Viridium.ro

It’s a fair question. The claim that religion is supported by evolution is not that shallow. The claim is backed by the argument that children who blindly believe to what their parents say stand a better chance of survival than children who do not. Chances are, children who don’t listen to their parents will end up being eaten by the crocodile. And here’s where religion comes in. If you, as a child, blindly trusted your parents when they told you about things you’d never seen, without even checking them, then you have it in you to trust the priest who tells you about God. Hence, religion has evolutionary support.

I have one issue with this argument. In order for a child’s habit to persist in adulthood, it must benefit the adult in some way. Or, rather, adults who keep the habit must be at least as fit as adults who lose the habit. I find it hard to accept that the habit of being a religious person benefits the individual, but that’s a very hard argument to make, or defeat. There is always the argument that populations who embraced religion had yet another reason to stick together in times of need, which in turn increased their chances of survival, but this also seems hard to back up. It’s those who fight, not those who embrace peace, that live to write the history. Maybe it’s just that adults have trouble quitting “religiousness”, because the benefit does not offset the cost of renouncing it. You know very well that we are conditioned in many ways by our childhood, and this conditioning could be just enough to keep “religious” people from becoming non-religious when they grow up.

I’m afraid the question will persist among us until we find powerful tools for understanding the dynamics of populations, from not only a biological perspective, but also in the cultural and social context of our lives. I’m looking forward for the day when we can actually prove the answer to the question “Does God exist?” Until then, we’ve got our minds and spirits to keep us company.