It's said that if monkeys hack long enough on a typewriter, than they will inexorably end up writing something that makes sense.
Let's see if this is also true for scientists...



Saturday 6 July 2013

Darwinian selection of religions

Every human group appears to have forged their spiritual experiences into some sort of religious framework. Why do we nonetheless only have a handful of world religions, rather than a patchwork of local beliefs, as diverse as human ethnic groups and their geographic situations? Why have almost all of these world religions been used as a pretext to commit the most horrible acts of violence, although all preach non-violent behaviour as a core value? And why are all these religions based on holy texts that are so ambiguous that followers fight over right and wrong interpretations, and use the same text to justify one thing and its opposite? Is it simply the result of the features a religion needs to have to survive and dominate others?  

Imagine for example a religion that is based on a half page of text that states simply and clearly that as a follower, you have to (for example) pray/meditate with good intentions, not harm anyone in any way, treat everybody like you want to be treated and help those in need. Full-stop. Either you do this, or you’re out. Would this religion have millions of followers and thrive for centuries? Or imagine a religion that is founded by a wise old woman who lives alone on a remote island and has no intentions to travel. Would this religion stand any chance of survival against a religion that is malleable, permissive, adaptive, and aggressively promoted worldwide by a powerful people? Even the most ingenious virus that infected only the Dodo has died out. Or, on the other hand, how peaceful can a religion be that is spread through violence?

Are our current dominating religions simply the result of a Darwinian (and hence human) struggle for survival? 

No comments: