Evolutionary science shows we do not need religion to have order and even courtesy in relationships. True. But the statement like ‘male generally provides protection and food. Male and female have very different genetic interests. Male persuades lots of female to mate with him. Female persuades one male to be loyal and faithful to her and to provide for economic upbringing of her offspring’ sounds outdated. Is it to justify patriarchy?
Oct 19 2012
”As religion declines, we are becoming ever more civilized”.
Leave a Reply
About the Author
5 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
mnb0
October 19, 2012 at 5:09 am (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
“Is it to justify patriarchy?”
You threaten to fall for the naturalistic fallacy.
Milon Ahmed.
October 19, 2012 at 8:55 am (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
It is correct that all religions are going to die.
sonofrojblake
October 19, 2012 at 3:16 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
An explanation is not the same as a justification. Being drunk may explain why you vomited on my shoes, but it doesn’t excuse it.
William Liberty
October 19, 2012 at 7:24 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
Extending the theory of evolution into human affairs is open to anybody with an appreciation of natural selection and some broad experience to draw on – there are no experts no matter what anybody says. The only thing that matters is empirical facts to back up any claim and everybody’s experiences count. In my experience both men and women are prone to temptation even when in loving, monogamous regular sex relationships. I would say that the supposed difference observed in this regard is mainly cultural and experiential not natural.
Bill Openthalt
October 19, 2012 at 8:34 pm (UTC 5.5) Link to this comment
To confirm what sonofrojblake says, understanding why behaviour exists by no means justifies it. Homosexuality is not more moral when it is determined by genes. It is moral because we, as a society, have determined that what happens between consenting adults is nobody’s business. This is also why paedophilia would not be seen as moral even if it would be genetically determined.
This passage is quite important:
If we are to build a non-religious morality, one thing we must strenuously avoid is demonising another set of humans, or treating them as unequal. Quite apart from anything else, this leads to a collapse of empathy. What we need to do is expand the circle of those to whom we feel empathy, break down the barriers that divide us, the tribalisms of religion, class, race and ideology.
(emphasis mine)
We have all seen how ideas can be used to drive a wedge between people, even in the absence of religion. The fact that morality is more a construct of society than an absolute $DEITY-given set of rules can also help us to see the relativity of our own convictions.