The history of modern attempts to situate religion in the evolution of man arguably starts with Sir James Frazer and 'The Golden Bough' at the turn of the twentieth century. He was enormously influential. He suggests a slow progression from magic to religion and eventually to science, and says some interesting things about the movement from fundamentalism to more refined religions. This might be a bit tangential to your interests, but it might be a good place to start and trace its influential to more modern writers.

Considering fundamentalism is itself a modern movement, the answer is already given in the question. No! Religious groups don't seem to move out of fundamentalism, they seem to grow into them. But that's not really what evolution is about. 

If you are looking for broader histories of evolution and religion, Frazer is indeed a place to start. But for more recent and larger takes, from a sociological perspective see Robert Bellah's massive "Religion in Human Evolution" and from a somewhat cognitive science perspective is Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained." Stewart Guthrie's cog-sci approach in "Faces in the Clouds" is interesting, and Scott Atran's "In God's we Trust" is too.

In all cases, you'll need to think about what is defined as "religion." If all  you mean is "belief in gods," then you'll find one answer. But that's a simplistic way to define the complexity of religion (like saying economists just study how much money is worth.). Once you start thinking about the persistence of myth and ritual (aka, Star Wars) you'll find a different view emerging. 

Thank you all for what seems to be a good list of resources. Even though fundamentalism is a modern Christian phenomena in many ways, it seems to be return to a somewhat idealized pre-scientific past when the Bible was not subject to rigorous academic criticism..One wonders if it may be an example of "2 steps forward, 1 step back."

There also does seem to be a relationship between fundamentalism and poverty, including the things that accompany poverty such as less education, less security, etc.

This idea can be challenged on the basis of how many relatively affluent Americans have drifted into fundamentalist Christianity in recent decades, but I wonder if this still betrays a growing insecurity as one ages and draws nearer to poor health and death, as well as becoming disillusioned with success itself and seeking something that gives more hope. Still, even American fundamentalism is less violent, overall, than earlier medieval versions of Christianity. Another example of "2 steps forward, 1 step back"?

Definitions are important. I'm referring to the more competitive, traditional religions that have a clear institutional and cultural presence, rather than broader spiritual and mythological concepts that can be found in all religions.

Fundamentalism is a type of "revitalization movement", a reaction to cultural change.  "Give Me That Old-Time Religion" is comforting in times of great change -- that is, almost all the time.

Definitions are not only important; they're central. (Aristotle's Rhetoric still applies.) I have read that many people today consider themselves "spiritual" but not 'religious". The same author asked whether the volunteer first responders after Hurricane Katrina represented "religious" or "spiritual" groups. His point was that "spirituality" is not generally characterized by the organization necessary to accomplish the good works it espouses, at least not in ways involving groups of people.  (BTW, the first "first responders" after Katrina were the North Carolina Baptist men, bringing semi trucks of food and water!) In this thinking, religion is, at its best, organized spirituality. But like other human organizations, every religion can stray from its ideals. In the 19th century, science was embraced with a religious fervor, and in many ways lost much of its scientific basis along the way (See Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). In the early 20th century, Marxism, Communism, Nazism, and Socialism,  were embraced with a religious fervor. Today, the former three are greatly weakened, while many nations are struggling with finding ways to implement the ideals of Socialism within a viable economic framework. Many people are proclaiming the death of religion, when what is actually happening may be the elevation of Secular Humanism into a religion. In my most optimistic, clear-thinking moments, I see a growth from religion into a spiritually-oriented philisophy of life from which is springing organized efforts to sustain good works while avoiding exclusivity directed against those of conflicting viewpoints. The news, of course, paints another picture colored by historically Marxist attitudes, 150+ year outdated conceptions of science, and the desire to sell their stories.

But to return from my sermon to your original question, I believe that an encouraging number of humans are evolving toward an active spirituality and away from ritualistic, creed-based religion, but also far too many are evolving toward a religion whose prime doctrine is, "only those who are like me are even worthy of consideration as humans." To describe this movement as "evolving beyond religion" is perhaps to over-generalize. A few minutes on Facebook is enough to convince the analytical observer that the religions of Trumpism, Hilaryism, Bernieism, and the like, are growing like weeds! (Yes, the simile was deliberately chosen.)

Federal and state governments, including the military) were the largest responders to Katrina. This makes me wonder if a "spiritually oriented philosophy of life" reflected in a more compassionate government and other non-religious institutions might be the wave of the future. This assumes of course that current attempts to weaken domestic safety nets (social security, Medicare, food stamps, etc.) are temporary.

I would note that evolution is a very long term process and extremely hard to view from within.  Are humans still evolving in any way?  Probably.  Can we determine just how humans are evolving?  Probably not. 

I would also note that if, as many modern studies suggest, mind is independent of the material, then we cannot even be certain that a material based process (evolution) applies to mind, and religion/spirituality would apply in large part to the realm of mind not matter.

Given the resources of the agencies involved, I'd expect governmental organizations to be the biggest responders. My point is that spirituality may need to "incarnate" as a religion in order to make an actual difference in the physical human condition. Your comment seems to suggest that a more compassionate government and other non-religious institutions may be able to act as such an incarnation. That is certainly a hopeful suggestion, but as I see it, the evidence is at best mixed so far as to whether such a change is progressing apace.

I would suggest that the evidence is just the opposite. Empirical evidence from a variety of sources indicates that children very early on are equipped for religious cognition. The research is summarized by the cognitive science of religion (CSR) researcher Justin Barrett in his 2012 book Born Believers. Barrett contends that that the are a number of naturally occurring processes that provide a foundation for religious thought, including teleological reasoning and intelligent design attribution, both concepts empirically verified by researcher Deborah Kelemen and colleagues. Of the three hypotheses Barrett identifies as explaining how children learn about God, both the indoctrination and anthropomorphism hypotheses lack empirical support. The preparedness hypothesis, or the hypothesis that children possess cognitive faculties that equip them to believe in the superhuman agency of God, has the most empirical support. I cannot do justice to Barrett's excellent treatment and commend his work to you.

So, in short, no. Humans continue to demonstrate an innate capacity for belief in God, something both Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin called the sensus divinitatus and current CSR researchers term the hypersensitive agency detection device (HADD). Such beliefs continue to maintain traditional religious traditions, organizations, practices, and beliefs. 

How humans operationalize the sensus divinitatus is another question altogether. You wonder about the persistence of fundamentalism, and I would argue that it is not a function of belief in God but rather a function of belief itself. You will find fundamentalists among atheists, Hindus, feminists, communists, vegans, etc.Strong convictions and unadulterated devotion to an in-group and exclusion and vilification of the out-group is not exclusive to religion. I'm sure you've seen this demonstrated when two rival high school football teams meet. 

One important distinction is whether the reader wishes to explain or explain away belief in God. Barrett wrote, "A scientific explanation of how human cognitive systems form beliefs in gods only ‘explains away’ gods if you already believe they don’t exist. For believers, such explanations just specify the means by which actual gods are perceived and understood (or misunderstood) (2011, p. 150).

Your question implies a progressive and/or ethical definition of 'evolution' that is different from the one treated by real science. Evolution is not progressive and certainly not normative. It is just change over time, to which way may (or may not) provisionally assign causes, like adaptation.

The study of evolution usually is confined to biology, not because similar things don't happen in other settings, but because in other settings change over time is already well studied by established disciplines. Attempts by evolutionary biologists to subsume those other disciplines have been crude to the point of comical (e.g., Richard Dawkins' "memes"). Your question is historical and perhaps sociological, but not anything evolutionary biology can meaningfully address. And as neither history nor evolutionary biology (nor any other discipline) can predict the future of anything as complex as human belief, it has no answer.

I agree with you concerning the similaraties between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims when they interpret literally the Scriptures. Presently, some catholic groups (as charismatics or traditionalists) have a very fundamentalist reading of the Bible, but the other christians, more progressive, are opened to Science and Society. I think these two tendencies exist, so it seems impossible to imagine a future evolution beyond traditional approaches.

