Religious Darwinism: Survival of the Fit - A Theory by Aaron

[Lardlad95]

Note: This is simply a theory and iit isn't heavily researched, there is research of course, a great deal but not enough for me to make Rock solid claims, right now it is a minor theory at best and at worst a simple opinion

We all know what darwinism is, we all know what social darwinism, and just as Darwinism can be associated with society it can also be associated with religion.

WHile I don't have the resources to do a full blown research from the materials I've had, being raised catholic, studying the three main religions monotheistic, ancient religions and philosophies...I can see that religion bides by the laws of the jungle like any other thing on earth.

The religion that is best equipped to survive will.

This is why Christianity is so large, why Islam is getting so large, and why Judeaism has survived for so long.

From what I gather religions must be able to adapt to the changing world, following these primary(no specifics yet) criteria

1. A religion must be able to keep it's congregation from questioning it.


LEt us look at the Vedic/Hindu religion of India.

In order to keep it's population satisfied the religion needed a way to keep it's people in line.

Thus the creation of Reincarnation. An ingenius idea. Unlike the concept of heaven and hell(to other modes of keeping people in line) Reincarnation Allowed the hiearchy to keep the caste system moving.

The caste sysytem as we all know is the class system set up in INdia pre-axial and reevaluated post axial age.

The idea that you will be reborn if you lead a good life would prompt people not to complain about what they have to live through.

IF you know your place, do your work, and don't complain you will be reborn as someone better.


What a great way of keeping people satisfied with the lot they were dealt in life. Luckily the caste system was officially broken up though it still has some historical bearing on peoples lives.


Now we can also look at the Judeao-Christian/Islamic idea of Heaven and Hell. Those who lead good lives will be rewarded in the after life, and those who don't wont be.

Less complex than the use of the caste system, yes, but more affective, maybe.

However in the Jewish religion Hell isn't permanent it is more like the Purgatory of the Catholics.

Though the idea of a hell like punishment is still enough to persuade people to live good lives.

Christian hell and from what I gather Islamic hell are both permanent. There is no chance of escape.

There is a division in Christianity though, Catholics (and for teh last time people catholics are christians) believe in Purgatory a place to repent for what we can call sinful misdemeanors that weren't absolved. Protistents on teh otehr hand reject the idea of purgatory, you get one chance and one chance only. THough the protestants have an advantage of the catholics in another respect which will be disscussed later.

2. The religion must be universal.

With the exception of Hinduism and other less global religions, most of the major religions appeal to people universally. They have a general base that can be accepted by anyone (which Hinduism does have) as well as not linking to a specific culture so strong that someone of a different culture can't accept it.

The ancient religions of the Greek, Egyptian, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. All applied specifically to their culture.

I don't know about you but I've never been to mount olympus, I'm not surrounded by olive groves, and the forces of nature don't hold a place significant place in my life.

The egyptian religion had alot to do with the area of egypt, with the culture they lived in, with the area they were in. A jackal God doesn't make much Sense to someone in detroit.

This is why these religions died out, they couldn't adapt to a broader base of people.


Judeaism started out more like the ancient religions of North Africa and the Middle east focusing on their own culture, but it gave a universal messege that allowed to be accepted by other people...eventually.

The messege of Christ and mUhammed allowed anyone regardles of culture to come to their religion in search of salvation and divine love.

The universal messege allows religions to become accepted by more people givng them a larger population.


3. The religion must be easy to swallow.


Tales of walking on water and angels telling prophets to spread the word of God may seem far fetched but once you are incorpurated into the religion these ideas are acceptable. The point though is that these ideas seem easier to believe once you take into account everything about the religion.

Someone walking on water is ludacrious, but if that person is the son of God, ok that is easier to accept.

Religions must be able to be acceptable to their followers and potential followers.

Rastafarianism for example a carribean religion based somewhat off Christianity states that Hallie Salassie( I apologize for spelling errors) is/was God on earth. To a rich white guy in America this would have seemed insane. But an impovershed black man living in a third world nation this made perfect sense. The return of black rule in Africa signified something that others couldn't see.

SOmething that one person may find odd can make perfect sense to another and that is key to a religion surviving.

4. Religions must be able Offer the Followers something

A religion that offers no spiritual, emotional, and mental fulfilment is worthless.

The entire point of religion is a belief that you feel strongly about and becomes a part of you. If that part isn't helping you...then there is no point in keeping it.

Which is why lots of people turn away from religions they were born into believeing.

Often converts to religion are teh strongest followers as opposed to people who were born believeing them. Some people born into the religion of course are dedicated followers but someone who makes a concious decision to join a religion is more likely to believe the religion whole heartedly.

