The Atheist's dilemma

[Rubiks]

I've noticed certain atheists have told these certain claims. That doesn't necessarily mean a single atheist makes both claims, but rather I've seen both claims come from the atheist community

Atheist claim #1: Humans have become religious because it helps them survive and more likely for their offspring to survive.

Atheist claim #2: Religion is the reason for the vast majority of wars, conflict, and suffering in the world.

Notice both these claims cannot be true, either #1, #2, or neither is true. So, which is it?

Also, if I am misrepresenting any ideas, please tell me. I'd appreciate it.

 

[BL2KTN]

I haven't seen anyone here make the argument that religion came about as a means to survive.

 

[bhsmte]

I've noticed certain atheists have told these certain claims. That doesn't necessarily mean a single atheist makes both claims, but rather I've seen both claims come from the atheist community

Atheist claim #1: Humans have become religious because it helps them survive and more likely for their offspring to survive.

Atheist claim #2: Religion is the reason for the vast majority of wars, conflict, and suffering in the world.

Notice both these claims cannot be true, either #1, #2, or neither is true. So, which is it?

Also, if I am misrepresenting any ideas, please tell me. I'd appreciate it.

I don't believe there is any question, that religious beliefs have been the motivation behind many wars and killing and history confirms the same.

In regards to religion being a survival tool, yes, I believe it is something that evolved in man over time as a survival tool, especially when man did not understand much about the world and had many more fears they faced every day of their life compared to today. In that sense, we have sort of; outgrown the need for this type of survival tool, because we understand the world much better today, but the mechanism is still in place, because it takes a long time for it to be eliminated or even reduced.

Like any survival mechanism (like fight or flight), it is rooted in person survival and the tool can be misused, depending on one's psychology.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I haven't seen anyone here make the argument that religion came about as a means to survive.

I have. Check the post beneath yours.

 

[bhsmte]

I haven't seen anyone here make the argument that religion came about as a means to survive.

Some psychologists do feel religion did develop as an ancient survival mechanism through evolution, that was needed because man had so little knowledge about the world.

Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Received]

I haven't seen anyone here make the argument that religion came about as a means to survive.

Serious evolutionary psychologists would argue just this. Something as massive as religion is 1) either nonadaptive because it's given down by God, 2) a humongous, and therefore unrealistic, spandrel, or 3) a natural phenomenon which confers (or conferred in the past) evolutionary advantages.

 

[keith99]

I've noticed certain atheists have told these certain claims. That doesn't necessarily mean a single atheist makes both claims, but rather I've seen both claims come from the atheist community

Atheist claim #1: Humans have become religious because it helps them survive and more likely for their offspring to survive.

Atheist claim #2: Religion is the reason for the vast majority of wars, conflict, and suffering in the world.

Notice both these claims cannot be true, either #1, #2, or neither is true. So, which is it?

Also, if I am misrepresenting any ideas, please tell me. I'd appreciate it.

You are missing a bit. The 2 have little problem co-existing.

The easiest way to look at this is by looking at a tribal situation.

Take a tribe of humans, make them the only humans in the area, but far from the only predator. If they are unified to some degree they will do better and more of them will survive. If they have rules from their God about how to divide up a kill and to not steal from each other they will do better. That tribe will do better than the one on the other side of the mountain with no such rules where men are fighting over meat and mates.

But humans have some advantages over other animals irrespective of this. They make tools and they plan (at least a bit). Both tribes will grow. Eventually they will come into contact. If either of them has religion there is a good chance that it will view the other as heretics and seek to either convert them or wipe them out. If the other tribe has less unifying characteristics it is likely the result will it being wiped out or assimilated.

Ah this has worked out well! Why? Because I in general do not agree with the second point. I think the vast majority of wars blamed on religion are in fact geo-political or tribal, that religion most often is not the real cause, just a convenient identifier of the sides. And if we go back to our 2 tribes, if neither had a religion or any form of shamanism they still would most likely fight, just a packs of wolves or prides of lions fight when they dispute territory.


Also remember atheists (or others) arguments about situations that grew from natural processes hold quite well even if the adaptation is very imperfect, as long as it works at some point. It is the one claiming a perfect designer who has a problem if the design fails in some cases.

 

[Received]

Per the OP, though, remember that something that was once adaptive in a particular set of situations and times can become nonadaptive and dangerous later on.

Obviously, I don't think religion per se is dangerous, but tribal theism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've noticed certain atheists have told these certain claims. That doesn't necessarily mean a single atheist makes both claims, but rather I've seen both claims come from the atheist community

Atheist claim #1: Humans have become religious because it helps them survive and more likely for their offspring to survive.

Atheist claim #2: Religion is the reason for the vast majority of wars, conflict, and suffering in the world.

Notice both these claims cannot be true, either #1, #2, or neither is true. So, which is it?

Also, if I am misrepresenting any ideas, please tell me. I'd appreciate it.

Well for one, actually, both of these can be true. For most of our existence humans lived in scattered groups, which independently formed different religions. When these groups encountered one another, often because they were beginning to compete for resources, religion would be the justification for the wars which strengthened some societies and killed others.

But, these are more antitheist type arguments and I don't take part in them

 

[bhsmte]

Per the OP, though, remember that something that was once adaptive in a particular set of situations and times can become nonadaptive and dangerous later on.

Obviously, I don't think religion per se is dangerous, but tribal theism.

Agree.

Religion is a tool, like a kitchen knife is a tool. It can be used for good things and bad, depending on the motivations of the person holding the tool.

