Does anyone have any interesting atheistic perspectives on religion?

[struggle4progress]

By "interesting," I (of course mean) something other than the trite cheap shots at straw dogs that dominate this forum -- the claims that all religious thought reflects superstition, ignorance, dementia, irrationality, and so on. To qualify as "interesting," an approach should provide some particular and specific insight into a real group of people and should shed light on -- their aspirations and anxieties, their historical social and economic context, the conflicts that confronted them, their psychology, their values, or something similarly definite (rather than mere philosophical remarks). I suspect that there are many approaches, to the study of religion as a social phenomenon, that do not necessarily adopt particular dogmatic views, but that nevertheless seeks a real understanding of the reactions of real actors with nontrivial motives in complex situations. Most historical actors are grey or zebra-stripped figures, whose notions and ideals are sometimes laudable, sometimes reprehensible, and rather often an undistinguished cloudy murk

There are (in fact) many different ways in which religious language is used. Marx noted not only the use of religion in the service of oppression but also noted it as a natural reaction of humans trying to survive in hostile circumstances. One will find religious ideas used to support a political regime and also used in resistance movements against a political regime. In such specific historical contexts, one can reasonably be interested in the language people use to support or oppose certain factions and in the ways people motivate each other: Gandhi (for example) decided not to reject the religion in which he had been raised but rather to use it as the basis of a universalist philosophy which supported his particular political and social "experiments." Whether one felt sympathy or hostility towards the Iranian revolution against the Shah, it is perhaps not completely surprising as a historical matter, that the revolution involved a substantial "religious" element, with specific features arising from culture and from the personalities of those who fought (and won or lost) the fight for power. One may, of course, regard certain religious protestations as mere mystifications: there is no doubt that people do project their own psyches into their philosophical notions or even perhaps into the "real world" as they imagine it. Thus they might (say) attempt to disguise an authoritarian urge or a desire to diddle prepubescent children as reflecting some "higher will." But not every unusual idea is pernicious -- people often feel that they learn usefully from some fantasies, as when those fantasies express themselves in the form of music or sculpture

On a materialistic view of the world, utterances cannot be parsed except in terms of concrete practices related to the utterances. Maxwell's electro-magnetic theory thus references implicitly certain experiments by Faraday and Cavendish and others; similarly, Marx's political/economic theory references implicitly a certain nineteenth century context of political organizing and state power; similarly, Gandhi's reading of the Gita references implicitly his experiences contesting colonial rule in South Africa and India. It is therefore not unreasonable to suspect that religious notions can be examined in a context-sensitive manner, as part of an investigation that sheds some light on actual people and the actual historical situations in which they find themselves

[pinkpops]

1. Man invented God in his own image

[struggle4progress]

13. A well-known slogan which sometimes might serve as a sort of analytic template --

though how informative it is, depends on the use actually made of it

It seems generally to be used here in a dismissive mode, not to provide any specific social or cultural or psychological insights, but merely as a "final word" or terminator

[pinkpops]

46. Any chance I could get paid by the word?

I'm not sure I'm an athiest. I think there might be something going on that we can't see. But I don't think it is an old man with whiskers.

[Meshuga]

47. It makes sense to be used in a dismissive way

Specially if a person has no use for religion or is refuting a God idea that someone here might have.

If that is a terminator then so be it since it is an opinion and all are welcome to express their opinion here in this forum.

[struggle4progress]

49. My question is whether there are interesting uses of that claims -- beyond its sloganeering use

If it is a meaningful and factual claim, then it should belong to a usable predictive theory, by which one becomes able to interpret certain utterances profitably; of course, one ought not ask for any such benefit, if it is not really a claim but merely a rhetorical device which syntactically resembles a claim

[Meshuga]

59. It could be used as a cheap shot

But it doesn't mean that the person has no reason to come to that conclusion and is just parroting some phrase. It all depends on the situation. I guess you would have to ask or "challenge" the person at the time to find out. Perhaps it is better than making assumptions.

[struggle4progress]

66. OK -- you really don't like that question: I'll try not to ask you that one again

[Meshuga]

67. There is nothing wrong with asking what is behind someone's claim

And I personally would not mind the question if directed at me. However, I do not hold atheistic views.

All I am saying is that there are ways to ask the question without sounding dismissive yourself.

[BlooInBloo]

2. (shrug) Once food production techniques developed to the point...

that societies could support non-food-production members, religion served the purpose (intentionally or not) of a learning-accelerant (for those priveleged members, but knowledge is knowledge).

As knowledge-production developed, it became a threat to religion, so religion then became the enemy of knowledge, and served no useful purpose whatsoever. That happened around Copernicus' time.

[Ian David]

3. We are The Universe made manifest trying to figure itself out.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Me & the Universe/The Universe & Me

"We believe that the Universe itself is conscious in a way we can never truly understand. It is engaged in a search for meaning, so it breaks itself apart, investing its own consciousness in every form of life. We are the Universe, trying to explain itself."

"The molecules of your body are the same molecules that make this station and the nebula outside, that burn inside the stars themselves. We are star-stuff. We are the Universe, made manifest, trying to figure itself out. And, as we have both learned, sometimes the Universe needs a change of perspective."
--Delenn, "Babylon 5"





More:
http://perverseadult.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html

[struggle4progress]

17. But that seems to be a religious view; it may be a rather common view; and in some sense

it is a very ancient view (though of course some of the scientific notions it references are fairly recent)

[uberllama42]

18. It has a nice, New Age-y, pantheistic taste to it

But it doesn't really address the origin or evolution of religious ideas, does it?

[Ian David]

37. It doesn't require belief in a diety nor does it require worship.

It just requires you to go about your business, and either believe it or not.

Just as a transistor on a silicon chip need not believe nor worship nor understand what its role is.

[struggle4progress]

56. Still, the view apparently anthropomorphizes "the universe" and moreover

appears to satisfy certain teleological urges

[Ian David]

60. That's a good point. n/t

[khashka]

4. Even if there is no god

Religion can give people a framework to make themselves kinder and more loving. I've seen it.

Just don't use it as a weapon or try to force it on me.

Khash.

[moobu2]

5. Does anyone have any interesting atheistic perspectives on religion?

I dont.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. How are you definining "atheistic perspective"? How about "religion"?

There are many different types of atheists. Some take the position that there is no evidence regarding the existence of gods; others take a more dogmatic position and say that gods do not exist. Some say that the question, "Does God exist?" is unanswerable; others hold that the question is irrelevant. Also, keep in mind that Jews and early Christians were branded as atheists because they rejected the Roman gods and refused to burn incense to the spirit of the reigning Emperor, and that Buddhism is often called atheist even though the Buddist position is that gods exist but are irrelevant to the search for enlightenment and release.

Then there is the definition of "religion." Some noted scholars have said that religion requires belief in and veneration of one or more gods, and have thus stated that Buddhism is not a religion. Other noted scholars define religion as anything that holds a similar place in a person's life; with this, one must include Humanism, Objectivism and Scientology as religions.

[struggle4progress]

12. I'll refuse to do that. When words do not ultimately indicate something beyond other

other words, nothing much results: the standard example is Euclid's initial definitions, which are generally regarded as saying nothing useful: "A point is what which has no parts. A line is length without breadth. A straight line is what lies evenly between its extremities"

If one wants to know what Euclid is talking about, one has to see how he uses the words

I tried in my OP by example to indicate something about how I used the words

[qijackie]

25. Hi. It is my understanding that, although Buddhism has "gods", the practitioners

of that philosophy/religion do not hold that there is a "creator" god (or gods)..... thus, it is considered atheistic.

[TechBear_Seattle]

45. So, religion requires the existence of a personal creator deity, and everything else is atheist?

That is a novel definition, and I've studied comparative religion for more than a quarter of a century. :hi:

Buddhism is considered atheistic because gods are not relevant to the search for enlightenment and release. The Pali Canon, the oldedst collection of Buddhist scriptures, has a story of Gautama's enlightenment. It describes how Brahma, Indra and other Vedic deities anxiously awaited his meditations; would this be the one who, in this age, taught how to be freed from attachment and delusion? After his enlightenment, the Buddha was approached by the gods who begged him to teach them of the Dhamma. Elsewhere, there are writings where the Buddha describes deities as worthy of the respect one would give a mortal king, but that worship was itself an attachment that was to be avoided.

That Buddhism does not recognize a specific creator is irrelevant.

[Warpy]

8. Only that nothing looks crazier than somebody else's religion

and that's true across the board for atheists and believers, alike. Forget about understanding them, that's not your job. Your job is only to figure out how to tolerate differences in opinion, which is all it is.

Nobody's got ownership of the truth.

That's this atheist's perspective.

[struggle4progress]

24. When I was much younger an old lawyer told me that in his youth

he had been concerned about what people thought but that now he only cared what people actually did

[varkam]

9. I'm suspecting you won't find this interesting, so do not read it.

I, too, think that there are many different perspectives one can take on the phenomenon that is religion. I'm a social sciences kind of guy, and so I dig that sort of take on it.

One thing that I have been thinking about lately is "functional atheism" in that there is empirical data (can't recall the source at the moment) to suggest that many theists live lives of functional atheism aside from pious ceremony. I found that interesting as it then led me to think about the nature of belief and that I don't necessarily think that we believe the things that we think that we believe. I wonder if many of our "beliefs" are more or less complex psychological processes that serve some sort of adaptive social function (such as being accepted by a group or believing oneself to be a trustworthy person) whereas the core beliefs that actually guide our behavior are based on...well...I'm not quite sure.

Another way of thinking about it is that we all have two seperate belief systems - the things that we think we believe ("faux belief") and the things that we actually believe that can be determined by examining our actions.

In other words, I think that there are many motivations for various beliefs - but I'm not sure that logical persuasion is among them.

In advance, I will apologize for the pedestrian nature of my post.

[struggle4progress]

10. "the things that we think we believe" v. " the things that we actually believe ..

.. that can be determined by examining our actions"

I suspect that's a valid distinction

[Goblinmonger]

54. An interesting distinction

I know many Catholics that tell me I am full of shit when I tell them that the RCC believes in transubstantiation. They devoutly go to church (and, ironically, communion) every Sunday, but have no idea what it is they are supposed to "believe."

From my perspective, I find it all kinds of foolish that they continue to go to church and give them their money, but perhaps it fills some need.

[struggle4progress]

57. Certain "theological" issues appear to be fossils of forgotten power struggles

The distinction between "transubstantiation" and "consubstantiation" (which I cannot see as much more important than which end of an egg one opens) is a case in point: at some time, a power struggle was waged over some other issue, disguised in this language

I do find it hard to believe a devout Catholic wouldn't have heard about that at some point: I certainly heard about it as a young Lutheran

[Juche]

11. Pinker tries to address this

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2004_10_29_religion.htm

Thank you very much; this is a tremendous honor. I lookforward to displaying the Emperor proudly in my office at Harvard. It's aspecial honor to be here on the occasion that is recognizing theaccomplishments of Anne Gaylor and I'd like to express my appreciation for thewonderful work that she has done in this Foundation.

Do we have a “God gene,” or a “God module”? I'm referring toclaims that a number of you may have noticed. Just last week, a cover story of Timemagazine was called "The God Gene:Does our deity compel us to seek a higher power?" Believe it or not, somescientists say yes. And a number of years earlier, there were claims that thehuman brain is equipped with a “God module,” a subsystem of the brain shaped byevolution to cause us to have a religious belief. "Brain's God module mayaffect religious intensity," according to the headline of the LosAngeles Times. In this evening's talk, Iwant to evaluate those claims.

There certainly is a phenomenon that needs to be explained,namely religious beliefs. According to surveys by ethnographers, religion is ahuman universal. In all human cultures, people believe that the soul lives onafter death, that ritual can change the physical world and divine the truth,and that illness and misfortune are caused and alleviated by a variety ofinvisible person-like entities: spirits, ghosts, saints, evils, demons,cherubim or Jesus, devils and gods.

All cultures, you might ask? Yes, all cultures. I give youan example of a culture we're well familiar with, that of the contemporaryUnited States. The last time I checked the figures, 25% of Americans believe inwitches, 50% in ghosts, 50% in the devil, 50% believe that the Book of Genesisis literally true, 69% believe in angels, 87% believe Jesus was raised from thedead, and 96% believe in a god or a universal spirit. You've got your work cutout for you!............

[struggle4progress]

16. If one regards this merely as an ability to "imagine other minds" gone amuck,

it is unclear why more people are not regularly convinced that ordinary everyday objects such as stones and trees have minds

The attributing of guilt (for example) to knives or swords involved in murders was perhaps common in the medieval period, but the relatively easy elimination of such views might suggest a substantial cultural component (rather than an organic neurological component)

[Juche]

36. They do

The idea that trees have minds or souls is common in human history.

There is an organic component of religion, but I think it is expressed differently based on culture.

What I am curious about is why does technological advancement lead to atheism and secularism? Much of Europe is atheist. Atheism and secularism are also one of the fastest growing belief systems too. The % of the population who subscribe to them has almost doubled in the last 15 years.

[struggle4progress]

51. If the ideas were natural and inevitable, one should expect them to occur more frequently.

I rarely encounter someone walking along explaining "what happened to me today" to the dog on the leash: it happens, but it's rare. People who converse with trees or clouds are much less common. In some cases, one might wonder how much discipline and effort would be needed to maintain the practice: Francis of Assisi, for example, is purport to have regularly preached to the birds, but despite his high reputation in certain quarters, the habit has not much spread

It is, of course, possible that anthropological accounts of "primitive" people believing something like "trees have souls" are accurate -- but if one is not already inclined to believe that the "primitives" are somehow stupider than we are, one might naturally wonder if something subtle could have been lost in translation and if the "primitives" weren't saying something rather different that was not well understood by the "modern" reporter

[uberllama42]

14. "A New Christianity for a New World" by John Shelby Spong

was probably the first book I ever read about religion. Spong makes an excellent case for maintaining the institutions of Christianity while letting go of all the mythology. The book gave me a much better understanding of Christianity than any of the nonsense I was taught as a child.

Spong believes that theism is a coping mechanism created by primitive societies to deal with and humanize forces beyond their control. In the modern day, theism is more or less useless because it no longer addresses those problems. Modern people can simply not be expected to believe in miracles. Doctrines such as the Trinity and Original Sin are likewise useless in a world without a personal god. In place of the theistic church, Spong posits a very humanistic organization promoting ideas about the strength of human potential and the value of each human being as an individual.

[struggle4progress]

19. Many religious groups should perhaps consider trying to explain some of

their views in non-religious terms. Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and a number of other religions certainly have a large body of tradition that can be explained without mystical ideas

[dweller]

15. pictorial perspective

dp

[struggle4progress]

21. So the atheists have learned nothing in the last few millennia?

OK: it's a cute picture, but it's a mere slogan without content -- in fact, none of the labels seem particularly useful: someone who claims to be a Roman Catholic may have told me very little; someone who claims to be an atheist may have told me even less

[ironbark]

50. The pictorial perspective is wrong way round!

Stand the picture on its side and the image of Christianity becomes what it actually is-
A tree.
Organic.
Evolving.

Step back and broaden the perspective and you may see there are other trees. Hindu, Jewish. Islamic…..all with branches… all with fruit. And yes…all trees get leaf rot and branches fall off and even fruit goes rotten.

But they remain great sheltering trees.

And far more interesting than a straight metal pole ;-)

[Steerpike_Denver]

20. My perspective as an atheist parent:

My beautiful 10-year old daughter died last year, but before she did, she was a very bright, inquisitive child. She had many friends of different faiths, and was occasionally invited to go to church with them, which I never discouraged her from doing. On night, she asked me why our family never goes to church. I explained that I am an atheist, which means I don't believe in God, but I cautioned her that she must never, never tell her friends that her daddy said what they believe was wrong. That is the difference between an atheist and a beliver: in order to believe that thier religion is true, they must believe that everyone else in the whole world is wrong. An atheist does not have to make any such decision. Maybe the Catholics are right; maybe the Muslims are, or the Baptists, or the Buddhists, or the Mormons. The only thing is, they can't all be right. They can all be wrong, but that is not for me to say. I can only speak for myself, that none of them has ever made a case that would convince me that everyone else is wrong, or evil, or condemned to Hell for their beliefs. I told Erica I would never object to her joining any religion when she grew up, but that I wanted her to be very sure she would be able to look into her heart and honestly believe that the people she loved were wrong. I think she really understood, and would have grown into a thoughtful, accepting person, if she had been given the chance.

[struggle4progress]

22. I'm sorry about your daughter

[qijackie]

23. You know - I think they can all be right - if one takes a distant or broader or bigger (or whatever)

perspective. Its like if you back off far enough to see that what you thought was a grey field was actually a grey rock and you back off farther and find it is a grey protrusion on a boulder and so on and so on......always backing off farther to see what you can then see. I believe that you can keep going until ALL there is is compatible (or at least coexistant with ease).

Sorry to butt into the conversation - probably too late anyway.

[Steerpike_Denver]

29. If you have to back up that far,

the whole point of religion disappears. I have toyed with that idea alot, actually, trying to find some common link between all religions. The only thing you really come up with is the idea of "faith" itself. As in, they all presuppose the existence of a universal, metaphysical force that provides a framework for moral behavior and meaningful existence. That can be a rough definition of Unitarian Universalism, which I have read up on some, and find some interesting tidbits in that tradition.

[ironbark]

48. Perhaps 'Progressive Revelation'?

Christian-
“Different faith groups assign various meanings to the term "Progressive revelation." A common definition is the belief that God did not teach full theological, legal, moral, scientific, medical and other knowledge to humans in the beginning. Rather, God gradually revealed truths over a long interval, according to their needs, and at a rate slow enough that humans were capable of fully absorbing them.”

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sinpars1.htm

Charles Hodge "The progressive character of divine revelation is recognized in relation to all the great doctrines of the Bible. One of the strongest arguments for the divine origin of the Scriptures is the organic relation of its several parts."