Each religion must offer something that will draw the person to the religion.

Usually it is a mix of spiritual fulfillment and a promise of life after death/salvation.

the Protistent Sect of CHristianity promises salvation if the person only accepts Jesus Christ as their savior, this brings up some debates between catholics and protestants, catholics who believe that good deeds also gain you heaven in addition to faith in God/Jesus.


Since the three major Monotheistic religions are somewhat unified (the God of Abraham) all three follow the similar faith in God for salvation motto.

Cults such as Heaven's gate appeal to people who are spiritually lost, with some type of emotional problem, while offering outrageous promises like going to a home planet of Blistonia © the Movementarians © the Simpsons, they still find a way to trap people with something that makes them feel welcolm.

Religions without a whole lot to offer a target auidience will probably fail to make it more than a century or too, if they catch on at all.

5. religions must be able to adapt to a changing world

The Protestant reformation, one of the most famous religious breaks of all time. A period in time where people began to rethink the way Christianity was behaving in 16th century(?).

Before this the Catholic church had monopolized christianity and could basically do as it pleased, the Pope was more powerful than all teh kings of Europe and the position fell to many corrupt leaders, the Higher clergy abused power, and the curch iinvolved it's self in Politics and War.

The selling of indulgences signified that the church had lost it's way.


People like Martin Luther, and John Calvin realized that the Church was not as it should be and decided it was time for a change..some people broke off from the church for real reasons like John Calvin, some broke off for petty reasons like Henry the VIII, and some were forced out Like Martin Luther.

The invention of the printing press allowed the ideas to spread faster and the CHurch was dealt a glancing blow.

THe CHurch still held lots of power but the strike crippled them enough to make them lose alot of political pull.

The church decided they needed to reform themselves. Thus began the counter reformation.

The church changed it's self and modified it's self to keep it's self alive. Among the msot drastic changes were the ceasing of selling indulgences and stricter rules regarding the clergy(much like the church is being forced, or will be forced to do today), it also stopped being so involved in war and politics.

They also countered the Protestants claims that the clergy held little importance.

THus the Catholic church addapted to survive to a changing culture and remains the most populous religious SECT.




Alright that is my theory of religious darwinism so far, I sitll need to do more research, figure out more criteria and polish and repolish what I have...comments?

Note from Lardlad: please no "Religion blows, Kill all christians" type replies. THis is a serious thread and I wrote this hoping for serious disscussion. After reading please give me criticism, comments, suggestions, or valid arguements. I will not reply to any post that I deem to be childish like "THe Pope is evil, lets kill him"

[redstar2000]

Actually, LL95, what you're really "applying" is not "social darwinism" but rather a "neo-darwinian metaphor".

Social Darwinism was fashionable in the period 1880-1945 as a kind of "racial science"...a so-called "explanation" of why white people were "civilized" and people of color were "backward". In its most extreme form, it actually predicted that people of color would eventually become extinct because of their "inferiority".

The neo-darwinian metaphor is something different and doesn't have anything to do with "race" at all. It suggests, as you indicated, that human social institutions--like particular religions--grow or decline according to their ability to "compete" with their rivals in their particular environment. Richard Dawkin's concept of "memes" is probably the most famous example, but I'm sure there are others.

So what's wrong with this idea, this neo-darwinian approach to human social institutions?

From a Marxist standpoint, the idea serves as an apology for the prevailing social order, whatever it might be. It says that, for example, Christianity is wide-spread because it is "fit", "superior" to many of its competitors...overlooking its practical utility to the ruling class.

When the neo-darwinian metaphor is applied to other social institutions, the same criticism applies...abstract "fitness" is a meaningless concept outside of biology, the field which gave birth to the idea and in which it is truly useful.

What does it mean to say a social institution is "fit" or that one such institution is "more fit" than another? More importantly, what does it say about how such institutions become "fit" in the first place and how, later on, they become "unfit"? We know about how genetic mutations slowly or quickly change species; what is the equivalent of that in the neo-darwinian metaphor?

The neo-darwinians usually respond "human genius"--the random appearance of some "brilliant thinker" who (for good or ill) alters conditions so dramatically that a new social institution emerges that is "fitter" than all the old ones...which die out. If there had been no Martin Luther, there would have been no Protestantism. If there had been no Lenin, there would have been no USSR. And so on.

In its ultimate incarnation, it bluntly asserts that the rulers of any given moment "deserve" their positions because they really "are superior"...more "fit" than all other humans. Only the sudden and unexpected appearance of a genius, who "invents" a "more fit" social order can change that.

