Is Religion Innate or a Cultural Construct?

[snoopies622]

Is it built into the human brain or merely a cultural phenomenon?

 

[mgb_phys]

God knows !

 

[Mattara]

There is actually some literature on the evolutionary origins of religion by people like Boyer, Altran and Dennett, among others, that could be worth reading. In their view, evolution has primed our brains to be seekers of intentionality, even where none exist. Better to err on the side of caution and mistake non-intentional things for intentional things (and at most spend some extra energy) than do the opposite and risk dying, or so the general (slightly caricatured here) argument goes.

 

[Astronuc]

Is it built into the human brain or merely a cultural phenomenon?

Is one referring to religion or theology? Religion and theology have been around for several millenia. There is no indication they are disappearing.

 

[snoopies622]

Thanks for the references, Mattara. That is an interesting idea and it's new to me.

Is one referring to religion or theology?

What's the difference?

 

[Hurkyl]

Is it built into the human brain or merely a cultural phenomenon?

Could be truth too.

I would like to remind you that our guidelines on religious discussion:

Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems ... will not be tolerated.​

 

[snoopies622]

Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems ... will not be tolerated.

Yes, I was a little worried about that. I now wish I had chosen a more neutral title like, "will religion always be with us?" If anyone knows how to change the title of a thread, please feel free. I just wanted to know what the current thinking was on this matter and I'm not a psychologist, anthropologist, etc.

 

[Astronuc]

What's the difference?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology

religion -
1 (a) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (b) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


By 1b, 2 and 3, theology (specifically a belief in a god or gods) is not necessarily part of religion. So an atheist or agnostic can be religious or have religion.


theology - 1. the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

2. a theological theory or system, e.g., a belief in a god or gods.


Looking at etymology of religion: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back - in other words religion can provide a moral constraint (self-restraint) on one's behavior.

 

[WhoWee]

Is it built into the human brain or merely a cultural phenomenon?

If it's "built-in" to the human brain, "it" might be fear of being alone or wanting something to believe in, or to belong to a group (which could be different than being alone).

I've always thought of religion as that thing which can "fill the cup" - if the cup needs filled. I'm sure someone will quickly point out that knowledge and discovery can also fill the cup - to which I agree, but so can hate, despair, and extreme intolerance.

 

[Galteeth]

Is it built into the human brain or merely a cultural phenomenon?

Be careful; you may be assuming a false dichotomy here. It is very rare for humans to develop in the absence of other humans.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think it will always be with us. I think it is human to seek meaning to existence. And I think seeking meaning to existence leads to religion.

Note that there is no comment on whether this is a good or bad thing.

 

[Galteeth]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theology

religion -
1 (a) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (b) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


By 1b, 2 and 3, theology (specifically a belief in a god or gods) is not necessarily part of religion. So an atheist or agnostic can be religious or have religion.


theology - 1. the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

2. a theological theory or system, e.g., a belief in a god or gods.


Looking at etymology of religion: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back - in other words religion can provide a moral constraint (self-restraint) on one's behavior.

1 and 3 are really different things.

 

[Phrak]

"will religion always be with us?"

Yes. And constantly reinvented, in daily evolution, using every media of communication.

Is it built into the human brain or merely a cultural phenomenon?

Is this a multiply choice question where I only get to choose the best answer rather than right one?

 

[Mattara]

Here is something that could be interesting, although a few months old.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/us/27atheist.html

Polls show that the ranks of atheists are growing. The American Religious Identification Survey, a major study released last month, found that those who claimed “no religion” were the only demographic group that grew in all 50 states in the last 18 years.

Nationally, the “nones” in the population nearly doubled, to 15 percent in 2008 from 8 percent in 1990. In South Carolina, they more than tripled, to 10 percent from 3 percent. Not all the “nones” are necessarily committed atheists or agnostics, but they make up a pool of potential supporters.

Their terminology is a bit sloppy here, so assume that they mean non-religious non-theists, when they say "atheists". Perhaps this is merely a temporary wobble.

