Well, if Nietzche can be believed, religion is what allows weak (but smart) individuals to avoid being killed by their strong (yet stupid) fellow man.
If I, being a comparative weakling, cannot stop the strong from talking what is mine (life, liberty, property, etc.), I will likely not live to pass on my genes. Therefore, there is an evolutionary advantage if I can come up with a scheme by which the strong can be convinced that they shouldn’t take what belongs to me. Convincing them that I have spoken with “God,” that he has said that I am his chosen “person,” and that everybody who disobeys me (I mean him) is doomed to eternal damnation, well, that’s a pretty slik scheme if i do say so myself.
If you haven’t already noticed, the vast majority of humanity isn’t genuinely rational.
When you realize that Aristotle, when discussing “the rational animal”, wasn’t actually referring to human beings in general, his works make a lot more sense.
It seems like Nietzche is arguing in favor of religion. By his reasoning, if it weren’t for religion, we’d still be dominated by the physically strong, yet stupid.
Religious people have an easier time finding mates. For example, if I go on a personal ad site and search for atheist women, only a few come up. However if I expand the search to include the religious, I have many more women to choose from. So perhaps there is an evolutionary advantage to believing in all that mummery.
Nietzsche would never argue in favor of religion. Part of his philosophy is that the powerful should assert their natural dominance. It sounds like more of a lament that these scheming weaklings can somehow manage to keep the good, strong folks down.
No, because according to Nietsche the ideal Ubermensch (or “Superman”) is both strong and smart – too smart to be deceived by the fantasies created by the weak to protect themselves. The ideal state would therefore be comprised entirely of strong, smart people. The week and the stupid would be subjugated equally.
It seems the flaw in that argument is that if such a thing as the Ubermensch did exist, they would already have subjugated the weak-but-smart from the long ago.
Surely an Ubermensch could not be sujugated by the weak-but-smart with religion all this time. If that were true, the Ubermensch wouldn’t really have been so Uber.
Unless the Ubermensch is a modern invention? If that were the case, then we have nothing to worry about because the Ubermensch will eventually triumph. Right?
Going back to the thread title… I would say yes… religion is ONE aspect of our Brain and evolution that allowed us to survive. Its part of social cohesion the same way sex and couple pairing allowed us to develop as better hunter gatherers. Still like all things evolutionary it might seem more appropiate to a more primitive setting.
So is religion a evolutionary legacy we will need to outgrow/evolve ? Just like our innate aggression might not be convenient anymore in modern society and is being curbed? Religious factors are among the highest barriers against integration and tolerance at a global level. If one thinks like me that the big religions are holding back enlightment of the population at large then certainly the downfall of the Vatican and other older religions is a step forward. (Presuming a global village and rational humans are the future of mankind however far that might be.)
What makes you think that the Ubermensch haven’t already subjugated the weak-but-smart? What makes you think that the Ubermensch hasn’t already triumphed?
But of course, that couldn’t be possible. Because if that were the case, they would have instituted societal controls that gave them tremendous influence and power over the masses but disguised the fact that they were holding the reins. If that were the case, civilizations would hold strange, illogical beliefs that nevertheless were accepted as truth by the majority of people. If that were the case, most people would believe comforting fictions that made them easy to pacify and direct. If that were the case, they would manipulate the teaching of history, psychology, and philosophy so that no one would take the idea of Ubermensch seriously.
That question should be directed to the Nieztchean philosphers. I think the whole argument is flawed because clearly the smart and the strong have always controlled organized religions.
Hear, hear! If there is evidence that religious conformity or a propensity for blind faith is an evolutionary legacy then I believe a better understanding of such would be a start to dismantling those barriers that you mention.
