What if atheism is being naturally selected out?

[T'ai Chi]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?

[TobiasTheViking]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to atheism than theism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, theism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as theists do given this scientific evidence?

[Dunstan]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?

Probably nothing, unless said persons are susceptible to the naturalistic fallacy.

And even if they are, what can they do? Like Pascal's Wager, this is not an argument for the existence of God. It's not even an argument for belief in the existence of God. It's an argument for pretending to believe in the existence of God, in the hopes that you can "fool" either an omniscient deity (as in the Pascal version) or a natural process (as in your version).

[Seismosaurus]

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?

I'd do nothing differently to now. I don't see what there would be to do differently. Nothing you say has any bearing whatsoever on my being an atheist.

[kedo1981]

If the rest of the world is full of murderous lunatics who are willing to put on a suicide vest or burn innocent people at the stake and the same said lunatics run countries and control vast fortunes and then reject the gifts of reason and science. Then yes there would appear to an advantage to choosing ignorance and fear of the supernatural.

If my kind is (or the kind I hope I am) ; those who reject fear of ghost, gouls, goblins and gods; are hunted down and annihilated then the rest of the race can bite me, may they wallow in the pits of ignorance, just like people like that have done for thousands of years and called it holy.

[bruto]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?Evolutionary advantage depends on whether or not you breed. So find another person, and breed. If atheism is for some reason a bar to finding a suitable mate, lie. Find a nice juicy theist mate, and produce children. Of course it's all nonsense anyway, because it presumes there is a genetic or organic difference that accounts for belief, which I doubt. It seems a huge stretch to consider personal belief as having anything to do with natural selection, unless one has a very odd idea of what natural selection is.

[fuelair]

Philosophy is for fun.

Science is for reality.

You pays yer money and you makes yer choice.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have heard the argument that liberals are a dying breed as they are more likely to have abortions.

[the PC apeman]

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?Be atheists - probably for the rest of their lives. Natural selection operates over generations of a population, not over the lifespan of an individual.

[Dunstan]

Be atheists - probably for the rest of their lives. Natural selection operates over generations of a population, not over the lifespan of an individual.

Right. Even granting the OP's hypothetical, my desire to have a .000000001% (or similar small amount) of influence over the religious beliefs of humans 10,000 years from now is not even close to being a factor in my decision to have children.

[fuelair]

I am sensing creeping Lamarckism/Lysenckoism here of the philosophical sort. I seem to recall that was some disproven!!

[politas]

I am sensing creeping Lamarckism/Lysenckoism here of the philosophical sort. I seem to recall that was some disproven!!

Meme evolution is Lamarckian, and religions/philosophies are meme complexes. Lamarckism has been disproven for biological evolution, not meme evolution.

But what gets me about the OP is how a pair of hypotheticals can even be referred to as "scientific evidence"? I saw no evidence in the first two sentences, just vague hypothetical conjecturing, totally unsupported.

I've got no problems considering a hypothetical situation and attempting to theorise the possible outcome of such a situation, but to refer to it as "scientific evidence" is misleading.

[qayak]

I have heard the argument that liberals are a dying breed as they are more likely to have abortions.

Really? I don't think the evidence would bear this out. It would probably show that "liberals" are more likely to use proper birth control methods thus reducing the number of abortions per capita.

That is, as long some religious, conservative, politician isn't blocking their access to birth control. :p

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Really? I don't think the evidence would bear this out. It would probably show that "liberals" are more likely to use proper birth control methods thus reducing the number of abortions per capita.

The argument carries from the recent book (uggh, I forget the title) that presented the idea that crime is currently down due to the large quantities of abortions in traditionally poor and crime ridden areas of the country over the last several decades.


ETA: I remembered: Freakonomics

[qayak]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Okay, but only for the sake of the discussion. I think, in today's modern world, it doesn't much matter.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Once again, only for the sake of discussion. This is the type of fear mongering that leads theists to commit atrocities.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?

Well, being reasonable people we probably won't do much but if we were to decide action was needed we could just turn to theists for the answer. And we have such great choices:

1- Kill everyone who doesn't share your beliefs.

2- Force everyone to convert to atheism and kill them if they don't.

3- Begin atheist indoctrination of children immediately after birth.

4- Remove the children of theists from their homes and indoctrinate them in atheism.

5- Impliment a program where all atheists are not allowed to use birth control or have access to abortion along with a breeding incentive program, where atheists get paid for each and every child they have. And this is in real cash, not "buy a place in heaven bucks."

I think these five would get the job done.

Any of you skeptic chicks want to get started on that breeding program? I am sure there are a lot of us skeptic guys ready, willing, and able to start immediately! :D

[Roboramma]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?
Nothing different from what they were doing before they knew this. Why should they care?

Seriously, why should they care?

[bruto]

Okay, but only for the sake of the discussion. I think, in today's modern world, it doesn't much matter.



Once again, only for the sake of discussion. This is the type of fear mongering that leads theists to commit atrocities.



Well, being reasonable people we probably won't do much but if we were to decide action was needed we could just turn to theists for the answer. And we have such great choices:

1- Kill everyone who doesn't share your beliefs.

2- Force everyone to convert to atheism and kill them if they don't.

3- Begin atheist indoctrination of children immediately after birth.

4- Remove the children of theists from their homes and indoctrinate them in atheism.

5- Impliment a program where all atheists are not allowed to use birth control or have access to abortion along with a breeding incentive program, where atheists get paid for each and every child they have. And this is in real cash, not "buy a place in heaven bucks."

I think these five would get the job done.

Any of you skeptic chicks want to get started on that breeding program? I am sure there are a lot of us skeptic guys ready, willing, and able to start immediately! :D

The fundamental flaw in the starting situation is the implication that atheists either can or will not breed with non-atheists, or that there exists some mechanism whereby atheists are sorted out by society. But I have heard that atheists are actually free to move about among decent folk, and occasionally pass for regular people. 9466 It's too late, T'ai!

[-Fran-]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?

What would I do as an atheist? Kill myself? Is that a good answer? Of all the weird questions... :rolleyes: Well, I have decided to not have kids, so I guess my personal "atheist gene" will get no further. Aren't you proud of me? :D

[DoubtingStephen]

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?

This situation calls for a two prong strategy. First atheists must reproduce as much as possible. The atheist pope, Richard Dawkins, would have to issue orders that no atheist practice birth control, and gay atheist marriage would have to be outlawed. Of course the atheist movement would continue recruiting Christian children into the Homosexual Lifestyle Choice™ to help reduce reproduction among those religiously afflicted.

Atheist women would have to submit to their husbands and stay home, barefoot and pregnant, cooking up the atheist victuals for the nightly reproduction orgies. Since one atheist male would be capable of keeping a number of women pregnant, the atheist-controlled New York Jew media and Hollywood Libruls could promote polygamy, but for atheists only (of course).

In the second part of this clever strategy atheists would home school their children to protect them from any Jeebus meme genetic regression, and they would train their kids to slaughter or at least render sterile any theist children they encounter before they reach adolescence. This would make it impossible for theists to reproduce beyond the current generation, and within 50 years the new atheist species would emerge victorious, probably during a cruise to the satanic Galapagos Islands.

This strategy would certainly work, because atheism is hereditary.

[Kopji]

Do what most atheists do and declare themselves believers? :D

I'd always wondered why this did not go the other way. We might be a lot less willing to throw our kids away in far off wars if more people did not believe in a justice that transcended this life, or God.

[rwp]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?

If it were true that "atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture" then it wouldn't matter much because atheists can form from theists.

An atheist does not require any atheist ancestors.

[articulett]

The stupid and the religious (often one and the same) do seem to spawn more.... but they are also more likely to kill each other for their magic sky daddy. But I think with the internet, it's going to take real stupidity (on par with t'ai's) to keep people from seeing how easily humans believe crazy things-- and then wonder if they, too, might be believing crazy things. Gods disappear as humans gain knowledge and become more civilized. It's just that the religious folks keep breeding and killing their enemies so it might take a while before reason wins the day. Many people have been infected with the "faith is good" meme-- and it does tend to make the infected one less penetrable to logic... but I have "faith" in humanity... that we will teach each other to think critically. T'ai is an excellent example as to what can happen when one doesn't. I would imagine all believers would want to be ever careful not to end up like him. I think the surge of deists, theist-lite and agnostics etc. are a sign of the letting go-- and I also think that the fundy screams are part of their death call.

Theism is spread through culture... just like language. And critical thinking can spread similarly to combat the dumber types. I look forward to the day when theists are "in the closet" the way they expect atheists to be.

[articulett]

This would make it impossible for theists to reproduce beyond the current generation, and within 50 years the new atheist species would emerge victorious, probably during a cruise to the satanic Galapagos Islands.

This strategy would certainly work, because atheism is hereditary.

I thought Hades was the Satanic Island... or Bermuda... or something about the Bermuda Triangle.

Actually, intelligence is hereditary and there is a correlation between intelligence and atheism... of course, the intelligent do tend to spawn less for obvious reasons-- they think ahead. The dumb out breed us of course... and science has ensured that even they will survive in great numbers despite those who earn Darwin awards. Antibiotics and caring for the less fit ensured that this would be so.

But overall, I think your strategy has merit, and I will bring it up at the next meeting of the Atheist Agenda after we've eaten fried babies and committed a minor genocide to get in the spirit for the War on Christmas.

[articulett]

Any of you skeptic chicks want to get started on that breeding program? I am sure there are a lot of us skeptic guys ready, willing, and able to start immediately! :D

I have been an egg donor, and I made sure that my ova went to a suitably non-theist couple. I've done my share. I've spawned and created non believing spawn who are brilliant.

[qayak]

I have been an egg donor, and I made sure that my ova went to a suitably non-theist couple. I've done my share. I've spawned and created non believing spawn who are brilliant.

You atheists are so clinical! Remember when procreating didn't require a team of doctors, a laboratory, and sterile surroundings but instead was the result of that ageless combination of a man, a woman, and a cheap bottle of alcohol?

Can't we get back to the down and dirty of good old fashioned fornicating? :p

[Smackety]

In a world where Theists are more likely to survive and raise offspring, thereby giving them an evolutionary advantage....
How much more likely?

If the effect is very slight - nothing would happen so nothing would be done. The current rate of interbreeding would prevent divergence.

Are we proposing a world where half of all Athiests die before reaching child-bearing age versus only 1/10th of Theists?
I would say Theism is a tool, like opera or a spatula. It is similar, but far inferior IMHO, to a tool we call government. Atheists would have to adapt the tool 'Theism' for their purposes. It is not a particularly complicated tool, so..no biggie.

In an extreme case: if the choice was "believe in god or die", some would choose to believe...so?

In any case, I am not sure it would be a world worth living in.

[fishkr]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?


What would be the means of selection? Political suppresion? Atheisticide?

Given an unsupported pseudo-hypothosis like this, how is one to respond?

[rocketdodger]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?

Laugh.

Evolutionary advantage no longer matters in the human game of life. Technological advantage matters.

Would you care to guess, T'ai, which side the typical atheist is on in that respect?

[qayak]

Evolutionary advantage no longer matters in the human game of life. Technological advantage matters.

Hmmmmm ....... that's an awefully bold statement! Don't know if I agree with it.

[rocketdodger]

Hmmmmm ....... that's an awefully bold statement! Don't know if I agree with it.

Right off the top of my head I can give three strong examples.

1) The ease with which indigenous peoples around the world were subjugated by Europeans.

2) The number of formally disadvantageous hereditary medical conditions that are now trivial because of medicine.

3) All the good genes in the world don't do sh-- against thermonuclear weapons.

[CFLarsen]

The stupid and the religious (often one and the same) do seem to spawn more....

Yes, and dem lazy negroes eat watermelon and chicken all day....

but they are also more likely to kill each other for their magic sky daddy.

Yes, I can imagine that atheists would not kill each other for their magic sky daddy... :rolleyes:

But I think with the internet, it's going to take real stupidity (on par with t'ai's) to keep people from seeing how easily humans believe crazy things-- and then wonder if they, too, might be believing crazy things. Gods disappear as humans gain knowledge and become more civilized. It's just that the religious folks keep breeding and killing their enemies so it might take a while before reason wins the day. Many people have been infected with the "faith is good" meme-- and it does tend to make the infected one less penetrable to logic... but I have "faith" in humanity... that we will teach each other to think critically. T'ai is an excellent example as to what can happen when one doesn't. I would imagine all believers would want to be ever careful not to end up like him. I think the surge of deists, theist-lite and agnostics etc. are a sign of the letting go-- and I also think that the fundy screams are part of their death call.

Theism is spread through culture... just like language. And critical thinking can spread similarly to combat the dumber types. I look forward to the day when theists are "in the closet" the way they expect atheists to be.

This is precisely how skeptics should not go about fighting superstition: By referring to believers as dumb, stupid, fast-breeding idiots.

Actually, intelligence is hereditary

Evidence?

and there is a correlation between intelligence and atheism...

Evidence?

of course, the intelligent do tend to spawn less for obvious reasons-- they think ahead. The dumb out breed us of course... and science has ensured that even they will survive in great numbers despite those who earn Darwin awards. Antibiotics and caring for the less fit ensured that this would be so.

If anything, it is smart to breed as much as possible. Your genes are spread more.

[Fiona]

T'ai Chi already raised the possibility of a God gene in another thread. Is there any reason whatsoever to suppose that religion is genetic? If there is, it is clearly not a a gene we all have, as the opening post admits. So what reason is there to suppose that having or not having such a gene confers any evolutionary advantage at all? We are all still here, after all.

[dann]

Is there any reason whatsoever to suppose that religion is genetic? With the number of atheists here with Christian parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and great-great granparents, it doesn't sound bloody likely.

[dann]

I have been an egg donor, and I made sure that my ova went to a suitably non-theist couple. I've done my share. I've spawned and created non believing spawn who are brilliant.Interesting concept. Most people would probably have helped out a suitably harmonious, considerate, caring couple, but in this case it is very considerate and empathic to simply have your "spawn" grow up with and taken care of by somebody else.

[dann]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism. Consider the hypothesis that there is more evolutionary advantage to brains that make their owners able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be atheists, Xians or not give a damn ...

[dann]

If anything, it is smart to breed as much as possible. Your genes are spread more.This is supposed to be smart, Claus? And if you don't like children, if you think that the world is already populated enough, if you don't want to pass on to another generation the troubles your genetic makeup has caused you or if you know that you won't make a very good parent, is it still smart?
It is always a mistake to consider the passing-on of genes the prime purpose in (your!) life. And, as I suppose everybody here knows (?), evolution does not serve a purpose since it does not have a designer.

[CFLarsen]

This is supposed to be smart, Claus? And if you don't like children, if you think that the world is already populated enough, if you don't want to pass on to another generation the troubles your genetic makeup has caused you or if you know that you won't make a very good parent, is it still smart?
It is always a mistake to consider the passing-on of genes the prime purpose in (your!) life. And, as I suppose everybody here knows (?), evolution does not serve a purpose since it does not have a designer.

I was following articulett's argument that she wanted to spawn her intelligent atheist genes. Then, the smartest thing you can do, is to spread your genes as much as possible.

For some reason, articulett thinks that the smartest thing for atheists is not to "spawn".

[dann]

OK, now I think I got it, Claus. We aren't native speakers of English so forgive me for correcting you: If anything, it is smart to breed as much as possible. It's spelled breathe. (But don't start hyperventilating!) :)

[CFLarsen]

OK, now I think I got it, Claus. We aren't native speakers of English so forgive me for correcting you: It's spelled breathe. (But don't start hyperventilating!) :)

:D

[Foster Zygote]

I guess the OP, vapid as it is, would depend on whether the atheist population is shown to be shrinking or growing. So, are there fewer atheists now than in the past?

[bruto]

I guess the OP, vapid as it is, would depend on whether the atheist population is shown to be shrinking or growing. So, are there fewer atheists now than in the past?Even that is meaningless unless you can produce evidence that theism and atheism are both hereditary and irreversible.

[qayak]

Right off the top of my head I can give three strong examples.

1) The ease with which indigenous peoples around the world were subjugated by Europeans.

But . . . that isn't the case anymore. Those indigenous people have now adapted to the change and are more and more in control of their part of the planet. Let's face it, the British Empire just ain't what it used to be.

2) The number of formally disadvantageous hereditary medical conditions that are now trivial because of medicine.

This is not a blow to evolution, evolution doesn't care. Those people are just added to the gene pool and evolution continues on its merry way. This technology didn't slow evolution, it just pushed it in a slightly different direction.

3) All the good genes in the world don't do sh-- against thermonuclear weapons.

Evolution created thermonuclear weapons. Thermonuclear weapons will destroy the ability to use thermonuclear weapons before they will destroy evolution.

The effects of evolution are very hard to see over the period of a single lifetime or even several generations. Evolution works with small changes over long, long periods of time. Thermonuclear weapons can't do sh** against evolution.

[qayak]

. . . but in this case it is very considerate and empathic to simply have your "spawn" grow up with and taken care of by somebody else.

Cow birds do it and it is very beneficial to both the parent and the adoptive parent.

[rwp]

Everyone in this world is born an atheist.

When children are capable of understanding language, adults can instill theistic beliefs into them.

Do infants already speak English (or any other modern language) at birth? No; it is taught to the child by the gradual, persistent efforts of the community around that child. The same is true of theism.

Theism requires the influence of other theists in order to survive. A person can invent his own brand of theism, but in order for others to share his beliefs, he must spread the word and encourage others to do the same.

If a child is raised as a theist then he may later abandon theism as a valid idea as he gains more knowledge of the world around him but this does not require the influence of other atheist individuals.

[dann]

A child is born ignorant. It would therefore be more correct to say that it was born a nontheist. Which faiths or ideas it adopts in the course of its life is not predestined. It may become a Buddhist, an atheist, a skeptic or a Christian. It may come up with ideas similar to all of those on its own, or it may be inspired by its surroundings. Even if it is brought up by fundies, it has to accept the explanations for their beliefs, and toddlers ask an awful lot of questions ...
Even taking the stories at face value instead of asking questions is something it has to learn.

[rwp]

A child is born ignorant. It would therefore be more correct to say that it was born a nontheist.

What do you suppose the a in a-theist means?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Even that is meaningless unless you can produce evidence that theism and atheism are both hereditary and irreversible.I don't think so, especially the irreversible part, but I wouldn't be so quick to rule out genetic influences on behavior.

Scientists bred mice who were not naturally afraid of cats (http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=3384), implicating this behavior is genetic, not learned.

[Skeptic Ginger]

However, atheism increases in direct correlation to advances in modernity with the current exception of the citizens in the USA.

And if you look at the broader picture, instead of just narrowly looking at the current Christian and Islamic movements, I think you could make a good case that belief in gods is decreasing overall. I don't think many people in the modern world believe as Pat Robertson does that gods are controlling hurricanes, for example. In the distant past a majority of people certainly would have believed that.

You have to separate out the socio-political component of god beliefs to really judge whether or not the human population is moving toward more or less theism.

[bruto]

I don't think so, especially the irreversible part, but I wouldn't be so quick to rule out genetic influences on behavior.

Scientists bred mice who were not naturally afraid of cats (http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=3384), implicating this behavior is genetic, not learned.Maybe I didn't say it right. For natural selection to be a factor, would you not have to show that the difference between theism and atheism depends on biology rather than learning? I suppose if you did in fact find and identify a genetic trait that favored one or the other position, you could make the argument, but lacking that, how can you select for learned behavior?

[CFLarsen]

However, atheism increases in direct correlation to advances in modernity

Evidence?

with the current exception of the citizens in the USA.

Why do you think that is?

What makes a nation basically consisting of people from the rest of the world different from...people from the rest of the world?