Sikh-
What is Progressive Revelation?
Progressive revelation is the idea that God will reveal
or re-reveal Truth, over time according to the
needs of humanity. Bhai Gurdas, the first Sikh Philosopher,
recorded a summary of the Prophets
which God has sent to Earth in the four ages (Yugs)
and has mentioned the rules which humans need to
use in our current age to ensure their spiritual practices
bear fruit.

http://www.projectnaad.com/wp-content/uploads/leaflets/progressive_revelation.pdf

Hindu-
“The Lord Krishna talks about progressive revelation in these words: "Whenever there is a decline in righteousness, O Bharat, and the rise of irreligion, it is then that I send forth My righteousness. I manifest myself from age to age."

Moslem-
“The Qur'an tells us that God sent messengers to all peoples and that He made known His will and His truth through Noah, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Christ, and Muhammed. All religions have their origin in God and are different reflections of the same truth. As every age requires a fresh measure of the light of God, every divine revelation has been sent in a manner befitting the circumstances of the age in which it appeared.”
Bahai-

“Each divine revelation is divided into two parts. The first part is essential and belongs to the eternal world. It is the exposition of Divine truths and essential principles. It is the expression of the Love of God. This is one in all the religions, unchangeable and immutable. The second part is not eternal; it deals with practical life, transactions and business, and changes according to the evolution of man and the requirements of the time of each Prophet. For example During the Mosaic period the hand of a person was cut off in punishment of a small theft; there was a law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but as these laws were not expedient in the time of Christ, they were abrogated. Likewise divorce had become so universal that there remained no fixed laws of marriage, therefore His Holiness Christ forbade divorce. According to the exigencies of the time, His Holiness Moses revealed ten laws for capital punishment. It was impossible at that time to protect the community and to preserve social security without these severe measures, for the children of Israel lived in the wilderness of Tah, where there were no established courts of justice and no penitentiaries. But this code of conduct was not needed in the time of Christ. The history of the second part of religion is unimportant, because it relates to the customs of this life only; but the foundation of the religion of God is one, and His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh has renewed that foundation”

“Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light to each heart. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred, division, it were better to be without it, . . .” `Abdu’l-Bahá. (1)

[Evoman]

26. I have interesting perspectives AS an atheist, but my "atheist perspectives" are probably less than

interesting. Not much there, other than "I have no belief in your gods or any gods."

No trite cheap shots, not trying to be snippy. But that's the way it is.

I have plenty of perspectives on religion, but they are not really "atheist perspectives" per se. They are more like "Evoman Perspectives".

[struggle4progress]

28. Of course. But what I was asking was: are there any interesting perspectives

which do not assume particular religious doctrines are valid, yet provide some useful insight?

Of course, one person does not necessarily share another persons religious beliefs. There are many religious beliefs that I do not share; and my attitude even towards my own religious beliefs varies with the weather

But Is there any sense in which one can be usefully informed by other people's beliefs, even if one does not subscribe to those beliefs? The question is not, What is the logical structure of other people's belief system?, nor is it Can one describe what other people say they believe? -- it is instead something like What cultural, historical, and psychological tensions are being addressed here; and is there any translation of these religious manifestations into a schematic that a non-believer might recognize as valid?

[The River]

27. Here You Go

http://www.integralworld.net/rev/rev_ashok2.html

It will help to have an advanced degree in the one of
the social sciences and a large dictionary.

[struggle4progress]

30. I am afraid I abandoned any search for a grand philosophical synthesis decades ago

and eventually abandoned any hope of a unified mechanistic view of anything as complicated as a mammal somewhat around the same time

I am a mere technician, who works on small bites (or a few bytes) at a time, preferring slight but real and defensible progress to great but unstable conglomerations: it is too easy to string many words together, though somewhat harder to do so melodiously as Ashok has in your link

Rated: Amusing but not worth extensive study

[The River]

31. Then You Obviously

don't understand it.
Your problem, not mine.

[struggle4progress]

32. I suppose you tried (... sigh ...)

[The River]

33. You Sound "Stuck" Bud

But I get the feeling you are frustratingly
close to a breakthrough though. Those "Ah Ha! Now I get it"
moments are rare but they do happen.
I've spent nearly 4 decades searching for something
so obvious and simple that it took 30 years to
figure out just how simple it is.

Keep Trying.

[struggle4progress]

52. My aims are much more modest than a hope for satori. If it takes me a day or two to understand

(say) that Every prime can be written as a sum of four squares because every left ideal is left principal in the Hurwitz ring of integral quaternions, then I conclude I have substantial difficulties understanding rather small fragments of other consciousnesses

For this reason, I am not terribly optimistic about the possibility of obtaining sweeping insights into the history of human consciousness during the last six million years or so. A bit less ambition might accomplish a bit more. I am more interested in particular now-living people or (somewhat more abstractly) specific biographies

[The River]

65. Understand This One Thing

You exist outside of and prior to "time".
It's really that simple.

