Was Freethought removed from the gene pool?

[evangelicalhumanist]

Throughout the course of the last several millenia (the period for which we have recorded history), state religions have systematically tried to remove from the gene pool (often by stoning, burning and other fun methods) skeptics and freethinkers. No doubt they didn't think of it in these terms, but heretics and religious doubters were persecuted and killed with abandon. This has got to have, one would think, some effect on future generations.

Is it possible that this might be at least part of the explanation for the prevalence of religion? Skeptical genes, responsible for lack of belief in the official dogmas, that are weeded out are less likely to be passed on to future generations, while genes that code for credulity are more likely to be passed on and retained in the pool.

You may, if you like, take a look at Chapter 4 of Victor Sternger's Physics and Psychics for a more thorough argument.

[statrei]

Not much can be gained by trying to explain the continuing prevalence of religion without considering the origins of religion. Religion was invented by humans and they were not religious before they invented it. It would be best to consider why freethought created religion instead of positing religion as the necessary enemy of freethought.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by statrei

Not much can be gained by trying to explain the continuing prevalence of religion without considering the origins of religion. Religion was invented by humans and they were not religious before they invented it. It would be best to consider why freethought created religion instead of positing religion as the necessary enemy of freethought.

I don't think you can say that with quite as much certainty as you seem to hold. Humans may have "invented" religion -- if by "religion" we mean the codified practices of religious behaviour -- but I strongly suspect that the earliest creatures that led to man always had those unnamed fears and hopes that we might call "religious feeling."

As I atheist, I too feel those things. When I hope for certain outcomes, perhaps crossing my fingers or muttering "please, please!" under my breath, I am engaging in just such expression. Even though, rationally, I do not believe in magic, gods and such, it is impossible for me to eradicate completely this undergirding of magical thinking.

The difference between me and many of a more religious bent is that I am aware of the cause, and consequently accept -- rationally at least -- that my pleadings are not going to have the effect they are meant to.

[RevKathyV]

.....to me that is a very sad outlook on things...but you have your right to feel it...I have the belief there is much power in words and thought..and as a minister I promote free thought.

[Lightkeeper]

I recall Joseph Campbell saying that the very first religions may have been based on guilt rather than fear. People felt guilty about killing to eat so they had ceremonies about the animal being reborn.

If a person is religious out of fear then it would seem we might consider helping people deal with fear in other ways.

In a New Earth Eckhart Tolle does deal with this. By teaching ourselves to live in the present moment we have less fear. Future tripping causes fear and anxiety. Also, we learn to bring our feelings into awareness and not judge them.

When one crosses one's fingers and says "please please" they could be seeking inner strength without even being aware of it. In my opinion its the inner we need to learn to call on.

Not all religious people believe there is something outside of us called God. Many believe there is something higher within us. We can learn to call on that in times of distress.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Not all religious people believe there is something outside of us called God. Many believe there is something higher within us. We can learn to call on that in times of distress.

Now THERE is a place I can get to. It's what I tried to express in the thread on non-duality -- that there may well be capabilities, modes of experience and expression locked up inside us that our conscious, rational, thinking minds have difficulty getting to.

I am a fish out of water when it comes to discussing methods of accomplishing that. However, the thing that just doesn't seem to work for me is some of the "mumbo-jumbo" that far too many people conjure up. For me, doing something that feels or looks foolish doesn't work well.

(In an interesting aside, Canadians are largely like that. An English hamburger joint once tried to open in Canada -- during the 1960s -- called "Wimpey's" after the Popeye character. But Canadians felt foolish ordering a Wimpey burger and a "whipsey" -- what they called a milkshake -- and it didn't make it. In the same way, you won't find stores with names like Piggly-Wiggly in Canada, and we don't generally buy Tater Tots. They all make us feel foolish, somehow.

I make no guarantees of the absolute accuracy of the foregoing. )

[statrei]

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

I don't think you can say that with quite as much certainty as you seem to hold. Humans may have "invented" religion -- if by "religion" we mean the codified practices of religious behaviour -- but I strongly suspect that the earliest creatures that led to man always had those unnamed fears and hopes that we might call "religious feeling."

What are you disagreeing with? Unnamed fears and hopes are not religious feeling. They are unnamed fears and hopes. The bottom line is that it is freethought that produced religion. This cannot be successfully denied.

[statrei]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

I recall Joseph Campbell saying that the very first religions may have been based on guilt rather than fear. People felt guilty about killing to eat so they had ceremonies about the animal being reborn.

That cannot be true. People could not feel guilty about killing to eat when they learned how to kill to eat from predators in the wild. Religion arose out of fear of the unknown. Early humans needed to explain the powerful forces of nature. But we need to be big enough to admit that religion was a byproduct of scientific exploration.

[arthra]

or...science could be the by product of religious awe and wonder?

I wonder...anyway science and religion to be should be in greater harmonia..

- Art

[Tonyamendola]

You cant remove truth from us

Its built in

Lightkeeper and EH

Exactly

It aint "up there"

Its right inside

Its called Love and as we lay down judgement we experience Loves Presence more and thus remember more

You dont need to read or write or choose the right book
The oppertunity is there every day to choose another way for every one of us

It is that simple

Put Love before all else and you Love God with all of your heart and all of your mind

Because God is LOVE and thats right at the centre of YOU