You understand the definition of evolve is to adapt, right? And that everything has to adapt or die off?

@skado
"You understand the definition of evolve is to adapt, right?"
No. That isn't the definition.
Here is the Merriam-Webster definition:
1a : descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations

"adapt" is not mentioned.

@AtheistInNC
That’s a description of adaptation.

@skado

Ah, this is where that high school education and reading comprehension your English teacher harped on comes into play.

If something is "modified from preexisting species" it could be a mutation (which isn't an adaptation to the environment), or it could be just a change that happened through a re-combination of dominant and recessive traits which was just the luck of the DNA draw (which isn't an adaptation).

Change isn't necessarily "adaptation", but all adaptations are changes.
I can see why you are confused.

@AtheistInNC
The confusion you’re seeing is your own. A more careful reader (or more capable comprehender) will notice that my reply to xeno had nothing to do with his use of the word change, but only with his insinuation that something could adapt without evolving. In no way did I say or suggest that all change is adaptive.

Speaking of change… when you change what the other person said, and then argue against it as if the other person had actually said it, that’s a strawman fallacy. You can look it up. I see you’re handy with Google. While you’re there, maybe you can find some good tips on post-high-school remedial reading comprehension classes, or argumentation techniques for beginners. (Hint: I’m illustrating the ad hominem fallacy here to mimic your use of it for instructive purposes.) When people include snippy little suggestions about the other person’s competence, that’s the first clue that their motivation has more to do with ego maintenance than a sincere desire to explore the ideas. So, what will it be? I can continue talking with you about whether adaptation can occur without evolution, but I lose interest pretty quickly in ego contests.

@skado
Oh my. Speaking of big egos ... you have one, don't you?

You stated: "You understand the definition of evolve is to adapt, right?"
I quoted the definition of evolve and showed you were wrong.

You replied with "That’s a description of adaptation."
Once again, you are incorrect. And, being the conservative that doesn't understand the English language (or refuses to admit that he is, in fact, incorrect), you reply to my explanation with the conservatively crafted anal drivel above. I did not change what you said, and was not talking about what you said to xeno. I talked about what YOU said, and you changed the subject.

However, once a conservative erupts with anal drivel, conversation ends. You just can't admit that you are wrong, or don't understand concepts when presented. Please, stop anal driveling all over people, and go find the rock from under which you escaped.

Talking past each other is not productive. if you're interested in joining this discussion you could try to steelman my point. Otherwise, what you're "laughing" at is something of your own creation.

@skado Surely, you can do better than that school boy reply. You still did not answer the second last question in the last paragraph of my reply.

@ASTRALMAX
Is this the question?
"Furthermore, why would you want to look for evidence that religion has not benefitted mankind? "

If so, I'll try to explain my intention better.

On November 15, I posted a poll Why not evolution? in which the greatest number of respondents (by a WIDE margin) indicated that the reason they did not believe religion had evolutionary roots was because they believed religions were invented by criminals to control people and take their money.

I was then, and am still, curious as to why they believe that.

I don't assume I'm right and they're wrong - I just want to learn what scientific principle, if nothing else, they base that belief on. When I go looking for answers about the origin of religion, all I find in the scientific department is talk about evolution. If there is evidence that religion was invented as a criminal enterprise, why am I not able to find scientific discussion to that effect?

I'm not trying to prove the origins of religion one way or the other - I'm happy to go by whatever the evidence says. But when I ask, even for evidence that such criminal beginnings are even being considered in scientific settings, all I get is ad hominems, personal insults, diversions of all sorts, but no sharing of evidence to support their claims. Meanwhile, I share article after article that demonstrate that, at minimum, an evolutionary origin of religion is being seriously discussed from a scientific perspective.

If the origin of any major human institution that has lasted for some six thousand years or so was due to nothing but criminal intent, I would think quite a few papers would have been written about that. Do you know of any?

I agree with all of this except for the last sentence. I don't think anyone here sees how that applies to religion. They apply it in ways that scientists don't, but still want to claim the science mantle.

It’s the only job of science to make order from chaos. But that isn’t my question. My question is… why are scientists haggling over the details of which way evolution created religion, and not haggling over the details of which way criminal intent created religion, as so many here profess to believe?

@skado that's what people do. argue the point their emotions need to make. human nature. I don't think religion evolved at all outside of the culture it developed in. it's not anything more than unfettered imagination. science is not a separate thing from human behavior tho some would like to think it is. it is not the final word on the matter anyway.

