Why is religion part of human nature?

[plindboe]

Why is religion part of human nature? (If you insist that religion is not part of human nature, then just try to assume it for the sake of this thread. No need to get into that discussion again). Here's my hypothesis:

I think the reason for such irrational beliefs as we see in the world today, is that it results in groupings. A sort of 'us against the others' mentality. People within that group will be closer and anyone outside will either be perceived as someone who needs to be converted to the "right" beliefs, and if they refuse, they will be considered "enemies".

Imagine two tribes living side by side in a forest in a distant past. One religious, the other not. What will happen? Eventually the religious tribe would either try to convert people from the other tribe or they would eradicate the other tribe. With conversion, only the members of the 2nd tribe most prone to irrational beliefs would join, while the rest would be either shunned or killed. Thus people less prone to irrational beliefs have continuously been removed from the gene pool.

It can easily be imagined that such events has occured throughout the evolution that led to the modern man, and we still see it continue today. We can easily point to such events throughout history. The west conquered most parts of the world primarily because of our beliefs, so the advantages of irrational beliefs in a primitive world should already be obvious.

/hypothesis

Any thoughts?

[RussDill]

I've always been curious about this religious nature of humankind. Being raised a christian, have gone to church for about 20 years, and have never had a religious expereince, enjoyed worshiping, or had any desire to be closer to god/religious etc, I have determined that I am one of those on the otherside of the river that would be killed. A theological lefty if you will (if desiring and enjoying spirituality is a genetic trait of sorts).

Clearly though, there has been a kill/outcast the unbelievers thread in recorded human history and current events.

[espritch]

This echoes my thinking on the subject. Societies have traditionally been dominated by a religion that has served both as a means of social control and social unity. Those in the society who rejected the religion tended to be rejected by the society and sometimes killed. The net result would be an evolutionary impetus towards religiosity.

I also think religion has a relation to sex. Almost all religions tend to devote a lot of time to proscribing and controlling sex. And anything that relates to sex will tend to have a significant evolutionary effect.

[BroodingSkill]

Since I appear to be the lone Desmond Morris advocate on this board I will respond with what I know from my readings thus far. So far all of you are right in part, in my opinion.

Religion is just another reason for us humans to form in groups, but we will form groups around anything for any reason. Groups are almost always 'us against them'. The irrational beliefs help control the group and support the cohesion of the group itself. Religious prohibitions are of course more control, and since we are probably the most oversexed species on the planet, the more control the better.
The other element is our need to have someone in charge. A great sky father certainly fits this bill. He's illusive and all powerful and his wrath is something to be feared. Sure keeps the members of the group in line, especially since members of your group are his selfappointed representatives, and are ever watchful.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by espritch
Societies have traditionally been dominated by a religion that has served both as a means of social control and social unity. Those in the society who rejected the religion tended to be rejected by the society and sometimes killed. The net result would be an evolutionary impetus towards religiosity.
A wondrous example of circular 'reasoning' -- religion dominates, therefore religion tends to dominate. :D

Some may find The Biological Basis of Morality (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htm) interesting.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by plindboe
Why is religion part of human nature?

Religion explains the 'unknowable' to frightened people.

I think the reason for such irrational beliefs as we see in the world today, is that it results in groupings. A sort of 'us against the others' mentality. People within that group will be closer and anyone outside will either be perceived as someone who needs to be converted to the "right" beliefs, and if they refuse, they will be considered "enemies".

I think the 'religious' "us against them" is a fairly new thing. Before, I think, people were land-grabbing and raiding for different reasons and everybody had their own god with them. But the attacks weren't because the other people didn't believe in YOUR god.

Imagine two tribes living side by side in a forest in a distant past. One religious, the other not.

I can't imagine anyone in the distant past NOT being 'religious'. There were too many unknowns to be frightened by. Eclipses, lightening, meteors, earthquakes, tornados, etc. 'Someone' had to be doing those things for a reason.

It can easily be imagined that such events has occured throughout the evolution that led to the modern man, and we still see it continue today. We can easily point to such events throughout history. The west conquered most parts of the world primarily because of our beliefs, so the advantages of irrational beliefs in a primitive world should already be obvious.


