Is good.
If passing on DNA is a measure of fitness then the Catholics are the fittest of the lot.
Religion is not unique in that sense, though. Defined the way you have, virtually every human organization, especially governments, are equivalent to religion. All you’re really saying is that we’re social animals that share resources even if we receive no immediate or tangible benefit by sharing.
As another example, even atheists donate money to charity. It’s a rare person who has never given up something of value for a total stranger with no expectation of reward.
Whether or not it’s Darwinian, it can still be awful (morally speaking).
Nation state:
See those guys over there? They want to take your potatoes. Give us some instead and we’ll defend you and let you keep the rest.
Religion:
Give us some potatoes and after you die you’ll have infinite potatoes.
I think Gaffigan did it better when he was talking about sky cake.
No no, it’s like this
Nation State: We will rip out every one of your fingernails until you stop giving potatoes to your religion.
Peasant: You can torture me, but it’s nothing to what will happen to me if I don’t give potatoes to my religion.
Nation State: Goddam it these are stubborn
Religion: We lost a few potatoes to the state, but hey - you sir, have you heard the Good News about what a few potatoes will buy you ?
Did you even read my post?
Dawkins isn’t pissed off at religion, as far as I can tell. He’s periodically annoyed at people who do stupid and pointlessly harmful things in the names of their religions.
Even atheists?! No way man. We’re heartless to our core. Also, everyone knows we only pretend we don’t believe in God so we can do loads of cool sins.
Mmm… Sins.
Phrased that way, a nation does have more tangible benefits than a religion, but I think the lines are a lot blurrier.
There are people doing altruistic things because they believe in the concept of their nation, not just the tangible benefits provided by the nation. For example, I can get the benefit of military protection without having to volunteer to be in the military.
And on the flip side, for much of human history (especially when talking Popes and potatoes), the church has been a de facto government itself. This is especially true in cases of brutal religious wars that the OP talks about. Things like the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition and Islamic terrorism are about much more than religion alone.
I think you’re joking… but just in case…
I’m not saying “even atheists” to say that atheists don’t care. It’s to say that being charitable today is not dependent on belief in an afterlife later. Religion isn’t the root cause of charitable behavior.
If it’s a strategy, it is a strategy for survival/propagation of memes, not genes. Different thing entirely.
Historically, what the state does is take over the religion so they give potatoes to god and the state gets a cut or, even better, they get that to be godly you need to worship the king also.
Anyone who wants to give potatoes to another god are heretics and our believers will kill them faster than the state can.
See: 16th Century England.
Yeah, sorry. I was just being flippant. It wasn’t a criticism of your point, which I thought was actually quite good.
Well lets look at what happened when someone last tried to invoke a Darwinian based argument about their racial superiority - it did not go well.
In other words, using Darwinian language to mask the use of force as some sort of justification is always going to be a crock of SH*T.
In fact Darwinian selection is not based on force or power at all, its based on the ability to pass on genes, if it means something is better able to survive because its genes construct a form that is better adapted to low temperatures than its competitors then it will pass on those genes and it will survive better and reproduce better than another organism that is less well constructed for such conditions.
Religion does not, and has never ever come into it, neither does political philosophy.
Anyone using such arguments to justify use of force probably needs to be executed and taken out of the gene pool.
Sometimes force and power are the means of differential survival – lions and tigers and bears, oh my. Speed is sometimes used, for both pursuit and escape. Armor is relatively rare, but has its adherents. Having tons and tons of offspring and hoping a few might survive is a great classic.
The great joy of evolution is how incredibly diverse the strategies are of reproductive success and species survival. It’s significant that deistic creationism was the leading explanation until so very recently: evolution is a subtle and non-intuitive idea, which required the sophistication of the middle 19th century to arise. Only once people began exploring the whole of the world and collecting animal specimens in a large-scale way, keeping detailed notes, did the patterns of similarities start to fall into place.
People in older times had every reason to believe in divine creation…just as, before Lavoisier (at al) they had every reason to believe in Phlogiston.