This neo-darwinian metaphor fits rather neatly into the current bourgeois conception of history: there are no regularities, just random sequences of events tied together only by the contending influences of various leaders and would-be leaders.

Can the neo-darwinian metaphor be decisively disproven at this time?

It wouldn't be an easy task. The regularities that Marx noted in the evolution of class society could be "explained" by the random appearance of suitable genius in each particular society, or by simple copying of a singular "more fit" innovation from one society to another.

The marked ineptitude that we observe in present-day living ruling classes could be "explained" by the assertion that the rest of humanity is "even more inept".

Even if there were a wave of communist revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries---a final confirmation of the Marxist hypothesis---the neo-darwinians would simply reply that Marx "was a genius" who had a "more fit" idea of human society and thus, his views "won the evolutionary struggle".

It was Karl Popper who suggested that a hypothesis that cannot be disproven no matter what happens is not really a scientific idea at all. The neo-darwinian metaphor "explains" everything in terms of "fit", "more fit", or "less fit"...and thus, I think, really explains nothing at all.

That's not to say, of course, that particular religions (for example) don't have internal strengths and weaknesses that may assist or retard their growth. Many of the people who became Christians in the first and second century Roman Empire would probably have become Jews...had it not been for the rite of male circumcision that male candidates for conversion to Judaism were required to undergo. Judaism was highly regarded among the eastern religions by the middle and upper "intellectual" strata of the Empire; it was thought far superior to many of the "vulgar" mystery religions as well as the empty pagan ceremonial religions...which were hardly religions at all (more like the American "4th of July" than a worshipping faith).

From what I can tell, Christianity "won" in the Roman Empire because it appealed to the rank-and-file Roman soldier, more than its competitors did. It was cheap, for one thing. (Worshipping the bull involved considerable expense.) "Salvation" was simple to obtain and easy to keep. Confession of sin and remission of same was a simple way out of the moral "risks" of a soldier's life.

Constantine the "Great" was not a Christian when he became the Emperor...but more than half of his army was and that made the difference. The Christian clergy, of course, had to adapt their ideas to the necessities of power...but (surprise!) that proved to be no significant problem. Once Christianity was known to be favored by the Emperor and the Army, ordinary people had a powerful incentive to convert...which was easy to do. And so on.

A similar analysis could be made of all the major religions, I think. Yes, there were internal features that helped them grow...but the external conditions were more important.

Someone using the neo-darwinian metaphor would have no problem "explaining" this, of course.

Or anything else.

:cool:

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:39 am on July 9, 2003
Actually, LL95, what you're really "applying" is not "social darwinism" but rather a "neo-darwinian metaphor".

Social Darwinism was fashionable in the period 1880-1945 as a kind of "racial science"...a so-called "explanation" of why white people were "civilized" and people of color were "backward". In its most extreme form, it actually predicted that people of color would eventually become extinct because of their "inferiority".

The neo-darwinian metaphor is something different and doesn't have anything to do with "race" at all. It suggests, as you indicated, that human social institutions--like particular religions--grow or decline according to their ability to "compete" with their rivals in their particular environment. Richard Dawkin's concept of "memes" is probably the most famous example, but I'm sure there are others.

So what's wrong with this idea, this neo-darwinian approach to human social institutions?

From a Marxist standpoint, the idea serves as an apology for the prevailing social order, whatever it might be. It says that, for example, Christianity is wide-spread because it is "fit", "superior" to many of its competitors...overlooking its practical utility to the ruling class.

When the neo-darwinian metaphor is applied to other social institutions, the same criticism applies...abstract "fitness" is a meaningless concept outside of biology, the field which gave birth to the idea and in which it is truly useful.

What does it mean to say a social institution is "fit" or that one such institution is "more fit" than another? More importantly, what does it say about how such institutions become "fit" in the first place and how, later on, they become "unfit"? We know about how genetic mutations slowly or quickly change species; what is the equivalent of that in the neo-darwinian metaphor?

The neo-darwinians usually respond "human genius"--the random appearance of some "brilliant thinker" who (for good or ill) alters conditions so dramatically that a new social institution emerges that is "fitter" than all the old ones...which die out. If there had been no Martin Luther, there would have been no Protestantism. If there had been no Lenin, there would have been no USSR. And so on.

In its ultimate incarnation, it bluntly asserts that the rulers of any given moment "deserve" their positions because they really "are superior"...more "fit" than all other humans. Only the sudden and unexpected appearance of a genius, who "invents" a "more fit" social order can change that.

