'Why humans find it hard to do away with religion'

[Hope]

Dear Gonners,

I don't have any lucky numbers, colours, good luck charms, supernatural rituals. I can't see myself following any superstitions, touch wood.

So, it sounds as if you're very similar to most people here, enki.

[Hope]

I was answering Sriram's post :-

"After that, suitably evolved and modified religions or secular spirituality can take over and guide human life. That would be a more integrated and fulfilling way of life. I am sure it will happen one day."

"Some of us" refers to those of us who have already found a more integrated and fulfilling way of life ... "the rest of us" refers to those who haven't.

And, as I said, it depends on whagt you mean by a more integrated and fulfilling way of life.  I suspect that most of us would describe our life in this way.

[Leonard James]

And, as I said, it depends on whagt you mean by a more integrated and fulfilling way of life.  I suspect that most of us would describe our life in this way.

Probably, so it's horses for courses! 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

I can't speak for Daniel Dennett on this, but both Professor Dawkins and Sam Harris have publicly spoken on this root-cause of religious thinking in humanity, so to say that it's 'anathema' is rather obviously not true. What they don't accept that is that the tendency to identify patterns and presume agency need necessarily lead to religious thinking - the mere existence of atheists shows that it need not be the case.

Atheists!! you cry out for evidence and when it is presented you dismiss it out of hand, and no, not evidence for God but evidence of how we are programmed to think ( evolution ) and I would have thought this alone would give you pause for thought.

We are not born atheist, we are not born believing in God but we are born believing, a tendency to see patterns, it is written into us, Sanity Clause, if we are born atheists we would tell our parents from day dot, there ain't no Sanity Clause.

Superstition, when I asked about Hitler's shirt, it was not a off the cuff remark, it was a genuine scientific study, we are all in some way superstitious, another study which was carried out, participants were asked to throw darts at pictures of their loved ones, they all turned out to be very poor shoots, why!! throwing darts at a picture does not harm a loved one.

For further reading, see contagion bias and magical thinking.

We are all, in some way, religious thinkers.

Gonnagle.

[torridon]

Dear Outrider,

Atheists!! you cry out for evidence and when it is presented you dismiss it out of hand, and no, not evidence for God but evidence of how we are programmed to think ( evolution ) and I would have thought this alone would give you pause for thought.

We are not born atheist, we are not born believing in God but we are born believing, a tendency to see patterns, it is written into us, Sanity Clause, if we are born atheists we would tell our parents from day dot, there ain't no Sanity Clause.

We are evolved beings, ergo we carry within us the legacy of our past; just as we still have a vestigial tail bone despite that we have long gotten past using a tail, our minds also carry vestigial tendencies that were essential to our ancestors in the past, such as the unwarranted attribution of agency; eg "God"

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Outrider,

Atheists!! you cry out for evidence and when it is presented you dismiss it out of hand, and no, not evidence for God but evidence of how we are programmed to think ( evolution ) and I would have thought this alone would give you pause for thought.

We are not born atheist, we are not born believing in God but we are born believing, a tendency to see patterns, it is written into us, Sanity Clause, if we are born atheists we would tell our parents from day dot, there ain't no Sanity Clause.

Superstition, when I asked about Hitler's shirt, it was not a off the cuff remark, it was a genuine scientific study, we are all in some way superstitious, another study which was carried out, participants were asked to throw darts at pictures of their loved ones, they all turned out to be very poor shoots, why!! throwing darts at a picture does not harm a loved one.

For further reading, see contagion bias and magical thinking.

We are all, in some way, religious thinkers.

Gonnagle.

Problem is you've exactly undermined your claim. The evidence asked for is about the truth of the claims not that they are made. Given you state that throwing darts at pictures of loved ones doesn't actually have any effect despite any such beliefs, then that means that the evidence is that the belief is wrong, and so the existence of such belief is not evidence of its truth.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

No, I am not saying the belief is right or wrong, all I am saying is the belief is there.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

No, I am not saying the belief is right or wrong, all I am saying is the belief is there.

Gonnagle.

And as I pointed out no one is denying that, so when you talk about being asked for evidence, though from me it would be asking for a methodology,  then we are asking for evidence for the truth of the claim.

[Enki]

So, it sounds as if you're very similar to most people here, enki.

I would hope so. It was of course a tongue in cheek statement, with the 'touch wood' comment at the end. Gonners seems to have understood this with no problem at all.

[Gonnagle]

Dear enki,

Of course I understood it, the point I was trying to make, we are all superstitious, a word that is used often on this forum.

And as I am trying to explain to our Sane, it is there in all of us, he has a mug with magical qualities, I am not decrying his mug, I am celebrating his very human way of thinking.

Gonnagle.

[Enki]

Dear Sane,

No, I am not saying the belief is right or wrong, all I am saying is the belief is there.

Gonnagle.