And if you look at the broader picture, instead of just narrowly looking at the current Christian and Islamic movements, I think you could make a good case that belief in gods is decreasing overall. I don't think many people in the modern world believe as Pat Robertson does that gods are controlling hurricanes, for example. In the distant past a majority of people certainly would have believed that.

It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what you can show evidence of.

You have to separate out the socio-political component of god beliefs to really judge whether or not the human population is moving toward more or less theism.

Is that even possible? If so, are you using evidence or your personal opinion to "judge"?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe I didn't say it right. For natural selection to be a factor, would you not have to show that the difference between theism and atheism depends on biology rather than learning? I suppose if you did in fact find and identify a genetic trait that favored one or the other position, you could make the argument, but lacking that, how can you select for learned behavior?Selecting for learned behavior is a well supported hypothesis as is genetic components to behavior. The cat fear gene in the mouse uses that hypothesis, makes a prediction and demonstrates the hypothesis was correct. How it works is a little more complicated. How the cat fear gene was selected is rather obvious.

How a god believing gene would be selected would have to do with the benefits of group cohesion. To be cohesive human groups see themselves as having things in common and outsiders as lacking those things. Religion is well known as a means of group identity. Even rituals have that effect. Things like not eating pork create an us and them situation.

[bruto]

Selecting for learned behavior is a well supported hypothesis as is genetic components to behavior. The cat fear gene in the mouse uses that hypothesis, makes a prediction and demonstrates the hypothesis was correct. How it works is a little more complicated. How the cat fear gene was selected is rather obvious.

How a god believing gene would be selected would have to do with the benefits of group cohesion. To be cohesive human groups see themselves as having things in common and outsiders as lacking those things. Religion is well known as a means of group identity. Even rituals have that effect. Things like not eating pork create an us and them situation.I'm sure that you can select for learned behavior, and use learned behavior as an indicator of some underlying genetic trait, but my point is simply that unless you can identify the trait as genetic then you can't expect it to respond to selection, can you? If there is no genetic component to theist vs. atheist, then there's nothing you can do to breed more of one or the other. If there is, then we have a problem, but so far I haven't seen evidence of it.

[DoubtingStephen]

What makes a nation basically consisting of people from the rest of the world different from...people from the rest of the world?


What if the persons migrating to the US from other parts of the world were preselected for certain traits, like a predisposition to Fundamentalist religious afflictions?

Wasn't it the 19th century when Britain got the idea of getting rid of some undesirable characters? As I recall criminals were sent to Australia and religious fanatics to America. It seems Australia got first choice.

Is it not also true that other whacked out religious cults came from other areas in Europe to escape the oppression of different cults?

So if we had one nation that was colonized by religious fanatics who were perfectly willing to kill off the original inhabitants in Jesus' name, we might end up with a society in which the looniest of religious afflictions are over-represented as compared to saner nations.

And once the sinful original inhabitants that did not suffer from the same type of religious afflictions had been killed off or recruited into the club, the concentration of lunacy would be protected.

Since religious afflictions are primarily imposed on otherwise innocent children by their deluded parents, a society with an excess of religiously-afflicted persons might tend to persist in that condition. If we add a frenetic impulse to proselytize the organized fairy tale system, the tendency for ancient superstitions to remain active might be reinforced.

It seems conceivable that this kind of a history might lead to the formation of a relatively young nation with an unfortunately high rate of religious affliction.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evidence?Top countries for largest number of atheists. (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html) There is a note at the bottom worth looking at, "* NOTE: The estimates of the number of atheists in North Korea, China and Cuba may be unreliable. The best data available have been used in making these estimates, but the people in these three nations live under Communist governments which have traditionally suppressed religious freedom and officially (often forcibly) endorsed atheism."

In Vietnam there was something skewing the results as well. I looked into this before. It had to do with the survey questions and the fact there was a lot of ancestor worship or belief in magic they didn't label as gods. I can't recall the details and am not going to recheck what they were. If you are interested, you can look into it.

Why do you think that is?

What makes a nation basically consisting of people from the rest of the world different from...people from the rest of the world?I can only speculate and you don't think my opinion is worth bothering with as you say in the next sentence.

It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what you can show evidence of.To take a page from your book, Claus, so you think a larger percentage of people today believe gods control hurricanes and other natural disasters than the percentage of people 40,000 years ago? Look around you. Science has more answers than at any time in the past. Just what is it you think I need to support a claim that when viewed as a whole the human race is becoming more aware that the natural world is not controlled by demons and gods. Certainly all the people who still have god beliefs don't all think gods are making volcanoes erupt. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
You have to separate out the socio-political component of god beliefs to really judge whether or not the human population is moving toward more or less theism.

Is that even possible? If so, are you using evidence or your personal opinion to "judge"?This is simply a way of looking at something. I am not making some claim of fact as you seem to think. Gee, Claus, you can look at a car or you can look at its parts. That's my personal opinion.

[CFLarsen]

What if the persons migrating to the US from other parts of the world were preselected for certain traits, like a predisposition to Fundamentalist religious afflictions?

Wasn't it the 19th century when Britain got the idea of getting rid of some undesirable characters? As I recall criminals were sent to Australia and religious fanatics to America. It seems Australia got first choice.

Is it not also true that other whacked out religious cults came from other areas in Europe to escape the oppression of different cults?

So if we had one nation that was colonized by religious fanatics who were perfectly willing to kill off the original inhabitants in Jesus' name, we might end up with a society in which the looniest of religious afflictions are over-represented as compared to saner nations.

And once the sinful original inhabitants that did not suffer from the same type of religious afflictions had been killed off or recruited into the club, the concentration of lunacy would be protected.

Since religious afflictions are primarily imposed on otherwise innocent children by their deluded parents, a society with an excess of religiously-afflicted persons might tend to persist in that condition. If we add a frenetic impulse to proselytize the organized fairy tale system, the tendency for ancient superstitions to remain active might be reinforced.

It seems conceivable that this kind of a history might lead to the formation of a relatively young nation with an unfortunately high rate of religious affliction.

Could be.

But why this emphasis during the formation of the US on keeping religion out of the government, then? Wouldn't you expect that these fundamentalists would make damned sure that their own religious fundamentalism would be protected?

There are also large groups of immigrants who didn't go to the US for religious reasons. E.g., the Irish during the Potato famine.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Could be.

But why this emphasis during the formation of the US on keeping religion out of the government, then? Wouldn't you expect that these fundamentalists would make damned sure that their own religious fundamentalism would be protected?At the time the US was founded the people who had fled religious persecution were leery of government involvement in their religious lives. They specifically wanted a government that didn't get involved in religion.

There are also large groups of immigrants who didn't go to the US for religious reasons. E.g., the Irish during the Potato famine.That doesn't rule out Stephen's hypothesis.

[DoubtingStephen]

But why this emphasis during the formation of the US on keeping religion out of the government, then? Wouldn't you expect that these fundamentalists would make damned sure that their own religious fundamentalism would be protected?


Having lived in America and seen the villainy of religion, and the way it purports to be good while doing evil, the founding fathers of our country, intelligent men who did their own thinking, wanted to do as much as they could to keep the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells at arms length from the seat of power.

They had plenty of examples right at hand of the evil that results when religion and politics form their evil blend. Salem Massachusetts is not that far from Philadelphia.

There seems to be a certain dichotomy in America, a taking of sides, with the rational people at one end of the spectrum and Fundamentalists at the other. Fortunately the vast majority in the middle is not hell bent on intolerance and stupidity, they just need better education and the stimulation of their minds. Unfortunately there are also millions and millions of televisions in America, each capable of receiving hundreds of channels of warm, fuzzy, mind-numbing crap.

Certainly to the extent that young people are moving away from religion, there does seem to be hope, despite our election system and the current infestation of Fundamentalists in the Party of Jesus.

I see atheism as being naturally selected in the future. It has the advantage of not being stupid, and not stupid has obvious value in a technological society.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I see atheism as being naturally selected in the future. It has the advantage of not being stupid, and not stupid has obvious value in a technological society.Here here! A logical prediction.

[CapelDodger]

But what gets me about the OP is how a pair of hypotheticals can even be referred to as "scientific evidence"? I saw no evidence in the first two sentences, just vague hypothetical conjecturing, totally unsupported.

The weird formulation is what struck me as well. Not a well-formed proposition by any means. I'll read on to see if it evolves into one, but with no sense of optimism.

[CapelDodger]

I see atheism as being naturally selected in the future. It has the advantage of not being stupid, and not stupid has obvious value in a technological society.

Absolutely. Practical problems demand practical responses. Praying for deliverance doesn't cut it.

[CapelDodger]

Having lived in America and seen the villainy of religion, and the way it purports to be good while doing evil, the founding fathers of our country, intelligent men who did their own thinking, wanted to do as much as they could to keep the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells at arms length from the seat of power.

And those good ol' boys did one heck of a job. Two full terms of Reagan and one and a bit of Uncle Karl's boy, and what have the fundies got out of it? Squat. Not the merest shadow of an actual Amendment. Hats off to them, I say.

[Jeff Corkern]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?

Nothing, I imagine. That makes the most sense. Why should they care?

Why would atheists care if their religious belief is being selected out or not? I don't know of anything in atheism that absolutely requires they be a member of a group that believes as they do. And as far as I know, there's no command in atheism to go out and spread the Good Atheist News to anybody. I've had many a religious missionary knock on my front door and try to convert me. I've never had the first atheist missionary try it.

[articulett]

Yes, I think religion is a primitive way of understanding cause and effect and attempting to control our environment... it grows as a learning mechanism... but we have better ways of learning useful information. Religion invents a fear (eternal damnation) and then proffers itself as the solution-- an insurance policy-- it rides along primal instincts like fear and thinking ahead. But as science explains more, the role of religion gets smaller--there are clearly better ways to understand the world and to achieve healthy societies.

Religion will go the way of superstitions past because they can not verify that which they promise. Small enclaves of the ignorant will still believe but we will reach more of them via the internet, travel, books, and conversation. Theism will die out like demons.

[CapelDodger]

At the time the US was founded the people who had fled religious persecution were leery of government involvement in their religious lives.