With the invention of the Jewish 'history' things began to change. Then the appearance of Muslims and Xians finished it off. These religions feel the need to either convert or dash to hell.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by plindboe
Why is religion part of human nature?

Religion explains the 'unknowable' to frightened people.

I think the reason for such irrational beliefs as we see in the world today, is that it results in groupings. A sort of 'us against the others' mentality. People within that group will be closer and anyone outside will either be perceived as someone who needs to be converted to the "right" beliefs, and if they refuse, they will be considered "enemies".

I think the 'religious' "us against them" is a fairly new thing. Before, I think, people were land-grabbing and raiding for different reasons and everybody had their own god with them. But the attacks weren't because the other people didn't believe in YOUR god.

Imagine two tribes living side by side in a forest in a distant past. One religious, the other not.

I can't imagine anyone in the distant past NOT being 'religious'. There were too many unknowns to be frightened by. Eclipses, lightening, meteors, earthquakes, tornados, etc. 'Someone' had to be doing those things for a reason.

It can easily be imagined that such events has occured throughout the evolution that led to the modern man, and we still see it continue today. We can easily point to such events throughout history. The west conquered most parts of the world primarily because of our beliefs, so the advantages of irrational beliefs in a primitive world should already be obvious.


With the invention of the Jewish 'history' things began to change. Then the appearance of Muslims and Xians finished it off. These religions feel the need to either convert or dash to hell.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by plindboe
Why is religion part of human nature?

Religion explains the 'unknowable' to frightened people.

I think the reason for such irrational beliefs as we see in the world today, is that it results in groupings. A sort of 'us against the others' mentality. People within that group will be closer and anyone outside will either be perceived as someone who needs to be converted to the "right" beliefs, and if they refuse, they will be considered "enemies".

I think the 'religious' "us against them" is a fairly new thing. Before, I think, people were land-grabbing and raiding for different reasons and everybody had their own god with them. But the attacks weren't because the other people didn't believe in YOUR god.

Imagine two tribes living side by side in a forest in a distant past. One religious, the other not.

I can't imagine anyone in the distant past NOT being 'religious'. There were too many unknowns to be frightened by. Eclipses, lightening, meteors, earthquakes, tornados, etc. 'Someone' had to be doing those things for a reason.

It can easily be imagined that such events has occured throughout the evolution that led to the modern man, and we still see it continue today. We can easily point to such events throughout history. The west conquered most parts of the world primarily because of our beliefs, so the advantages of irrational beliefs in a primitive world should already be obvious.


With the invention of the Jewish 'history' things began to change. Then the appearance of Muslims and Xians finished it off. These religions feel the need to either convert or dash to hell.

[whitefork]

Triad boy posts 3 times. This means what he says must be trebly true.

Religion has traditionally given legitimacy to political power. This has to be one of the main reasons for its persistence.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Triad boy posts 3 times. This means what he says must be trebly true.

Religion has traditionally given legitimacy to political power. This has to be one of the main reasons for its persistence.

Well, he is Triadboy . . . we should count ourselves lucky he's not quintupliadboy, I suppose!

:D

[triadboy]

:D Sorry bout that!

[Bikewer]

Three times or not, I agree with his notion about our primitive ancestors.

Once we achieved a degree of sentience, our forbears were confronted with a very strange world to contemplate. (and remember, they are us, and we are them...)

All sorts of natural phenomena would have been explicable to them only in terms of some sort of supernatural agency. To my knowledge, all of the most primitive groups believe in Animism of some sort.
Spirits to animate all sorts of things, including ourselves. The belief that we are alive because we are animated by some sort of spirit (or soul, or whatever) seems almost universal.
This would have been reinforced by the death of creatures or fellow humans without any signs of cause. When granny didn't wake up in the cave one day, her spirit must have departed. We speak in such terms today.

Neuroscience has shown that there are structures in the brain that respond directly to such things as ritual and repetition as well.

All this would lay the foundation for religious belief, which would also evolve with human culture, reinforced by the societal dynamics and political concerns expressed above.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Kullervo

Religion has traditionally given legitimacy to political power. This has to be one of the main reasons for its persistence.
FWIW, my thoughts exactly although I'd the say the main reason. The morality bs only provides added us vs them cohesiveness and works generation after generation.

Are there any -- and if so I posit damn few -- atheistic tyranical regimes that survive into the 2rd generation of the power structure, let alone the third generation?

[sackett]

The religion of hunting peoples was different from what we commonly mean by the term. The hunter was concerned more with augmenting his power as an individual than he was with propitiating the powers. Storms, floods, stampedes, even droughts meant relatively little to hunters; another day would bring other luck, and there was always something to eat somewhere.

Then along came agriculture. Now men were at the mercy of nature: their survival depended on the weather and the locusts and whoever it was who sent crop blights. With agriculture and a settled way of life, the world got worse. Fear became a chronic condition, instead of a brief exhilaration. Then priests, and after them kings and emperors, stood up.

Agriculture, of course, is a thing of yesterday in evolutionary terms. I don't think the really pernicious religions ever have had any measurable survival value, or if they did, it's impossible to know. On the general principle that nonsense isn't good for people, I'd surmise that religion does nothing but harm to the species Man.

The impulses that we can broadly call "religious" may be intrinsic to consciousness, as least as consciousness has evolved in apes. When these impulses find expression in art and play - and hunting peoples play a lot - they lighten our human lives and the lives of our descendants. All honor to the religious mind!

And the curse of death upon the priests! No, wait, I can think of a worse fate for them: Let the god-mongers be kicked out of their soft chairs and obliged to make a living!

[DarkPrimus]

People are afraid of the unknown and the seemingly unexplainable, and "God did it" is a pretty through catch-all.

[Igopogo]

Originally posted by triadboy


Religion explains the 'unknowable' to frightened people.

[b]

With the invention of the Jewish 'history' things began to change. Then the appearance of Muslims and Xians finished it off. These religions feel the need to either convert or dash to hell.

I agree with the frightened part, but I think they also address our curiousity and teaches ideas to others. We still use mythology for the same reasons today in the form of movies, books, etc... I like Joseph Campbell's theory that mythologies used to evolve with our understanding and experience of the world, but writing changed that. The major religions are frozen in time to a place that loses relevence to our exeriences every year.

[cbish]

Here's another angle to the thread.

Why do people continue to call themselves religious? I don't have the exact numbers but I recall hearing studies sited that said 85+% of people consider themselves religious (When asked are you religious; yes/no). Yet only about 20% of our population actually participates regularly.

Why this discrepancy? Tradition? Conformity? Apathy?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by cbish
Here's another angle to the thread.

Why do people continue to call themselves religious? I don't have the exact numbers but I recall hearing studies sited that said 85+% of people consider themselves religious (When asked are you religious; yes/no). Yet only about 20% of our population actually participates regularly.

Why this discrepancy? Tradition? Conformity? Apathy?

I've confronted people on this. They feel connected with a higher power. It makes them feel good. I would also say that this number is higher than 85%, because there are many people with the same feeling and blind faith, but directed at areas not commonly though of as "religious", such as remote viewing.

[cbish]

RussDill wrote:
They feel connected with a higher power. It makes them feel good.

I think it was Howard Bloom that said that religion has offered "order" and "a sense of control" that cold cruel mother nature lacks. I guess a safety blanket if you will.

RussDill also wrote:
I would also say that this number is higher than 85%,

It probably is...I was shooting from the hip here for conversation sake. However, I do recall a study a few years back that did say that only 20% of the U.S. population was actively religious (attending church weekly).

Again, my question is why this discrepancy? I guess a more relevent question would be, why bother? What is the psychology that would cause a person to define themselves one way when in reality, they're not? Why would a person say they are a certain religion yet only practice that religion twice a year? It seems to me that for the person who only practices twice a year, clearly there is doubt or their actions wouldn't be as such.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by cbish

Again, my question is why this discrepancy? I guess a more relevent question would be, why bother? What is the psychology that would cause a person to define themselves one way when in reality, they're not? Why would a person say they are a certain religion yet only practice that religion twice a year? It seems to me that for the person who only practices twice a year, clearly there is doubt or their actions wouldn't be as such.

again, you aren't understand their motivations. Religion is part of their everyday lives. For most, it isn't about the rules. They have their own religious experiences and moments without gathering with others. And in our society, its not really necessary for christian to gather with other christians to feel a part of something. We even have "in god we trust" printed on our money. I'm sure in societies where there isn't nearly as much public displays of christianity (PDC), fellowship is much more important.

