³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

"For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors."

Not at all, that's what our resident Christian Atheist, Heliopolitan, has been arguing for ages.

It's the, before Abraham was, I am, bit which causes the problem.

The claim isn't made by the archaeologists by the way. It's one made solely by Nicholas Wade the science correspondent of the NY Times and author of the article. He's just published a book, 'The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures', which is what this article is really promoting. Given it's only just been published there have been few reviews as yet. The only one I could find on-line is here:


I think it's much too big a leap to claim that 'belief' has somehow genetically evolved. It's a behaviour that has developed culturally over time; as did also the habit of capturing slaves (slavery was practised by virtually all societies that formed city states supported by agriculture, as well as nomadic pastoralists) and warfare between states over power, land, resources and control of trade. Are these also part of our genetic make-up?

One of the transitions many early civilisations had was when the civic leaders began claiming to be semi-divine mediators between humans and the gods responsible for keeping fields fertile and storehouses full. This magnified their importance (and shrewd leaders quickly realise the importance of grain stores and irrigation projects), in good years; but could lead to civil war in bad years.
Some, such as Pharaohs, Roman emperors etc proclaimed themselves as fully divine gods.

As the researchers were excavating in the Valley of Mexico I'd also be interested in what Nicholas Wade has to say about the 'evolution' of human sacrifice, as all Mesoamerican societies up the time of Aztecs and Spanish conquest practised this; the quantities of victims being sacrificed grew larger as time went on and cities became larger. Is sacrificing humans as part of a religion (e.g. Old Testament) also part of our genetic make-up?

If some people lack this (so far unidentified) gene does this explain atheists? Or perhaps they have an extra gene that others lack that gives them greater clarity of thought? This could be a hunt for a Snark.

A religious belief gene is as likely as an 'X-Factor gene' that helps some sing better than others (Or Simon Cowell make more money than others.).

But the lifebelt isn't really useful once you reach dry land.

Small question about time scales: how long ago did people develop the first religious ideas? And would that period have been sufficient for any major adaptation? Or in other words: have people been religious long enough for religion to have had a significant influence?

Kinda agree chaps - a very lightweight article, and nothing that hasn't been comprehensively covered by many people many times before - including Dawkins and Dennett, of course. There are mistakes - religion is certainly a feature of human societies and the evolution of humans, but it is a fallacy to assume that the propensity to religion itself is adaptive - maybe it is, but it could just as easily be a byproduct of an adaptive heuristic for seeing agency even when there is none.

As for the archaeological finds, biggo dealo - we have tons of examples of this sort of evolution of holy sites from Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Americas, Asia - wherever you want to look. But this evolution of religious sites is going on even with anatomically and psychologically modern humans, i.e. we are not seeing here the evolution of the human "god gene" - far from it. Nice try, Mr Wade. Don't call us; we'll call you. Next!

Now, on to something more productive. You will be aware of the Church of Jesus Christ Atheist blog. My position is that we often organise our lives with the use of stories, parables, metaphors, visualisations etc, much in the same way some people organise their icons on their Windows (sorry Peter) Desktop. Some people prefer a blank wallpaper. Some like a picture of nature, and they can perch their Firefox icons on the top of Mt Fuji or something. Some might prefer a scene by Monet or Picasso (not Guernica - you would need professional help).

These wallpapers do not need to be real scenes to be useful. We do not need to believe in them to gain benefit from them. Many people are Christian Atheists, and one recently told me that he feels like a bit of a fraud when he leads worship in his church. I suggested to him that a/ a lot of people know exactly how he feels, and b/ it is not fraudulent to view religion itself as a parable. It is the insistence on *belief* that makes religion a fraud, and makes it reprehensible. Drop the belief requirement, and religion might even be stimulating and enjoyable.

Did the Greeks really believe in Serapis? Probably not, but he was very popular. Did Jesus rise from the dead for our sins? No, but there is some nice imagery there. It's OK to peek behind the wallpaper :-)

I would say religion began at the point in which man had evolved enough to become worthy for a soul.

And atheism began when we evolved enough to be worthy enough to do without one :-)

Helio

I'm beginning to feel a tad guilty about being on your case about this Christian Atheism business, but you do keep bringing it up.

What's wrong with just Atheism. I mean wouldn't "Just Atheism" make for a good website?

And the guy who leads worship (leaving aside the 'leading worship' debate) but doesn't exercise faith (let's put it that way) emmmmm, never mind the fraud bit, I'm not going to judge him, but like I've said many times before, I'd go surfing! Really you know the only person he's being dishonest with is himself. That to me is a greater problem.

What's wrong with you guys that you just can't be atheists? Courage of your convictions and all that.

And let's extend the operating system analogy. I've the option of running Windows if I want, my mac does that, but you know what, when there is something worthy of greater honour than Moses, sorry Windows, when the shadows, crash and stall...

