PDA

View Full Version : Is religious belief dystopic?


Valentine One Radar Detector

Eric
07-31-2009, 08:26 AM
There appears to be a direct cause-effect relationship between strongly held religious belief and reproduction; i.e., people who believe strongly in Christianity tend to have children (and more of them) than people who are skeptical or irreligious.

(There is also a strong correlation between education and family size, too - but that is a topic for another post.)

This, in turn, means more religious people as children who are told from infancy onward that "Jesus is Lord" and imbued with "magical thinking" (rather than reason and logic) tend to become religious adults. And have children in turn, continuing the cycle.

Freethinkers, meanwhile, tend to have fewer or no children. I suspect this is because freethinkers don't view having kids as either inevitable or essential. In other words, if they have kids, they will probably have them because they want them and not so much because they've bold told/pressured to have them, directly or indirectly, by church and family, etc.

Which begs the question: Is religious belief dystopic in that it selects for irrationality over reason?

I think the answer's obvious.

Reasonable people are always in the minority at any time in history; but when the unreasonable majority becomes respectable and admired, then it's no longer safe to be reasonable - in public (just ask Galileo).

Thanks to the fecundity of modernity, we're getting more of the unreasonable and fewer of the reasonable.

Society and civilization will follow their natural course...

jpeters
07-31-2009, 08:29 AM
I agree. It's depressing....

KentAZ
06-20-2010, 10:18 PM
Eric:


This, in turn, means more religious people as children who are told from infancy onward that "Jesus is Lord" and imbued with "magical thinking" (rather than reason and logic) tend to become religious adults. And have children in turn, continuing the cycle.

Freethinkers, meanwhile, tend to have fewer or no children.

If your assertion is true, then it follows--quite ironically--that the religious folks are 'fitter' from a Darwinian standpoint... ;)

Ken
06-21-2010, 05:42 AM
Eric:



If your assertion is true, then it follows--quite ironically--that the religious folks are 'fitter' from a Darwinian standpoint... ;)

Purely from the point of fecundity, yes. From the point of objective, subjective and logical thinking, no.

Ken.

KentAZ
06-21-2010, 06:06 AM
Purely from the point of fecundity, yes. From the point of objective, subjective and logical thinking, no.

Ken.

My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, of course. But strictly speaking, in Darwinian theory fecundity=fitness, assuming a high survival rate for the offspring.

Eric
06-21-2010, 06:24 AM
Eric:



If your assertion is true, then it follows--quite ironically--that the religious folks are 'fitter' from a Darwinian standpoint... ;)

Well, by that standard, so are welfare leeches!

Darwinian natural selection is of course thwarted by these things (government support especially).

I don't mean to be arrogant about this, by the way - and by no means do I claim to have any sort of special or superior knowledge on the subject. In fact, that is precisely my point. None of us - not one who ever lived - ever "knew" that Jesus is Lord (or whatever) in other than the blind faith sense. We can have feelings, opinions, etc. And all that is fine. But to claim certainty or knowledge of anything specific as regards god, life after death, etc. is indeed arrogant - and in my opinion, demented.