[cbish]

RussDill wrote:
again, you aren't understand their motivations. Religion is part of their everyday lives. For most, it isn't about the rules. They have their own religious experiences and moments without gathering with others. And in our society, its not really necessary for christian to gather with other christians to feel a part of something.

Okay, I understand this. And, it makes sense. The part about having their own experiences and not having to formally gather, I agree with. I don't know if I completely agree with the part about it being part of their everyday life. For some, yes. For many, however, no.

This is my point; it's not part of their everyday life. In fact, I would contend for most people, they only consider their religion sporatically ie. weddings, funerals, holidays. So what is it then when a person is asked, "are you religious", they respond "yes". I contend it's more because of variables such as family tradition or societal conformity than any true spirituality. Perhaps it's a form of intellectual laziness. I contend these people have never really pondered their thoughts on the topic so it's just easier to give a blanket "yes" answer.

what do you think?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by cbish
RussDill wrote:

This is my point; it's not part of their everyday life. In fact, I would contend for most people, they only consider their religion sporatically ie. weddings, funerals, holidays. So what is it then when a person is asked, "are you religious", they respond "yes". I contend it's more because of variables such as family tradition or societal conformity than any true spirituality. Perhaps it's a form of intellectual laziness. I contend these people have never really pondered their thoughts on the topic so it's just easier to give a blanket "yes" answer.

what do you think?

I think you are so used to it, you don't even notice it anymore. Count the number of times you hear "pray" in a single day. For you, you just ignore it, for others, it is something religious. You read a story in the paper, or see something on the news on how someone was in an accident, and they prayed to god that they'd make it out alive. You ignore it, for someone religious, it makes them feel really good, its a religious experience. They pass churches on the way to work, they hear the president on the radio talking about how god is showing him the way, they pray before an employee review (not necessarily outloud), etc.

[epepke]

We're monkeys, and monkeys have an alpha-male fixation. God is, like, the biggest alpha male around. Lesbians prefer a nice butch goddess.

[cbish]

RussDill wrote:

I think you are so used to it, you don't even notice it anymore.

True!



Count the number of times you hear
"pray" in a single day. For you, you just ignore it, for others, it is something religious. You read a story
in the paper, or see something on the news on how someone was in an accident, and they prayed to
god that they'd make it out alive. You ignore it, for someone religious, it makes them feel really good,
its a religious experience.

Agreed! However, usually you can tell a figure of speech vs. a true conviction.

I guess my question now changes to; what segment of our population really is religious vs. those who say they are? I believe there is a huge discrepancy between those two categories.

I contend that the general population isn't as religious as we are lead to believe. I agree with pretty much everything you say. Perhaps we're discussing numbers?!;)

[plindboe]

Originally posted by BroodingSkill
Religion is just another reason for us humans to form in groups, but we will form groups around anything for any reason. Groups are almost always 'us against them'. The irrational beliefs help control the group and support the cohesion of the group itself. Religious prohibitions are of course more control, and since we are probably the most oversexed species on the planet, the more control the better.
The other element is our need to have someone in charge. A great sky father certainly fits this bill. He's illusive and all powerful and his wrath is something to be feared. Sure keeps the members of the group in line, especially since members of your group are his selfappointed representatives, and are ever watchful.

Great points. The need to form groups is a very strong aspect of human nature. We see it everywhere in society, and even do it ourselves every day. So there must be a evolutionary advantage to it. That's a reason why religion entered the picture.

I forgot to add that leader point to my first post, but I believe it's a very important element too. Humans always look for someone to idolize. Be it rock stars, royalty or imaginary beings. Strong/fanatical worship of a leader in a primitive society has an clear evolutionary advantage too, as it removes the need to question, which is quite a useful tool, especially during wartime.