When I can spare the time I simply get quiet
and acknowledge that one fact (and all it implies).
It's like sticking my finger in a light bulb socket; every nerve end
in my body starts to sparkle. I am engulfed by pure joy and a sense of
timelessness sets in.

A monk at the local "center" told me I'm experiencing a bit of Nirvana.
Not through religion, prayer, devotion or belief but through science, logic
and direct experience.
For skeptics like us, the 4th Path, the Path of Knowledge, is the only one open.

It can happen at any time or in no time at all.

[TZ]

34. I studied evolutionary and sociobiology in college

So my perspective is similar to Dawkins views I suppose althought I am not quite as vocal as him.
I do believe that religion evolved as we are social animals for a constructive reason...Probably in some ways to make us more willing to engage in risky, but potentially really rewarding behavior. Believing in an afterlife makes one more willing to risk ones life I think and possibly encourges altruistic behavior (that which encourages more copies of our own genes to be passed on ). It also encouraged stronger social bonds which is something that always has been advantageous for human survival.
I also read something recently that makes me think that religious belief is tied to brain physiology so that right brained people are more likely to believe in God.
My personal belief is that religion is basically an evolutionary fossil..something that helped us survive (remember no claws,teeth or physical strength..we only had strong social bonds) and is no longer necessary for survival, therefore its natural to see less belief in this day and age as it is not needed for day to day survival.

[struggle4progress]

58. On current evidence, of course, evolution is an entirely satisfactory

scientific framework for studying general biology. So it's natural to look for evolutionary explanations of biological phenomena of all descriptions. But evolution does not require all inherited features to be adaptive: some might arise by chance survival, some might be more or less harmless by-products of useful adaptions, and so on. Nor can I see any easy way to test your hypothesis, which therefore seems essentially philosophical

Still, the question I'm asking is not "Why are some people religious?" but more like "What can we learn about particular-individuals/specific-societies from their religious utterances/behaviours

Maybe an analogy will help. People have taken their dreams seriously in different ways throughout history: the Odyssey recounts a time when the Greeks apparently did not clearly distinguish waking reality from dreams. Dreams have been sometimes been regarded as messages from a spirit world about the future; more recently, the Freudians regarded dreams as informative indicators of unconscious conflicts. And about a decade ago, I encountered a different version of dreaming: based on rat experiments, the investigators concluded that dreaming had something essential to do with the thermostat in warm-blooded animals, since lab creatures deprived of dreams soon lost thermo-regulation and died. In a sense, the Freudian hypothesis resembles the "messages from the spirit world" hypothesis, more closely than it resembles the thermo-regulatory hypothesis. Nevertheless, the Freudian hypothesis is not inconsistent with the thermo-regulatory hypothesis: one easily imagines that dreams could be produced by a mechanism, of the brain attempting to recalibrate itself, by a systematic set of exploratory pulses through various neural networks; this might produce a sequence of chance sensations in sleep; but these chance sensations occur in a brain that has structured itself to work in various particular situations; and therefore, it would not be unsurprising for actual concrete issues confronting the dreamer to appear in conjunction with whatever notions had been stirred up by thermo-regulatory calibration. And the fact, that bullshit dream interpretation abounds ("dreaming of a mysterious stranger means true love is at hand"?) does not require one to believe that dreams cannot be interpreted profitably sometimes

Similarly, your view that religion served some past adaptive purpose does not necessarily preclude the possibility of making a sort of sense (depending on individual and culture) of a religious utterance or behavior, even if one is not inclined towards religious thought

[and-justice-for-all]

35. Oh please...

It does not take a lot of words to show that religion is "superstition, ignorance, dementia, irrationality, and so on." To argue more interesting points you first have to make religion interesting, instead of the dark age nonsense that it is. Primitive religion serves no purpose and has nothing to offer in this day and age, it has obviously done more harm than good.

[struggle4progress]

55. I'm not asking you to consider religion as interesting or to come up with some way "to make

religion interesting". I'm asking whether you have a non-religious approach to the interpretation of religious speech/behavior, which produces interesting or useful insights

The only attitude I take here with respect to assertions that "religion is superstition, ignorance, dementia, irrationality, and so on" is that it produces little insight: I said it myself a thousand times thirty or forty years ago, and I've heard the claim another thousand times in this forum. There are no doubt many superstitious, ignorant, demented, or irrational people: these labels, however, seldom if ever produce insight. In my experience, a person can be superstitious/ignorant/demented/irrational and yet may still sometimes things that deserve attention

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Here's one that doesn't seem to have made an explicit appearance in R&T before

though the basis of it is similar to things said by others, including in this thread.

