Very interesting question. Each God would want to encourage his followers to go out and gather more people to follow him. Missionaries, Evangelists, a couple of Crusades now and then and even a Tebow or two! Rules would be set forth to populate the world and indoctrinate them into their particular religion. Removing members from other sects would be deemed good, holy and even worthy.

Must be reading "American Gods"....or any number of other sci-fi/fantasy books and/or playing some video games...

Hardly a new concept, my friend...

There was a video game in the early 90's that did something like this where you were a Greek god and had to gain strength through gaining worshippers, and then could eventually take on other gods using mortals as pawns. I liked that video game but forget what it was called.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Largest_religions_or_belief_systems_by_number_of_adherents

Looks like the God of Abraham wins followed by the non-god of secularism/atheism.

Addressing the premise here that all gods are equal, read I Samuel, especially Chapter 5. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=5&v=1&t=NLT
Also, you might want to read C.S. Lewis's The Horse and His Boy for an interesting treatment of worship of a god other than the real one.

Plus which all of the Narnia books are good stories. :-)

You should play the computer game "Black and White". It is based entirely on this premise.

Wow, Draugnar, just think - what if the non-god of atheism had divine power and carried out divine intervention. That'd be cool.

@Mujus - I'd rather read Tolkien if I wants swords and fantasy, and I'd rather read Brian Jacques or Richard Adams if I want talking animals.

The one real problem with that listing on wikipedia is it doesn't include the Agnostic faith. You know, there may be a God, but I don't see enough evidence either way to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt...

Well, the non-god of atheism is infinitely good since its divine intervention allowed its followers to do whatever they want which is a proof that it exists.

I'd rather read the Beijing telephone directory than Narnia. Better written and less repetitive...

Draugnar, unless you think Agnostics resemble that foster family from South Park, you can comfortably lump them in the atheist camp. Their life choices are inevitably unaffected by any religious doctrine and faith although they are open to paying attention to them as their prospective customers.

@uly - That would be incorrect. I knwo several agnostics who firmly believe in following the tenants of biblical morality because, while they are unsure if God exists, they would rather not find out in the end he did and they had fucked themselves. so they live a life of "Christian morals" as well as adopting several other religions' habits and customs. And they are good moral people as a result. they strive to better themsleves and the world around them. they protect the innocent with their lives if necessary. They do more good in the world than many Christians who plan to have death bed confessionals.

Those are not agnostics then, just religious bean counters, Christians that are weak in faith because they're in for fear of divine retribution and not for the love of God. The fact that they fear only the retribution of the Christian god and not any other pretty clearly shows their indoctrination with Christianity. Agnosticism isn't about covering your ass by following some moral code just in case it might be right after all, but about believing in the impossibility to answer the question either because the truth will never be known or because our current evidence is not extensive enough.

There's a site called www.adherents.com that's better researched than the wiki article, if you're interested Draug.

Question is that given multi-religions have sprung up in human history, what is it that gives the Abrahamic religions, in particular, their staying power? Go on all you evolutionists out there cut your teeth on that one!

Do they perhaps say something about the real existance of altruism outside of kin and hunter-gatherer group? Might that be the germ of an explanation for their longevity/enduring appeal? And, if so, what might be the origin of this?

Valhalla I am coming

the 'real existance' of altruism? I think you'll find that the 'real success' of altruism is all that is implied by their success.

It's like claiming that when societies manage to harness the kin/group altruism on a greater scale they are more successful... but i don't think that speaks for the truth of Abrahamic religions, it speak for the effectiveness of them.

Well you missed this bit from your answer:

Question is that given multi-religions have sprung up in human history, what is it that gives the Abrahamic religions, in particular, their staying power? Go on all you evolutionists out there cut your teeth on that one!

When Christianity grew into a global force, it was often through actions that can not really be viewed as altruistic outside of their group. I mean, in the Middle Ages, the papacy was ripe with corruption, to the point where several individuals in several countries decided that things were just a little too crazy in Rome and split off on their own, not all of them for benevolent reasons, and some of them (I'm particularly thinking of the Albigensians) brought down bloodily. I have nothing against the Christian faith, but thinking it grew through everybody holding hands and giving each other hugs (or if you'd prefer it less sarcastic, voluntary conversion) flies in the face of historical record.

@ sacred, the point is, from an evolutionary perspective, what gve Christianity its advantage? What made it fitter?

This question sounds a lot like the Discworld approach...

@captain. I have not read these. but I must confess to getting this question from the latest edition of the New Scientist. It has a selection of interesting pieces and i recomend it. Here is the general link, I do hope that you can get access:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328561.900-the-god-issue-new-science-of-religion.html

Christianity is not an organism.

But even if it were, it seems willingness to murder and coerce were certainly among the elements that brought it to where it is today, far moreso than altruism. Unless it was altruistic murder and coercion.

I'm not saying Christianity is bad as a whole, but it grew through a lot of blood and dirty deeds.

Abrahamics staying power can be, at least in part, attributed to Abrahamic followers willingness to kill non-believers who won't convert in the name of their God.

@fulhamish: Don't forget that only 33% of the world is counted as Christian, whereas 23% are counted as Muslim. Using a population growth-rate model, and assuming that the past average trend is predictive of the future trend (which is a HUGE assumption, of course), we should expect the 600-year-younger religion to outgrow Christianity. Just a thought.

Also @fulhamish: Memetic traits, such as specific language and specific religion, are greatly subject to memetic and chance-based selection factors, probably more so than genetic traits because they're so pliable. Christianity and Islam owe a great deal of their spread to missionary and military might. How many Moorish Spaniards converted to Catholicism simply to save their skins? Does that make Christianity in any capacity more desirable than another religion, or does it simply make Christianity good at succeeding other religions (similar questions lead to similar answers in the evolution of genetically-influenced behavioral traits, btw).

