On the Origin of Religion
| November 7, 2009 | Posted by idnet.com.au under Darwinism, Intelligent Design |
Science 6 November 2009:
Vol. 326. no. 5954, pp. 784 – 787
DOI: 10.1126/science.326_784
On the Origin of Religion Elizabeth Culotta
“How and when did religion arise? In the 11th essay in Science’s series in honor of the Year of Darwin, Elizabeth Culotta explores the human propensity to believe in unseen deities. No consensus yet exists among scientists, but potential answers are emerging from both the archaeological record and studies of the mind itself. Some researchers, exploring religion’s effects in society, suggest that it may boost fitness by promoting cooperative behavior. And in the past 15 years, a growing number of researchers have followed Darwin’s lead and explored the hypothesis that religion springs naturally from the normal workings of the human mind. This new field, the cognitive science of religion, draws on psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience to understand the mental building blocks of religious thought.”
Yes, indeed, Darwinism springs from the normal workings of the human mind. Whoops. Wait a minute, that can’t be right ’cause Darwinism is what allows us to understand all the other false things which spring from the normal workings of the human mind. So, like Darwinism is true. It has to be true. So maybe it’s the one thing that doesn’t spring from the human mind. It comes from somewhere else, some higher plane. Oh shoot, there is no higher plane. Sorry I forgot. OK Darwinism springs from the normal workings of the human mind, but it happens to be the one normal working we can trust. That’s it! It’s different from all the other normal workings which are false. We know this is the one and only true working of the human mind because… Well, just because.
43 Responses to On the Origin of Religion
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
riddick (#30): “Nearly every comment thus far, IMHO, doesn’t even address the underlying truth. Leaving the silly Darwin angle out of the discussion, please answer this question: if “religion” doesn’t come from people (i.e., minds), then from whence does it come?”
How about an alternate question, “…if “spirituality” doesn’t come from people (i.e., minds), then from whence does it come?” Answer: God, or some spiritual Source regardless of its name. Where does religion come from? Religion is then a distorted amalgamation of spirituality, genuine revealed messages, human imagination, and social/psychological/historical forces, with faith being the only ultimate judge of validity. In short, partly coming from people. As I said, the primary tenets of religion are supernaturally revealed (or human imagination), ultimately outside reason and logic and requiring faith. This mindset is ultimately outside reason, logic and observation because of a transcendental nature beyond human thought.
if “religion” doesn’t come from people (i.e., minds), then from whence does it come? If your knee-jerk reaction is “god,” then please explain how that god can instruct one person that it’s better to starve than to kill a bull or cow…
A reasonable (although admittedly unscientific) answer to this question is still likely to sound like a silly fairy tale to someone prejudiced against of the idea of a creator.
But it’s also a fair question for someone without such prejudice, so here’s an answer to take or leave:
Man is inclined toward religion because he was created to live under the guidance of his creator. Having turned aside from that direction, he fills that void with inventions, “gods,” of his own. Throw in one or more godlike persons seeking to subvert mankind for their own purposes who exploit that need for spirituality through misinformation and misdirection, and it’s no wonder that the religions of the world are a tapestry of conflicting beliefs and behaviors. (And no, I’m not drawing a line with crosses on one side and everything else on the other.)
Like I said, if the premise of a creator is ridiculous to you, then so is this. But if anyone really wants to know, the religious chaos around us is not automatically incompatible with the existence of a creator.
—–riddick: “Leaving the silly Darwin angle out of the discussion, please answer this question: if “religion” doesn’t come from people (i.e., minds), then from whence does it come? If your knee-jerk reaction is “god,” then please explain how that god can instruct one person that it’s better to starve than to kill a bull or cow, while at the same time tell someone else to fly a plane into a building killing thousands of people. Both these acts come from religions, religions invented by people. If you’re still using the term “religion” to denote something positive, perhaps it’s time for you to get real and realize that religion has, and will always be, a terrible thing.”
