Q: Why does humanity seem to have an innate desire and need to worship something, or someone? Why is there such a universal religious sense within humanity?
A: Once again, the question is intentionally misleading. I don't think there is such a universal religious sense within humanity. First of all the fact that no child will display religious behaviour unless led to do so by the surrounding culture - and that the particular belief held by the kid in that case will be that spawned by the surrounding culture - is proof enough that we are, by all means, born atheists and, in far too many cases, raised otherwise. Secondly, the fact that so many people, at some point in their lives, leave metaphysical belief behind is proof enough that we are not compelled by our genetic heritage to embrace a particular religion or world view. Yes, I am aware of the research that is being done into the possibility of a "god gene," and I find it all quite interesting. Still, gene activation and deactivation is a factor that should be kept in mind. Possessing the "god gene," should such a thing actually exist, would not necessarily bind one to belief for the rest of his or her existence.
There are, however, two characteristics that are inescapably hard-wired within us and that have given birth to mystical belief, organised religions and organised theologies. These two characteristics are 1) a constant search for meaning in a way that it minimises cognitive dissonance and 2) the need to keep one's sense of belonging alive and well. Belief and organised religion has been able to satisfy both such needs for most of our history and I don't think anyone in his right mind could deny that belief and religion have served some evolutionary purpose. Natural selection leaves little choice, if something is useful it will survive. Religion and belief have survived because they are the easy way out. It takes much less psychological effort to abandon oneself to the idea that a creative power has shaped everything that exists and, at the mere price of having to swallow mindless dogma and respect strict rules, one can feel part of a comprehensive group. The worship of a deity, and the sense of submission towards said deity are not hard-wired in us, but mere by-products of particular religious beliefs, a price to pay in order to be part of a group. Different cultures in different historical periods and geographical locations have built different religious customs around more or less different conceptions of deity, thereby altering the price to pay in order to be part of those particular groups. Some abandon entirely the concept of collective worship, favouring private rituals, whereas others subordinate the belief in one or more deities to the more central idea of ancestor or animal worship. All this, rather than being evidence of a transcending reality we are intrinsically attuned with, is evidence that religious beliefs and rituals are culture-determined and survive natural selection provided they are able to cater for the two aforementioned human needs.
A: Once again, the question is intentionally misleading. I don't think there is such a universal religious sense within humanity. First of all the fact that no child will display religious behaviour unless led to do so by the surrounding culture - and that the particular belief held by the kid in that case will be that spawned by the surrounding culture - is proof enough that we are, by all means, born atheists and, in far too many cases, raised otherwise. Secondly, the fact that so many people, at some point in their lives, leave metaphysical belief behind is proof enough that we are not compelled by our genetic heritage to embrace a particular religion or world view. Yes, I am aware of the research that is being done into the possibility of a "god gene," and I find it all quite interesting. Still, gene activation and deactivation is a factor that should be kept in mind. Possessing the "god gene," should such a thing actually exist, would not necessarily bind one to belief for the rest of his or her existence.
There are, however, two characteristics that are inescapably hard-wired within us and that have given birth to mystical belief, organised religions and organised theologies. These two characteristics are 1) a constant search for meaning in a way that it minimises cognitive dissonance and 2) the need to keep one's sense of belonging alive and well. Belief and organised religion has been able to satisfy both such needs for most of our history and I don't think anyone in his right mind could deny that belief and religion have served some evolutionary purpose. Natural selection leaves little choice, if something is useful it will survive. Religion and belief have survived because they are the easy way out. It takes much less psychological effort to abandon oneself to the idea that a creative power has shaped everything that exists and, at the mere price of having to swallow mindless dogma and respect strict rules, one can feel part of a comprehensive group. The worship of a deity, and the sense of submission towards said deity are not hard-wired in us, but mere by-products of particular religious beliefs, a price to pay in order to be part of a group. Different cultures in different historical periods and geographical locations have built different religious customs around more or less different conceptions of deity, thereby altering the price to pay in order to be part of those particular groups. Some abandon entirely the concept of collective worship, favouring private rituals, whereas others subordinate the belief in one or more deities to the more central idea of ancestor or animal worship. All this, rather than being evidence of a transcending reality we are intrinsically attuned with, is evidence that religious beliefs and rituals are culture-determined and survive natural selection provided they are able to cater for the two aforementioned human needs.
5 comments:
Hi Fabio.
I think that it is undeniable that most cultures throughout history have been at least nominally religious. This is a question, the answer of which may or may not lead to some reason for believing in the existence of a God. Children are easily led and, as you continue to rightly point out, they are able to change their views as they get older. Of course, whether or not atheism is itself a religion, environment could certainly cause a child to be more likely to be atheist. That’s right, atheism is not exempt from this relatively obvious principle.