 

[sdoug041]

I think people will slowly start changing their beliefs as they realize beliefs can't be chosen. I don't think beliefs are a choice. Beliefs should be based on our worldview, facts, evidence, and reasoning.
I can give a quick demonstration on why it's silly to blindly choose beliefs: I want you to believe in Allah for 5 seconds, then I want you to believe that you're a billionaire, then tell us what it was like.
It would be ridiculous to "believe" your a billionaire when there is no evidence to support it. Where's the cars? Where's the all the bling? Where is the mansion?
I could say, "there is a kettle orbitting the sun right now that can;t be detected or seen in any way." You probably wouldn't believe it until there was some evidence to support that claim.

Anyway, I think institutionalized religion will die out over the next 100 years as science sheds more and more light on where we came from.

 

[WhoWee]

I think people will slowly start changing their beliefs as they realize beliefs can't be chosen. I don't think beliefs are a choice. Beliefs should be based on our worldview, facts, evidence, and reasoning.
I can give a quick demonstration on why it's silly to blindly choose beliefs: I want you to believe in Allah for 5 seconds, then I want you to believe that you're a billionaire, then tell us what it was like.
It would be ridiculous to "believe" your a billionaire when there is no evidence to support it. Where's the cars? Where's the all the bling? Where is the mansion?
I could say, "there is a kettle orbitting the sun right now that can;t be detected or seen in any way." You probably wouldn't believe it until there was some evidence to support that claim.

Anyway, I think institutionalized religion will die out over the next 100 years as science sheds more and more light on where we came from.

I thought the case for Evolution was already pretty strong - yet the debate continues.

I think religion is puhed aside during periods of prosperity and embraced during tough economic or uncertain times.

If most of the world's problems can be solved in the next 100 years, the religious movements may lose support.

However, if there are difficult times ahead, like-minded people tend to herd together.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think people will slowly start changing their beliefs as they realize beliefs can't be chosen. I don't think beliefs are a choice.

There are too many foregone conclusions in your statements for them to have validity.

What are you talking about 'beliefs can't be chosen'? You assume people are having their religions thrust upon them?

Beliefs should be based on our worldview, facts, evidence, and reasoning.

What is our 'worldview' but the things we've learned from our parents and peers?

What is a belief but something we hold whether or not we have evidence?

It would be ridiculous to "believe" your a billionaire when there is no evidence to support it. Where's the cars? Where's the all the bling? Where is the mansion?

This is a spurious analogy. Religion does not occur in a vacuum; it is a community phenomenon.

It would not be so ridiculous to believe someone is a billionaire if your parents and peers raised you to believe they are a billionaire.

I could say, "there is a kettle orbitting the sun right now that can;t be detected or seen in any way." You probably wouldn't believe it until there was some evidence to support that claim.

I might give it some serious consideration if a third of the population of the planet were telling me so.

Anyway, I think institutionalized religion will die out over the next 100 years as science sheds more and more light on where we came from.

Lack of evidence of our origins is not in short supply; we have plenty enough. Beliefs are beliefs.

 

[arildno]

Well, I think belief in some form of personal immortality is more entrenched psychically than belief in some godly beings.

For example, there have been belief systems wit concepts of P.I but no God to speak of, but I am unaware of belief systems of God that does not include some belied in (potential) PI as well.

 

[DaveC426913]

... I am unaware of belief systems of God that does not include some belied in (potential) PI as well.

Judaism?

 

[snoopies622]

"Is it built into the human brain or merely a cultural phenomenon?"

Be careful; you may be assuming a false dichotomy here. It is very rare for humans to develop in the absence of other humans.

Good point.

Maybe this is a question that cannot be approached in an experimental way. How does one apply the scientific method to a nature-vs-nuture question when it comes to people? I doubt it's possible (or ethical) to create a society that's completely cut off from all other human contact and see if - after a few generations - they make a religion or two. (And in any case the results wouldn't be conclusive since the initial members would already be prejudiced one way or the other and would not be able to avoid passing this on, and who knows how long it takes for religion to come about in the first place? Maybe it needs a thousand years of incubation to appear in a form we would recognize. etc.)

 

[arildno]

Judaism?

Oh dear! Forgot that one!

Doesn't mean much for the overall distribution of attitudes, though.

