• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are religions evolving?

Pouli

Unregistered
P
Recently I had a conversation with very religious christian person about evolution. He believes that the laws of evolution are absurd. To me the laws of evolution appear perfectly logical. So later while driving home, thinking over the conversation, I came to a sudden conclusion that the laws of evolution can be applied to the history of the christian religion.

I was thinking of mutation, gradual increase of complexity, isolation of parts of a population, creation of subspecies and gradually of different species, competition between different species etc.

I think all the above can be applied to christianity. Now I don’t claim to be an expert on the history of christianity but I think it goes like this. It starts at the SE of Mediterranean sea countries around 1AC, expansion over Europe and Africa and later to the other continents up to today. All this time there was constant and complex differentiation in the various doctrines and rituals, new sects, different books and clothes. Competition against other religions and gradually between the various “subspecies” of christianity. Today there are 3 major subspecies (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestants) and numerous minor.

For me the laws of evolution apply clearly to the “evolution” of Christianity and probably to most other popular religions. Why can’t they be correct for the Human species?

I find many of the regulars of these forums to be most well informed and I would appreciate your opinions on this.

(English is not my mother tongue so I apologize in advance for any mistakes )
:)
 
You may draw an analogy if you like, but religion and other mental constructs do not 'replicate' in the way that organisms do and thus are not subject to quite the same natural selection.
 
arcticpenguin said:
You may draw an analogy if you like, but religion and other mental constructs do not 'replicate' in the way that organisms do and thus are not subject to quite the same natural selection.
Click to expand...

Actually I have thought about this point and I think the religions closely resemble the biological viruses. The doctrine/virus is not alive but it is a "set of commands” that when inserted to the alive person/cell changes the way the later operates. Usually the most basic command is to start reproducing the “set of command” and to start infecting other human/cells or the doctrine/virus will “die out”.

Mutation works pretty much the same on both. One way of mutation is small random changes during the replication of the “set of commands” leading to small differences. The other major way is the recombination of ideas/genes between different species (viruses are usually strains not species in english I think but is will use species) of doctrines/viruses in large chunks leading to big overnight changes.

Also an interesting point is that both “set of commands” have the effect of protection against infection by other species. That is when a cell is infects by an A species of virus it is very difficult for B species of virus to infect and affect the cell.

Well the above info maybe hard to grasp for people not very well informed into biology but this is in brief how evolution works for biological viruses.

I hope this clears my point of view. I think the analogy works very well in this way.
 
If you are not aware of the concept of "memes" and "memetics" you might enjoy reading up on it. I believe the word "meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins, who refers to religion as a 'mind virus'.
 
arcticpenguin said:
If you are not aware of the concept of "memes" and "memetics" you might enjoy reading up on it. I believe the word "meme" was coined by Richard Dawkins, who refers to religion as a 'mind virus'.
Click to expand...

Thanks arcticpenguin. I am new this kind of conversations and have still lots of catching up to do.

(Damn I was hoping this was an original idea)
:)
 
I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It's an excellent book on evolution, considered a classic in the field. I believe that's where he first introduced the term "meme".
 
Are religions evolving?
Click to expand...

Yes.

But in the same way that new, better adapted species cause old species to go extinct, new, more evolved, better religions will trigger older ones to go extinct.

In fact, the clock on the Religion of A-Theism ran out just a relative moment ago ...
 
I recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It's an excellent book on evolution, considered a classic in the field. I believe that's where he first introduced the term "meme".
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that Dawkins coined the term “meme” he is still a moron who couldn’t distinguish between his own ass and a hole in the ground if his very existence depended on it.

Blind watchmaker! Yeah … like when I find a watch lying on the ground I assume that it randomly assembled itself. Wouldn’t that be the reasonable conclusion of any “rational” A-Theist?
 
The Meme Machine is also a good book on the subject.
Click to expand...

Blackmore ... so close ... yet so far away.

That idiot Dawkins (Her Master) will drag Her Soul right back down to the Abyss with his.
 
I have read about the watchmaker and blind watchmaker debate
(although i didnt know Richard Dawkins who seem to be involved in both :) )

I think the problem of the watch in the desert is solved as far as evolution of living organisms is concerned. About watches I dont have much experience but a logical question is this:

"Did you ding the desert sand to see if there are less complex and well constructed watches in the lower layers of it?"
 
I have read about the watchmaker and blind watchmaker debate
(although i didnt know Richard Dawkins who seem to be involved in both
Click to expand...

Dawkins wrote a book called the “The Blind Watchmaker”. In it he concludes (like a good devoted A-Theist) that if you have a giant robot computer which is capable of “randomly” assembling machines, and then some of those “randomly assembled” machines develop a property called “consciousness” or “life”, it is only reasonable to assume that the giant robot computer magically appeared out of no where, and that no one should ever consider the possibility that the giant robot computer could possibly be more conscious then the little pathetic random machines that it created.

"Did you ding the desert sand to see if there are less complex and well constructed watches in the lower layers of it?"
Click to expand...

Sure, and obviously there are.

Forget Universes, just look at living creatures … wouldn’t you say that there is evidence that life has evolved into more complex forms over Time? Isn’t human civilization more complex (more interdependent, more complexly organized) than Trilobite “civilization”?

In the same way, the Universe that existed before the Big Bang was less complex (less evolved) than this Universe.
 
Christianity does appear to spawn mutations that try to kill each other off, but any religion appears to be an evolutionary success if it still survives today. Also, it may be more of a cultural evolution than a religious one, since I can't think of any examples of where a religion was actually eliminated without the rest of a culture with it.
 
c4ts said:
Also, it may be more of a cultural evolution than a religious one, since I can't think of any examples of where a religion was actually eliminated without the rest of a culture with it.
Click to expand...

I seem to agree. The way I think it culture may be the full "set of commands" and religion a big chunk of this set.
 
I seem to agree. The way I think it culture may be the full "set of commands" and religion a big chunk of this set.
Click to expand...

So are you claiming that Reality (the Universe) is like a big Deterministic computer program? (set of commands)
 
I've also seen discussion of how some modes of thought, like some religions, protect themselves by

1) emphasizing that spereading the mode of thought is a good thing.

2) stressing that competing modes of thought are bad, e.g. any ideas incompatible with a certain religion are 'false gods' or 'temptations of the devil'.

I can't remember where I first read about this stuff, perhaps in Dawkins. Another excellent book is Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett.
 
I would start with The Selfish Gene. Like I say, it's considered a classic. Most of it is about biological evolution, and it is exceptionally well-written.
 
arcticpenguin:
I would start with The Selfish Gene. Like I say, it's considered a classic. Most of it is about biological evolution, and it is exceptionally well-written.
Click to expand...
It is indeed well written and quite enlightening. Its been years since I read it though, and I don't have a copy with me at the moment. This may explain why I don't quite understand your opposition to "memes" being subject to evolution. It seems to me that there are many similarities:

1. A meme will die out unless it is transferred to new generations.

2. If a meme is seriously detrimental to a host's survivability chances or the host's chances of passing on the meme to viable offspring, it will also tend to die out.

3. When the external environment changes or, equivalently, society changes, memes which have mutated to a degree that they better fit the new environment, are more likely to be passed on to new generations.

Your opinion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom