The most advanced pre-modern civilizations (historical societies) were built on metaphysical presuppositions that we call “religious”. Modern secular society questioned these presuppositions on scientific (and often evolutionary) grounds. The main difference between the religious and scientific presupposition is the belief that a higher power regulates moral behaviour, and that such regulation is necessary for society to function. The religious subject presupposes that God is a historical necessity for morality; whereas the secular subject presupposes that the individual can determine its own morality.

This difference has concrete effects on (what Raven and I are calling) “pathological evolution”. Namely, common wisdom, as well as data, can be made to suggest that religious groups reproduce at a higher rate than do secular, atheist, agnostic or non-religious people in general. This presents us with a quite funny paradox: religious groups appear to be more evolutionarily “fit” then non-religious groups (or “individualized society”) when it comes to biological reproduction. In other words, while some evolutionary scientists argue that religion does not make sense in relation to the discovery of evolution, the very social evolution of religion seems to contradict this argument.

The purpose of this discourse is to dive deeper into this contradiction and attempt to unpack what it means. Is widespread religious belief in a higher power necessary for the continuation of biological reproduction? Or alternatively, does the absence of religious belief lead to an individual meaning crisis which ultimately de-couples sexual pleasure from its normative moral mandate (i.e. reproduction, child-rearing, family and community formation)?