@hankster
But how about my question?

@skado Maybe it's because they don't see it as a valid question.

@skado perhaps I should say "viable".

@hankster
That would be my guess also. So why to the majority of respondents to my poll (who claim to be science oriented) see it as viable?

@hankster
Not sure which "they" you were referring to. My question is if the scientists don't see it as viable, why do atheists?

@skado claiming scientific doesn't really make someone scientific. my contention is the claim of criminality is just emotional justification.

@skado its the scientific folks I refer too as they, the atheists are the ones who think they have a bone to pick.

@skado For what it's worth, I don't believe science supports atheism, agnostism yes, but not Atheism.

@TheMiddleWay
I don't think I have much argument with hankster's or your point.

Soft things are a lot harder to study than hard things so the so-called soft sciences are necessarily constrained to whatever elements are accessible to scientific scrutiny. No argument there.

It seems to me that the evolution of religion would be every bit as difficult to pin down as would a criminal genesis. But whatever the cause, there are lots of scientific claims of an evolutionary root, and I haven't seen a single scientific claim that offers evidence of anything other than an evolutionary root. Which is why I was curious as to the basis of the beliefs of the respondents to my poll of Nov.15 Why not evolution? in which no fewer than 28 (and counting) members voted for the idea that religions were invented by criminals.

But after being given multiple opportunities to defend that hypothesis, not a single person stepped forward to offer any evidence that such an hypothesis was even being considered in related scientific fields. Two or three have now made declarations that they don't deny the evolutionary roots, but still cling to the idea that any such roots have now passed completely from adaptiveness to maladaptiveness, again without offering corroborating papers.

It's easy, and understandable to assume the uselessness and destructiveness of religion. Religion itself has given us ample reason to think that. It is science, though, that eventually supports or fails to support our most reasonable guesses. Who knows what science will conclude in the future? But right now, the weight of evidence and scientific opinion is clearly in the evolution camp.

@TheMiddleWay
It's true, I don't think the general public has yet grasped the implications of Evolutionary Psychology.

It's not about social evolution.

It's about behaviors, or tendencies to behaviors that are physically encoded in our genes. Like fear of spiders. Or, indeed, fear of death. Those aren't just social phenomena. And neither are they culture dependent. They are universal human traits, everywhere humans are found, and in all time periods for which there is evidence. This is well established science.

As a side note, I've never been a hard science/soft science dichotomist. Science is science. Some things lend themselves more readily to scientific inquiry than others, but whatever data can be extracted is still as valid as any other. But my claim here is not about a social or cultural evolution, but about a genetically encoded capacity for, and tendency toward religious behaviors, just as we so clearly have a genetic capacity for complex language.

These issues are far from “settled” but they are indeed being taken seriously in related scientific fields. Not so with the idea that religion is just a criminal’s wet dream.

@skado This just does not seem that complicated. There is nothing about religion that makes it especially subject to a different set of measures than anything else humanity does. If some idea can be taken advantage of it will be. That might be an evolved trait, but nothing religious particularly.

@hankster
Yeah, it all depends on how we define religion, and there is no broad consensus on that. But I’m not stuck on that word, if there’s a better one. I just don’t know it.

@skado If we entertain the notion that the mind/brain seeks involvement in our consciousness and its various capacities could we consider that the capacity to engage "suspension of disbelief " to have gotten carried away with itself.

@hankster

Definitely. They even have a name for it: MCI - Minimally CounterIntuitive concepts. [citeseerx.ist.psu.edu]

@skado so, how does that not support the reasons for Perpetual disdain of anything unfortunate enough to fall into that light. people will and do think what they wish, individuals and crowds. no mystery those with an axe to grind are present and doing so. human nature.

@skado more maybe.....criminal origins.....one person makes an offering to the river god. 2nd person sees that, and wants some of that. so, creates his own spirit. perhaps more powerful, or angry at the moment, "ready to receive gifts". person 2 knowing person 1 and friends will all sign up. preying on the fear. pick your scheme, conditions rich for criminal undertakings. almost certainly developed very shortly after, and alongside spirit stories, and conceivably the initial narrative explaning why the river flooded was designed to move resources to some pockets more than others.

@skado lol...ou original question: why are scientists haggling over the details of which way evolution created religion, and not haggling over the details of which way criminal intent created religion - maybe it's the same thing.

@hankster
Anything could be. I don’t claim to know anything for certain. Just reporting the science that I’m aware of.

