Religion a figment of human imagination

[L. Coyote]

Expect banner headline in every main stream medium by tomorrow LOL

And I thought it was just something imposed on slaves. Wrong again?

===========
Religion a figment of human imagination
28 April 2008 - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13782-religion-a-figment-of-human-imagination.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news8_head_dn13782


Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination.

That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.

Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died.

Once we'd done that, we had access to a form of social interaction unavailable to any other creatures on the planet. Uniquely, humans could use what Bloch calls the "transcendental social" to unify with groups, such as nations and clans, or even with imaginary groups such as the dead. .......

[provis99]

1. religion is more a product of a lack of imagination

a desire to be comforted by stupid fairy tales than explore the exciting world of reality.

[spoony]

5. You must really hate Obama

[aquart]

6. Well, no.

It's the product of associative logic, the same kind that permits poetry.

Most religious myths seem to be after the fact explanations of things that people have been doing so long they've forgotten why, so they ask. Or, possibly, things we began doing before we had language. The explanations always explain current realities however, not previous ones.

"The exciting world of reality" is the one filled with pain, hunger, and loss. Only someone living in protected comfort could use that phrase. Religion is a method of gaining control over a world in which we have little to no control over our destiny. It makes one not alone when one is most alone.

It really takes a profound depth of ignorance to dismiss religion the way you have.

[ColbertWatcher]

10. ???

"The exciting world of reality" is the one filled with pain, hunger, and loss."

You haven't heard about the bugs having sex with the flowers have you?

[dmallind]

12. not really

It makes you think that you have control over your eternal destiny when you have none over your earthly destiny. This however assumes the very religious tautology that you HAVE an eternal destiny. Without that, completely unproven and probably unprovable, axiom, you have no more control than you do without religion (unless of course you are the founder of or chief of the religion).

It makes you not alone only if you assume the very religious tatutology that there is somebody/something out there for you to be not alone with. Without that , completely unproven and probably unprovable, axiom, you are every bit as alone as anyone else without religion who happens to be alone (which is of course far from all or most of those without religion), and in the meantime you are suffering much of the same lack of incentive to STOP being alone as an only child with an imaginary friend.

It may very well make people imagine they have these advantages, but so does any kind of imagination from pretending to be a superhero to pretending the monsters exist, but can't see you if you are under the sheets.

[lips]

41. I completely agree

Imagination is not predated by ideation. Animals proabably have ideas too, but there are closer to a human definition of instinct.

Does the OP really think animals with complicated social structures are'nt practicing an archaic variety of religion? Mic check your frontal lobes people.

[tkmorris]

2. I think he's got it about right

Of course, it's not exactly a new idea either.

A mind that is capable of higher level cognitive thought has, as it's flip-side, a greater ability to delude itself.

[malaise]

3. That's exactly what it is -

born of ignorance about natural phenomena and fear of the unknown.

[dmallind]

4. Where's the distinction?

yes it had to wait until we evolved the ability to imagine things, but yes after that it hekped promote social bonding (although sometimes enforced and malignant bonding).

What is he offering that is different?

[L. Coyote]

7. I ned to read more than the abstract, of course, but

it contributes to the dialogue on the origin of delusion and religion.

[dmallind]

8. Likewise, but still

Maybe I'm missing some technical distinction but I've never read any theory that says religion predates the ability of the human brain to imagine things. That WOULD be a shocking revelation. I also don't see anything in this theory that means religion did not become more widespread - evolve if you like - because it promoted social cohesion.

The origin of imaginative ability is itself a fascinating question though. I would suspect that it would take almost no time at all for religion to arise after that neurological function developed. I mean what is likely to be the first thought that occurs to a primitive hominid capable of imagination? Surely it would be "How could things be better than they are?" or "How did things become what they are?" Both of those questions together are about 90% of all religion even today.

[L. Coyote]

14. There are other theories of the origin of religion, like ecological impact on

consciousness if you eat the wrong plants. Anyway, it is good to see science discussing the religion problem.

[ColbertWatcher]

9. I thought some religious...

..."experiences" are a form of mental illness?

Like hallucinating?

[dmallind]

11. yeah - temporal lobe stimulation

Some university in Canada (Guelph?) did some pretty big studies on the ability to generate religious visions by stimulating the same areas of the brain responsible for epilepsy.