I do not see how atheism could provide either meaning or respite from cognitive dissonance. These are two reasons to suspect atheism is not true. Your second hard-wired characteristic is the need for a sense of belonging. I am not sure that religion does offer this (at least in many cases). There is often a feeling of not belonging in religion. The remnant often feel alienated from this world which is not their home. Add to this the fact that the faithful are often persecuted, sometimes even physically tortured and killed for there faith, and we see that there is reason not to be religious. One’s faith would have to be very strong for one to remain faithful when faced with such problems.
Survival of the fittest is a concept which explains the “what” not the “why”. Why is there survival of the fittest in the first place? Couldn’t it be that it was placed here by a God? But I do not think religion is an easy way out. In many ways it is more difficult to be religious than it is to be non-religious. Religious people still use their minds and try to explain all the things that unbelievers try to explain-and more, for, there is a supernatural realm which also needs understanding. To say that every question of science, for example, is answered mindlessly with, “God did it and that’s all,” is a gross misunderstanding. We Christians may ask what God did and we also may ask why He did it. In contrast, the atheist is perhaps forbidden from asking why things are as they are. Why was there a big bang? There is no reason, for the atheist, for it is a brute fact and the universe is ultimately meaningless. If one is going to criticize Christianity, then one ought to know what it is.
Again, time and place do play a significant role in the religious views we adopt. But to say this makes all religious beliefs false is to commit the genetic fallacy. And atheism, to repeat, is also subject to the same shaping factors and influence as religion is.
"I do not see how atheism could provide either meaning or respite from cognitive dissonance."
Atheism is not an ideology but a word used to explicate one's own conviction concerning one aspect of existence, namely the existence - or, rather, non-existence - of a god. Atheism does not seek to provide any further meaning since meaning is to be given by the individual to his or her own life.
"These are two reasons to suspect atheism is not true."
Nope, these are two reasons to suspect atheism is not an opiate. All you have done so far is prove to me that atheism is not a religion, a thesis you try to overthrow later on. Be coherent, if you can.
"There is often a feeling of not belonging in religion. The remnant often feel alienated from this world which is not their home."
In religions with a strong attachment to the idea of an afterlife, might be. Regardless, religious communities or institutions do try to offer a comprehensive environment which will serve the purpose of satisfying the believer's sense of belonging to a group, even if the only thing uniting that group were a feeling of alienation.
"Survival of the fittest is a concept which explains the “what” not the “why”. Why is there survival of the fittest in the first place? Couldn’t it be that it was placed here by a God?"
Why is there survival of the fittest? Limited resources in a limited environment. Selective pressure triggers the process. It's the how and the why.
"But I do not think religion is an easy way out. In many ways it is more difficult to be religious than it is to be non-religious."
I beg to differ.
"Religious people still use their minds and try to explain all the things that unbelievers try to explain-and more, for, there is a supernatural realm which also needs understanding. To say that every question of science, for example, is answered mindlessly with, “God did it and that’s all,” is a gross misunderstanding."
Your supernatural realm is by very admission of most believers beyond understanding, hence your argument is trashed.
"We Christians may ask what God did and we also may ask why He did it. In contrast, the atheist is perhaps forbidden from asking why things are as they are. Why was there a big bang? There is no reason, for the atheist, for it is a brute fact and the universe is ultimately meaningless."
You keep on asking (stupid) questions and on giving yourself an answer. Are atheists forbidden from asking why things are as they are? Hardly. But since there is no why in the first place, we don't waste time asking ourselves a question that has no answer. Yes, the universe is meaningless, and your insisting on the point leads me to believe that your clinging to belief is a reaction to your fear of lack of ultimate meaning, exactly as suggested by my first anthropological point. Thank you for proving me right.
"If one is going to criticize Christianity, then one ought to know what it is."
As acknowledged by many already, atheists tend to know the faith of the believer better than the believer himself.
Fabio, an individual cannot give ultimate meaning to his or her life. They can have certain interests and goals and so on, but all this rings meaningless in the grand scheme of things, if there is no grand scheme of things. This is one reason why I believe atheism to be unlivable. What normally happens in practice, I think, is that professing atheists try to make their own meaning as you suggest they should, and then try to ignore the absence of ultimate meaning. But this is less than honest. Ideas have consequences and one consequence of the idea of atheism is the absence of ultimate meaning. The idea of no real meaning in life, I think, is one none of us may whole-heartedly embrace.
But let us go back to your first point. If atheism is only about one aspect of existence, then it is also about everything that aspect entails. If God is dead then so is everything else which comes from His hand-and that is everything else. Atheism is an unlivable lifestyle because atheists, in order to survive, live off borrowed capital from Christianity. Accepting or denying the existence of God affects every area of life. I'd call that a comprehensive view of life (or an ideology to use your term).
