What Good Is Religion?

[DeLamar.J]

Great article. Long, but very important to read IMO.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/75/story_7509_1.html

 

[TonyM.]

I'll use Ochams' razor on this one. (It's a little long) Religion provides good guidelines for living and is a good starting place for spirituality.

 

[Adept]

He seems to be a little ***-about in his premise. There is nothing to suggest that humans are genetically religious. We are just genetically lazy and inventive. When posed with a problem we dont understand, we explain it away through religion (at least, thats how it all started). And since we are lazy, we like to let others do the leading so we just have to follow.

Ergo the masses of organised religion. It serves no purpose, but it is not an evolutionary drawback.

 

[Flatlander]

He seems to be a little ***-about in his premise. There is nothing to suggest that humans are genetically religious.

In fact, this is exactly what he is saying. From the article:

The religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate manifestation of an underlying psychological propensity that in other circumstances was once useful.

His premise is right on.

I found this to be a fascinating article. The explanation of the moth's immolative behaviour was enlightening. Thank you , James. :asian:

 

[DeLamar.J]

I like this part


...it only raises the question of why a mind would evolve to find comfort in beliefs it can plainly see are false. A freezing person finds no comfort in believing he is warm; a person face-to-face with a lion is not put at ease by the conviction that it is a rabbit.

 

[DeLamar.J]

Holy shnikes, Im a brown belt now artyon:

 

[heretic888]

Oy vey, what a naive understanding of human psychology.

Reductionism once again rears its ugly head. Its always amusing to see quasi-zealots try and make their field the intellectual King of the Mountain (i.e., if you really want to understand human psychology and religious consciousness, then just study Darwinian biology --- no, don't study developmental psychology, cultural anthropology, or the dozen other fields that actually study this stuff firsthand).

S'funny, though. Guys like this are always just as fanatic about protecting their Sacred Territory when the cultural relativists tell them its a social construction or the Marxists tell them its a result of ideological modes of production.

But, when it comes to uprooting anyone else's Intellectual Domain, then huntin' season is on!!

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Ok, quoting the second paragraph of the article:

"Anting" is the odd habit of birds such as jays of “bathing” in an ants’ nest and apparently inciting the ants to invade their feathers. Nobody knows for sure what the benefit of anting is: perhaps some kind of hygiene, cleansing the feathers of parasites. My point is that uncertainty as to the purpose doesn’t—nor should it—stop Darwinians from believing, with great confidence, that anting must be good for something.

I only read through the first page, so the author may have addressed this seeming contradiction, but considering that his whole point is that religion is nonsensical and contrary to Darwinism, isn't he kind of shooting himself in the foot by bringing this point up? The "anting paragraph" basically establishes that evolution takes it as a given that, if a behavior is displayed, then it serves a purpose. Why does this not apply to religion?

Besides, as far as people deliberately believing something they know to be untrue, that seems pretty easy to answer. Why do some spouses convince themselves that their relationship is worth keeping, even when they know their significant other is cheating on them? Why do some people drive old cars when a new one is better and perfectly affordable? On an individual basis, which religion, I think, should be considered, there are plenty of subjective, "illogical" reasons for believing things, no matter how untrue they may be. It seems like the author's trying to discuss a very personal, subjective behavior in purely logical terms, which is bound to cause misinterpretations.

But like I said, I havent finished the article. Maybe he gets more sophisticated by the end. Thank you for presenting it, though.

 

[Flatlander]

Oy vey, what a naive understanding of human psychology.

Help me understand, then. Rip it apart, show me where the fallacies are.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Help me understand, then. Rip it apart, show me where the fallacies are.

You're just a little too excited about this, flat.

 

[heretic888]

Help me understand, then. Rip it apart, show me where the fallacies are.

The entire fallacy is trying to use Darwinian philosophy to understand something like human psychology, culture, religion, etc. Pure Darwinism is typically ballyhooed at, even in biological circles.

Positions like that have next to no merit in the fields in question. They are something that like-minded minds discuss over coffee, but would get laughed out of the room if they put the theories toward somebody who actually knows a thing or two about developmental psychology or cultural anthropology. If you don't believe me, try asking your local anthropology professor his opinion about "evolutionary anthropology".

This would be like trying to use deconstruction to learn mathematics. Or, studying anthropology when you want to know the aesthetic value of a Van Gogh.

All of it, through and through, is symptomatic of people trying to make their personal ideology or philosophy the King of the Mountain. Y'know --- the same ol' same ol' --- if you want to know x*, then study my field.

*X, of course, being anything at all.

 

[Enson]

Holy shnikes, Im a brown belt now artyon:

long time no see... good job!

 

[RandomPhantom700]

This would be like trying to use deconstruction to learn mathematics. Or, studying anthropology when you want to know the aesthetic value of a Van Gogh.

To give an illustration more analogous to what the author is trying to do, it would be like trying to use biological science to explain why little kids often clutch their teddy bears when they're scared. Too say that such actions are "wasteful" or "illogical" ignores the subjective feelings of comfort and familiarity that teddy bear gives to a little kid. Similarly, cricizing religion as inefficient or illogical from a biological perspective is entirely innapropriate.

