Did we evolve to be religious?

[MilSpec]

I'm an Atheist, but I acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of the Earth's population are religious.

This tends to support the frequently made argument that human evolution has led to us becoming religious, in the same way we have gained evolutionary benefits from being social animals and craving organizational structures, from the basic social unit of the family, up to larger units such as national governments and beyond.

I heavily doubt the theory... Religion in larger aspect of our timeline on this planet has been nothing but trends.

Mongol genocide of Baghdad, Skull towers, Holocaust, Gulags, 2nd world war, Mao and Stalin's famines,Nuking of Heroshima and Nagasaki and North Korean lunacy are a gift of atheism.

Terrorists are violent animals who don't represent anyone but themselves.

Atheist dogmas have killed more humans than the religious nutbags have.

Complete B.S....
mao and stalin did not kill people because they were atheist but because they were just scumbags.... saying Hitler and Stalin killed because they were athiest is as ridiculous as syaing they both committed genocides because they had mustaches.
Athiests around the world do not share a single shred of common morals with north koreans idiots.

 

[Kompromat]

Complete B.S....
mao and stalin did not kill people because they were atheist but because they were just scumbags.... saying Hitler and Stalin killed because they were athiest is as ridiculous as syaing they both committed genocides because they had mustaches.
Athiests around the world do not share a single shred of common morals with north koreans idiots.

Thanks for ratifying my concealed logic. Violence has nothing to do with religion or atheism, these theories are for stupid laymen.

 

[jaunty]

Thanks for ratifying my concealed logic. Violence has nothing to do with religion or atheism, these theories are for stupid laymen.

You use the word "ratification" with uninhibited enthusiasm. Modi "ratifying" TNT, Sandy "ratifying" your logic etc. FYI it is a very formal word used to mean formal approval of treaties, agreements, policies etc. A Sandy on the internet does not ratify anything.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I heavily doubt the theory... Religion in larger aspect of our timeline on this planet has been nothing but trends.

The trends have been pretty big though.

Since ancient times to the modern day, humans have generally had some kind of religious belief. Ancient Chinese for example had "Heaven worship", Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians had their own deities and rituals.

Only recently has there been large scale Atheism across the globe. This tends to support the theory that humans naturally gravitate towards religious ideas.

Several evolutionary pressures could have contributed towards this.

Firstly, fear of death, and fear of the unknown. One of the most important and fundamental evolutionary pressures, since the biological imperative is to survive, and reproduce. These natural fears would have kept our ancestors alive.

Secondly, human craving for social/organizational structures, from families to temples to nations. This desire/need to form large social groups, was the edge that our Homo Sapien ancestors had, that allowed them to defeat and "assimilate" their Neanderthal competitors, who despite being much stronger, did not readily form social cooperative groups with each other.

These are the only two I can think of currently, but it's not a bad theory in my opinion.

 

[Maira La]

I believe it is time for humans to evolve again to stop using religion to support their insecurities. Humans are connected and better informed then ever before and have a better understanding of the world around them. There is no need of this emotional crutch any more.

You don't decide. Evolution decides. Evolution is not dead. All humans will never agree on something. There will be "variations". And the fittest "variation" will survive.

 

[Skull and Bones]

if there was no religion, humans would still be worshipping rocks and fire

but more recently, religion was manipulated by the West to subjugate the 3rd world

Worshiping the rocks and fire is a religion, their God being the the 'fear of the unknown', present form of religion is just an organized version of it.

 

[jaunty]

The irony is that many religions don't believe in evolution.

 

[e3nad3alek]

Worshiping the rocks and fire is a religion, their God being the the 'fear of the unknown', present form of religion is just an organized version of it.

Some religions are more primitive than others.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Some religions are more primitive than others.

There is no advanced or primitive form of religion, both represents human being's failed attempt to explain the unknown.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

There is no advanced or primitive form of religion, both represents human being's failed attempt to explain the unknown.

You're a scientist, I remember.

Anyway, the scientific method is much more consistent, because it is based on empirical evidence, that provides consistent results over repeated testing.

Even something simple like dropping an object at sea level to measure the force of gravity, it can be tested repeatedly and provides consistent results, even for a layman like me. Whereas I have tried prayer, and needless to say, the results are not what you would call consistent, or more accurately non-existent in my case (I tried praying for an end to human suffering, world hunger, etc).

Science did not come from our fear of the unknown, but seemingly on another trait we picked up through evolution, curiosity of the unknown. Which I guess would have provided significant survival benefits to our ancestors, and obviously today, as modern science has multiplied the human lifespan by multiple times.

 

[Hakan]

Highly debatable.

If there was no religion, the world would have been a much more pleasant place to live on.

Some of the least pleasant places to live are countries with no religion. You should try DPRK and USSR.

really? India and Pakistan divided because of religion which result death of more people than bombing of nagasaki and hirisoma combined. Problem of Israel started because of religion. Millions of people died from invasion by Muslims, Christian crusade etc. Religion killing people since its invention. Stalin or mao didn't kill people in the name of atheism like your religious nutjobs.

It doesn't matter whether or not you kill in the name of something what matters is the killing and who did the killing. If you kill someone in the name of india and someone else kills someone in the name of Egypt then is the idea of nations to be blamed for the killing that has occurred?

 

[MilSpec]

Thanks for ratifying my concealed logic. Violence has nothing to do with religion or atheism, these theories are for stupid laymen.

I don't necessarily agree with you either.... Association based on belief system is discriminatory by nature and thus has potential to turn violent. An association based on broad inclusive consensus of social moralities from common sense has no potential for harm. Neither are viable and thus we try to tow a line in between accommodating rationality and some acceptable interpretations of medieval norms to please the traditional.

At the end of day, it comes down to god vs no god... and unless the big guy speaks to me, I will put my money on thermodynamics...

Firstly, fear of death, and fear of the unknown. One of the most important and fundamental evolutionary pressures, since the biological imperative is to survive, and reproduce. These natural fears would have kept our ancestors alive.

Secondly, human craving for social/organizational structures, from families to temples to nations. This desire/need to form large social groups, was the edge that our Homo Sapien ancestors had, that allowed them to defeat and "assimilate" their Neanderthal competitors, who despite being much stronger, did not readily form social cooperative groups with each other.
.

Or just lack of knowledge.....

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

And unless the big guy speaks to me, I will put my money on thermodynamics...

Humans break religious laws all the time.

But who can break the second law of thermodynamics?

 

[Bang Galore]

Some of the least pleasant places to live are countries with no religion. You should try DPRK and USSR.

You make those choices, I would very much prefer the Scandinavian countries.

 

[MilSpec]

Some of the least pleasant places to live are countries with no religion. You should try DPRK and USSR.

Well DPRK and USSR weren't unpleasant for kim jong or guys in kremlin.... religion or no religion being destitute even in the most progressive utopia's is quite unpleasant.

It doesn't matter whether or not you kill in the name of something what matters is the killing and who did the killing. If you kill someone in the name of india and someone else kills someone in the name of Egypt then is the idea of nations to be blamed for the killing that has occurred?

I disagree... Killing was the effect, but cause was more important.... Motives are more powerful than action itself... everything from the crusades to witch hunts to genocides, the root cause is intent.... the one who squeezes the trigger is just the foot soldier, the rot lies somewhere else.

Humans break religious laws all the time.

But who can break the second law of thermodynamics?

thus the boundary is defined... and it's a pretty robust one... the one I can prove everyday