This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Why Women Are Bound to Religion: An Evolutionary Perspective

ColdFusionLazarus's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by ColdFusionLazarus

I have 2 nit-picking minor comments and a question. Elisabeth Cornwell said "Yet, without women passing on faith, belief, and dogma, religion could not survive through the generations." This isn't quite true because Shakers abstained from reproduction and had to rely on continually gaining new conscripts to survive. And the religion survived quite well for some time.

She also said "males who risked upsetting the status quo and did so successfully would have gained an advantage in their own reproductive success. Females who tried the same would not" and also "Let the man take the risks, and if he succeeds choose him as a sexual partner". Surely, in previous tribal times, a successful woman gaining a leadership role could pick and choose whichever strong men take her fancy. If not in this role then she might not be chosen at all, or may have to breed with the lesser-males. So there is some advantage for taking a risk, although I admit the advantages are less.

Finally, "there needs to be something tangible to replace the support that it offers". I'm tempted to agree, but what should replace the role of religion in society[qm] It seems some of us are wired to have something like religion that can sometimes unite us in our efforts to support each other, and play a useful role as a supportive extended family. A phrase I heard recently is the "therapeutic community". A kind-of-church without god could give us this. But then without the central, all-powerful dictator us unherdable atheist-cats might well strongly disagree and dissipate.

What would work to replace some people's reliance upon a faith group[qm]

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 03:31:00 UTC | #325951