Religion - A Universal Human Trait.

stingray75

I completed a degree in Social Anthropology in 2005, and was recently discussing this subject with a friend.

During the course of my studies I had the opportunity of examining many different cultures, from developed western nation-states to small isolated tribes - they all have one thing in common - religion. Some of these religions are more developed and stylised than others, but it is present in all cultures to some extent - in some cases anti-religions exist - but that's another story.

In all cultures religion performs 3 main functions.

1. explanation of origin of (it's) people.

2. community and continuity (on an fixed calendar of annual events).

3. explanation of what happens after death.

these 3 functions take many differing forms amongst all religions (roughly 6000 in all) but all 3 are present in every religion.

some scholars use this as the reasoning behind a 'universal deism' common to all peoples that must underpin the common belief that there is a higher entity or consciousness than humanity.

I, on the other hand disagree, it has become quite apparent to me that the absolute commonality of these 3 functions amongst humanity owes itself to an entirely different set of circumstances...

Justification for Existence.

eoin5

Is there a question or a request here or is this like one of those questions on the english LC that ended with 'discuss'

estebancambias

Hhahahaha. It was sort of contemporary, and subtle....radical.

stingray75

estebancambias wrote: »

Hhahahaha. It was sort of contemporary, and subtle....radical.

1st post. not accustomed to the particular conventions of boards.ie

every forum has it's own 'style' i suppose...

estebancambias

Oh no it was a great post, very lucid.

I guess, a welcome is in order.

I'll leave the answering discussion to some of the stalwarts of the forum.;)(Was that actually needed?)

stingray75

estebancambias wrote: »

Oh no it was a great post, very lucid.

I guess, a welcome is in order.

I'll leave the answering discussion to some of the stalwarts of the forum.;)(Was that actually needed?)

is 'vagueness' your own personal style here or do you have to share it?


thanks for the welcome, enchanté...

eoin5

Well the question of our existence is a philosophical one and I think growing amount of people are waking up to that fact. I reckon we are evolving slowly as a race away from using plain dogmatics to justify our existance.

As for any evolved religion its more of a tool used for control rather than any kind of realistic attempt to explain ourselves.

stingray75

eoin5 wrote: »

As for any evolved religion its more of a tool used for control rather than any kind of realistic attempt to explain ourselves.

that is true for about 5 out of 6000, but they did also all begin as an attempt at explanation.

here's one for you...

i am a fully committed atheist/existentialist/borderline nihilist but i would not welcome an abolition of religion today...

discuss.

Sangre

well this was certainly one of the factors that made me realise that religion is wholly man made. it seemed quite unlikely that every community/tribe since man's beginnings would have creation/spirit/god stories yet by someone coincidence the real god made himselves known to us 2000* years ago, about 40000 years (or whatever) after man started walking the earth.

* or whatever main religion you ascribe to.

eoin5

stingray75 wrote: »

i am a fully committed atheist/existentialist/borderline nihilist but i would not welcome an abolition of religion today...

discuss.

Societies need some sort of dogma to remain committed to each other. How else could the (ready for an early Godwin ) Nazi party gain power and turn a nation insane. Its the invisible glue that holds societies together, even the Swedes have it if you examine close enough.

stingray75

eoin5 wrote: »

Societies need some sort of dogma to remain committed to each other. How else could the (ready for an early Godwin ) Nazi party gain power and turn a nation insane. Its the invisible glue that holds societies together, even the Swedes have it if you examine close enough.

having been in gothenburg recently i was shocked by the sheer number of churches!

loose dogma and the jackboot can accomplish a lot, i agree.

Dades

Welcome, stingray75.

stingray75 wrote: »

Justification for Existence.

Undoubtedly a huge factor. Kind of like "the need to know we are part of something bigger".

18AD

stingray75 wrote: »

Justification for Existence.

I'd see it more as the superimposition of the rational mind onto the irrational. The left brain trying to understand the right brain.