I'm not disagreeing with you, Gonners. It seems to me that belief (and trust) is natural evolutionary instinctive behaviour, especially in our early years. The problems seem to arise later, when the objects of our beliefs can be rationalised and found wanting. Hence I would seek evidence for any religious claims, and if evidence isn't forthcoming, then my natural bent is to eschew them.

[Udayana]

We are evolved beings, ergo we carry within us the legacy of our past; just as we still have a vestigial tail bone despite that we have long gotten past using a tail, our minds also carry vestigial tendencies that were essential to our ancestors in the past, such as the unwarranted attribution of agency; eg "God"

But these mechanisms are not really "vestigal" as they are used day in day out in other ways, eg in empathy, apprehending others actions, responses or trying to predict events from known data.

And, subliminally, without religion being dragged in, we use the same skills but substituting other imaginary entities for god - "society" or the "the nation", "the greater good", "wellbeing" and so on.

[wigginhall]

Yes, and if you subscribe to some of Jung's ideas, the psyche contains various 'objects' or 'sub-personalities' which interact with each other.  For example, many people seem to harbour an internal critic, who mildly or maybe ferociously judges oneself.   It's an easy step to argue that some of these 'internal objects' are projected outwards onto various things in life, e.g. the royal family. 

One point here is that these interactions in the psyche are not particularly rational - for example, the inner critic can be neutralized by anger, but less so by cool argument, it just keeps on nagging at you.   

Jung of course went so far as to posit a 'higher power' in the psyche, which sort of stabilizes things, has a central executive role, and so on.   (Although with some people, this is deficient!).   And this too can get projected, well, onto a higher power, what else.

I think this is similar to Freud's critique of religion ('The Future of an Illusion' being the famous book), but Jung was more sympathetic to religion; Freud hated it.

[King Oberon]

we are not born believing in God but we are born believing

I would say we are born questioning rather than believing gonners.

We want to know why and if we don't understand or can't know the answer then we fill in the gaps with our imagination whether that is with fairies, gods, trees, sun, moon or spirits etc.

When you know nothing to start with then outside entities controlling what you can't explain is probably (and was) a natural step until you find the 'real' answers and then you can move on, well some of us can.

Some people I guess still need to cling on to our primitive gods, fairy, spirits orientated past in order to deal with death or in some cases just make sense of their lives, others know that death is just that, death.

Nothing lasts forever no matter how we might child-likely wish it did. 

[Outrider]

Atheists!! you cry out for evidence and when it is presented you dismiss it out of hand, and no, not evidence for God but evidence of how we are programmed to think ( evolution ) and I would have thought this alone would give you pause for thought.

I'm not sure how it is that we're dismissing this out of hand, to be honest. I accept the evidence that shows we have a tendency to presume agency, and I find the evolutionary psychological explanation to be convincing.

We are not born atheist, we are not born believing in God but we are born believing, a tendency to see patterns, it is written into us, Sanity Clause, if we are born atheists we would tell our parents from day dot, there ain't no Sanity Clause.

Yes and no. We are born atheist - at the point of birth, we don't believe in gods. We aren't hardwired to disbelieve, nor are we hardwired to believe in anything specific. The fact that we're born atheist no more means we're predetermined to remain that way then the fact we're born incapable of walking means we're predestined not to need shoes.

Superstition, when I asked about Hitler's shirt, it was not a off the cuff remark, it was a genuine scientific study, we are all in some way superstitious, another study which was carried out, participants were asked to throw darts at pictures of their loved ones, they all turned out to be very poor shoots, why!! throwing darts at a picture does not harm a loved one.

I wouldn't throw darts at a picture of my wife not because I believe it would physically injure her to do so, but because it would hurt her feelings if she were to find out - symbolism is a part of that suite of evolved capacities in our brain that allow concepts like language and ethics to flourish.

We do all have aspects of 'superstition' to our thought processes - that doesn't mean we have to give up trying to eradicate them, does it?

We are all, in some way, religious thinkers.

We all have limitations - most of the widespread religions say as much, ironically The trick is to try to be aware of them and to realise that the fact they have a cause does not mean that they are there for a reason...

O.

[jeremyp]

Dear Outrider,

Atheists!! you cry out for evidence and when it is presented you dismiss it out of hand, and no, not evidence for God but evidence of how we are programmed to think ( evolution ) and I would have thought this alone would give you pause for thought.

But it's the fallacy of adverse consequences. Perhaps there is evidence that human society works better with religion, but that does not mean that religion is true or God really exists.

[Jack Knave]

Religion in the broadest sense has not been done away with and will not be so. The gods of the past have been replaced by ideologies that are 'worshiped' just as fervently as any god.

[Shaker]

Religion in the broadest sense has not been done away with and will not be so. The gods of the past have been replaced by ideologies that are 'worshiped' just as fervently as any god.

Does that count as "religion" though?