The colonists that fled religious persecution weren't agin it per se. They differed on who should be doing the persecuting - they favoured themselves as the persecutors, unsurprisingly.

The United States came a lot later.

They specifically wanted a government that didn't get involved in religion.

Come the drafting of Constitutions - including The Constitution - state involvement with religion was regarded as a source of pointless and unproductive contention. The experience this derived from was European, and in that sense the separation of church and state was no different from avoiding "foreign entanglements" - another bad European example.

North American history, from witch-trials to Moon-landing and beyond, is actually a good refutation of T'ai Chi's mental meandering.

[CapelDodger]

There are also large groups of immigrants who didn't go to the US for religious reasons. E.g., the Irish during the Potato famine.

They didn't go to the US because they couldn't afford it. No economy RyanAir flights in the 1840's. As many Irish fled to mainland Britain during the Potato Famine as emigrated to the US during the entire 19thCE. Religion did not enter into it. Strathclyde, Liverpool, South Wales, Kilburn ... you think the US is Irish-heavy? Check this place out.

[CapelDodger]

double post

[CapelDodger]

Evolution created thermonuclear weapons. Thermonuclear weapons will destroy the ability to use thermonuclear weapons before they will destroy evolution.

That's what I call a sense of perspective :)!

The effects of evolution are very hard to see over the period of a single lifetime or even several generations. Evolution works with small changes over long, long periods of time. Thermonuclear weapons can't do sh** against evolution.

But they could easily take out religion. With lots of collateral damage, but that's HomSap for you. "Kill them all - God will know his own" (Pope Innocent [sic] III).

[CapelDodger]

I guess the OP, vapid as it is, would depend on whether the atheist population is shown to be shrinking or growing. So, are there fewer atheists now than in the past?

Obviously one has to look beyond daily headlines, but when one side has suicide-bombers and televangelists and the other side has the Chinese ...

History is essentially the story of HomSap escaping from religion. Religion adjusts defensively, always retreating, always in the end having to adjust to reality (or go under). It survives, but its influence diminishes.

[bruto]

The colonists that fled religious persecution weren't agin it per se. They differed on who should be doing the persecuting - they favoured themselves as the persecutors, unsurprisingly.

The United States came a lot later.



Come the drafting of Constitutions - including The Constitution - state involvement with religion was regarded as a source of pointless and unproductive contention. The experience this derived from was European, and in that sense the separation of church and state was no different from avoiding "foreign entanglements" - another bad European example.

North American history, from witch-trials to Moon-landing and beyond, is actually a good refutation of T'ai Chi's mental meandering.

You beat me to that one. There was quite a time period between the founding of the first Puritan colonies and the revolution, and a lot changed.

Claus, it may be that a lot of Irish did not come to the US during the potato famine, but a pretty healthy number of them of them did. About two million in the 1840's, and a couple more before the turn of the century. Between 1820 and 1860, over a third of immigrants to the US were Irish.

[mayday]

I think even Republicans would be glad you're gay.

[rocketdodger]

But . . . that isn't the case anymore. Those indigenous people have now adapted to the change and are more and more in control of their part of the planet. Let's face it, the British Empire just ain't what it used to be.

And does their adaptation consist of learning to live in a technological world, or biological evolution?

I think you missed my point anyway. My point was that indigenous peoples had biologically adapted, in many cases, to their environments. Yet, along come the Europeans, who had not, and subjugated them. Indeed, if they had seen fit to be homicidal rather than simply looking to make an empire, they could have easily wiped them all out. Technology >> evolution.

This is not a blow to evolution, evolution doesn't care. Those people are just added to the gene pool and evolution continues on its merry way. This technology didn't slow evolution, it just pushed it in a slightly different direction.

No. Biological evolution relies on biological mechanisms, and when people subvert those mechanisms using technology, the evolutionary process is thwarted.

You might say that our technological advancement is due to evolution, but I refuse to ascribe the results of all our hard work to simple biological evolutionary mechanisms.



Evolution created thermonuclear weapons.

No. Evolution created the hardware of our brains. We created everything beyond that.

The effects of evolution are very hard to see over the period of a single lifetime or even several generations. Evolution works with small changes over long, long periods of time. Thermonuclear weapons can't do sh** against evolution.

Other than being able to completely stop it, yeah, they can't do sh-- against it.

[Achán hiNidráne]

"Kill them all - God will know his own" (Pope Innocent [sic] III).

Actually, that was Arnaud Amalricus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Amalricus) at the siege of Béziers in 1209 during the Albigensian Crusade. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade)

[-Fran-]

Actually, that was Arnaud Amalricus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Amalricus) at the siege of Béziers in 1209 during the Albigensian Crusade. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade)

And here I thought it was Metallica :o;)

[cos]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?


I think they would say, "hmm, interesting."

No further action immediately presents itself. In the long run, humans will no doubt lose and gain all sorts of characteristics.

I guess it's also hard for me to get worked up over anything, good or bad, that's going to happen on an evolutionary timescale.

"You know, in a million years, humans might all be exactly the same shade of mocha! What should we do about this?!?!"

"...Um. Nothing?"

[CFLarsen]

At the time the US was founded the people who had fled religious persecution were leery of government involvement in their religious lives. They specifically wanted a government that didn't get involved in religion.

Take a look at how the first colonists behaved - e.g., in the ill-famed Salem Witch Trials. They may have been persecuted, but they sure weren't too tolerant of people who didn't share their own brand of religion.

That doesn't rule out Stephen's hypothesis.

I didn't say it did.

Having lived in America and seen the villainy of religion, and the way it purports to be good while doing evil, the founding fathers of our country, intelligent men who did their own thinking, wanted to do as much as they could to keep the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells at arms length from the seat of power.

They haven't been doing a great job, have they? Bush can't stop namedropping God. You need to profess a belief in God to be elected for just about anything.

There seems to be a certain dichotomy in America, a taking of sides, with the rational people at one end of the spectrum and Fundamentalists at the other. Fortunately the vast majority in the middle is not hell bent on intolerance and stupidity, they just need better education and the stimulation of their minds. Unfortunately there are also millions and millions of televisions in America, each capable of receiving hundreds of channels of warm, fuzzy, mind-numbing crap.

It's not the televisions but what you choose to put on. We see the same dumbing-down of the tv channels in Europe, because of an increasing number of channels but with basically the same number of advertisers. Quality has to dip, because they settle on what will sell just enough of screen time.

Certainly to the extent that young people are moving away from religion, there does seem to be hope, despite our election system and the current infestation of Fundamentalists in the Party of Jesus.

I see atheism as being naturally selected in the future. It has the advantage of not being stupid, and not stupid has obvious value in a technological society.

Believers are not stupid. Maybe a bit misguided... :)

Here here! A logical prediction.

Evolution doesn't work by logic.

And those good ol' boys did one heck of a job. Two full terms of Reagan and one and a bit of Uncle Karl's boy, and what have the fundies got out of it? Squat. Not the merest shadow of an actual Amendment. Hats off to them, I say.

It wasn't a question of keeping fundies out of power, but a question of keeping religion out of power. That hasn't been very successful, quite contrary.

Yes, I think religion is a primitive way of understanding cause and effect and attempting to control our environment... it grows as a learning mechanism... but we have better ways of learning useful information. Religion invents a fear (eternal damnation) and then proffers itself as the solution-- an insurance policy-- it rides along primal instincts like fear and thinking ahead. But as science explains more, the role of religion gets smaller--there are clearly better ways to understand the world and to achieve healthy societies.

Religion will go the way of superstitions past because they can not verify that which they promise. Small enclaves of the ignorant will still believe but we will reach more of them via the internet, travel, books, and conversation. Theism will die out like demons.

The evidence points in another direction. The easier it is to spread information, the easier it is to spread all sorts of woo.

Enlightenment doesn't come on its own accord - someone, somewhere, must do something, in order to counter superstition.

They didn't go to the US because they couldn't afford it. No economy RyanAir flights in the 1840's. As many Irish fled to mainland Britain during the Potato Famine as emigrated to the US during the entire 19thCE. Religion did not enter into it. Strathclyde, Liverpool, South Wales, Kilburn ... you think the US is Irish-heavy? Check this place out.

You beat me to that one. There was quite a time period between the founding of the first Puritan colonies and the revolution, and a lot changed.

Claus, it may be that a lot of Irish did not come to the US during the potato famine, but a pretty healthy number of them of them did. About two million in the 1840's, and a couple more before the turn of the century. Between 1820 and 1860, over a third of immigrants to the US were Irish.

Guys, read what I said. I didn't say they didn't go - I said they went, but not for religious reasons. The massive immigration wave was because people were poor in their own countries. Economy - not religion - is primarily what still compels people to move to the US.

Actually, that was Arnaud Amalricus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Amalricus) at the siege of Béziers in 1209 during the Albigensian Crusade. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade)

Stephen O'Shea's The Perfect Heresy: The Revolutionary Life and Spectacular Death of the Medieval Cathars (http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Heresy-Revolutionary-Spectacular-Medieval/dp/0802776175/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197881148&sr=1-16) is highly recommendable.

