Seriously, though. If a prediliction for credulity enhances breeding oppurtunities, then the genes for that would be selected. How would credulity enhance breeding opportunities? Well, suppose you are a member of an isolated and primitive community. The local strongman is in power. If you willingly believe whatever the local strongman says, you don’t question poor decision-making, you bow down lower than anyone else when praying, the chances of the strongman getting royally pissed at you and killing you or banishing you is small. If, on the other hand, you, through genetic predisposition, question authority, point out stupid decisions and refuse to bow down before inanity, you will be removed from the gene pool.

This might explain the recent (last 150 or 200 years) growth of free-thinking people and atheists. Liberal democracies protect the opinions of the minorities (or if they don’t protect the opinions, at the very least, they protect the life of the minority). The free-thinker and atheist are no longer cast out but are, instead, allowed to breed. If incredulity is a recessive gene, then the inclusion of the erstwhile outcasts would create more and more questioning minds.

I had never thought about an evolutionary advantage to a willingness to believe in the absurd. It does make sense, though. Democracy may (slowly) be eroding that advantage.