USING EVOLUTION TO ARGUE AGAINST ATHEISM???

[TB2]

Stumbled across a series of articles by atheists harping on or lamenting religion. Lot's of disparaging remarks. But let's put that all aside and just *for argument sake* let's say atheism is true and that nature is the whole of reality and there is nothing but the material, physical. Let's just say that. On the assumption that's true, then, of course, all religion is illusory and must be the product of evolution. But here's the kicker: even on this atheist assumption that all religion is bogus, apparently there is quite a bit of research supporting the superior mental health benefits of religious belief over atheism, and that religious adherents have a higher evolutionary fitness and conferred survival advantage. (Now I have done almost next to no deep research on this and am basing this largely on what these atheist researchers say (see below for a sampling of quotes). But assuming these researchers are correct in what they say, then it raises an interesting quasi-paradox of sorts (for lack of a better descriptor) that we can put in the following way:

(1) Atheists lament the 'ignorance' and 'superstitious' beliefs of faithful religious adherents---many of whom reject evolution in favor of worship and loyal devotion and belief in what atheists consider to be invisible, imaginary 'deities' that don't exist and are just figments of their imaginations. To atheists, religion is the epitome of superstitious ignorance and irrational backward, backwater belief that lacks any basis in reality, and that we would be better off without if we could just knock some sense into these ignorant people, and get them to accept the reality of scientific naturalism and evolution and so on.

(2) Yet in a twist, the atheist view entails that religion must have some adaptive, survival advantage that was naturally selected for in the course of evolution (And as these atheist researchers say, confers a number of advantages over atheism in terms of mental health, life expectancy, survival advantage, improved evolutionary fitness, and more).

(3) Now atheists don't seem to have a problem with products of natural evolution. For how can you criticize or 'blame' something that increases your fitness and survivability? That's just the natural development of things. But this raises a number of questions:

*First, how can an atheists really criticize religious beliefs (even if bogus) when it still confers such adaptive evolutionary advantages?

*Second, is it misguided or 'wrong' for atheists to want to convince adherents to abandon religion and to want to stamp out religion if it has so greatly contributed to our evolutionary success as a species. Isn't that illogical, irrational, 'anti-science' to support eradication of religion when doing so suggests that it would disadvantage us evolutionarily as a species?

*Third, in terms of evolutionary advantage, wouldn't it be to an atheist's personal advantage to then adopt religion? Indeed, wouldn't such a move be the logical, rational, scientifically supported choice to make that is in the best interests of self?

---

(Sample quotes from atheists that inspired this OP)

\

 

[Gus Bovona]

Stumbled across a series of articles by atheists harping on or lamenting religion. Lot's of disparaging remarks. But let's put that all aside and just *for argument sake* let's say atheism is true and that nature is the whole of reality and there is nothing but the material, physical. Let's just say that. On the assumption that's true, then, of course, all religion is illusory and must be the product of evolution. But here's the kicker: even on this atheist assumption that all religion is bogus, apparently there is quite a bit of research supporting the superior mental health benefits of religious belief over atheism, and that religious adherents have a higher evolutionary fitness and conferred survival advantage. (Now I have done almost next to no deep research on this and am basing this largely on what these atheist researchers say (see below for a sampling of quotes). But assuming these researchers are correct in what they say, then it raises an interesting quasi-paradox of sorts (for lack of a better descriptor) that we can put in the following way:

(1) Atheists lament the 'ignorance' and 'superstitious' beliefs of faithful religious adherents---many of whom reject evolution in favor of worship and loyal devotion and belief in what atheists consider to be invisible, imaginary 'deities' that don't exist and are just figments of their imaginations. To atheists, religion is the epitome of superstitious ignorance and irrational backward, backwater belief that lacks any basis in reality, and that we would be better off without if we could just knock some sense into these ignorant people, and get them to accept the reality of scientific naturalism and evolution and so on.

(2) Yet in a twist, the atheist view entails that religion must have some adaptive, survival advantage that was naturally selected for in the course of evolution (And as these atheist researchers say, confers a number of advantages over atheism in terms of mental health, life expectancy, survival advantage, improved evolutionary fitness, and more).

(3) Now atheists don't seem to have a problem with products of natural evolution. For how can you criticize or 'blame' something that increases your fitness and survivability? That's just the natural development of things. But this raises a number of questions:

*First, how can an atheists really criticize religious beliefs (even if bogus) when it still confers such adaptive evolutionary advantages?

*Second, is it misguided or 'wrong' for atheists to want to convince adherents to abandon religion and to want to stamp out religion if it has so greatly contributed to our evolutionary success as a species. Isn't that illogical, irrational, 'anti-science' to support eradication of religion when doing so suggests that it would disadvantage us evolutionarily as a species?

