Is religion part of human nature?

[plindboe]

I have my own opinion on the subject, but would like to hear what others think first.

[neutrino_cannon]

As noted in Carl Sagan's and [I] Broca's Brain, some aspects of religion seem eerily simmilar to our own birth experience. Sagan muses on about what a marsupial religion would look like, perhaps a creation accout with an initial, premature birth, followed by a definative one. This of course ignores the fact that said method of birth leaves marsupials less likely to ever develop intelligence.

Regardless, the images and feelings that religion evokes are compelling enough that many people wonder whether or not it could be hard-wired into our brains. I'm gonna say that "hardwired" into our brains is relative notion.

Certainly, the capacity for notions of the ultimate nature of reality is a function of the massive capacity and unmatched processing ability of our brains. Perhaps no other species has any capacity whatsoever for anything resembling religion, although we haven't got the foggiest clue, in many cases, as to what is going on behind our own eyes, so speculation on the cognations of other animals is mostly unprofitable.

I'd give the inexpert opinion that religion is shaped by forces analogous to natural selection in organisms. The most compelling religions that gather the most devotees get passed on 9reproduce) in the next generation of humans. Those that aren't as compelling, or get wiped out by more violent and disagreeable religions don't survive.

In the past religions could have total dominene over an area, and today that's not true. There's a highly competitive market, imagine if you took leopards, lions and tigers and put them all in one environment. All highly simmilar members of the genus panthera, the ensuing competition would leave only the best and most optimised, assuming nothing else was possible.

The same thing happens with religions. Religion memes (I'll be lynched for using that word, I know) that are tough, compelling, comprehensable, or comprehensable enough, and evangelistic are the ones that will spread. If there is anything in the inner workings of our brains that are suseptable to religion, it would be exploited by the sucessful ones.

I am then of the opinion that religions seek to harmonize with whatever in our brains might make us like them. If it seems like they are inseperatably tied up with our brains, that's because the sucessful religions are the ones that can do that.

[jan]

Is drug addiction part of human nature?

It appears in all cultures, so it seems to be some kind of anthropological constant. So I guess it is part of human nature.

If you try to live without drugs, you are forcing unnatural behaviour.

Religion is another subject. Many people in communist countries lived without it, so it seems to be no part of human nature.

[Kumar]

NECESSITY IS A PART OF NATURE BUT ADDICTION IS NOT A PART ON NATURE OF ANYTHING.

[Yahweh]

Well, humans are naturally inquisitive, curious. Religion seems like the "cause (curiousity) and effect (religion)" byproduct of curiosity when answers to question cant be made ("where does thunder come from", "why do I die", etc.).

No, religion is not a part of human nature any more than multiplication tables are a part of human nature.

[plindboe]

But in every little tribe in the rain forest, we'll find that they have their own little weird religion, and it has been so with all sorts of tribes throughout history. The communist countries didn't allow religion, but instead all sorts of paranormal beliefs flourished. Religion and paranormal beliefs is closely related. Some people would say they're the same.

The comparison to drugs doesn't work in my opinion, since drugs is an outside influence on the human body, and therefore can't be used in examples about human nature. Religion comes from humans themselves.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by plindboe
But in every little tribe in the rain forest, we'll find that they have their own little weird religion, and it has been so with all sorts of tribes throughout history. The communist countries didn't allow religion, but instead all sorts of paranormal beliefs flourished. Religion and paranormal beliefs is closely related. Some people would say they're the same.
This goes back to the notion of "Where does thunder come from... I dont know, it must be something of higher purpose". Religions evolve over time.

I happen to think many religious beliefs are the same as paranormal beliefs. By jolly man in the clouds in the same as man who can talk to dead people (on a pragmatic level).

[Yahweh]

Woohoo! Look at the little Plindboe go! WEEHEE!

[jan]

Originally posted by plindboe
But in every little tribe in the rain forest, we'll find that they have their own little weird religion, and it has been so with all sorts of tribes throughout history. The communist countries didn't allow religion, but instead all sorts of paranormal beliefs flourished. Religion and paranormal beliefs is closely related. Some people would say they're the same.