About Science and religion, I think that there is normally no opposition between a scientific thought and a religious practice. Presently, in the catholic Church, there is less interest for sciences than during the 20th century. From my viewpoint, scientific research works and a commitment to research are not well received inside the Church (in France). Some religious people and priests think that there is better to do! In 1996, Pope John-Paul II said that the evolutionary biological theory was not more a problem... but I suppose he did'nt really encourage christians to work on these questions of evolution. On the other hand, at the beginning of the 20th century, some priests as Breuil or Teilhard de Chardin became paleontologists to have a better understanding of human evolution.

Joseph, 

Yes, I was using evolution in a much broader sociological and philosophical sense. Thank you for the clarification. Still, I wonder if one can completely separate biology from the other disciplines. I also acknowledge the overwhelming complexity of human belief, but wonder if there are very broad, identifiable patterns. I'm not a fan of Dawkins, but I am curious why you consider his use of memes comical. 

Olivier,

You may be right that traditional approaches to religion will always exist, but if they increasingly threaten the well-being of society,  by ignoring science, sociology and history, and by failing to support efforts to achieve global peace and justice, will they ultimately go the way of other primitive societies - not completely disappear, but become rare and irrelevant?

I may be overly optimistic and simplistic in my view of human progress, but could the present non-interest in science on the part of the church, just be an example of "two steps foward, one step back"?

yes

Hi, Alan --

Your characterization of "non-interest in science on the part of the church" only applies to certain groups within the church, and only with varying degrees of accuracy to other religions. Hinduism and Buddhism (especially the Tibetan form), in particular, have long supported scientific endeavor. There is a great misunderstanding of the relation between science and religion, and as a scientist, I have found that far more non-religious people than religious people over-estimate the extent of such conflict as there is. Also, the misunderstanding exists on both "sides" of the discussion: many of the most vocal opponents of religion base their thoughts on an antiquated idea of some scientists' opinions, which may themselves have been based upon prejudice without benefit of the scientific method. And don't forget that fanning flames of controversy has long been a stock in trade of certain portions of the press.

My own courses on Science and religion have been well-received in my traditional North Carolina Baptist church.  We may be the white crow, but I really think we are not alone.

Hi Richard,

I was primarily referring to the Catholic church and it's lessening interest since Vatican II. Even then the Catholic church does not deny evolution or try to defend a "young earth" theory. As someone interested in world religion and spirituality, I am disappointed that a growing number of evangelicals seem to resist any science that contradicts their literal interpretation of the Bible. 

I appreciate the Dalai Lama'a interest in scientific research as well as the pro science stance of most progressive Christian denominations. But there are still large and numerous fundamentalist and extremist religious groups that seem to threaten the future of our species worldwide. Regarding these, I wonder if evolution might be our only hope.

Kevin, 

I follow your logic and agree that a belief in God can operationalize in numerous ways. Unhealthy religion is not necessarily a result of believing in God. I would add, however, the possibility of an evolving definition of the God in whom we believe. It seems that some definitions of God are more easily exploited than others. Some definitions of God seem to be more conducive to tribal, exclusionary thinking than others. Perhaps we are wired to believe in transcendence, rather than a particular definition of that transcendence.

Hi. Take a look at my piece:

Article Predicting subjective well-being by religious and scientific...

Very gradually, a new concept of religion is emerging. We know about some sages in India who respect all major religions. They encourage people to practice their own religion. They believe that all rivers flow to the same water of seas and oceans. 

Anirban, for a time that belief was fairly common within Christianity.  However, changes in the political realm discouraged that attitude.  Christianity then gradually became more exclusivist.  I think the ultimate truth lies somewhere between the acceptance of all religious paths and the attitude that there is only one right path.  Just what is the proper understanding in between those two extremes is the problem. 

Yes, William. That's the problem. We have to evolve to choose one.

Yes, William. That's the problem. We have to evolve to choose one.

Yes, William. That's the problem. We have to evolve to choose one.

If anything should be able to develop himself, it must be able to revise the "old."

Some religions has brought education. At the moment it lost the ability to revise, become a brake on progress.

Since the forum of this conversation is a scientific one I will point out that the definition of evolution seems to have been misconstrued at the outset. Use of the term evolution requires that a genetic change is being considered. It also presumes that the phenotype has a genetic basis that selection can act on. Much of what has been said above is about behaviors or attitudes that have not been shown to have a genetic basis that selection might act on.

