“… and fear Allah, so that you may prosper” the Qur’an (2:189)
—
An estimated 84% of the world’s population attach themselves to one religion or the other. 16% of the world’s population do not. Even some of them may not be Atheists. Just does not like institutionalised religion.
The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:
- “In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture.”
I would like to interpret it in a different manner. Every culture that had a religious element in it, must have had an edge over the others. In the beginning of human history there must have been both religious and non-religious groups. The religious had some advantages over non-religious. They prospered. Religion gives them hope when there is (apparently) no hope, and it keeps them cautious when (apparently) there is nothing to fear. That made them the fittest. And the fittest survived.
We all come from a single couple. Adam and Eve (yes, that’s where science has to converge, if not now, it will in future, but let it take it’s own course). Something set Adam and Eve apart from all their competitors.
I would suggest: it was religion.
They were the first among religious.
What i take from your entry is that religion places an ‘evolutionary’ advantage upon its adherents. The latter part of your entry suggests that you do not believe that Adam & Eve (alayhis salaam) were the first humans, but rather the first religious humans.
Interesting, but not from Islam, IMO.
You suggestion that religion has played an evolutionary role in society is very interesting. Your basic logic make sense, since the overwhelming majority of the world favors a religion.
It is also true that most of the conflict in the world is either over land or religion, or both. Perhaps religion pushes “survival” issues that would not otherwise be pushed. If I believe my religion is right, I feel compelled to press others to believe it also.
Perhaps the edge has not been the religion itself, but the will of the religious adherents?
iMuslim
I did not say the competetors of Adam and Eve were humans. They were not, in the strictest sense of the word.
JWT
The Will originates from religion. A man has many many identities. None of them give guidance. Religion teaches them how to live.
Manas,
Your progressive is amazing
Ahem?
You mean my progressiveness?
You’re too fast for me
Yes, I meant progressiveness (the quality of proceeding or going forward)
Masha’Allah!
Okay. Thanks, gess.
I did not say the competetors of Adam and Eve were humans.
Then who? Saber-tooth tigers? Woolly mammoths? hehe
No, they were almost humans. The difference was that they were not capable of religion. It was this inablility that made them sub-humans.
(I’m not saying the Atheists are sub-humans, though!
Actually they are capable of religion. That is the point.)
Note:
1. I am saying “they were”, “they were”; I mean “I think they were”.
2. I can’t access blogspot. Godknowswhy.
Thanks for posting on my blog. I don’t know what a terrorist looks like. But you can’t look me in the eye and say there isn’t a stereotype that gets profiled at the airport.
As for religion, I’m reading a new book called “American Fascists” about the Christian Right. Have you heard of it?
Take care!
I know bloggers love comments! I myself do. You are welcome.
I have not heard of it, no. Christian or no Christian, I don’t like right wingers.
Religion, as long as deeply personal, personalized, and non-institutional (like an artistic expression), is respectable. As a dogmatic conviction, it turns into ugliness!
naj
I beg to differ. If you know Islam at it’s outset (I mean during Muhammad(S)’s time) you will not think that way.
Personal conviction has no legs. Islam has survived the Meccan onslaught because they were organised. Because Islam is institutionalised.
It is because Islam is institutionalised, it has found so many adherents, and it’s codes are more or less carefully preserved.
It is because so carefully coded, it could influence the laws of the countries, even those not ruled by Muslims.
…
It is not easy to divide entire population in two sections, who attach and who dont.
Tough things can sometimes be done. How else do you explain Edmund Hillary?
It is not easy to divide entire population in two sections, who attaches and who dont.
As you put, the religion gives false hope, when there is none. Religion makes them fearful, when there is none. Assuming these statements are true, and these things helped to prosper the religious over non-religious.
But then again, what about the rest of animals, living beings , millions of speices, who have existed for million of years and are more fit to out-survive humans. What makes them fittest?
Further for the sake of argument , if we are able to determine when first human become religious, the question is how did he survive before he became religious?
Infact, more human has become civilised, prospered he has become less fit for surviving in accordance with nature. Today an urban person is not fittest specie if left without any instrument in wilderness. He will have to use his instinct to survive.
Because of advance civilisation and technologies humans have excelled in everything and dominate the earth. Therefore, civilised societies are able to protect their weak members by providing basic necessities.
If religion is giving hope, however false, why people go on accumlating wealth, status, authority,publicity ? Why people want just more then basic necessities?
If religion is giving fear, to make people cautious, why so much violence? Why a humans have to use arms to protect themseleves, their nation, their culture and unfortunately their religion itself?
If a religion is omnipotent, it will survive and make the religious persons survive without using any means.
Thanks for providing thoughtful post which made me thinking.
“It is not easy to divide entire population in two sections, who attaches and who dont.”
- I don’t see why, unless you are talking in terms of the huge task involved.
“As you put, the religion gives false hope, when there is none. Religion makes them fearful, when there is none.”
- I will not put it that way. Whether it turns out that your hopes were true or not, being positive always helps.
At the same time, when you are at hight of your power, you tend to transgress limits. If you do, your fall is inevitable. Religion stops you from doing that.
“If religion is giving hope, however false, why people go on accumlating wealth, status, authority,publicity ? Why people want just more then basic necessities?”
-you are oversimplifying. Neither do people want only money, nor do they are solely religious. And different people to different degree.
I never said religious people don’t want to live well. They do. They want a good life through religion.
Only our definitions of a good life differ.
“If a religion is omnipotent, it will survive and make the religious persons survive without using any means.”
-again, you are misunderstanding religion. Only worshipping is not religion. Atleast in my religion, Islam, everything you do is religion. How you live, what you do, how you behave with people, how you eat how do you sleep and even how do you have sex are all part of religion.
I repeat: religion is not a mere mystic thing that makes no contact with ‘real life’. It’s a philosphy that guides your life.
“No, they were almost humans. The difference was that they were not capable of religion. It was this inablility that made them sub-humans.”
Ok, you’re going to have to go into specifics here; remember, you’re talking to a biologist. Are you now referring to the advanced apes and alleged humanoids, such a Neanderthal?
There are few agreed-upon facts in this field of study, so i’d be wary of the hypothesis you profess.
I would like to know what are these (agreed-upon) facts.
Just a cautionary remark. I suggested that Adam and Eve were set apart by their faculty to understand and profess religion. (I must be on my guard while talking to a a biologist
)
But even a suggestion requires some proof to back it up, especially when you consider that your audience may interpret your intentions incorrectly.
Agreed-upon facts; well, i’m not an anthropologist or an archaeologist, so my knowledge of the field is probably as good or bad as yours. I do know that a lot has been made out of a few bones… and that there is a lot of controversy between scientists of the field, and not just between the theists and atheists, either.
add to the fact that biologists are terrible in clearing mess. they need watsons and creeks to creep in.