[dann]

And if you look at the broader picture, instead of just narrowly looking at the current Christian and Islamic movements, I think you could make a good case that belief in gods is decreasing overall. I don't think many people in the modern world believe as Pat Robertson does that gods are controlling hurricanes, for example. In the distant past a majority of people certainly would have believed that.
Top countries for largest number of atheists. (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html) There is a note at the bottom worth looking at, "* NOTE: The estimates of the number of atheists in North Korea, China and Cuba may be unreliable. The best data available have been used in making these estimates, but the people in these three nations live under Communist governments which have traditionally suppressed religious freedom and officially (often forcibly) endorsed atheism."
In my opinion this estimate is probably correct, Some sources estimate that as much as 70 percent of the population practice Santeria or la regla lucumi, which have their roots in West African traditional religions.
but my guess is that more than 7 percent are atheists. Still, even though the Afro-Cuban religion Santeria ( http://www.voiceofthoth.com/newslet3.htm) has a goddess (orisha), Oya ( http://www.hifisalsa.dk/salsakalender/kurser/2007/06/20/id/2263/), in charge of hurricanes, most santeros probably don’t spend a lot of time asking her to put a stop to hurricanes since Cuba is generally better prepared for them than the USA.
In the case of Denmark, however, I fear that the estimated numbers of atheists/agnostics/nonbelievers are grossly exaggerated:Country: Denmark
Total country population (2004): 5,413,000
% Atheist/Agnostic/Nonbeliever in God: 43 - 80%
Number of Atheists/Agnostics/Nonbelievers in God (minimum - maximum): 2,327,590 - 4,330,400However, the church is fairly secularized, there are even a couple of clergymen in the Danish State Church (http://www.folkekirken.dk) who don’t believe in God, but they are not supposed to say it out loud.

[bruto]

Guys, read what I said. I didn't say they didn't go - I said they went, but not for religious reasons. The massive immigration wave was because people were poor in their own countries. Economy - not religion - is primarily what still compels people to move to the US.

Misread on my part. They did not go for religious reasons <> they did not go, for religious reasons.

[dann]

I forgot to add the reason for my scepticism in the case of the number of Danish atheists etc:
Many Danish believers are slightly ashamed of being believers so they may not answer truthfully when asked.
The same problem appears in political polls: Many people don't answer truthfully when they vote for parties that aren't 'politically correct' so based on this knowledge the opinion samplers often correct their numbers accordingly.

[AgeGap]

The secret is to go to church, get to know (in the biblical sense) the congregation, and spread your athiest genes.

[Darth Rotor]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?

Atheism does not propagate via nature, DNA, but by nurture, the spread of an idea. Not all habits are passed down via genetic code.

How hard is that to grasp, Tai Chi?

Foster Zygote covered this as well, from a different direction.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I was following articulett's argument that she wanted to spawn her intelligent atheist genes. Then, the smartest thing you can do, is to spread your genes as much as possible.

For some reason, articulett thinks that the smartest thing for atheists is not to "spawn".

Well put, Claus. There is no surety that her "non theist" hosts will always stay that way, nor that their spawn will never be attracted to a religion, unless she exercises a woo of certainty of outcome that is at odds with human behavior.

DR

[Beerina]

A quick look at populations that turn modern shows athiesm growing and theism shrinking. Religion should be concerned, not athiesm. And the vast majority who call themselves religious (as in "Uhhh, yeah, I'm a Christian, I guess) skip church whenever possible and are thus religious in little more than name.

One of the things I think "evolutionary sociologists" seem to be missing is in presuming large-scale memes like religion are necessarily beneficial to their believers. But they be more like a parasite than a symbiont, surviving not because they are a benefit, but just because they aren't too damaging.

The human mind constructs a mental model of reality, which is beneficial generally, but bogus ideas that seem beneficial obviously can slip in there as long as they aren't too disadvantageous. That, to believe, requires a combination of threats of torture (Hell), reward (Heaven), and the so-called "higher ethics" of "ought" on your behavior w.r.t. "the poor and sick", all should be a warning sign that it may not be beneficial at all.

[rwp]

Atheism does not propagate via nature, DNA, but by nurture, the spread of an idea. Not all habits are passed down via genetic code.

Substitute "atheism" above with theism. Human children are born without a belief in God. Theism is nurtured.

[Darth Rotor]

Substitute "atheism" above with theism. Human children are born without a belief in God. Theism is nurtured.
Seems to be how it works. I recall an admonition from Crosby, Stills, and Nash, put to song.

Did you have a point?

DR

[CFLarsen]

The secret is to go to church, get to know (in the biblical sense) the congregation, and spread your athiest genes.

The naughtiest girl in the class is always the priest's daughter.

[Fiona]

The naughtiest girl in the class is always the priest's daughter.

Evidence? :D

[qayak]

Other than being able to completely stop it, yeah, they can't do sh-- against it.

The rest of your post shows a complete lack of understanding of how evolution works so I chopped it. This however, is very interesting. Can you explain to me how thermonuclear weapons can stop evolution?

[articulett]

I think they would say, "hmm, interesting."

No further action immediately presents itself. In the long run, humans will no doubt lose and gain all sorts of characteristics.

I guess it's also hard for me to get worked up over anything, good or bad, that's going to happen on an evolutionary timescale.

"You know, in a million years, humans might all be exactly the same shade of mocha! What should we do about this?!?!"

"...Um. Nothing?"

Yes, I'm sure we'll be more homogeneous as time goes on--new words will be the same in every language and will spread through the internet-- tech words and the like... and atheism is the only theism that makes sense with an increasingly similar group of people exchanging culture, genes, and memes. There just doesn't seem to be the opportunity for separating people and developing them like different dog breeds... not that we'd want to-- we work better when we realize we all come from the same people--in fact all life shares a common ancestor.

Religion seems so... petty and primitive... so divisive and superstitious--this always reminds me of Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot quote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

[rwp]

Seems to be how it works. I recall an admonition from Crosby, Stills, and Nash, put to song.

Did you have a point?

DR

My only point is that theism is nurtured more than atheism. I think we agree but I would fix this statement:


Atheism does not propagate via nature...


As it seems atheism is the natural position.

However I understand that your point is that atheism is not the same kind of trait as eye color (for example), with which I agree, so perhaps my point was unnecessary in this case.

[Dogdoctor]

It would only go to show that being right doesn't always have an evolutionary advantage.

[rocketdodger]

The rest of your post shows a complete lack of understanding of how evolution works so I chopped it.

Yes, the stupidity of my arguments is surely the reason you don't respond to them.

It would be helpful, in the future, for you to actually say why someone has a complete lack of understanding.

This however, is very interesting. Can you explain to me how thermonuclear weapons can stop evolution?

Perhaps by ending all life within a given distance of where they are detonated?

[qayak]

Perhaps by ending all life within a given distance of where they are detonated?

But ending life doesn't stop evolution. We know that. Individuals, entire species and the vast majority of species on the earth, have all died and evolution just keeps plugging along.

[dann]

The naughtiest girl in the class is always the priest's daughter.Evidence? :D
No, much too young (http://images.google.dk/imgres?imgurl=http://hkbstudios.us/kosovo/k001.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hkbstudios.us/gallery1.html&h=501&w=377&sz=99&hl=da&start=48&um=1&tbnid=oKvPmQlASLEvwM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpriest%2527s%2Bdaughter%26start%3D40% 26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dda%26rlz% 3D1T4SKPB_daDK230DK231%26sa%3DN), I think. And much too Unorthodox, too.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...I didn't say it did.Then what was your point?



Evolution doesn't work by logic....Yes it does. Evolution is an extremely logical theory.

[CFLarsen]

Evidence? :D

Is your father a priest? :D

Then what was your point?

I don't have to have a point about someone else's strawman.

Yes it does. Evolution is an extremely logical theory.

O RLY?

Please predict how humans will look in 1000 years.

[rocketdodger]

But ending life doesn't stop evolution. We know that. Individuals, entire species and the vast majority of species on the earth, have all died and evolution just keeps plugging along.

Yes, congratulations on winning the semantic argument. You are correct, ending some life does not stop all evolution. But you know I didn't mean that, didn't you.

How about this:

1) Ending all life will end all evolution, until more life appears.
2) Ending any life will end any evolution for the life that was ended.

Now, do you care to argue with those two points? Or how about this one:

3) If there was a war between atheists and theists, and the atheists busted out the nukes, and killed off all the theists, then evolution could not help the theists.

[rwp]

3) If there was a war between atheists and theists, and the atheists busted out the nukes, and killed off all the theists, then evolution could not help the theists.

Theism is an idea; I doubt it is transferred genetically, as any specifc gene is not required to transfer the idea. Having been in contact with theists, any atheist at any time could say something like, "you know, I've been thinking and those theists had a point... I believe now."

This thread misunderstands that point: theism is an idea which is passed on not through genes but through language.

Imagine a world without theism, where everyone is an atheist. It is likely that these people would not realise they are atheists, as they do not have a notion of a theist. One day, one or more of the atheists might imagine the idea of a god of some sort and become a theist. He might imagine the concept of a god to explain some sort of nartual phenomenon which he does not understand. He might then share this theistic idea with others.

Imagine a world filled only with theists. At any time, one or more of them may find fault in the theistic view of the world and decide that theism is not a proper model of the world around them. He comes to this conclusion on his own and spreads the word of his discovery.

This world does seem to have more theists than atheists. Some of those theists are changing their mind and becoming atheists. Some of the atheists are changing their mind and becoming theists. This trait is changeable and may be changed as often as one likes.

It is possible that a certain event could cause a large number of people to change their minds and become atheist/theist. So, that further drives home the point that it doesn't matter if a hypothetical world was filled only with theists, as one moment in time they could all suddenly decide to become atheists.

[Cainkane1]

This situation calls for a two prong strategy. First atheists must reproduce as much as possible. The atheist pope, Richard Dawkins, would have to issue orders that no atheist practice birth control, and gay atheist marriage would have to be outlawed. Of course the atheist movement would continue recruiting Christian children into the Homosexual Lifestyle Choice™ to help reduce reproduction among those religiously afflicted.

Atheist women would have to submit to their husbands and stay home, barefoot and pregnant, cooking up the atheist victuals for the nightly reproduction orgies. Since one atheist male would be capable of keeping a number of women pregnant, the atheist-controlled New York Jew media and Hollywood Libruls could promote polygamy, but for atheists only (of course).

In the second part of this clever strategy atheists would home school their children to protect them from any Jeebus meme genetic regression, and they would train their kids to slaughter or at least render sterile any theist children they encounter before they reach adolescence. This would make it impossible for theists to reproduce beyond the current generation, and within 50 years the new atheist species would emerge victorious, probably during a cruise to the satanic Galapagos Islands.

This strategy would certainly work, because atheism is hereditary.

At least one of Madeline O'Hares children is Xtian.