[timtom]

13. Why isn't this in the religion forum?

[Pastiche423]

15. To allow others that do not go to the religious forum

to know about this article?

I appreicate that the OP put it here. Otherwise I would have missed it.

Religion truly is the opiate of the masses.

Recommend.

[L. Coyote]

16. "Religion truly is the opiate of the masses." Indeed. It substitutes for thinking about

the nature of reality, life and our inevitable deaths.

Not to mention critical judgment and reasoning.
Beliefs supply ready contradictions to reason.

[L. Coyote]

17. Actually, this would go to the Anthropology Group, a great place to visit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=397

And a new group in need of more involved members.

[Zhade]

18. Should the truth be relegated to the one place delusions rule?

NT!

[smoogatz]

21. You talk about delusions like they're a bad thing.

One of the old ladies in my grandma's nursing home was convinced she was on a luxury cruise. Where would you rather be: stuck in a nursing home, or on a fabulous cruise ship? A number of the other patients were actually a bit jealous. She's on a cruise, and we're stuck here eating this crappy food! No fair!

[knitter4democracy]

19. How do we know it's uniquely human?

Whales and dolphins have large, complex brains, unify with groups that span oceans, and seem to mourn their dead. Squid have serious awesome and quite complex nerve pathways, move in groups, seem to use flashing of color to communicate, and attack anything that seems to be attacking them in a group.

The reality is, until we can speak whale or elephant or chimp or squid, we're just assuming we're the only ones with religion and imagination. We're not the only ones to use tools, we're not the only ones to form groups, and we're not the only ones who communicate within those groups. I think it's awfully human-centric to say we're the only beings on the planet to have imagination and potentially a huge flaw in the theory.

[smoogatz]

20. Good question.

To the extent that other animals have language, it's possible—even likely—that they have imaginations. No imagination without language, though, I don't think. At least, I cant imagine how that would work. :)

[knitter4democracy]

22. Some linguists believe that language causes thought.

That we cannot even think of something if our language doesn't support it. If that's true (hard to prove), then couldn't animals have the same issue? If their language does support certain concepts (ie death, joy, stuff other than hunger and sex), couldn't they then imagine something after death?

[delt664]

23. Language causes thought?

But wouldnt the creation and evolution of a language require, at its root, thought?

[Jim__]

24. That was one of the Party's premises in 1984.

They were taking words out of the dictionary. By the year 2050 they would have the dictionary pared down to where they wanted it to be. Then, thought crime would be impossible because people would not possess the language for it.

The idea always fascinated me. I never could decide whether or not the idea was correct.

[delt664]

27. Its an interesting idea

I really need to read 1984. I keep putting it off because im afraid it will just make me more upset about the state of this country.

[knitter4democracy]

29. The linguists who go with this theory say that it takes an object.

They argue that it takes an innovation to create language--that we didn't have the word automobile until we had them, for example. Just because one or two people are able to think up something that doesn't' exist doesn't mean that anyone else is.

I'm not sure I go with the theory (again, it's super-hard to actually prove), but it's interesting to ponder. These same linguists say American kids do worse in math because of our words for numbers and functions. In Chinese, the math words are shorter, easier, and the multiplication tables even rhyme and have a rhythm to them. In English, kids do well until they get to around 12, and the linguists argue it's because the words are hard.

[cosmik debris]

30. Would you be so kind as to provide

names or titles of books by those linguists or any sources where I might learn more?

Thank you.

[knitter4democracy]

31. Sure!

I just dabble in it, really. Linguistics was my favorite class in college.

I've been having fun reading "The Translation Studies Reader" ed. by Lawrence Venuti. I couldn't take the translation class (just for fun) this semester because of scheduling conflicts, but I got the textbook anyway. Very, very good so far. Very interesting.

One of the best in the field is Noam Chomsky, so anything by him is good (sometimes hard to work out what he's really trying to say but still good). Here's a list from Barnes and Noble:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=Noam+Chomsky&RDR=N&SZE=10&TXT=Y&WRD=linguistics

This one of his looks particularly good (I can't find my college textbook by him on the list, but I'd start here):http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Knowledge-of-Language/Noam-Chomsky/e/9780275917616/?itm=9

I've heard of this author and that he's well-respected:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Language-Instinct/Steven-Pinker/e/9780061336461/?itm=10

This one looks good, too:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Contemporary-Linguistics/William-OGrady/e/9780312419363/?itm=41

[cosmik debris]

32. I was looking specifically for

"...linguists (who) believe that language causes thought."

