Religion as a successful mutation

[HeavilyArmed]

Here's a wonderful piece by Dinesh D'Souza from a month ago. Forgive me if it's been discussed previously. All of it here (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/22/INGA9LRRPN1.DTL)
<font color="blue">
Excerpt: "In the secular account, "You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago. You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere."

In the Christian view, by contrast, "You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are the climax of His creation. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with him."

Now imagine two groups of people -- let's call them the Secular Tribe and the Religious Tribe -- who subscribe to one of these two views. Which of the two is more likely to survive, prosper and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every thought and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all.

Should evolutionists like Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Wilson be surprised, then, to see that religious tribes are flourishing around the world? Across the globe, religious faith is thriving and religious people are having more children. By contrast, atheist conventions only draw a handful of embittered souls, and the atheist lifestyle seems to produce listless tribes that cannot even reproduce themselves. "</font>


The demographics bear out all of his important points. My own reading of world history suggests that often the first step toward cultural suicide is abandonment of the established religion often along with decadence from wealth. Looking into the future, I see many less white atheists tending toward extinction and many more sectarian people in general. If that's not some form of micro-evolution then I don't know it when I see it.

Note: I have no dog in this fight. I have next-to-zero faith.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a wonderful piece by Dinesh D'Souza from a month ago. Forgive me if it's been discussed previously. All of it here (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/22/INGA9LRRPN1.DTL)
<font color="blue">
Excerpt: "In the secular account, "You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago. You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere."

In the Christian view, by contrast, "You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are the climax of His creation. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with him."

Now imagine two groups of people -- let's call them the Secular Tribe and the Religious Tribe -- who subscribe to one of these two views. Which of the two is more likely to survive, prosper and multiply? The religious tribe is made up of people who have an animating sense of purpose. The secular tribe is made up of people who are not sure why they exist at all. The religious tribe is composed of individuals who view their every thought and action as consequential. The secular tribe is made up of matter that cannot explain why it is able to think at all.

Should evolutionists like Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Wilson be surprised, then, to see that religious tribes are flourishing around the world? Across the globe, religious faith is thriving and religious people are having more children. By contrast, atheist conventions only draw a handful of embittered souls, and the atheist lifestyle seems to produce listless tribes that cannot even reproduce themselves. "</font>


The demographics bear out all of his important points. My own reading of world history suggests that often the first step toward cultural suicide is abandonment of the established religion often along with decadence from wealth. Looking into the future, I see many less white atheists tending toward extinction and many more sectarian people in general. If that's not some form of micro-evolution then I don't know it when I see it.

Note: I have no dog in this fight. I have next-to-zero faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is full of outrageous stereotypes that are totally detached from reality. It is full-blown Christian Supremacism.

[kurto]

The argument seems, to me, to be: The secular view doesn't sound as nice as the Christian view... so the Christians will thrive.

Also: I have no idea what this part is alluding to:
"Should evolutionists like Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Wilson be surprised, then, to see that religious tribes are flourishing around the world? Across the globe, religious faith is thriving and religious people are having more children. By contrast, atheist conventions only draw a handful of embittered souls, and the atheist lifestyle seems to produce listless tribes that cannot even reproduce themselves."

I didn't realize that atheists didn't reproduce and are listless. It did make me smile though.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
In the secular account, "You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago. You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that what I believe? Huh. I didn't get the memo.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the secular account, "You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago. You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that what I believe? Huh. I didn't get the memo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it's what's known as a thought experiment. The reader is required to think.

[jogsxyz]

How does this explain the survival of all the other creatures on earth? Do they believe in a god?

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
How does this explain the survival of all the other creatures on earth? Do they believe in a god?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lacking self-awareness and all that goes with it, it's easy to see why animals fall out of the picture in this regard.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the secular account, "You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago. You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that what I believe? Huh. I didn't get the memo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it's what's known as a thought experiment. The reader is required to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, when I recognized the first sentence was false, it was a bit hard to go beyond that, but I'll give it a shot...

Wow, a whole lot of those sentences are false! You're right, that was definitely worth looking into.

Oh yeah.

[ QUOTE ]
The demographics bear out all of his important points.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the ones from Liberty University? The ones you found on that bar napkin?

[ QUOTE ]
Note: I have no dog in this fight. I have next-to-zero faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. So what exactly do you believe? Are you an atheist? If so, here's a hint - lay off the word "faith." Atheists don't really use the term, and it almost makes you sound like a dishonest theist or something.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The demographics bear out all of his important points.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the ones from Liberty University? The ones you found on that bar napkin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there some specific objection you have to his fertility data? Prehaps it's a more general need to reject facts you find troubling.

Find me a single reasonably secular country that has a &gt;2.1 child/couple birth rate and I'll respect you objection. Otherwise it just sounds like a child going "nya, nya, nya I can't hear you." with fingers in ears.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Note: I have no dog in this fight. I have next-to-zero faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. So what exactly do you believe? Are you an atheist? If so, here's a hint - lay off the word "faith." Atheists don't really use the term, and it almost makes you sound like a dishonest theist or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had zero faith, none, what do you think I would have written? You may need to think about it. Take your time.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]

Is there some specific objection you have to his fertility data? Prehaps it's a more general need to reject facts you find troubling.

