With Due Respect: Evolution explains why religion persists!

The evolution of a society

Ever heard of the argument? It goes along the lines of the following:

1) Primitive societies survive better organised than disorganised

2) Religions come about to better organise societies.

3) Hence religions, being evolutionary successful, rather than true persists through time.

4) Individuals bearing differing views are weeded out. They have to accept the society's religion or risk being expelled/killed or discriminated against.

That sounds convincing!

As an evolutionary biologist (or rather an biology graduate), I must admit that such concept relies heavily on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.

For one, it discounts learnt behaviour for religions, and assumes that religious ideas and behaviour is mainly genetic. Even if religous ideas are shown to be genetic, it  is probably a complex trait, and not as easily spread in the method shown above.

Lastly, the above idea relies heavily on the idea of group selection, which can only work if all the members in the group are closely related to each other.

But let me be honest here. I don't deny that some religions do use violence and social segregation to discourage apostates. Although absent from modern day Christianity in developed countries, the Inquisition and Crusades are just two of the many examples where by religion has been violently used to put down who the church deemed as heretics.

The smokescreen!

But enough with the smoke. The underlying issue is how the great evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson (1979) so eloquently puts it. Wilson suggests that if he can give the spread of religion a naturalistic reason, he has disproven God.

However, cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller (1999) puts forth a question: Why can't God work through nature? A theistic God, having created a rational universe, in fact is expected to work most of his will through nature. Wilson assumes that God must work through methods that must be evolutionary unsuccessful to show that he exists, but as Miller explains that no one has suggested such a God in the first place.

Why invoke a God, when nature has shown itself to be self-sustaining?

And to this, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins (2006) uses Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is probably the correct one) to suggest there is no God (the universe without a god is a simpler explanation).

However, church minister David Robertson (2007) points out that Dawkins brings over the multi-universes hypothesis over God. In that way, which is simpler-- one God or many universes. In addition, he also readily points out that Occam's Razor is dependant on perception, and the simplest explanation may not always be the right one.

Still the challenge to the Christian remains-- he/she still has not proven there is a God based on the above arguments.

How does Hamlet know there's a Shakespeare?

What do I mean? Imagine if Hamlet wants to find out if Shakespeare exists. He cannot truly be very sure by sending himself into space or philosophising about it. The only way for him to truly find out is if Shakespeare wrote himself into the play (Keller, 2008)

Similarly, the only way for us to really be sure if God exists is that if he came himself physically in our history. And that is the story of Jesus.

References

Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion

Keller, T.J. (2008) The Reason for God

Miller, K.R. (1999)  Finding Darwin's God

Robertson, D. (2007) The Dawkins Letters

Wilson, E.O. (1979) On Human Nature