Would this factor into many of your observations?

Zillah

stingray75 wrote: »

is 'vagueness' your own personal style here or do you have to share it?

Don't mind him, he's a bit weird in the head.

I think the human predisposition for religion is a result of several factors:
1 - Respect for authority.
2 - Desire for explanations.
3 - Middle realm logic.

I think only 3 needs explanation. This is a theme Dawkins brings up now and then. He describes how human existence occupies a middle world in terms of space and time. At different scales things follow different rules. Our ability to intuitively understand cause and effect over huge time periods is not very good (hence the common criticisms we hear against evolution). Rules for behaviour of the world at the sub atomic and interstellar scales are raidcally different to those of say, Newton.

Hence why we often hear totally bogus "common sense" type of arguments from Creationists: "You can't be related to a monkey, can you?!" It sounds ridiculous unless you can find an abstract method for understanding the time scale involved.

AtomicHorror

My hypothesis (I don't know enough to call it more):

Our minds are hardwired to identify causes and purposes. To look for patterns in complex information. If the information available is incomplete, we have the capacity to make intuitive leaps- we make an assumption. Since so little information was available to our ancestors (who found themselves increasingly aware of an incredibly complex environment) they were forced to make assumptions and, more importantly, to accept them in the absence of unobtainable proof. The alternative would tend to be massive emotional distress followed by suicide. Natural selection favored the intuitive.

In order to prevent offspring from facing the same crisis over and over, the beliefs became dogma and religions were formed. In cases where this did not occur and in the absence of a science-like philosophy and practice, survival rates were lessened. Religions have been (and perhaps still are) essential for the survival of most of our species- they convey a survival advantage. It helps that religions gel neatly with the social tendencies we inherited from our progenitor species.

Akrasia

If I was a caveman who had never been more than 100 miles from where I was born, it would be wholly reasonable for me to believe that the sun and the moon were some kind of gods.

It is perfectly understandable that people would think that mysterious things could be super natural. Religions all have one thing in common. There's always one egomaniac (or class of 'learned people') who thinks he can explain the supernatural things and everyone else just accepts what he says because he claims to have information that they don't have.

All religions are started by the deluded or the deceptive.

raah!

You should move this to the philosophy forum. Perhaps a more balanced discussino would be had there.

Although "all religions are started by the deluded or the deceptive" was very enlightening. I didn't know that at all up till now

Overheal

AtomicHorror wrote: »

My hypothesis (I don't know enough to call it more):

Our minds are hardwired to identify causes and purposes. To look for patterns in complex information. If the information available is incomplete, we have the capacity to make intuitive leaps- we make an assumption. Since so little information was available to our ancestors (who found themselves increasingly aware of an incredibly complex environment) they were forced to make assumptions and, more importantly, to accept them in the absence of unobtainable proof. The alternative would tend to be massive emotional distress followed by suicide. Natural selection favored the intuitive.

In order to prevent offspring from facing the same crisis over and over, the beliefs became dogma and religions were formed. In cases where this did not occur and in the absence of a science-like philosophy and practice, survival rates were lessened. Religions have been (and perhaps still are) essential for the survival of most of our species- they convey a survival advantage. It helps that religions gel neatly with the social tendencies we inherited from our progenitor species.

Excellent post.

This is quite attributable to our current understanding (or at least mine) of the universe. I can comfortably consider all things related to Earth. that encompass it, because there is a wealth of information available.

But the further out you get, the more leaps of faith I have to take; the more assumptions I have to make. Thinking like that can certainly cause you to think in loops. Those loops can beget depression and yes in turn I can imagine how one would imagine the will to live unless they were able to snap out of it somehow: either by disregarding the query (through ignorance) or filling it with a choice of dogma.

Dades

raah! wrote: »

You should move this to the philosophy forum. Perhaps a more balanced discussino would be had there.