 

[DaveC426913]

How does one apply the scientific method to a nature-vs-nuture question when it comes to people? I doubt it's possible (or ethical) to create a society that's completely cut off from all other human contact and see if - after a few generations - they make a religion or two.

That's why we study isolated races and tribes - to see what things appear to have evolved in parallel.

 

[arildno]

As for evidence-based beliefs and beliefs held without evidence, according to a new study, they seem to have the same neural underpinnings:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007272

 

[Galteeth]

That's why we study isolated races and tribes - to see what things appear to have evolved in parallel.

But you can't really study a human isolated completely from society.

 

[Astronuc]

But you can't really study a human isolated completely from society.

Except for those rare cases of individuals (children) being raised by wild animals. The children lack human languange and engage in behavior atypical of humans.

 

[Galteeth]

Except for those rare cases of individuals (children) being raised by wild animals. The children lack human languange and engage in behavior atypical of humans.

Well, if those children develop religous beliefs in the jungle, that would be your answer. Although they couldn't really articulate them. And I suppose it could be theorized that the wolves influenced them in some way.


My point is, it's sort of absurd to ask "nature or nurture?" I don't see that it is especially meaningful to draw a distinction.

 

[DaveC426913]

My point is, it's sort of absurd to ask "nature or nurture?" I don't see that it is especially meaningful to draw a distinction.

Socialized-versus-entirely-isloted is not the only place nature-versus-nurture can be studied. People develop all sorts of personal traits in spite of the way they were raised. Orphaned people develop traits that align with their biological roots rather than their custodial upbringing. Both are places where nature might override nurture.

 

[Mattara]

What are you talking about 'beliefs can't be chosen'? You assume people are having their religions thrust upon them?

How do you think that religious beliefs are spread from parents to children? Why do you suppose that a lot of people have the same religion as their parents?

 

[snoopies622]

My point is, it's sort of absurd to ask "nature or nurture?" I don't see that it is especially meaningful to draw a distinction.

To me that seems like the central question. If it's only nuture it could be - in principle at least - ended in a generation. If it's nature, we'll be stuck with it for a much longer time. How to go about finding the answer is the problem.

Oh, and thanks for the link arildno. I'm still reading the paper.

 

[alxm]

You have to be wary of basing conclusions on religion-society from experiences of the USA alone, because the US is something of a statistical outpoint when it comes to religion. The USA has a relatively large number of believers compared to most developed western nations, and those believers are also more zealous and frankly, more fundamentalist.

The USA doesn't compare to most Western nations when it comes to belief in evolution, it's about the same as Turkey. Unlike the rest, the USA is alone in having an increasing number who disbelieve evolution.

I think religion might always be with us, just as poverty will. By which I mean you can still have a lot less of it, and in less extreme forms.

Anyway, obviously when 45% of Americans go to church on a regular basis and only 4% of Swedes do, it's obviously primarily a cultural thing.

 

[GeekGuru]

I say yes. People, as a whole, will always look for a way to 'explain' unnatural events - such as the Greeks and Romans used to their gods and goddesses, along with the mythology, to explain why many things happen the way they do. Even if there is no God, people will always try to create one, because they feel it is better to believe in something rather than nothing.

 

[snoopies622]

People, as a whole, will always look for a way to 'explain' unnatural events...

What's an unnatural event?

 

[DaveC426913]

What's an unnatural event?

Anything unexplainable.

Have you been skipping the meetings?

 

[Galteeth]

A recent book on the subject:

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/11/the_faith_instinct_how_religio.php

 

[Phrak]

A recent book on the subject:

http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/11/the_faith_instinct_how_religio.php

An easily accessible source in the study of the emergence of religion is contemporary Gaiaism--or Environmentalism, or nature worship, or whatever you wish to call it. Just hang around and watch it happen. At this stage it consists of a set of widening ethical beliefs.

 

[SystemTheory]

Is it built into the human brain or merely a cultural phenomenon?

Yes.

A good book on the psychology of religion was written a century ago, The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. He has particular empathy for those afflicted with spiritual pain (sick souls, he calls us), and it was only later that I heard his father suffered such bouts. This book helped me a lot during a period of such affliction.

