Does man’s propensity for religion has some adaptive function?
Tom
http://www.economist.com/books/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15124974
I have heard the group cohesion arguement before and I think it may have some merit.
There are over a 100 comments on the article as well, like:
Religion helping group cohesiveness sounds positive for early human communities of the Bronze age, perhaps. But later on in our history, this cohesiveness led to wars, forcible conversions, and even ethnic cleansing. Not good. Religious cohesiveness and tribal identity is claiming many lives in Afghanistan and Pakistan, right now. Not good at all.
However, if one could separate the socio-political features of religion from its purely spiritual, then there are some wonderful ideas, notions and concepts that can make individuals' lives meaningful. Faith at the individual level is not at all a bad thing. But as a collective feature, it can harm.
The socio-political goals of religions, especially, those of the Middle-East are not much different from political ideologies, such as Marxism - both juxtaposed shades of grey. Therefore, a religion that can easily move into the 'political shade of grey' represents a major force and a great danger.
Super religious tribes, which is what 'organised' religions are, pose a danger to humanity.
They combine God and Politics. That will mean the end of Peace. Ironic that humans have always killed more often, in the name of God - the killers' God!!
--
credat Judæus Apella
Clogtowner
Boyer is leaning this way although we have only read three chapters -
certainly the early cohesiveness leading to selection.
On Dec 29, 12:37 pm, Tom <ssoitg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...faith would not have persisted over thousands of generations if it had
> not helped the human race to survive. ...[Religion] promotes moral rules
> and cementing cohesion.http://www.economist.com/books/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15124974
>
> I have heard the group cohesion arguement before and I think it may have
> some merit.
>