Is Religion a Reflection of Human Nature?

[Tom McCurdy]

The title of the psych 401 class I'm in right now... just curious to what people here think?

I'll comment on what the class's viewpoint is after I get a few responses, it will be intersting what kind of viewpoint people take.

 

[Orefa]

You can only truly believe what you can understand. Understanding science is hard and time consuming. You have to study mathematics, critical thinking, formal logic, proofs and so on. Few put themselves through such hassle. Especially proofs, most students abhor doing proofs because it requires such discipline and formalism. But understanding religion is easy and quick: God wants it this way, period. No proof required either, just blind faith. Your average Joe uses Occam's razor too you know, and sees that you don't need all these books and educators to understand what is going on. All you need is one story book, which is much more efficient. Theist will probably always outnumber atheists. The theory is simply understandable by more people.

 

[arildno]

It is easy and simple to believe in fairy-tales. Children do that all the time, and most adults don't mature intellectually beyond the age of 12.

 

[hypnagogue]

Check out Andrew Newberg's work, e.g. his book Why God Won't Go Away : Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. Beyond the purely social constructionist factors, it seems that the human brain comes equipped with an innate ability to undergo certain kinds of experiences that naturally lend themselves to religious/spiritual/mystical interpretations.

 

[arildno]

Yet again sloppy research posing as science..

How is the innateness of some feature demonstrated?

(Don't bother to to refer to identical-twins-separated-at-birth arguments, because all of that empirical material is totally dubious)

 

[hypnagogue]

Yet again sloppy research posing as science..

What is sloppy about it?

How is the innateness of some feature demonstrated?

Brain imaging of people undergoing these experiences (e.g. via meditation) show similar activation in certain areas of the brain across subjects; administration of certain drugs can induce these experiences even in an atheist (though the atheist will probably not interpret the experience in a mystical/spiritual way); similar kinds of experiences are not uncommon in certain types of epileptics; historically, there are reports of this type of experience across many different types of religions and cultures; etc.

BTW, when I said "innate," I just meant that there is some common brain area(s) in which certain patterns of activation will invariably cause said type of 'mystical' experience. In the same way, everyone is born with a visual system with basically similar properties, and stimulating that visual system in the proper way should cause broadly the same kind of visual experience in different individuals, etc. We don't acquire the experience of vision by means of cultural learning, nor do we acquire the ability to experience the 'mystical' experience by means of such learning.

Really, I think the kicker is that someone can experience "God-like" feelings just by ingesting the appropriate drug, regardless of one's belief system. Clearly this would not be possible if such experiences could only arise as a function of belief.

 

[arildno]

What is sloppy about it?


Brain imaging of people undergoing these experiences (e.g. via meditation) show similar activation in certain areas of the brain across subjects; administration of certain drugs can induce these experiences even in an atheist (though the atheist will probably not interpret the experience in a mystical/spiritual way);.

Which shows that the whole mysticality of the experience haven't the slightest biological basis, but is a mere particular interpretation generated through habit.

 

[hypnagogue]

There's two things to consider: what the experience immediately feels like, and then the implications it will have for one's world view. The former is the "innate" experiential component, the latter the manner in which one interprets and integrates the experience. What is common to most, if not all, is the potential to experience the former. An atheist may think that his mystical experience ultimately signifies nothing of import, but that won't change the fact that he has felt as if he was one with nature, loved everything, etc etc.

 

[arildno]

Beyond the trivial observation that because there exist religious individuals, then it must be possible for (at least some) individuals to have experiences they might classify as religious, I don't see what has been added by this.

 

[hypnagogue]

The idea is that sociocultural explanations for why people believe in gods are incomplete. There exists a class of experiences that can be generated independent of belief system and culture, such that the nature of the experience itself has strong resonance with some subset of core religious/spiritual beliefs/values/worldviews.

Merely having the experience does not entail that one is religious, nor does the fact that such an experience exists entail that it truthfully represents some aspect of the world. But it seems strongly likely that this biologically based phenomenon is responsible for much religious thought and behavior today, both directly (in the cases of those who are not naive to the experience) and indirectly (by means of social influence from those who have had the experience themselves).

 

[Jeff Ford]

Why do people believe in Gods?