This neo-darwinian metaphor fits rather neatly into the current bourgeois conception of history: there are no regularities, just random sequences of events tied together only by the contending influences of various leaders and would-be leaders.

Can the neo-darwinian metaphor be decisively disproven at this time?

It wouldn't be an easy task. The regularities that Marx noted in the evolution of class society could be "explained" by the random appearance of suitable genius in each particular society, or by simple copying of a singular "more fit" innovation from one society to another.

The marked ineptitude that we observe in present-day living ruling classes could be "explained" by the assertion that the rest of humanity is "even more inept".

Even if there were a wave of communist revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries---a final confirmation of the Marxist hypothesis---the neo-darwinians would simply reply that Marx "was a genius" who had a "more fit" idea of human society and thus, his views "won the evolutionary struggle".

It was Karl Popper who suggested that a hypothesis that cannot be disproven no matter what happens is not really a scientific idea at all. The neo-darwinian metaphor "explains" everything in terms of "fit", "more fit", or "less fit"...and thus, I think, really explains nothing at all.

That's not to say, of course, that particular religions (for example) don't have internal strengths and weaknesses that may assist or retard their growth. Many of the people who became Christians in the first and second century Roman Empire would probably have become Jews...had it not been for the rite of male circumcision that male candidates for conversion to Judaism were required to undergo. Judaism was highly regarded among the eastern religions by the middle and upper "intellectual" strata of the Empire; it was thought far superior to many of the "vulgar" mystery religions as well as the empty pagan ceremonial religions...which were hardly religions at all (more like the American "4th of July" than a worshipping faith).

From what I can tell, Christianity "won" in the Roman Empire because it appealed to the rank-and-file Roman soldier, more than its competitors did. It was cheap, for one thing. (Worshipping the bull involved considerable expense.) "Salvation" was simple to obtain and easy to keep. Confession of sin and remission of same was a simple way out of the moral "risks" of a soldier's life.

Constantine the "Great" was not a Christian when he became the Emperor...but more than half of his army was and that made the difference. The Christian clergy, of course, had to adapt their ideas to the necessities of power...but (surprise!) that proved to be no significant problem. Once Christianity was known to be favored by the Emperor and the Army, ordinary people had a powerful incentive to convert...which was easy to do. And so on.

A similar analysis could be made of all the major religions, I think. Yes, there were internal features that helped them grow...but the external conditions were more important.

Someone using the neo-darwinian metaphor would have no problem "explaining" this, of course.

Or anything else.

:cool:

I never said I was applying social darwinism though.

I said like social darwinism says darwinism can be applied to society it can also be applied to religion

In no way am I attempting to connect those two ideas


So as far as applying social darwinism that isn't what I tried to do, wanted to do, or in my opinion did.

Social darwinism was just an example of darwinism being applied to something besides species


Also what I'm basically trying to say is that there is a reason certain religions fail and some suceed

like Darwin tried to explain why some species die of and other live on.

So if we could talk more about this concept it would be greatly appreciated

[Ian]

I do not think this theory has much to do with Darwinism, I see it as another attempt to link Darwinism to something totally unrelated, religion. You have tried to justify or explain the way the largest religions in the world have attained such power using natural selection, when much of it was through sheer military conquest. Islam spread through much of the Arab world through military means, even attacking Spain (http://www.sonhex.dk/under.htm), Catholicism countered this by launching the 'holy' crusades.


Darwin's entire theory is an attempt to explain the variety of species and their origins in natural ways, without help from a supernatural god or gods, in a letter to his contemporary, Sir Charles Lyell, Darwin wrote;


I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent


If we start clutching at straws and use off-the-cuff remarks such as "God did it", it is not a statement of faith, it is rather an admission of ignorance, as many people have said through the ages.


"A religion must be able to keep it's congregation from questioning it."

Precisely and that is just why religious hierarchy exists in organised religions, even Protestantism has it, although Protestant's came up with the labour saving idea of ceasing confessions and cutting out the burden-some Vatican.



"A jackal God doesn't make much Sense to someone in detroit"


A god doesn't make sense anywhere, but I see that you are talking about relevance to the contemporary world, well you've got to wonder how perfect this God is if it can't update his material regularly! --
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,
nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox,
nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
-- Exodus 20:17, The Tenth Commandment
Some of this commandment holds relevance, but this perfect god could keep up and provide something better than an ox or an ass;

"This is why these religions died out, they couldn't adapt to a broader base of people."
Is christianity dying because of this? No. Simply because religion isn't meant to be about them it is meant to be a good narcotic to get their mind off their lives and be passive. Even in the most unbearable of conditions, in the most unjust or oppressive society a missionary is to be found preaching about everyone being "Equal in death".