Another scientific effort at understanding how human beings learn to self-other communicate, which is what we do, by the way, is The Myth of Mental Illness by Thomas Szasz. The earliest forms of language are body language and the use of iconic signs. These modes of communication are contrasted with indexical signs (causality) and symbols (assigned meaning).

Personally I have yet to meet a child who popped out of the womb capable of causal reasoning, and since reasoning as a toddler is by nature iconic and attached strongly to the need for an external parent, these iconic modes of reasoning are (1) natural; (2) inherently good although can become a source of pain; and (3) iconic modes of reasoning will always be with us, expressed in art, religion, mythology, science fiction, scientific speculations, etc.

For example, without a day and a night, does the phrase "the Earth formed X billion years ago" have any psychological meaning? None. It may as well have been yesterday or the day before.

Also when the scientist says the singularity is a uniform homogeneous mixture of proto-matter, such that light does not shine due to dis-equilibrium, I can't imagine any difference between that and what the Bible says, "the Earth was a formless wasteland and darkess covered the abyss." There is a limit to what one can imagine in science or religion.

 

[snoopies622]

...when the scientist says the singularity is a uniform homogeneous mixture of proto-matter, such that light does not shine due to dis-equilibrium, I can't imagine any difference between that and what the Bible says, "the Earth was a formless wasteland and darkess covered the abyss."

Well, there is the matter of the origins of such beliefs. The laws of physics and the stories in the Bible have different origins. One might say they are supported by different epistemologies.

 

[SystemTheory]

The laws of physics and the stories in the Bible have different origins.

The origin or source of each epistimology is the same. Stuff happens and we make up a story or a meaning. The fact is that, in empirical science, stuff happens repeatedly so we have confidence in the story based on repeatability. When we speculate backwards from what is empirically known, we enter the realm of general mythology ...

Time is the inverse of frequency, or something repetitive. In a singularity there is no frequency, hence, no time, hence, eternity (now).

God placed the eternal in their hearts, without men ever discovering, from beginning to end, what God had done. The Bible.

An instant realization sees endless time. Endless time is as one-moment. When you enter the eternal moment you realize who is seeing it. Zen koan (mind problem).

Scientists have their own mythology. At the boundaries of empirical knowledge it becomes quasi-causal.

Einstein wondered what it means when two events occur at the same time? Can one cause the other? How many events are occurring right now, and what can one really know about their causes? It must be that we study, not reality, but how our own body relates to and interprets experience as "reality."

 

[snoopies622]

I'm not completely following you, SystemTheory. How do you distinguish between science and religion?

 

[SystemTheory]

Science is a myth (made up story) of the rational mind perpetuated by the ritual of repeatable experiments.

Religion is a myth (made up story) that takes on unique personal meaning in the context of life's repeated rituals.

I am about to order Freud's book on religion The Future of an Illusion. However my goal is to consider also how humans create a myth about the modern world, or put faith in money, which are also illusions (dreams about the future which may or may not be true).

 

[croghan27]

Is not religion one of the propositions that Karl Popper classes as 'non-falsifiable' as in can never be proven wrong. If all else fails there is always the "because God wants it that way" explanation (of anything) which is unassailable by logic or evidence.

As such it can and does reach into realms that science (or logic - and frequently common sense, for that matter) cannot go. A strong belief in a system like that has a powerful attraction.

The comment (which I cannot local just now ) that religion comes to the fore in times of stress is particularity salient here. When politics (as with dictators), economics (as in depressions) or even science (developing things like hydrogen bombs) present an individual or group with dicey or unacceptable situations, there is always religion as a fall back - it cannot be shown wrong and explains what is happening.

Some kind of religion will always be about to smooth over, make acceptable, the rough parts of life. This works all on its' own - an existential God minding his/her universe is not necessary to this belief.

 

[Galteeth]

Yes.


Also when the scientist says the singularity is a uniform homogeneous mixture of proto-matter, such that light does not shine due to dis-equilibrium, I can't imagine any difference between that and what the Bible says, "the Earth was a formless wasteland and darkess covered the abyss." There is a limit to what one can imagine in science or religion.