You could start one there yourself and we'd see if it was any more 'balanced'.

Dave!

Does anyone remember the name of the tribe (south american?) Dawkins talked about in the God Delusion, which had no formal religion? It was in the context of morality; they were tested using an equivalent analogy to the 'runaway train' test (somebody on the track... fat guy on the train... do you push him in front of it, etc).

18AD

Overheal wrote: »

Thinking like that can certainly cause you to think in loops. Those loops can beget depression and yes in turn I can imagine how one would imagine the will to live unless they were able to snap out of it somehow: either by disregarding the query (through ignorance) or filling it with a choice of dogma.

Actually, the human mind has the capability of forgeting something and moving on. Unlike a computer, which if you make it run a paradoxical program it will crash or run forever.

The below statement is true.
The above statement is false.

Everyone who has seen this has just left it be, instead of thinking about it forever or ending their life.

Similarly, if someone poses a question to you and you don't know the answer, then an appropriate response is 'I don't know'. Thus, side-stepping ignorance and dogma.
Which funnily enough, was an important teaching of some of the ancient philosophers.

Akrasia wrote:

Religions all have one thing in common. There's always one egomaniac (or class of 'learned people') who thinks he can explain the supernatural things and everyone else just accepts what he says because he claims to have information that they don't have.

But I think many people accept what they have to say because they to have an ego. They don't wish to look the fool and so take on board what the wise person said in order to keep their dignity. Especially if some people have not had the experience, they are hardly in a position to question it.

Also, it is dangerous to question and challenge the general consensus.

Often these "egomaniacal" people will in fact have had an experience that is outside the scope of the regular individual. For instance, near death experience, temporal lobe epilepsy, various meditative states, sensory deprivation or ingestion of consciousness altering substances.

So in this sense, they do have information which others don't. But the information is interpreted from the perspective of the reigning culture.
I can see how, at the time, these interpretations may have made sense. For instance a bright light in the sky viewed by different cultures could be seen as a spirit, angel, UFO, god, unexplained natural phenomena or higher guardian angel. It is the same phenomena in each case, only the explanation differs. Which explanation would you choose?

Here's a scientists perspective on one of these types of experiences:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/229

AtomicHorror wrote:

Our minds are hardwired to identify causes and purposes. To look for patterns in complex information.

I don't think our minds are actually hardwired to seek causality. It appears to be a learned function of the brain. (if anyone has any more information on this I'd gladly take a look)

http://tinyurl.com/5knat9

Recognising patterns is a different function as far as I know. It has more to do with form.

The fact that we have the ability to speculate is enough in itself to explain some of the bizarre ideas that came before us.

Maybe they were just trying to explain the unknown(past and death) and get on with life(calendar) without justification.

All the best.
AD.

AtomicHorror

18AD wrote: »

Actually, the human mind has the capability of forgeting something and moving on. Unlike a computer, which if you make it run a paradoxical program it will crash or run forever.

This trait confers an advantage but it is present to varying degrees based on the individual and the stimulus. In some cases it can break down entirely as is seen in the obsessive-compulsive disorder family.

18AD wrote: »

I don't think our minds are actually hardwired to seek causality. It appears to be a learned function of the brain. (if anyone has any more information on this I'd gladly take a look)

http://tinyurl.com/5knat9

An interesting paper. It's not my field (though I've done a little bit of work in neurobiology) but it reads to me as though there are multiple components to our perception of causal relationships. One part hard-wired as a function of visual data processing, another which has access to this processing output and which uses it in a more conscious manner. Learned or not the tendency to search for causality is a survival advantage and underpins a huge amount of human behavior, including scientific research.

18AD wrote: »

Recognising patterns is a different function as far as I know. It has more to do with form.

I have heard that it is seperate alright but it's likely to be a function we recruit for many purposes- language, music, perhaps a component of facial recognition. It's not unreasonable to speculate that it may interface with our causality perception.

