The Evolution of Religion

I find many things in religion puzzling but the hard set ignorance and defiance of the theory of evolution really baffles me. Why exactly are many religions so apposed to the theory of evolution, why not oppose other scientific theories like the theory of thermodynamics that powers your refrigerator, or the theory of combustion that powers your car, or the theory of relativity that powers many countries electricity? Some of these theories have more complex or less scientific evidence that the theory of evolution, but religions opposed to the theory of evolution seem to accept these other scientific theories.

I have some respect for religions such as certain sects of Mennonites or Amish that in parts abandon technology in general, but find it puzzling how some other religions can live in a very scientific and technological world and yet not accept basic scientific theories like evolution. But I digress, this is not a rant on the continuing saga of evolution vs. religion, I assume science will eventual win that saga as they did on the world being round, and the Earth revolving around the Sun (religious believers actually imprisoned Galileo for such thoughts). What more interests me is the fundamentally link between religion and evolution.

Most people have some understanding of biological evolution, but have less understanding that evolution is a basic mathematical algorithm that has vast applications beyond simple biology. Evolutionary algorithms are a common tool in computer science, and also have applications in Economics, Anthropology, Linguists and Sociology.

Evolution is one of the most efficient algorithms in making observations on a large set of data. The evolutionary algorithm basically goes like this, in an environment comprising of large populations of interacting entities over a large period of time, where those entities can change, merge, grow and reproduce, and over large periods of time, the entities more fit for the environment will be more likely to survive and continue to propagate. If entities can change and merge, entities that are more fit for the environment will eventually evolve.

Which brings us back to religion. If you look at the history of 10,000 years or so of human civilization, and consider the thousands or millions of societies that have existed. In this environment over time there have been many different beliefs, both religious and secular. One would have to assume that there were both societies without religion (after all agnostics are the world's oldest surviving religion, since the dawn of belief there have people who did not believe), as well as societies with varying degrees of religion. Why did every successful civilization adopt organized religion? For one society with organized religion to be successful could be a fluke, but for every successful society to have organized religion can only be evolutional.
It is obvious that religion in the world has both pros and cons, there has been much good done in the name of religion, and much bad, but how to determine if religion's net impact to society has been good or bad.

An evolutionary scientist would seek to determine the answer through creating a diverse environment with many societies with varying degrees of religion over a large period of time, as see which society tended to survive and evolve, would the societies without religion dominate, or the ones with religion? Human civilization history is such an experiment, and the results show quite clearly that religion benefits society, evolution justifies religion, so perhaps religion could be a little less skeptical of evolution.

Silly Middle Eastern religions

Three of the most influential religions of our time originated from the same small geographic region of the Middle East. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all originated and thrived in the Middle East.

Islam is the youngest of the three and in many respects originated from both Judaism and Christianity, just as Christianity the middle child originated mainly from Jewish beliefs, each with their own main prophets and some new beliefs of coarse. One thing they all have in common is the belief in a single all-powerful God. They are all monotheistic. To some degree they have also elevated their prophets to the level of a God, most certainly with most sects of Christianity, but less so with Judaism and Islam. Although a single God seems a common belief today, it is actually a different concept than most religions subscribe to, especially many of the older religions that the three faiths replaced in much of the world.

I used to somewhat believe in the western religious propaganda that religion follows a logical coarse of evolution from multi-deity, polytheistic religions to mono-deity, monotheistic religions, and finally to agnosticism and atheism, but now I'm much more skeptical of the theory. The problem with a single belief and a single God is that it leads to intolerance of other beliefs and religions. To some degree all of the three faiths at times seem more interested in being intolerant of other religions than following their own religious teachings. Even the very first of the Ten Commandment puts forth the idea that all other religions are wrong.

This belief has lead to many conflicts between the three faiths and other religions. Some of the biggest conflicts have been between the three faiths themselves, and even other between the different sects within the faiths. This continues even today with conflicts between Islam and Western Christianity and Capitalism in the Middle East and abroad, conflicts between Islam and Hinduism in South Asia, conflicts between Islam and Judaism in the Middle East, the Islamic conflicts with the Soviet Communist state in the last decade in Central Asia, and even Islamic conflicts with Buddhism in South-East Asia. To be fair the three faiths are not the only ones that have encouraged conflicts, and not the only ones to wage holy war or exterminate other religions. Almost all religions seemed to have had this affect at some point to some degree; the three faiths just seemed to have been the most successful at it. Perhaps it is only logical that the remaining and most populous religions are the ones that have been most successful in exterminating other religions. Perhaps this is just an unavoidable evolutionary trait of civilization.

However I am thinking monotheism may not be the best belief system, and that the world could learn much from polytheistic religions. Buddhism seemed to have an affect of merging with existing faiths when it was introduced into new cultures instead of replacing the faith as Christianity and Islam did in much of the world. Most followers of Buddhism seem to also follow other faiths, such as many traditional Chinese, which follow Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism and seem not to see any issue or conflict in doing so. Many Japanese are both Buddhist and Shinto. The Hindu religions are composed of hundreds of Gods and Goddesses, and hundreds of different beliefs all seeming to coexist in harmony for the most part (like all religions they have had their exceptions).

To be fair, the three Middle Eastern faiths are not only ones with intolerance; they have just been the most successful at it, they definitely would not have been as successful in converting people of other religions if they did not have their intolerance. Most religions seem to foster a degree of intolerance; it could even be said that agnosticism and atheism are the least tolerant of other religions today, and if the world continues on having intolerant religions dominate over other religions then agnosticism and atheism may very well become the last religions left in the world.

Perhaps a better direction would be to embrace polytheism.

This would seem to avoid religious conflict and promote a unified religious movement intent on making the world a better place. What the world needs is for every Church, Temple, Mosque and religious institution to embrace every other religion. A Catholic church should put a statue of Ganesha and Buddha next to the cross of Jesus. Mosques should place a Jewish candle in the direction of Mecca. Agnostics and atheists should start going and making a meaningful contribution to Church. Islamic Mosques in Saudi Arabia should invite Israeli Jewish Rabbis as guest speakers, Jewish Temples in Israel should invite Palestinian Islamic Clerics, the Harvard school of business should invite Korean communist guest speakers. Religions hold much of our societies morality and culture. I would much rather go to a Church one hundred years from now and find the virtues of Jesus, Mosses, Mohammad, Confucius, Buddha, and others being taught to a heterogeneous congregation of many faiths, than for the Church to be an empty, or there to be no Churches left to go to.