I don't recall ever claiming that atheism is a religion. It is a worldview, as I said above, but it is not, I suppose, a religion. But I think it is an opiate. Marx said that religion is the opiate of the people, as you know. However, it seems to me that atheism is an opiate. To say there is no God is a way to soothe the conscience, opening up freedom to behave exactly as one wants to behave. If that is not an opiate (or crutch) then I don't know what is.
I agree that a religious community can offer a sense of, well, community. Any community can do that, including the atheist community. Should I reject the doctrines of atheism (i.e. that there is no God and whatever else goes along with that by logical implication) because there are certain benefits, like a sense of belonging, offered me through it? Of course not but the same goes for religion. There are many different communities and the things that they say are often mutually exclusive so they cannot all be right.
Limitation of environment and resources are what natural selection is. This only tells us the what. Where do these limitations and pressures come from in the first place? It may be (or it may not be) the case that a really existing God is necessary to posit the processes of natural selection.
The supernatural realm is not beyond understanding. That is what theology is all about. Even you must be able to understand it to some extent to be able to believe it is not real.
Next, if certain persons, such as myself, believe merely because of fear of meaninglessness, this does nothing to say that the content of belief is false. To say otherwise is to commit the genetic fallacy. I should not reject atheism merely because some people have presumably embraced it because of a fear of accountability, should I? And one of the tests for a worldview is, "does it answer all questions?" If atheism holds some questions have no answers, then perhaps you ought to reconsider your views.
I think that your final point is way off the mark. There are things that skeptics will say that may catch the faithful off guard. For example, pointing out incongruities of numbers in parallel Old Testament passages or seeming contradictions in the Gospels about the Resurrection. But a great deal of what skeptics say in debate with religous people, I have noticed, is based on a great misunderstanding. Of course, Christians and Atheists will give different answers to, "does God exist?" but the actual criticisms of Christianity or the Bible, for example, are very often straw men.
In conclusion, I would just like to reassert that I am thankful to you for this oppurtunity of friendly dialogue. I do not see our discussion, Fabio, as a war or fight but as a neighborly adult discussion. I know that I do not like to be told I am wrong so I certainly commend you on your congenialities thus far. Thanks and goodbye.
"Fabio, an individual cannot give ultimate meaning to his or her life. They can have certain interests and goals and so on, but all this rings meaningless in the grand scheme of things, if there is no grand scheme of things."
This is but your own opinion, so don't spit it out as if it were a well-established fact. Countless atheists around the world live their lives with not even a tiny hint of the horror vacui you believers seem to suffer from and are perfectly comfortable with their existence being finite. Despite all this they are able to give meaning to their own lives and you are in no position to judge the quality of their choice. Stick to trying to (and failing to) prove that there is actually a greater scheme of things.
A god cannot be dead unless you prove its existence in the first place. Quite affirming that atheism is unlivable, my very being alive and well is enough to prove you wrong. All I see is empty claims, although I wouldn't really expect otherwise from an apologist.
Believing there is a god and a hereafter is an opiate. It is a crutch, to help you and the likes of you cope with your fear of being finite and mortal and that this life is all we have. Rejecting metaphysics is hardly a way of "opening up freedom to behave exactly as one wants to behave." But as long as you keep on assuming that your religion has a monopoly on moral behaviour - and as long as you keep on wilfully ignore two thousand years of history in order to do so - then every debate with you is just about pointless.
Where did I ever say that the reason why belief is silly, as well as harmful, is because religious community offer a sense of belonging? Satisfying our sense to belong is one of the reasons that gave birth to religious communities, and that's something you still haven't been able to refute. Read my posts carefully, before you start spamming my blog with mindless comments.
So now god is even necessary for selective pressure to be real? This is about the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a very long time, and just shows what length believers will do to fill in gaps or to create their own. Environmental limitations originate from matter's limitations. There is no "why" behind it and your insistence to find one is rather laughable.
Please, spare me the "but theology IS a real discipline" crap. It is not, it has never been and never will be. All it does is allowing people like you to take dogma as an answer to questions only you are asking.
Atheism holds some questions are not meaningful questions as they're asked taking for granted that certain entities exist when that is far from being the case. There is no "why" behind the universe, hence asking if there is one is meaningless. You should definitely reconsider your views.
Nothing personal, but I wish that goodbye were a real one. I do not find your comments in the least meaningful or even entertaining. Of course that does not mean you're not free to comment on my posts. I've never moderated comments and never will.
I feel there is no reason to argue about this in leangth. The answer as you pointed out some is as simple as "Humans want answers". If millions of people have problems living today with all the new answers we are getting every day. Imagine how it was 3000 years ago when people diden't even know for sure if there was anyone else but they're little 100 man tribe on the entire earth. Or even what the earth was. This is no way to convince me atleased that any spesific religon is right and when i see people try to use it that way i just get flabergasted.
"Surly mans need to worship something proves the bible is right?"
"He shoots! Oh but he misses. And so badly too. How is that even possible!?"
Post a Comment