Religion - a respectful discussion, for those interested

From Peter Kreeft's famous "20 Arguments for the Existence of God" (Not all of them are convincing, but some of them are. I'll start with this one)

"This proof is in some ways like the argument from religious experience (18) and in other ways like the argument from desire (16). It argues that:

1. Belief in God—that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due—is common to almost all people of every era.
2. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives or they have not.
3. It is most plausible to believe that they have not.
4. Therefore it is most plausible to believe that God exists.

Everyone admits that religious belief is widespread throughout human history. But the question arises: Does this undisputed fact amount to evidence in favor of the truth of religious claims? Even a skeptic will admit that the testimony we have is deeply impressive: the vast majority of humans have believed in an ultimate Being to whom the proper response could only be reverence and worship. No one disputes the reality of our feelings of reverence, attitudes of worship, acts of adoration. But if God does not exist, then these things have never once—never once—had a real object. Is it really plausible to believe that?

The capacity for reverence and worship certainly seems to belong to us by nature. And it is hard to believe that this natural capacity can never, in the nature of things, be fulfilled, especially when so many testify that it has been. True enough, it is conceivable that this side of our nature is doomed to frustration; it is thinkable that those millions upon millions who claim to have found the Holy One who is worthy of reverence and worship were deluded. But is it likely?

It seems far more likely that those who refuse to believe are the ones suffering from deprivation and delusion—like the tone-deaf person who denies the existence of music, or the frightened tenant who tells herself she doesn't hear cries of terror and distress coming from the street below and, when her children awaken to the sounds and ask her, "Why is that lady screaming, Mommy?" tells them, "Nobody's screaming: it's just the wind, that's all. Go back to sleep."
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#19


I would add that you could tie this into the argument from evolution. (not one of Kreeft's 20 arguments, but then he's a Ph.D. in Philosophy, not Biology)

Basically, evolution, or natural selection, says that the traits of a population of organisms will tend to change, over time, in response to changing conditions in their environment. One classic example is the evolution of peppered moths in Industrial England. To summarize, as the rise of industry caused the color of the buildings in London to darken, the population of the peppered moth species changed as well. More dark-colored moths began to emerge, and there were fewer light colored moths. The reason is that the soot-darkened buildings allowed the dark moths to blend in and be camoflauged, so they could not be eaten by predators.

So, evolution happens due to environmental factors that tend to increase the survival capabilities of one variety, while decreasing the survival of another. This changes the genetic makeup of the species as a whole, and thus the characteristics of the species change over time. Now, it is well-known, even by atheists, that human beings have always had a natural tendency to believe in a transcendent reality, a supernatural or spiritual reality, or what we commonly call God. Of course, some primitive cultures or those that evolved in the more distant past believe in many gods. But belief in the divine is a universal characteristic of humans, with few exceptions. (even today, only about 5% of people worldwide call themselves atheists). So, therefore, according to the theory of evolution, belief in God and religious activity would have to have some kind of survival advantage. If I sacrifice my life for my Faith, that is hardly a survival advantage, in fact it's the opposite....therefore self-sacrificing love, which is a characteristic of many people, perhaps the vast majority of people, is counter-evolutionary. After all, how many people would not give their lives to save their child, or even a complete stranger who is about to fall off a bridge? Won't the vast majority of us try to save them, regardless of their age, health, or any other factor? In other words, even though we may be much younger and have more of our life ahead, we will still risk our lives to save them. Again, counter-evolutionary.

But an even more fundamental part of the theory of evolution is that everything that we do has a real object, something real and tangible in nature, that causes us to do it....except prayer, religious activity, and a belief in God. So either we have an evolutionary tendency to do non-practical things for an imaginary god, or this God really does exist. Which is more likely? Why would we have evolved a spiritual side to our nature if there is no spiritual reality?