It's comforting, and an easy way to explain away things that are difficult to understand

 

[selfAdjoint]

Beyond the trivial observation that because there exist religious individuals, then it must be possible for (at least some) individuals to have experiences they might classify as religious, I don't see what has been added by this.

I belierve there must be a bell curve of the ability/propensity of individuals to have "beyond" experiences. Their incidence in the population seems to be on the order of 5%, enough that everybody is likely to know one either directly or via a single close acquaintance. So the population experiences a weak signal that "There are religious experiences, they are not just in books."

Then most people, even intelligent people in modern societies, do not have a feel for the interconnectivity of science; they regard science is being just another bundle of ideas along with many other such bundles in the marketplace. And they pride themselve in being broadminded in not tying their ideas of what is possible to anyone bundle.

Put these two things together, and you get a population that is likely to respond to questonnaires that they believe in god, without necessarily having any interest in organized religion.

 

[Dawguard]

Without reverting to science and biology there is a simple explanation of why we believe in a god. It gives a meaning to our lives, it gives us something to look forward to after death, it gives us hope and wonder. Think honestly, would you prefer to think of yourself as a smart animal or as something created by a god? If you want an indepth look into the subject read Blaise Pascal, he makes the point perfectly without ever arguing for god's existence.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Think honestly, would you prefer to think of yourself as a smart animal or as something created by a god?

Having been on both sides of the fence I definitely prefer smart animal. It is better to stand on my own evolved feet than to be some superbeing's lapdog.

(Sunday) God LOVES you!
(Monday) Bad dog! Bad dog!

 

[Dawguard]

It is better to stand on my own evolved feet than to be some superbeing's lapdog.

(Sunday) God LOVES you!
(Monday) Bad dog! Bad dog!

That depends on your idea of what god is. I was using a generic, philisophical belief of god rather then a specific religion's idea of god. Having said that, I can see the allure of your point, and I blame the common religious institutions for this. They spread a stereoptyped idea of god which certainly denegrates humans, therefore the example you gave.
What I intended to do was place this in a higher light then an organization's opinion. Take whatever concept you like of a higher being: make it whatever you like, use logic or emotion or both. Then ask yourself if you would rather live with that or nothing.
Anyway, that is almost beside the point. The simple fact is that most people prefer to choose to believe in god. It provides an easy place to throw your troubles and problems without having to face them yourself. Their god is mothing more then something to absord their guilt for them because they don't want to bother. I'm not saying that everyone will choose to believe in god, only that it is easy for the majority to do so, therefore they do.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Question, if I have no evidence for the specific gods that have been promoted by specific religions, why would I be interested in looking for some generalized god? The OP question was, why do people believe in gods? and your idea just raises the question why if the gods of the past are found deficient do people go looking for new ones?

 

[Orefa]

why if the gods of the past are found deficient do people go looking for new ones?

It must be the hope of finding an even simpler answer. We know that the gods of established religions are deficient in explaining reality but most faithfuls are ok with this because science cannot explain everything either. So further refinements of the God theory offers hope of finding something even more understandable (without all the math).

 

[Dawguard]

Question, if I have no evidence for the specific gods that have been promoted by specific religions, why would I be interested in looking for some generalized god? The OP question was, why do people believe in gods? and your idea just raises the question why if the gods of the past are found deficient do people go looking for new ones?

Alright, let's look at the beginning of human civilization. What would do you think they imagined lightning to be? How about earthquakes or volcanoes or wind? There was no way they could explain it so they imagined gods that goverened the different elements of the earth. The belief was prevelant for thousands of years, until over time and through growing knowledge it evolved into what it is now. However, when a belief is imbreded into a culture for hundreds of thousands of years it is hard to eradicate it. For all of humanity's memory they have relied on a god for the afterlife. This is why people believe in a god. While its roots are probably in the once unexplained phenomenon of nature, it has evolved over time until it is an integral part every culture on the planet.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Convincing people to believe that they can be relieved of the responsibility they have for their own lives and happiness (to grow up and become adults) is a treasure trove for those who believe the unearned has value. Even more insidious are those who despise existence and wish to deprive others of the value of their existence by teaching them to denigrate themselves.
Compare those who substitute society for ‘god’ to attain the same result and you will see remarkable parallels. Pandemic evil thrives in a world where it is not honorable to value ones own judgment, reasoning ability, accomplishments and success. Until people understand that $$$$$ is worth no more than what one has done to earn it, their is no possible cure for this intellectual cancer.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think we have thousands of years of eyewitness testimony that says that we don't know everthing. And I find it interesting that since the god concept is common to human existence, which in most cases involve claims of personal experience as a basis, we assume that this acts as evidence against some kind of "divine" reality. How exactly does that follow again?

