Religion could die out as world’s population gets richer, evolutionary scientists claim

    'If our environment continues to improve, Christianity and other moralising religions could eventually vanish,' says Dr Nicolas Baumard

    By Elsa Vulliamy | 9 May 2016
    The Independent

    Scientists suggest moralising religions – Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism – emerged due to growing differences between wealthy elites and poorer general populations.

    A wealthier population could mean the end of religion, according to evolutionary scientists.

    The group of academics suggest the world’s major religions, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, emerged as an evolutionary response to the differences in lifestyle between wealthy elites and other, poorer, communities.

    Evolutionary psychologist Dr Nicolas Baumard said affluence and wealth caused humans to have a “slower” lifestyle, suggesting the wealthy elite 2,500 years ago would have been less sexually active, less aggressive and overall lead more laid-back lives.

    “Absolute affluence has predictable effects on human motivation and reward systems,” Dr Baumard et al wrote in a study, “moving individuals away from ‘fast life’ strategies (resource acquisition and coercive interactions) and toward ‘slow life’ strategies (self-control techniques and cooperative interactions).”

    The study says living a ‘slow life’ put the elite at an evolutionary disadvantage, as they may have had fewer children, had less to eat (since they were less aggressive about acquiring food) and have reproduced later in life.

    In order to offset this disadvantage, Dr Baumard believes the wealthy introduced moralising religions to the poor as a way to introduce them to ‘slow-life’ strategies, therefore offsetting the evolutionary disadvantages the elite faced in being less motivated by acquisition, greed and procreation.

    The study said religious practice itself had been around since before a clear divide in wealth emerged, but that it lacked the focus on morality and fulfilment that is found within world’s major religions today.

    Religion is based on spiritual fulfilment, not material or physical fulfilment, according to Dr Baumard et al.

    They wrote: “To most people, believers and non-believers alike, it seems obvious that religion is on the side of the spiritual rather than the material world and that it fosters self-discipline and selflessness rather than license and gree.”

    The study said the idea that true salvation could only be found in moral behaviour, not in having the most food or the most sex, may have served as a distraction to the non-elite, leading them towards ‘slow life’ strategies.

    But Dr Baumard said that, as affluence becomes more widespread, moralising religion could be on its way out.

    He said living a ‘slow’ lifestyle was becoming more common among the general population, with people motivated to cooperate with each other and focus on fulfilment in areas of life that are not just physical – which means there is less need for moralising religions to control the behaviour of a large poor population.

    Writing in the New Scientist, Dr Baumard said: “As more and more people become affluent and adopt a slow strategy, the need to morally condemn fast strategies decreases, and with it the benefit of holding religious beliefs that justify doing so.

    “If this is true, and our environment continues to improve, then like the Greco-Roman religions before them, Christianity and other moralising religions could eventually vanish.”

    Stephen Fry on God

    Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook


    1. Religious groups oppose the teaching of evolution on the grounds that it
      is a flawed science and undermines creationist have had a handful of reverses lately.

      In other words, literal belief in the Bible means you have got to actually think in way a lot more than just sixx impossible factors just prior to breakfast, and I kid you not, the above
      list could be extended by dozens far far more
      not possible concerns all contained in the Congressman’s Creationist Bible.
      We can believe by faith that provided extended enough, such a issue could cone about,
      and possibly a strategy migyht possibly be identified to
      make it come about, or we can conclude that no approach atheist apologetics observed enables dogs
      to do anything other than generate theiur individual variety as the book
      of Genesis states Godd produced them to do. In addition we can stgate that limiting components are constructed into the DNA of a
      species. As a outcome it pleased the Lord, at sundry situations, and in divers manners,
      to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church
      and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the much more sure establishment and comfort of the Church
      against the corruption of thee flesh, and the malice of Satan and of
      the planet, to commit the really very same wholly unto writing which tends to make the Holy Scripure to
      be most necessary those former methods of God’s revealing His will unto His people bexoming
      now ceased. I make contact with Atheist Max a troll due to the fact
      he’ll hijack articles that have undoubtedly nothing at all att all at all to do with immnorality
      in religion and commence throwing out random bible versers that have definitely practically nothing at
      all to do with the subject the create-up is speaking
      about and fully ruin any reasonably priced discussion that may well have been going on with hhis offf topic ramblings.
      Atheists generally appear to convey they fundamentally hold to science, lead to and logic (and consequently some philosophy)
      whilst they will assert folks of faith realize faith to be believing
      in some thing there is no proof of orr simply produced concepts.
      For the sake of this list, I’ve simplified substantially (so the nuances of evolutionary theory and
      the exegesis of Genesis have been largely skipped), and I’ve
      taken the straightforward extremes of scientific and Christian interpretation, by speaking in terms of the Richard Dawkins view” and the Ken Ham view”.


    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here