Reply to comment

In reading the above articles, particularly "Darwin's God" I fell upon this question: "Does the fact that we have the mental capacities for discerning God suggest that it was God who put them there?"

Recently, I have approached the idea of the human concious (or, specifically self awareness) as the product of a genetic mutation; some faulty strain of RNA was improperly translated to DNA which allowed one of our many ancestors to not only recognize but define themself as a unique essence or being. With this mutation came the awareness necessary to identify the world around them as "theirs," something perpetuated by most religious tales. With this in mind, it is not difficult for me to understand the basis for the question proposed by the article.

Religion (or, similarly, mythology) was established as a method for explaining what could not be explained. The leaves fell off of the trees in fall because God willed it to be so, not because of the scientific processes we have embraced today. This long tradition of outstanding beliefs was once the product of the most straightforward explaination, achieved by a series of thoughts (assumingly):

I (in reference to the first self-aware ancestor) am not controlling the leaves.

Something has to be controlling the leaves.

I am capable of controlling what is around me (product of self-awareness).

SO: WHATEVER is making the leaves fall soon becomes a WHOEVER.

Though religion dictates that we are the product of God's intention, our ability to perceive and interpret the world around us gives us the ability to reclaim our foundation. The "whoever" mentioned above is not us, but must be like us, because they obtain the ability to change the constancy of our environment. Yet, they can change things we cannot even wrap our minds around, and so, we worship their power.

Obviously, I do not see religion as a survival advantage to our ancestors (and yet, if is the result of self-awareness, and therefore, in my mind, the result of a mutation, it would have to have been an advantage in order to have survived and been passed on!) I can understand why group religion would benefit the well-being of human kind (as proposed by the article) simply because of the darkness of the "reality" proposed by Dennett and others: if we are the consequence of a random combination of events, and thus, have no purpose other than to survive as long as possible, then we are as succeptible to extinction as any other living being. Perhaps the will to live on was fueled by the thought of eternal life after death?

 I've confused myself. I need to think some more.