The misunderstanding of religion

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Interesting article, very long:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haid...t07_index.html

The first half is a discussion of moral psychology--more science than backroom related. He concludes that humans evolved with five basic spheres of morality:

The individual spheres:
harm/care
fairness/reciprocity

and the binding spheres:
ingroup/loyalty
authority/respect
purity/sanctity

Surveys show that liberals place much more emphasis on the first two, while cultural conservatives weigh them all about equally (this is in the west).

He takes this as the definition of morality:

Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, practices, institutions, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.

And shows that there are two ways to accomplish this. In the contractual approach you fine tune the laws and institutions based on the two individual spheres--the other three get in the way since the emphasis is on freedoms. In the beehive approach, instead of emphasizing freedoms the binding spheres of morality are unite to unite people behind a shared moral code.

I'm more of an individualist, so I prefer the contractual approach, however the author makes the point that:

religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people. Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too. If you believe that morality is about happiness and suffering, then I think you are obligated to take a close look at the way religious people actually live and ask what they are doing right.

I agree, and the secularism vs religion debate should be held on this framework instead of the strawmen that are usually thrown around:

a) The new atheists treat religions as sets of beliefs about the world, many of which are demonstrably false. Yet anthropologists and sociologists who study religion stress the role of ritual and community much more than of factual beliefs about the creation of the world or life after death.

b) The new atheists assume that believers, particularly fundamentalists, take their sacred texts literally. Yet ethnographies of fundamentalist communities (such as James Ault's Spirit and Flesh) show that even when people claim to be biblical literalists, they are in fact quite flexible, drawing on the bible selectively—or ignoring it—to justify humane and often quite modern responses to complex social situations.

c) The new atheists all review recent research on religion and conclude that it is an evolutionary byproduct, not an adaptation. They compare religious sentiments to moths flying into candle flames, ants whose brains have been hijacked for a parasite's benefit, and cold viruses that are universal in human societies. This denial of adaptation is helpful for their argument that religion is bad for people, even when people think otherwise.

Anyone who claims to favor science over religion should take a long hard look at the reasons they use to criticize it...thinking of few people from the backroom

-edit-

It's also interesting to note that there's a strong purity/sanctity strain in the environmentalist camp--which is why the come off as somewhat religious.

[Kadagar_AV]

I can agree that religion can bind people together, who ever questioned that?

However, I would prefer some religion who wasnt as harmful as, say, the christian or muslim ones.

The idea of religion binding people together is however, at large, wrong. Why? Because this bonding comes from excluding others. If everyone in the world shared a belief, religion could be a positive force, however, in its current function it excludes and creates problem as much, if not more, than it helps.

It's all about what perspective you have.


On a sidenote: OF COURSE religious people are more happy, haven't you heard "ignorance is a bliss"? However, I have a hard time believing some dusty old book just so I can get to bond with some american redneck..

[Marshal Murat]

Religion would be tremendously bonding, provided it moves along the previous course that it's taken. Taking the aforementioned article into consideration, he supposes that religion bonds together groups to ensure group survival. Religions across the world derived from these early religions and expanded to include more in it's "group". Islam began in Mecca and Medina but now bonds together most of the globe. This progression can only continue until we have one "bonding" religion that unites us all at the simplest religious/moral level.

OF COURSE religious people are more happy, haven't you heard "ignorance is a bliss"?

Which is ironic because Buddhists are "enlightened" once they understand humanity!

The article was very interesting to read, it recognized emotion as a motivator rather than some appendage to "logical morality". I wouldn't doubt that the best organization would be sub-groups of "Bee-Hives" to ensure continuation and effectiveness of the Group, but have the Group headed by those who are willing to innovate.

[Sigurd]

It is interestingly noted that the Latin word Religio[n] which is borrowed by nearly every language means binding together.