My question is… why are scientists able to hold symposia to discuss the evolutionary roots of religion, but not able to do the same for the sentiment expressed so strongly in this poll? Why not evolution?

Why not evolution?

@ DenoPenno

That was mostly true a few decades ago, but today science gives a supersized damn about religion. Nothing gets a pass from the evolutionist's gaze.

It is not at all obvious. It is a topic of many books and scholarly research.

@TheMiddleWay When a mass movement such as religion takes hold of a culture to the extent that Christianity did in the West, then it becomes responsible for pretty much everything because of its ubiquity. Education, slavery, racism, dress codes….

@TheMiddleWay
In the early Catholic Church, education was not offered to the laity; it was only for the priestly class. And they said the mass in Latin so that the peons would have to always need the priests to commune with God. In modern times, both Catholic and Protestant churches have systematically denied the science of evolutionary biology, instead promoting the dangerous idea that man was placed here on Earth to dominate nature. We can argue about the degree to which religion has been the casus belli for so many wars; at the very least it has been a prime enabler in many atrocities. But all this will, I am afraid, pale in comparison to the destructive power of global warming, denial of which has been and continues to be greatest among religious believers. Some, in fact, are rubbing their hands in eager anticipation of the Apocalypse, believing that they will be spared, wafted up to Heaven in the Rapture. Here again the role of the believer is enabler, this time of the oligarchs of the fossil fuel industry, who insist on carrying on with business as usual.

@TheMiddleWay
It's more than our collective ignorance and apathy that transcends color, class, and creed. It's also selfishness and greed and denial. I know people who dote on their young grandchildren. They also know that global warming is an existential threat, that it's main cause is burning fossil fuels. Yet these loving grandparents do not hesitate to book another intercontinental vacation flight, even knowing that jet planes are gross polluters, producing ten times more greenhouse gases than trains, and hundreds of times more than sailing vessels. They genuinely love the kids, yet they behave in a way that places the kids' future in grave jeopardy. I marvel at their capacity for compartmentalism.

Exactly. "Net Benefit" mean more benefit than not.

@TheMiddleWay But religion has been a leading cause of (man-made) human suffering throughout history.

Happy now?

@TheMiddleWay He said “a leading cause”, not “the leading cause”.

@TheMiddleWay The question I keep coming back to is “Is it true?” If not, then religion is an incalculable drain on human attention, human potential and Human Resources. Bare minimum. Or to put it another way: If religion is false then it is the enemy of truth. It is a war on truth. We would therefore be better off without it.

@TheMiddleWay The discussion here is not whether religion is the greatest contributor of all human suffering in the history of the world. We can do nothing to prevent earthquakes and most other natural disasters except try and protect ourselves and minimizing human-caused harm to the environment.

And I think you mean technology rather than science. Indeed technology has caused harm in many ways such as pollution and the ability to wage war more efficiently, but it has also saved countless lives and extended the lifespan of the vast majority of people on the planet. Consider how many people you personally know who are dead because of technology and compare that to the number of people you personally know who are alive because of technology.

Also, earthquakes (and other natural disasters) are typically not long-lasting. The do great harm to an area but come to an end. Religion is an on-going and enduring plague that hasn't ended for thousands of years. That's thousands of years of war, slavery, murder, torture, and oppression.

Why do the scientists who study it never arrive at that conclusion?

Informed scholars such as Dr. Darrel Ray and Dr. Clint Heacock arrive at these sorts of assessments all the time. Theirs are the voices I put the most stock in: steeped in a religious worldview who then “frontslid” towards unbelief.

@Matias So what? It's not a scientific statement. Its in response to the OP saying "stuck on the idea that religion has never provided a net benefit to our species". My opinion. The saying goes, 'Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one'. A net benefit means more benefit than not. The onus for proof of that statement is on the poster, I just disagreed with it. When asked to argue the benefits of religion? I say to proponents, "Fuck Off!", How is that for scientific?

@Matias I don't have to justify my opinion. I believe in evolution not creationism. Do I have to justify that to thiests? There has never been proof of an existence of god. I say there is no god. Do I have to show evidence for that statement? I've seen that much of the evil in the world has been done in the name of "god" . I've seen little or none in the name of Satan. Do I have to show "evidence" of that? I don't have do justify anything. I prefer to just say Fuck Off. Its not worth the trouble to go any further than that. This is not a term paper and I don't need to add footnotes.