[SusanDoris]

Dear Sane,

No, I am not saying the belief is right or wrong, all I am saying is the belief is there.

Gonnagle.

Beliefs are acquired. The child is born with the instinct to grip firmly and to suckle. From then on, his/her brain starts acquiring and absorbing knowledge. During the time he/she is learning how to use language to communicate, he/she has already heard many conversations which include information about all manner of beliefs. How can a child be born with a belief?

[Outrider]

Religion in the broadest sense has not been done away with and will not be so. The gods of the past have been replaced by ideologies that are 'worshiped' just as fervently as any god.

The fact that you have to put 'worship' in quotation marks suggests that you are talking about something fundamentally different to religions.

O.

[Leonard James]

The fact that you have to put 'worship' in quotation marks suggests that you are talking about something fundamentally different to religions.

O.

"Worship" is a daft verb anyway. Anything worthy of being worshiped would not be small-minded enough to expect it.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Yes and no. We are born atheist - at the point of birth, we don't believe in gods. We aren't hardwired to disbelieve, nor are we hardwired to believe in anything specific. The fact that we're born atheist no more means we're predetermined to remain that way then the fact we're born incapable of walking means we're predestined not to need shoes.

Well old son, my thoughts, how I interpret the evidence, you mention "at point of birth", science tells me that at this "point" is a very frightening experience, I doubt anyone can imagine that one moment when we are dragged kicking and screaming from the womb.

Now the science behind mother and unborn child is still in its infancy ( infancy ) but I would imagine the child has feeling like, safety, warmth, protected, not thoughts but feelings.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/

The above article is mostly Greek to me, but the last word in the article is interconnectedness, from this, ( my thoughts ) the child knows that a higher power is protecting it, not only does it know but from the article it suggests that it is in communication with this higher power.

The actual "point of birth" we are taken away from this higher power, that safety, that protectedness, when the child is returned to its mothers arms, what happens?

Sorry Outrider but from the evidence I can't believe that we are "born atheist".

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

Well old son, my thoughts, how I interpret the evidence, you mention "at point of birth", science tells me that at this "point" is a very frightening experience, I doubt anyone can imagine that one moment when we are dragged kicking and screaming from the womb.

Sounds about right - it's difficult to know how 'frightening' it is. Startling, it's all change and new experiences, but I'm not sure if surprise is intrinsically frightening or that fear is something we learn to associate with surprise over time?

Now the science behind mother and unborn child is still in its infancy ( infancy ) but I would imagine the child has feeling like, safety, warmth, protected, not thoughts but feelings.

Sort of - how will they 'feel' warm in the absence of an understanding of cold? How will they feel 'safe' in the absence of any idea of danger?

The above article is mostly Greek to me, but the last word in the article is interconnectedness, from this, ( my thoughts ) the child knows that a higher power is protecting it, not only does it know but from the article it suggests that it is in communication with this higher power.

The actual "point of birth" we are taken away from this higher power, that safety, that protectedness, when the child is returned to its mothers arms, what happens?

Biologically they're linked - I don't know if the child is aware enough to understanding the concept of 'higher power' and that's the point, for me - atheism is the absence of belief, it doesn't differentiate on why there is that absence. If they're ignorant of the concept they cannot be thought of as a 'believer' and so they're an atheist. That's not a choice, it's not a destiny, it's just a point in time.

Sorry Outrider but from the evidence I can't believe that we are "born atheist".

From the evidence, I can't see any other conclusion, but perhaps we have different ideas of what atheism constitutes?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't see the labelling of babies as atheist any more useful than saying tables are atheist. Nor indeed, that they have a belief in a higher power, they don't have that capability

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Sounds about right - it's difficult to know how 'frightening' it is. Startling, it's all change and new experiences, but I'm not sure if surprise is intrinsically frightening or that fear is something we learn to associate with surprise over time?

Well one scientist likened it to ( how he knows this ) jumping out of a aeroplane with no parachute but ten times more frightening.

Sort of - how will they 'feel' warm in the absence of an understanding of cold? How will they feel 'safe' in the absence of any idea of danger?

I am not a mother ( or father ) so I go with the science presented, the child in the womb is connected to his/her mother, the child reacts to its mothers feelings, kicking when it hears its mother favourite music, one mother stated " I wish I had listened to more classical music when I was pregnant".

Biologically they're linked - I don't know if the child is aware enough to understanding the concept of 'higher power' and that's the point, for me - atheism is the absence of belief, it doesn't differentiate on why there is that absence. If they're ignorant of the concept they cannot be thought of as a 'believer' and so they're an atheist. That's not a choice, it's not a destiny, it's just a point in time.

Higher power, yes I knew I was in trouble using that term and I suppose I am on thin ice with knowing what a baby in the womb is thinking, what I do know, this pattern seeking is part of what we are, it is written into the DNA, we don't learn it, what I think I know, the baby is aware of something greater.

Gonnagle.