If the questioner desires mechanistic responses to the question perhaps he can rephrase the question.

Cheers, Jim Des Lauriers

Hi, Jim -- I took the question to be using "evolution" loosely, as Edward Wilson did when he invented Sociobiology, (which seems to me to lack scientific footing). Your point is well-taken, but I think the questionerwas using "evolving" metaphorically.

Richard - Yes, I know. The casual use of several technical terms in the public arena is one of my pet peeves. We bemoan the public's poor understanding of evolutionary processes while at the same time using this particular term in ways that only aggravate the confusion. We also use teleological phraseology without meaning to imply teleology in a process or behavior. For instance, I've read in the technical that Monarch butterfly caterpillars are conspicuously colored "so that" birds avoid them. The statement as written is false and isn't what the author actually intended to say...but that is what he said. The language does allow us to do better.

Whew! I got that off my chest. Enough of that.

Jim

Richard and Jim,

I did use the term evolution loosely, but it seems the word itself is evolving. The biological definition is not the first listed in most dictionaries. What alternate term could better describe the process being discussed? 

I imagine that a professional sociologist would have a term that is consistent with other questions of a similar type. This issue is a nice example of an issue where careful use of vocabulary is very important.

Jim

This perhaps depends on what you referred to as "traditional religion." Here I think Durkheimian theory on the sociology of religion could be applied moderately. What perhaps, would fast forward religious evoltion is a critical study of religious texts (I mean all religious and sacred texts by its adherents). This subjection of the religious text to critical studies would help in the understanding of the contents of such text in the light of the modern society. I could sense a nature of religious evolution in which fanatism is gradually paving ways to religious moderation.

This perhaps depends on what you referred to as "traditional religion." Here I think Durkheimian theory on the sociology of religion could be applied moderately. What perhaps, would fast forward religious evoltion is a critical study of religious texts (I mean all religious and sacred texts by its adherents). This subjection of the religious text to critical studies would help in the understanding of the contents of such text in the light of the modern society. I could sense a nature of religious evolution in which fanatism is gradually paving ways to religious moderation.

This perhaps depends on what you referred to as "traditional religion." Here I think Durkheimian theory on the sociology of religion could be applied moderately. What perhaps, would fast forward religious evoltion is a critical study of religious texts (I mean all religious and sacred texts by its adherents). This subjection of the religious text to critical studies would help in the understanding of the contents of such text in the light of the modern society. I could sense a nature of religious evolution in which fanatism is gradually paving ways to religious moderation.

This perhaps depends on what you referred to as "traditional religion." Here I think Durkheimian theory on the sociology of religion could be applied moderately. What perhaps, would fast forward religious evoltion is a critical study of religious texts (I mean all religious and sacred texts by its adherents). This subjection of the religious text to critical studies would help in the understanding of the contents of such text in the light of the modern society. I could sense a nature of religious evolution in which fanatism is gradually paving ways to religious moderation.

This perhaps depends on what you referred to as "traditional religion." Here I think Durkheimian theory on the sociology of religion could be applied moderately. What perhaps, would fast forward religious evoltion is a critical study of religious texts (I mean all religious and sacred texts by its adherents). This subjection of the religious text to critical studies would help in the understanding of the contents of such text in the light of the modern society. I could sense a nature of religious evolution in which fanatism is gradually paving ways to religious moderation.

This perhaps depends on what you referred to as "traditional religion." Here I think Durkheimian theory on the sociology of religion could be applied moderately. What perhaps, would fast forward religious evoltion is a critical study of religious texts (I mean all religious and sacred texts by its adherents). This subjection of the religious text to critical studies would help in the understanding of the contents of such text in the light of the modern society. I could sense a nature of religious evolution in which fanatism is gradually paving ways to religious moderation.

This perhaps depends on what you referred to as "traditional religion." Here I think Durkheimian theory on the sociology of religion could be applied moderately. What perhaps, would fast forward religious evoltion is a critical study of religious texts (I mean all religious and sacred texts by its adherents). This subjection of the religious text to critical studies would help in the understanding of the contents of such text in the light of the modern society. I could sense a nature of religious evolution in which fanatism is gradually paving ways to religious moderation.