I don't think science has much to say on the subject of singularities as actual phenomenon. Singularities represent a breakdown of the laws of physics.

This superficial similarity you are noticing is a result of the causuality paradox (either infinite regression of cause and effect or a first, uncaused cause) that neither religion nor science has really been able to deal with. Since causuality is a fundamental element of all human thinking, this is not surprising.

 

[RonL]

I don't know to transfer a picture on the Bing home page, but the picture of the day gives a very good example of a myth, "A mountain that is said to be the trunk of a tree that grew all the fruits of the world, it was cut down by an ancestor and caused a great flood". It makes contact with three countries in S.America. (Mount Roraima)

Can anyone transfer the image ?

http://www.bing.com/

 

[DaveC426913]

Can anyone transfer the image ?

No. It's carefully obscured. Just link to the page.
Or just post any image from Google.

But what is the relevance?

 

[RonL]

No. It's carefully obscured. Just link to the page.
Or just post any image from Google.

But what is the relevance?

Guess the link will last for the rest of the day.

The thread has made mention of myths a number of times and when I saw this, it reminds me of some of the illustrations of my religous past. One deal breaker for me is the story (myth) of Samson slaying 10,000 Philistines in a single day with the jawbone of a donkey (printable correct word) I was well into adulthood when I ran the numbers on that.

What was that last guy thinking as he climbed that mass of dead bodies.

There may be no relevance, I'm just astonished at the things that much of humanity believe without question.

http://www.bing.com/

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Arkon Daraul's Secret Societies, A History gives a good brief summary of the history of secret cult like societies and the methods they used to attract and retain members. One of the most interesting were the Castrators who essentially alienated their members from the rest of society by their very core practice.

Its interesting that at one time the Mithraist secret society was a contender against Christianity for the religion of the realm in Europe. Apparently the date for Christmas was even stolen from the Mithraist Festival of the Sun holiday. Recruitment for esoteric vs exoteric religions both had their advantages though in current times since the leaders do not necessarily have much control over the official religion of their nation esoteric religions suffer. The benefit of Christianity was that it offered 'salvation' or assurances of peace and prosperity to anyone who asked for it. It was a peasant's religion and so it spread much more widely and rapidly than the more choosy esoterics. Esoterica was later built into Christianity to attract more austere members and create a two tiered religion with a church that gained wide political influence.

Humans seem to like mystery and religion offers both mystery and answers. Those seeking an understanding of the world around them find comfort in the idea that some things are simply unknowable and that if they subscribe to a particular society of thought that they may find some minimal answers that others do not have. Some are attracted to the idea of greater answers and power (from whence we get our esoteric religions) and still others are most content to follow and fit in.

I think that the pains and fears that religion assuages are natural to the human condition and religion is simply the easiest and most accessible means of dealing with these issues. Perhaps religion for this purpose will be outmoded some day but for now it is a very healthy meme that may not ever go away completely.

 

[SystemTheory]

The benefit of Christianity was that it offered 'salvation' or assurances of peace and prosperity to anyone who asked for it. It was a peasant's religion and so it spread much more widely and rapidly than the more choosy esoterics. Esoterica was later built into Christianity to attract more austere members and create a two tiered religion with a church that gained wide political influence.

Black Elk prays to the Great Spirit like this (English translation): "Look upon these children with children in their arms and smiling, and help us walk the good road to the day of quiet. This is my prayer. Hear me!"

Jesus appeals to the infantile needs of humanity to seek a parent in the world and a parent in oneself. In my study of various religions and human psychobiology, I have found none that speak to my infantile desire to internalize the abilities of a parent more than in the words of Jesus. When the infantile effort to internalize the abilitities of the parents is properly understood we will have a much better understanding of the function of religion. Even the psychologists are not immune from their own infantile logic, so they create their own belief systems (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is a non-empirical judgment system based on prevailing beliefs about behavior, not empirical methods).

