"On the Biological Sucess of Faith"

Michael Blume is engaged in the scientific study of religion. (Blume ) Now he has a new article about his thoughts and research: "Religion and Demography - On the Biological Sucess of Faith". (Blume)

I think, his work is a good beginning with this very important theme. But if you think some time about all this, you can recognize the reason, why traditional monotheistic religion is good for the reproductive sucess of the believers. Atheism as a broader movement in society is only 100 years old at the moment. What was the situation of Christianity 100 years after its beginnings? A roman historian like Tacitus, who lived in the 2nd century didn't know very much about this "jewish sect", the "Christians". At that time no one could forsee, that it would be exactly this and only this religious group between the broad religious pluralism of the Roman Empire, that would have the best reproductive sucess of the next 2000 years. This was the result of selection, of cultural and genetic individual and group selection processes of the next 500 years.

So, if there is no group between the very pluralistic "group" of modern atheists that has more children than the believers of monotheistic faith at the moment, than this could mean, that we are now in this selection process (cultural and genetic individual and group selection), that will establish in the next decades and centuries a new strategy of social life, in which non-monotheistic people will have enough children as well.

At least this is the goal a lot of people who are working in family politics and beyond in our days.

About brains, hearts and gonads

Reading Gene expression of Razib Khan often gives opportunity to think things anew. Here are some new thoughts of mine about religion:

Humans have a brain, humans have a heart and humans have gonads. Scientists often forget that "thing between" - because THIS is a really complicated thing.

I think, it is too often overlooked today, that religion (and philosophical metaphysics of any sort) in former days had mostly to do with that "thing between". Both of the two other organs, people thought in former times, should be ruled by the heart. So - for example - in former days it was not so important for people to believe in a PERSONAL god (because this is mostly a theme of the brain), but it was important for them to have a good heart and to be a good person in everyday life and family life. And they were aware, that being a good person with a good heart HAS (often) very much to do with certain metaphysics. Because metaphysics can give you motivations to behave (very) altruistically.

Today we too often only take our brain, when we try to understand religion and metaphysics. And we forget the function of religions and metaphysics concerning hearts, and that means mostly: concerning feelings of love and hate. I think, this is a main function of deception and self-deception also. And deception and self-deception is not only a thing of individuals but also of communities, societies, even epochs.

If humans have too much (one-sided) gonads-activity, the "things between" will mostly be forgotten. And if humans have too much (one-sided) brain-activity the "things between" also will be forgotten.

My question for Richard Dawkins

At the moment I'm reading Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion". And there is a lot of stuff in it, that needs to be thought through. I have read also a lot of interviews with Richard Dawkins concerning the themes of his book. But one questions seems never to be asked yet and I would be very interested, what Dawkwins would have to say about it:

Is atheism an evolutionarily stable strategy?

(For the term evolutionarily stable strategy [= ESS] look here.) And this is one of the core questions of this blog also. For example on pages 263, 264 Dawkins gives good examples for "New Ten Commandments". And one of his own would be - he says: "Value the future on a timescale longer than your own." So this is, I think, thinking in evolutionarily stable strategies, if it comes to humans and their societies. So, to what sort of result he might come, if he would do that by looking at birth rates of atheists world wide and in his own country and at birth rates of monotheist's world wide and in his own country? I think, no one can say today, that atheism is an evolutionarily stable strategy.

So one of the big questions could be for the future: What sort of world view (for societies, for human groups) will be an evolutionarily stable strategy from a modern atheistic point of view, that has completely abandoned all that confused and confusing monotheism of the last two millennias? This is one of the main (or core) questions of this blog.

I want here try to formulate a very provisional thesis concerning all that: Because the world itself (matter, the universe, laws of evolution) is not "atheistic", "meaningless", without sense, standing still as humans in those pure "atheistic" attitudes and world views is not in accordance with the laws of nature, not in accordance with the laws of the human psyche. Deep in nature's laws and structures we can find sense, we can find beauty, we can find religiousness - if we LIKE to do that - and even (or mostly) from a pure scientific standpoint of view. A lot of scientits do that at the moment. And this Richard Dawkins says for himself very often in one way or another. He cites for example Albert Einstein for that very experience and a lot of others on several occassions. But only stating that and standing still in a pure "atheistic" world view might not be enough, because - to say it simply: it does not seem to change birth rates.