The comparison to drugs doesn't work in my opinion, since drugs is an outside influence on the human body, and therefore can't be used in examples about human nature. Religion comes from humans themselves.

In every little tribe in the rain forest, we'll find that they have their own little weird theory about life, the universe and everything. It happened that some of us splitted this theory in several parts, that is, religion, physics, medicine and whatever.

The theories of tribes do have a useful purpose, for example, they explain the change of seasons, what distinguishes dead and life things, what is the cause of thunder, how should society be organized, and so on. If you call that religion, you bend words. Religion is the leftover if you strip the initial "theory of everything" from all that is falsifiable.

About the paranormal beliefs in communist countries: not true. There have been fewer UFO believers, homoeopathy believers, and so on in communist countries. This still even holds for some ex-communist countries. And although the people in those ex-communist countries are nowadays allowed to hold any religion that pleases them, they have still more atheists than western countries.

Drugs are obviously not exactly the same as religions. But I don't get your argument. Do you think drugs are manufactured and sold by martians? I was not talking about the human body, but about the human culture.




Besides... even if we assume that religion is part of human nature, so what? That wouldn't give us any hint about the truth of religious tenets.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by jan

Religion is another subject. Many people in communist countries lived without it, so it seems to be no part of human nature.

Only officially. All the ex-Soviet-bloc countries were always very religious, but people kept quiet about it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by plindboe
I have my own opinion on the subject, but would like to hear what others think first.

Well to be more engeral, I think the neutral term 'belief' is a part of human nature, probably thanks to the way our brains are wired.

Belief has been present in all cultures (yes, I am expecting the flood of analogies about slavery, murder, etc. etc. etc.) and everyone has some belief, whether a large one ('God') or a small one ('I don't need to bring my jacket; it ain't gonna rain today').

There are distinctions between so called 'blind' belief, and so called 'belief based on evidence'. But that is somewhat like saying there is pepper and there is pepper that is on a steak. Whether its an idea, principle, proposition, opinion, conviction, religious faith, trust, confidence, etc., it still falls under the umbrella term 'belief', and simply illustrates that we've all got it in some form.

[triadboy]

Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell identified an implanted story in the minds of all people. (They called it an archetype)

The story is of a man who is under some distress (or his people are). He goes on a journey and enters a spiritual plane. There, he obtains some kind of power. He returns and uses the new power to fix the problem.

Muhammed, Jesus, Buddha, and many other religion's mythicized characters all did this.

[jan]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Only officially. All the ex-Soviet-bloc countries were always very religious, but people kept quiet about it.

All countries? Some evidence?

[Eventually]

Almost all people are afraid of death, and if they aren’t afraid, then they are fascinated. I believe that both religion and/or belief in the paranormal are what humans developed in reaction to that fear and fascination with death. Most people cannot handle the idea that one day they will cease to be—that our mortal body is all we have, and after a few short years, it’s over. To cope with that horrifying thought, people created stories that allowed them to believe that we are “special” enough to be eternal.

Even now that I no longer believe in religion or the paranormal, I find it comforting to hear stories regarding the continuation of life after death, even though I no longer believe in them. It is part of the reason that I enjoy fantasy art so much, because it allows me to dream of a world where I could be other than the mortal body that will cease to be.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Kumar
NECESSITY IS A PART OF NATURE BUT ADDICTION IS NOT A PART ON NATURE OF ANYTHING.

ge Kumar, at lest Pillory makes sense when I read him, do you think you could explain your insight for us mere mortals. Go read up on the biological basis of addiction... it ain't demons buddy!

[Dancing David]

Religion is part of human nature, I have only met a few rational materialists in my time, the kind who espouse a hard belief in science. they get as touchy as a catholic if you question thier beliefs.