Originally posted by triadboy
Religion explains the 'unknowable' to frightened people.


That could be a reason why religion is like it is, but doesn't really explain why it's in our nature. What's the advantage for a society simply to get their curiosity satisfied?


Originally posted by triadboy
I think the 'religious' "us against them" is a fairly new thing. Before, I think, people were land-grabbing and raiding for different reasons and everybody had their own god with them. But the attacks weren't because the other people didn't believe in YOUR god.


How fairly new do you mean? Are you talking from about the time when the heathens in 'The new world' had to be converted to the "right" beliefs? Maybe you're talking from the time of the Crusades? Or perhabs of the time when the early christians were devoured by lions? We can see the "Us against them" throughout written history.


Originally posted by triadboy
I can't imagine anyone in the distant past NOT being 'religious'. There were too many unknowns to be frightened by. Eclipses, lightening, meteors, earthquakes, tornados, etc. 'Someone' had to be doing those things for a reason.


I was using an obvious over-simplification to explain. Instead of religious/non-religious you can insert fanatically religious/mildly religious. Doesn't really matter. The more religious will always have the advantage of fanatism, and the less religious have always been continuously removed from the gene pool.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by plindboe

I forgot to add that leader point to my first post, but I believe it's a very important element too. Humans always look for someone to idolize. Be it rock stars, royalty or imaginary beings. Strong/fanatical worship of a leader in a primitive society has an clear evolutionary advantage too, as it removes the need to question, which is quite a useful tool, especially during wartime.


hmm..I've never had hero's growing up, and I'm not religious in any way. Wonder if they are related. Most annoying thing when I was a kid, "Who's your hero?"

[jimmygun]

Control, Exploitation and Fear.

Religion offers the first two and gives authority to use fear to keep people under one's thumb and to exploit the fear of the unknown by seeming to know the secrets.

[BroodingSkill]

Hi plindboe, in addition to what I said about the leader concept is the size of the tribes we are talking about. The larger the tribe the harder it is to maintain cohesion. So an all powerful God, who is unanswerable to his/her believers, helps keep everyone in line. Yet when the groups become too large even that won't hold everything together. Look at all the factions or sects of the Christian religion there are, or all the sects of Islam, I could go on and on.

As an additional note, this whole religion thing is a very successful model for group cohesion, it's the same basic formula( with variations of course) down through history, regardless of what god or culture we're talking about. Probably the only other thing that makes us humans more unified is war.

That being said I'm an atheist and feel just as horrified and frigthened at what others will do and say in the name of religion.
Yet I'm facinated by the whole thing just the same.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jimmygun
Control, Exploitation and Fear.

Religion offers the first two and gives authority to use fear to keep people under one's thumb and to exploit the fear of the unknown by seeming to know the secrets.

Could you explain how Shinto, Buddhism, Taoism, and Jainism fit in to your 3 criteria ?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by hammegk

Are there any -- and if so I posit damn few -- atheistic tyranical regimes that survive into the 2rd generation of the power structure, let alone the third generation?

I doubt there are many if any. They tended self-destruct faster than religious regimes for some reason.

[T'ai Chi]

I'm wondering if anyone can name one country, one society, or one city that completely lacks religion. This can be past or present.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by plindboe
Why is religion part of human nature? (If you insist that religion is not part of human nature, then just try to assume it for the sake of this thread. No need to get into that discussion again). Here's my hypothesis:

I think the reason for such irrational beliefs as we see in the world today, is that it results in groupings. A sort of 'us against the others' mentality. People within that group will be closer and anyone outside will either be perceived as someone who needs to be converted to the "right" beliefs, and if they refuse, they will be considered "enemies".

Imagine two tribes living side by side in a forest in a distant past. One religious, the other not. What will happen? Eventually the religious tribe would either try to convert people from the other tribe or they would eradicate the other tribe. With conversion, only the members of the 2nd tribe most prone to irrational beliefs would join, while the rest would be either shunned or killed. Thus people less prone to irrational beliefs have continuously been removed from the gene pool.