"The idea that you will be reborn if you lead a good life would prompt people not to complain about what they have to live through"


This is the sort of mentality that has allowed religions to conquer (who would fight for a religion without reward? And what better reward than eternity in paradise!), and subjagate any minority religion it pleases. This is also the brilliant mentality that allowed human beings wholly capable of reasoning to fly passenger planes into the World Trade Centre buildings with a promise of 72 virgins in paradise if they give their life to their religion, or to help promote and increase the ecclesiastical power of one man named Osama. But being wholly capable of reason is hard with monotheistic religions... Martin Luther concurs; "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.":shocked:


But back to the Darwinism, associating it with Religion is as un-Darwinian as catastrophism (a theory which claims all fossils are the poor victims of previous catastrophies or armageddon's), but many christians talk about evolution. The Duke of Argyll (1845-1914) accepted the evidence evolution had happened, but wanted to bring his dogma with him when he jumped on the bandwagon, this wasn't cool and he copped a lot of shit from both hardcore creationists and hardcore evolutionists.


I think the same could happen with your theory as you have tried to bring evolution to religion... bad move. Religions changed due to economic reasons (worshipping an invisible thing that states that you can't make graven images of it is cheaper than making a golden calf), military/authoritative reasons (If its going to cost you your life most people would, in practice, cease worshipping a particular god, however much you think you may act otherwise, I mean is it worth dying for what may be an illusion?) and various other reasons (televangelism obviously came about to make some $$, same with scientology)


Linking Evolution with the progress and change experienced by religions is, as I said earlier, un-darwinian, It is my personal conviction that god's have changed when the leaders need and upgrade from v 1.1 (a.k.a God of Pregnancy) to v 1.2 (a.k.a God of Patriarchy), maybe some people share this, but I don't particularly care ;).


Good luck with the whole research thing but I don't subscribe to your theory, not to be highly critical or anything...


Also, I read a really good article with I um... expropriated an idea from ;):) read it HERE (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html)

(Edited by Ian Rocks at 12:35 pm on July 9, 2003)


(Edited by Ian Rocks at 12:38 pm on July 9, 2003)

[Lardlad95]

>I do not think this theory has much to do with Darwinism, I see it as another attempt to link Darwinism to something totally unrelated, religion. You have tried to justify or explain the way the largest religions in the world have attained such power using natural selection, when much of it was through sheer military conquest. Islam spread through much of the Arab world through military means, even attacking Spain (http://www.sonhex.dk/under.htm), Catholicism countered this by launching the 'holy' crusades.<

The crusades were to stop the Byzantine Empire from being invaded, originally. It didn't become a quest to take back teh holy land until the second and third crusades, which of course happened after the Europeans already took Jeruselam

Not to mention Conquest is just one of many aspects of how a religon retains and gains power


>Darwin's entire theory is an attempt to explain the variety of species and their origins in natural ways, without help from a supernatural god or gods, in a letter to his contemporary, Sir Charles Lyell, Darwin wrote;


I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent<

Theories based off of Darwinism are trying to connect evolution to another idea.

Evolution doesn't necassarily apply to animals. Ideas evolve, cultures evolve. Darwinism can be applied to many other things.


>If we start clutching at straws and use off-the-cuff remarks such as "God did it", it is not a statement of faith, it is rather an admission of ignorance, as many people have said through the ages. <

Unless of course a person actually can make an argument for God. and I'm sure if you made an attempt to debate and actual Theological Scholar you would show that that person is far from ignorant as they verbally castrated u.

ANd of course I don't mean the average run of the mill preist. I mean an actual Professor of theology, an actual Theological Scholar.

The average christian can leave it up to God did it, others actually have real arguements


"A religion must be able to keep it's congregation from questioning it."

>Precisely and that is just why religious hierarchy exists in organised religions, even Protestantism has it, although Protestant's came up with the labour saving idea of ceasing confessions and cutting out the burden-some Vatican. <

Some protestant factions still include COnfessions and some are basically catholic, Anglicans for example are catholics minus the pope


"A jackal God doesn't make much Sense to someone in detroit"


>A god doesn't make sense anywhere, but I see that you are talking about relevance to the contemporary world, well you've got to wonder how perfect this God is if it can't update his material regularly! --
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,
nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox,
nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
-- Exodus 20:17, The Tenth Commandment
Some of this commandment holds relevance, but this perfect god could keep up and provide something better than an ox or an ass;<

No a God doesn't make sense to u(another showing of Athiest arrogance). If someone where to tell u that the Universe started from an explosion...why would u be more likely to believe it than a God created the universe?

