Dear George,

I enjoy discussions with you. My personal belief
centers on sacred principles of thought and conduct.
I believe in the tolerance of other beliefs.
And as we know - there are many theodicies. They explain
human problems in many ways. The Hindu doctrine of
reincarnation deals with suffering and evil by extending
the life span indefinitely: one's present existence becomes
merely a tiny link in an endless chain, in which death
and misery seem only temporary and insignificant.

The mysticism of Buddhism or Taoism offers the believer
salvation at a spiritual level, where earthly cares become
unimportant. Christian theodicy holds out the hope of
eternal salvation in heaven in recompense for ordeals on
earth.

The Zoroastrian theodicy sees the universe as a battleground
between the evenly balanced forces of good and evil, with the
misfortunes of humans stemming from their failure to throw their
weight on the side of good. In Shintoism, which focuses on
ancestor worship, one's sorrows and the idea of death are
made more tolerable by the knowledge that one's life will be
remembered and celebrated by one's descendants forever.

All these theodicies imply that religion has some function in
social life; and, in fact, that is precisely the point that
Durkheim was trying to make. That this functionalist perspective
offers many insights into the role of religion in society.

Dear Lexi,

You do not get many books about maths/physics that are a priori hostile to maths/physics. This is different with many, even scholarly, writings about religion, where the author has more often than not the need to advertise his remoteness from the subject of his/her investigation, even hostility (towards religion, organised or not, towards beliefs in a supernatural Being or beings), throughout his/her writing.

Rodney Stark is not one of them. Though himself not religious, he wrote another book about religions, investigating known and presumed facts about the religions you mention and many others. He is certainly more knowledgeable of Durkheim, his observations and limitations than I am. During my recent stay in hospital and rehab (hip replacement) I managed to read it cover to cover. Although called Discovering God (HarperOne, 2008) he states very clearly on page 5:

“This book can be read either as a study of the evolution of human it\images\ of God, or as the evolution of the human it\capacity to comprehend\ God. The same theoretical model suits either interpretation.” (since Graham does not allow for italics I had to indicate them the clumsy way, since they appear in the text expressing emphasis). This reminds me of good mathematics that you can understand both as an invention of the human mind, or a discovery of some facts preexisting in a (Platonic) world of mathematics on its own.

Stark’s central interest evolves around the concepts of - and evolutionary need for - God or gods in various cultures/societies, extinct or not, rather than on ritual and social cohesion which, of course, are also functions of religion that "offer many insights" into religion, as you put it.

As for Eastern religions, he makes a point in distinguishing their manifestations among Western enthusiasts (who often seek them as a replacement for their mostly Christian religion that they were disappointed with) and how these Eastern religions are and were understood for century by their Eastern practitioners. These findings serve to support his definition of religion based on supernatural beings, a different emphasis than that of the classical Durkheim’s.

Dear George,

Again, it's been a pleasure talking to you.
I'm not familiar with Stark's work - however, I
do intend to correct that and shall seek
out his works through my regional library.

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

George, can you give a quick account of how Stark sees religion as an evolutionary outcome? Evolution results from survival of the fittest, so how does being religious, according to Stark, increase the chance of survival (obviously not talking about those chosen for human sacrifice here!)?

I have envisaged what he might argue and I have tried googling this but haven't found anything that puts it in a nutshell.

Dear Lexi (and Luciferase),

You can find the Stark’s book I first quoted from on http://www.amazon.com/Future-Religion-Secularization-Revival-Formation/dp/0520057317/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&qid=1325411520&sr=8-25, the second one on http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-God-Origins-Religions-Evolution/dp/0061626015/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325411365&sr=8-1.

The good thing is that in both cases you can read most of the pages of the Introductions (where he might have answered your question, Luciferase) online (the “Click to LOOK INSIDE!” feature). I purchased and read cover-to-cover only the second book, the first one I know only from what is available online.

Luciferase,
Neither I nor Stark mention seeing “religion as an evolutionary outcome”, although I admit that my terse reference to “evolutionary need for God” (WITHIN religion as such from its more “primitive” to more “sophisticated” versions) could be misunderstood.

From the Introduction to Discovery of God:

“(B)oth biological and cultural evolution seem to be greatly shaped by the principle of natural selection or survival of the fittest, which refers to the tendency for better-adapted organisms or cultural elements to prevail over the less well-adapted. Keep in mind that
I am not referring to the evolution of new species, but to natural selection within the “species” known as human cultures or, even to more greatly restrict the term, I am concerned with natural selection among variations within the “species” called religion.”

More of this on pages 9-11 from the Introduction available online.

george quote,...""I admit..reference to “evolutionary need..for God”

i find the joining of evolution
with religeon...a biased joinder

[spin]..kids are indoctrinated with evolution..[based on quasi science with pictures..sold to kids..just like santa]

ok religeon hangs off
the same claim...its not either or
ecvolution at its purest...would explain how god dun it

but its far from clear
that even the THEO-ry of evolution
got the sequances right...let alone replicte any bit of it

""(WITHIN religion..as such..from
its more “primitive”..to more “sophisticated”..versions)""

could loosly..be said to have evolved
but religeon has little to do with god..!
[its about the mess-angers and THEIR mess-ages

and only little more to do..with evolution
[yet..both not even a science][thus a theory]

the joinder of the 3
""..could be misunderstood.""

has been deliberatly confused[spun]
just like the evolution trial..has been spun

no judge judged evolution..[nor validated it]
it..[the trial]..was purely re teaching religion
in science-class..[full stop]..

to make it more
is spin

""From..Discovery of God:

“(B)oth biological..and cultural evolution..""

that deliberate..early joinder
dont mean..they are the same thing

two evolution concepts....?
""seem to be greatly shaped
by the principle..of natural selection""

lol...'nature selecting'..is gods way
selection...by what we love most in a mate

thats not science...thats god!

if *science selection..
name it science selection

if natural*...[that belongs to god]

[N/S..is A THEORY..
certainly not science method
and cetainly not religeon...its peer based fantasia][theor-ry]

""or survival of the fittest,""..

also definitivly
NOT a SCIENCE..or religious concept
[in fact the anti-thesis..inherant..in love thy neighbour]

two of gods concepts..abUSED
to turn us away..from god..to religeon or science[faulse god heads]

both not god!
[its just too clever..
if its not god..its not god...[full stop]

thus missdirects/leads us away
from gods infinite NATURAL/good
nature/nurture..into a quasi theory..[evoluny tunes..and sci lance]

two of gods methods/means[gifts]...conceptualised...lol
""which refers to the tendency..for better-adapted organisms..or cultural elements..to prevail over the less well-adapted.""

with the wolverines..devouring the sheep..
by blinding them..

with peer revieuwed spin