are humans religious only because we are raised that way?

Great Debates
1

In one of his RAMA books (science fiction, for those of you unfamiliar with this series), Arthur C. Clarke made an interesting assertion that has had me pondering for about 10 years now. I’m paraphrasing from memory here, but basically an uber-intelligent (but not alive) satellite is sent by an advanced alien race to scout the universe. When it stumbles upon an inhabited planet, it uses its limited time there (flying past on its programmed trajectory) to learn as much as it can about the planet and, if possible, communicate with the inhabitants.

Well, it comes to earth. First, it learns our languages… scours the airwaves and uses its adavanced computers to figure it all out. Then it is able to talk to us humans via radio signals. Now, it’s not a living being, it’s limited to its programmed information and its primary task is to gather more info, but it is able to give back to us as well.

One of its biggest questions is of religion. It claims that humans are one of the very few advanced civilizations now known to the makers of this device that still believes in a “divine being” and has such a large percentage of its species continue to be religious. It comes to its own conclusion that this stems from young humans being unable to care for themselves for such a long period of time, and that they are indoctrinated from birth into the religion of their parents. In its worldview (universeview?), that makes sense, and it’s implied that most other advanced cilviliations have offspring that can be self-sufficient much earlier, and that they are not raised into a religion and therefore have no need for it.

I have to say it has made me think a lot, and as a non-believer myself (raised religious, moved away from it in my early 20’s and haven’t gone back since), it makes some kind of sense.

I mean, we are quick to poo-poo the religious beliefs of anyone of a religion not our own – especially dead religions like ancient Roman and Greek mythology – yet many people believe equally improbable tall tales as being factual, as long as they are told in their own bible and not someone else’s.

Now I’ve heard many explanations as to why Man turned to religion in the ancient days – to answer questions that couldn’t be answered scientifically back then, to make sense of the world, etc. But it does seem surprising to me that we haven’t, as a whole, moved past superstitions as a basis for leading our lives. (I promise, I’m not saying that in an attempt to be offensive, but most religions require large amounts of blind faith in the occurance of unsubstantiated supernatural events.)

So my question is twofold:

To believers of any religion: how much of what you believe is based on independent research and thought as an adult, and how much is based on “it’s what my parents taught me” as a child? Do you think, had you been raised in a different religion, you would have stayed that other religion, or do you think a “calling” would have converted you to whatever religion you are today? Very hypothetical, but I think it could be a fascinating mental exercise.

To atheists: as fellow outside observers, what do you think of Clarke’s argument on the reason for humanity’s massive leaning towards religion as a whole?

2

I’m aware that this isn’t a direct answer to the OP’s question but the subject is also dealt with in a novel, Knowlegde of Angels , by Jill Patton Walsh.

Basically a stranger is washed up on a strongly island. He is an aetheist - the problem is this, what to do with him. Is he a heretic because he denies God or is he innocent because we need to be taught about God to know him ? The second thread of the story deals with the civilising of a ‘wolf girl’. The man’s fate depends on her inate or lack of inate knowledge of God. There are some interesting passages where the atheist is reasoning with the clerics sent to help him believe.

This would seem to echo the view that your upbringing guides you towards, or indeed away from, religion.

3

Most people are the specific religion they are because of their upbringing, sure. I think the reasons humans first turned to religion is partly neurological. Making quick associations, not always right, was important to survival, so you might link together two seemingly unconnected events by deciding they must have made some big man angry or pleased.

Not that there would be any way to demonstrate it, but I do think that if any other animal had progressed to the degree of consciousness we have, they would naturally assume the world had been created by a bigger version of themselves.

4

Yes.

5

David Hamer, who claimed to have discovered a “gay gene” in the early '90s, now claims to have discovered a “God gene” that accounts for human spirituality. I haven’t read his book, The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes (Doubleday, 2004; http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385500580/103-8561762-4890224), but here’s a couple of reviews: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/GodGene.htm; http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AD4E7-6290-1150-902F83414B7F4945.

6

I think that’s mostly right. Any society that was arelgious (as opposed to actively anti-relgious), would evenually evolve some sort of religion, although individuals may or may not take that path.

I’d also point out that religion attempts to answer many philosophical and moral questions that science alone can’t answer. The fact that we can say that lightning is caused by a great static electric discharge rather than an angry deity doesn’t mean much for those who want to know the moral point to the universe.

7

Speaking only for myself and my closest 60 friends, no. *None *of us were raised in the religion we now adhere to, and most of us were raised with no religion at all. Yet now we’re all highly religious (in terms of believing in the existence of a Divine Being and specific things we can do to interact with It and advance our own spiritual growth).

8

I think there’s also some neurological tendency for humans to seek explainations and/or patterns in things, even if there isn’t one. Gamblers who believe they have a “system” or a “streak”, for instance, base those beliefs on perceived patterns, even in systems that are totally random. Seeking the pattern of a “creator” in existence is easier to grasp than the notion that it all just happened randomly.