 

[Ulagatin]

My thought is that any religion mirroring the human condition will be eternal and undying. An earlier poster stated that as we discover more scientific facts about our universe, the claws of faith would slacken. I agree and disagree to a large extent regarding this proposition, as while the poster has suggested what I believe to be truth in one sense, it is far from the entire story. What must be considered is that, while science certainly enlightens humankind and disentangles some of the mysticism previously tied to various unexplained phenomena, it also produces certain philosophical considerations for humankind.

In essence, the rise of science in the modern era has given birth to existential nihilism, such that we must find and create our own meaning, in many senses of the word. While most existentialists are and have historically been atheists, the father of existentialism himself (Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard) was in fact a deeply religious man.

We understand, as central to consciousness, the role of truth, the role of structure and beauty, and so, undoubtedly, religion must play centrally in this poetry of existentialism, in the conquest of suffering, and the triumph of human passion in pursuit of virtue, grand purpose and meaning.

In other words, a pursuit of purpose and meaning is inherent to the human consciousness in many senses - for example, we perceive physical reality and then we condition it with our own mental structures (our biases and predispositions in thought) in order to make sense of the sensory information made available to us. There are often many aesthetic considerations in our thought processes - for example, consider mathematics. The famous mathematician Euler discovered a theorem which led to his beautiful identity e^{i\pi} + 1 = 0. Euler's identity is considered remarkably beautiful in the world of mathematics as it links many of the fundamental constants and operations in mathematics in one simple equation, no more than perhaps two inches long.

Now consider a great painting by Picasso - what makes it beautiful and awe-inspiring in the beholder's eye? Is it sheer talent, or is there some more fundamental element in the relationship between the observer and the artwork itself?

Clearly, our methods of thought, our predispositions and our cultural biases all have an impact on our aesthetic appreciation of abstract notions and ideas. They also have an impact upon our method of rationalising the perceived world insomuch as the structure we apply in our minds to understand and perhaps truly transcend the sensory data we have been presented with at anyone point in time.

This philosophy can be generalised for religion. Religion is, in essence, a set of supernatural beliefs and practices exemplifying an inherent moral code, often presented in holy scripture as doctrinal truth. Religion is in some sense the death of nihilism as it presents meaning and purpose to the follower, often in a revelational manner, while science detracts from human purpose and meaning in this very particular sense. Therefore, science and religion roughly act in counter-balance, akin to a conservation law. I personally believe that they can truly be integrated, and that they are not necessarily in disaccord in all manners.

With regard to my opening paragraph, it is not science alone that has led to a weakening in the claws of faith, but rather to the advance of postmodernism, and as a result of that movement, secular humanism. More historically, modernity led to the dichotomy between church and state, a fundamental turning point in the Western world that subsequently led to a decline in religious belief (and greater faith in the Age of Reason - a period of great importance for philosophy and science alike). A religious work ethic is clearly present in the corporate world though, and in many regions in the Western world (and beyond), religion is a powerful force, its grasp in constant flux, but naturally undying due to its lure beyond any measure.

 

[croghan27]

Ulagatin ...er...er... No.

I fear you are (well written) but wrong or at least misguided from beginning to end. Of course religion mirrors(sic) the human condition everything that humans do mirrors 'the human condition, however that is defined, too.

I strongly disagree that science leads to nihilism - what is science but a quest for meaning - and what is theology but one as well, save that theology comes up with answers inside its' own parameters, and so is limited, ... as for moral codes and religion ... are you trying to say that Picasso, a disbeliever, lacked morals when he created Gurnicia? More probably the Bishops and Priests that supported Franco lacked morals than he.

Science asks questions - religion gives answers (what may or may not be correct). If you want to talk about humanity - the human mind will always ask questions (and that is as general as I will get!), and so will never be satisfied (the game is more important than the winning). Religion in answering question is embarking on its' own termination.

Hamlet's pretentious:There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. is not an affirmation of God.

 

[Ulagatin]

Glad to hear your point of view. I must have abstracted far too much regarding my point about Picasso because it was not understood - this was simply to highlight the elements of human consciousness that I discussed in my original post (ie truth, beauty and structure), and not to indict him on any such charge as you are proposing that I have done. You clearly have far more knowledge of Picasso than I (I only used his name as an example of a famous painter - I know precious little more than this about him).

