| ▲ | amelius 17 hours ago |
| The problem is that humans evolved to be religious, and you can't just ignore that and get rid of it in a generation or two. It is in our brains and we have to live with it somehow. So from that perspective ... maybe Jesus does cure depression. |
|
| ▲ | drsnow 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Humans most certainly did not evolve to be religious. We evolved to look for and, if necessary (to our minds), invent meanings behind things which sometimes have truly no meaning at all, i.e. the existence of existence itself. We also evolved to be fearful of the unknown, e.g. the experience of death and afterward. It seems quite simple to see how those two things resulted in our eventual invention of religion, but we did not simply evolve to be religious per se. |
| |
| ▲ | amelius 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not saying that every possible path of evolution leads to religion, only that ours did. | | |
| ▲ | tortasaur 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | By that logic, you may as well say evolution led to TikTok. "Religion taps into human psychology" seems more accurate. | | |
| ▲ | amelius 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | But what does that rephrasing change about the overall argument? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | LouisSayers 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Except some of us consider ourselves to be quite evolved, not religious, AND absent of depression. Maybe depression (or the lack thereof) has nothing to do with religion at all. |
| |
| ▲ | amelius 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you're trying to establish if X is a cure for Y, then looking at people who don't have Y will not tell you much. | |
| ▲ | account42 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Anti-religion aka the religion of Scienc(TM) is still a religion. | | |
| ▲ | malfist 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just because you call something a religion doesn't mean it is. There is no such thing as "religion of science" | | |
| ▲ | tortasaur 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | For some people, it is. There is a segment of non-religious people who do treat the current scientific consensus as gospel and moralize adherence with typical religious in-group/out-group dynamics, despite not really understanding or engaging with any of the actual material. I disagree that relying on scientific consensus is inherently religious, though. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Toslink 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
