The ideas of religions have become refined over time–tribal deities invoked to bring crop fertility and victory in war have given way to monotheistic gods requiring their followers to enact codes of morality. However, this is a process of selection by human minds and cultures, gradually determining which ideas are more attractive–not a process of selection in our genetic code, because our genes do not code for any religion or any set of behaviors above the level of instincts. We should not expect biological natural selection to weed out religion, unless somehow a species with brains incapable of formulating religion became dominant. We very much would expect to see, and have seen, memetic selection weed out religions that were correlated with less powerful civilizations, such as the native religions of South America yielding to or being assimilated into Catholicism.

I also think we’re defining “natural” differently here. When I say natural in this sort of conversation, I’m not referring to that which isn’t man-made, which is admittedly a common usage (such as natural vs. artificial flavoring in food). Rather, I’m using it as the opposite of “supernatural” – ie, something comprised entirely of elements which have physical existence. In this sense, I wouldn’t call a car unnatural just as I wouldn’t call a beaver dam unnatural. They’re essentially the same thing, constructions out of natural resources by natural beings. Just because the dam or car didn’t build itself, doesn’t mean it’s not the product of entirely natural processes. The brains/instincts of man/beaver developed to the point where they could build such things, and the did so using elements contained in our natural universe. Cars and dams exist within the natural (ie, physical) realm.

Now, as a Christian I’d argue that there actually is ultimately a supernatural element in both cases – God instilled in his creation the laws of nature and even the workings of the mind which make the building of cars and dams possible (not to mention the original raw materials). But now that those pieces are there, I’d say both things are natural as opposed to supernatural.

Evolutionists still argue that the development of the human brain was achieved through natural selection. Thus, whatever it does is ultimately the result of natural selection (if indirectly). And consequently, if this naturally selected brain selects belief in God, is that choice (if it persists indefinitely without eventually being allowed to die out) not also naturally selected?

Who is to say that we have a “better alternative” than religion? What conclusive evidence is there to support this? I’m aware of many “good” and “bad” things done in the name of religion, and many “good” and “bad” things done in the name of naturalism. At the very least, it seems as though the jury is out on which worldview is “better.”

Finally, I still don’t understand how “good” and “bad” can even be known by a naturalist, without letting nature “do its thing” and demonstrate which is “good” by which survives. And here, again, we’re back to the idea that natural selection ultimately has an answer for everything, which is what I was arguing against originally. Again, to clarify, I don’t deny that natural selection is a real phenomenon, I merely question whether naturalists have anything better to ultimately explain the existence of anything, and thus it seems to me they rely too heavily on a phenomenon that I believe is rather limited in its scope…which interestingly you seem to agree with.

Patricia, Mary Cathren & Jamie Thrasher

The appendix is a nasty little construct in our bodies that serves no purpose other than to kill those who are unlucky enough to get it infected. A small appendix has a higher chance of getting infected, so by natural selection we’d expect to see people with either a big appendix or non at all. But we created science which helped us find a way to turn this disadvantage into a routine overnight stay at the hospital. So these people with crappy organs still get to transmit this trait to their offspring. That’s clearly outside the domain of natural selection.

The unnatural certainly exists, but unnatural is not supernatural. There’s no way that a car could’ve been formed by evolution. Why? Because non of it’s parts are alive. So saying that it’s either all natural or god did it is a false dichotomy. The artificial is something many species in the planet are good at.

So religion had its place and it helped humans survive and provide some shelter when their bodies were inadequate (like being too small, too slow, too weak, or not pretty enough.) But now that we have a better alternative we should let it become as useful as appendectomies have. All of this doesn’t discredit natural selection at all, because natural selection doesn’t claim to explain social interactions. You can’t criticize a hammer for being bad at making holes. Yet when religion claims to have answer for everything, that’s a red flag that can’t be ignored.