Religious behavior and natural selection

[Matthias123]

Given that all behavior goes through a process of natural selection, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suppose that religious behavior went through the same process. This would be in accordance with proper Catholic teaching, that man was created for God. As throughout history there have been many notables that have argued that religion is quite unnatural, and harmful to the human person. One specific person off the top of my head is Sigmund Fried. The evolution of religious behavior would be empirical evidence to suggest that religion is just as natural as sex, or eating.

Now the objection comes up, doesn’t this invalidate religion? Absolutely not, as the evolution of religious behavior has no merit on the truth values of propositions.

I still believe that there needs to be a radical ontological change before the creature can ever hope to know his Creator. Although the evolution of religious like behavior that leads up to this is really in the realm of natural selection.

 

[Matthias123]

I would define religious behavior as more of a social like behavior. The use of specific understandings to bind creatures together. The evolution perhaps of tradition and symbolic thought.

Perhaps even finally the instinct for God himself? As even if this is not possible without an ontological change, this does not mean the ontological leap was not just the final step in a long evolutionary journey throughout the ages.

 

[Matthias123]

Note on OP: The propositions that I was speaking about are propositions like: Does God exist?, Did Jesus rise from the dead?. Obviously I don’t mean all propositions are not effected. Propositions such as “religion is unnatural” or “religion is harmful to mankind by nature” are refuted.

 

[flyingfish]

How would you define religious behavior/tendency in human beings?

Is it a sense of wonder and a sense of something greater than ourselves, is it the desire for ritual and symbolism? Faith in a specific set of doctrines about the nature of the world and humanity?

 

[Matthias123]

Religious behavior in human beings in it;s most basic form is just a desire for God. What this God is can be different depending on the person. For Richard Dawkins, he fulfills this desire in part though the majesty and beauty of biology . Hawking, Weinberg and Einstein fulfill this desire in part through the cosmic order and eloquence of the universe. I fulfill this desire in full through the worship of the Triune God.

If religious behavior is evolved, then it is true that a desire for God is burnt into us like data on firmware.

 

[flyingfish]

Religious behavior in human beings in it;s most basic form is just a desire for God. What this God is can be different depending on the person. For Richard Dawkins, he fulfills this desire in part though the majesty and beauty of biology . Hawking, Weinberg and Einstein fulfill this desire in part through the cosmic order and eloquence of the universe. I fulfill this desire in full through the worship of the Triune God.

If religious behavior is evolved, then it is true that a desire for God is burnt into us like data on firmware.

Personally I think everything about human beings is the result of evolution, but I question your definition of religious behavior.

I think if you include the Dawkins’ or Einstein’s awe at the way the universe works into the category of “religious behavior”, then the term loses meaning and doesn’t apply to the point you’re trying to make.

I don’t think you’re interested in showing that wonder at the workings of the universe is not unnatural or harmful (and I doubt anyone ever claimed it), my guess would be that you’d want to show that about the traditional view of religion as faith in a set of doctrines and participation in ritual.

Personally I think some religions are definitely harmful (Muslim women come to mind), as for whether religion is natural is an interesting question since an increasing number of people in the modern world reject religion and belief in God altogether.

I don’t know if anyone can really say that religious behavior was selected for. I think it’s more likely that it’s a consequence of some other advantageous trait that was selected for.

 

[Matthias123]

Not all people that are religous and in an organized religions. There are many “philsophical theists” – Mortimer J Adler was one.

 

[flyingfish]

Not all people that are religous and in an organized religions. There are many “philsophical theists” – Mortimer J Adler was one.

Right, I don’t disagree. I was just pointing out that in your OP you expressed the desire to disprove some who claim that religions are unnatural and harmful. Generally people who make such claims are talking about organized religions and so it doesn’t help to talk about philosophical theists or spiritual but atheistic scientists.

 

[fhansen]

I would define religious behavior as more of a social like behavior. The use of specific understandings to bind creatures together. The evolution perhaps of tradition and symbolic thought.

Perhaps even finally the instinct for God himself? As even if this is not possible without an ontological change, this does not mean the ontological leap was not just the final step in a long evolutionary journey throughout the ages.

But would it really make sense that religious behavior would happen to evolve by natural selection-and then an ontological change orchestrated by the God whom this naturally selected religious behavior happened to be oriented towards… would take place?

 

[Matthias123]

But would it really make sense that religious behavior would happen to evolve by natural selection-and then an ontological change orchestrated by the God whom this naturally selected religious behavior happened to be oriented towards… would take place?

Ontology is part of the metaphysics, it is completely separate from the physical sciences.