Repeating myself:
Religion is like toilet paper best used and then discarded.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Death is good and bad. Death is good because if no one died
stupid people would live forever. Imagine the damage a immortal jerry farwell could do! And death is bad because you lose loved ones.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by jan


All countries? Some evidence?

They were religious before Communism and they are religious now.

Either they were really religious all along, or they suddenly converted twice.

Which is the more likely hypothesis?

[c4ts]

Man's questioning nature and tendency to take drugs while searching for answers can result in religion, so I suppose that would make religion itself a part of human nature.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Woohoo! Look at the little Plindboe go! WEEHEE!
LOL :D There's one where he does ballet too. Too much testosterone in me, so I have settled with the little guy that looks like he's about to pee in his pants.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by jan
Besides... even if we assume that religion is part of human nature, so what? That wouldn't give us any hint about the truth of religious tenets.
When we have confirmed that religion is part of human nature, then the next question is why? What's the evolutionary advantage of religion?

Originally posted by jan
All countries? Some evidence?
Maybe you can provide some evidence for your statement; "About the paranormal beliefs in communist countries: not true. There have been fewer UFO believers, homoeopathy believers, and so on in communist countries".

Though it's quite possible that you can single out certain paranormal fields where there are fewer believers in that region. I think UFO sightings is mostly a western phenonemon, in the same way chinese astrology will primarily be found in China for instance.

I have always thought it was common knowledge how the paranormal beliefs flourish especially in that region. I think it was even mentioned in one of Randi's TV programs where he went to confront a few of the numerous psycics they have in Russia.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Kumar
NECESSITY IS A PART OF NATURE BUT ADDICTION IS NOT A PART ON NATURE OF ANYTHING.

Why not? Addiction results from our chemestry, quiaff? Our chemestry is our nature, unless you're reading something I don't see into it.

And what part does religion play in necessity play in religion? Religion is by no means necessary, and things deemed necessary are absent in Nature. Things go extinct when that happens, of course.

Isn't religious extasy remarkably simmilar to the effects of psychodelic drugs? I would imagine it's because similar substances are being secreted, at which point the question becomes whether it matters or not where the substances came from is relevant or not.

Frankly, I don't think it is.

[Mercutio]

Religion is but one way of making the environmental contingencies (of reinforcement and punishment) more salient. Rules such as "thou shalt not kill" or "don't eat pork" have enough evolutionary advantage in them (under the right environmental circumstances, that is) that they provide the power that drives some of the other rules.

Just as a peacock's tail is much more than practical, our religions have selected (historically, anyway) centralized control and ritual as the easy way to enforce the more survival-oriented rules. Because they are necessary? No, because they have worked. The peacock's tail is not the only design that works, but it is there.

Just as physical characteristics vary and are selected for by the blind action of the environment, so are individual behaviors, and so are cultural practices. Not all make the cut; the Shakers had a brief run, the Jonestown congregation a briefer one.

Does that mean religion is adaptive? Adaptation, of course, is a reactive process. We are shaped always by our past. When our present changes enough that our design cannot handle it, we get extinction of some forms, and pressure for new ones. Perhaps religion is still an adaptive cultural practice; perhaps our environment has changed so much that it is on its last legs. Even though the pace of cultural evolution is hectic when compared to physical evolution, it is still slow when compared to the things in our life we are used to observing.

We still have coelocanths around. I won't bet on religion dying off any time soon.

But when asking "what is the evolutionary advantage to religion?", remember to look at the past, not the present. "What was the evolutionary advantage to religion, and does it still exist" might be a more appropriate question.

Just my $.02.

[abiogenesis]

The desire to understand is part of human nature. An understanding of our environment and how it works and how we interact and integrate with it is necessary for a successful society. And humans are social animals. Religion was an easy way to provide answers and justify rules that help integrate the individual into a society.

Anywhere a group of primitive humans gathered together to form a proto-society, they needed a common understanding of their place. Each little tribe developed their own mythologies and superstitions. These beliefs reinforced social membership. They were useful.