You would be more likely to believe it because it appealed to your athiest beliefs. Regardless of whether or not it was true, but since it appeals to what u are looking for u believe that the universe was started in a big bang.

Despite the fact that the majority of creation myths are similar to the big bang in that

1. Before creation there was a void

2. The universe started with some type of bang or force.

The big bang has no more solid proof than any creation myth yet u are more willing to believe it.

Explosions out of no where are just as much of a myth as the universe being created by a man with 9 heads &copy; BRhama


>
"This is why these religions died out, they couldn't adapt to a broader base of people."
Is christianity dying because of this? No. Simply because religion isn't meant to be about them it is meant to be a good narcotic to get their mind off their lives and be passive. Even in the most unbearable of conditions, in the most unjust or oppressive society a missionary is to be found preaching about everyone being "Equal in death".<


Christianity is acceptable to a broader base of people. The older religions regarded outsiders as heathens A big exaple of this is the Xho(spelling?) people of the yellow river in ancient china.

All the people not of their lineage were regarded as heathens in their religion.

In CHristianity anyone can be saved, so I can't see how you can stand there and tell me that Christianity doesnt appeal to a large base of people

"The idea that you will be reborn if you lead a good life would prompt people not to complain about what they have to live through"


>This is the sort of mentality that has allowed religions to conquer (who would fight for a religion without reward? And what better reward than eternity in paradise!), and subjagate any minority religion it pleases. This is also the brilliant mentality that allowed human beings wholly capable of reasoning to fly passenger planes into the World Trade Centre buildings with a promise of 72 virgins in paradise if they give their life to their religion, or to help promote and increase the ecclesiastical power of one man named Osama. But being wholly capable of reason is hard with monotheistic religions... Martin Luther concurs; "Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.":shocked:<

Are you agreeing with me here? Because this was my point. With the exception of your mirepresentation of Jihad which was corrupted in 9/11

Jihad was originally meant for those who defended the religion, not attacked in it's name

>But back to the Darwinism, associating it with Religion is as un-Darwinian as catastrophism (a theory which claims all fossils are the poor victims of previous catastrophies or armageddon's), but many christians talk about evolution. The Duke of Argyll (1845-1914) accepted the evidence evolution had happened, but wanted to bring his dogma with him when he jumped on the bandwagon, this wasn't cool and he copped a lot of shit from both hardcore creationists and hardcore evolutionists. <

I'm wondering, are u comparing me to this Duke? Because i have not come in here with any dogmatic claims, I have presented the sides of all religions and have not created a bias for anyone.


And I'm not associating religion and darwinism by claiming they can go hand in hand,(which in my opinion they can but for different reasons that aren't the case here)

I'm treating religion as if it were a group of animals and analyzing these animals using darwinism.

I'm hoping u atleast got that much out of what I said.

>I think the same could happen with your theory as you have tried to bring evolution to religion... bad move. Religions changed due to economic reasons (worshipping an invisible thing that states that you can't make graven images of it is cheaper than making a golden calf), military/authoritative reasons (If its going to cost you your life most people would, in practice, cease worshipping a particular god, however much you think you may act otherwise, I mean is it worth dying for what may be an illusion?) and various other reasons (televangelism obviously came about to make some $$, same with scientology)<

Those are some of the reasons, very good reasons. However I highly doubt that creating idols cost money was a reason to change religion as Idols are still being built today in some of the most prominent religions today.

Economics, war,etc. are some of the reasons religions have retained and gained power, but they aren't the only reasons.

You can go to war with someone but u can't force someone to believe anything and when people don't believe religions die.

THe Romans were a economic and military power, why didn't the roman religion retain control?

>Linking Evolution with the progress and change experienced by religions is, as I said earlier, un-darwinian, It is my personal conviction that god's have changed when the leaders need and upgrade from v 1.1 (a.k.a God of Pregnancy) to v 1.2 (a.k.a God of Patriarchy), maybe some people share this, but I don't particularly care ;).<

How is that going against religions evolving. IF changing a diety allows the religion to adapt and serve a purpose that will sustain it than that isn't going against my theory



>Good luck with the whole research thing but I don't subscribe to your theory, not to be highly critical or anything...<

no one asked u to subscribe to a theory that I haven't had time to research in depth or had time to research and find evidence for


>Also, I read a really good article with I um... expropriated an idea from ;):) read it HERE (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html)<

Thanks I'll read that


Though Ian i ask u....aside from getting into arguements with christians....how much theology have u actually studied.