Your position might well be that "we often organise our lives with the use of stories, parables, metaphors, visualisations etc", but the whole point of Jesus is that the metaphors have gone. It was idiot goat herds who came up with that one.

OK Peter, I need to come clean. I *don't* go to church. I have recently participated in worship services, and I even took communion as a mark of respect to the people I was with, and because it is THEM I was communing with. But you do need to acknowledge the power of stories. Most of the time I am Just an Atheist (actually, so are you; gods are simply not relevant all the time), but I like ancient history, and I get a kick out of thinking why people believe certain things.

I grew up steeped in Christianity, and I don't regret that. I have moved to an understanding of the part it has played in making me the person I am today. Do I want to retreat into a cossetted Sunday School land of a made-up god? No. But do I want to be able to relate to my contacts in the world, whatever their outlook on life? Yes. I find I can do that.

The "Christian" part of my identity closes nothing off for me. I use it as a way of organising some of my thoughts. Where it accords with what is "good", that is fine. In its sillier bits (and there are many), I will challenge those.

What's the problem? Is McCamleyC warming up the stake for us??

I'm quite interested in Helio's Christian Atheist who feels a fraud. The phrase "leading worship" makes me think he may exercise his no-faith in an evangelical context. If he hasn't been frank with people then to some extent he possibly is a fraud.

I am a liberal and I believe in being honest to God and honest with people. I would not dream of participating in a service where people did not know clearly where I stood - whatever we do do with our desktop wall-paper it is helpful if the icons perform the advertised function.

When I first met the new rector of the more evangelical of the two churches I regularly attend I greeted him with the words: "Good afternoon, nice to meet you, too. I think you should know from the outset that I don't believe in either the inspiration or authority of Scripture and, as an example of my position, consider Christ's self-sacrifice on the cross exemplary rather than propitiatory". I knew we were going to get on when he replied: "Hmmm, most people confine themselves to a comment about the weather".

I have to confess to being rather surprised that he has recently asked me to help in some capacity in the church. I was glad to be asked and will be happy to participate - I can assure you that, in spite of not believing in anything, I will not feel in any sense fraudulent nor will I be so.

Me, what did I do?

"it exists because it was favored by natural selection"

This is possibly true, but probably not for the reasons that the author originally intended.

The only reason it is possibly true is because humans have evolved more in the last 5000 years than in any 5000 year period before that. Otherwise, a far different picture of the brain's hardwiring of religion is likely.

Daniel Dennett discusses this in "Breaking the Spell", and you can find it in a lot of different places on-line (say ), where the simple summary of religion is:

"Children with spontaneously invent the concept of God. Religion is integrated into the brain. Religion is a byproduct of cognitive mechanisms designed originally for other purposes."

So - while I agree that religion evolved, I see it more of a byproduct than something that came about because it was immediately useful. The pieces of the brain that produced religion were each evolved independently and came together to form religion.

Dawkins, as little as I like him, had a point when he says that religion came about and is maintained for 2 solidly evolutionary reasons:

1. The brain is a pattern matching mechanism, finding patterns even when there are none (byproduct of pattern matching)
2. Children who listen to what their parents say are more likely to survive than those who don't (i.e. it continues to transmit).

1. When does "the brain" find patterns that aren't there? You'll need to elaborate on that.

2. This is only true if what their parents say is actually true and useful. So that children listen to their parents is neither here nor there, the important thing is whether the parents are right.

Furthermore
Point 2 is simplistic. Children actually tend to be more skeptical of parental answers to the big questions, and certainly need a questioning attitude to survive.
They can also show a surprising sophistication in their concepts of omniscience etc.

We've had this discussion before. Just because something is "wired in" our minds doesn't mean it is acceptable, universal, and it definitely proves that belief in god is irrational. We do not accept that because humans have a sex drive they have license to rape the individual they find sexually desirable. We do not accept that people who are psychopathic killers predisposed to commit murder have a right to go free because it is their nature. The need to prostelytize religion proves its uncertainty, the doubts created by the conflict between the rational and irrational mind. The fear that others will not agree with our own version of the rationale that death is not eternal, life is not purposeless drives humans to tyranny and the mass murder of war even when the differences in their wired in rationalizations are minor such as between Protestants and Catholics in NI. The neural basis for belief it god is IMO its only basis. In that regard it is like a brain tumor causing someone to be deranged. If it could be corrected, it might go away. As far as we know, humans are the only species aware of their mortality. For many it is a truth they cannot accept due to their emotional state of mind.

Helio, to be honest, I get it, and I don't get it.

I get the 'respect' bit, like standing for the national anthem of another country, but this, at the same time, is the very thing which makes it difficult to get; you see you regularly seem to (in fact I’d say you definitely, whether you notice it or not) step beyond 'respect' into language and actions which have a deeper meaning.

