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.
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?
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.
Seems to me that the goal of such study need not be an end to religion. It could also be an attempt to put it on a surer footing.
From what I have seen, the majority of people claiming that Evolution disproves Christianity are creationists. Most of the atheists I know (myself included) don’t see a conflict between Christianity and evolution.
“Seems to me that the goal of such study need not be an end to religion.”
That is true. It is surely not the goal of all in ERS to “end religion”. Some in ERS just want to “lower” religion and theology in society. They pretty much all want to “shrink religion” or at least, specifically evangelical Protestantism in the USA, which they believe is bloated and dangerous. A few of them just want to attack fundamentalisms of all kinds. Again, they’re almost all in ERS atheists and agnostics, so who knows really why they’re dedicating themselves to “religious studies” anyways, right? The study of what one personally disbelieves (in) seems to be a curious one.
“It could also be an attempt to put it on a surer footing.”
Not sure what this means. If there were actually religious people, e.g. real Abrahamic monotheists themselves within ERS, is this what you mean, trying to “use evolutionary biology” to somehow improve their theology via ERS? Or do you mean a theory about the history of religion (ERS) put forward by atheists & agnostics could be (intentionally or unintentionally) serving to “put religion on surer footing”?
I have nothing to say that I haven’t said already but I can just paraphrase what I said:
It’s fine for there to be natural explanations for the origin of religion… because… wait for it… most Christians believe that God made and upholds the natural laws- including Christians that deny the theory of evolution or other theories about the physical world. So it cannot be contradictory to God being the ultimate author of religion or morality and then there being natural explanations… through the laws which he created.
And I would argue that you are incorrect. Scientific explanations are agnostic towards the existence and activity of any gods. Do you personally reject meteorology because it excludes God in its explanations? For example:
https://biologos.org/articles/atheistic-meteorology-or-divine-rain
Or the dangers of ‘theistic water cyclism:’
https://rob.scottclan.cc/2017/08/the-dangers-of-theistic-water-cycism/
Wow sounds very exciting. All for the price of $29.99. Sale ends at midnight. I don’t personally care what people think when they use the results of science to reject God as they are making the same error that you are- thinking that scientific explanations for anything tell us anything about whether or not God or gods are involved.
A good book on the topic that still makes me think. The Faith Instinct, by Nicholas Wade.
Sounds very interesting. Just put a hold on it at my library.
It’s been a long time now for me. Let me know what you think. Wade discussed the idea of “group selection” and is clear that the science is not conclusive. To my knowledge the science still isn’t in, but I think Wade made a plausible case for the evolution of the capacity for religion.
“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.
