I am now reading "Kingdom Triangle" by J.P Moreland. Awesome book. The second chapter got me thinking, though...
The most ready argument in the hands of atheists/agnostics against theists is probably that humans invented religion as a psychological crutch and it survived because it brings societies together, enforces moral law, etc. This is essentially their explanation for why anyone believes in any sort of God - it's useful for survival. [Other common arguments are how 1) you're being intolerant / relative truth and 2) the ultimate 747 / how did God begin?]
The assumption both sides have always accepted is that religion is profitable for survival - atheists because anything so prevalent must be and theists because religion is a good thing. This assumption may very well be true. But I started arguing from the point of an atheist.
Religion burdens a person down with a long list of rules, occupies much of their time in worship, takes at least 10% of their money, mentally preoccupies them, gives them an intolerance of new ideas, restricts them to one social group, etc etc. Additionally, most of the benefits I just enumerated for religion are group benefits - things that are only beneficial if most of a group has them and often benefits other in the group, not the user directly. Richard Dawkins himself makes passing comment at these benefits but considers them quite small compared to individual benefits (ch5 of The God Delusion). All the problems with religion I listed are personal. Anyone violating a moral law benefits personally if he is not caught.
To be fair, Dawkins does have a decent argument for the origin of religion - as a by-product of many other useful concepts. For instance, it is beneficial for children to listed to their parents without question. Therefore they will, and will pick up any incorrect but not hurtful advice along the way. This generational 'waste buildup' to form legend may have started religion. Also, concepts such as authority/law and design/intention by a person may have all conglomerated into religion.
However, an atheist may argue much stronger personal benefits for his belief than accumulated generational errors. Freedom from useless beliefs, higher mental clarity, ability to create morals and social norms through calculation rather than tradition (this was Dawkins response to a Muslim man on atheistic morals), more free time and money, true appreciation for nature and science, mental freedom and clarity in knowledge of ones own true position in nature, etc etc.
Now, bear in mind that I do not necessarily think atheists are evolutionary advantaged over theists. Persecution and willingness to die for others may dampen it a little but having a correct view of reality, moral based on truth, not agreements which can be broken if you think you can get away with it, freedom from guilt, worry, fear, etc are all good. But as I demonstrated, an argument can be made for atheism.
The implications of this are very specific and very significant. If the human species developed widespread belief in god (some form of God) where that trait is evolutionary inferior to what we assume is the normal atheistic state, it begs some other cause - namely God himself. This is an external argument against atheism [ atheist tenets (assuming atheists are also evolutionists), conflict with the evidence of widespread religion].
Contrary to what you may think, if theism is evolutionary preferred, the argument does not work backwards. Traditional theism does not include evolution and as such the presence of atheism does not suggest it had an external cause superior to theism. Traditional Christians who believe in absolute truth believe other religions are incorrect, and atheism is merely grouped in the 'incorrect' category.
I feel like this post isn't finished but I don't know where to go next. If you see a gaping hole please let me know. Over and out.