[Mooks]

I really dont buy that religion makes you happier. When I was religios, I was constantly worrying about sinning, and feeling constantly guilty about it too. Having thoughtcrimes are NOT fun at all, and im so happy not have anymore the guilty feeling of looking at a cute girl sexually, or taking a couple quarters from my brother when I didnt have enough for bus money (I was pretty strict with myself, with the belief that I was almost certain to go to hell). Maybe I didnt get the flip side of the coin; unity. The youth group/church things I was going to were akward for me, felt like barely anyone was being themselves throughout those things.

The idea of religion binding people together is however, at large, wrong. Why? Because this bonding comes from excluding others. If everyone in the world shared a belief, religion could be a positive force, however, in its current function it excludes and creates problem as much, if not more, than it helps.

Used to go to a southern baptist (brimstone and fire!) type of church for a little bit. This quote is definitely true for that type of church (cant say much about the other types of churches I went too, as they didnt talk about "outsiders" much). The pastor tried to paint a picture in everyones mind as christrians being prosecuted worldwide, how they were on the defensive and how everyone needs to pitch in before the world falls to the muslim/atheist hoarde. Makes me laugh now, did a little bit back then too .

As a student of history, it's interesting to read it and realize that--in a lot of non-literal ways--the Bible is the History of Civilization. I don't mean that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that Adam was the first man, but I do mean that by understanding religion objectively you increase your understanding of humanity and history.

Im curios, do you feel the same when you read the Illiad or the nordic Saga's? Or the ancient Indian texts?

[Rhyfelwyr]

9 MILLION

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Seriously though, religion has elements that make you happier, other bits maybe won't.

At the end of the day though, I don't really see the point in doing anything if there is no God, no universal morality etc.

[HoreTore]

I think any "athiest" or otherwise non-religious person with half a brain and an open mind can see that Religion by itself is a good force, and not a bad one. I own a King James Bible, and I'm currently reading through it--and not for the first time. I have not been baptised, and I don't go to church, but I consider it a learning experience every time I read this book.

Why is it so hard to understand that other people are capable of seeing religion in a completely different way than you do?

[Centurion1]

I can agree that religion can bind people together, who ever questioned that?

However, I would prefer some religion who wasnt as harmful as, say, the christian or muslim ones.
Religion ain't harmful, it is some of the people who practice it (extremists). there are pleny of atheists who cause harm. Maybe, i can claim it is because they are not catholic?

The idea of religion binding people together is however, at large, wrong. Why? Because this bonding comes from excluding others. If everyone in the world shared a belief, religion could be a positive force, however, in its current function it excludes and creates problem as much, if not more, than it helps.
Well, people are different and certain religions don't fit. for instance i like the ability of to eat pork and drink beer, so no islam for me. Oh and tolerance can be taught. Nationalism is just as often a force of war and hate. Do you recommend we all become a single country?

It's all about what perspective you have.
Truth


On a sidenote: OF COURSE religious people are more happy, haven't you heard "ignorance is a bliss"? However, I have a hard time believing some dusty old book just so I can get to bond with some american redneck..
Biased. I do not know where you live, but American rednecks have saved the free and western world. They serve in over 50% of americas armed forces while being around 30% of the population, and without that "redneck" we would have lost a lot of wars, that affected other people...........

Oh and my "CATHOLIC" priest has multiple degrees from prestigious universities like John Hopkins. Yeah it ain't the dark ages buddy, most religious clergy are very well educated.

Refutation in the quotes and bolded

[HoreTore]

Where in my post do you see religious intolerance? Seriously. Ditch the knee-jerkiness. It's not becoming of someone who's trying to put forth a supposedly enlightened viewpoint based on objectivity at the expense of blind faith.

While you might feel that religion is a fundamentally good thing, others do not.

[KukriKhan]

The idea of religion binding people together is however, at large, wrong. Why? Because this bonding comes from excluding others.

Yet:

On a sidenote: OF COURSE religious people are more happy, haven't you heard "ignorance is a bliss"? However, I have a hard time believing some dusty old book just so I can get to bond with some american redneck..

he religiously excludes bonding "...with some american redneck".

LOL

[Fragony]

I see no contradiction

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yet:

he religiously excludes bonding "...with some american redneck".

