Are we evolving away from religion?

[Clairvoyance]

A passing analysis from an evolutionary standpoint would say NO! Throughout the last few hundred thousand years natural selection has favored genes for tribalism/religion within our species. This has obvious advantages: those with the "tribalism genes" survived and reproduced better than those that didn't. Group selection can easily explain this. Tribalistic groups cooperated better and eradicated rival groups so that their genes spread more quickly.

But what about today? Can we predict that genes for making people religious/tribalistic (genes that promote credulity, divisiveness, etc.) will spread faster than the rival alleles for humanism, skepticism, etc?

On the surface we could say YES! Credulity and blind faith would seem like obviously negative traits but in modern societies there exists "welfare states" in which even individuals who are highly "unfit" naturally can still spread their genes just as easily as those that nature would normally select. We all know that religious, tribalistic, ignorant populations on this planet tend to have radically higher birthrates than populations that exhibit traits that we might find favorable (intelligence, skepticism, humanism, etc.)

So it would seem that alleles for religiosity are here to stay, right? But WAIT!
Religion seems to be dwindling today... why should that be? Well, first of all, it would be very naive to think that a phenomenon as complex as religious propensity is only a product of genetic selection. Let me get that out of the way right now! Today we have global communication and the internet. This allows "memes" to spread far quicker than genes ever could. What this means is that memes for skeptisicm and rationality seem to be winning over the rival memes for religion EVEN THOUGH THIS MIGHT BE GOING AGAINST BIOLOGY!

This is an interesting thought. We humans might eventually grow completely out of religion because of the unrivaled spread of nonreligious memes in our culture but we will likely still carry the genes for religiosity! But religious people today might overpopulate themselves to extinction... Or they might all kill each other in religious wars. Or maybe the genes will still survive and even spread faster.

This makes me wonder: will something else replace religion as the primary vehicle for tribalism in the future? Or will our highly evolved brains help us overcome ignorance and tribalism completely?

What do you guys think?

I personally think that religion is like the genes that cause sickle cell anemia. They used to be advantageous because they give an immunity to malaria but in modern, civilized societies they do more harm than good.

 

[Michael]

I think it's more likely that religion itself, like science is "evolving". People are choosing a "spiritual path" for themselves that works for them in the 21st century, and abandoning religions that don't progress over time.

Tribalism, and the wars that go with them are caused by the fact that some *people* use religion and nationalism to control others, to divide, conquer and use other people. When we as one people of planet Earth wake up to that manipulation and just say no that kind of manipulation, then tribalism can end. Unfortunately we killed more humans in the 20th century in wars than in all the centuries prior. We've become extremely proficient at killing humans.

I'm ultimately an optimist however.

 

[Clairvoyance]

I think it's more likely that religion itself, like science is "evolving". People are choosing a "spiritual path" for themselves that works for them in the 21st century, and abandoning religions that don't progress over time.

Tribalism, and the wars that go with them are caused by the fact that some *people* use religion and nationalism to control others, to divide, conquer and use other people. When we as one people of planet Earth wake up to that manipulation and just say no that kind of manipulation, then tribalism can end. Unfortunately we killed more humans in the 20th century in wars than in all the centuries prior. We've become extremely proficient at killing humans.

I'm ultimately an optimist however.

It's fine to talk about this in terms of people's choices. But I'm more interested in the deeper, biologic reasons for change. I want to know if evolution is going to favor religiosity or not.

 

[keith99]

Interesting ideas.

Perhaps near instant global communication may also play a different role. Perhaps since the major faiths spread around the globe this communication may serve to make any major established faith a poor thing to satisfy the tribal urge. Making it so that cults fill that niche far better then established faiths.

 

[Clairvoyance]

Interesting ideas.

Perhaps near instant global communication may also play a different role. Perhaps since the major faiths spread around the globe this communication may serve to make any major established faith a poor thing to satisfy the tribal urge. Making it so that cults fill that niche far better then established faiths.

Interesting. I've heard Matt Dilihunty offer a similar idea. Eventually all major religions will disappear under a wave of globalism but cults will still exist as small, isolated minorities.

Maybe there exists a ratio of religious/nonreligious genes that will reach an ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) in the gene pool like Richard Dawkin's hawk/dove analogy.

Evolutionarily stable strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Spaceman 3]

I dunno Clairvoyance, but I do think that you're great!

 

[Michael]

It's fine to talk about this in terms of people's choices. But I'm more interested in the deeper, biologic reasons for change. I want to know if evolution is going to favor religiosity or not.

Most biological changes that survive today are used to 'detect/use/take advantage of' some feature of "reality", from light to sound to smells, and increase the odds of survival in some way.