9

Interesting thoughts all around. I also ordered that Knowledge of Angels book, sounds intriguing and got great reviews. I find WhyNot’s situation especially interesting, and wonder if that is a natural anomaly, or inherent in the human need for a higher power? Have us atheists “overcome” that “need” or are we merely ignoring it? Or does it not inherently exist? This is Jack Handy, with Deep Thoughts. =)

10

To add to what Marley23 and rjung said, I also think that the human tendency toward religion is bound up in the fundamental experience of being an infant.

Before almost anything is learned, the infant experiences, at a deep, pre-language, pre-identity level, that there is an all-powerful other from which all things, good and bad, flow, and which can be supplicated.

The phenomena that Marley23 and rjung then come into play at a societal level, and the specific religious instruction imparted to the individual by parents and culture is the icing on the cake.

There is also the fact that, whatever bad things you may associate with religion, it can work even if it is not true. I mean, if I could truly convince myself that the Creator Of Reality Itself loves me, has a special plan for me, that all things happen ultimately for good reasons, that in the end true justice will prevail, and that after my death I will live forever in fulfillment with God–well, let’s just say I’d be a lot happier in the meantime!

11

Good post, rjung.

I haven’t read the book either, but I’ll just pipe in to make the point that he did not actually discover a gay gene.

12

Entirely on independent research and thought. I wasn’t really raised in a religious household–we went to church occaisonally, but it was a mainstream Methodist church and I didn’t really believe it. Was an atheist from around 14-20 or so, agnostic for a couple years, and then learned that being agnostic isn’t necessarily incompatible with being religious. I did some research, read some Spong, and became an Episcopalian. I’d call myself a Christian, but my understanding of God and Jesus are nothing like what’s taught to children in most Sunday schools, or what you hear Jerry Fallwall spouting off about.

It depends on how much of a cultural component that religion had. Some religions, like Judaism, Catholicism, Mormonism, etc. have an enormous cultural component that causes some people who don’t necessarily believe in the theology to still identify as a Jew or a Catholic or a Mormon for cultural reasons. If I was brought up in such a religion, I may very well have stayed in it. But I wasn’t, so I got to pick from the theological smorgasborg. :wink:

The “genetics explain religion” or “evolution explains religion” or “some other scientific concept explains religion” ideas don’t challenge my faith at all, because I think that those things (like everything else) were–by definition–created by God.

13

Oddly I was raised in the Catholic Faith, and figured out by around age 13 or so I didn’t believe any of it. I wasn’t pissed off at my Msgr., annoyed at the Pope, bridling under sexual repression, nor especially challenged to disbelieve by anyone in my environment that I’m aware of. I just plain didn’t. Right around that time I pretty much stopped attending. My siblings, eager to get their Sunday mornings free, insisted they didn’t have to go, and pretty soon my Dad just gave up, and that was that. He later confided in me he never believed in any of it either, but he made us go to Church every Sunday, attend the classes, say grace at dinner, etc.

Based on this limited experience, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was an inherited component to spiritual and religious faith; but I think we really need a lot more data to say conclusively. Perhaps my father’s rather stoic religiosity struck me on some level as unconvincing; or perhaps the death of my mother shook me in other ways that made me question the notion of a purely benevolent God; so I can’t rule out environmental factors at all.

But I doubt those played much of a role. I was not a terribly philosophical adolecent, so I hesitate to credit myself with much profound thought on the subject. Quite plainly, I simply had no interest in practice, as I got absolutely nothing out of it but boredom. Lot’s of other ex-Christians I’ve spoken to appear to share this experience. It’s only later, it seems, that many of us get fired up about the pros and cons, or even could be bothered to devote much time to examining why we feel the way we do. It is a curious phenomenon.

14

Functionally my entire religious community consists of converts. A significant subsection of same (I can’t tell whether it’s a majority or merely a highly vocal minority) is significantly opposed to anything even remotely resembling the religion they were raised in.

(I suspect the Religio Romana and Hellenismos folks don’t think their religions are dead, for the record.)

“Many people” may believe that their myths are factual, but they are quite likely in the minority of actual followers of their religions. This is especially the case in religions that have no canonical texts to set an orthodoxy from in the first place.

15

While I am a theist of sorts (I believe in a god who doesn’t give a shit), I’ll take a stab from a more atheist, or at least agnostic, position …

What purposes has religion historically served?

  1. As already alluded, it is a folk science. It provided explanations for the world around us. Science has mostly supplanted this role of religion for many. But there will always be that which is unknown and even that which is unknowable.

  2. It provides a culture with a shared set of axioms (morals) that justify a shared set of behaviors as enforcable and expected thus allowing for society to exist. Religion still serves this role for many although across most of the world a secular value system has also displaced religion for this role.

  3. It provides a shared group identity; a belonging. A way to identify those who are not us and to justify our treating them differently than those who are us. Other granfalloons exist but religion remains the greatest. And we have an strong wiring for preferentially treating those who we percieve as kin.