LOL

I see no contradiction.

You can hardly criticize religion for excluding others while saying you would never bond with an "american redneck". One of the main points of the article was that atheists needs to be less militant and more objective...of course if atheists aren't militant about their moral ideas then how do they enforce them on their members? Through laws alone?

-edit-
One thing I would consider, is that these days the people who would be most discontent in a religious society leave the religion and aren't reflected in the happiness polls.

[Vladimir]

So by conservatives in the West I take it you mean those who fall under the American definition of social conservatism? If so, then I'm glad to hear we're the most balanced.

What is the bias of the author? Yes, we all have biases.

[Samurai Waki]

I will admit religion is a good thing, when they can admit abortion is a good thing

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So by conservatives in the West I take it you mean those who fall under the American definition of social conservatism? If so, then I'm glad to hear we're the most balanced.

That wasn't really the takeaway point...the "balanced" view leads to bans on flag burning and such, which surely lead to a more unified, patriotic society. Essentially it is exchanging freedom for security.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Interesting article,

I shall leave the science in the article for what it is. (What's with that 'new atheist' stuff? To make atheism sound more sinister, more a matter of social fashion than of deeply held conviction?)
Regarding the 'communal' values of religion, yes, something got lost in an atheist world that I deplore. Or rather, would deplore if it wasn't part of a social and belief system whose demise I do not deplore.

I wrote some thoughts about it not too long ago, thoughts that occupied my aunt's head, and mine:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I went to Church!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been to church. Unfortunately, the occasion was not a joyous one. My dear auntie had passed away, at too young an age. For private reasons, she had requested a traditional Catholic funeral. Save for a handful, none of my (her) relatives under seventy are religious. Neither was she. On the contrary. A libertine, a progressive, a business woman with her own high-tech firm. Did she have a conversion in the final hour? Did she long for the tradition? The consolation of eternal life?

I am an atheist, and a fiery anti-clericalist to boot. I am also a baptized Catholic. The choice whether to partake in the rite was respectfully left up to individual attendees. I partook in the rite.

The mass was beautiful, very traditional. I must hand it to the Catholics: they’ve got style. Incense, a choir lamenting the deceased, a procession to the graveyard. The tradition of it all had a comforting effect. One felt part of something enduring. Life and death were made less absolute. Death becomes a rite of passage, the soul of the departed moves on. Simultaneously, the community congregates, comes together, celebrates the continuity of the line. Those that have come before, and those that will come after, are made part of a single whole.

Beautiful day too. Great setting: deep down south, in a small village. Half my family is from there, many still live there. A place where time has stood still, where life has a different pace. The whole extended family was together, everybody dressed in black, looking stunningly beautiful. (To say I have a good-looking family would be an understatement) An old country church – still a centre of life for the community. Great banquet afterwards. Wine, bread, sun.


There is something to be said for old ways. For both 'the province' and for church. They are socially suffocating, intellectually stunting. I would wither away. Yet, there are undeniable qualities: community spirit, warmth, a sense of belonging.

[...]

One can love something that one loathes - that is one thing I discovered. For all the melancholic appreciation I feel for them, for all my admittance of enviable qualities, I know both Catholicism and the province to be full of hypocrisy, of petty feuds, of narrow-mindedness.

What is clear, is that the line between tradition, religiosity, and community overlap. I associate religion with rurality, tradition, a smaller social scale, longer-lasting and less voluntary social ties. About each, I have conflicting feelings indeed. A lot has been gained, a lot has been lost.

religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people. Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too. If you believe that morality is about happiness and suffering, then I think you are obligated to take a close look at the way religious people actually live and ask what they are doing right.

There is one problem with the article. Yes, religion has fine community values. The author jubilantly concludes that the atheism/religious debate ought to concentrate on this. However, once the jubilant 'gotcha!' makes way for more reflection, it is clear that this position will soon get religious folk into trouble. One should, namely, then accept that one could change all the mumbo-jumbo of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and what not, into whatever new nonsense and it wouldn't make any difference.

