Science investigates the origins of religon

The solution seems obvious: a single, unifying faith that values all people equally, whatever their race, nation, culture, religious backgrounds, or gender. One that forbids war and teaches the paths to peace, justice, cooperation, and the oneness of humanity.

1CellOfMany;128790 wrote:

The solution seems obvious: a single, unifying faith that values all people equally, whatever their race, nation, culture, religious backgrounds, or gender. One that forbids war and teaches the paths to peace, justice, cooperation, and the oneness of humanity.

An obvious solution with no obvious means of being implemented; so can you really call this a solution at all?

The solution seems obvious: a single, unifying faith that values all people equally, whatever their race, nation, culture, religious backgrounds, or gender. One that forbids war and teaches the paths to peace, justice, cooperation, and the oneness of humanity.

You are mistaken, as many religions have figured out the basic method of implementation. It is done by killing all of the unbelievers and heretics.

But the more difficult obstacle is that 1CellOfMany's proposed qualities of a religion do not fit with any of the popular religions of today, so the carnage would have to be quite incredible to achieve the goal.

...
Also, it begins to sound exactly like the sort of religion it is meant to replace.

Scientific investigation into the origin of religion isn't the best way to gain an understanding of religion.

An obvious solution with no obvious means of being implemented; so can you really call this a solution at all?

You are mistaken, as many religions have figured out the basic method of implementation. It is done by killing all of the unbelievers and heretics. Then you end up with everyone believing the same things. This has been done in small portions of the world at various times in history, and could be done on a global basis. This is how religion unifies people.

With a popular religion, the number that it would be necessary to kill would be in the billions. Even Christianity, taken as a whole (which is obviously not unified in belief), which has more followers than any other religion, the majority of people in the world would have to be killed. But the more difficult obstacle is that 1CellOfMany's proposed qualities of a religion do not fit with any of the popular religions of today, so the carnage would have to be quite incredible to achieve the goal.

The means are "not obvious" in that it would not be easy for one to devise such means. And yet the means toward this solution have been devised, and are being implemented.

In the religion to which I am referring, killing non-believers, even in self-defense, is actually forbidden! After all, if one has faith, then what is death but a huge step closer to your Beloved Lord? But for one person to take another person's life? That is surely a deed the Lord despises!

One of the central principles of that religion which has the potential of uniting mankind is the independent investigation of truth. (The first section of W. K. Clifford's essay, The Ethics of Belief, are a good argument for this principle. Many thanks, Pyrrho for this link!) Another is that Religious beliefs must be subject to scientific analysis, and that if a belief is contrary to what can be shown through the evidence and reasoning of science, the the belief is mere superstition. (Sorry, anti-theists, but science cannot prove that God or the soul or an afterlife do not exist! As for you atheists, I don't expect that science can prove that they do exist, either! If you disagree, you need to provide the proof - like a link to a proper scientific study in a peer reviewed journal - not just your opinion.)
When one has investigated the matter with an open mind, free of the prejudices of others, one will realize the truth of the second principle, which is that all of mankind are of the same human family. This knowledge is reinforced by the vast study of human DNA that is still being done. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/index.html

From an evolutionary standpoint, religions would not be so widespread and persistent if they did not provide an advantage to the groups that hold them.

That might be true, but there may be no relevant "evolutionary standpoint". Revenge wars have persisted among the groups of Papua New Guinea for a long time, yet dont appear to confer any advantages. So, apparently, either such wars are immune to analysis from an evolutionary standpoint or some evolved traits are disadvantageous.

Why do you say that? There may be better ways to experience religion, but to understand it is an entirely different matter.

I don't know about that. Let's consider a less controversial issue, for an example. Can one understand love without having experienced it?

Can the scientific method reasonably make a claim on the subjective? Or is science limited to objective measurements?

You should also consider evolutionary baggage. Competition is everywhere, so if aggressiveness has helped us survive as a species, then aggressiveness may be baggage from our evolutionary past, before we had such big brains in other words.

Have you heard of the new idea of memes?

Scientific investigation into the origin of religion isn't the best way to gain an understanding of religion.

Male lions have no predators. Except they fight one another. This war between lions insures that only the healthiest males will reproduce.

I wonder if we have forgotten to look at the quality of genes when it comes to humans. Perhaps its taboo?

Since knowledge appears to be the way forward for ensuring human survival, it seems only appropriate that biological evolution would slow down.

This is a good issue.
1. It does seem that technological and cultural evolution have taken the place of biological evolution -- with some exceptions. Certain pregnancies are now being terminated due to screenings that detect severe diseases. Also, those traits which help one to succeed in one's culture, are arguably more likely to be reproduced for economic reasons. On the other hand, welfare states sometimes encourage or fail to discourage reproduction by the poor.

2. Knowledge has also made it possible for the species to destroy or greatly reduce itself. I just heard a little about a germ-warfare program that Soviets were once developing against the U.S. Then we have atomic bombs to worry about.

On the other hand, if the species can get into space and spread out in several directions, it's chances for long term survival would seem to increase. At the moment, we are all gathered on planet Earth. If this boat sinks, we're all drowned.

This is a little off-topic (but it does involve science lol) but have you heard about research into dust storms from Africa causing abrupt climate change? There is evidence that giant sandstorms develop as a result of global warming throwing debris into the atmosphere. It would be kind of like a nuclear war clouding out the sun except probably not as severe. Something akin to a Martian sandstorm does come to mind thought, and those are nasty.

You should also consider evolutionary baggage. Competition is everywhere, so if aggressiveness has helped us survive as a species, then aggressiveness may be baggage from our evolutionary past, before we had such big brains in other words.

This is a little off-topic (but it does involve science lol) but have you heard about research into dust storms from Africa causing abrupt climate change? There is evidence that giant sandstorms develop as a result of global warming throwing debris into the atmosphere. It would be kind of like a nuclear war clouding out the sun except probably not as severe. Something akin to a Martian sandstorm does come to mind thought, and those are nasty.