It spreads for reasons related to its fitness as a system of ideas but unrelated to its factual truth. This is not how evolution spreads.
The historical survival of religions and societies is a matter of factual truth. Evolution rewards success, not epistemic purity. Is peacock’s plumage related to factual truth?
Please don’t be Internet-pedantic here. “Factual truth” here means “the factual truth of the statements made by the religion”, not “factual truths about the religion”.
Maybe there’s a confusion being caused here by the sentence “This is not how evolution spreads.”
It could mean at least one of the following:
1) “This is not how the theory of evolution itself was spread”
2) “This is not the mechanism according to which evolution spreads ideas”
It seems as if Lumifer interpreted your statement in the second sense (as I did initially), whereas reading your post in its original contexts suggests the first sense was the one which you intended.
The historical survival of religions and societies is a matter of factual truth. Evolution rewards success, not epistemic purity. Is peacock’s plumage related to factual truth?
Please don’t be Internet-pedantic here. “Factual truth” here means “the factual truth of the statements made by the religion”, not “factual truths about the religion”.
Maybe there’s a confusion being caused here by the sentence “This is not how evolution spreads.”
It could mean at least one of the following: 1) “This is not how the theory of evolution itself was spread” 2) “This is not the mechanism according to which evolution spreads ideas”
It seems as if Lumifer interpreted your statement in the second sense (as I did initially), whereas reading your post in its original contexts suggests the first sense was the one which you intended.