Are the religious are more evolutionarily successful/fit?

Question

In the USA, at least, the religious are more likely to reproduce and to have more offspring if they reproduce than are the irreligious. Likewise, religious attitudes, including irreligion, are heavily influenced by upbringing. Interestingly enough, the most commonly accepted "objective" measure of evolutionary fitness is a count of grandoffspring. That is, if ones genes are more "fit", then it is logical that this would manifest in greater reproductive success for ones children. Therefore, since the religious are:

1: More likely to reproduce.
2: More likely to have religious offspring.
3: More likely to have more offspring, altogether.

It is only rational to conclude that they will have more grandoffspring than the irreligious.

Thus, could they be more evolutionarily fit than the irreligious?

Morlocks ate the Eloi. The Eloi were cattle.

Answer 1

Our Christian offspring,s will be brought up to believe
in God and know that evolution is just a lie of Satan.

Answer 2

You make your case on a great deal of bad axioms. First axiom "That irreligious people are less likely to reproduce." Something like this isn't taken on faith, and must be substantiated with a source. I have a child, and I'm Atheist, for example. I would say that irreligious people are more likely to breed, but less likely to marry.
Second axiom, that religious upbringing equals religious children. Not so, most Atheists here were brought up in a religious family, and have since shifted to Atheism due to the wealth of information they're privy to.
So this is, I'm sorry to say, a failed logic experiment. Not that it didn't sound good at first glance, but when you apply real logic to it, it falls apart.

Answer 3

absolutely! to answer this question you have to assume evolution though.
Your saying that statistically in the us the people with religious backgrounds have more kids than atheist so this means that going foward that there wil be more religious children.
evolution says the more fit u are the more offspring.
The only thing is that your argument is missing a piece in your logical argument, but technically this is correct, its just a more surfaced conclusion.
This is your argument:


Your argument involves alot of assumption but taking that ur assumption is valid then yes it is true.
One- because Christians value family more than others
Two- because we value kids more than others
And Three- because of the faith

It may seem that Christians are somewhat condescending or arogant, but if you think about it, most of the time the non- christians don't care about family life, they just want good sex and no worries, then yeah they might have a kid and keep it because they can't bare the thought of killing a baby, and christians do that too, but with the atheists its not out of love.
Also a faithfull persons mindset gives longer life because of the hope involved.

Answer 4

You insist upon no sex before marriage but still say that you are more likely to reproduce. You are correct in that many if not most of the unwed pregnancies in this country are from people of the religious right. The rest of us have the intelligence to use birth control. And where do you think the atheist amoung us come from. Much like one lesbian asked the guy who didn't want gays to adopt children because they would, in his estimation, turn out gay, where the gay people come from. Gay people rarely reproduce. Gay people come from straight people. Atheists come from religious people. And as far as your last comment, the rest of us realize that the world has finite resources and we should do our best to make sure it exists for our children and grandchildren, but you would rather just overpopulate and destroy the world so you can go to your greater reward in heaven. That is the same logic that has killed billions over the centuries.

Answer 5

Are the uneducated more evolutionarily fit than the educated?

The same stats fit there, my friend. (Education and religion are social factors, which affect natural selection, not genetics. Their influence on evolution is, at best, only a response to environment. When the environment changes, as culture is so wont to do, natural selection may take a different turn.)

Answer 6

Not sure I trust the claims that they are more likely to reproduce. If the current trends continue these religious people will keep having offspring that do question and then move away from following in the footsteps of their parents religious beliefs.

Answer 7

Wow, what evidence are you basing this on that religious people reproduce more than "irreligious" which is not a word btw. You have absolutely no basis for this argument. How about you get some facts and then we'll have an intelligent conversation.

Answer 8

The religious are also most likely to:

1. Be incarcerated.
2. Get divorced.
3. Abuse their children.
4. Have lower education/income levels when compared to the non-religious.

So yes. The religious are great at producing service industry Morlocks to cater to the secular Eloi.

Answer 9

If the primary reason for them being religious is based on the God Genes or other combination with similar effect, then yes. If it is just due to being a common environment then not likely.

The point being, you would have to limit the variables for survival down to religion or at least show that religion is a primary contributer to survival. (actually, you maybe right for other reasons, as the higher your education level the less likely you are to have large families).

Answer 10

1) That's cultural evolution, more than biological evolution.
2) We are in a period of population growth. When the growth stops, which group will be better prepared when the competition begins. You'll find that at crunch time, when the selection begins, the rules change.

Answer 11

You're silly. Do you know why football is played on Sunday? Because real men aren't religous. There are a few that are religious, but they are by far the minority.

Check the statistics of church membership.