*Third, in terms of evolutionary advantage, wouldn't it be to an atheist's personal advantage to then adopt religion? Indeed, wouldn't such a move be the logical, rational, scientifically supported choice to make that is in the best interests of self?

---

(Sample quotes from atheists that inspired this OP)

snip

There’s a lot there, but one thing first: just because evolution can make organisms that can conceive of propositions that are true or false, like in a theology, doesn’t mean that the proposition is true. Evolution is a messy, imperfect process, and the mere fact that humans can disagree about whether some propositions are true or not means that evolution has not created an organism that holds only propositions that are true every time.

The only thing required when evolution happens is that some characteristic of the organism increases the likelihood of the organism having fertile offspring, perhaps even just a little bit. If holding a false proposition, like some theology that for instance you happen to think is wrong, increases the survivability of those holding it to just a small extent despite it being false, probably by encouraging the group or tribe to bond together, it can continue evolutionarily.

 

[prism]

Stumbled across a series of articles by atheists harping on or lamenting religion. Lot's of disparaging remarks. But let's put that all aside and just *for argument sake* let's say atheism is true and that nature is the whole of reality and there is nothing but the material, physical. Let's just say that. On the assumption that's true, then, of course, all religion is illusory and must be the product of evolution

If there is nothing but material and physical, I wonder where they categorize their thoughts?
Perhaps under 'Illusory'?

 

[TB2]

If there is nothing but material and physical, I wonder where they categorize their thoughts?
Perhaps under 'Illusory'?

ikr

 

[TB2]

There’s a lot there, but one thing first: just because evolution can make organisms that can conceive of propositions that are true or false, like in a theology, doesn’t mean that the proposition is true. Evolution is a messy, imperfect process, and the mere fact that humans can disagree about whether some propositions are true or not means that evolution has not created an organism that holds only propositions that are true every time.

The only thing required when evolution happens is that some characteristic of the organism increases the likelihood of the organism having fertile offspring, perhaps even just a little bit. If holding a false proposition, like some theology that for instance you happen to think is wrong, increases the survivability of those holding it to just a small extent despite it being false, probably by encouraging the group or tribe to bond together, it can continue evolutionarily.

Agreed. My point was more directed to the ironies of atheist activism against religion when the atheists' beliefs on evolution suggest religion should not be opposed. It wasn't a statement on the truth of any propostion, but the personal grievances of many atheists towards religion.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Agreed. My point was more directed to the ironies of atheist activism against religion when the atheists' beliefs on evolution suggest religion should not be opposed. It wasn't a statement on the truth of any propostion, but the personal grievances of many atheists towards religion.

There's nothing in evolution that requires that religion should not be opposed. Evolution doesn't automatically produce things that we, here and now, might decide would be better otherwise. Evolution doesn't produce nothing but goodness for any species, I would imagine.

 

[prism]

Evolution doesn't produce nothing but goodness for any species, I would imagine.

Not sure if I am following you on this but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Speaking anecdotally, I had evolution crammed down my throat from both my atheistic Father and the secular school system to the point where I concluded, 'animals run free, so why not me?' I lived out that thought and it wasn't pretty nor good, neither would I imagine it to be for the rest of the human 'species'

 

[Gus Bovona]

Not sure if I am following you on this but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Speaking anecdotally, I had evolution crammed down my throat from both my atheistic Father and the secular school system to the point where I concluded, 'animals run free, so why not me?' I lived out that thought and it wasn't pretty nor good, neither would I imagine it to be for the rest of the human 'species'

Not sure exactly what "run free" means in terms of animals for you, but there are all sorts of social animals out there who do not run free, but conform to what evolution has instilled as their role within their species. Bees have a division of labor in which some bees do X and others do Y or Z. Pack animals like wolves typically have to conform to the alpha dog. I could go on.

"Social species are genetically inclined to group together and follow a particular set of rules defining interactions between individuals." Source

It's exactly the extent of those "rules" which is the extent that animals don't run free.

 

[TB2]

There's nothing in evolution that requires that religion should not be opposed. Evolution doesn't automatically produce things that we, here and now, might decide would be better otherwise. Evolution doesn't produce nothing but goodness for any species, I would imagine.

The OP is not about evolution, but people; specifically atheist activists. The thread is not actually about science or biological evolution except for how it touches peripherally on the topic. It's highlighting human hypocrisy (or at least human inconsistency in beliefs)

 

[Gus Bovona]

The OP is not about evolution, but people; specifically atheist activists. The thread is not actually about science or biological evolution except for how it touches peripherally on the topic. It's highlighting human hypocrisy (or at least human inconsistency in beliefs)

But the OP depends upon a point about evolution. You wrote, "atheists' beliefs on evolution suggest religion should not be opposed." If there's nothing about evolution that would suggest that religion should not be opposed, then atheists beliefs on evolution would not suggest that religion should not be opposed.

This is merely a question of logic.