 

[Moonbear]

From my perspective, the easy answer to the question is that people are uncomfortable with the unknown. It is more satisfying to have an explanation for those unknown things, such as a god, than it is to leave them unexplained. Of course, this ends up begging the question of why it is that people are uncomfortable with the unknown. The only explanation I can think of for that would be that if the cause of something is unknown, then we also have no control over it, and we fear that lack of control, so to cope with that lack of control, many, perhaps most, people believe in a god who will take care of those things for them. So, I guess I'd call it a coping mechanism for our fear of not being able to control the unknown.

But, I could be way off, as it's hard for me to really fully understand why people believe in a god, as I have the opposite experience of finding it very hard to believe one does exist.

 

[scott_alexsk]

Personally I have never used God to justify something being unknown. It bugs the heck out of me when I don't understand something, and I don't just give up and say God did it.

I believe just from reasoning that the morales outlined in the bible bring you ahead in life. I mean the actual morales themselves, the things concerning sex, life, death, etc. They just seem like good intelligent practices that are just reasonable to follow. There are certain aspects to Christianity that I believe also are not refelected in other religions which tends to make me believe that Christianity is the right religion.

There are some very logical practices within the OT that literally lead people to have better and healthier lives. There are quite a few verses I have read recently which talked about cleaning oneself with water after touching a corpse, touching another's blood, touching dead animals, etc. It also explored the concept of heat killing bacteria on metal which I find is way ahead of its time. There is a continual repetivness that you should also not eat animals that died from no apparent cause(disease).

This suggests to me that these people were wise. I mean if the text (OT atleast) has been around for several thousand years, it deserves some of my attention.
-Scott

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It makes me wonder: Why do people need to believe that there is no God? By definition, science doesn't even address the issue, yet we seem to assume here implicity that it does. We assume without proof that all human experience in this matter which spans at least six thousand years, is invalid? Based on what; a few lab experiments? You call that good science?

This thread alone is proof that not everyone needs to believe in God. Who here feels the need to believe?

Aren't you people? Of is this a "they" and the enlightened "us" discussion.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Ivan, the question why people believe, and some even go out of their way to find new beliefs, is interesting in itself. It only becomes personal when some poster makes it so. And I responded to a poster who implied that non-theists were somehow defective.

David Dennett has called for rational scientific investigation of the religious phenomenon. I hope it can get funding; I would like to see it happen. I am not prejudgiing its results.

 

[arildno]

I belierve there must be a bell curve of the ability/propensity of individuals to have "beyond" experiences. Their incidence in the population seems to be on the order of 5%, enough that everybody is likely to know one either directly or via a single close acquaintance. So the population experiences a weak signal that "There are religious experiences, they are not just in books."

Then most people, even intelligent people in modern societies, do not have a feel for the interconnectivity of science; they regard science is being just another bundle of ideas along with many other such bundles in the marketplace. And they pride themselve in being broadminded in not tying their ideas of what is possible to anyone bundle.

Put these two things together, and you get a population that is likely to respond to questonnaires that they believe in god, without necessarily having any interest in organized religion.

Sure, I can agree with this.
It is, of course, a quite different thing to say that religiousness is a natural aberration with about 5% incidence in the population than that it is some "innate" feature of the human condition.

 

[Orefa]

I believe just from reasoning that the morales outlined in the bible bring you ahead in life.

There has to be something good in this thick book. It was written by people after all, and by people who were educated enough for their time to at least be able to write. Clearly it must contain a few sensible lessons on how to make a workable society. But it also contains a lot of unsubstantiated stories and some highly dubious claims. It cannot all be taken seriously.

Why do people need to believe that there is no God?

For me it's not a need at all. It is simply an observation that no evidence supports it, and that belief in the concept complicates the big picture instead of simplifying it. Then when I apply formal thinking to it I also find proof by contradiction that a god cannot exist. It's not a need to disbelief, it's simply an unavoidable conclusion.

