Presumably, a fix of Darwinism goes down well in a complex world:
Discover magazine tells readers why people believe in God. It’s simple: Evolution fooled us! But in fact the article is a perfect case study in how a sweeping story of “evolution” gets credit for just about anything.
That’s the story, says Alex. Evolution wired all that into us; but it messed up, too. It didn’t include a “stop” switch to tell us where not to use those tendencies. We see patterns that aren’t real, and we conclude falsely that someone must have put them there on purpose. Some things we learn by imitation aren’t so good after all. So for example we see patterns in weather, and we attribute them to some kind of person. We call that person a god; then we imitate one another in worshiping that god. Voila, it’s religion!
Therefore, she concludes, “It doesn’t take supernatural beings to explain why so many people believe in them — just natural evolutionary processes.”
Like a teacher unpacking a really bad essay for the student, Tom Gilson offers five points for reflection, including
You have to assume your thinking is rational, even while you’re building a theory of pervasive human irrationality. Tom Gilson , “How ‘Evolution’ Fooled Us Into Believing In God (Wink, Wink)” at The Stream
Hat tip: Ken Francis
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: J. P. Moreland: How scientism leads to post-modern relativism Could the progressive war on science be obliquely influenced by scientism? That is, if all beliefs are inherently evolved illusions, scientism cannot protect beliefs about science. So why not a war on math and correct answers, if it is politically advantageous?
If naturalism can explain religion, why does it get so many basic facts wrong?
Evolutionary conundrum: is religion a useful, useless, or harmful adaptation?
Imagine a world of religions that naturalism might indeed be able to explain