 

[TB2]

But the OP depends upon a point about evolution. You wrote, "atheists' beliefs on evolution suggest religion should not be opposed." If there's nothing about evolution that would suggest that religion should not be opposed, then atheists beliefs on evolution would not suggest that religion should not be opposed.

This is merely a question of logic.

You are getting confused in your own logic. The point of the OP is straightforward.

Science and medicine show an evolutionary advantage and health benefit to religious belief. Evolutionary theory and sociobiology explains the origin and development of religion in terms of evolutionary advantage to individuals and community cohesion. It doesn't matter whether those religious beliefs are right or wrong. False, delusional, self deceptive beliefs that still give an individual a sense of purpose confer an evolutionary advantage (hope is better for survival than abject despair of atheism that there is no purpose or meaning to life).

Some atheist activists want to eradicate religion and decry how harmful it is to society and how we need to educate religious people about the error, and self deceptive, illusory nature of their religious beliefs.

But those self deceptive, false beliefs are what confer evolutionary advantage and allowed our human species to thrive in the first place, by promoting societal cohesion and a sense of meaning and purpose.

There is irony in this

 

[prism]

Not sure exactly what "run free" means in terms of animals for you, but there are all sorts of social animals out there who do not run free, but conform to what evolution has instilled as their role within their species. Bees have a division of labor in which some bees do X and others do Y or Z. Pack animals like wolves typically have to conform to the alpha dog. I could go on. "Social species are genetically inclined to group together and follow a particular set of rules defining interactions between individuals." Source It's exactly the extent of those "rules" which is the extent that animals don't run free.

Gus, I take it you never have been bitten by a pit bull.

 

[Gus Bovona]

You are getting confused in your own logic. The point of the OP is straightforward.

Science and medicine show an evolutionary advantage and health benefit to religious belief. Evolutionary theory and sociobiology explains the origin and development of religion in terms of evolutionary advantage to individuals and community cohesion. It doesn't matter whether those religious beliefs are right or wrong. False, delusional, self deceptive beliefs that still give an individual a sense of purpose confer an evolutionary advantage (hope is better for survival than abject despair of atheism that there is no purpose or meaning to life).

I accept all that for the sake of this specific issue.

Some atheist activists want to eradicate religion and decry how harmful it is to society and how we need to educate religious people about the error, and self deceptive, illusory nature of their religious beliefs.

But those self deceptive, false beliefs are what confer evolutionary advantage and allowed our human species to thrive in the first place, by promoting societal cohesion and a sense of meaning and purpose.

There is irony in this

That position would be true if you could demonstrate that getting rid of religion and implementing some alternative could not possibly confer even larger evolutionary or social benefits, such as (from the atheist anti-theist perspective, this is not necessarily my personal perspective) reduction in delusional thinking and increase in better critical thinking getting applied to all areas of life, along with alternate means of providing community, meaning, purpose, etc. It would be a fallacy to think that some existing evolutionary strategy is the only strategy that can confer an evolutionary advantage.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Gus, I take it you never have been bitten by a pit bull.

I'm not sure exactly what your point is. Can you state it specifically?

 

[prism]

I'm not sure exactly what your point is. Can you state it specifically?

Being bitten by a pit bull is a wake up call to reality.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Being bitten by a pit bull is a wake up call to reality.

I absolutely, completely agree.

 

[TB2]

That position would be true if you could demonstrate that getting rid of religion and implementing some alternative could not possibly confer even larger evolutionary or social benefits, such as (from the atheist anti-theist perspective, this is not necessarily my personal perspective) reduction in delusional thinking and increase in better critical thinking getting applied to all areas of life, along with alternate means of providing community, meaning, purpose, etc. It would be a fallacy to think that some existing evolutionary strategy is the only strategy that can confer an evolutionary advantage.

You're still missing the point. The scientific validity is irrelevant to this OP. This OP is not about whether any of the ideas are scientifically true. It's about inconsistent beliefs of people. It doesn't matter if the standard evolutionary, sociobiological theory of how religion 'evolved' is actually true or not. There is no need to empirically demonstrate it. It may be true, it may be false. It doesn't matter if it's a fallacy or not.

Right or wrong, valid or invalid, demonstrated or not, fallacious or not....*none* of that matters. That is not the point of this thread. Right or wrong, it is still the standard view of atheists, and materialists for why religion exists from an evolutionary viewpoint. It doesn't matter if it's true. It's what's commonly believed. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies with that belief.

Please tell me you understand this, because if not I'm about ready to give up. Perhaps @prism can explain it better.

 

[Gus Bovona]

You're still missing the point. The scientific validity is irrelevant to this OP. This OP is not about whether any of the ideas are scientifically true. It's about inconsistent beliefs of people. It doesn't matter if the standard evolutionary, sociobiological theory of how religion 'evolved' is actually true or not. There is no need to empirically demonstrate it. It may be true, it may be false. It doesn't matter if it's a fallacy or not.