We clearly have different interpretations of the word 'meaning' - science does construct meaning insofar as it allows us to better understand ourselves and our universe, but it also often leads to a decoupling from the egocentrism of religion - ie it casts doubt on the cosmic importance of human beings, and devalues a sense of greater meaning or purpose.

For instance, cosmology is based upon several parameters - if you are aware of Hubble's law of expansion (the FRW model of cosmology), it gives us the energy density of the universe at any point in time, and this density is time-dependant (as the scale factor in the left hand side of the equation changes). The cosmological constant (the vacuum energy) is very important in the equation as it has implication for the rate of the expansion of the universe (we are currently in a vacuum-dominatd phase - expansion approximates {e^{Ht}} in our time, where H is Hubble's constant or Hubble's parameter). If we saw a much greater rate of inflation earlier in the history of the universe, galaxies would not have been able to form as gravity would have been too weak to counteract the repulsive force. If the inflation rate was much smaller early in the history of the universe, the converse would be true, and the universe would end with a big crunch (and depending on the time-scale of this, intelligent life may never have become a reality in our universe).

The evolution of intelligent life is most certainly dependant on certain intrinsic properties of our universe (such as demonstrated above), but intelligent life (manifested as human beings) is not at the centre of everything as many religions would have us believe - the evolution of intelligent life is greatly important to us (obviously) but not in any grand sense to anything else on a larger scale - we are cosmically insignificant. The universe did not "come into existence" (for want of a better phrase) for the purpose of humanity, or for any other intelligent life according to science. Religion (while much older than the science of cosmology in this sense, obviously) attempts to create meaning from this void, and it is in this sense that I define meaning.

Darwinian evolution would have us believe that humans have evolved from apes - clearly contradictory to the message of the world's major religions. Again, it paints an image of a 'void in meaning' of our world. Seeking answers from religion allows oneself to overcome this void, hence the strength of religion in maintaining faith in people. The key word is faith, as it is by definition not based upon reason but rather on hope.

Now, back to the original point regarding the creation of meaning from science. While science can give us a great deal of information, and will continue to do so, there are fundamental questions beyond its scope - questions in the realm of metaphysics and theology. Such a question is "What caused the big bang?" as this implies cause-and-effect which is then a time-dependant relationship. The big bang itself defined time (a flawed sentence, for sure, but our language is difficult to use when we discuss these matters) and so it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically to discuss what happened prior to the big bang. It is fundamentally BEYOND THE DOMAIN OF SCIENCE and so we have an argument as to why science will not be able to kill religion in its entirety.

I strongly disagree that science leads to nihilism - what is science but a quest for meaning - and what is theology but one as well, save that theology comes up with answers inside its own parameters, and so is limited...

Science is most definitely a quest for meaning - even a quick glance at modern theoretical physics confirms that view, and theology is in its own sense a quest for meaning, with pre-defined answers as (generally) given in holy scripture. Perhaps what I should have stated in my last post is that science reconfirms in the observer's mind an inherent nihilism, rather than it itself leading to nihilism.

What you have failed to recognise is that both science and theology exist in a hierarchy, with certain bounds inherent to each field. For example, science is codified in the language of mathematics, and bound upon empirical measurement and observation. Theology is based upon a philosophical structure and therefore does give answers (correct or incorrect) within its own parameters. These parameters are just different to those found in science and mathematics, as parameters within theology are (arguably) created by religious scholars, but parameters within science and mathematics are (to a greater or lesser degree) discovered, simply because of the nature of these fields.

Please elaborate on the statement that religion is embarking on its own termination by answering questions.

Science asks questions - religion gives answers (what may or may not be correct). If you want to talk about humanity - the human mind will always ask questions (and that is as general as I will get!), and so will never be satisfied (the game is more important than the winning).

I agree entirely with this segment of your post, and have no more to add here. As a side note, I did not fully understand the last line of your post, regarding Hamlet. I'm only 17 and have read almost no Shakespeare.

I myself am not a religious man, which may be of interest to you (it may have appeared from my original post that I have a religious bent, but not so).

Thanks for your reply, croghan, and for your compliment on my writing.

Davin