 

[Dawguard]

For me it's not a need at all. It is simply an observation that no evidence supports it, and that belief in the concept complicates the big picture instead of simplifying it. Then when I apply formal thinking to it I also find proof by contradiction that a god cannot exist. It's not a need to disbelief, it's simply an unavoidable conclusion.

Really, you must have discovered the proof all aetheists have looked for. I was laboring under the delusion that proof or disproof of god was impossible becuase by defenition god is non-physical. If he exists we can't see him, only have faith that he is there. You've never seen him, so you have faith that just becuase you haven't seen him or any evidance, he obviously doesn't exist!

 

[Orefa]

Really, you must have discovered the proof all aetheists have looked for.

Oh no, not a proof for all atheists, just for me and for those who share my own definition of what it take to be god and what it takes to exist. It's not a proof for those who use different definitions so it's not the final word for all. It's also a bit long and not really on topic for this thread.

 

[Plastic Photon]

I think the ancient Greeks celebrated the gods as an excuse to drink. Today I believe we do the same when we watch a sporting event and our favorite player does something fantastic like hitting a homerun or dunking. Even weekends become a time to satisfy the celebration of the 'away-from-work god or away from school god' Toshiro Mifune.

I think it is just an excuse to indulge (drink).

 

[Dawguard]

I think the ancient Greeks celebrated the gods as an excuse to drink. Today I believe we do the same when we watch a sporting event and our favorite player does something fantastic like hitting a homerun or dunking. Even weekends become a time to satisfy the celebration of the 'away-from-work god or away from school god' Toshiro Mifune.

I think it is just an excuse to indulge (drink).

Sure the Greeks had a god of wine, Dionyses, but saying that means the Greeks had gods just to drink is like saying that just becuase they had a god for agriculture they used religion as an excuse to make everyone farmers. The Greeks had gods for just about everything. There are far deeper reasons for gods then an excuse to drink.

 

[scott_alexsk]

I think the ancient Greeks celebrated the gods as an excuse to drink. Today I believe we do the same when we watch a sporting event and our favorite player does something fantastic like hitting a homerun or dunking. Even weekends become a time to satisfy the celebration of the 'away-from-work god or away from school god' Toshiro Mifune.

I think it is just an excuse to indulge (drink).

What? I don't do that. I use it as a reason to not indulge and see how much work I can get done in a day, not vice versa. That's a pretty gross and unsupported generalization.

 

[hypnagogue]

I belierve there must be a bell curve of the ability/propensity of individuals to have "beyond" experiences. Their incidence in the population seems to be on the order of 5%, enough that everybody is likely to know one either directly or via a single close acquaintance.

I'd qualify that a bit: you're talking about the ability/propensity of people to spontaneously experience these things in their usual environments, given their typical behaviors and biological profiles and so on. I think a very hefty chunk of the variance lies not so much in differences in actual ability to have "mystical" kinds of experiences, so much as it lies in differences in the extent to which people find themselves in, or put themselves into, conditions favorable to producing mystical experiences. Most people do not meditate with great discipline, or partake in psychedelics, or have some particular kind of altered-state-inducing epilepsy, or have particular pieces of brain tissue artificially stimulated by neurosurgeons, etc.

Sure, I can agree with this.
It is, of course, a quite different thing to say that religiousness is a natural aberration with about 5% incidence in the population than that it is some "innate" feature of the human condition.

Religions are social constructs, and the notion of God as anthropomorphic father figure up in the sky looking down on us is too. However, there is a particular state of consciousness that is closely affiliated with the religious worldview (in the broadest and most general sense of the term). This state of consciousness is indeed "innate" just to the extent that it is capable of being triggered in most or all people by very basic neural mechanisms-- it does not act through the sophisticated level of personal beliefs and propositional knowledge and so on. By way of analogy, probably some majority of the people in the world have never experienced the altered state associated with marijuana; nonetheless, it is the case that this state of consciousness is "innate" to the human condition, to the extent that any human can experience it given the proper low-level neural stimulation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I belierve there must be a bell curve of the ability/propensity of individuals to have "beyond" experiences. Their incidence in the population seems to be on the order of 5%, enough that everybody is likely to know one either directly or via a single close acquaintance. So the population experiences a weak signal that "There are religious experiences, they are not just in books."

Most people do not meditate with great discipline, or partake in psychedelics, or have some particular kind of altered-state-inducing epilepsy, or have particular pieces of brain tissue artificially stimulated by neurosurgeons, etc.