Assuming that God does exist, in terms of biological changes, we're probably talking about DNA changes that allow us to *commune/detect/interact* with God. I suspect that any such changes (assuming they occur) would be 'brain structure' related changes that allow us to tap into the EM fields of spacetime. That would be my guess anyway.

God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I/We are of course assuming that God exists, and the his presence has an effect on DNA, neither of which can be fully demonstrated. A controversial attempt to link DNA to experiences of God was put forth awhile back, but it certainly has it's critics.

 

[Clairvoyance]

Most biological changes that survive today are used to 'detect/use/take advantage of' some feature of "reality", from light to sound to smells, and increase the odds of survival in some way.

Assuming that God does exist, in terms of biological changes, we're probably talking about DNA changes that allow us to *commune/detect/interact* with God. I suspect that any such changes (assuming they occur) would be 'brain structure' related changes that allow us to tap into the EM fields of spacetime. That would be my guess anyway.

God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I/We are of course assuming that God exists, and the his presence has an effect on DNA, neither of which can be fully demonstrated. A controversial attempt to link DNA to experiences of God was put forth awhile back, but it certainly has it's critics.

You brought up a good point. This is something I've always thought about as evidence against God but I never thought about it in a biologic way.

I used to say "show me that believing in your religion will give me some kind of advantage over all the other religions and I'll know that it's true! You claim your God answers prayer, blesses you, and guides your life- well then people who follow your religion should be statistically different than other people in some measurable way which will allow me to determine the truth of your claim."

I realize now that this is kind of naive because if you think of religion as a product of natural selection, it's possible that a religion might spread and lead to better survival/reproduction EVEN IF THERE IS NO ACTUAL TRUTH TO IT AT ALL.

This is because religion is just a vehicle for tribalism and the claims of the religion are inconsequential to it's relative success. Both Christianity and Islam are arguably equally good at spreading... and they BOTH can't be true.

 

[Clairvoyance]

Something I found:
Evolution Of Religion
I don't know whether to be suspicious or not... It is funded by the John Templeton foundation.

...but it's interesting nonetheless.

 

[Strathos]

This is more a cultural issue than a biological one.

 

[bhsmte]

It's fine to talk about this in terms of people's choices. But I'm more interested in the deeper, biologic reasons for change. I want to know if evolution is going to favor religiosity or not.

Interesting question.

As we roll over more rocks, I would say evolution would move towards creating psychological states that were not as prone to believe in anything without some sort of objective reason to, but that is just speculation on my part.

Even if science made enormous discoveries in the next 50 years which really painted an impossible picture for say the God of the bible, I believe there would still be a considerable group of people who would rationalize through all of that and have a strong belief in God, but the overall trend would continue towards non-belief, but it will take considerable time.

This is just my opinion, but I already believe the number of people who really believe in the christian faith (as one example) is significantly over estimated today. I believe the true number of non-believers or those with significant doubts is much higher than studies or polls actually show. In a world of habit and political correctness, many people simply state they are a christian, when in reality, they really are a closet non-believer or someone who doesn't really believe in core christian beliefs.

 

[keith99]

Interesting question.

As we roll over more rocks, I would say evolution would move towards creating psychological states that were not as prone to believe in anything without some sort of objective reason to, but that is just speculation on my part.

Even if science made enormous discoveries in the next 50 years which really painted an impossible picture for say the God of the bible, I believe there would still be a considerable group of people who would rationalize through all of that and have a strong belief in God, but the overall trend would continue towards non-belief, but it will take considerable time.

This is just my opinion, but I already believe the number of people who really believe in the christian faith (as one example) is significantly over estimated today. I believe the true number of non-believers or those with significant doubts is much higher than studies or polls actually show. In a world of habit and political correctness, many people simply state they are a christian, when in reality, they really are a closet non-believer or someone who doesn't really believe in core christian beliefs.

Or who were raised as Christians and believe in the vast majority of the ethics/morality of Christianity and either do not realize the vast majority of that morality is NOT unique to Christianity and do not want to throw out what they do believe with what they do not or consider calling themselves Christian in casual conversation a decent shorthand for holding those moral values.

 

[Paulos23]

I don't know about evoluving away from religion, but most of us seam to be wired to believe in God. The advantage for that? Well if you get intelegence, you can start to be able to plan and foresee events and outcomes, some of which are not plesent. This causes stress if you dwell on them to long (the unplesent ones). Those that could give their worry over to "God" may have been more productive in the past then those that couldn't and where able to servive more.

Are we in a place where this will start to go away? I don't think we are yet, and we may never be in a place where it will not give some advantage.

 

[Clairvoyance]

This is more a cultural issue than a biological one.

I know, but that doesn't explain anything. There must be a gene or series of genes that, all other things being equal, tend to make people more credulous and divisive and thus more religiously inclined.