Whatever the details might be, to me it seems most likely that the initiation of religion is based upon that potentially-endless search for cause. After that, it is the charismatic who define these beliefs for others within the established social structure.

18AD

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This trait confers an advantage but it is present to varying degrees based on the individual and the stimulus. In some cases it can break down entirely as is seen in the obsessive-compulsive disorder family.

My main pont was that not knowing the cause of something is not a case for depression and suicide.
This doesn't mean people don't often think about an ultimate cause or life after death, as these are underlying questions everyone may ask.

I don't think OCD ties in with the idea of perpetually wondering about our origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrusive_thoughts#Blasphemous_religious_thoughts
If anything, it appears to crop up in relation to social structures and taboos.

An interesting paper. It's not my field (though I've done a little bit of work in neurobiology) but it reads to me as though there are multiple components to our perception of causal relationships. One part hard-wired as a function of visual data processing, another which has access to this processing output and which uses it in a more conscious manner. Learned or not the tendency to search for causality is a survival advantage and underpins a huge amount of human behavior, including scientific research.

I have heard that it is seperate alright but it's likely to be a function we recruit for many purposes- language, music, perhaps a component of facial recognition. It's not unreasonable to speculate that it may interface with our causality perception.

Yeah. It's quite likely that the different areas are interacting with eachother.

Causality may very well be one aspect of existence that religion explores but I don't think it is the sole (soul?) reason for it.
For example, this tribe is thought to have no use of tense in it's language and they are only aware (ancestrally) of their emmediate family:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people

I'd see causality more useful for the prediction of seasons and times of harvest etc... Maybe why ancient civilisations performed rituals at specific times for good results in war, economy and harvesting. These, to me, are clear indications that they were aware of causality in some sense.
But this seems to be a seperate feature rather than the actual root of religion itself.

All the best.
AD.

AtomicHorror

18AD wrote: »

My main pont was that not knowing the cause of something is not a case for depression and suicide.

I was not saying that it is in all cases but that it may reduce survival advantage in the absence of either religion, philosophy or science. It would be an interesting question to test- though it's hard to imagine how such a study could be constructed.

18AD wrote: »

I don't think OCD ties in with the idea of perpetually wondering about our origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrusive_thoughts#Blasphemous_religious_thoughts
If anything, it appears to crop up in relation to social structures and taboos.

I cited OCD as an example of a condition causing recursive cognitive loops in humans. My point being that our capacity to "switch off" or put aside some thoughts is highly variable and can even become a pathology of sorts.

I guess what I'm saying is that given the incredible stress that a crisis of faith or purpose can put upon a person even in modern times, it's easy to imagine that such crises would have resulted in a selective pressure in favour of those able to fabricate (or accept) catch-all ultimate causes, ie gods. Poly filla for all the empty bits in our understanding.

18AD

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I guess what I'm saying is that given the incredible stress that a crisis of faith or purpose can put upon a person even in modern times, it's easy to imagine that such crises would have resulted in a selective pressure in favour of those able to fabricate (or accept) catch-all ultimate causes, ie gods. Poly filla for all the empty bits in our understanding.

I still think this is one of many factors but an interesting angle none-the-less.

Are you talking of times where function is impaired by thought processes?

So in times of distress a different belief system can yield satisfactory answers for the hardships of life in order to pull together and function again?
Although the answers take advantage of human emotions such as hope and empathy (in the cases of hardship and loss respectively), among others, in order to take effect.
Which seems highly plausable in times of crisis when your emotional mind overrides your rational mind. Making it easier to prey on them when they're out in the open.

Delightfully grim

Peace.
AD.

LaVidaLoca

religion is all things to all people.

That's why you often see atheists (and Dawkin's is one) nonplussed by intelligent people who are beleivers. You want to scream "But How can somebody as well-read as you beleive something so stupid!?"