If I'm not mistaken most religions through history have involved altered states of consciousness, even just small alterations. Aside from the use of various sorts of drugs there are several very common consciousness altering excersizes outside of drugs and meditation. THE most common by far (or so I have read) is just physical activity combined with audial stimulation (or music and dancing ). Drum dances and the like are an incredibly wide spread spiritual tradition. In many modern day christian churches (at least in america) getting up and dancing and singing are common practice. Even just being at one of those evangelist's heated sermins can be quite an experience for someone.
The number of people who experience altered states of consciousness as part of their religious practices is probably far greater even today than one might consider at first glance. It seems to me though that most of the major religions of the modern world are really more of a social phenomenon than a "spiritual" one.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The number of people who experience altered states of consciousness as part of their religious practices is probably far greater even today than one might consider at first glance. It seems to me though that most of the major religions of the modern world are really more of a social phenomenon than a "spiritual" one.

My experience in Catholicism was that most of the parishoners in the pews were in it because they had been brought up in it, not because of any inner light. Going through the motions gave them comfort. But there was an inner community, and these were the same people who were "active in the ministries", the parish doers, who valued spiritual inspiration even if they didn't experience it themselves, and traded stories about people who had them. So religion, in this case, was an interactive feedback system in a defined community. The official church supported these people with free short courses in "formation" that taught or suggested ways to meditate for example.

 

[hypnagogue]

It seems to me though that most of the major religions of the modern world are really more of a social phenomenon than a "spiritual" one.

I would agree with that. The sway religion has over the world's population has very much to do with social standards and practices, and probably the vast majority of people ally themselves to one religion or another primarily because they were brought up to believe and participate in such things during their malleable childhood years. Social factors play an enormous role in establishing religious belief and practice; I just think it's important to emphasize that there is something more to it than that, even though it might not appear as such at first (or second) glance. selfAdjoint's idea of a complex feedback loop between biological (manifesting in experiential consciousness) and social factors probably catches the phenomenon best.

It's also worth considering that even if someone does not explicitly undergo a "mystical" experience, the same kinds of brain regions responsible for creating such conscious experiences may be exerting some influence on a subconscious level. It's well established that various kinds of affective processing in the brain can influence behavior, even when one is not aware of any change in one's emotional state. This is just speculation on my part, but it could well be that some of the same brain structures and functions underlying the "mystical" experience are active at a subliminal level in some significant fraction of the religious believer populace.

 

[arildno]

I'd qualify that a bit: you're talking about the ability/propensity of people to spontaneously experience these things in their usual environments, given their typical behaviors and biological profiles and so on. I think a very hefty chunk of the variance lies not so much in differences in actual ability to have "mystical" kinds of experiences, so much as it lies in differences in the extent to which people find themselves in, or put themselves into, conditions favorable to producing mystical experiences. Most people do not meditate with great discipline, or partake in psychedelics, or have some particular kind of altered-state-inducing epilepsy, or have particular pieces of brain tissue artificially stimulated by neurosurgeons, etc.


Religions are social constructs, and the notion of God as anthropomorphic father figure up in the sky looking down on us is too. However, there is a particular state of consciousness that is closely affiliated with the religious worldview (in the broadest and most general sense of the term). This state of consciousness is indeed "innate" just to the extent that it is capable of being triggered in most or all people by very basic neural mechanisms-- it does not act through the sophisticated level of personal beliefs and propositional knowledge and so on. By way of analogy, probably some majority of the people in the world have never experienced the altered state associated with marijuana; nonetheless, it is the case that this state of consciousness is "innate" to the human condition, to the extent that any human can experience it given the proper low-level neural stimulation.

Well, roads are social constructions; they wouldn't have been built in the first place unless humans had legs to walk upon them with.
But saying therefore that the legness of humanity is terribly important to consider in any analysis of the history of road construction is rather far-fetched.

Merely pointing at some possibly biological feature, and then automatically assuming that that feature has been deeply important in the development of some social phenomenon, is a misconception (or at the very least, a wholly inadequate argument).

 

[hypnagogue]

Merely pointing at some possibly biological feature, and then automatically assuming that that feature has been deeply important in the development of some social phenomenon, is a misconception (or at the very least, a wholly inadequate argument).