What makes modern English such a desirable language to learn? It has already killed a number of Native American languages in North America and has reduced Hawaiian to a collection of pidgin words adopted into English. The answer of today is largely economic. If ease of learning were optimized, we'd probably all be speaking Esperanto and not English or Chinese.

The more interesting question than "which religion is most fit" is "why has evolution selected for human ability to believe in religion at all, regardless of which religion is in question?" THAT is an interesting thought to ponder indeed.

@ cteno4, I must thank you for your well argued and considered response. Just a small point which does a little to detract from you argument is that I initially used the term - ''Abrahamic religions'' rather than Christianity. It got derailed in the thread, I will not, however, berate you for not reading the thread and forcing me to repeat myself. :-)

I guess most, if not all religions, have or had an element of conversion and compulsion in their make up. Of course in sociological terms this is not restricted to religion, it forms a rather unplesant aspect of most human activity. The question then remains what explains the success of the Abrahamic religions in particular? My view, for what it is worth, is that they extended the concept of altruism beyond the hunter-gather/kin group. For all of their imperfections, and I agree that these were/are many, this is a key idea. I think that in the context of the world of 1.5, 2,3 and 4 thousand years ago it was unique, or perhaps expressed in an uniquely powerful way. I ponder most days where did this strength originate?

Altruism towards others outside the kin group is not an idea that only exists in Abrahamic religions. It's in Buddhism and several other religions as well. And there are several instances in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, where outsider groups are seen/explained as inferior and not worthy of altruism (and in some cases, worthy of genocide).

Yeah, I was including all three of the big three as well seeing as Christianity and Muslim are 1 & 2 on the list and, together, have an overwhelming number compared to #3 (athiest/secular) on the list.

Now:
In what way would you want your preferred god to show his divine powers? Noting that other gods could retaliate with their own powers.

@SD - Outsiders in the NT consider that way? Not by Christ. Maybe by his followers (like the Roman Soldier who lost an ear in the Garden of Gethsemane) but they were always chastised by Jesus for their attitudes and actions in those instances.

Now the OT, yeah. If it was different, God gave you permission to burn it or at least turn away and he'd do it for you.

Paul's letters are part of the NT, Draug.

Paul does not speak as God's voice. Paul speaks as one who understands Christ and "has received the holy spirit".

But his letters are a part of the NT, and don't always have the best opinion of how to handle non-believers.

True. Paul is a respected part of the Church but he is not infallible unlike Jesus.

All I'm saying is, "there are several instances in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, where outsider groups are seen/explained as inferior and not worthy of altruism (and in some cases, worthy of genocide)."

And it's true, with Paul being the representative in the NT.

AGAIN. I'm not saying Christianity is bad. I'm just saying that painting it as completely altruistic to outsider groups is a false characterization.

@SD - OK, Christ wasn't exactly around to correct Paul, but could you be more specific for me? Remember, I know a lot from my own indoctrination, but have veered from the "true faith" to find my own beliefs in the Deist realm. I consider Christ's example to be a veru good one and Paul to be a human with flaws the same as any other.

@ sacred: ''And there are several instances in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, where outsider groups are seen/explained as inferior and not worthy of altruism (and in some cases, worthy of genocide). ''

This is the standard default response. Have you read the prophets? Yes you will find some isolated things which do not sit well with us today, but the whole thrust of the text is towards justice and social equality. I challenge any dispassionate and fair reader of the texts in their entirity, to come up wih an alternative reading. Indeed, given the context of their time, they were revolutionary and egalatarian documents.
Have you actually read the texts on the destruction of Sodom and the sparing of Nineveh in detail? They are wonderful illuminations of the development of the relationship between Man and God. To seize on a few extra-contextural selections from the Bible and jump to the conclusion that it is therefore a barbaric and ''tribal'' book does your case no favours.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly on those statements, Draug.

Quick googling mostly talks about his sexism and anti-homosexuality stances, but I know most of those are tied to "those non-believers that you're in geographical proximity to". True story, though: most of the hate quotes you see where an organization wants to convince you that the Bible says x, y, or z are bad comes from Paul's letters.

Really, the suck thing about this situation to me is: I do not, in any way shape or form, think Christianity is a bad thing, in fact I think it is mostly a good thing. However, I believe that fullhamish is grossly overstating its positive points to draw a specific conclusion he's already decided upon.

I've read the Bible cover to cover, fullhamish. I'm not saying it is in its entirety barbaric. I'm saying there are several instances of it. The flood, as another instance. Wiping out all of humanity except one family.

I would find my own religion and try to get tons of converts.

By making the religion as epic, badass and awesome as possible, people knowing that whichever god is believed in the most is real, would convert.

@SD - Re: the flood. There are documented non-Abrahamic records that show aregional flood inthe area of Moses around the time. While the OT author imposes it being "God opened up the heavens and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights", it is a documented occurence. The key takeaway is that God gave Noah a warning. The author(s) passing down the story embellished it to be "God was punsihing man but repented and gave Noah a warning".

I think that if you're a strict Christian, you don't believe that's an embellishment. I'm not disputing whether the Flood happened or not. I'm saying that, as written in the Bible, it's a case of a wrathful God.

Well, that depends on your view of "strict Christian". If yo mnean a "Biblical Literalist": then sure. But may Christians don't believe the OT to be a literal origina of life and history of the pre Chirst world. Some of us recognize it as being allegory and tales for humans with a much less developed and advanced world view.