Americans more science-literate than Japanese, Europeans

[SteveS]

Hi pip!

I'll use the definition "evolution by natural selection."

Interesting choice --- 'cause it seems like you're really using "other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin.".  Or, do you think there is a "faith gene"?  Is religious belief, in your opinion, simply a function of genetic makeup?  Is faith inherited from your parents?  You don't think faith is environmental - taught to children by their parents?

The fact that religion is so prevalent in human culture despite the obvious disadvantages seems to me like a pretty powerful argument in favor of the "evolutionary advantage to religious belief."

The fact that a specific trait is prevalent does not necessarily mean that it is a guaranteed advantageous outcome of natural selection.  Also, traits can be coupled - how do we know that our belief system isn't misfiring when contemplating religious thoughts, but that it simply doesn't matter because the belief-forming development is so advantageous in other ways that it over comes any attached disadvantage and results in a net positive?

Personally, I think religion may be a by-product of the way our minds work - and I think the way our minds work has a lot to do with evolution.  So I see a strong possibility that religious thought is a by-product of an evolutionarily advantageous development.  Not necessarily an advantageous development itself.

One thing I do agree with you on --- religion is very prevalent in human societies, both now and historically.  It seems that there is probably some reason for this.

You seem to consider truthfulness of primary importance while almost dismissing usefulness. Is that correct? If so, why?

I don't recall dismissing usefulness......in fact I specifically speculated on ways in which religious belief could perhaps have been important to survival, and therefore useful.

Truthfulness is important to me, though.  Why?  Because I want to know what's real.  That's all.  If something is true or false I have a natural intellectual curiosity that wants to know the correct answer.  Did the universe have a beginning?  Is the universe cyclical?  It might not make a whole lot of "useful" difference to my life to know the answer to questions like this, but I still have a desire to know anyway.  Don't you?  Or should I conclude that you dismiss truthfulness as irrelevant while focusing on what's useful?  If the usefulness of a religion outweighs any concerns over where or not it is true - why do people belief it is true?  Or are they lying - they simply choose the most useful religion and then go on to "pretend" they believe it?

And what of the theologians who perceive that science and religion conflict because they are both searching for the truth?  Are they wrong - science and religion are really just trying to hash out which is more useful?

Anyway truth and usefulness are at least coupled a lot of the time.  For example, suppose that someone was able to conclusively demonstrate that prayer performed no function what-so-ever .... wouldn't this "truth" impact the "usefulness" of religious behavior?