Religion as a Byproduct of Evolution

“Skeptics realize that religion is a byproduct of evolution. It began as a mental process to give supernatural explanation to natural phenomenon…” Daniel Rea

Semantics: religion is a combination of self awareness (I am) and my place in the scheme of things (philosophy) and environmental awareness (It is) aka science.

“On the contrary we base our arguments upon reason and logic. Giving a clear, rational, and logically acceptable account.” Daniel Rea

Logic is often culturally based not to mention observer influenced. An American’s logic and Japanese logic seem often to be from different planets. Scientists in the performance of an experiment too often view the result from their culturally and philosophically colored glasses, imagining they see something, discovered something or disproved something but are instead deceived by their own imaginings. Thusly the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and there were only 5 then 6 then 7 then .... planets. We are bound by our own intellectual limitations which may not recognize what is staring us in the face. Thus, yes it may be logical, but the logic of a child. So, to say God does not exist because we have done some experiments and come to some logical conclusions is on its own a bit of a fallacy. But I fully agree with your premise Daniel – but then I’m American.


Thus they always begin with, "God is...", and this is where their fallacy begins. Daniel Rea

I begin to have a problem … God is, science is, philosophy is. You can define each ie: God is that which is outside of nature – supernatural. That which cannot be contained in or defined by natural law. You may not like the definition, but it doesn’t invalidate it.

Theists recourse to the supernatural, and it is precisely there Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and skeptics halt them and ask, "How can you begin supernatural speculation, where is your material evidence?" Daniel Rea

To me this is the apples (natural) and oranges (supernatural) argument. They are separate and mutually exclusive. One cannot define the other. Whether or not we have evidence of an existence inside or outside our natural universe does not negate the possibility. We are discovering more everyday and I have no doubt that we will make discoveries that will change our formulations of natural law as radically as Einstein did Newton. The mistake theists make is in trying to define the supernatural using natural definitions. It’s a trap, step in and you are hopelessly out gunned by your own brain.

Skeptics are upset that theists are trying to turn our secular nations into theocracies, listen to Pat Robertson, "If you think when we take this country the Christians are going to let atheists off easy, oh no, you will be the first in jails." Daniel Rea

Ok THIS is THE real issue isn't it and has been, it seems, forever. Going back to the first shaman, if you weren’t part of the bear clan you were history, or invited, none too subtly to drink hemlock. It’s one thing to accept the possibility that there are existence(s) outside our understanding, but quite another to create a fairy tale about it, insist that your particular fairy tale is the absolute truth, then kill anyone who disagrees with you. But this is a problem becoming apparent in science as well. Do you "believe" in global warming? It has almost become a religion with Al Gore as the chief priest.