Evolutionary origin of religion

sorry to bother you, what do you mean when you say “Outlier” ?:slight_smile: how do you feel about the views of the “new atheists”?

I respectfully disagree. Scripture can have meaning whether or not God exists (albeit not necessarily the same meaning). As evidence I would point to the many interpretations of scripture that already exist.

And it God does exist (God willing??? :wink: ) then evolutionary origins are irrelevant to the correct interpretation of scripture. Granted there will be certain interpretations finding themselves confounded, but that already happens.

The point being, in a roundabout way, that the meaning of scripture is independent of science.

Just because the capacities for moral judgment, relationship, and religious inquiry and expression are evolved capacities, and religions are to some degree human constructs, that doesn’t “disprove” the idea that God revealed and reveals himself to humans. So Christians would claim that true religion is based on the true God’s self-revelation and intentional personal relationship and communication with humans. In that way, it can’t be entirely a human construct or a product of evolutionary development. It has input from outside the natural evolutionary system, so to speak. Science does not have the tools to investigate or describe divine revelation, since the supernatural is outside the realm science can investigate.

Thank you! can you link to podcasts about neuroscience, brain and neuroscience? thank

This isn’t the Language of God podcast, but this one had a really interesting discussion with a “neurotheologian” Jim Wilder on the relevance of attachment to Christian discipleship. The interview portion starts about halfway through the podcast.

Thank you very much

You might find the discussion on this fairly recent thread relevant to your questions:

This atheist agrees with you. I have never liked the argument that religions are false because humans have a natural instinct towards religious belief. It is irrelevant to the larger question.

1 Like

Again and again and again. No disproof is necessary. Religion is fiction. As in stuff we make up. If there is any absolute truth in any of it that is incidental.

You must be an aborigine who is unfamiliar with smart phones. There is such a thing as legitimate testimony.

All things are true.

All true things are true.

Nay bother Alex, ever. Bother away. Edmund O. Wilson we’re talking aren’t we. What a great man. He just goes too far, over the edge in a couple of small areas in his oeuvre, with that ridiculous claim for scientific materialism which the average human by three sigmas will never internalize and with the claim of group selection.

Hitchen’s Razor is a better route to take, IMO. It isn’t up to the atheist to disprove God.

On a more general note, people should believe what they want to believe. The only thing we really want to see from people is honesty and the ability to differentiate between opinion and fact. Or as the old saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

The meaning of ‘scripture’ - a term I’m allergic to, and whose? - cannot be independent of science. Cannot be independent of evolution, as @Christy acknowledges. I’m happy to posit God and that the NT is an authentic human, i.e. evolved, response to the only warrant for that posit; Jesus. Who was 100% evolved human on His mother’s side. Interpreting that exceptional scripture needs a fill understanding of evolved human epistemology, including Jesus’.

Better route than what? They are synonyms. Then fact of the multiverse isn’t mine.

Placing the burden of proof on the person making the positive claim is better than trying to disprove a claim that has no evidence to support it. In the words of Hitch, “Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

Um, no, not even close to what I’ve said. I don’t know how the interpretation of a religious text is dependent on science in any way. Meaning is not scientifically determined, it’s negotiated between a speaker and a hearer.

And again, no disproof required. All religions are completely human constructs. Who else made them? God’s only possible self-revelation is Jesus, in and around and through and from Jesus. What in true religion, whatever that is (beyond James’ perfect, complete definition), is the result of His intentional personal relationship and communication with humans beyond Jesus? He left us His Spirit by which He ineffably relates and communicates. Love. Above and beyond human capability. The divine revelation of Love is a person, Jesus, and His Spirit. What else?

Then how am I to understand this ‘Just because the capacities for moral judgment, relationship, and religious inquiry and expression are evolved capacities’?

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.