As the tribes grew, they came into contact with other tribes with different "religions." Before the development of methods to make efficient use of natural resources (agriculture and such), tribes must have been quite competitive. Religions, because of their non-objective nature, promote an "us and them" mentality that serves the dual purpose of reinforcing membership in the group while alienating those you have to fight for food.

The problem, now, is that there is no more isolation. The Earh is actually a very small place. We have to deal with everyone on a day-to-day basis. There is now only one tribe, with six billion members. Yet we cling to the misguided belief that each of our "personal", tribal religions has some intrinsic value. What we need is an objective method of discovering answers and defining guidelines for social interaction. Twenty guesses what I think it is...

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[c4ts]

Communism?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by abiogenesis
The desire to understand is part of human nature. An understanding of our environment and how it works and how we interact and integrate with it is necessary for a successful society. And humans are social animals. Religion was an easy way to provide answers and justify rules that help integrate the individual into a society.

Anywhere a group of primitive humans gathered together to form a proto-society, they needed a common understanding of their place. Each little tribe developed their own mythologies and superstitions. These beliefs reinforced social membership. They were useful.

As the tribes grew, they came into contact with other tribes with different "religions." Before the development of methods to make efficient use of natural resources (agriculture and such), tribes must have been quite competitive. Religions, because of their non-objective nature, promote an "us and them" mentality that serves the dual purpose of reinforcing membership in the group while alienating those you have to fight for food.

The problem, now, is that there is no more isolation. The Earh is actually a very small place. We have to deal with everyone on a day-to-day basis. There is now only one tribe, with six billion members. Yet we cling to the misguided belief that each of our "personal", tribal religions has some intrinsic value. What we need is an objective method of discovering answers and defining guidelines for social interaction. Twenty guesses what I think it is...

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

My new cult?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=29325

I agree, curiosity toward the world about us is one of the defining human traits, and one of the more redeeming ones.

Our thirst for closure is like the suckage factor of a vacuum cleaner. We draw up anything light enough, but occasionally suck up some random nonsense like religion.

Religion fills the hole, explaining in simple (or bizzare and incomprehensable) terms the layout of reality. meme theory from there on out.

[abiogenesis]

Originally posted by c4ts:
Communism?Communism is just a red herring.

- a b i o g e n e s i s -

[Faithkills]

The human brain is a pattern matching engine. It's going to explain everything it can regardless if it really has the tools available yet to do so.

So you get gods, because we understand people and if there were people "big" enough they could be the reason things happen we don't understand now. Gods.

Add fear of mortality to the mix and you have a source of political power as the purveyor of immortality. Or at least something bigger and more enduring.

So the thing takes on a life of its own. People want to gain and retain power, and collectively bureaucracies want the same thing.

The technological breakthrough of religion was monotheism. Recognition that cornering the market on religion was a road to very great power. The secondary breakthrough was the concept of faith.. promoting the virtuousness of allowing other people to think for you. "God says".

Of course the reason the Soviets attempted to ban religion is because they recognized it, and their tenet was all power should be in the hands of the state.

In any event religion is inevitable because humans, except the most enlightened perhaps, all share a fear of dying and there will always be those avaricious enough to use that to gain power.

So it's a result of human traits.. curiosity, fear, and avarice, so to that extent it is human nature.

But there are more enlightened and better answers.

Theft is an answer to how to acquire property. It is universally understood and the urge to steal is in children before they can speak.

But because it's natural doesn't mean it's optimal.

FK

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Kumar
NECESSITY IS A PART OF NATURE BUT ADDICTION IS NOT A PART ON NATURE OF ANYTHING.

Good work, Kumar. We can close this thread down now.

On a different note, I've had this argument proposed to me in all seriousness - "since almost all humans are religious, there must be some truth to it." Very frustrating to point out the error in that logic over and over and over again.

[jan]

Originally posted by jan

Many people in communist countries lived without it, so it seems to be no part of human nature.

Since I think it is infertile to talk about the beliefs of all people in all communist countries, I avoided such talk. That's why I asked you if you think your statements holds for all former and actual communist countries.

