Is Religion a Natural Phenomenon?

Religion is NOT hereditary. It is TAUGHT to kids and others. People are basically brainwashed into believing that nonsense.

 

You must not know what hereditary means. Hereditary; inherited or inheritable by established rules of descent. What i just posted implied with a doubt that they're brainwashed into believing it. I never said otherwise. It's definitely not a psychological disorder, it's cultural.

 

without*

 

My opinion matters as much as yours, but it is true I am not a psychologist, just taken many courses in it. I have studied religions and mythology to a greater extent. That includes Christian mythology as well as eastern religions. I think this is a common factor among the non-religious, and specifically atheist as we need to understand a belief prior to rejecting it. If you check out the Pew Report on “Religious Knowledge” you will find the Atheist tested as the top group on religious knowledge. Christians tested in the lower percentage on knowledge of their own or any other religious doctrine.
The last foot note here is Religious views are learned not genetic. As with all learned information it can, and often when dealing with religion, is filled with human errors.

 

I think there's some semantic confusion about heredity, teaching and culture. Ordinarily, when we talk about traits being inherited, we're talking about genetics and biology. I don't think religion per se is hereditary in that sense, although we may have a genetic disposition toward it (the so-called "God gene"). There seems to be some biological predispostion at work, since historically there is no human society that hasn't had some form of religion. The particulars of religious beliefs and practices are learned,usually from parents. We ordinarily don't speak of those as hereditary, because they're acquired after birth. Sometimes, we end up with different religious beliefs from our parents. How does this happen? From exposure to people who got a different religious outlook from their parents; or because the belief system of our parents doesn't meet our personal psychological needs or fit our personal experiences. For example, a person has a substance abuse problem, turns to a Twelve Step program for help, and "comes to believe" in a Higher Power. Of course, lying behind all of this is Society, which has a history and needs of its own which become the culture to which parents and other agents for teaching beliefs usually draw on when they do their religious education.

 

I'd say most people are unaware of the giants on who'm we can stand.....

its too profound to think someone thousands of years ago had the same thoughts....that we can hold the same beliefs as those without iphones.

In the case of human beings.....speciation cannot contend with hubris.

 

I looked into the root of the word religion, and what I found is that at its core, it merely means a belief system. So the word can be applied to any belief that one holds closely.

 

That might be true, but in general parlance I think the term has come to mean a set of beliefs and values relating to spirituality, the supernatural, or the numinous. But your definition is close to the legal definition used by the Supreme Court: a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons,but not necessarily including a belief in God or a supreme being.

 

I see religion more as a macrocosm of mankind's faith in one another. Our great ability as communicators is essential to this. We know each other so well, perhaps better than any animal, yet we don't know each other at all, and it is mystifying. It's really no small wonder that we place purpose and intent upon the universe at large when we do it every waking second where other people are concerned. Which is not to say that any such purpose or intent cannot exist for the universe itself.

 

Very true.

 

Interesting but speculative. Dennett is sympathetic. Dawkins, not so much. Dawkins said: "It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between. Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets." I tend to agree. The evidence supporting it is slim. Of course, the human brain has two hemispheres, they see the world somewhat differently, and in those rare cases where the two are split, the right hand literally doesn't know what the left hand is doing. There is recent empirical support for auditory hallucinations being a result of this division in some cases. But as a grand theory of religion, it has its problems. According to the theory, this bicameral mind evolved and was functional in primitive hunter-gatherer societies and neolithic farming and herding ones; but "broke down" under the complexities of more modern arrangements. The Greeks of Homer's time and the Hebrews of the early Bible were thus functionally lobotomized. We therefore might expect hunter-gatherers in our own time, especially those least exposed to civilization, to display the kind of bicameral separation Jaynes is talking about, but they don't seem to. Maybe this is because of contamination from civilization. Maybe not. Jaynes' empirical basis for his theory rests partly on noticing a lack of introspection in Homer's Illiad, coupled with lots of theistic activity. I think this belongs in the X-files for future reference, along with Chariots of the Gods, Freud's Totem and Taboo, etc. I think speculation is useful, important and fun in freeing our minds and inspiring further inquiry. Just don't give me flack for believing stuff without scientific proof!

 

I only read the same book you did.

 

if by religion what is meant is the love of the mystery of the unseen and the unknown, then yes of course, THIS is a natural thing. all creatures LOVE to explore. of course this isn't just a casual hobby. it also has implications for finding an ideal defensable space. but they do, observably appear to find and take great pleasure in doing so.

we are certainly not so far devorced from that. to the contrary, with the primates and the so called sapients such as ourselves, we've taken this beyond the physical realm.

but if by religion you mean the specific beliefs of specific dominant religions, then no, there is nothing any more natural about pretending to know one unknown thing, then about pretending to know another.

 

re·li·gion

[ri-lij-uh n]
noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.

5. the practice of religious beliefs.

If we consider the actual meaning of the word, then we can see that religion is an unnatural phenomenon, since it is made up by people. It is nothing more than people creating a set of beliefs that satisfy a need to have some sort of code to live by.

 

How are people an unnatural phenomena? Do you believe people are super natural?

Super natural being;


su·per·nat·u·ral [spər náchərəl]
adj
1. not of natural world: relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws
2. relating to deity: relating to or attributed to a deity
3. magical: relating to or attributed to magic or the occult

 

What a stimulating thread!
Jaynes writing is so interesting. I cant help but see the similarities in how psychedlecs work on the mind. Is there a relation between the early bicameral brain and the experiance felt with drugs like LSD? In other words maybe psychedlics makes the brain behave like early mans bicameral brain. Whats the implications of understanding and better treating mental disorders like schitszophrenia? I'd like to get Jaynes book.

 

It is an amazing idea. Thanks for sharing.

 

I disagree. Humans are a part of nature, and to the extent that any organism's behavioral repertoire can be said to be natural so to is the behavioral repertoire of humans. Bees and bee hives are natural, as are people and skyscrapers.

That being said I certainly would not say that humans evolved to be religious, but I could certainly see some aspects of religiosity as being side effects or consequences of highly specialized mental mechanisms.