About Religion and Evolution

[CrossoverManiac]

Believe it or not, I found this at 4chan (in the /sci/ section):
Original poster:

First off this is not a religion vs science thread or a god exists thread ( i am atheist), this is an observation.

That religion despite all it’s modern eccentricities and fail was shaped by evolution, religion in my opinion proves that humans are animals subject to evolution as religion is an obvious attempt to counteract human animal instincts and evolutionary pressures, through strict social controls.

For example it’s often strict enforcement of marital values to ensure that the majority of people are married and mate, as opposed to the case where only 80% of women will pass on genes to the next generation with only 20% of the men.

Or that it discourages murder and other things animals do for short term advantage.

As i said religion proves evolution and that humans are animals the same way a stars wobble proves a planet is orbiting it.

Then someone gave question this thoughtful reply.
Another poster:

You’re on the right track, OP. But instead of focusing on the misuse of religion, which is for political or social power, you should focus on the legitimate use, which is reflected in various religions’ scriptures. The legitimate use of all major religions that have existed is to transcend the animal nature and embrace the rational nature, which is the truly human nature. To overcome instinct and live from reason and compassion. This is why fasting is a part of every major religion. It is a major exercise in overcoming instinct and living from one’s reason. In this sense, yes, the very nature of religion proves that we have an animal nature, as rising above this animal nature is the purpose of religion. And so evolution makes more sense with religion than the idea of instantaneous creation.

The only time evolution is at odds with religion is if someone takes a creation myth over-literally. But what in fact the creation myths teach, especially the one in Genesis, is the evolution of the human mind away from the animal mind. Observe:

Day 1: Creation of light. The ability recognize that there is good and evil, and distinguish between them.
Day 2: Separation of heaven from earth. The ability to recognize that there is spiritual and natural, and distinguish between them.
Day 3: Separation of sea from dry land. The will (earth) is separated from the understanding (seas), so that man is capable of acting freely from reason and governing his will.
Day 4: Sun and Moon: God becomes present with the mind of man through Love and Wisdom.
Day 5: Sea and Air creatures: Man’s mind becomes alive with forms of wisdom.
Day 6: Land creatures and Man: Man’s mind becomes alive with forms of love.
Day 7: Rest: Man becomes transcendent, like God.

This goes back to a conversation I had with a priest about Genesis In it, he said it shouldn’t be taken literally and that there’s nothing wrong with believing in evolution. Is the above quote something that was thought of before by other theologists and does this mesh with the Church’s teachings on Genesis?

 

[AndrewA]

It sure is interesting, but I wouldn’t exactly say it is accurate. But hey, it is above average for internet theology. Plus it is palatable to the non-religious.

I should say that I think religion **is **a fight against the animal instincts in us. I guess we are like a hybrid of an animal and an angel .

 

[edward_george]

It sure is interesting, but I wouldn’t exactly say it is accurate. But hey, it is above average for internet theology. Plus it is palatable to the non-religious.

I should say that I think religion **is **a fight against the animal instincts in us. I guess we are like a hybrid of an animal and an angel .

I would say that there is nothing about evolution which contradicts Catholic doctrine (or most theistic religions for that matter), and in fact evolution has been spoken of positively by a number of Catholic thinkers–including some Popes and Cardinals–in recent decades. It is a religiously and morally neutral idea; I see evolution as a means rather than the first cause or final end of creation–something which natural science must necessarily be silent about, as those things are outside the bounds of its epistemological limits.

I would caution you against saying that “religion is a fight against the animal instincts in us.” The Church has never taught this. Rather, we believe that grace perfects nature, and that through faith we become more authentically human. Those “animal instincts” are not in and of themselves bad, rather we must strive to put them at the service of the spirit. We are not at all like a “hybrid of an animal and an angel.” An animal is a lower form of being, and an angel is a higher one–the former is not possessed of a rational soul, while the latter has perfected intelligence. We might be what is between–a rational, embodied creature, but we are not a “hybrid between the two.”

-ACEGC