I'd say it's more than a mere assumption. Virtually every (if not all) religious bodies have some sort of spiritual leader(s) who are claimed to have some special kind of experiential access to the divine, whether it's a prophet or a visionary or a shaman or whatever. For example, Jesus fasted in the desert, Mohamed had visions of angels, Buddha was enlightened, tribal shamans are known to partake in psychedelic drugs, etc.

Approaching from the other side, the mystical experience intrinsically has resonance with some sort of religious sentiment. It may be hard to believe this if one has never had the experience firsthand, but it is true. Read Aldous Huxley's http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/lsd/doors.htm .

 

[arildno]

And how, if I may ask, would the social effect of the leader's revelations be different whether the leader is a charlatan or has had "actual" experiences?

I.e, what is the specific social importance of the purported biological feature?

 

[hypnagogue]

And how, if I may ask, would the social effect of the leader's revelations be different whether the leader is a charlatan or has had "actual" experiences?

If the leader was sufficiently clever and charismatic, it likely would make no difference. Just as my discussion with you right now would be no different if you turned out to be a sufficiently cleverly designed automaton (presumably with no real "consciousness" to speak of).

Nonetheless, it seems exceedingly unlikely that each such leader should have been merely a charlatan with no special experiences to speak of. If that were the case, one would be hard pressed to explain this peculiar recurring pattern of charlatans across the world who consistently and independently come up with the same sort of descriptions of experience and teachings from those experiences. The more elegant and empirically more well-founded explanation is that this experience is reported consistently and independently simply because there is some common brain mechanism at work accounting for certain bare essentials of the experience.

And of course, it would also be rather peculiar that there would exist a particular state of consciousness (or perhaps, a range thereof) as fundamental as waking consciousness or dreaming, which somehow seems to find deep resonance with the purely intellectual creations of some charlatan.

 

[arildno]

1. So, you admit that it wouldn't make any difference after all.
2. Furthermore, if the prophet (whether a charlatan or not) appears at an "unfavourable" time or place, he won't get any following, however eloquent he may be.
3. If the times are "favourable", but the prophet isn't eloquent (according to the society's standards at that time), he won't get a following.

Thus, in any explanation of the evolution of a particular religious movement any biological substratum is wholly insufficient, and can be considered irrelevant.
Neither does pointing to some biological feature yield much of an explanation of religious movements in general beyond hand-waving, common social factors are more likely to have been important.

Solid historical explanations are based first and foremost on the local level, general histories of mankind (with some "deep" universal forces at work) , are in general, fantasies of the author.

 

[hypnagogue]

1. So, you admit that it wouldn't make any difference after all.

Yes, just as I admit that it wouldn't make any difference to this discussion if you turned out to be a sophisticated computer program. Does that imply that you are just a sophisticated computer program?

2. Furthermore, if the prophet (whether a charlatan or not) appears at an "unfavourable" time or place, he won't get any following, however eloquent he may be.
3. If the times are "favourable", but the prophet isn't eloquent (according to the society's standards at that time), he won't get a following.

Sure.

Thus, in any explanation of the evolution of a particular religious movement any biological substratum is wholly insufficient

Insufficient, yes. The nature of religious bodies cannot be accounted for entirely by appeal to individuals' personal subjective experiences.

and can be considered irrelevant.

Absolutely not! Having a source of food is insufficient to sustain life. That does not mean that food is irrelevant to sustaining life.

Neither does pointing to some biological feature yield much of an explanation of religious movements in general beyond hand-waving, common social factors are more likely to have been important.

The common biological feature explains why various religious figures in history have independently reported the same fundamental kinds of experiences. If nothing else, to the extent that these experiences were important in forming these figures' worldviews, and to the extent that these figures went on to become instrumental in founding and sustaining world religions (yes, by social means), we can see a major role for the mystical experience in the foundation of religion. And that is leaving aside the role such experiences play in influencing the religiousity of everyday people, whether explicitly or perhaps even subconsciously.

 

[arildno]

Wherever have I stated I'm not a computer program?

The fact that we need food to eat is, basically, irrelevant in the explanation of eating habits.

