I’ll copy a post I made in another thread a while back:
A good theory that I heard is that humans started believing in the supernatural because they had evolved the ability to link cause and effect. This was a tremendous survival advantage; when you have the ability to understand that your sickness is caused by eating that smelly meat, you have a huge leg-up on the other Australopithicenes chowing on magotty 'possum.
A side effect of this ability is false positives. Ook draws a picture of a buffalo on his cave wall, and the next day Ook and his tribe coincidentally kill more buffalo than the day before. Ook concludes that there’s a buffalo spirit that wants him to draw pictures of buffalo, and will reward him with better hunts. When the hunt are bad, even with the buffalo drawing, Ook tries to find another reason. Ook decides that the buffalo spirit didn’t like the sex act he and his mate performed the night before, so he never does a “Durty Sanchez” again before the hunt. Etc etc etc, a few hundred thousand years later you get the Catholic Church.
That’s like asking if rocks have done more harm than good. They can be used to grind cornmeal, or to bash in someone’s head - their possible use does not make them more or less evil.
a belief can cause harm, i.e. war and death. religious beliefs can also segregation among peoples. religion can be good for feelings of comfort which results in peace. the rock scenario doesnt seem analogous to religion
Wouldn’t that initial example be better classified under superstition? Although one might contend that there is no real difference between superstition and religion.
Freud disagreed, and instead viewed religion as a response to the “horror of self-awareness.” Humans, contended Freud, once becoming self-aware, began to seek purpose.
Using Freud’s thesis, we should never expect religion to die out, simply to adapt. The “institutionalization of religion” doubtlessly slows down that adaptive process, but I’d suggest it’s not what keeps religion alive. Religion continues, I’d venture, because people are hardwired to want to believe.
Religions don’t kill. People do, and they’ll find a reason to do so whether there’s a religion around or not. It’s a catalyst, not a cause.
It’s easier to motivate people to fight in the name of the abstract, religion generally fits the bill nicely, but it’s certainly not the only thing that does.
How many people have been killed in the name of democracy?
This ignores the reality of the situation–most adherents don’t “search for a safe haven” or “hope for protection” because they feel they already have it, which is of course the greatest reason religion still exists:
It’s not some great conspiracy, or some elaborate cash grab. It’s something much simpler–much more primitive–than any of that.
Religion continues because of faith. I’d suggest there’s nothing that will quell that, religion will simply adapt–a la John Shelby Spong, or Marcus J. Borg, for good Christian examples–it is not likely to die any time in the forseeable future.
Did the article draw from Persinger’s “Magic God Machine?”
If not, it probably should have. Dr. Michael Persinger has developed a machine that, by sending certain electromagnetic signals to the brain, can synthesize a religious experience. Quite impressive, really, but it doesn’t do much for an argument either way–after all, if there was a god who wanted us to have spiritual experiences, it only follows naturally that he’d create us such that we are able to have those experiences.
Most Christian churches, actually–even most Christians, outside of the US–have adopted a Marcus Borg-esque approach to Genesis:
“Everything in the Bible is true, and some of it actually happened.”-Marcus J. Borg.
Judaism overwhelmingly interprets Genesis–and much of the Tanakh–non-literally. Many go so far as to concede that Moses probably never lived, much less parted the sea.
While some may seek “purpose” in life, it doesn’t necessarily follow that there is purpose - for us or for the universe.
If we were “hardwired”, then there should not be any atheists or Agnostics, right?
A true statement. But people come in many different sizes, types and levels of intellect. Some people are more easily influenced/convinced than others. Some religions have proven to be a strong influencer in getting their adherents to fight for their beliefs or subject those who do not believe the same to a variety of tortures. God has often been used to support or justify wars and killing. You’re probably familiar with “The War Prayer” by Mark Twain or “With God On Our Side” by Bob Dylan? In terms of religions with a history of bellicosity, Catholicism and Islam come immediately to mind, but there are probably others.
I used the term “search” loosely and was also tying this more to the origin of religion. True believers feel they have achieved both physical and mental safety in their group but they aren’t born as true believers. As children. they are indoctrinated to accept and believe also, thus insuring that the group continues to exist and the inherent safety of the group continues.
“Religion continues because of faith” is a chicken/egg statement. Which comes first? I’ve said that religion was created as a means to explain the unknown. What would happen if a child born today, were raised without any exposure to religious thought or “faith”. Would they develop faith in an all-powerful deity with no outside influencers and with access to all the scientific knowledge we have today? I personally don’t think so. However, if you accept Freud’s vie, you may disagree.
But I believe that you are right in saying there will not be any change in the foreseeable future. Religion and faith is institutionalized in our world, handed down from parents to children, referred to often in the media, etc. There is no reason to believe that this will stop. Many people still want that “safe haven” and there is an awful lot of money tied to religion.
Perhaps my statement was too ambiguous. I didn’t mean we were hardwired such that we would all believe, I meant that we were hardwired such that we are inherently predisposed to believe.