Take this for example, "I even took communion as a mark of respect to the people I was with, and because it is THEM I was communing with."

The 'them I was communing with' is great, I like that, but, I suggest, it is more than a mark of respect.

So is there an atheist option? Well, here's one, I commune with people when I eat dinner with them, that works in all cultures! And I'm sure the Christians involved in taking communion would respect that, and you wouldn't have to do 'mumbo jumbo'! I have up close and personal experience of something similar, people I know well deeply questioning Christianity.

And yes, I can "acknowledge the power of stories", no problem; who hasn't responded in some emotional way to Hollywood? I can agree Sunday School is cosseted, and it's even worse when people are given 'Sunday School' answers to painful questions in 'regular' church. I can agree that we should have an "understanding of the part it (Christianity) has played in making me the person I am today".

I don't disagree with any of that, I've never disagreed with any of what you have said in this regard, all that makes perfect sense to me, and all that is probably true because you and I have probably had similar "steeped in Christianity" lives.

I understand that you "want to be able to relate to (your) contacts in the world" that makes sense too, I'm a very 'when in Rome' kind of person myself, even to my own detriment, and denial!

I understand the 'power' of stories, of culture, of using them to organise thoughts and create an identity, and I understand that Christianity, including my Christianity, does all of those things. Very often it's how Christianity is 'sold'. You know, 'Give you life to Jesus and...', 'Find a purpose for your life', 'fill the God shaped hole', 'Problems going away', 'Happiness in life', and all that mush, it's even worse when we sing it! But I don't buy those things for a moment, not any more. My problems don't disappear as I affirm my faith, Christianity doesn't make me 'happier', I don't always feel I belong in church, and sometimes I've no idea where I'm going. Actually, I'm happiest on a beach with my wife and a surfboard, lost in wonder... love... and the deep blue (or grey as it often is here!)

A Christianity which promises those things, in my opinion, is shallow. And, I suggest it's why we've ended up with worship leaders, or whatever, who can 'lead people into the presence of God' without actually thinking there is a God and then feeling bad about it. Or let me put it another way, maybe the worship leader is looking for the wrong thing. I don't think, for example, that there is a 'presence of God', 'out of the ordinary', 'spiritual' feeling which somehow especially validates my faith in the way much of the church would suggest. God isn't especially present in church or in the singing of hymn 48, rather, he is present, always, in all things. That's, actually, a bigger problem than not feeling your toes tingle when the praise band changes key!

My problem is simple, I think Christianity is true, infact, let me reword that, I think Jesus is true.

And it's not a matter of anyone warming up stakes, rather, I think that you and I could commune on the basis of our common humanity and probably other things too, but when it comes to 'bread and wine', we're just not thinking the same thing at all.

So how do you and I commune about Jesus? We both call ourselves 'Christians'.

And you know what I'd say to your worship leader friend?....

Peter, do you think belief is a matter of choice? If you do, I would even go so far as to call that immoral. My friend doesn't believe; I don't believe. Jesus is *not* true, and frankly I don't know what you or anyone can do to change that. Once the veil is rent, it's rent, and a good thing too. But everyone parses their life in their own way, and that is their right. I am not clear at all as to what justification you would have for criticising me or my friend, who, after all, simply do not believe. What should we do? I refuse to submit to a lobotomy, so looks like I'm stuck.

Would you have communion with a Catholic, knowing that they have a completely different idea of what it involves from a Protestant? I imagine you probably would, even though you know that there is nothing holy about the bread and wine; they are mere symbols. But McC would be warming up a stake for you over the head of that.

So I reject the charge of hypocrisy or fraud. Hope that helps :-)

Emmm Helio

I'm not sure I was the one who charged you or your friend with fraud.

You said he felt a fraud.

Parrhasios said, "If he hasn't been frank with people then to some extent he possibly is a fraud."

I said, "never mind the fraud bit, I'm not going to judge him"

Goodness, somehow I feel like I've criticised your religion, apologies.

No worries - I'm more trying to defend him from *his own* feelings, and using you chaps as dialogical foils - hope that's OK :-)

Of course it's OK Helio, dialogue is good, and I'm sure it's a real dilemma for him (that's what I meant about him being honest with himself first); our churches don't cope well with any kind of questioning, never mind doubt or outright rejection of faith.

Dialogue is actually one of the reasons I keep responding to your posts about CJCA (see, I even know the short form). I really am interested in how you process the information, as I am interested in how my fellow 'believers' process information about their faith, but try getting a conversation going about faith in church, some hope, and that probably fuels your friend's situation.

Then again did you say I was a diabolical foil? :-)

Helio - we have had, I suppose, years of your providing us with information which has enabled us to understand pretty clearly how religion works with you - we have not nearly enough information to say anything really useful about or to your friend.