This perhaps depends on what you referred to as "traditional religion." Here I think Durkheimian theory on the sociology of religion could be applied moderately. What perhaps, would fast forward religious evoltion is a critical study of religious texts (I mean all religious and sacred texts by its adherents). This subjection of the religious text to critical studies would help in the understanding of the contents of such text in the light of the modern society. I could sense a nature of religious evolution in which fanatism is gradually paving ways to religious moderation.

This perhaps depends on what you referred to as "traditional religion." Here I think Durkheimian theory on the sociology of religion could be applied moderately. What perhaps, would fast forward religious evoltion is a critical study of religious texts (I mean all religious and sacred texts by its adherents). This subjection of the religious text to critical studies would help in the understanding of the contents of such text in the light of the modern society. I could sense a nature of religious evolution in which fanatism is gradually paving ways to religious moderation.

Hi, I think the concept of evolution is misplaced here, but if you look at the book Strong Religion, which was a monograph that tried to summarise the findings of the great Fundamentalist Project published by the Uni of Chicago in the 90s, you will see that the authors argue that fundamentalism may peter out because it started as a reaction against aggressive science, more specifically evolutionary theory and critical philology applied to holy texts. By the way, see my book, link pasted below

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentalism-Torkel-Brekke-ebook/dp/B0072S27LI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1443095825&sr=8-2&keywords=torkel+brekke

not beyond religion (Nietzsche, Marx and Freud were wrong when they thought to be able to foresee this development)... whereas I think that teher is much historical evidence about a process of overcoming religious fundamentalism...

The upcoming of book after book in series is the biggest prove of asked question. If there was no evolution then religions never get such Devin-Book series.........yet human conscious is in need of further deep insight for which two phenomenon are producing widely.......first religious peoples trying to make references from thierb books and second they are losing blind faith ..........both are clear presentation of "evolving beyond religion".

A very important question is that the fundamentalist schools that interpret religion according to the origins of the Quran and the Twara always exploit the emotional state in which a person passes through the role of adolescence and draws on it in a perverse manner. I think that the shift towards leaving religion or It will eventually get to be an inevitable outcome of salvation from the thought of thoseIt will eventually get to be an inevitable outcome of salvation from the thought of those

I appreciate the different views. Religion seems to be a search for truth and meaning based, most often but not always, on experience. Most often an unusual and powerful experience that seems to transcend normal, day to day existence is experienced by a leader and, subsequently, by the followers. 

This is all well and good until beliefs about the experience begin to replace the experience itself. To make matters worse, those who believe differently or have a different experience are seen as threats rather than as other pieces of the puzzle. Religion begins a slow death spur at that point.

Science, on the other hand, while not always as unbiased as it should be, will usually embrace new discoveries and experiences, ultimately learning and evolving as a result. As science begins to grapple with the paranormal and other metaphysical experiences, it may, in many instances, replace and surpass religion as the primary vehicle to discover ultimate truth and meaning.

Hi everyone! I am a new kid on the block,  but I have experienced it in my life, first when I was a fundamentalist because  it seems to me that there is a shift on your thinking after you have knowledge and you correct exegesis and hermeneutics of scriptures. After I started a D. Min I could understand  some embedded theologies and the influence on my thinking and discernment, and I  tried to influence my community, but they reject any interpretation that is not literally.  So does that mean evolving beyond traditional approaches?

I do not know!

Andrea, that has been my experience  also. I finally had to choose another approach to spirituality outside the institutional church, and another livelihood. A wonderful book that illustrates this path in detail is "Honest to Jesus" by Professor Robert Funk. He followed a similar path. 

What you're describing is the 'Secularization thesis' of the Western Enlightenment. Even its most outspoken modern champions (Peter Bergen I believe is one of them if my memory serves me right) have admitted that its just not holding up empirically on the world stage. Please see the work of Talal Asad and Charles Taylor for example. See Mark Jurgensmeyer for the modern phenomenon of religious nationalism.