Religion is the worst evolutionary trait in human history

Mr. Junger’s premise is simple: Modern civilization may be swell, giving us unimaginable autonomy and material bounty. But it has also deprived us of the psychologically invaluable sense of community and interdependence that we hominids enjoyed for millions of years. It is only during moments of great adversity that we come together and enjoy that kind of fellowship — which may explain why, paradoxically, we thrive during those moments. (In the six months after Sept. 11, Mr. Junger writes, the murder rate in New York dropped by 40 percent, and the suicide rate by 20 percent.)

War, too, for all of its brutality and ugliness, satisfies some of our deepest evolutionary yearnings for connectedness. Platoons are like tribes. They give soldiers a chance to demonstrate their valor and loyalty, to work cooperatively, to show utter selflessness. Is it any wonder that so many of them say they miss the action when they come home?

As a former anthropology major, Mr. Junger takes a special interest in tribal life. He notes that a striking number of American colonists ran off to join Native American societies, but the reverse was almost never true. He describes the structure and values of hunter-gatherer groups, including the ones that lasted well into the 20th century, like the !Kung in the Kalahari.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/b...hers-returning-to-a-divided-country.html?_r=0

 

That's an incredibly cynical view of humanity then.

The idea that people, who read a book they believe to be the perfect word of God telling them to kill people, would go out and find some other justification to kill people if they didn't have their religion.... totally wrong.

Except for true psychopaths of course, but that's a variable that is taken into account regardless.

This is the problem with religion. It gives sane people motivation and cause to do, en masse, what individually only lunatics would believe or do on their own.

 

I don't eat turkey bacon, but I think if they didn't call it bacon it wouldn't get the hate.

 

That doesn't absolve a religious ideology that incites hate and violence from being responsible.

The argument "if he didn't get motivated by this fascist ideology, it would just be a different fascist ideology" still doesn't mean you don't have to fight the current fascist ideology.

 

"mechanically separated turkey griddle strips"

 

You can say "totally wrong" and "negative" all you'd like.

There are multiple causes of violence committed in human history because of beliefs other than religion.

Again look at: jingoism, ethnic pride, territorial expansion, political power, blood feuds, mob violence, gang violence, drug wars, etc...

Humans have no shortage of excuses to be violent.

Additionally, it's odd that you think anyone who is willing to kill someone (whether dictated by the word of God or not) is not a lunatic. I think that's where our disagreement is occurring. The people who do these things are inherently inclined to do them regardless.

Furthermore, I don't agree with the premise of this thread because there are religions other than the three major monotheistic ones that have had much less violent histories. It's unfair to lump them all in the same category.

The OP's premise has a lot of major flaws.

 

Please show me one religion that requires violence as its creed? Every religion promotes peace. Its the fringe followers that incite violence. If a group of people misinterpret what a religious book says, what makes you think they wont do the same to any other book or media?

 

Is this a real question?

 

I wish humans would pick better literature to worship. Maybe the Harry Potter series or something. Less hate and being scared of everything you didn't grow up with, less parental taught hate and fear - more of a focus on education and wizard type stuff.

 

Religion provides that extra push to turn rational minds into irrational minds. For example, a nationalistic or tribal motivation will not make someone believe that they will be rewarded to throw away their 'temporary' life and die for their God.

 

i disagree. religion is a tool that sets standards of morality in a given society.

laws are just arbitrary and not static without context, religion provides that context for a human being to identify what is right from what is wrong. religion shapes one's moral compass and holds that grip over one's consciousness that secularism cannot.

religion is more compatible with human consciousness than secular law; which are in constant flux.

with that, two fold being that if a person interprets their religion in a particular way they can do great good or great harm justified by faith.

you cannot have one, but not the other.

im not a religious person, more spiritual- but i also understand the significance and use of religion as a system of control for society at large.

 

Or you are buddhist who can believe in several religions at once.

Christian Buddhist? That's fine.

 

A nationalistic motivation has lead many to throw away their lives for the "greater good" of their country.

Most of the wars in human history have been "nationalistic" in nature.

 

I was thinking greed, vanity, pride, and violence were way higher on that list than religion.

 

So the dude expressed his support for an Islamic state, and Isis....

Sigh..

DD

 

I think it runs deeper than simply religion.

The problem is being rigidly ideological and unwilling to see things from other people's perspective and look for common ground. Religious indoctrination often contributes to this, but I don't think its belief in God or moral systems deriving from religion that's the main problem. Often times the most peaceful, charitable, and loving people in a given community are also the most religious.

 

Religion is just an excuse for violence, not the cause of it.

 

Huh, so people would hate gays all on their own without someone telling them since they were little that it was against God's law?

Yeah, no - religion begets violence - in pretty much all the texts it supports it.

DD

 

Secular society and laws do not need to not have a moral basis. It's strange to hold the usual belief that human in modern society with all the advancements and understanding of psychology and other scientific fields cannot form a moral compass that is grounded in facts and data. I would think that such moral is much more compatible with human, with nature and reality and less to do with guesswork and worse, ignorance and fear. And yes, moral does not need to be static - it can change with additional understanding. Imagine one future day (and I don't think it's that far out) that human have a much better understanding of the mind, of emotions and what of them are positive and what are negative, how they impact individual and uses those understanding to form a set of "fact based" moral. I think as this field of the mind and brain grow drastically over the next few decades, people will take less of a neutral stance toward "science based" morals... it's understandable today that they would as science doesn't deal with guesswork.

 

lars may have a point there. The dude beat his wife and was unstable long before this happened. He was a crazy, and a crazy that happened to follow a religion where the crazies carry out more of their attacks.