It's is both true and unfortunate that when people regard something as sacred they resist having it tinkered with (just as we resist science deniers today). And yet somehow, the history of religion is a story of constant change, modification, revision, and updating.

There has never been a time when it was human nature to prefer falsehood over fact. At any given period we have been doing the best we could under the circumstances. It only looks like fairytales in the light of two thousand years of intellectual advancement, as will our "science" of today, should we be so lucky as to survive another two millennia.

The story Rue is promoting, his "Epic of Evolution", IS a purely science-based story, by today's standards.

Reformers don't bring about change by confronting the Church directly - they do it by educating enough of the population about the obsolescence in the Church such that the old ways collapse due to lack of popular support. Then, and only then, has the Church always picked itself up, dusted itself off, and brought its doctrines in line with consensus reality. And that is exactly what it will do going forward.

@skado “…when people regard something as sacred they resist having it tinkered with (just as we resist science deniers today).”
Science isn’t sacred… nothing is. Deniers of science don’t trouble me one bit unless (and until) they insist on imposing their unscientific behaviors and beliefs on the rest of us in the public sphere.

“…the history of religion is a story of constant change, modification, revision, and updating.”
Behaviors may have changed, and many of the faithful have become a little more tolerant of others who don’t believe as they do, but their books haven’t changed for centuries. The same heinous and immoral commands and unscientific miracles pervade their so-called holy books, enabling the continuance of unenlightened creeds and anti scientific teachings.

“Reformers don't bring about change by confronting the Church directly…”
Seemed to work for Luther, Zwingli, Jerome, Huss, Calvin, etc.

“Then, and only then, has the Church always picked itself up, dusted itself off, and brought its doctrines in line with consensus reality.”
That’s not an accurate description of the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation and Inquisition, IMHO!

I take it the author uses the terms "spiritual tradition" and "religion" interchangeably, so instead of giving my interpretation, I'll just quote the first two paragraphs of the book.

"If religion is not about God, then what on earth is it about (for heaven's sake)? It is about manipulating our brains so that we might think, feel, and act in ways that are good for us, both individually and collectively. Religious traditions work like the bow of a violin, playing upon the strings of human nature to produce harmonious relations between individuals and their social and physical environments. Religions have always been about this business of adaptation, and they will always remain so. This is not to say, however, that any particular religious tradition will remain adaptive. Religions sometimes outlive their adaptive utility and occasionally become positive threats to human survival.

It is one thing to make bold assertions like this and quite another to back them up. The purpose of this book is to do just that - to show how the ideas, images, symbols, and rituals of religious traditions have been designed to engage and to organize human neural systems for the sake of human survival, and then to examine the contemporary conditions that have compromised their adaptive utility. The three parts of the book attempt to pull together three distinct arguments."

@skado It would be better if it came from you and not a book.

@xenoview
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I rely on those more knowledgeable than myself for my understanding.

@skado The problem is that most religion doesn't help people "think, feel, and act in ways that are good for us, both individually and collectively". Religion began as a tribal mechanism and so it remains. One of the first rules of the tribe is, "Anyone outside the tribe is dangerous to us, and they should be shunned or killed (except for their young women, them we can take in)." Religion can make you feel wonderful if you're in the in-group, but it is collectively awful for both the in-group and the out-groups. It's especially bad for you if you belong to the group, but start asking questions about things. That signifies you don't have faith and don't really belong to the group.

Spirituality can be fine. Religion is poison.

@Paul4747
Rue is talking here about the evolutionary perspective, encompassing 200+ thousand years - not just the 21st century. I haven’t reached the part of the book yet where he addresses current conditions, but he clearly recognizes reform is due.

@skado So was I. We've had 200K+ years of tribalism. Human behavior has not evolved that much.

@Paul4747
Human behavior hasn’t but the environment has. Tribalism isn’t going away. Religion’s historical, biological function has been to counter, not enhance tribalism. The fact that it regularly fails is evidence of how deep-seated in our biology the instinct for tribalism is, and how pressingly we need cultural methods of countering it.

I think all organized religion needs banned and publication of holy books needs to stop, and no longer sale holy books.

@xenoview if we can ban belief, they can ban non belief. Since we are the minority, it's best not to cross that line.

@Tejas Not saying ban belief. Just ban the organized religion and holy books. I don't care if people are religious, as long as they don't try and force it on other people.

@xenoview Eek, that's a bit too far for me. I want it gone just as much as you, but I just don't see that goal accomplished by trying to ban it...

@JeffMurray Organized religion is full of corrupt leaders. These leaders prey on the followers. They take their money and rape their children. Holy books cause people to believe and do stupid crap.

@JeffMurray If they promote hate, racism, and bigotry, the yes we should ban them.

@xenoview Who is the arbiter of what constitutes hate? You don't see how this could backfire??