Perhaps the one true religion came from God and is a good thing, while the multitude of false religions, which came from man, are bad things insofar as they deviate from the true religion. Perhaps the true religion proposes doctrines that harmonize with and yet transcend human reason, recommending that we “love our enemies” but allowing ourselves to defend ourselves against them if we must; while the false religions, conceived by mortal humans and imperfect minds, play right into our baser instincts, and bid us to kill anyone we don’t like.
Perhaps the true religion, insisting on the inherent dignity of the human person, prompted a nation to free slaves, defend life, and provide an environment where all could practice virtue, while a false religion, offended by the true religion, immediately began to mock the idea of human dignity, promote vice, and establish a culture of death.
I’ll add one more: the true religion would not have its adherents attack one another with guns and bombs on opposite sides of the same war, both blessed by ministers and chaplains of the same religion, each telling their side that God wished it to kill the other.
If someone is looking for a true religion and they see people within that religion shooting at one another, egged on by their ministers, they should keep looking.
I disagree with Dembski’s wild interpretation of Genesis 1, but is right on here. Culotta tries to speak as though she is able to think objectively while others(believers) cannot. However, what she is implying about the Christian worldview can be turned around and used on her worldview as well. Atheism, naturalism, agnosticism, etc. all must spring from the natural workings of the mind as well. If we are all evolved animals, then no one’s thought processes can be said to be superior to anyone else’s thought processes.
I read another very revealing critique of this article by Culotta on this website. I would highly recommend it. http://creationsafaris.com/cre.....#20091109a
This is my favorite site for the creation/evolution debate. In another insightful post, the author suggested approaching these guys with this statement:
“It should be a cinch to stop the secular Darwinists in their tracks. Just arrange a new debate between modern-day counterparts of Thomas Huxley and Bishop Butler, and let Butler begin by saying this: “Mr. Huxley, I am a man created in the image of God, and you are an evolved mammal. Everything you do revolves around eating and mating. Tell me, why should I believe anything you say?” A little reflection shows that Huxley is trapped. He wants to reach outside his fur and embrace the conceptual realm, but he can’t.”
This is exactly what Ms. Culotta is trying to do!
I think we could use this approach on Ms. Culotta as well!
Here’s an appropriate follow-up to my recent post. I think it speaks for itself.
http://www.breitbart.com/artic....._article=1
#36
#36
the true religion would not have its adherents attack one another with guns and bombs on opposite sides of the same war, both blessed by ministers and chaplains of the same religion, each telling their side that God wished it to kill the other.
That rules out Christianity. Any candidates?
—riddick: “Here’s an appropriate follow-up to my recent post. I think it speaks for itself.”
It shows only that a few elitists teach political correctness in the name of Christianity.
-StephenB: “It shows only that a few elitists teach political correctness in the name of Christianity.”
From the article: The WCC brings together 348 Protestant, Orthodox and Anglican churches representing about 560 million Christians in 110 countries.
I’d hardly call that a few! I wonder how many members of these churches support this nonsense unwittingly?
—riddick: “From the article: The WCC brings together 348 Protestant, Orthodox and Anglican churches representing about 560 million Christians in 110 countries.
—I’d hardly call that a few! I wonder how many members of these churches support this nonsense unwittingly?”
The World Council of Churches is a leftist organization that militates against the very theolgical foundations of Christianity.
They do not represent anyone but themselves and their desire to promote one-worldism, which is the very antithesis of Christianity.
That rules out Christianity. Any candidates?
It doesn’t rule out Christianity. Jesus said that not everyone who called themselves by his name was his disciple.
Sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy, I know. But it isn’t.
I’m not changing the definition after the fact. The definition was set long ago.
“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” This wasn’t just a command – it showed how to identify Christians. It seems to me that killing one another with the blessing of the church falls outside of this.
Now I’m quoting scripture, which I prefer not to do in internet forums, because of the debates it can lead to. But I didn’t like the way I left my last post hanging.