As for the prophets:
Mohammed, for instance, was an avid reader of previous religious texts (prior to his great revelations). So was Jesus, if the reports about his discussions with other rabbis are to be believed.
Same with a mystic like Meister Eckhardt.
That is, the uniformity of experience reported can hardly be seen as unambiguously and solely affected by this biological feature.
The uniformity of experience might well be significantly effected by their similar reading habits.

 

[hypnagogue]

The fact that we need food to eat is, basically, irrelevant in the explanation of eating habits.

I was merely using that example to illustrate that if X is not sufficient for Y, it does not follow that X is irrelevant to Y. Please don't read anything more into it than just that.

As for the prophets:
Mohammed, for instance, was an avid reader of previous religious texts (prior to his great revelations). So was Jesus, if the reports about his discussions with other rabbis are to be believed.
Same with a mystic like Meister Eckhardt.
That is, the uniformity of experience reported can hardly be seen as unambiguously and solely affected by this biological feature.
The uniformity of experience might well be significantly effected by their similar reading habits.

I have no doubt that their personal histories had some influence in forming their respective experiences. Really, it is unavoidable for this to be the case for any kind of experience. Nonetheless, there are certain features that are more or less universal. It's very much like the near death experience phenomenon: one's beliefs will inform some of the content and interpretation of the experience, yet there is some common framework that all such experiences are built upon.

In any case, once again-- I see the key piece of evidence here as being that these experiences can be generated by purely low-level, gross neural activations: drugs, epilepsy, brain stimulation, etc. These sorts of activations do not operate at the sophisticated level of propositional knowledge. Their method of opertation acts on a more fundamental level, like the kind that determines whether one is awake or dreaming.

In fact, dreaming may be an instructive example. What one has read and experienced in the past will surely inform the content of one's dream, but it will not change the fact that one dreams, or some of the more common and basic features of dreaming (e.g. surreal and/or disjointed). Likewise for mystical experiences: the detailed thoughts and interpretations may vary, but the fundamental experiential features are the same, as they are generated by more fundamental neural mechanisms.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Here are the common responses:

Religon provides explnations
-People created religon to explain puzzling natural phenomena
-Religion explains puzzling experiences: dreams, prescience, etc
-Religion explinas the orgins of things
-Religions explains whey there is evil and suffering

Religion proivdes comfort
-Religious explanations makes mortality less unbearable
-Religion allays axiety and makes for a comfortable world

Religion proivdees social order
-Religon holds society together
-Religion perpetuates a particular social order
-Religion supports morality

Religions is a conitive illusion
-People are superstitious they will believe anything
-Religous concepts are irrefutable
-REfutation is more difficult than belief

there are more but I will have to add them later, the point of my class so far is to say that this viewpoint including any of the previous belives or any related believes to be an insuffient answer. We are examinging more psychological causes, such why people believe any anything. Things such as minorally intuitive concepts and hyper active dection agencies.. I will have to type more when I am a bit more sober :)

 

[selfAdjoint]

quote=Tom McCurdy]the point of my class so far is to say that this viewpoint including any of the previous belives or any related believes to be an insuffient answer[/quote]

Do you mean insufficient to validate religion or insuffucuent to explain why people believe?

 

[quantumcarl]

The title of the psych 401 class I'm in right now... just curious to what people here think?

I'll comment on what the class's viewpoint is after I get a few responses, it will be intersting what kind of viewpoint people take.

I don't know if anyone has covered this aspect of God creation but it does have to do with what most have already said about explaining something complicated with something fairytale-like and easy to comprehend.

Historically there have always been gods recorded and revered by the general population of most cultures around the globe.

Generally we notice that the depictions of the gods show them as being humans yet, in many cases, many times larger than the rest of the population. This was a simply way to depict someone as being more important than everyone else... (or... there were giants ruling the planet, some other thread!)

What is probably causing all the confusion about Gods and God and Godesses is that there were select and elite groups who studied the nature of their environment a little more astutely than their peers and who came up with solutions to some of the problems of maintaining a society and civilization. These feats constituted god-like behaviour in the eyes of the common person.

Consider the Sumerians and their gods. In fact the Sumerian/Babylonian/(Iraqi) records (what's left of them ) show only the achievements of kings before any mention or records of Gods.

At some point those Sumarian kings, who came up with ways of keeping order in the society and who devised ways of irrigating the crops and even invented writing and who also showed great benevolence to their people, some 5000 years ago, were considered as gods or "demi-gods'.

