The sense, taste receptor of the sacred, the numinous; existential angst, awareness of mortality married to human desire with cognitive bias, hyperactive agency detectors is all fully, totally, solely evolved. Religious behaviour, including making up religious stories, emerges from that.
One would hope that things have moved on in the 31 years since.
Abstract
The general failure of sociologists to understand, much less accept, an evolutionary perspective on human behavior transcends mere ignorance and ideological bias, although it incorporates a good deal of both. It also includes a general anthropocentric discomfort with evolutionary thinking, a self-interested resistance to self-understanding, and a trained sociological incapacity to accept the fundamental canons of scientific theory construction: reductionism, individualism, materialism, and parsimony.
Ah, so in your sophisticated view religious behaviour “emerges” from HADD (a psychologist BioLogos actually supports came up with this), which is supposedly a natural evolutionary product of a meaningless universe that did not have human beings in mind. HADD just happened. Why? It doesn’t matter because the main point is that there is no Mind behind the universe. All “religious stories” are just made up. That’s the view of ERS. It sounds like you’ve drunk their coolaid, Klax, yet you seem to believe in the “religious stories”, while the colleagues whose work you are protecting with your perspective, don’t - they’re all atheists & agnostics in ERS. How’s it taste?
Yes, it gets much worse since then. He was trying to get sociologists to think “evolutionarily”!
No doubt, Klax is thinking: if only those sociologists from 30 years ago would “evolve” to become “contemporaries”, everything would no doubt “improve”, right? I’ve seen this exact same misnamed thing stated by “evolutionary sociologists” within the recent days! It’s a mis-presumption of “progress”; another way to speak about it is called “historicism”.
You might actually call “social change” by the mislabel “evolution”, Klax, and even insist upon it, in your amateur sociologists’ language-creative POV. In fact, that’s the BioLogos thing to do also, apparently: to REMOVE THE LIMITS on evolutionary thinking as much as possible. The “theistic evolution” approach at BioLogos then turns into “theistic evolutionism”; a sign of decadence, exaggeration, and divergence with theology. Do you think BioLogos doesn’t accept evolutionary sociology, Klax?
Otherwise, the ranks of the evolutionary sociologists are as full of atheists and agnostics as the ranks of ERS fanatics. I’d suggest being careful to you, Klax, though it seems you’d just turn around and say that you’re there (with those evolutionary sociologists, reportedly less than 1% of sociologists) to convert them with your “theistic evolution”, whereas every single one of them would ignore you, marginalize you, silence you, and mock you when you’re not around because you’re just smuggling-in theology as an “add-on” afterthought, not at the start of the conversation.
ERS is an in-house academic attack on religion by people claiming to take it seriously … as “outsiders”. They study it as non-believers in it; as believers that both “religion” and theology are entirely man-made. Are you actually choosing to support their language, Klax? It would seem so.
If BioLogos is not aware of who these people are, go here - this is the first time this site has been linked at BioLogos and according to a search, the first time D.S. Wilson’s hyper-evolutionist site TVOL has been referenced here: https://thisviewoflife.com/
8 times (out of 12 total) in the current BioLogos archive Darwin’s use of “this view of life” has been cited. Simpson’s TVOL (1964) was cited once, by “Eddie”, now at Peaceful Science. But no one here has addressed or acknowledged that the This View of Life website & “movement” EVEN EXISTS. That’s a very curious oversight to this purveyor of the landscape of actors involved in the conversation. Could someone please offer an explanation for the gap?
Wilson’s Evolution Institute has been mentioned only twice at BioLogos, positively, by Moderator @pevaquark regarding “social Darwinism” (!). It frankly does not appear that BioLogos is aware of what they’re getting themselves into in these fields, if they’re promoting Evolution Institute’s works on “new social Darwinism” or ERS. Yikes, is all I can say at this discovery. 
What are you going on about here Gregory? Here’s one of my posts previously and it sounds like you’re trying to link me and indirectly biologos up with social Darwinism as it’s historically been used. That would be, a tad dishonest.
