Sure; whatever. I'm not trying to suppose what the benefit(s) is (are), just saying there obviously is one.
Dawkins calls religion a meme and compares it to a gene but I think that is a flawed analogy. Cultural memes spring from nowhere, there are no inputs, costs, or downsides. Like I was saying, sustaining religion produces massive costs. Over the course of the history of human society, what percentage of GDP do you think has gone into maintenance of religion? Is it too extreme to suggest that 5% is the number? Considering that I'm not just referring to the massive construction projects but also to the man-hours of every priest, rabbi, shaman, religious scholar, etc. That means religion can't just be STICKY. It has to justify the fact that it reduces a society's efficiency by 5%, or whatever the number is.
Put two nation-states next to each other. One of them spends 5% of their output on religion, the other uses that extra 5% to build walls or guns, and yet the religious nation-states are the ones that have survived into modern society. Maybe it's because they were more cohesive, maybe it's because their religion made them more inclined to go out and attack the other nation-state. Whatever. The point is that you can't just discount it as a "hindrance to the human species."
|