[rocketdodger]

Theism is an idea... snip....


Theism is a meme, which is subject to the mechanisms of evolution. My assertion was that the technological advancement embraced by the atheism meme has no counterpart, as far as usefullness goes, in the meme of theism.

What theism does have is the ability assimilate new members using force alone. After all, that is the only reason theism exists as it does today. If there was a war, though, technology would win -- no amount of bodies can stop properly constructed weapons.

You are correct that there is a constant flux of individuals across the borders.

I would make the claim, however, that the equilibrium distribution in a world that started full of atheists who were educated about their species' theistic past would be very different from what we see today. I dare say there would be very few theists.

The only reason there are any theists today is because people are indoctrinated at a young age and brainwashed the rest of their lives.

A world full of atheists would, to be sure, have some dissenters. But these individuals would arrive at their own idea of a supernatural power, suited to their own needs, rather than the theistic god of the major religions. Note that none of the ancient peoples of our planet were theists.

[rwp]

Theism is a meme, which is subject to the mechanisms of evolution.

Yes, a meme and an idea. It is a meme because it is an idea that is copied (mimicked) by others.


My assertion was that the technological advancement embraced by the atheism meme has no counterpart, as far as usefullness goes, in the meme of theism.

Atheism is just a lack of a belief in a god or gods. It does not imply that one is technologically advanced in other areas.

I would make the claim, however, that the equilibrium distribution in a world that started full of atheists who were educated about their species' theistic past would be very different from what we see today. I dare say there would be very few theists.

I agree but you never know.

Considering various poll results, there would also be very few atheists in that world! :D

The only reason there are any theists today is because people are indoctrinated at a young age and brainwashed the rest of their lives.

Yes, but someone had to start the mess! :D

I do recognize that any new theistic idea would probably be unlikely to survive in an educated society, especially one that is aware of the pitfalls of theistic thinking.

A world full of atheists would, to be sure, have some dissenters. But these individuals would arrive at their own idea of a supernatural power, suited to their own needs, rather than the theistic god of the major religions.

Agreed. It is unlikely that any of the major religions of today would be reinvented.

That seems to be what happened in the past though. People arrived at their own idea and spread the word. Those ideas just happened to be the ones we see today. Even those memes continue to morph and change and turn into branches and denominations.

Note that none of the ancient peoples of our planet were theists.

I don't understand what you mean. Weren't most ancient people theists? Perhaps I am confused about what you mean by the word "ancient". Besides, can we really know this?

[CapelDodger]

Misread on my part. They did not go for religious reasons <> they did not go, for religious reasons.

I did the same. My apologies, CFLarsen.

[qayak]

Yes, congratulations on winning the semantic argument. You are correct, ending some life does not stop all evolution. But you know I didn't mean that, didn't you.

No, I didn't. You stated that the blast would eliminate all life inside the blast zone. There is a lot of life outside that zone.

1) Ending all life will end all evolution, until more life appears.

But, before it ends all life, it will end all thermonuclear weapons and all the intelligence capable of building thermonuclear weapons. Evolution survives longer.

2) Ending any life will end any evolution for the life that was ended

If that were the case, we wouldn't be here. Our ancestors are gone and no longer evolve but they are what led to us and we are still evolving.

3) If there was a war between atheists and theists, and the atheists busted out the nukes, and killed off all the theists, then evolution could not help the theists.

I don't see the point of this. Evolution is a mechanism which doesn't think and certainly doesn't care who lives or dies. It is a long process that is subject to many things, including the short processes that change the conditions of the world. Your thermonuclear war is just a short term process that changes the conditions evolution works under. Your war will not change evolution one iota. It may mean that the vast majority of live ends on earth but evolution will never end as long as there is any life.

Thermonuclear war will not end all life on earth. We already know there is life that can live in the conditions after such an event. We certainly will not be here but there will still be life and there will still be evolution.

And even if all life is wiped out, evolution will return before life does and a long time before thermonuclear weapons ever do.

[CapelDodger]

Actually, that was Arnaud Amalricus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Amalricus) at the siege of Béziers in 1209 during the Albigensian Crusade. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade)

It's my understanding that "Kill them all, God will know His own" was Innocent III's response to his commanders when asked what to do with the local population. I'll have to check on that.

[rocketdodger]

I don't understand what you mean. Weren't most ancient people theists? Perhaps I am confused about what you mean by the word "ancient". Besides, can we really know this?

Strictly speaking, a theist beleives in the theistic god, which is characterized by all of the nonsense that theists talk about -- Omnipotence, existence outside of space and time, omnibenevolence, ect.

The ancient peoples of Earth were very supersitious, and probably religious to the extent that their local superstitions could be called such, but they were definitely not theists. Theism didn't come about until the religion meme evolved and got really lucky, placing the authority figure outside of all observability and logic. After all, how can you argue against something that you can't even... argue against?

Even though the truth of paganism is much more probable than the truth of theism, the fact that theism is so much more nonsense tricks people into buying it much more readily. You can confirm that there are no spirits in the trees making the wind blow, even though the existence of such things make some sense. You can't confirm that there is no skydaddy. Whoever stumbled upon this fact, and tricked themselves into beleiving it, thus starting the virulent infection of theism, was a genius -- I give them props.

[rocketdodger]

I don't see the point of this. Evolution is a mechanism which doesn't think and certainly doesn't care who lives or dies. It is a long process that is subject to many things, including the short processes that change the conditions of the world. Your thermonuclear war is just a short term process that changes the conditions evolution works under. Your war will not change evolution one iota. It may mean that the vast majority of live ends on earth but evolution will never end as long as there is any life.

Thermonuclear war will not end all life on earth. We already know there is life that can live in the conditions after such an event. We certainly will not be here but there will still be life and there will still be evolution.

And even if all life is wiped out, evolution will return before life does and a long time before thermonuclear weapons ever do.

You don't see the point because I am not arguing the case of human weapons versus nature.

I am arguing the case of human technology versus evolution in the context of a war between groups of humans. If one side has decidedly better technology, then it doesn't matter how much evolutionary advantage the other side has. Yes, evolution will continue after they get wiped out -- but they won't continue.

[bobcarp]

Consider the hypothetical that there is more evolutionary advantage to theism than atheism.

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, atheism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.

Given these hypotheticals, what would people who self-indentify as atheists do given this scientific evidence?

So if Dinosaurs had been theists they would still be around.

[rocketdodger]

Atheism is just a lack of a belief in a god or gods. It does not imply that one is technologically advanced in other areas.

Right. But in general, theists have an awful lot of dogmatic baggage that lends itself to a f---ed worldview where they don't think they should live as well or easily as they could. Not to mention their leaders keeping them down for well established reasons.

There are a few theists throughout history who have thought otherwise, and frankly if mainstream theism thought that way I wouldn't even mind being forced into theism. If they thought along the lines of "God created us in its image, to become as wonderful and powerful and intelligent and <fill in the blank> as it, and sees us as a true parent sees their child, not as an enemy they should be weary of but as a creation they can be proud of and hopes one day will surpass his their own greatness" then I would think that was pretty cool and I could see civilization advancing even faster than under a free secular society. But that isn't the case... at every step the authorties of theism have attempted to hinder progress.

[bruto]

So if Dinosaurs had been theists they would still be around.Of course. They'd have prayed, and God always answers prayers, right?

[Fiona]

"Isn't "No" an answer ?" :D

[rwp]

Strictly speaking, a theist beleives in the theistic god, which is characterized by all of the nonsense that theists talk about -- Omnipotence, existence outside of space and time, omnibenevolence, ect.

The ancient peoples of Earth were very supersitious, and probably religious to the extent that their local superstitions could be called such, but they were definitely not theists. Theism didn't come about until the religion meme evolved and got really lucky, placing the authority figure outside of all observability and logic. After all, how can you argue against something that you can't even... argue against?

Even though the truth of paganism is much more probable than the truth of theism, the fact that theism is so much more nonsense tricks people into buying it much more readily. You can confirm that there are no spirits in the trees making the wind blow, even though the existence of such things make some sense. You can't confirm that there is no skydaddy. Whoever stumbled upon this fact, and tricked themselves into beleiving it, thus starting the virulent infection of theism, was a genius -- I give them props.

I realize this is off the subject of this thread to nit-pick this point but theism is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities.

Does the year 2400 BCE seem ancient to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris

What about ancient Greek gods and the ancient Greeks who worshipped them? Isn't the very word "theism" derived from the ancient Greek word for god (theos)?

Again, this is probably not worth our discussing in this thread, but I am very confused about what you have written about theism.

[rocketdodger]

Sorry I am talking about the narrow definition of theism, as in "belief in the theistic god."

You are right that my statements are incorrect if "theism" is used in the broader sense.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....


O RLY?

Please predict how humans will look in 1000 years.That's your only definition of logical? If one can't predict what the selection pressures will be then the fact evolution can be described and its processes explained become illogical? I think not Claus.

[dann]

Claus said: Evolution doesn't work by logic.
You counter this with: Yes it does. Evolution is an extremely logical theory.You do realize that you are not being logical, don’t you?
Yes, the theory of evolution is logical! But it does not claim that evolution is logical, just that it follows a certain logic: random mutations whose survival depend on environmental pressures, not on logical decisions. There is no logical designer in evolution, right?
Edited to add: ... except when mankind starts using the laws of nature to influence the evolution of certain useful species for its own purpose.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Theism is an idea; ....Some of what makes up theism is an idea, but there is a behavioral component as well. Wasn't the the cat an idea as far as the mouse's fear was concerned? My dogs know a bunny is prey while a small child is not. No one taught them that.

I am not arguing that theism is a genetic trait. I am arguing we shouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Claus said:
You counter this with: You do realize that you are not being logical, don’t you?
Yes, the theory of evolution is logical! But it does not claim that evolution is logical, just that it follows a certain logic: random mutations whose survival depend on environmental pressures, not on logical decisions. There is no logical designer in evolution, right?
Edited to add: ... except when mankind starts using the laws of nature to influence the evolution of certain useful species for its own purpose.This is nothing more than an argument in how you identify the components of evolution mechanisms and semantics.