You’re arguing against a man of straw. I stated that religion was used as a catalyst, not as a cause. You’re now reiterating that. The problem with trying to blame religion for wars, is that if God wasn’t used for a catalyst, something else would be–as it has been many, many times.
How does this distinguish religion from most other philosophies? How, for example, does this make religion distinct from patriotism?
And I’d be interested in seeing some sort of backing for the assertion that indoctrinating children is done to ensure the continuation of religion, rather than being the product of belief on the part of the parent.
No it isn’t. Which comes first is irrelevant, my statement is addressing the continuation of religion, not the origin.
And I’ve explained that I disagree with this. You don’t get to ignore my objection, and my reiteration of Freud’s statements, and carry on as though your premise has been granted. It hasn’t.
A single child? They’d probably grow to be atheist. A society of children raised as such? Historically such groups have formed religions. Historically there is no exception to the trend of societies to form religions. You would have it that a new society now would not, in fact, develop a religion. You base this on what, exactly?
As recently as 1947 a man, with all sorts of access to science and technology, wrote a book about witches. His name was Gerald Gardner. He started Wicca, which spreads today like a disease, among all sorts of people with all sorts of access to all sorts of science and technology.
It’s not as though we’ve stopped making religions. There’s really no reason to presume that we’re going to. You would have it that we’ve reached a point that we should expect this trend to end. I’d like evidence suggesting that’s the case.
It’s not just Freud, there’s considerable evidence supporting the notion of a primitive monotheism, unfortunately it’s generally presented in an apologetic light, making it difficult to find purely academic resources.
For what it’s worth, your understanding is generally more prevalent, and has been since Frazer, though new arguments are a rarity, and Frazer is usually simply recited ad nauseum.
Frazer was wrong about virtually everything he wrote about–from Mithra to Dionysius and back–I see no reason to accord him the benefit of the doubt here.
The vast majority of adherents aren’t making any money. Tens of thousands of priests swear vows of poverty and adhere to them. Thousands of preachers do likewise. In fact, outside of major scams, televangelists, and the Vatican itself, there are scant few involved making much in the way of an “awful lot of money.”
Again, these are people who adhere because they believe, not people running scams and tax shelters.
Indeed. The OP has “religion” narrowly defined as “a supernatural explanation for the unknown” that would be made redundant by progress and knowledge – and implicitly requiring deities and hierarchies. But it need not be so. We’re apparently “wired” to obtain satisfaction and reinforcement from the feeling or perception that we’re part of “Something Greater than Myself” – a religion, a nation, a cause, our family, our regiment. Religion, by dealing with our place in the grand scheme of things (assuming there IS a grand scheme of things) is a powerful response to that urge.
I’d say, for instance, that the POV of such notable atheists as Ann Druyan (and her late husband Carl Sagan), of finding meaning and wonder in the universe-as-is, IS a manifestation of the “hardwire”. They look upon a purely physical, natural universe and are duly awed and excited by realizing they are a part of a great natural process where each person and thought is unrepeatable and thus precious – a “spiritual” experience that does not require appeal to the supernatural or worship of any external immanent entity.
A nominally “atheistic” society could just as well evolve a “civil religion” with its own “civic” rites and dogmas that people would adhere to “just because” they have learned it is what is “good”. Ideological radicalism is just as much a form of idolatry as any cult.
I agree that some religions can be brutal, and I do not agree with the power struggle. A dictator should not be the source power. I think thats the reason peaceseekers play a role in war.
We in America have the freedom to choose. We can believe or not, as my faith teaches.
Other cultures such as Iraq, they have no choice of Democracy. People should have the right to choose.
Like you, many do not believe in a higher power, God if you will. And thats okay.
Have you considered that there may actually be something higher than us. Many people do, and thats okay too. I think the reason so many wars are fought over religion is “Just to prove or disprove God’s exsistence.” If fear of death were the driving force of a man’s faith. Why the wars? People die in wars. I do not believe the fear of death to be the driving force for religious fanaticism.
A true believer does not need to prove or disprove anything. A true believer just believes. Forced Religion of any kind is just Dictatorship.
I think religion is a byproduct of the evolution of our brains. The brain can’t conceive of nothing, no existence. So we’ve built artificial constructs in our minds to explain it all. Over the centuries, the ones that were most effective at scratching that particular need took hold and grew, and the others didn’t.
I dunno, I liked the theory of cause-effect more than byproduct of fear of the unknown. After all, most pagan religions were much more focused on mundane principals like a good harvest, medicine, love, clear sailing, and that type of stuff. The afterlife isn’t even a concept in many pagan religions, which either avoid the issue, make vague statements, believe in ressurection, etc. OK, maybe the latter fits into both non-afterlife and afterlife.