Do u study acient religions other than reading a greek myth?

BEcause my theory isn't solely based on the big Three.

IF you look at ancient intermidiate and new religions they follow a pattern.

I suggest researching one of the greatest religious changes of all time, THe Axial age

this is greater than the great schism and the protestant reformation

The Axial age was a world wide change in religion in which people rethought them and reformed them.

Kind of like a mass evolution.

For the most part religions changed for the better during this age




(Edited by Lardlad95 at 11:36 pm on July 13, 2003)

[bluerev002]

Red Star, Social Darwinism was a term used in the 1890s to describe Canegie and Rockafeller during the industrial revolution. it was about how the big buisnesses will survive over the small weak ones.So it didnt have anything to do with race.


Lardlad95. Do you belive that Christianity is the fitter religion and would survive today? I dont think you ever said so, nor did you have to, this theory wasnt made to support Christianity (atleast I dont think so).

Oh and one little thing I would like to say, maybe you would like to put it in your theory:

One reason that some religions seem to be questionable is because they apply to the whole world. One such example would be the that you would have to know and belive a God to be THE God (lets call him Joe for simplisitys sake) and if you dont follw Joe(her in some cases) you dont go to Heaven, or wherever.

So, soemone that does his good deeds but does not take in Joe he goes to hell, or, again, wherever.

Thus this raises the question, what about soemone from another religion? What about someone that belives in another God (Robert) and doesnt belive in Joe? Would Joe's bible state that the follower of Robert would go to hell? Even when the follower of Rober never knew of the existance of Joe?

That statemetn above by the way made people think that others of another country would be going to hell so they went to other countries to "save their souls" Like Christians did to the Mayans and such.



OK with saying that, it would make Joe's religion quiet lose and doesnt have a strong base. Much like the Roman and Greek gods who were often said to be teh cause of everything and science proved them dead wrong.


That all would fall into the catagory of, why some religions die out...because their base is so lose and questionable.



(Edited by bluerev002 at 5:51 am on July 18, 2003)

[187]

"Thus the creation of Reincarnation. An ingenius idea. Unlike the concept of heaven and hell(to other modes of keeping people in line) Reincarnation Allowed the hiearchy to keep the caste system moving.

The caste sysytem as we all know is the class system set up in INdia pre-axial and reevaluated post axial age.

The idea that you will be reborn if you lead a good life would prompt people not to complain about what they have to live through.

IF you know your place, do your work, and don't complain you will be reborn as someone better."

You have that part backwards. They're attempting to break the cycle of reincarnation.

"Hindus believe that all souls are evolving toward union with God and will ultimately find Moksha, spiritual knowledge and liberation from the cycle of rebirth. Not a single soul will be eternally deprived of this attainment"
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1987...987-06-09.shtml (http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1987/06/1987-06-09.shtml)

Just thought I'd clear that up.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from bluerev002 on 5:48 am on July 18, 2003
Red Star, Social Darwinism was a term used in the 1890s to describe Canegie and Rockafeller during the industrial revolution. it was about how the big buisnesses will survive over the small weak ones.So it didnt have anything to do with race.


Lardlad95. Do you belive that Christianity is the fitter religion and would survive today? I dont think you ever said so, nor did you have to, this theory wasnt made to support Christianity (atleast I dont think so).

Oh and one little thing I would like to say, maybe you would like to put it in your theory:

One reason that some religions seem to be questionable is because they apply to the whole world. One such example would be the that you would have to know and belive a God to be THE God (lets call him Joe for simplisitys sake) and if you dont follw Joe(her in some cases) you dont go to Heaven, or wherever.
? ?
? ?So, soemone that does his good deeds but does not take in Joe he goes to hell, or, again, wherever.
? ?
? ?Thus this raises the question, what about soemone from another religion? What about someone that belives in another God (Robert) and doesnt belive in Joe? Would Joe's bible state that the follower of Robert would go to hell? Even when the follower of Rober never knew of the existance of Joe?
? ?
? ? That statemetn above by the way made people think that others of another country would be going to hell so they went to other countries to "save their souls" Like Christians did to the Mayans and such.



OK with saying that, it would make Joe's religion quiet lose and doesnt have a strong base. Much like the Roman and Greek gods who were often said to be teh cause of everything and science proved them dead wrong.


That all would fall into the catagory of, why some religions die out...because their base is so lose and questionable.



(Edited by bluerev002 at 5:51 am on July 18, 2003)



Actually something of that was in the developmental process though I was going to include it into another area.

Because religions aren't always heard round the world they do make them unappealing to others, especially with the christian arguement that all those who come to Jesus will be saved.