Nucleic acid substitution is logical. There are chemical bonds, certain mechanisms which break and form them and these are logical chemical processes. If you chose to focus on the random component and call it illogical, be my guest.

And I might add, random does not equate to illogical even if it were the only component in the mechanism of evolution you looked at. The two are not related concepts per se. In math perhaps the more random the less "mathematically logical" a process is, but that is only a fraction of logic theory. And evolution is not strictly a random process. Selection pressures exert a logical outcome.

[CFLarsen]

That's your only definition of logical? If one can't predict what the selection pressures will be then the fact evolution can be described and its processes explained become illogical? I think not Claus.

If you can call atheism being naturally selected in the future because not being stupid is an evolutionary advantage, then you claim to be able to predict evolution.

Do you understand? When you are able to see into the future, you are making predictions?

[plumjam]

Philosophy is for fun.

Science is for reality.

You pays yer money and you makes yer choice.

Remember, science is just an offshoot of philosophy.

[CFLarsen]

Remember, science is just an offshoot of philosophy.

Nominated for Joke of the Century.

[Foster Zygote]

Remember, science is just an offshoot of philosophy.

Could you explain how this is so?

[Wowbagger]

1) The ease with which indigenous peoples around the world were subjugated by Europeans.

2) The number of formally disadvantageous hereditary medical conditions that are now trivial because of medicine.

3) All the good genes in the world don't do sh-- against thermonuclear weapons.And, these are not considered evolutionary advantages, because.....?

I think your view of the fitness landscape is too narrow.

[bruto]

Remember, science is just an offshoot of philosophy.Knowledge is just an offshoot of ignorance too. What of it?

[rocketdodger]

And, these are not considered evolutionary advantages, because.....?

I think your view of the fitness landscape is too narrow.

Because they are not biological.

If you mean to use the term evolution in its broadest sense, which would be something like "the process of change affected by the mechanism of survival of the fittest" then yes, I agree, they are "evolutionary" advantages. But in that case, Leibnitz's calculus notation has an evolutionary advantage over Newton's, MacDonalds has an evolutionary advantage over Hardees, and Dell over Gateway.

[rwp]

Some of what makes up theism is an idea, but there is a behavioral component as well.

It is a belief that there exists a god or gods. Of course people behave according to what they believe.

Wasn't the the cat an idea as far as the mouse's fear was concerned? My dogs know a bunny is prey while a small child is not. No one taught them that.

These are instinctual reactions. If a dog sees some tiny animal running, its instinct is to run after it and perhaps eat it or grab it with its mouth.

Dogs can and will prey on small children under the right (wrong) circumstances. This is unlikely with your dogs because they have perhaps been trained and raised with humans. The dog's experience with humans did teach it that a small child is not prey. If you behave a certain way, you can get a dog to attack you.

A cat will instinctively react to a thread pulled across the room. The cat will also attack your finger if you wiggle it on the floor or between couch cushions. The cat will scratch up and bite your hand if you do the right motions.

Those reactions were apparently evolutionary advantages.

I am not arguing that theism is a genetic trait. I am arguing we shouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand.

Right now I understand that a belief in a god or gods is not a genetic trait (like eye color or hair color) but rather a meme, a belief that is passed on through communication. Perhaps my understanding will change as I gain more knowledge.

I can understand, however, that humans instinctively personify phenomena. This could be why the notion of a god exists in the first place. Perhaps this instictive personification of phenomena is what we could consider to be a god gene.

[rwp]

Sorry I am talking about the narrow definition of theism, as in "belief in the theistic god."

You are right that my statements are incorrect if "theism" is used in the broader sense.

I had to learn about the narrow and broad definition of theism as it was something I hadn't heard before. Then I found some information by William Rowe and I understand the concept now.

:)

[Wowbagger]

Because they are not biological.

If you mean to use the term evolution in its broadest sense, which would be something like "the process of change affected by the mechanism of survival of the fittest" then yes, I agree, they are "evolutionary" advantages. But in that case, Leibnitz's calculus notation has an evolutionary advantage over Newton's, MacDonalds has an evolutionary advantage over Hardees, and Dell over Gateway.
What you are demonstrating is that the fitness landscape is shifting from purely biological to technological. Evolution is still taking place, just in a different configuration.

[rocketdodger]

What you are demonstrating is that the fitness landscape is shifting from purely biological to technological. Evolution is still taking place, just in a different configuration.

Yes I would agree with that description.

Let me lay the claim out in clear terms then : Embracing the use of technology improves a person's/group's fitness more than embracing the theism meme.

[Wowbagger]

Embracing the use of technology improves a person's/group's fitness more than embracing the theism meme. To that, I would add "most of the time." There are still pockets of places where this would not be the case.

I also wish to reiterate, not necessarily to you, but anyone who cares: The two are not mutually exclusive. Of course, theism and atheism are (by all generally accepted definitions). But, not theism and "use of technology".

[Darth Rotor]

My only point is that theism is nurtured more than atheism.
??

If you meant that it is so nurtured by a larger portion of the population, I see where you are coming from. If your meaning is other than that, I am not so sure.
As it seems atheism is the natural position.
We had a thread a few months back that discussed that, and it seems to me (the usual semantics ran amok) that agnosciticm is the natural state. (I do not wish to reopen that discussion, it ran for pages.)
However I understand that your point is that atheism is not the same kind of trait as eye color (for example), with which I agree, so perhaps my point was unnecessary in this case.
That was the finger I was sticking in Tai Chi's eye, yes. :)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Yes I would agree with that description.

Let me lay the claim out in clear terms then : Embracing the use of technology improves a person's/group's fitness more than embracing the theism meme.
Over what time scale? What are the other bounds to this problem? If you look at how the humans were busily poisoning the air and water for the first hundred years of the Industrial age, you can argue that the embracing of technology was having a potentially hazardous (macro) effect had no corrective action been taken. (Small sample: unleaded fuel, CFC's, etc.) The whole Global Warming due to Human Caustation discussion covers similar ground.

Sowing the seeds of our own demise, as it were, by embracing technology.

DR

[bruto]

Over what time scale? What are the other bounds to this problem? If you look at how the humans were busily poisoning the air and water for the first hundred years of the Industrial age, you can argue that the embracing of technology was having a potentially hazardous (macro) effect had no corrective action been taken. (Small sample: unleaded fuel, CFC's, etc.) The whole Global Warming due to Human Caustation discussion covers similar ground.

Sowing the seeds of our own demise, as it were, by embracing technology.

DR

Possibly true enough with regard to the fitness of humanity over all. But in terms of fitness within the human population, an argument could be made for the advantage of being able to out-shoot, out-fly, out-etc. one's rivals, even if the end result of the technology is a Pyrrhic victory.

[CapelDodger]

Possibly true enough with regard to the fitness of humanity over all. But in terms of fitness within the human population, an argument could be made for the advantage of being able to out-shoot, out-fly, out-etc. one's rivals, even if the end result of the technology is a Pyrrhic victory.

Pyrrhic victories are less than worthless on their own timescales. That's the sense of the metaphor. They represent a mistaken objective.

Credible research suggests that Ghengis Khan has 65 million male descendents, widely distributed. How many do you reckon Pyrrhus has - even given a significant head-start? Not so much, is my estimate.

The meek and unambitious may well inherit the Earth. They won't have so much fun on the way, but it's a credible outcome, IMO. They have little to lose in any transition, and they have ingrained coping mechanisms.

On the very long time-scale, evidence suggests that HomSap will either be a dead-end or it will have at least one successor species. Makes you think :).

[rocketdodger]

To that, I would add "most of the time." There are still pockets of places where this would not be the case.

Yes. In fact (and this is a response to Darth's post as well) it seems to me that the cost/benefit function of technology is NOT monotonic. There seems to be a very large initial benefit, then a very large cost, then finally unbounded benefit. I base this on history -- the initial technologies (agriculture, concrete, literacy, metalworking, etc) had huge benefits and little cost. Move into the industrial revolution and early 20th century tech and you see a large cost in the form of pollution, environmental impact, etc. Finally, we are on the verge of the final phase where we actively try to mitigate costs (I.E. "greener" technology).

Certainly, many parts of the world are still in the second phase -- hopefully we can catalyze their transition into the third.

I also wish to reiterate, not necessarily to you, but anyone who cares: The two are not mutually exclusive. Of course, theism and atheism are (by all generally accepted definitions). But, not theism and "use of technology".

This is a very good point Wowbagger. If only there were more techno-theists in positions of power...

There seem to be two components of organized religion. One is Theism, which seems to me to be harmless because it, by itself, fails to dictate any behavior. After all, one could be a theist and "virtually" atheist by believing something like "I know there is a theistic god, but it wants humans to behave as if there was not."

The other is not harmless, however, because it is a self-reinforcing dominance hierarchy (maybe we should start a thread on this topic). This component clearly does NOT embrace technology, for obvious reasons.

So while it is incorrect to say theism and the embracing of technology are always mutually exclusive, I think it is pretty accurate to say that in most cases they are. The few religious theists that do embrace technology, in my opinion, are delusional -- like Ann Coulter, they champion a cause that is inherently oppressive to them.

[Piggy]

FWIW....

Perhaps Devo were wrong: we're not devolving, we're actually evolving faster due to technology (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210212227.htm).

[Piggy]

One is Theism, which seems to me to be harmless because it, by itself, fails to dictate any behavior.

Believing what is false is always potentially harmful.

[Piggy]

The meek and unambitious may well inherit the Earth.

Indeed they will.

Six feet by six feet by three feet of it.

[DrBaltar]

I think mankind's intelligence has altered the rules of human evolution and as intelligent animals we are much more in control of our destiny. We have medical technology that makes many birth defects moot. Agricultural technology ensures that more people can be fed than anytime in history. With technology we can turn almost any environment into a habitable one. I'm sure that relatively soon, we will take full control of our genetic makeup, which pretty much shuts down natural evolution.

