Professor of Psychology Michael McCullough has conducted a study using evolution to explain why people are either religious or Christians. McCullough claims it’s “self-control” which has enable religion to evolve. A critical factor for success in life.
“In this research project, McCullough evaluated 8 decades worth of research on religion, which has been conducted in diverse samples of people from around the world.”
“He found persuasive evidence from a variety of domains within the social sciences, including neuroscience, economics, psychology, and sociology, that religious beliefs and religious behaviors are capable of encouraging people to exercise self-control and to more effectively regulate their emotions and behaviors, so that they can pursue valued goals.” –Science Daily
Now there is also a flip side of this study, even though according to McCullough religion has the ability to evolve by being able to instill self-control into people, it also motivates people into killing themselves with explosives. So in other words, religion does the exact opposite as well.
Confusing isn’t it? Because terrorists who are religious but are not living that long, in fact many of them die at a young age. Now it’s true, they are following their beliefs which are very violent. But believing in taking someones life is not a main religious principle, I mean Stalin who wasn’t exactly a religious man, took many lives. It’s more of a worldly belief that was mixed into a particular religion.
Over all what McCullough is suggesting is that religious people (who are not terrorists) and Christians are succeeding more in life than atheists.
“The fact that religious people tend to be higher in self-control helps explain why religious people are less likely to misuse drugs and alcohol and experience problems with crime and delinquency.”
In reality, this is been known for many years as it doesn’t take a genius to study this and certainly not with the evolutionary explanation behind it. Evolution which many of it’s proponents try to distance itself from religion, yet we see it being used to explain religion.
Hmmm, I thought they said it couldn’t be tested…lol…How could have “self control” and “living longer lives” evolve? Or how could a young man who believes in suicide bombing, and then blows himself up, live longer? How could that have evolved? Something that explains the opposite of things or situations using the same cause, doesn’t prove anything at all.