Well what if you never heard of Jesus, or what if your parents told you to be a hindu? If you became a christian while still a child that would break a comandment one of the fundemental Judeao-Christian laws.

So it raises many a question and tonight I was planning on doing some more research with the materials I"ve gathered and I'll be sure to put this thought on my list. Thanks for the imput


and no I while I don't think Christianity is the ULTIMATE PERFECT religion for now it is the fitter because of how well it has changed to keep and gain supporters.

However personally I see Islam as the one that will surpass christianity within the next few hundred years and eventually christianity will be like how Judeaism is now.



Personally I'm a deist so I don't agree with any of these religions more than another

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from 187 on 5:54 am on July 19, 2003
"Thus the creation of Reincarnation. An ingenius idea. Unlike the concept of heaven and hell(to other modes of keeping people in line) Reincarnation Allowed the hiearchy to keep the caste system moving.

The caste sysytem as we all know is the class system set up in INdia pre-axial and reevaluated post axial age.

The idea that you will be reborn if you lead a good life would prompt people not to complain about what they have to live through.

IF you know your place, do your work, and don't complain you will be reborn as someone better."

You have that part backwards. They're attempting to break the cycle of reincarnation.

"Hindus believe that all souls are evolving toward union with God and will ultimately find Moksha, spiritual knowledge and liberation from the cycle of rebirth. Not a single soul will be eternally deprived of this attainment"
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1987...987-06-09.shtml (http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1987/06/1987-06-09.shtml)

Just thought I'd clear that up.





First of all, the religions talked about here are spoken from a subjective perspective.

If I were to say "what a christian believes" then it would seem hard to believe that a religion that promotes peace brougt about the crusades.


Also as far as the termanology I was using lay terms because once again this isn't heavily researched and two I need people to be able to understand the ideas without having to explain the words

[sc4r]

Just to throw in a minor but important point.

As you said Social Darwinists did indeed say that darwinism could be applied to society. But few others did.

Social Darwinism and Darwinism are like National Socialism and Socialism. They have the same word in their names but thats about it.

All it does is give a false legitmacy to their ideas by associating themselves with something that actually is legitimate.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from sc4r on 2:52 am on July 20, 2003
Just to throw in a minor but important point.

As you said Social Darwinists did indeed say that darwinism could be applied to society. But few others did.

Social Darwinism and Darwinism are like National Socialism and Socialism. They have the same word in their names but thats about it.

All it does is give a false legitmacy to their ideas by associating themselves with something that actually is legitimate.



Well Redstar did already mention this too me, and from the breif research i've done on social darwinism I can concur with your assesment of this belief.

However once I've done the necassary research that I wish to do I doubt I will continue to call it Religous Darwinism.

That is more of an office nickname that I kickaround the project while It's still being worked on

also I don't think I need Charles Darwin's namesake to legitamize what I"m working on

by the time I'm done (which could take decades) It will stand on it's own

[bluerev002]

Accually, Religios Darwinism is the perfect name for this reaserch study your doing.

Oh and I think that Christianity will probably be the one religion that will survive, especially if there are many christians in the US and if the US prez is christian since they are going over to other places and "saving souls" of others. The religion that is backed by the super power will have the edge in survival.

I think that religion has advantages depending on the country its being used... maybe not the most belivable religion will survive, but the religion backed by the most powerful country.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from bluerev002 on 7:05 am on July 20, 2003
Accually, Religios Darwinism is the perfect name for this reaserch study your doing.

Oh and I think that Christianity will probably be the one religion that will survive, especially if there are many christians in the US and if the US prez is christian since they are going over to other places and "saving souls" of others. The religion that is backed by the super power will have the edge in survival.

I think that religion has advantages depending on the country its being used... maybe not the most belivable religion will survive, but the religion backed by the most powerful country.


What I find interesting is that Bush started his faith based initiative for religous based programs

Does anyone here think this money will go to anyone other than christians?

[bluerev002]

Probably not, just think of all the things people were scared of when they found out Kennedy was Catholic! They didnt want any other religion other than christian up in the presidency... what ever happend to seperation between religion and state?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from bluerev002 on 10:17 pm on July 21, 2003
Probably not, just think of all the things people were scared of when they found out Kennedy was Catholic! They didnt want any other religion other than christian up in the presidency... what ever happend to seperation between religion and state?


no the sadder part is Catholics are christians...in fact they are the oldest form of christianity that is still around

Seperation of Church and state only applies when a politician can push an issue for publicity other wise it don't matter

[Lardlad95]

up