I think, the problem is, that every day life and culture of human societies TODAY do not mirror the emotions and experiences of scientists in THEIR every day life. Every day life and culture - and mostly mass media - are trying to ignore the very fact, that life and the universe for itself is MORE than boring "sex sells (- with or without cultural values)". (This only as one example of predominate cultural values of today.) And by that this societies lose simply their connections to the basic laws of nature and survival. Because for true human values sexuality is MORE than pure "sex" (- for example). This universe is NOT made "to make money", but may be, it is more "made for" questioning, what it is made for.

And if humans and societies give the answer: "There doesn't exist any answer to this very question, it is silly to ask this question, the deepest sense of nature and the universe is mere and meaningless chance" - then nature's and the universe's laws seems to "tell" humans: You are meaningless for us, we do not need you any longer. If YOU do not ask for the deeper natural laws of survival of human societies, nature has not any longer any "interest" for YOU. I do not speak here in terms of a "deity" or something like that, I simply think in terms of materialistic natural laws. They can "tell" you something also. And if you do NOT listen to what they say, may be, you're making a very deep fallacy. Does there exist a term for the very opposite of the famous "naturalistic fallacy"? I think, that should be termed and defined also as a fallacy. May be: the atheistic fallacy? Google gives no answer at the moment to that term.

Possibly, the natural laws are telling us: We, the natural laws, are "made", that someone like you exist to give answers to those questions and not only in the scientific communitiy (ivory tower), but also in everyday life of societies. Human societies have gone too far away from meaning, from beauty and awe, that are compatible with the universe and that are NOT compatible with values like "sex sells". The last mentioned value destroys our sense for beauty and awe even concerning our most beloved friends, neighbours, children and spouses (or possible spouses).

Our talk-shows, our apathy concerning the most worsest deeds of human history in the last 100 years, concerning most huge atrocities and genocides and criminality against human societies, against our atmosphere, against animals and plants, against the love of homeland of humans, against the most deepest cultural values and contents of the western world (Abendland) - isn't all that a mirror of something?

Religion, fertility and modern intellectuals

"Religiousness" may be at a deeper level the "missing link" of current sociobiological theory. Because religiousness shows the best correlations with fertility in all human cultures.

I said this some weeks ago in a comment to Razib Khan's Blog. I think it is too important not to repeat here. Razib asked "Does it?" and I gave this study by Michael Blume (pdf) as an evidence for this thesis.

Even if the Templeton-Foundation and a lot of other organizations are funding very much science concerning scientific approaches to religion, this thesis of Michael Blume has not found so much attention yet in the scientific communitiy (as far as I can see).

Now I had some disagreement with Razib (in the comments: here and here), because I try to apply the mentioned thesis to world history as a whole. I like Razib Khan very much, because he is looking for truth like me in a lot of areas like me and because he knows a lot of things better than me (for example human genetics). We had some disagreements yesterday concerning some interpretations of historical processes. And the deeper reason for this disagreement - I think now - may be found in what famous Jürgen Habermas as a typical atheistic intellectual has said about himself - that he is "religiously unmusical".

Since Habermas has talked together with the former Cardinal Ratzinger (now pope Benedict XVI.) about the necessity of religion for our society (in the year 2004), this "being unmusical concerning religion" may have a new importance for the public discourse. Surley, at the state of science now we cannot "measure" the inborn or learned ability for being "religiously musical" very precise. But to speak about this is becoming important more and more, I think.

Truth may not always be "polite". All the more if it comes to religiousness and morals. So I think we cannot avoid to have sometimes a little bit "impolite" discussions about impolite truths. This has something to do with our own infertility and atheistic attitudes as well, I think. We're reasoning very "politly" about rises and declines of cultures - and in the time we're doing that, the great culture of the western world, in which we live, is declining and declining mostly by birth rates and mostly by low birth rates of the IQ-elites that we think we represent.

So, I think, there are reasons sometimes to become a little bit impatiently - even if you are in pure scientific discussions and even if you have pure scientific attitudes. I think, it IS science, that can make you sometimes impatiently and impolite. So I try to formulate the following thesis: Atheism is a force that can make people "religiously unmusical". And then people do not understand any longer at a deeper level, why people do not have enough children and why cultures rise or decline because of that.