On a separate issue, where the hell does the author get off saying that there's no wastefullness or inefficiency in the natural world? I'm sure there's no other species besides man that idles their time or anything.

 

[heretic888]

To give an illustration more analogous to what the author is trying to do, it would be like trying to use biological science to explain why little kids often clutch their teddy bears when they're scared. Too say that such actions are "wasteful" or "illogical" ignores the subjective feelings of comfort and familiarity that teddy bear gives to a little kid. Similarly, cricizing religion as inefficient or illogical from a biological perspective is entirely innapropriate.

Nicely put, RP. :asian:

 

[Flatlander]

You're just a little too excited about this, flat.

I'm excited about everything.

What I'm trying to do is guide the thread toward addressing the problem that the article raises, rather than simply disrupting the foundation of the argument.

The question seems to be "What is religion good for?" on a societal, rather than personal scale.

Does anyone have an answer?

 

[heretic888]

The article doesn't raise any "problems", as opposed to remanifest a problem that has been part of some circles of Western academia for the past 150 years.

 

[raedyn]

So Random & Herrie,

I think I understand what you're saying about how his way isn't the only way (or even the most useful way) to look at the problem. And I respect that you are both educated thoughtful people.

But your criticism of this article seems to be that he's looking at it the wrong way. And... hmmm... that seems a little snobbish to me?

Please don't think I'm attacking you, I'm just trying to honestly think about the situation. Like, I don't know much about the fields you are discussing. And what you are saying makes sense to me. But at the same time, it seems like you are saying that another viewpoint (his) has no validity. You don't even want to discuss the article because he's looking at the problem through 'the wrong glasses'. So then, if I haven't studied the fields that you deem correct to examine this problem with, then my ideas or opinions or questions don't count?

I'd be very surprised if that's what either of you meant, but that's kinda what it sounds like. Help me understand if that's not what you meant.

Some people do try and make that arguement, though. "You don't know what you are talking about, because you aren't educated in this topic (because, you know, if you don't know about the things I know about OR you don't agree with the ideas that I subscribe to, you don't count as educated) and therefore you aren't qualified to discuss this. You don't count. Pooh-pooh." And I believe that kind of close-mindedness can be the downfall of many academics - to believe that only people within their own circle have anything to contribute to the discussion.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

And I respect that you are both educated thoughtful people.

:asian:

But your criticism of this article seems to be that he's looking at it the wrong way. And... hmmm... that seems a little snobbish to me?

But at the same time, it seems like you are saying that another viewpoint (his) has no validity. You don't even want to discuss the article because he's looking at the problem through 'the wrong glasses'. So then, if I haven't studied the fields that you deem correct to examine this problem with, then my ideas or opinions or questions don't count?

It's not that he's looking at it from the wrong perspective; his point that religion doesn't have any scientific value is quite valid. However, this is simply one aspect of religion; there are others as well, particularly the psychological aspect of it, which give other dimensions. In claiming that religion has NO value, the author is only placing importance on one aspect of it, completely ignoring the psychological benefits that religion can give. In other words, he's totalizing the issue into a question of biological evolution, when really there are all kinds of other things to consider in evaluating the "value" of religion.

So the perspective he's using isn't invalid; what heretic and I are criticizing is that he's ignoring a number of other factors, and only placing importance on what is really a minor factor, relative to the subject of religion. Does this clarify?

Some people do try and make that arguement, though. "You don't know what you are talking about, because you aren't educated in this topic (because, you know, if you don't know about the things I know about OR you don't agree with the ideas that I subscribe to, you don't count as educated) and therefore you aren't qualified to discuss this. You don't count. Pooh-pooh." And I believe that kind of close-mindedness can be the downfall of many academics - to believe that only people within their own circle have anything to contribute to the discussion.

Heheh, very much agreed.

 

[qizmoduis]

The "anting paragraph" basically establishes that evolution takes it as a given that, if a behavior is displayed, then it serves a purpose. Why does this not apply to religion?

That isn't necessarily true in evolution. To be passed on, a trait doesn't have to be helpful or have a purpose. It only needs to be non-detrimental enough to allow the organism to reproduce sucessfully. It's entirely possible that the "anting" serves no purpose whatsoever, but was passed on simply because it didn't affect the bird's ability to reproduce. This assumes that the behavior is instinctual and not somehow learned.

Or something like that.

 

[raedyn]

So the perspective he's using isn't invalid; what heretic and I are criticizing is that he's ignoring a number of other factors, and only placing importance on what is really a minor factor, relative to the subject of religion. Does this clarify?

Yes, and what a relief! For a second I was worried there, cuz I don't find either of you the type to completely discount everyone you disagree with.

And I think you are both 100% correct; people do LOTS of things that don't immediately seem logical towards the survival of the species. I feel there's more to people than just our biological & chemical functioning -- even though these things have a HUGE effect on our behaviours, they are not the be-all and end-all. Like someone brought up in another thread (I apologize for the way I'm about to twist yr words but I don't have time to look it up) although we can study the chemical things that happen concurrently with emotional responses, those chemical reactions do not give a complete picture of the experience of emotion for an individual. We can study the electrical impulses that happen in the brain, but that doesn't give a complete description of the mind.