actually changes our nature into altruistic, good people by making us new and giving us a new nature filled with love for each other. Man's natural impulses, even including religion, are selfish, hateful, lustful, and violent.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v16i10f.htm

[2] http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v16i11f.htm

[3] http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i3f.htm

Evolution and science can only explain how the universe was created.

But .

But it isnt a argument. 

Becauseeeeeeeeee religion is an evolutionary advantage. 

Its a statement. 

It points out some benifits religion has.  

When you start to think about a evolutionary advantage you dont immediately think about ( biological evolution )

You just think about toe evolution. And you rarly talk about evolution and anything under a million years  .

 So again .

Sooooooooooo

 The statment should read.

Religion is an Biological evolutionary advantage.  

Remember that Nazi troops had belt buckles that said "God Is With Us".

See:   Morality evolved first, long before Religion

           February 10, 2010

            By John Shook

Yep… it seems that way.

The important thing to keep in mind is that in the absence of typical, spiritual religion, something MUST take its place lest a nihilistic, purposeless emptiness become all that is left. Societies and individuals replace religion with quasi-religions, either knowingly or unknowingly, such as:

- the state, as in North Korea and former Soviet Union

- fighting climate change/environmentalism

- fighting poverty/humanism

- fighting animal cruelty

- fighting racial discrimination

- scientism

- accumulation of wealth/capitalism

- philanthropy/legacy creation

Of course, except for allegiance to the state and perhaps scientism, none of these preclude religious belief, but they can serve as replacements to religion if people are deciding to reject religion outright.

Oh, I wasn’t necessarily putting a stamp of approval on all those pursuits/ideologies. The mention of North Korea and Soviet Union assures you of that, I hope. What I was implying is that in absence of religion, it is by necessity replaced with something, and an individual or society should be very cognizant of what that something is and its ramifications. I’m not saying this so much to you as I am to those who see religion unquestionably as a negative. There are many such people as this very thread shows…

I mean, this whole argument assumes macroevolution is actually real.

The scientists over at scienceagainstevolution.org have some pretty convincing arguments that it isn't. Mainly that the earth cannot possibly be older than 2 billion years [1] [2] due to u238 decay times and the fact that uniformitarian dating methods are significantly flawed and based on a logical fallacy. [3] 

But, assuming the shaky premise that macroevolution exists, the argument is that religion was a mechanism that survived because it made people more altruistic and therefore less likely to kill each other because they feared retribution for their actions.

Look at the world around you for a minute and  ask yourself, do these people seem like kind, altruistic, loving individuals who will have my back and work collaboratively with me to advance the greater good? I'm sure that your answer will undoubtedly be "no effing way."

There is mounds of psychological research that proves that people, even many of those who are "religious," are selfish, pathological liars who cannot engage in basic empathy unless someone in authority forces them to with threat of punishment. 

In fact, the main reason most governments exist is because people got together and determined it was in their selfish best interest to have a third party to govern them because they knew they were completely incapable of governing themselves and being altruistic.

And you think that religion somehow was an evolutionary gene that regulated all this hatred, selfishness, and mass killing? Have you even read the history of the Catholic Church, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, basically any society that worshipped the emperor or ruler as a god or regent of God and therefore just let them do whatever it is they wanted?

IMHO, we are designed to worship because the world runs best when we worship and follow God. Not just some random god that a person made up last week, but The God. The one who actually changes our nature into altruistic, good people by making us new and giving us a new nature filled with love for each other. Man's natural impulses, even including religion, are selfish, hateful, lustful, and violent. Man is in need of a new nature.

Oh, I wasn’t necessarily putting a stamp of approval on all those pursuits/ideologies. The mention of North Korea and Soviet Union assures you of that, I hope. What I was implying is that in absence of religion, it is by necessity replaced with something, and an individual or society should be very cognizant of what that something is and its ramifications. I’m not saying this so much to you as I am to those who see religion unquestionably as a negative. There are many such people as this very thread shows…

Thumbs are an evolutionary advantage. 

You can read that and move straight on hey? 

But 

Religion being a evo advant needs ALOT of ummm measuring one feels. 

I did get sidetracked for a good few hours thinking about how great RAPE IS ,  As To an evolutionary advantage. 

Hang on . 

Rape is a evolutionary advent. 

We worked that out before. 

Sooooooo Instead of saying . 

 ( Religion is an evolutionary advantage ) and having a statement like this mess with ones head 

 

Say it like this. 

( Rape is an evolutionary advantage )

then pauseeeeeeeeeeee for full effect 

' Then quickly  deliver '     ( religion is an evolutionary advantage )   bammmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 

As humans evolve their views in religion grow more sophisticated.

For example Jesus was a liar and lunatic to the Jews of his generation. They demanded Jesus be crucified. The Romans crucified Jesus.

But several centuries later Jesus from a dead crucified liar and lunatic evolved to be the God of the Roman Catholic Church and all of Christianity.

