30 May 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungReligion 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.
Religion will never die.
30 May 07
Originally posted by sonhouseIt 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.
Is it possible for evolution to breed us out of the childish need for religion? Or can cultural growth beat evolution to the punch?
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.
30 May 07
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI take it you're too inteligent to progreate then?
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 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.
30 May 07
Originally posted by sonhouseReligion is a product of evolution. Why should evolution create religion and then decide it was a mistake after all and get rid of it ?
Is it possible for evolution to breed us out of the childish need for religion? Or can cultural growth beat evolution to the punch?
Which do you think are the reasons for evolution to create religion ? Aren't these reasons valid anymore ?
30 May 07
Originally posted by yo its meRead my post again.
I take it you're too inteligent to progreate then?
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.
30 May 07
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoedeleted
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 ?
31 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI think if you look around the world you will see what happens when
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.
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
31 May 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou seem to be equating less education with less intelligence. That's problematic to say the least.
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.
31 May 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think it might be better to say that evolution led to the neural systems that favoured religious thought, rather than evolution led to religion.
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 ?
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.
31 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionEven if I were to agree with all evolutionary thought I don't see how
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.
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
31 May 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's exactly the same thing with evolution!
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
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.
31 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionI 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.
You seem to be equating less education with less intelligence. That's problematic to say the least.
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.