Right or wrong, valid or invalid, demonstrated or not, fallacious or not....*none* of that matters. That is not the point of this thread. Right or wrong, it is still the standard view of atheists, and materialists for why religion exists from an evolutionary viewpoint. It doesn't matter if it's true. It's what's commonly believed. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies with that belief.

Please tell me you understand this, because if not I'm about ready to give up. Perhaps @prism can explain it better.

I'm sorry that this is difficult, I apologize for my role in that. But I think I understand your point, which I'll summarize as

Premise 1: Atheists think religion is bad (I'm drawing only with really big crayons for this premise).
Premise 2: Religion does a lot of good evolutionarily.
Premise 3: Atheists accept the theory of evolution.
Conclusion: 1 + 2+ 3 = irony.

I hope that's close enough. But I still see a potential problem, hopefully it's not an actual problem. Please bear with me.

I want to draw a distinction between whether something is actually true or not for the purpose of hopefully getting to the point where it doesn't matter, which I think is a goal you'd support.

So, either the atheist position that the problems of religion are outweighed by its evolutionary advantages is true or false.

If the atheist position is false, then I'd certainly agree with you, that is ironic.

If the atheist position is true, perhaps you're saying that it STILL doesn't matter, it's still ironic. In that case, I disagree on the basis merely of what irony is, and we can start that conversation if you want.

What do you think?

 

[TB2]

So, either the atheist position that the problems of religion are outweighed by its evolutionary advantages is true or false

I'm drawing attention to the belief inconsistency because most atheists are unaware of it (!). To clarify, atheists are *not* arguing that the problems outweigh the evolutionary advantages. Most atheists aren't even aware of the inconsistency that I'm drawing attention to. I don't know what their reaction would be. They can't really deny the benefits because that's the evolutionary view. But perhaps they might take the tack of "well that was fine in the past, but now we don't need superstitious mumbo jumbo hockey religion" [and ancient weapons, just a good old blaster--sorry, couldn't resist a star wars quote]. So I imagine their response might be something like that. The "now that we're more evolved, we don't need..."

BUT, and I haven't even talked about this, yet, I think there's an even more substantial inconsistency that hits atheists right at the heart of who they are. The fact that humans can't live without hope or purpose.

If atheism is true, then there's no such thing as objective morality, objective right and wrong, good and evil. So if atheism is true then there's no such thing as the 'evils" of religion because there would be no such thing as objective evil.

Also, if atheism is true, then the universe will ultimately burn out and nothing we have done will matter. Life has no meaning, value, or purpose. So why should atheists care one way or another about religion and what people believe? Why try to get rid of religion? Why try to promote humanism? Heck, why even help people? If nothing ultimately matters?

So atheists will routinely mock the religious for believing in invisible sky daddy's and for self deception and illusory beliefs. I merely pointed out that they do the same. If atheism is true then life has no meaning, value or purpose and yet they live as if they do. Talk about an illusion! Talk about self-deception!

 

[Frank Robert]

Stumbled across a series of articles by atheists harping on or lamenting religion. Lot's of disparaging remarks.

It would be helpful if you gave a few references to the articles you are discussing.

(1) Atheists lament the 'ignorance' and 'superstitious' beliefs of faithful religious adherents---many of whom reject evolution in favor of worship and loyal devotion and belief in what atheists consider to be invisible, imaginary 'deities' that don't exist and are just figments of their imaginations. To atheists, religion is the epitome of superstitious ignorance and irrational backward, backwater belief...

If you are referring to "new atheists" I agree but your phrasing appears to be referring to all or most.

the atheist view entails that religion must have some adaptive, survival advantage that was naturally selected for in the course of evolution (And as these atheist researchers say, confers a number of advantages over atheism in terms of mental health, life expectancy, survival advantage, improved evolutionary fitness, and more).

Perhaps, then again, perhaps not.

New research finds that atheists are just as healthy as the religious

Atheists and agnostics tend to be just a healthy and satisfied with life as their religious counterparts, according to new research published in Journal of Religion and Health. The findings cast doubts on the theory that religion and spirituality enhance personal wellbeing.

www.psypost.org

Personally, I believe religions that encourage meditation would have better mental health outcomes. However, one does not need to be religious to practice meditation.

*Third, in terms of evolutionary advantage, wouldn't it be to an atheist's personal advantage to then adopt religion? Indeed, wouldn't such a move be the logical, rational, scientifically supported choice to make that is in the best interests of self?

We live in a stressful world and an extreme stressful time. Everyone, religious of not, should practice meditation to reduce stress.

Understanding the stress response - Harvard Health

Research suggests that chronic stress is linked to high blood pressure, clogged arteries, anxiety, depression, addictive behaviors, and obesity....

www.health.harvard.edu