--> @Shila

As humans evolve their views in religion grow more sophisticated.

Have they though? People replaced the priest with Dr. Fauci and the religious book with the government mandates.

They have not changed remotely in the 6,000 years of human "evolution." If anything genetic research indicates that the average human from 6,000 years ago would have an equivalent IQ of 145 today. [1]

Of course, this is assuming genetics drives intelligence. Which is a whole debate in and of itself.

But the point is we are not more intelligent bow nor have we even really evolved at all in thousands of years, since the earliest records of humans (which happen to coincide with the tools that these archaeologists keep finding) we keep seeing the same levels of intelligence.

But anyways. Religious views have largely remained the same. People worshipped government in Ancient Egypt, and they worship it today. They worshipped polytheism back then, and they worship that today. Black and white magic was commonly practiced in ancient Rome, and it is commonly practiced today.

For example Jesus was a liar and lunatic to the Jews of his generation. They demanded Jesus be crucified. The Romans crucified Jesus.

But several centuries later Jesus from a dead crucified liar and lunatic evolved to be the God of the Roman Catholic Church and all of Christianity.

He still is considered a liar and a lunatic to the Jews of this generation. The Christians never considered him dead because 500 people saw him ascend into heaven after talking with them. 

There is also the whole empty tomb thing. We haven't found His body. They never found it. And they never will find it. Because He rose from the dead.

Religion is an evolutionary advantage

Functionally, regardless of whether the religion in question is true, it will solve issues that humans face. Namely:

(1) Creating an untouchable, unseeable leader who can never be caught in a scandal, contradiction or anything untoward (something that humans will never be able to rectify if they themselves are leaders, due to their imperfection).

(2) Adds mystical magic to morality so that it seems divine, rather than just an impulse. This is especially important for cause-driven people who want to feel like they are living with a real purpose. It also helps to prevent crimes of all natures.

(3) Quells fear of the unknown with answers to queries that scare humans (e.g. what happens after death? You go to Heaven or hell; you are reincarnated; you enter paradise etc.).

(4) Creates free labor as a religious zealot will gladly do things in the name of the divine, all the whilst making them feel good for doing so.

Without religion, there are important holes to fill, and I don't think Atheism or Agnosticism fill them. I think it could be said that humans currently need religion to function.

When I look up "evolutionary advantage" for a definition, this is what I found:

"Any phenotypic trait that increases the fitness of one species over another. This could be anything that allows the species to better compete with another species occupying the same niche, obtain food/resources more efficiently, or stave off predators." - SOURCE

Based on that definition, I fail to see how the manmade concept of "religion" (or "religions") have anything to do with phenotype let alone the evolution of homo sapiens. 

In fact, historically, religion has been a rather huge disadvantage, disappointment, detriment, and any other "D" word (that corresponds with violence) one can come up with whereas the true evolution of humanity is concerned. 

No, what will happen is that the tribe is, as a population, bred to be more aggressive and hence be able to survive. This is not simply about the individual survival, it is about how, if enacted, rape furthers the evolutionary success of a population, at least in the instance we are discussing. 

There's just more to sexual selection than how aggressive you are. Yes, it's important. No, it's not the only variable. No one wants children with down syndrome, shoddy immune systems, bug eyes, cleft heads etc.

If you don't select for those things because you're raping everything, then you'll end up with a pool of genes that are seriously mixed. Meanwhile, the neighboring tribe takes an extra bit of time to select for desirable genetics, and thus produces better children on the whole.

And the biggest issue - even if religion is advantageous, how does this tie to its truth? 

It's not an issue at all for this thread. This thread is specifically about whether religion is evolutionary advantageous, not whether there is any truth to it. I even wrote the opening sentence to address this: "Functionally, regardless of whether the religion in question is true, it will solve issues that humans face."

It's clearly implied what you are getting at - I would wager that you are religious, are you not? Further, as a society, we ought to pursue truth over falsehood, so I think neglecting the truth element is detrimental. 

No, I'm an Atheist, and you look like a massive idiot for derailing the thread because you think it's "clearly implied" I'm arguing that religion holds the truth, especially when I explicitly said in my OP's opening sentence: "Functionally, regardless of whether the religion in question is true, it will solve issues that humans face."

It couldn't be more obvious that I'm arguing about the functionality of religion, not the veracity LOL.

Massive L

Religions are competing with each other. The goal of religion is to starve of its rivals.

That meets the definition of evolutionary advantage

No, what will happen is that the tribe is, as a population, bred to be more aggressive and hence be able to survive. This is not simply about the individual survival, it is about how, if enacted, rape furthers the evolutionary success of a population, at least in the instance we are discussing. 

There's just more to sexual selection than how aggressive you are. Yes, it's important. No, it's not the only variable. No one wants children with down syndrome, shoddy immune systems, bug eyes, cleft heads etc.

And how exactly does rape cause down syndrome, shoddy immune systems, bug eyes and cleft heads? This is a pure red herring.