 

[BL2KTN]

Some psychologists do feel religion did develop as an ancient survival mechanism through evolution, that was needed because man had so little knowledge about the world.

Evolutionary psychology of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a video or podcast out there in which Sam Harris tackled the issue. I was impressed with his explanation for why that was not religion's purpose.

 

[quatona]

I've noticed certain atheists have told these certain claims. That doesn't necessarily mean a single atheist makes both claims, but rather I've seen both claims come from the atheist community

Atheist claim #1: Humans have become religious because it helps them survive and more likely for their offspring to survive.

Atheist claim #2: Religion is the reason for the vast majority of wars, conflict, and suffering in the world.

Notice both these claims cannot be true, either #1, #2, or neither is true. So, which is it?

So far I´m not even seeing how they are irreconcilable.
(E.g. people arm themselves because weapons will help them survive. Yet, weapons are what countless people have been killed and injured with. How´s that a contradiction?)

On another note, both claims aren´t about God(s) but about religion. So they do not qualify for an "atheist dilemma".

 

[bhsmte]

There's a video or podcast out there in which Sam Harris tackled the issue. I was impressed with his explanation for why that was not religion's purpose.

There is debate on this topic, but Sam Harris is not a psychologist, last time I checked.

 

[FireDragon76]

Earlier hunter-gatherer groups, and indeed groups existing today living in traditional patterns, did not have religion as such that modern western people would understand it. They have beliefs about the world and rituals that mark rites of passage and so on, but the concept of religion is more the creation of the rise of city states, with state religious cults like in Egypt, Greece, Assyria, and so on. The rites of these religions are often about asserting state power, the state propitiating the gods makes the sun rise and the rains fall, thus legitimating the state.

 

[KCfromNC]

I've noticed certain atheists have told these certain claims. That doesn't necessarily mean a single atheist makes both claims, but rather I've seen both claims come from the atheist community

Atheist claim #1: Humans have become religious because it helps them survive and more likely for their offspring to survive.

Atheist claim #2: Religion is the reason for the vast majority of wars, conflict, and suffering in the world.

Notice both these claims cannot be true, either #1, #2, or neither is true. So, which is it?

Also, if I am misrepresenting any ideas, please tell me. I'd appreciate it.

As others have said, I'm not convinced that showing that a man-made thing like religion is imperfect for the purpose it was made for has any bearing on atheism.

 

[BL2KTN]

There is debate on this topic, but Sam Harris is not a psychologist, last time I checked.

He has a doctorate in neuroscience which I find more credible. His thesis was on how religious beliefs are formed in the brain.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheist claim #1: Humans have become religious because it helps them survive and more likely for their offspring to survive.

Atheist claim #2: Religion is the reason for the vast majority of wars, conflict, and suffering in the world.

Notice both these claims cannot be true, either #1, #2, or neither is true. So, which is it?

Of course they can both be true simultaneously. All that has to be true is that #1 helps human survival more than #2 hinders.

Two steps forward, and one step back.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Strivax]

Hmmm. Religion is essentially the answer to the question why? Why do I exist? Why does anyone exist? Why is there anything, rather than nothing? Some religions give more profoundly satisfying answers than others, but all religions serve to demarcate and identify cultural groupings and sometimes whole societies. If these groupings and societies war with each other, naturally their propaganda is going to stress the immorality of the enemy, starting with the idiocy of their belief systems. It is time we moved beyond such primitive, tribal social dynamics.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Ken-1122]

I've noticed certain atheists have told these certain claims. That doesn't necessarily mean a single atheist makes both claims, but rather I've seen both claims come from the atheist community

Atheist claim #1: Humans have become religious because it helps them survive and more likely for their offspring to survive.

Atheist claim #2: Religion is the reason for the vast majority of wars, conflict, and suffering in the world.

Notice both these claims cannot be true, either #1, #2, or neither is true. So, which is it?

Also, if I am misrepresenting any ideas, please tell me. I'd appreciate it.

I think claim #1 would be more accurate if it said: they BELIEVE religion helps them survive. If #1 were worded that way, both #1 and #2 can be true.

Ken.

 

[digitalgoth]

I've noticed certain atheists have told these certain claims. That doesn't necessarily mean a single atheist makes both claims, but rather I've seen both claims come from the atheist community

Atheist claim #1: Humans have become religious because it helps them survive and more likely for their offspring to survive.

Atheist claim #2: Religion is the reason for the vast majority of wars, conflict, and suffering in the world.

Notice both these claims cannot be true, either #1, #2, or neither is true. So, which is it?

Also, if I am misrepresenting any ideas, please tell me. I'd appreciate it.

These two claims not only make sense, but have been shown in history.


One Act Play

Preacher: CONVERT TO OUR RELIGION FOR YOUR OWN SURVIVAL OR WE WILL EXECUTE YOU AND MAKE WAR AGAINST YOU.

Person: OK, I DON'T WANT TO DIE FROM YOU SLAUGHTERING ME AND MY FAMILY.


For example, in WW2, the Jews who altered their names, pretended to be Catholic, and went to church had remarkably high survival rates compared to those who were publically and obviously Jewish.

In other words, religion increases survival (claim 1) because religion will then use war to kill you (claim 2) for not being the right religion.

Not that there's any historical evidence. Convert or Kill has been the policy of the worlds major religions for millennia. That's why they exist and the nice religions that worshipped the winds and trees and nature and living in harmony were by and large wiped out.