In other words, if I were to force Christians to burn the bible and worship my hairy arse instead they'd still be as happy and community-spirited and generous to charity. This aspect of religionism is exactly why I am an atheist, and why debate about religion ought not be limited to the author's framework.

[Husar]

There is one problem with the article. Yes, religion has fine community values. The author jubilantly concludes that the atheism/religious debate ought to concentrate on this. However, once the jubilant 'gotcha!' makes way for more reflection, it is clear that this position will soon get religious folk into trouble. One should, namely, then accept that one could change all the mumbo-jumbo of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and what not, into whatever new nonsense and it wouldn't make any difference.

In other words, if I were to force Christians to burn the bible and worship my hairy arse instead they'd still be as happy and community-spirited and generous to charity. This aspect of religionism is exactly why I am an atheist, and why debate about religion ought not be limited to the author's framework.

I think the point of the article is more along the lines that atheists should not be so fiercely opposed to religion, to point out that religion has it's benefits and that there is a reason for people to be religious.
The way I see it he just says when people have some sort of religion they can relate to they often become nice towards eachother, get more communal spirit etc. which is mostly an argument against the folks who run around screaming religion is the greatest evil and we should get rid of it altogether.
Let everyone decide that for themselves and appreciate that religion causes some people to be nicer than if they were atheists.
They might be interchangeable for you but they are not for religious people.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The way I see it he just says when people have some sort of religion they can relate to they often become nice towards eachother, get more communal spirit etc. which is mostly an argument against the folks who run around screaming religion is the greatest evil and we should get rid of it altogether.
Let everyone decide that for themselves and appreciate that religion causes some people to be nicer than if they were atheists.

Although the historical evidence is that religion causes groups of people who identify with each other's beliefs to be considerably more beastly to those who do not so identify.

One might well be happier in one's peer group, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that those outside the peer group feel safer or happier if they are in a minority. The two may well be related, as human groups feel better when there is an "us" and a "them".

Amusingly, this appears to apply to atheists too - the militant versions of which have adopted the same intolerance of different belief systems and a similar rhetoric of condemnation.

[KukriKhan]

The two may well be related, as human groups feel better when there is an "us" and a "them".

Amusingly, this appears to apply to atheists too - the militant versions of which have adopted the same intolerance of different belief systems and a similar rhetoric of condemnation.

LOL, yes... one might almost say (in a whisper, of course) they're religious in their zeal.

Sorry. The concept always cracks me up. Why do atheists even care what theists think?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sorry. The concept always cracks me up. Why do atheists even care what theists think?

I imagine some of the ire comes from the undue influence over public social policy. If one's choices are restrained by another's belief system, one might become somewhat exercised about that belief system.

Very few people seem to fume about Buddhist political influence in Washington or London, for example.

[Husar]

Although the historical evidence is that religion causes groups of people who identify with each other's beliefs to be considerably more beastly to those who do not so identify.

One might well be happier in one's peer group, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that those outside the peer group feel safer or happier if they are in a minority. The two may well be related, as human groups feel better when there is an "us" and a "them".

Amusingly, this appears to apply to atheists too - the militant versions of which have adopted the same intolerance of different belief systems and a similar rhetoric of condemnation.

You're absolutely correct which is, I guess, why I rather see myself as agnostic than atheist because I'm not a fan of groups that exclude others at all. It does however often depend on the amount of religiosity, a very zealous atheist(HoreTore for example*) is about as closed to other beliefs as for example Fred Phelps, the church I still go to however usually welcomes everyone no matter what they believe(yet I have not told them about my change of belief for some reason ), it also depends on the people involved and how fanatic they become about it, fanaticism is not exactly the same as belief though IMO, fanatics of any branch are bad, regardless of what they do or do not believe. History has seen a lot of fanatics and prejudice in general.

[Centurion1]

And during the dark ages the clergy were one of the very few groups that were still educated (able to read/write/ect). Its because of early church that alot of writings still exist from the Roman era.