I guess that is the point of my OP. IF the genesis and continuation of religion is protection from and/or explanation of the unknown, then enhanced knowledge SHOULD logically eliminate the need for such a mechanism. Isn’t where the first person came from and what happens to us after we die attempts to explain the (at least presently) unknown? Many religions say a God/deity is responsible and that seems to be an accepted explanation for many people, although I believe that this is due more to social indoctrination than independent thought. Science, OTOH, says we originated from a chemical soup ( from which 1 celled organisms evolved leading to ever more complex life forms such as humans). Not very charming. However, to the best of my knowledge, there hasn’t yet been any definitive proof of a soul and no one has returned form the “afterlife” to report back, so the science explanation seems to make the most sense.
Where I’m trying to go with this thought is that mainstream religion may not be such an innocent belief system because too many wars, too much killing and too many tortures have occurred in the name of some God and religion throughout history. While religion may have been a useful way for the uneducated to “explain” the unknown, extending a belief system into “you’re either with us or you’re against us” isn’t where religion should have gone. There are those that believe that non-believers will suffer eternal damnation. There are the “Rapture” people who believe the only way to ultimate salvation is by accepting Christ. And of course, we have Islamic terrorists saying something like “We will kill all the infidels, God willing”. In other words, if you don’t believe like we do, then our religion demands that we kill you and all who are like you. The Onion had something to say about this here: God and Don’t Kill Rule
This is a wonderful viewpoint. I admit that I am in awe of many things - the planets, stars and universe, the concept of infinity, how evolution has built such amazing and complex living things, how humans and animals, etc. can live on things like plants and so on. But I don’t attribute any of this to a master creator and I don’t feel “spiritual” about any of it.
Thus, there may be an underlying something other than only fear/explanation of the unknown. BTW your OP tends to focus on that which is contingently unknown, and can later be found out about: as Sam Stone puts it, there is also “religious” experience as a way to “get a handle” on the unknowABLE. It could well be that no matter what plain information we put out there, there is something in the evolution of the human brain that means a plurality of humans just plain can not wrap their minds around the concept of “nothingness”, of no Grand Scheme of Things, w/o risk of emotional injury.
Neither does Druyan. Nor did Sagan, Asimov or Gould.
Well, in truth there we are reaching into the realm of subjective perception, really, hence the quote marks in my description of it as <<a “spiritual” experience>>. It’s whatever we want to call it, but there does seem that humans share an urge or drive to experience a sense of transcendent emotion, distinct from those emotional responses that we can link to a practical use (e.g. as opposed to how we can link filial and agapic “love” to the need to reinforce the family/social ties for the sake of collective survival of the tribe… and can tie fear and hatred of “outsiders” to that same urge).
All that, or there is “Some Power Greater Than Us”[sup]<TM>[/sup] out there, just very cleverly disguised
My two cents is that religion exists because God exists. We didn’t create God, God created us. Although I am Christian, I’ve always thought that God reveals Himself in different ways to each culture, so it may be that Buddhism and Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. are all equally valid. To start the discussion as “man created religion because…” ignores the possiblity that perhaps its the other way around.
Or maybe, it recognizes thatn allowing that alternative would lead this question eventually into an unresolvable stand-off. There is no logical mandate that the existence of a God or gods necessarily translates into the sort of formalized religion – one centered on “explaining the unknown”, to boot, rather than on achieving unity with God – that the OP seems to be talking about. Unless, that is, we presume that an essential nature of a god is to necessarily reveal him/her/itself formally. And that would then be a theological debate on the existence and nature of god/s.
My take on it was to argue that even granted the premise of “religion” as having human origin, it does NOT follow necessarily, as assumed in the OP, that it’s a fill-in-the-gaps construct that should perforce become obsolete. One answer is that if it is a human socio-psychological construct, it’s not an arbitrary one that can be simply removed by “extra information” but is inextricably tied to how human consciousness evolved.
It’s true I smilied the part about that there may indeed be something to the supernatural explanation, but that was more a gentle rib at the OP and a recognition that beyond recognizing the possibility there’s no certain statement I could make.
I read a book by E.O. Wilson a while ago where he summed up religion as (paraphrase) “simply an enabling mechanism for survival.”.
That made a lot of sense to me. If people are unable to go to work or provide shelter or obtain food or spawn and raise offspring because they are paralyzed or whacked-out over the mysteries and fears and contradictions of life, then humans wouldn’t be surviving as well as we are.
The fantastical, awesome fairy tale of religion, and the comforting and supporting structure that it brings, allows a lot of people to more successfully get on with their lives. Thus, the “enabling mechanism for survival” statement.
Kind of off-topic, but I think that humanity is still in the phase of development where our brains are really much too powerful for us to handle. We’re like 12-year-olds driving around on 1000cc race motorcycles. Because our minds can come up with so many fears and questions that can potentially disable us, mechanisms like religion (or televised sports, or Wal-Marts, or drugs, or any number of other things) fill the voids in our inability to understand and make sense of our world and our existence within it. They distract us from the things that scare and immobilize us, so we can survive more optimally.