It is interesting that you want to 'defend him from his own feelings' - commendable intention, no doubt, not sure if it's at all a wise course of action. It would be relevant to know why he feels a fraud. Is the issue of belief actually the most important thing for him?

I do hope though that he manages to eschew Christian Atheism - I fear it is not a good idea.

Hi guys, appreciate the sentiment :-) By "defending" him from his feelings - maybe I phrased that badly. Helping him through this situation is probably more the thing. I need to confess that my Christian Atheism is decidedly part-time. I can participate, but most of the time I'm as irrascible an atheist as any you can dredge up. My point, I guess, is that from time to time we can meet on at least partially agreed terms. And of course the other point is that your churches already have a large proportion of Christian Atheists in them, many of whom think they are alone, or don't realise yet that they actually are atheists. Now is a good time for atheism and secularism in general.

# 22 - now that was a really interesting post!

Re-examination of one's faith position can be extremely stressful and nothing is likely to be more helpful in the process than the listening ear of an open-minded and supportive friend.

I agree that just about any Christian church will contain probably as least as many people who are on the journey away from God as it does those seeking to approach Him. Some people will be losing a faith that once seemed real and important to them. Some people will be realising that they never really had any grounded connection with God so the Church and its forms are becoming irrelevant and meaningless to them. Some people will be struggling with the conflict between the things they think they need to believe and the promptings of an understanding which undermines the credibility of those teachings. Some people will be bitter from their experience of life and will have twisted the likeness of God into a simulacrum of His opposite. Our churches are full of these people and they need our care.

Churches do contain nonetheless a sprinkling of those who are travelling towards God, who are finding in the experience of love and altruism a connection with their fellow man which uplifts and nourishes, a bond which enriches existence and adds an extra dimension to life, not so much above as through the fabric of the mundane. This is also a good time for real Christianity and engaged compassion in general.

Concerning religion and natural selection, there seems to be a capacity on the part of some people (who believe in natural selection) to be able to stand back from that process and evaluate what is and is not "valid" within it. That method of valuation cannot itself be the result of the process of natural selection, otherwise we would be committing a logical fallacy - but, of course, it must be the result of natural selection, if this is the only process which created human life. If my ability to evaluate a phenomenon is the result of natural selection and natural selection has produced another reality, which I may not particularly like, I have no right to declare it invalid without also declaring invalid the process which produced it - namely, natural selection, since that process also produced my ability to evaluate. This would be as absurd as trying to argue logically that logic itself is invalid!

If natural selection is the cause of humanity, then religion - being a human experience - must also be the result of natural selection. Otherwise it would not exist (I am conceding that natural selection is true purely for the sake of argument). If natural selection as a process has validity - and is the cause of the human capacity to make evaluations - then all that it has created must also possess validity.

I'll put it another way: natural selection produces certain effects, and, according to those who believe in it, it produces religion, since religion - like it or not - is and has been a human experience. Natural selection has also (allegedly) produced the minds of human beings. Both religion and human minds are equally effects of this cause. The only "validity" that both these effects possess is an existential one: they both exist. For one effect of natural selection, namely, human minds, to then stand back from the process and pass judgment on another effect, namely, religion, and declare it to be either "valid" or "invalid" is, as I have argued, absurd and self-contradictory.

You cannot stand above and pass judgment on the very process which defines the entirety of your cognitive abilities. It is also absurd for one effect (human minds) to declare that another effect (religion) was not the result of natural selection, while at the same time believing that all human life - and therefore experience (of which religion is a part) - is the result of natural selection.

Therefore those who believe in natural selection cannot declare any human experience "invalid" without also declaring the very process which produced all life (including logic itself) "invalid".

More evidence of the absurdity and falsity of naturalism.

LSV, you do talk a load of old cabbage, don't you?

That's a new phrase to me! You're always learning new things round here!

#25 - Heliopolitan -

"LSV, you do talk a load of old cabbage, don't you?"

Ha, ha! That's a new one to me.

I'm glad at least you've bothered to read it, even if it has caused a little indigestion.

Off you go now, and have a wee lie down...

Indigestion? Hardly. You are confusing the evolution of the *capacity* to be religious with the evolution of *religion*. There is no conflict between evolution as a purely natural process with intrinsic scientific power to explain why we're here, and the realisation that some of the brains that process has produced really are susceptible to belief in the craziest cabbage you could shake an allotment at. You are committing a fallacy (yep, a proper real one there) if you suggest that the validity of logic carried out in a human brain is contingent purely on the selective environment or the process by which it arose. The brain can operate as a Turing machine. There is some heavy mathematics behind that, and some heavy mathematical implications OF that that put your entire argument into the compost pile. Poor cabbage, unused, unwanted.

:-)

Wouldn't it be easier to shake the cabbage at a crazy alottment?

Just saying....