It can easily be imagined that such events has occured throughout the evolution that led to the modern man, and we still see it continue today. We can easily point to such events throughout history. The west conquered most parts of the world primarily because of our beliefs, so the advantages of irrational beliefs in a primitive world should already be obvious.

/hypothesis

Any thoughts?


Get your copy of Psychology of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Views by David M. Wulff. It has many interesting sections. I just randomly flipped to p.307 which has a subhead: "Is Religion Akin to Neurosis, a Defense Against or Substitute for Forbidden Impulses?" I haven't started reading my copy, but after skimming this 1991 textbook a bit (which I bought for $6 at the half-priced book store), it looks very interesting.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by plindboe
Why is religion part of human nature?
Any thoughts? What about the simplest explanation? Because religious experience can be real; because God exists and it is possible to relate with him?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by plindboe
That could be a reason why religion is like it is, but doesn't really explain why it's in our nature.
It does, because it's in our nature to be more than passive subjects of our environment; as such, religion is a product of that nature.
What's the advantage for a society simply to get their curiosity satisfied?
It's not simply satiation of curiosity; curiosity is wrapped up in the whole thing of being able to manipulate the enviroment. We bring meaning to the world to order it to help with our manipulation of it. For instance, the belief that the sun goes away/runs out of fire in winter is a meaningful explanation for people who don't understand seasonal change. It also gives a context (however wrong) to do something about it (e.g. worship, sacrifices &c). That's what religion was; a way of ordering the world which provides a way to act on it.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
What about the simplest explanation? Because religious experience can be real; because God exists and it is possible to relate with him?

hey, cool, that explains dragons, unicorns, santa claus, the tooth fairy, and eskimos too

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
What about the simplest explanation? Because religious experience can be real; because God exists and it is possible to relate with him?

Isn't that the most complicated explanation?

[metropolis_part_one]

Why is religion part of human nature?

Apes have a sort of primitive religion too. It isn't really a 'religion', but they seem to revere waterfalls etc and do little celebratory dances by them. Perhaps these are the seeds of a nature-worshipping religion.

[Bikewer]

It's possible to have powerful emotional responses to things that are entirely imaginary; we do it everyday reading books, or watching televison or movies.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
What about the simplest explanation? Because religious experience can be real; because God exists and it is possible to relate with him?

What's simple about that? It's just like giving up and saying, I don't understand, so x made it happen.

What is God? What is God made of? Where is God? How did God create the world? How was God created? Why was he created? etc. etc. etc.

It might sound simple to say x created the world, but it creates an almost infinite number of unknowns, which makes the whole thing so much more complicated.

[SFB]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

A wondrous example of circular 'reasoning' -- religion dominates, therefore religion tends to dominate. :D

Some may find The Biological Basis of Morality (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/biomoral.htm) interesting.


Fascinating read, that. plindboe, you should have a peek (that is, if you haven't).

From part two:

"Religion is also mightily empowered by its principal ally, tribalism. The shamans and priests implore us, in somber cadence, Trust in the sacred rituals, become part of the immortal force, you are one of us. As your life unfolds, each step has mystic significance that we who love you will mark with a solemn rite of passage, the last to be performed when you enter that second world, free of pain and fear.

If the religious mythos did not exist in a culture, it would quickly be invented, and in fact it has been invented everywhere, thousands of times through history. Such inevitability is the mark of instinctual behavior in any species, which is guided toward certain states by emotion-driven rules of mental development. To call religion instinctive is not to suppose that any particular part of its mythos is untrue -- only that its sources run deeper than ordinary habit and are in fact hereditary, urged into existence through biases in mental development that are encoded in the genes.

Such biases are a predictable consequence of the brain's genetic evolution. The logic applies to religious behavior, with the added twist of tribalism. There is a hereditary selective advantage to membership in a powerful group united by devout belief and purpose. Even when individuals subordinate themselves and risk death in a common cause, their genes are more likely to be transmitted to the next generation than are those of competing groups who lack comparable resolve."

Bold mine
from http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98apr/bio2.htm

[hammegk]

One then wonders if atheism is a recessive trait?

In any case anarchists of all stripes tend to arrive at sudden, unhappy, ends rather than providing substance for posterity.

IMO, of course. :D