Could you narrow my search please.

[knitter4democracy]

33. That second author does to a certain extent.

He does a good job of explaining all the different theories as well, actually, from the pieces of his I've read.

I found these through the Western Michigan University library:
--Transformational grammar as a theory of language acquisition; a study in the empirical, conceptual and methodological foundations of contemporary linguistics Bruce L. Derwing.
--Theory of language / Steven Weisler, Slavko Milekic.


Then, I found these articles:
--"Language affects patterns of brain activation associated with perceptual decision"
Li Hai Tan, Alice H D Chan, Paul Kay, Pek-Lan Khong, et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Washington: Mar 11, 2008. Vol. 105, Iss. 10; pg. 4004
--"The Functionalist's Dilemma"
George Lakoff. American Scientist. Research Triangle Park: Jan/Feb 2008. Vol. 96, Iss. 1; pg. 72, 3 pgs
--"Spatial frames of reference in language and thought"
William F Hanks. Language in Society. Cambridge: Apr 2006. Vol. 35, Iss. 2; pg. 285, 12 pgs (This one looks particularly interesting).

I hope these help you in your search.

[cosmik debris]

34. Thank you.

My main concern is the semantic argument that must arise.

Without a very broad definition of "language" and a narrow definition of "thought" it seems impossible for the theory to be true.

Simple observation of deaf children and children who have not yet learned spoken language demonstrates that their thoughts clearly precede their language.

So I suspect that the authors adjusted the definitions to fit the theory.

I'll have to check it out to get to the bottom of it all.

[knitter4democracy]

35. I did run into some interesting articles on signing during my search.

There have been studies on how pre-verbal children use gestures to communicate with their family members, mothers in particular. I'd be surprised if that weren't included in the definition of language, actually. One thing I found in linguistics was that definitions get awfully fluid awfully fast.

[Jim__]

37. Wittgenstein is not a linguist, however, he does hold that language is necessary for thought.

I don't know if his arguments follow the same logic as linguistic arguments. However, there is an essay - here - that talks about Wittgenstein's ideas on this.

His main discussion of language is in his "Philosophical Investigations". However, if you're looking for robust arguments leading to a conclusion, I wouldn't recommend reading it. Wittgenstein considers philosophy an activity, and his method is to present you with some ideas, in this book he describes various language games, leads you into problems, then more or less tells you what he thinks. To really appreciate what he is saying, you have to participate in his games.

[knitter4democracy]

39. Thanks for the link!

I'm going to read that tonight after the kids are in bed. :)

[moggie]

36. I've heard that Chomsky is controversial among linguists

For example, my first Japanese teacher was a linguist, and she was pretty scathing about his theories (unfortunately, I can't remember any details!)

[knitter4democracy]

38. I've heard that, too.

My profs in college loved him, but I've read that not everyone does and seriously disagrees with some of his work.

[Silent3]

26. Haven't you ever had a thought that was difficult to put into words?

I agree with the idea that language and thought are closely intertwined, and perhaps we'd be incapable of much of our advanced human thinking without language, but it also seems fairly clear that at least some of our thoughts and ideas originate apart from the words we might later discover to express them.

[knitter4democracy]

28. Oh, I agree, but I also think it's more complicated than that.

For example, when learning Russian verb tenses, we were shocked to learn that they only have four. It explained why our Russian friends always got the present tenses mixed up (they only have one while we have several). They just couldn't see any difference between our tenses at all. Of course, they had better curse words (an entire dictionary full, actually), and we just couldn't keep up at all.

[trixie]

25. In my lifetime with all the religious training I had with ALL religions

I still can't understand how anyone buys into the whole religion thing. I am not trying to be argumentative I just don't get it. To me it seems so far fetched and yet we have a world with wars going on over one guys invisible friend vs. another guys invisible friend. How do they get millions to follow such insanity?

I agree with the article. Is it stunted maturity? Why do adults hold on to these stories?

[ZombieHorde]

40. What kind of training did you have with the IOT?

I know that there is a member or two here on DU.

[Deep13]

42. I wonder if the brain parts responsible for imagination also...

...create the hallucinations that fill-in the gaps in our vision were blood vessels cover the retina.