Manufacturing belief

The origin of religion is in our heads, explains developmental biologist Lewis Wolpert. First we figured out how to make tools, then created a supernatural being.

Wolpert is an eminent developmental biologist at University College London. Like fellow British scientist Richard Dawkins, he's an outspoken atheist with a knack for saying outrageous things. Unlike Dawkins, Wolpert has no desire to abolish religion. In fact, he thinks religious belief can provide great comfort and points to medical studies showing that the faithful tend to suffer less stress and anxiety than nonbelievers. In Wolpert's view, religion has given believers an evolutionary advantage, even though it's based on a grand illusion.

He has a theory for why religion first took root. He thinks human brains evolved to become "belief engines." Once our ancient ancestors understood cause and effect, they figured out how to manipulate the natural world. In essence, toolmaking made us human. Similarly, early hominids felt compelled to find causes for life's great mysteries, including illness and death. They came to believe in unseen gods and spirits.
...
Are you saying our brains are hard-wired for belief?

Our brains are absolutely hard-wired for causal belief. And I think they're a bit soft-wired for religious and mystical belief. Those people who had religious beliefs did better than those who did not, and they were selected for.

Why did they do better?

They were less anxious. They also had someone to pray to. In general, religious people are somewhat healthier than people who don't have religious beliefs.
...
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/15/lewis_wolpert/

[Jim__]

41. A lot of what he says makes sense.

Primitive societies seem to be structured as a group with a leader; so most people are followers. And being a follower implies being a believer - you have to trust the leader. Also, children had better be believers. When your parent tells you stay out of the jungle; kids who doubt, and doubting don't obey, don't get to reproduce. I can understand people being prone to believe.

I'm not sure how people come to believe in gods. But, I can see that once the idea is formed, people will believe. But, where does the idea originate?

[cosmik debris]

42. "hard-wired for causal belief" explains a lot.

When the cause is not obvious, the brain cobbles together something that works until a better explanation comes along.

The problem arises when the "something better" is rejected as heresy.

[struggle4progress]

53. You are interested, apparently, in "explaining" religion. That seems a perfectly reasonable project

but the question I am really aiming it is something different. Whether or not "religious belief" serves any adaptive purpose, it is clear that people resort to religious language and religious explanation under a variety of circumstances

The motives/intents -- or the reasons that people feel compelled to resort to religious language -- may vary substantially from instance to instance. How one interprets what others say matters sometimes. If one understands somewhat the language another speaks, but does not entirely share the presuppositions underlying that language, the matter under discussion might still be interesting or important for some other reason: it might involve (for example) certain political or economic realities, though discussed in an odd way

[Jim__]

39. "Secularism just does not have the wherewithal to motivate citizens..."

That's a quote from an interview (the interview was for The Philosphers Magazine - 1st qtr 2008 - I don't believe the interview is available online) with Simon Critchley, a philosopher and atheist. An excerpt from the interview:

Religion turns out to play an important role in this atheist philosopher's thinking about what he calls the "motivational deficit in contemporary liberal democracies."

"You can see this exemplified in phenomena like decline of interest in political institutions - the democratic deficit as it's called - and the decline of traditional forms of activism. People are demotivated, and that leads on the one hand to passive nihilists, rejection of the world, and to active nihilists on the other. This motivational deficit in western liberal democracy is a failure of secularism. Secularism just does not have the wherewithal to motivate citizens unlerss it's against some theological threat.

"I'm not a theist, but I've always been very interested in Jewish and Christian theology, and it seems to me that Christian theology particularly has something to say about what motivates human beings to act on the good or to fail to act on the good. There are desscriptive or conceptual resources in the religious tradition which can help us think through the failures of secularism."

A note on what Critchley means by active and passive nihilism. He considers the problem of nihilism to be the framing philosophical problem of the modern period. And, by nihilism he means that the highest values become devalued.

Passive nihilism is the idea that the world is a chaotic and disorderly place that's blowing itself to pieces. So the passive nihilist withdraws from the world, makes himself as peaceful as possible and tries to shut his eyes to the reality.

The active nihilist finds the world chaotic and meaningless and decides to destroy it. He gives as examples Lenin's bolshevism and Al-Qaeda.

The interview deals mostly with Crithcley's book, Infinitely Demanding. I haven't read the book yet, and the interview doesn't go into anymore depth on his views about secularism's inability to motivate. However, I thought his idea was interesting. My own personal opinion about apathy in modern society is that it has to do with size. The United States is not a community, New York City is not a community, etc. In this context, I've always thought that churches do serve the function of forming communities and I believe that people are more highly motivated when acting as part of a community. I think that modern societies need to form more closely knit communities. I'm not sure what the mechanism for that should be.

