Religion is the worst evolutionary trait in human history

The writers of the bible were not aware of Asia east of the Middle East, or Europe, and "Hispanic" wasn't yet an idea, other than maybe meaning the tribes of Iberia at the time. The only specific mention is black people, which it refers to as "Kushim" or people from the land of Kush, which would be modern day Ethiopia/Eritrea, which from the point of view of the bible's authors was the only place black-skinned people came from, hence it is a slur in Modern Hebrew and regarded as the Hebrew equivalent of the n-word. It would be a bit like the Iroquois calling all white people "English" because those were the only white people they ever knew existed, until they met the French, which must have really blew their minds.

Had the authors been aware of China, and it's iron, masonry, paper, gunpowder, philosophers, and large organized armies and mounted troops, I suspect they would have been in complete and utter awe, as it was far more advanced than any other culture at the time by a long stretch. And they probably wouldn't have been so obsessed with their own tribe, but then, that's the way nationalism and tribalism works, and boom, you get the Bible.

 

No - that is factually incorrect. I have seen this a lot, and I've done some research on it in the past.

This Huffington post article lays is out better than I can:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/is-religion-the-cause-of-_b_1400766.html


from the article:

In their recently published book, “Encyclopedia of Wars,” authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod document the history of recorded warfare, and from their list of 1763 wars only 123 have been classified to involve a religious cause, accounting for less than 7 percent of all wars and less than 2 percent of all people killed in warfare..

..History simply does not support the hypothesis that religion is the major cause of conflict.


The Encylcopedia of Wars is a great resource - you should check it out.

 

Very few of us get to choose our religion -- for most of Earth, it's something you are born into and under incredible pressure to stay in if you don't want to alienate your family and friends. It causes a lot of cognitive dissonance when decent people have to hedge bronze age ideas with a more advanced understanding of the world and the people that live in it. And for those less grounded in reality, it provides a way by which otherwise moral people are compelled and justified in doing immoral things (genocide, infaticide, genital mutilation, child abuse, abuse of women, etc) and this is something unique to religion.

No one would make the claim that those things happen solely because of religion, but no other cause can convince people that committing those acts are just and pleasing to a higher power.

 

My point is that regardless of whether or not the authors of the bible were aware of other ethnicities or races, nowhere in there does it say you should hate Asians or hispanics, etc. In other words, people will hate those different from them even if the Bible or other religious texts never existed.

 

All those reasons are economic dominance that leads to genetic dominance. It's hardwired into us and reinforced with social programming.
The scale that we perceive things is one of differing human types, in every sci-fi movie that adds a scale of beings other than humans, the humans band together as one unit. I don't think until the "Blue Marble" pictures where it became apparent we are all one species in an enclosed system did it ever appear that way to anyone.

 

Your case is based on a myth. I'm not trying to be pro-religion, just pro actual facts.

Most conflict in human history is primarily because of territory, and leadership.

That's true of the civil-war, Both World Wars, much of the wars in England's history, China's history, Russia's history, Germany's history, France's history, with notable exceptions, etc.

It's true with a great deal of the conflicts even in the middle east.

So religion has been responsible for a very small minority of conflict throughout human history.

 

I probably lost my point, which is:
In the Old Testament, at least, there is basically THE tribe, and everyone else. It generally isn't terribly flattering of everyone else.

 

I think that programming you describe is exactly the duty of every human being to break. Tribes, religions, nationalities, races, classes -- all these are social constructs and illusions that needlessly separate us, especially when one is taught at a young age that the ones he or she belongs to is of course the "best" ones.

 

I don't think we'll break them anytime soon.

Religion seems to be a codified way of life evolved over centuries in order for people to fit or to relate.

Organized religion will be here to stay until we figure out how to connect to different people without the aid of electronic devices or how to reduce that insecure fear of being left out.

 

Scientifically, I would make the case the if you removed materialism from species ( materialism is the common trait among intelligent species like octopus, apes, birds and humans ) then you likely would not have war and violence. If materialism was the driving force of evolution to an intelligent state, the first state of life that goes to war, then removing it avoids war. You would have deaf and dumb population, but no war. So think it's materialism over religion.

But you could also make the case religically, that Eve should not have eaten the apple which lead to war and violence and evil. So the absence of women would also be a strong case.

 

Look, we know you hate Islam and you think all Muslims are fanatics like the guy in Orlando and such.

But not all religions hate all religions. I can't say, "Don't even go there," because you already did. But you're wrong.

 

No, you are wrong. Don't ever put words in my mouth again (bolded part).

 

i'm not religious at all. and i agree it has caused so many problems. but if believing in religion helps people in life and keeps them going, then so be it. its just not for me.

 

Oooooh, or what???

[insert popcorn gif]

 

We know you are immature. The statement was completely made up. That would be like me saying "Hey Rocketman95, we know you think all Republicans are fanatics like Timothy McVeigh". You wouldn't like that either.

 

Cannot prevent "wrong" doing, only persuade.

In our society, both secular laws and religious "laws" are the mean to persuade folks from doing "wrong" with promises of punishment for those that break them. In some place, they are of the same. In others, like in the USA, they are not completely independent as religious folks are also secular law makers, executors and judges.

On an individual level, you can help persuade someone from doing "wrong" by helping them understand their mind and behaviors. I propose that people want to be happy, live a peaceful and stress free life and those that truly live in that manner have a much better chance of not doing "wrong". It's pretty evidence that many have no clue how to do this. Without knowing how (the knowledge and personal insights), an easy route is to turn toward existing teaching that promises that - Religions. My take is as we learn more about how the mind and brain work, we can gain insight into the how and why and that knowledge could be the alternate or adjacent route. I also said it's a cleaner route based on actual knowledge without guesswork, ignorance or fear. I also think it's the more responsible path - instead of turning toward something outward to set you "free" and not taking responsible for your actions (hey, God said this and I'm just following), this is turning inward to self understanding and taking full responsibility for your own behaviors. .

Just a note in terms of understanding the mind, I think our best understanding is probably at the pre-K level. (and when there is little understanding, what have human done in the past to fill the gap..)

It may also well end up that the additional understanding even more strongly point to something that is spiritual. All perfectly fine. At min, we gain the benefits of losing some ignorance.

 

I think there is enough writing and history over how to understand the mind. It may never be complete or advanced as future copies, but there's enough of a working framework for people to find their place in the universe. Whether that fits or jives with modern society is a different matter.

Maybe that's because ruling factions over different eras liked to burn books of any countervailing philosophy that preceded it.

 

By the way, how many books have been written in human history and how many can we still get a readable copy?

There's likely terabytes worth of people's written thoughts, yet here we are, reinventing the wheel and thinking the same damn things.

 

_________________

Rocket River

 

Agree. There are plenty of fine work in philosophy and religion regarding the mind. There is not much in science. Psychology has come close, but the real break through IMO is when we understand the brain and the mind/ brain/body/physical world interaction. Maybe that work reveal that one/some of the philosophy / religion has it correct to at least some level - but before so, it's not "concrete" and is left to individual to believe or not (either faith or personal discovery).