Can Science Deliver the Benefits of Religion?

[rug]

Tania Lombrozo
August 07, 2013

The claim that humans evolved from non-humans is among the best established in science. It is backed by overwhelming evidence from diverse sources and fits into a rich and elegant picture of the biological world, with modern humans appearing around 200,000 years ago, more than three billion years after the origins of life on earth. Yet, according to a Gallup survey, nearly half of Americans reject evolution, instead endorsing the view that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”

Why this resistance to human evolution? Religious commitments play a role, to be sure, but pointing to religion isn’t enough to explain why human evolution, in particular, engenders such a chilly reception in Americans’ hearts and minds. After all, a view of the solar system with humans at its center was eventually displaced (if ungracefully), and people aren’t nearly so troubled by the idea that plants evolve. There’s something special about human evolution—something that many find existentially upsetting, even untenable.

Research in experimental psychology offers a host of compelling explanations for why this could be. Perhaps humans are innately predisposed to creationism. Perhaps religious beliefs are “natural” and contemporary scientific commitments the psychological anomaly. There is something to be said for these claims, but if creationism—and the rejection of human evolution—is the belief toward which our species is naturally predisposed, we’re faced with an equally perplexing mystery: How is it that some people manage to embrace human evolution, and, indeed—to borrow Darwin’s phrase—to find “grandeur in this view of life”?

Can science, with its systematic approach to understanding nature, offer a satisfying portrait of the natural world and our place within it? Can science provide the same existential benefits typically thought to be the sole province of religion? Some recent psychological findings suggest that it can. But before turning to this new research, with its tantalizing promise of a psychologically fulfilling and scientifically grounded worldview, we need to understand the standard tale of why so many people reject human evolution in favor of creationist alternatives.

http://bostonreview.net/arts-culture/can-science-deliver-benefits-religion

[Xipe Totec]

1. Technium

Human Evolution is sooo XX century.

&feature=em-subs_digest

[Peacetrain]

2. They are not mutually exclusive.

For example.. taking myself.. you can be a committed Christian and most definitely believe in evolution. Heck I can even use Biblical teachings in Genesis to back it up.

If you believe in an all encompassing God and energy.. then science is naturally a very big part of that.

I never understand people who try and separate the two. But then a lot of people try and make God small so they can understand it.. and in doing so.. lose all context. Because if they can't believe in science.. in the end, they cannot really believe in an all encompassing God

[on point]

3. Science does not provide the certainty psychological crutch some need

For these it cannot replace religion. People cling to non scientific notions despite the evidence for to do otherwise may cause the collapse of their world view and ability to function

[xfundy]

4. Yes.

Specifically, pharmaceuticals.

[cbayer]

5. Do you have something against pharmaceuticals too?

[xfundy]

6. Not at all!

They've saved my life on more than a few occasions.

[cbayer]

7. Then are you saying that religion might also save some people's lives?

[xfundy]

8. Sure, why not.

Avoiding gluttony, not drinking, not smoking, there's a long list.

But each of these can be reached by critical independent thinking and none, such as morality, is the exclusive province of any religious book or teaching.

[cbayer]

9. How about hope, community, a sense of belonging to the world in a different way?

How about social services that are not supplied by either the government or secular organizations?

How about protection, asylum or affirmation in worlds where those things are not available because you are marginalized?

I'm not saying those things are the exclusive province of religion, but some times that's what/who is providing it.

Do you consider yourself an anti-theist, by the way?

[xfundy]

10. Nope. An agnostic.

Since I can't prove it either way.

I nearly edited to include hope & community.

However,
a sense of belonging to the world in a different way

seems to give some the idea that since they have the Batphone to Jesus, they're better than everyone else.

[cbayer]

11. You've gone beyond insulting and just keep doubling down.

I said different, not better.

You can be an agnostic and an anti-theist. My suspicion is that you are both.

Hope you find resolution and peace around what you have been through, and I hope you see a way to become more tolerant and open-minded about believers in general.

[Jim__]

12. The article speaks about the psychologically comforting role of religion in evolution.

If religion plays a role in evolution, its role must be stronger than psychologically comforting. Religious beliefs and the hope they engender could be the key to group survival following a catastrophic event. Imagine a group of about 50 people that experiences a catastrophe that kills about 40 of them. The survivors are likely to have suffered some injury too. The survivors could face tremendous physical difficulty in continuing the day-to-day struggles for life, but, these physical difficulties might well be dwarfed by the psychological difficulties in continuing to struggle after the loss of just about every motivating factor that previously existed. Religious belief, and especially the belief that eventual reunion with the dead is possible, could be a tremendous help in motivating people to continue.

Given the relative instability of various environments on earth, it may well be that the vast majority of surviving human groups experienced this type of tragedy. That could help to explain the role of religion in natural selection.

Science offers us many benefits that contribute to survival. I'm not sure it can offer us strong motivation to struggle for survival against overwhelming physical and psychological barriers.

[okasha]

13. If I recall correctly,

Europeans and other non-North Americans have far less resistence to the idea of evolution. I wonder how much American exceptionalism has to do with this. If you believe that somehow your nation-state is especially favored with supremely better political institutions (or more favored by God) than any other, then perhaps it follows that you are yourself a supremely better creature, with special origin, than any other.

[rug]

14. North America has failed to evolve.

And that presents a conundrum.

[okasha]

15. On good days I think we've gone backwards.

On bad days, I check housing prices in Mexico and Costa Rica.

The unpleasant truth is that the US is headed down the same sinkhole as the British Empire. Or the Romans, for that matter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. "Perhaps humans are innately predisposed to creationism" - or perhaps not

Let's look at what humans (as opposed to Americans) reply in an Ipsos poll in 2011 in 24 countries:

Country:creationist/evolutionist/don't know
China:11/64/25
India:33/39/28
...

So we see that the biggest 2 countries, by far, are both majority evolutionist (that's the term used in the English version of the poll). Add up the figures for all 24 countries with their populations, and you get:
1,193 million creationists (27%)
1,955 million evolutionists (44%)
1,272 million don't know (29%)

(and the countries make up about 62% of the world population)

[dimbear]

17. Perhaps you might develop a cataract. A visit to the ophthalmologist offers two choices, he could

mix spit with mud and apply it to your eyes, or he could fire up a laser. It's your choice.
Free will. It's a blessing.

[rug]

18. Or, you can have an opthalmlogist comfort the dying.

"Well, you won't need glasses anymore."

[dimbear]

19. Good one.