  4. It allows us to believe that there is meaning to life and existance beyond our mere being here and experiencing the world. We seem to have a need for this sense of spirituality.

None of these seem to be contigent upon having a prolonged childhood.

16

Generally, as citizens of societies become wealthier and better educated, they become less religious. Frex, all the religious Third World societies in contrast to the atheist/agnostic societies in Europe. The U.S. is the big exception here – I would suggest that is because culturally we are more of a Third World society than we can comfortably admit to being. It looked like we were going to turn into a First World society up through the 70s, but we’ve been backsliding since: increased income disparity, increased social conservatism, torturing prisoners, rigged Presidential elections … and increased religious belief. All hail the Generallisimo!

17

I remember at a cousin’s wedding my grandfather saying “I can’t believe we have to spend time with all these protestants”. Which caused me great interest and to mull on it for a bit. If he doesn’t want to spend time with a group of people who in essence believe almost the exact samething he does how is he going to treat a Buddhist or a Wiccan? It certainly is indoctrinated in him that his religion is the right one and all other religions are wrong. I shake my head each time I hear this from a religous nut becuase statistically speaking if you were born in say Saudi Arabia you are going to be a Muslim, if you are born in Tibet possibly a Buddhist, Japan Shinto, 2000 years ago in Rome the Roman gods, 3000 years ago in Greece the Greek gods etc. etc. Your religion statistically speaking is merely a product of where and when you were born. Yet people across all religions declare that theirs is the one true religion. This whole religion thing interests me greatly.

I for one have never understood this part of religion. If after I die I go onto eternal bliss should I not try my hardest within the rules of the religion to end my life? Any joy that I experience here will pale in comparison to the eternal bliss I will enter after I die.

To this atheist it hit me like a ton of bricks around 11 or 12 that people actually believed in god. I was flabbergasted that anyone actually believed in the tri-omni god. Frankly I was under the impression that everyone was just pretending and going through the motions in church like I was. Asking me why people are religous is like asking me why people like Ashlee Simpson’s music. It seems so foreign and obviously wrong that I cannot explain it.

What I can do is look objectively at what benefits religion gives to a society. To start out when I am talking about a religous society nearly everyone reading on this board doesn’t qualify. I am speaking more in terms where a single religion is number one on everyones list and number 2 is way, way down the list.

A deeply religous society will be able to justify murdering and stealing their neighbors property on the basis of them being of a different religion. It gives another difference between leaders that the leaders of that particular band can use to demonize their opponents. Its a lot easier to swallow killing and stealing when you make the victem out to be something different than you. Its extremely hard to club someone in the head when you realize that he is just a poor schmo just like you. An analogous situation in today’s world is that of nationality just magnified a good deal. It is o.k. for Iraqi’s to die becuase they are ‘them’, the enemy and different from Americans ‘us’ or the good guys.

A religous society is more likely to band together due to common beliefs. If we pass each other on the road and we are of the same religion that is a common bond we share. You have changed from a stranger who is a danger to a fellow 'whatever’ian. Humans intrinsically fear things they do not know or understand. When you say that you belong to my particular religous sect I gained a good deal of information about your beliefs and morals. Its even better that we agree and have something to build a relationship on.

In short a possible reason for religion is that the societies that developed religion developed a better ‘us’ feeling that allowed them to dominate ‘them’ who did not develope that feeling.

18

" All hail!"

19

More common among monotheisms than others.

I think it’s important to remember that most religions are (looking across history) at some level tribal; in the ancient world, it was normal to presume that people in different nations (however one defines ‘nation’ here) had other gods, because they were other nations. The idea that one people’s gods were particularly interested in other peoples (who weren’t involved with their chosen tribe, at least) is far from universal.

Gods tended to get traded across borders; a common polytheistic attitude is something like, “Hey, you guys have a cool god, I’m gonna worship them too!” This is how Jesus started being worshipped by the Norse (and some of the proselytisers who had been so happy with their success were alarmed to find little Jesus figures up on altars next to Thor images when they came back). At other times, gods were syncretised or declared equivalent by fiat (this was a practice of the Romans, who didn’t much care what people believed so long as they also worshipped the gods of Rome, and tended to say things like, “Oh, you have a father-god figure? Call him Jupiter, and we’re square”). (Some of the assimilation of old god and hero legends into the figures of saints could be ascribed to a similar process.)

Many gods were believed to be tied strongly to locations – “How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land?” (Psalm 137:4) It was also not uncommon for travellers to acknowledge and offer to the gods of the particular place they were in, as those were the ones who would be certain to be able to hear them; sometimes knowledge of those gods was brought back to their homelands upon their return, leading to the “They have a cool god” phenomenon.

Many folk would of course hold that their gods were better than others, and justify this with evidence of military or cultural conquests – as, of course, if the other folk’s gods had been stronger, they would have prevailed. (Or to point to differing customs, especially differing taboos, as evidence for inferiority. Cultural blindness is not a modern invention.) But this pretty much requires that other people have other gods, simply because they are other people. If they had the same gods, they would be our people.