If you doubt that genetics plays a major role in behavior and psychology I'd invite you to propose a more plausible vehicle by which these tendencies propagate through the gene pool.

 

[Clairvoyance]

I don't know about evoluving away from religion, but most of us seam to be wired to believe in God. The advantage for that? Well if you get intelegence, you can start to be able to plan and foresee events and outcomes, some of which are not plesent. This causes stress if you dwell on them to long (the unplesent ones). Those that could give their worry over to "God" may have been more productive in the past then those that couldn't and where able to servive more.

Are we in a place where this will start to go away? I don't think we are yet, and we may never be in a place where it will not give some advantage.

The promise of an afterlife and a stress reliever are definitely properties of religion that make it tempting but is that a sufficient mechanism to cause it to spread? I think it's the propensity of religion to cause the "us versus them" mentality that probably made it so successful.

If you are right, this means that having this mental stress relief belief caused certain populations to survive and reproduce better than populations that didn't have these beliefs.

Somehow this doesn't seem very satisfactory to me. It seems more likely that it's the genes for tribalism and credulity that manifested as religion that caused the idea to spread.

After all, it's fine to say that it's the comforting qualities of religion that made it so popular but first you have to accept the religion as true in order to believe it. There must be some genes that program the instructions to allow for religion. Genes that say "believe whatever the man in funny hat and shiny robe says" or "you don't need evidence in order to believe these things" must be present in the genome in order for the phenotype of "religiously oriented" to arise.

I'm being a little polemic with those examples but you get my point... It's no secret that some people are more credulous than others and the cause of this must be at least partially genetic.

 

[Michael]

You brought up a good point. This is something I've always thought about as evidence against God but I never thought about it in a biologic way.

I used to say "show me that believing in your religion will give me some kind of advantage over all the other religions and I'll know that it's true! You claim your God answers prayer, blesses you, and guides your life- well then people who follow your religion should be statistically different than other people in some measurable way which will allow me to determine the truth of your claim."

I realize now that this is kind of naive because if you think of religion as a product of natural selection, it's possible that a religion might spread and lead to better survival/reproduction EVEN IF THERE IS NO ACTUAL TRUTH TO IT AT ALL.

This is because religion is just a vehicle for tribalism and the claims of the religion are inconsequential to it's relative success. Both Christianity and Islam are arguably equally good at spreading... and they BOTH can't be true.

I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say that the claims (and actions) of the religion are inconsequential to it's relative success. Monotheism for instance pretty much dominates religion today and in that sense religions have actually 'simplified' over the centuries. Islam's success to date is due in no small part to the fact that it "evolved" from a Judeo-Christian origin, and because it adopted Jesus as a "great prophet" of the religion. What the religion says and does seems to matter in terms of a religion's ultimate success. Interestingly enough, religious differences aside, Jesus the man is revered as a great teacher of God by more than half the planet. They can both be right in that choice.

From a scientific perspective *both/all* religions could have serious flaws, yet God, as in an intelligent creator, could easily still exist. Atheists think in terms of disproving a religion, when in fact the question is really a scientific question that can only be answered by physics.

Your point about religion increasing the rates of survival might also apply to something like "emotions" or even awareness itself. Real? Not real? They exist within many species and they may indeed increase the odds of survival.

IMO God is quite real. We have various senses that pick up various types of energy that are emanated from God/The Universe. A direct connect inside the brain wouldn't surprise me one bit, in fact that is what the evidence (in terms of human experiences/writings) would suggest.

 

[Clairvoyance]

I definitely wouldn't go so far as to say that the claims (and actions) of the religion are inconsequential to it's relative success. Monotheism for instance pretty much dominates religion today and in that sense religions have actually 'simplified' over the centuries. Islam's success to date is due in no small part to the fact that it "evolved" from a Judeo-Christian origin, and because it adopted Jesus as a "great prophet" of the religion. What the religion says and does seems to matter in terms of a religion's ultimate success. Interestingly enough, religious differences aside, Jesus the man is revered as a great teacher of God by more than half the planet. They can both be right in that choice.

From a scientific perspective *both/all* religions could have serious flaws, yet God, as in an intelligent creator, could easily still exist. Atheists think in terms of disproving a religion, when in fact the question is really a scientific question that can only be answered by physics.

Your point about religion increasing the rates of survival might also apply to something like "emotions" or even awareness itself. Real? Not real? They exist within many species and they may indeed increase the odds of survival.

IMO God is quite real. We have various senses that pick up various types of energy that are emanated from God/The Universe. A direct connect inside the brain wouldn't surprise me one bit, in fact that is what the evidence (in terms of human experiences/writings) would suggest.

I don't see religions getting simpler at all! I see them dividing and branching out again and again (interestingly just like a phylogenetic tree!)

