Evilution

One of the most common misunderstandings of the theory of evolution is that all adaptations are somehow beneficial. I hear people say that those animals or that technology is more or less evolved. However, evolution doesn't work like that and machines don't strictly speaking 'evolve' at all. Evolution is a blind process that produces more problems than solutions. Think of all of the genetic diseases in the world, this is not good evidence of increasingly highly evolved people.

However, there is adaptation and some species can be more or less adapted to a specific environment but being very well adapted to ocean life is a huge set back if you live on land most of the time. But even with adaptation there can be some surprising complexities in its interaction.

I bring this topic up because people often assume that just because we have religion it must serve some purpose. This line of thinking goes along the lines of "we have eyes to see, nose to smell and hands to manipulate objects: everything we've inherited seems to have some useful function,"

While yes, everything we've evolved does serve a useful purpose but only for passing on our genes, not for making our lives better. Religion is like this. It has evolved along side us although it doesn't serve any useful purpose other than to reproduce itself. Please keep in mind that I distinguish between religion and spirituality so when I'm talking religion I'm talking dogma, irrational social-rules and harmful moral prejudices, and not creativity, altruism, self-knowledge etc...

But if religion is harmful why does it exist? Surely harmful things are selected out by nature. Actually, both yes and no.

Consider jealousy and greed (bullying). These are socially harmful emotions that no species wants to have but on an individual level though they are helpful for individual reproduction.

Consider two primitive men go out hunting: one man is fast, agile, strong and clever while the other is slow, clumsy, sickly and dim. He brings back food for the tribe but the weaker hunter can't catch anything. The strong hunter gets lots of attention from the women who want his genetics for their offspring. However, this attention makes the weaker hunter jealous... the weaker hunter then decides to kill the stronger hunter by striking the unsuspecting hunter when his back is turned. Now the women have no choice but to pass on the weaker hunter's genetics because jealousy increased his fertility.

Greed is common in most species, generally it manifests when a sibling will beat up and steal attention and food from another sibling. This bullying greatly increases the strength and size of these individuals, increasing their chances of reproducing.

But there's a problem here... if the weaker members of a species all wipe out the stronger members then that species is in serious trouble because soon the whole species will no longer be sufficiently adapted to survive at all! Also, a society full of bullies will fall apart as bullying is about breaking the rules and society can't function without at least partial observance of the rules essential for maintaining group cohesion and solidarity.

With these qualities of jealousy and greed which help individuals increase their fertility but overall harm their entire species there exists a balance. If too many individuals in a species are overcome with jealousy and greed then the species will either select against these qualities or go extinct.

Thus religion is like this. It is greedy, it wants the power, resources and attention of the people it infects and is jealous of other religions which could be better than it. But can't get too powerful otherwise it will wipe itself out. Consider what would happen if the Catholic Church was successful at removing every man with high intelligence from the gene pool by putting them into the priesthood during the middle ages? Or if muslims strictly only married within their families? Or if no Christians used condoms in spite of an HIV epidemic? Or if scientific progress had been successfully suppressed instead of just slowed down?

Consider the Zorastrians, they won't take converts and can't marry outside their group... the one time super religion has wiped itself out.

Religions are their own worst enemies, killing the very societies that keep them alive. But fortunately a society that resists complete domination by a religion is still able to grow and indeed when the Church went too far the people fought back and pushed through religious reforms to make their religion more tolerable and less harmful. Until we get a point today when the Catholic Church is no longer able to declare wars, conduct genocides, witchhunts and brainwash children en masse... at least not in the west.

Despite how harmful religions are to society as a whole they are very good at motivating people to protect and nurture them. This is the most curious thing. There is something very noble in human nature, humans appear to be most courageous, most motivated and passionate when fighting for something greater then themselves: a love, an identity, a principle or a dogma. Religion exploits this human nobility and perverts it.

I believe the purpose of spiritual thinking is to replace religion and revitalise our ideas of things greater than us by pushing individuals to create their own inspirations and to continuously refine and develop the principles that they would get up and fight for. Because if it isn't a conscious choice to decide what you believe is worth dying for then you're simply living as a slave to somebody else's prejudices.

Own your prejudices and make the future the way you believe it ought to be. If you speak up, you will never be alone.

The Evolution of Prejudice

The other day I was voicing strong criticism of the muslim hijab. This lead to a discussion of "but forcing them not to wear it is as bad as them being forced to wear it," this lead to a ridiculous situation where both sides were using the same argument: prejudice is wrong, regardless of the message. Therefore we can't criticise people from other cultures because that's prejudice and prejudice is wrong.

This is actually a very important issue. One that Sam Harris has already brought up. People who are prejudice against prejudice like to think that they are occupying a strong moral high ground because it can not easily be attacked.

Wrong.

Fristly, prejudice is part of human nature. Everyone has prejudices. If you don't think you're prejudiced then consider that without them your sense of self must be by definition be so tenuous that you simply don't matter because you have no opinions, dreams, goals or will of your own.

Secondly, not all prejudices are bad: I hate lies. I hate liars. I hate laziness. I hate disease. I hate death. I hate religion. I hate manipulators. I hate insecurities. I hate ignorance. I hate cowardice. I hate poverty. I hate greed. I hate inequalities. I hate bullies. I hate injustice. I hate impatience. I hate intolerance. I hate defeatism. I hate disrespect. I hate stupidity.

Thirdly, prejudices could conceviably be positive (Prejudice, n, Any preconceived opinion or feeling, whether positive or negative): I like life. I like people. I like Australia. I like honesty. I like self-control. I like courage. I like determination. I like kindness. I like understanding. I like independance. I like action. I like creativity.

Fourthly, prejudice is the foundation of morality. One person's prejudice is another's moral code. We can have conflicting moral feelings and that's very common. We can argue about the reasons why we have our different likes and hates. But you cannot attack me simply for having those feelings.

for example:

Person A: I hate foreigners who don't conform to our ways and culture.
Person B: You're a racist bigot.
Person C: Really? It doesn't upset me that much. Why does it upset you when foreigners don't conform to our ways and culture?

Who is more moral, person B or C?

Answer: none, they are all moral entities - one is either moral or not moral, there is no spectrum here.

Who is the more wise, person B or C?

I would argue that person C is the most wise because they have responded respectfully and honestly, while I would argue that person B is applying a very simplistic category-based system of morality because they have attacked another person for simply expressing an opinion.

I think one should consider the type of morality one has:

Is it category based? (Good guys and bad guys)
Is it value based? (Honesty, consistency, kindness etc...)
Is it reason based? (Because X = Y and then Y = Z this person should be treated like that even though usually when Y = Z we treat them like this)

If you are threatened by other people's opinions (as opposed by their actions) then remember that what a person thinks and what a person does are completely different things. If someone has opinions that upset you remember that logically you must have opinions that upset them. I suggest that we don't worry about getting upset about what other people's opinions, we just focus on getting upset with their actions.

Some food for thought:

If you don't like racism simply because it is wrong... can you still be a racist?
If you like your culture more than others are you being racist?
Can you like one thing and not hate its opposite?