[Piggy]

We have medical technology that makes many birth defects moot.
Only if you live in the right place and have money. I.e.: "What's this 'we' ****, kemosabe?"

Agricultural technology ensures that more people can be fed than anytime in history.
As a result, humans have infested the planet and threatened the entire biosphere.

With technology we can turn almost any environment into a habitable one.
Humans lived in pretty much every terrestrial environment (barring antarctica) well before modern technology.

I'm sure that relatively soon, we will take full control of our genetic makeup, which pretty much shuts down natural evolution.
The article cited above indicates that the opposite is true.

And you're forgetting that the other components of the system (all things non-human) react to what we do.

We will never "shut down natural evolution".

That's just a fantasy.

[DrBaltar]

Only if you live in the right place and have money. I.e.: "What's this 'we' ****, kemosabe?"Since evolution is a slow process I'm speaking of macroscopic effects over time spans of several hundred years. Living in the right place and having money is background noise.

As a result, humans have infested the planet and threatened the entire biosphere.Hey, I never said we were controlling our destiny in a good way ;)


Humans lived in pretty much every terrestrial environment (barring antarctica) well before modern technology.True, but they were still using technology. How many other animals do you see running around wearing hides of animals they killed?


The article cited above indicates that the opposite is true.

And you're forgetting that the other components of the system (all things non-human) react to what we do.

We will never "shut down natural evolution".

That's just a fantasy.
Oh I didn't mean shut down natural evolution in other species. I'm talking about in humans.

[Piggy]

Since evolution is a slow process I'm speaking of macroscopic effects over time spans of several hundred years. Living in the right place and having money is background noise.
And what I'm saying is that it's not going to operate because so few individuals are wealthy.

How many other animals do you see running around wearing hides of animals they killed?
Ever look in an aquarium?

Oh I didn't mean shut down natural evolution in other species. I'm talking about in humans.
You're missing the point. Our technology impacts the entire system, which keeps the feedback going. It will never allow us to opt out.

[DrBaltar]

You're missing the point. Our technology impacts the entire system, which keeps the feedback going. It will never allow us to opt out.I'm getting confused. Now it sounds like you're saying that the whole system is tainted by technology, so evolution is not natural for any living thing??

[Piggy]

Now it sounds like you're saying that the whole system is tainted by technology, so evolution is not natural for any living thing??

Sorry, but I don't understand that statement at all.

Maybe it would help to go back to the original piece of the post I was responding to:

I'm sure that relatively soon, we will take full control of our genetic makeup, which pretty much shuts down natural evolution.

First of all, from an objective evolutionary standpoint, it actually makes no sense to distinguish between "natural" forces and technological forces.

People are animals. Everything we do is just as "natural" as any activity of any other animal.

Secondly, nothing we do can isolate us from the larger system we inhabit.

Any change that our species makes to the system will have repurcussions across the system which will inevitably impact us.

We cannot escape the feedback loop. We cannot opt out.

Thirdly, I see no indication that we are anywhere near being able to take control of our genetics. Certainly, we'll be able to manipulate some aspects of our genetics, for a portion of our population. But that's as far as it can reasonably go.

And even so, when we do this, we cannot predict what the fallout will be. We cannot know what will happen when we perform these manipulations.

In other words, we cannot have "full control" because we cannot isolate ourselves from the ecosystem which we depend on, and manipulating our own genetics impacts that system, which then responds in ways which we cannot control, which in turn impacts our genetics.

The notion of "full control of our genome" is a fantasy.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because they are not biological.

If you mean to use the term evolution in its broadest sense, which would be something like "the process of change affected by the mechanism of survival of the fittest" then yes, I agree, they are "evolutionary" advantages. But in that case, Leibnitz's calculus notation has an evolutionary advantage over Newton's, MacDonalds has an evolutionary advantage over Hardees, and Dell over Gateway.When the next influenza pandemic arrives, those with access to scientific responses (vaccines, medicines, ventilators) will be more likely to pass their genes and the genes in their 'tribe' on. Those praying and performing superstitious rituals and taking unscientific remedies will be more likely to die. Unless you can show that theism and science will eventually make peace, then atheism because it tags along with science will be selected, not deselected.

Now this presumes a lot of things which I realize are purely speculation. And theists have access to a lot of those scientific advances. Money, for example can buy science and access doesn't depend on you having the genes that favor science.

Of course I'm equating science with a genetic component which may not be the case. This is just a possible mechanism, an hypothesis. I'm not proclaiming anything is yet supported by evidence.

[bruto]

When the next influenza pandemic arrives, those with access to scientific responses (vaccines, medicines, ventilators) will be more likely to pass their genes and the genes in their 'tribe' on. Those praying and performing superstitious rituals and taking unscientific remedies will be more likely to die. Unless you can show that theism and science will eventually make peace, then atheism because it tags along with science will be selected, not deselected.

Now this presumes a lot of things which I realize are purely speculation. And theists have access to a lot of those scientific advances. Money, for example can buy science and access doesn't depend on you having the genes that favor science.

Of course I'm equating science with a genetic component which may not be the case. This is just a possible mechanism, an hypothesis. I'm not proclaiming anything is yet supported by evidence.

Alternative possibility # 1: the technologically advantaged with the vaccines survive that epidemic thanks to their vaccines. Those less fortunate are winnowed out; the strongest and most naturally resistant survive and breed. So do the most vaccine resistant strains of disease. Repeat process a few times. Eventually there comes a pandemic for which the vaccines are ineffective. The poor inherit the earth.

Alternative possibility #2: Technology saves a portion of the population from pandemic. Technological society continues with other consequences, causing the destruction of the earth and the extinction of humanity. Pyrrhic victory.

[T'ai Chi]

Now consider the hypothetical that because of this, theism is slowly being naturally selected out of the picture.


Well that's cute and all, just saying what I said but filling in the blanks in the opposite manner, but given that there are more theists than atheists, hence more cultural influence, your scenario doesn't make much sense given that evidence.

[CFLarsen]

Well that's cute and all, just saying what I said but filling in the blanks in the opposite manner, but given that there are more theists than atheists, hence more cultural influence, your scenario doesn't make much sense given that evidence.

If the opposite is the case, why are there atheists at all?

[hammegk]

Over-inflated egos, perhaps? :)

[dann]

When the next influenza pandemic arrives, those with access to scientific responses (vaccines, medicines, ventilators) will be more likely to pass their genes and the genes in their 'tribe' on. Those praying and performing superstitious rituals and taking unscientific remedies will be more likely to die. Unless you can show that theism and science will eventually make peace, then atheism because it tags along with science will be selected, not deselected.It's news to me that Christians don't have access to vaccines, medicines and ventilators! About ten years ago I stayed at the Centennial College in Shreveport for a week. I think that it was established by some kind of Christian denomination, but still they had vaccination programmes for students and staff.
Do statistics show that theists are vaccinated less often than atheists? Or that vaccination accompanied by prayers are any less effective than vaccination without prayer? (In my opinion prayer probably doesn't hurt, but it definitely doesn't help either!) Or could it be a question of economics only?: the poor often don't have access to the vaccines and medicine that benefit the rich - be they theists or atheists.
Now this presumes a lot of things which I realize are purely speculation. And theists have access to a lot of those scientific advances. Money, for example can buy science and access doesn't depend on you having the genes that favor science.Exactly!
Of course I'm equating science with a genetic component which may not be the case. This is just a possible mechanism, an hypothesis. I'm not proclaiming anything is yet supported by evidence. OK, maybe it isn't only unsupported by evidence but very unlikely, all things considered ...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Alternative possibility # 1: the technologically advantaged with the vaccines survive that epidemic thanks to their vaccines. Those less fortunate are winnowed out; the strongest and most naturally resistant survive and breed. So do the most vaccine resistant strains of disease. Repeat process a few times. Eventually there comes a pandemic for which the vaccines are ineffective. The poor inherit the earth.

Alternative possibility #2: Technology saves a portion of the population from pandemic. Technological society continues with other consequences, causing the destruction of the earth and the extinction of humanity. Pyrrhic victory.Global warming and nuclear weapons make #2 plausible.

Regarding #1, however, that scenario reflects a bit of naivety about infectious diseases, vaccines and the current progress being made in genetic sciences.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's news to me that Christians don't have access to vaccines, medicines and ventilators! About ten years ago I stayed at the Centennial College in Shreveport for a week. I think that it was established by some kind of Christian denomination, but still they had vaccination programmes for students and staff.I said they did and discussed the result. Re-read my post.
Do statistics show that theists are vaccinated less often than atheists? Or that vaccination accompanied by prayers are any less effective than vaccination without prayer? (In my opinion prayer probably doesn't hurt, but it definitely doesn't help either!) Or could it be a question of economics only?: the poor often don't have access to the vaccines and medicine that benefit the rich - be they theists or atheists.
Exactly!
OK, maybe it isn't only unsupported by evidence but very unlikely, all things considered ...You missed the flow there. Regardless of the fact theists have access to science, science uncovers evidence that increases atheism. So it isn't that the theism or atheism has to be acted on directly, as science is successful and praying isn't more and more people figure out belief in God is not different from belief in the gods they rejected. So while atheism isn't being naturally selected directly, it increases because science is successful and atheism tags along.

Remember, this is pure speculation. I don't claim to have supporting evidence for this. That would take too much time to hunt up and post.

[articulett]

I have some evidence to show that atheism and non-belief are increasing among younger people world wide... and I suspect the internet helps the process right along.

http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner
http://www.trincoll.edu/NR/rdonlyres/1E67A913-EAD4-41A2-9B54-7958F810FEC5/0/AJS_Poster_2006.pdf
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/print.php?storyid=1861

While it may be true that this just reflects people being less afraid to admit their lack of belief or more comfortable thinking about the possibilities... I think it reflects a real trend. God served as a "fill in" answer when we couldn't understand things yet... but as we understand more, theism just seems like a security blanket from childhood thinking to more and more young people-- and hopefully people are less likely to "punish" you for daring say you don't see any good reason for believing.