2 Likes
Rationality does curdle one a tad. Faith takes the edge off the indigestion. It’s a partial distraction. And nowt sophisticated about it, rationality, common sense isn’t it? And yes, all faith stories are made up, one way and the other, there can’t be any exception can there? I mean only one at best can be. What is it? In a word? For a start.
[[Hmmm, hydroxyapatite deposition disease, yeah reckon I got that big time. ERS? I’m tempted by PR admittedly.]
Ooo, an’ annuva fing @Gregory The fact that religion is human behaviour that emerges from experience played out on evolved genetic wiring means that assuming that the Incarnation occurred, which I’m more than happy to do, the human response to it will include that evolved response. As demonstrated here with all possible cognitive biases.]
Hello Matthew,
This is perhaps the first time we’ve engaged. What’s this “going on about” here going on about? You’re seriously not against “social Darwinism” BOTH then and now, but rather for it, or at least the new D.S. Wilson, Eric Michael Johnson et al. version of it?
Not trying to prejudge you at all, or to put any words in your mouth. Just to ask an honest question and hope for an honest answer from my dialogue partner, you. In this case, as you hold a PhD in physics, therefore I trust you would approach this with a level of academic rigour too, rather than just colloquial language in support of “theistic evolutionism” that even embraces ERS.
I am ready and willing to try in a spirit of “graceful dialogue about faith and science” to speak about “social Darwinism”, “evolutionary sociology”, and ERS together, Matthew. Are you?
Wilson and Johnson are against the mistitled Social Darwinism of the past, so I’m not really sure what you are going for here.
I have no idea what type of Social Darwinism Wilson and Johnson are promoting, but it is pretty obvious they are not supporting things like genocide and eugenics.
2 Likes
Hello again Matthew,
Shall I take it that your “what are you going on about?” question was answered?
Forgive me if I’ve misread the brief engagement. It surely does still seem that you linked to D.S. Wilson et al’s paper with approval, or at least curiosity as if their “new social Darwinism” might offer a “valid option” for people at BioLogos to consider. Is that not what you meant in linking that paper here? If not, then what did you mean by it?
This thread is called “evolutionary origin of religion”. The author @Altair wrote: “sociobiologists explain the altruism of people as something that appeared due to evolution. How should Christians relate to these things, are there any arguments against such statements?”
No one here directly answered him. BioLogos @HRankin added a link to Fuentes, who is quite controversial, such that one of the few Roman Catholics here, @AntoineSuarez, has not yet even touched Fuentes’ views over on his thread about the “evolutionary transmission of sin”. No one here (nod to Klax for a somewhat cryptic response to it) expressed any concern or caution about sociobiology, which is both surprising and troubling for BioLogos’ appearance of partiality.
I’m curious then, Matthew, is it your view that “Christianity” has an “evolutionary origin”? Hopefully that’s a fair question, as I would have no trouble answering it. If not, then what “non-evolutionary origin” does “Christianity” possibly have, if that question even makes sense for you to field, since some people at BioLogos are “universal evolutionists”, not just limited accepting biological evolution? For universal evolutionists, there is no other option than to say “religion evolved too”, since that’s what the ideology means and requires.
The OP asked:
“Does evolutionary origins really make religion worthless?”
Yes, I believe it does. It means “there is no God”. Full stop. If religion “evolved” into existence “strictly naturally”, then there was no God involved, by definition. Who disagrees?
Instead, we can ask:
“Does having a history really make religion worthless?”
No, of course not. But the question is not just about time; it’s about Divine Action too, which is what ERS defines as “evolved capacities made this fantasy possible”, rather than as “reality”.
If a person wishes to interject, Yes, that’s “theistic evolution”. Then the burden is on them to start speaking more loudly about all of the non-evolutionary aspects and features of Scripture and Christianity. This would show they’re not one-sided and have actually done the reading needed to give a fair and accurate overview of the topic. Otherwise, for many TEists, it appears like they cannot or intentionally refuse to say, or likely, that they are not aware of ANY “non-evolutionary” aspects and features of Scripture.