As time passed people held the memory of a powerful person and the next few generations down the line only remember that their irrigation channels were devised and created by Gods... they must have been because no human, as they understood humans, could have come up with such a good idea.

This sort of sequence is seen throughout history in Egypt, Greece, North America and Europe etc... or, at least, before the wholesale, mass production of gossip about one or two particular humans and their invisible father etc (started 2000 years ago)... which is a large scale example of the type of process explained above. Although, there are more totalitarian and monopolistic reasons for the creation of that myth and God.

Any kind of technology that benefited a large number of people who had no idea how it worked or how to come up with ideas of their own impressed a population so much that, soon after the fact, people regarded it as miraculous and its inventors as Gods.

Similarily, as has been suggested here in this tread, natural occurances and disasters were also attributed to Gods because of the impact and cultural memory they have and initiate. And because of the awe inspiring, otherwise unexplainable power of such occurances. Of course, today, the woman doing the weather on Channel 11 is the deity... or, mine, anyway:!)

 

[Tom McCurdy]

quote=Tom McCurdy]the point of my class so far is to say that this viewpoint including any of the previous belives or any related believes to be an insuffient answer

Do you mean insufficient to validate religion or insuffucuent to explain why people believe?[/QUOTE]

insufficent to explain why people believe

 

[munky99999]

well i haven't really read this thread. But something i learned from general math.

To understand the 4th dimension, we need to project the 4th into the 3rd. and to understand the 3rd dimension, we project in into the 2nd.

Your asking, wtf you smoking. But let me explain.

How exactly did things happen back then? Cant really understand, not enough information. So let's look to something we know. SOO. what is a religion that is recent and very well documented on how it went down.

Nice example i can think of would be Scientology. Mr. L Ron Hubbard.

So what do we see? HE was a man. Hopped up on drugs(alcohol at least). wrote up some science fiction and mislabelled it as non-fiction. People believed the pyramid scam. There you go. So your asking. ok sure...
Some interesting things. There has been done a biography and we know Hubbard was JUST A MAN. But the followers are now deifying him trying to make him a god.

Ok let's look at Jesus. same thing happened. got a bunch of followers. He was just a man(if he even existed to begin with, let's not try this one here) he died. 30+ years pass before anything is written down. and jesus started becoming a god. while its true some denominations believe that jesus was just a man.

anyway so now that's its explained how beliefs move into god image.

Why do people believe in God?
well as explained in an adherent document done by cambridge named: Atheism Contemporary Rates and Patterns

One leading theory comes from Norris and Inglehart (2004), who argue that in societies characterized by plentiful food distribution, excellent public healthcare, and widely accessible housing, religiosity wanes. Conversely, in societies where food and shelter are scarce and life is generally less secure, religious belief is strong. This is not a new theory (Thrower, 1999). For example, Karl Marx (1843) argued that people who suffer in oppressive social conditions are apt to turn to religion for comfort. Sigmund Freud’s (1927) central thesis was that belief in God served to comfort humans in the face of earthly pain, suffering, and death. However, Marx and Freud provided no data. Norris and Inglehart (2004) do.

and as they say. the data shows this to be true. with some exceptions.

Pretty much all situations usually have problems in it. which then you have poor people. These people have a bad life for the here and now. so they goto God to have comfort that at least once they die, they will have happiness. Personally even if I was in very poor conditions I would still find it very egotistical to think that there was any after-life.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Pretty much all situations usually have problems in it. which then you have poor people. These people have a bad life for the here and now. so they goto God to have comfort that at least once they die, they will have happiness. Personally even if I was in very poor conditions I would still find it very egotistical to think that there was any after-life.
A large part of the problem may be the difficulty many people have in believing in this life.

 

[saltydog]

Jesus, I'm surprised no one (but me) brings up our biological heritage: Darwinism. It's all around us you know. Reigion, I believe, is one more survival strategy humans have employed for coping in a hostile world.

We are fragile creatures still limited by our supposedly "higher intellect". In some some ways, we're still in the middle ages, still living in a demon-haunted world.

How anthropocentric it is that some choose to believe in a grand heavenly destination after death, a supreme being "caring" about us, and that we should be so prescient to know about it. It's just not there. God I mean. We've gotten dethroned in the past, by Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Hubble. And we will continue to be so by future generations as our place in the Universe continues to grow more unimportantly.