I don't know why Critchley thinks that Christianity knows how to motivate people. My understanding is that certain forms of Christianity don't put any value on acts. That seems to be a demotivator.

[cosmik debris]

40. That sounds like a bastardized version of

"atheists don't have morals"

In fact, atheists are motivated to participate in many socially cooperative endeavors.

I believe that atheists find their motivation (and morals) internally. Thus there is no need for external stimulation i.e. guilt trips.

[Jim__]

43. That sounds like you're reaching for the nearest cliche.

Critchley is not questioning the motivations of atheists. He is a highly motivated atheist.

Secularism is not atheism. It's the removal of religious consideration from governing institutions. Citizens of a secular democracy are not necessarily atheists. He's really talking about the effects of nihilism. Passive nihilists are not necessarily apathetic; they can be very highly motivated about certain things; but probably apolitical things - politics having to deal with reality. Active nihilists are not apathetic - they just don't make highly motivated citizens - they want to tear down the existing order. And lack of a motivated citizenry does not mean that no citizens are motivated to support the democracy; just that the level of participation is relatively low.

[cosmik debris]

44. I did say bastardization didn't I?

I thought that would imply that there was no literal comparison.

I guess that implication was not effective.

oh well.

[RaVeN_MeaD]

61. fairy tales

it's not real, none of it.

[struggle4progress]

64. Well, I was addressing my question to people who hold such a view. Still, my question

wasn't really whether anyone held that view, but whether anyone here who holds such a view can say anything more informative than that

[frogmarch]

62. To anyone interested in

the origin and evolution of religious views and practices, I recommend The Golden Bough by James G. Frazer. I own the illustrated and unabridged edition. This edition is a reprint of the text of the two-volume first edition of 1890, unabridged and with Frazer's original notes - and features numerous illustrations, many from sources contemporary with the author.

From the cover:

Sir James George Frazer (1854-1941) was a Scottish anthropologist with a particular interest in the study of myth and religion. His early research into the development of religion, as humanity progressed from primitive to civilized social structures, ripened into a set of theories about the historical evolution of ancient cults, rites, rituals, and religious beliefs.
~~~
Much of Frazer's book derives from the exploration of ancient tree worship, of the attempt of early peoples to control nature, and of the ritual killing of divine kings.

In The Golden Bough Frazer explores a multitude of myths and folktales that range across cultures and centuries, and he points to the striking similarities among them. His topics include magic and witchcraft, taboos and sexual rites, the nature of the soul, and of religion, scapegoats and human sacrifice, and great literature and legends.
~~

It's a fascinating book, and as an atheist, I treasure it, because it's helped me better understand why, and how, religion began, and why certain people still find it satisfying in one way or another.

[struggle4progress]

63. It's an interesting text. Still, Frazer takes a rather long detour in trying to

explain a certain priestly succession -- and at the end, it is not at all clear that he has really obtained the explanation of the succession, that he originally claims he set for himself

There's quite a lot in the book, of course. But Frazer is a universalist, completely disinterested in historical specificity. This absence of interest in historical context means that Frazer, who is allegedly trying to understand why the ancient Greeks had a tradition of a priest who obtained priesthood by killing the previous priest and held the priesthood until he was killed by his successor, avoids searching locally in space and time for any explanation. The first questions that should naturally arise are whether this was an actual religious phenomenon or whether it was purely mythological; over what period of time such a ritual was followed, if indeed it was ever followed at all; and what meaning those who reported the ritual thought was ascribed to it. I cannot say the story is false, but the Greeks were as susceptible as moderns to urban legend, and the story admits a perfectly good interpretation as a moral fable

Instead of carrying out such a detailed and specific investigation, Frazer instead sets out to argue (somewhat depressingly I think) that certain human behaviors follow a universal template. It is not clear that he hasn't been biased in selecting the accounts that support his view. Moreover, to carry out his project, Frazer must conflate many different matters: for example, he must fail to distinguish between magical thought and mythology, which he does with gusto in order to reach the goal of distinguishing these from science. But the distinction between the impulse towards magical thinking and scientific thought might not be so clear:

Charles Saunders Peirce
Principles of Philosophy <begun c. 1894 / unfinished>
I. General Historical Orientation
2. Lessons from the History of Science
§2. The Scientific Imagination

... It is not too much to say that next after the passion to learn there is no quality so indispensable to the successful prosecution of science as imagination. Find me a people whose early medicine is not mixed up with magic and incantations, and I will find you a people devoid of all scientific ability ...

http://www.textlog.de/4216.html

So Frazer wrote a very long and very interesting book, which one can thumb for hours -- but perhaps it is too ambitious to stand detailed scholarly scrutiny