In any case, the types of observations you are making are of a higher order than what I'm trying to get at. I'm not interested in debating the various claims of each individual religion and what makes one propagate better/worse than another... I'm more interested in the root, biologic cause of religiosity itself.

Islam adopted tenants of Christianity like how a bacterium adapted a proboscis into a flagellum... I see the correlation you are making. But I'm more focused on the evolution of religiosity itself and not on the evolution of the different religions specifically.

If you compiled a list of traits that tended to make people religious (credulity, gullibility, respect for authority, etc.) I'm wondering which traits are most likely going to continue to propagate in our gene pool in the future.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't see religions getting simpler at all! I see them dividing and branching out again and again (interestingly just like a phylogenetic tree!)

In any case, the types of observations you are making are of a higher order than what I'm trying to get at. I'm not interested in debating the various claims of each individual religion and what makes one propagate better/worse than another... I'm more interested in the root, biologic cause of religiosity itself.

Islam adopted tenants of Christianity like how a bacterium adapted a proboscis into a flagellum... I see the correlation you are making. But I'm more focused on the evolution of religiosity itself and not on the evolution of the different religions specifically.

If you compiled a list of traits that tended to make people religious (credulity, gullibility, respect for authority, etc.) I'm wondering which traits are most likely going to continue to propagate in our gene pool in the future.

Your question is a good one, but quite complex, from a psychological standpoint.

There has been psychological work done on your question, which is pretty interesting, but more needs to be completed.

 

[Michael]

I don't see religions getting simpler at all! I see them dividing and branching out again and again (interestingly just like a phylogenetic tree!)

As it relates to the splintering of Christianity, there's probably some truth to that comparison. They all have the same root however, as does Islam actually - Christ.

In any case, the types of observations you are making are of a higher order than what I'm trying to get at. I'm not interested in debating the various claims of each individual religion and what makes one propagate better/worse than another... I'm more interested in the root, biologic cause of religiosity itself.

It could be the biologic cause is exactly the same biologic cause for sight, sound, smell, etc. It may just be natures way of "tapping into" something that actually exists in nature.

If you compiled a list of traits that tended to make people religious (credulity, gullibility, respect for authority, etc.) I'm wondering which traits are most likely going to continue to propagate in our gene pool in the future.

I suppose that depends on many factors, but they aren't necessarily all negative. It isn't necessarily a function of 'gullibility' for instance if God does in fact exist.

For that matter it could simply be a 'genetic defect' that keeps some few individuals from tapping into something real that other people can tap into.

 

[Heissonear]

A passing analysis from an evolutionary standpoint would say NO! Throughout the last few hundred thousand years natural selection has favored genes for tribalism/religion within our species. This has obvious advantages: those with the "tribalism genes" survived and reproduced better than those that didn't. Group selection can easily explain this. Tribalistic groups cooperated better and eradicated rival groups so that their genes spread more quickly.

But what about today? Can we predict that genes for making people religious/tribalistic (genes that promote credulity, divisiveness, etc.) will spread faster than the rival alleles for humanism, skepticism, etc?

On the surface we could say YES! Credulity and blind faith would seem like obviously negative traits but in modern societies there exists "welfare states" in which even individuals who are highly "unfit" naturally can still spread their genes just as easily as those that nature would normally select. We all know that religious, tribalistic, ignorant populations on this planet tend to have radically higher birthrates than populations that exhibit traits that we might find favorable (intelligence, skepticism, humanism, etc.)

So it would seem that alleles for religiosity are here to stay, right? But WAIT!
Religion seems to be dwindling today... why should that be? Well, first of all, it would be very naive to think that a phenomenon as complex as religious propensity is only a product of genetic selection. Let me get that out of the way right now! Today we have global communication and the internet. This allows "memes" to spread far quicker than genes ever could. What this means is that memes for skeptisicm and rationality seem to be winning over the rival memes for religion EVEN THOUGH THIS MIGHT BE GOING AGAINST BIOLOGY!

This is an interesting thought. We humans might eventually grow completely out of religion because of the unrivaled spread of nonreligious memes in our culture but we will likely still carry the genes for religiosity! But religious people today might overpopulate themselves to extinction... Or they might all kill each other in religious wars. Or maybe the genes will still survive and even spread faster.

This makes me wonder: will something else replace religion as the primary vehicle for tribalism in the future? Or will our highly evolved brains help us overcome ignorance and tribalism completely?

What do you guys think?

I personally think that religion is like the genes that cause sickle cell anemia. They used to be advantageous because they give an immunity to malaria but in modern, civilized societies they do more harm than good.

Some people are very far from the God who is very near.

And lack awareness and understanding about the most important issue in this life.