Thus, it is really in large part an “awareness” question, Matthew, on the sociological level. This is why I expressed such surprise at the thin, almost non-existent treatment of ERS at BioLogos, for its ENTIRE HISTORY, as if that “ERS community of scholars” were for whatever reasons, intentionally left out of the picture, thus making it incomplete, as the felt need for this OP demonstrates. Again, your seeming endorsement (forgive me if this was not your intention) of TVOL was the first link to “Evolution Institute” (a major player in the “evolution” conversation) here at BioLogos. That seems like a MAJOR OVERSIGHT since Wilson’s Institute might be the most subtly anti-religion (by watering down & dispersing) organisation involved in this conversation. Wouldn’t BioLogos defend “Christianity” from the Evolution Institute?
The EI smarms and distorts “religion”, Matthew. And if you don’t believe me, I’ll send you an invitation so you can witness it for yourself next week. I am offering an experience for you to see “evolutionary sociology of religion” up close and personal, Matthew; not me speaking it, but others. Thus, there won’t be any need for “what are you going on about here Gregory?”. You’ll just see it for yourself spoken by others, up close and personal. Are you interested in this opportunity?
Facing up to that, might show the anti-theistic evolutionism position that BioLogos is indeed serious about their opponents, and willing to cooperate, instead of conflicting. Since you and several Moderators at BioLogos “appear” to promoting an ERS-like position (claiming “religion evolves”), either overtly or covertly, it may be helpful to look more closely at what ERS is actually saying, and why it has been the position preferred historically not by religious theists, e.g. evangelical Protestants, but rather of atheists and agnostics.
ERS and “the evolutionary origin of religion” are classic atheist apologetics for scientism and godlessness. Were you not aware of that, Matthew, or were you trying to “change that perception”, like BioLogos veteran atheist biologist @T_aquaticus suggested, as long as they’re “not supporting things like genocide & eugenics”? Other than that, does “(new) social Darwinism” of the Wilson-Johnson variety look good to you nowadays, Matthew, or is this not a topic you wish to address because it’s outside of your wheel house, or just thought to be unimportant by you, or…? Trying to understand, thanks for your help filling in the gaps.
I believe this is a VERY important topic (thanks @Altair!), and one that is much more interesting once one exits from a “biology is King” approach to a wider understanding of reality that understands “universal evolutionism” is not a friend of “Christianity.” Thankfully, BioLogos has said this: “BioLogos emphatically rejects Evolutionism [sic], the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion.” So, then do you not reject the evolutionism in ERS, Matthew? I do.
Thanks for engaging in graceful dialogue about this challenging topic. 
In short, it appears that @Daniel_Fisher, @paleomalacologist, @Altair & I are in agreement regarding the dangers of sociobiology and “evolutionary origin of religion”. I’m thankful for this agreement against what appears to be a “scientistic” approach to “religion”, via ideological evolutionism.
@Dale referenced Tim Keller, but didn’t address sociobiology or ERS. @SkovandOfMitaze didn’t address sociobiology or ERS. @rsewell confused sociologists with sociolobiologists and didn’t address sociobiology or ERS. @Randy didn’t address sociobiology or ERS. @Christy returned to conjectural “evolved capacities”, but didn’t actually address sociobiology or ERS.
The most direct and relevant claim to the OP (aside from David’s helpful foray) so far was by an atheist:
“if God does exist (God willing???
) then evolutionary origins are irrelevant to the correct interpretation of scripture.” - Dan Eastwood
With that, I agree.
Will BioLogos face ERS and social Darwinism head-on? Surely these are not “Christian” or “religious” theories that evangelical Protestants should accept, are they, even the “new social Darwinism” from the “Evolution Institute”?
I answered the question I read which was essentially, how should Christians feel about evolution showcasing a mutation that resulted in human belief in God. How should that affect us.
My response was to me it has zero effect. Since I believe in God, there is no science to undermine that belief.
So I felt no need to elaborate since the elaboration would logically lead to that humanity having evolved to belief in religion, or if it’s something that developed for another reason changes nothing.
If it developed as a mutation I believe God influenced somehow.
If it was something that was created based off of fantasy and storytelling, then it’s because of God.
The question was not to explain the process, but how does it affect our views and to me itnhas zero affect on my views.