Find me a single reasonably secular country that has a &gt;2.1 child/couple birth rate and I'll respect you objection. Otherwise it just sounds like a child going "nya, nya, nya I can't hear you." with fingers in ears.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are a few problems with the theory. First, having more babies doesn't equal prosperity or success for a country. Second, the birth rate is significantly inverseley related to GDP/head MUCH more than religious belief or observance. Hard to argue that a more productive society is less likely to survive.

In fact, I think I just decided that the birthrate argument acts STRONGLY against your original premise...at least in todays world...maybe not historically.

Anyway, there may be some validity to what you say, but I think it more likely that religion is a byproduct of the human tendency to find causes for things, which is clearly an adaptive trait...This article pretty well sums up my view (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/god-accident)

[HeavilyArmed]

I'm reasonably sure that D'Sousa was writing partially tongue-in-cheek. But it doesn't discount the bleak future for all the countries that have turned into secular societies. Europe's future is almost certainly Islamic. America's fertility is holding but it's not due to the procreation of the direct ancestors of the founders or even those that arrived in the 'great wave'. Call me rasict if it suits you, but I just don't see an Islamic Europe (or Islamic anywhere) producing cultural acheivments similar to the previous tenents. This makes me sad. Renault flambé anyone?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there some specific objection you have to his fertility data? Prehaps it's a more general need to reject facts you find troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

His facts are about countries. He has no facts about religious orientation.

[ QUOTE ]
Find me a single reasonably wealthy country that has a &gt;2.1 child/couple birth rate and I'll respect you objection. Otherwise it just sounds like a child going "nya, nya, nya I can't hear you." with fingers in ears.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, atheism is one of many correlates.

I'm sorry, did you have a point or do you just like it when your face turns red and that veins pops out on your forehead?

[ QUOTE ]
If I had zero faith, none, what do you think I would have written? You may need to think about it. Take your time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Temper, temper. You might want to be calm down before you say something that would imply your original statement was disingenuous.

[HeavilyArmed]

Entertaining trolls will engage me for a while. You are simply tiresome.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Entertaining trolls will engage me for a while. You are simply tiresome.

[/ QUOTE ]

madnak's FYP presented an important point that should be addressed..would you care to do that or just dismiss it as trollsome?

[JayTee]

Distort D'Newsa is good for a laugh but his points fall apart after that. Firstly, Rev. Carlson's idea of two tribes should be a blatantly obvious straw man attack to anyone reading the piece with an open mind. Representing the viewpoint of any non-religious person as that of the secular tribe is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

As many atheists who were brought up in a religious family will tell you, including myself, atheisim can offer a viewpoint through the eyes of science and nature more mysterious and awe-inspiring than any religious text.

This is the same argument that is constantly regurgitated by theists. Even if religious belief does promote the existence of society, it does not provide one shred of evidence that the beliefs contain any truth.

"The real difference is that in the past, children were valued as gifts from God, and now they are viewed by many people as instruments of self-gratification. The old principle was, "Be fruitful and multiply." The new one is, "Have as many children as enhance your lifestyle.""

The above statement almost makes me sick. Perhaps in the past the "gift from god" was actually a gift to society. I wonder how much attention and love a mother can provide to 10 children while still providing for their needs. Perhaps now, women recognize that they don't have to be baby producing slaves their entire lives. They may believe that having less children provides them with more time to love and nurture each child indepently while still being able to enjoy their own lives.

While I am no expert in economics or social science, and unlike D'Souza/Rev. Carlson I will not pretend. I would imagine religion has less to do with birth rates than governmental policies and economic conditions.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
"The real difference is that in the past, children were valued as gifts from God, and now they are viewed by many people as instruments of self-gratification. The old principle was, "Be fruitful and multiply." The new one is, "Have as many children as enhance your lifestyle.""

The above statement almost makes me sick. Perhaps in the past the "gift from god" was actually a gift to society. I wonder how much attention and love a mother can provide to 10 children while still providing for their needs. Perhaps now, women recognize that they don't have to be baby producing slaves their entire lives. They may believe that having less children provides them with more time to love and nurture each child indepently while still being able to enjoy their own lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish I had the time to go through your post sentence by sentence but I do not.

ANswer honestly. Have you seen any signs of celebrities strutting around with 'designer babies'? I know I have. Babies have become a fashion accessory in some circles.

Where in america will you find the largest families? It's not among most white professionals. They are breeding themselves into extinction. But look at the LDS families concentrated in Utah and nearby. Mostly white, mostly large families. These kids function in society. Research the Utah crime stats and better yet tease out the rural data. I guarantee it will likely be the lowest cohort in America. For you to suggest that large families lead to poor parenting might very well be true with respect to the secular but among the LDS members it's not a factor.

One other group comes to mind but I can offer no way to investigate it. Jewish Rabbis have huge families. I'd wager that these are very functional families, way more likely to make their way through higher education to advanced degrees than the general public.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
They are breading themselves into extinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm having a hard time picturing this.