Of course the answer is that if you try and understand religion as simply a set of statements about the way the world is (as a rationalist would), you misunderstand it.

Religion is a desire to feel that you acually know something that is beyond question. Something that does not need to be proved or debated about, cause it's just so beautifully true. A desire for the warm bubbly feeling your get in your stomach that you know you're on the right side and that hundreds of other like-minded souls are right behind you. You know - the feeling you get at a good rock concert or a political rally. It is primarily a feeling, and that is why arguing against it using reason rarely works.

eoin5

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Religion is a desire to feel that you acually know something that is beyond question. Something that does not need to be proved or debated about, cause it's just so beautifully true.

I dont think religion is as rosey as that for most people. Why do the religious take offence when someone says something bad about their religion? Why do people try to prove that god exists?

LaVidaLoca

think of religion as being a little bit like booze.

It gives you a warm secure feeling in your stomach, you feel more confident in your opinions, sure of yourself and full of Dutch Courage. It centers you and makes you feel that what you think is more true and more important.

In some people this leads to them becomeing slightly more charming under it's influence, others boring, and others stupid and aggressive.

And just like alcohol, there is a spectrum: Huge difference between polite tea-and-biscuits Anglicanism and screaming God Hates Fags type lunacy - just like there's a huge difference between a glass of wine with dinner and 17 pints every night.

PDN

eoin5 wrote: »

I dont think religion is as rosey as that for most people. Why do the religious take offence when someone says something bad about their religion? Why do people try to prove that god exists?

Imagine someone started criticising the Irish on a TV programme you were watching. They said that Irish people are all smelly, that our educational system is a laughing stock, that all our most treasured cultural icons are absurd etc. Most Irish people will act in one of two ways. If the criticism comes from within, ie from another Irish person, we might actually laugh and agree with much of what they say. If, however, it comes from what we perceive to be a hostile source (let's say an English Conservative MP) then most of us would take offence.

In this respect 'the religious' are no different from any other group of people. The strongest criticism I hear of Christianity comes from Christians rather than atheists. But no-one likes to hear their own group being slagged off by an outsider.

I think very few Christians try to prove God exists. We state what we believe, and it's up to you whether you want to accept it or not. If a Christian is particularly close to you (eg a family member) then their love and concern for you may cause them to bang on to a degree that you find irksome. But in general only a tiny minority of Christians would keep on pushing it once you've made clear you don't want to hear it.

To say all Christians try to prove God exists would be like saying that all Poles are drink drivers or that all Nigerians are credit card fraudsters.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Imagine someone started criticising the Irish on a TV programme you were watching. They said that Irish people are all smelly, that our educational system is a laughing stock, that all our most treasured cultural icons are absurd etc. Most Irish people will act in one of two ways. If the criticism comes from within, ie from another Irish person, we might actually laugh and agree with much of what they say. If, however, it comes from what we perceive to be a hostile source (let's say an English Conservative MP) then most of us would take offence.

In this respect 'the religious' are no different from any other group of people. The strongest criticism I hear of Christianity comes from Christians rather than atheists. But no-one likes to hear their own group being slagged off by an outsider.

I think very few Christians try to prove God exists. We state what we believe, and it's up to you whether you want to accept it or not. If a Christian is particularly close to you (eg a family member) then their love and concern for you may cause them to bang on to a degree that you find irksome. But in general only a tiny minority of Christians would keep on pushing it once you've made clear you don't want to hear it.

To say all Christians try to prove God exists would be like saying that all Poles are drink drivers or that all Nigerians are credit card fraudsters.

Good post. I don't think anyone was trying to state that all Christians are trying to prove the existence of God. It's more the annoying few who have decided to abuse science to do it. It's hypocritical as God has always been stated as untestable and beyond science. Creation "scientists" and the like seem to perceive a threat from actual science that is only present because of their insistence on taking the bible literally. And even then, the threat is not an attack on Christianity- it's just science doing what it does.