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


They were religious before Communism and they are religious now.

Either they were really religious all along, or they suddenly converted twice.

Which is the more likely hypothesis?

Seems as if you are comfort with the universal quantifier. Let's see...

Germany has a distribution of 1/3 Catholics, 1/3 Protestants, and 1/3 Others (including a few Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and so on). About 1/3 of the population was part of the former GDR, a communist country. I do not deny that the communist government oppressed religion (and I would agree that this was a bad thing). But since it is no longer a communist country, people are free to express their religious beliefs, and statistics should be more or less reliable now. Significantly fewer than 50%, in some states fewer than 20% are Christians (and the Muslims, Jews or Buddhists are negligible in number). So I would say "Many people in communist countries lived without it" is perfectly sensible and in accordance with evidence.

Sorry if your local newspaper in Chicago told you otherwise.:wink:

(Oh, and for those doubtful, here are some figures: Federal Bureau of Statistics (http://www.destatis.de/themen/d/thm_bevoelk.htm), Statistics of the EKD (http://www.ekd.de/statistik/3219_kirchenmitglieder_bundeslaender.html))

Originally posted by plindboe

Though it's quite possible that you can single out certain paranormal fields where there are fewer believers in that region. I think UFO sightings is mostly a western phenonemon, in the same way chinese astrology will primarily be found in China for instance.

I have always thought it was common knowledge how the paranormal beliefs flourish especially in that region. I think it was even mentioned in one of Randi's TV programs where he went to confront a few of the numerous psycics they have in Russia.

I confess, I should have added a "some" before the word "countries" to make perfectly clear what I mean. Count it as a mistake I made.

Not all recent or former communist countries are alike. I do not want, for example, deny that Poland always was and still is a country with many devout Catholics. And China obviously is a country with a completely different infrastructure, so it would be not surprising if chinese astrology is popular despite the government discouraging its use (I am not certain whether the chinese government actually does discourage its use; there are rather strange flavours of communism out there, not all of them based on the 19th century version of Rationalism).

Randy maybe mentioned psychics in Russia. So Russia must be crowded with psychics, and all Russians belief in them.:rolleyes:

Perhaps we could give Communism a rest now, since I never intended to recommend Communism as a means against superstition.





Instead, I want to make another bizarre claim: that it is part of human nature not to be religious.

Anecdotal evidence:
In the preface of his books about the summoning of demons, Faust mentions the case of a poor guy being so miserable that he decided to sell his soul to the devil. So one night, the poor guy tries to sell his soul, but the devil doesn't appear. He infers that there is no devil at all, a remarkable conclusion Faust instantly denies as being valid. Faust instead explains how selling your soul to the devil is a delicate science that requires an expert, or the advice you can find in his invaluable book.

If you would be convinced that there is a heaven and a hell, would you sell your soul to the devil? Certainly not, I would say. So I would say even does people who think that they believe in heaven and hell are fooling themselves: they only believe in the mundane life and fail to actually belief or imagine an afterlife.

Remember all those saints and teacher complaining about all those baptized people, going to church, but failing to life a religious life.

And the older kinds of religions regularely used to be about how to behave in a manner that guaranteed you some reward in this life. It was a theory about how to successfully behave in this life. Many modern religions have given up this life as a playground of evilness.

So I would say perhaps it is part of human nature to play occasionaly with religion, but it is not part of human nature, but instead it is rather eccentric to be seriously religious. And also, that ancient religions have been sensible, but outdated attempts to explain the world, and that it is misleading to compare those ancient religions with recent religions.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by jan
So I would say "Many people in communist countries lived without it" is perfectly sensible and in accordance with evidence.


I could say that many people in largely religious capitalist countries live without it, and have less to worry about. Myself for example.

I think I somehow caught the implication that Communist "official atheism" had something to do with it.

Saying that religion is part of human nature does not imply that everyone is religious.


Sorry if your local newspaper in Chicago told you otherwise.:wink:

Which one? What one says, the other denounces. :p