No question was asked about “how Christians should FEEL about evolution”. It is thus unclear why you bring up the feeling of evangelicals in response.
I asked:
If religion “evolved” into existence “strictly naturally”, then there was no God involved, by definition. Who disagrees?
It seems from your above answer that you disagree. Is that correct or incorrect? Iow, you think it’s possible that human beings “made God up”, but that that “made-up god” still means that the Abrahamic God exists anyway?! Do I understand correctly what you have said?
You speak hypothetically of:
“a mutation that resulted in human belief in God. … If it was something that was created based off of fantasy and storytelling, then it’s because of God.”
Huh? Of course, not if that “god” is fiction in the first place, as it is according to ERS, most of sociobiology, evolutionary sociology, evolutionary psychology, and atheism. Do you not see how this leaves your “ERS-like position” open to monumental challenge?
Capitulation to ERS as told and run by atheists and agnostics simply doesn’t offer a satisfactory solution. Nor does an attempt at “co-option” of ERS by BioLogos (which they haven’t demonstrated any interest in doing, other than colloquially, in an “undisciplined” way). What other better options then are available?
1 Like
I’m sorry, what is ERS?
Evolutionary religious studies
Hello. Some scholars say that religion will lose meaning and authority when its origins are explained by evolutionary origins. Also, sociobiologists explain the altruism of people as something that appeared due to evolution. How should Christians relate to these things, are there any arguments against such statements? Does evolutionary origins really make religion worthless? I have always believed that religion is the revelation of God. Thank!
That’s exactly what’s being asking.
How should Christians relate to these things?
Relate to what?
That some scholars say religion loses its meaning and authority when explained by evolution.
My answer.
No it does not and why I disagree.
Thanks for sharing your view: “I have always believed that religion is the revelation of God. Thank!” That is the more important belief, imho.
You suggest: “Some scholars say…”
Could you please offer some names to help show people who you got the view from that “religion explained by evolution” doesn’t lose meaning and authority, as a kind of “fully natural emergence in human history” ? Is this just your own personal opinion, or are there actual religious scholars, and more importantly, theologians, who hold that view also, rather than just anti-religious scholars who promote that same view?
Your fiction/non-fiction line is still unclear wrt “evolution” and “history”. Nevertheless, the point you made above about revelation is enough to let it rest.
Scientists who say that religion will lose meaning if it gets an evolutionary explanation for this: Wilson, Dawkins and others from their company
What is the social Darwinism they are proposing?
Yes, exactly, though not only natural scientists; other non-scientist scholars as well. And pretty much anyone in ERS. This “company”, as you say.
Example:
Lewis Wolpert’s Six impossible things before breakfast: the evolutionary origins of belief. WW Norton & Co., 2006.
In addition to D.S. Wilson, Pascal Boyer, Steven Pinker, Jared Diamond, Robert Trivers, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Susan Blackmore, Michael Tomasello, Francis Heylighen, Yuval Noah Harari, Stephen Sanderson, Robert Boyd, Peter Richerson, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Brett Weinstein, Michael Hammond, Marion Blute, Rosemary Hopcroft, Ken Baskin, Jonathan H. Turner, Akop Nazaretyan, and Henri J. Claessen, each promote a naturalistic evolutionary view of “religion”, both the origins of religion and “religious” processes. “Religion”, not unlike “theology” to them, is not “God-given”, but “man-made”.
This list just scratches the surface of those “practising” in ERS, evolutionary sociology, evolutionary anthropology, & evolutionary psychology, collectively putting forth ideologically naturalistic approaches to religion, and much more rarely, to theology.
At some point, BioLogos might need (or just choose) to explain how to “resist the temptation” to dehistoricize the obviously atheistic and agnostic uses of “evolutionary theories” for “secular apologetics” in contemporary culture, while at the same time trying to stay on the cutting edge of “good science” (e.g. vs. Peaceful Science, RTB & ID theory), where evolutionary biology is not allowed to turn into evolutionary universalism, aka “evolutionism”, which is not consistent with the teachings of the Abrahamic religions. BioLogos admits this partially in rejecting evolutionism.