

To the Editor:

If religion is good for humans, as evolutionary biologists now seem to recognize, doesn’t it seem reasonable that the Creator would design us with a congeniality to receive Him? It seems that science is finally catching up with what theology has always known.

Image Credit... Robert A. Di Ieso Jr.

(Rev.) Michael P. Orsi

Naples, Fla., Nov. 15, 2009

The writer is a research fellow in law and religion at Ave Maria School of Law.



To the Editor:

I have no doubt that our propensity toward religion is part of our evolutionary makeup. On the other hand, so are our taste for sugar and fat, our warmaking inclination and our ability to question received knowledge, just to mention a few.

We are made up of conflicting and contradictory parts that constantly fight one another and don’t always fit the circumstances of our current environment. None of them constitute some kind of final pronouncement on the nature of man (or the divine), and are no cause for worry to either believers or atheists.

Rather, we should welcome as much knowledge about our makeup as we can get in order to be better informed about how to face our own impulses and those of others.

Gabriela Maya

Houston, Nov. 16, 2009



To the Editor:

“The Evolution of the God Gene” points to archeological findings suggesting that religions are a useful product of genetic evolution, having conferred hereditary advantage to societies that possessed them. Atheists, the article suggests, may not find this welcome news.

As an atheist, I would first say that the premise that religions evolved (like everything else) is not news at all, and atheists will heartily agree. The bad news here is for the believers, who, to my mind, must conclude that gods are, at best, useful fictions, and don’t exist in reality.