1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52617
    29 May '07 23:20
    Is it possible for evolution to breed us out of the childish need for religion? Or can cultural growth beat evolution to the punch?
  2. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    30 May '07 02:18
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Is it possible for evolution to breed us out of the childish need for religion? Or can cultural growth beat evolution to the punch?
    Delusional thinking! Although, religion is superficial. 😀
  3. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    30 May '07 03:18
    Religion will never die.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52617
    30 May '07 03:39
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Religion will never die.
    Religion could very well die. Suppose a new mutation happened in humans that caused a large increase in reasoning power in most humans or the same thing happened as a result of a deliberate eugenics experiment? I think it safe to say more reasoning power=less religion.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 May '07 06:12
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Is it possible for evolution to breed us out of the childish need for religion? Or can cultural growth beat evolution to the punch?
    It is my belief that less educated people have more children and the highest population growth is in the poorest nations. However I don't know whether that means genes for lower intelligence are being selected as a poor education and poverty has more to do with environment than genes. Whatever the case, I do not think that intelligence is particularly being selected for. So unless we go in for eugenics I doubt if the average intelligence due to genes with change much. However as the world economy improves so does the health and education and therefore intelligence and education level of the average person.
    I do think that there is a relationship between education and type of religion but it is not clear cut. I knew a few creationists at university.
  6. Standard memberyo its me
    watch the acid...
    dosen't get you!!
    Joined
    14 Jan '07
    Moves
    58559
    30 May '07 06:342 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It is my belief that less educated people have more children and the highest population growth is in the poorest nations. However I don't know whether that means genes for lower intelligence are being selected as a poor education and poverty has more to do with environment than genes. Whatever the case, I do not think that intelligence is particularly bei ...[text shortened]... ducation and type of religion but it is not clear cut. I knew a few creationists at university.
    I take it you're too inteligent to progreate then?
    I think people inteligent and shull we say happy not to ask are both interested in religous beleives for different reasos.
    To join a religion where thinking for ones's self is not allowed might apeal to a certian type, however.
  7. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23684
    30 May '07 08:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Is it possible for evolution to breed us out of the childish need for religion? Or can cultural growth beat evolution to the punch?
    Religion is a product of evolution. Why should evolution create religion and then decide it was a mistake after all and get rid of it ?

    Which do you think are the reasons for evolution to create religion ? Aren't these reasons valid anymore ?
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 May '07 08:53
    Originally posted by yo its me
    I take it you're too inteligent to progreate then?
    Read my post again.
    It is a fact that people with higher educations have statistically less children. Even if I had twenty children and 10 Phds it would not change that fact. A statistic does not enforce itself on everybody.
    It is also a fact that poorer people (who are also statistically less educated) also have statistically more children. It is also a fact that poorer people are statistically less intelligent simply because of malnutrition. The vast majority of the worlds population growth is taking place in poor countries and amongst the poorer sections of society.
  9. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    30 May '07 23:302 edits
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Religion is a product of evolution. Why should evolution create religion and then decide it was a mistake after all and get rid of it ?

    Which do you think are the reasons for evolution to create religion ? Aren't these reasons valid anymore ?
    deleted
  10. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148435
    31 May '07 05:251 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Religion could very well die. Suppose a new mutation happened in humans that caused a large increase in reasoning power in most humans or the same thing happened as a result of a deliberate eugenics experiment? I think it safe to say more reasoning power=less religion.
    I think if you look around the world you will see what happens when
    people can do what they will, reasoning may make getting their
    way easier; however, if the goals don't change from control and power
    it will just end badly faster.
    Kelly
  11. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49979
    31 May '07 05:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Read my post again.
    It is a fact that people with higher educations have statistically less children. Even if I had twenty children and 10 Phds it would not change that fact. A statistic does not enforce itself on everybody.
    It is also a fact that poorer people (who are also statistically less educated) also have statistically more children. It is also ...[text shortened]... population growth is taking place in poor countries and amongst the poorer sections of society.
    You seem to be equating less education with less intelligence. That's problematic to say the least.
  12. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49979
    31 May '07 05:39
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Religion is a product of evolution. Why should evolution create religion and then decide it was a mistake after all and get rid of it ?

    Which do you think are the reasons for evolution to create religion ? Aren't these reasons valid anymore ?
    I think it might be better to say that evolution led to the neural systems that favoured religious thought, rather than evolution led to religion.
    But either way, humans have pretty successfully managed to circumvent evolutionary processes to some extent with our ability to manipulate and control environments.
    That's why many evolutionary arguments and pressures are less valid today.
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148435
    31 May '07 06:211 edit
    Originally posted by amannion
    I think it might be better to say that evolution led to the neural systems that favoured religious thought, rather than evolution led to religion.
    But either way, humans have pretty successfully managed to circumvent evolutionary processes to some extent with our ability to manipulate and control environments.
    That's why many evolutionary arguments and pressures are less valid today.
    Even if I were to agree with all evolutionary thought I don't see how
    what you said could be true. Small changes occur in DNA, they stay
    or go, they can be good or bad, but they occur nonetheless. If they
    are bad changes and they keep occurring they will end the species, if
    they are good they will stick around, but what is good, something that
    does not kill? So small changes can continue to occur, and the bottom
    can fall out, since there isn’t really any design to the process. Unlike
    human design when we fix one part of a process we can have
    unintended issues arise else where in our systems, the balancing act
    in change is always a delicate one when the systems are complex.
    Kelly
  14. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49979
    31 May '07 07:12
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Even if I were to agree with all evolutionary thought I don't see how
    what you said could be true. Small changes occur in DNA, they stay
    or go, they can be good or bad, but they occur nonetheless. If they
    are bad changes and they keep occurring they will end the species, if
    they are good they will stick around, but what is good, something that
    does not ...[text shortened]... ems, the balancing act
    in change is always a delicate one when the systems are complex.
    Kelly
    That's exactly the same thing with evolution!
    Small changes in one area can have unforseen effects somewhere else in an organism.

    Remember, if you take a genetic deterministic view of the development of an organism, all aspects of that organism are controlled by its genes. If that organism can run faster than another, if it has a longer nose than another, if it has a tendency to believe in God - all of these would be genetically determined.
    That doesn't mean that a tendency to believe in God could be found somewhere in the genes of this organism - there need not be a God gene - just that the interplay of all of the genes, creates that feature as one unintended effect.
    If that effect happens to be of use to the organism and helps to keep the organism alive and reproducing, then it gets passed on.
    And pretty soon (well, after some number of generations) you get species change through this happening not in one organism and not in one gene, but throughout a species' population, and across all of the genes.
    This macro micro stuff that keeps getting brought out here is just crap.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    31 May '07 11:561 edit
    Originally posted by amannion
    You seem to be equating less education with less intelligence. That's problematic to say the least.
    I was rather trying to point out that poor people tend to be less educated and in the case of extreme poverty less intelligent. The lower intelligence is mostly due to malnutrition. I am not saying less education equals lower intelligence but rather that the two are statistically likely to be found together and that a higher number of children is also statistically likely whether due to the lower education, the lower intelligence or the poverty, or a combination of all three or other factors.
    What I also added is that although it means that people with a lower intelligence are having more children it does not imply that lower intelligence is being selected for as the cause of the lower intelligence is not genetic but environmental.

    However sonhouse was suggesting that we could experience an increase in average intelligence and my point is twofold:
    1. It could go either way. A gene causing lower intelligence could appear.
    2. Should an intelligence gene appear there is no reason to believe it would be selected for and thus spread.
Back to Top