Yes, but as a whole even the clergy were still uneducated. your average village priest was most likely not able to read or write. I am merely saying, that while what they preach may or may not be right, it does not mean they are ignorant for preaching it.

The Muslim part was a joke. what i mean is that some religions are tailor made to certain cultures and it would be very hard to see that point of view unless you were born in that environment. As to the nationalism bit i am serious.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Although the historical evidence is that religion causes groups of people who identify with each other's beliefs to be considerably more beastly to those who do not so identify.

One might well be happier in one's peer group, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that those outside the peer group feel safer or happier if they are in a minority. The two may well be related, as human groups feel better when there is an "us" and a "them".

The historical evidence is hard to analyze because people fought constantly for all kinds of reasons. But as the author said, the beehive structure has to protect itself from outside attack--which is why the contractual method is better for today's societies.

Amusingly, this appears to apply to atheists too - the militant versions of which have adopted the same intolerance of different belief systems and a similar rhetoric of condemnation.

I think this was the real bone the author had to pick. You can't stand for science and objectivity while casting them aside to make arguments against religion.

[Marshal Murat]

I love how "religion" often only covers Christianity and Islam, not Buddhism or Jainism.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think the point of the article is more along the lines that atheists should not be so fiercely opposed to religion, to point out that religion has it's benefits and that there is a reason for people to be religious.

Yes, religion has its benefits. I am not even convinced that society is better off without religion.
I am also not convinced that society wouldn't be better off if we had still remained hunter-gatherers.

The point is, (for ease of debate, I'll use Christianity and religion here as interchangeable) religion is build on fairy-tales. Yes, not all its societal results are negative. But:
We'd be living a lie. I couldn't do that. Could you, Anakin? (Been watching Star Wars again...)

All the positive attributes the author ascribes to religion - I, for one, would not argue they are false - would still hold true if Christianity was changed for believe in the force. Now what kind of mental opium is that? I myself am not good in pretending that something is true when it isn't. You yourself say as much. You have changed religion, yet continue to go to church. For the social bonds.

Now I don't mind. But I do feel religion will only work in the positive manner the author described, if people actually believe that stuff. I do mind that. For the same reason that I mind people really believing that the father sacrificed himself for his son in Return of the Jedi. It is a fairy tale. Mythology. It is degrading to indoctrinate children into believing Star Wars really happened a long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away.

I could make my kids believe Star Wars is real. No sweat. As the Jesuit's motto says: 'give 'em to us before the age of seven...'
And if all the other kids around them believe it too, few will ever come to doubt what they've been told. That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right. And Phil that the Church of England is right. And Hooah that Judaism is right. And Don that Catholicism is right. Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Willful indoctrination of fact known to be wrong, simply to mentally drug people and turn them into happy adults with great community values.

[KukriKhan]

Hmmm... Louis makes a tough argument. As usual.

I point out the wide variety of actual beliefs, and attachment to dogma, of any individual religious person. Their ideas about a creator, saviors, saints, sins, and the whole shebang are widely divergent, even among regular church-goers.

So maybe "religion" is two things (and serves 2 purposes):

1) a set of beliefs and moral imperatives held by individual humans that adhere only to the limits of their imaginations and
2) a Church, a community, of similarly-, but not identically-, minded others; because we like company and reassurance, and reinforcement.

-edit-
And Louis is right, mostly: #2 above could be (and is) served equally well through being a member of any sub-group; pub regular for example. Backroom regular, for another.

[Reenk Roink]

I could make my kids believe Star Wars is real. No sweat. As the Jesuit's motto says: 'give 'em to us before the age of seven...'
And if all the other kids around them believe it too, few will ever come to doubt what they've been told. That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right. And Phil that the Church of England is right. And Hooah that Judaism is right. And Don that Catholicism is right. Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Willful indoctrination of fact known to be wrong, simply to mentally drug people and turn them into happy adults with great community values.

And you were doing so well until here...

[Louis VI the Fat]

And you were doing so well until here...

The quote is apocryphical.

I have here an elder scroll that ends with:
Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Teaching children, with all the best intentions of the parents of course, a moral system based on an ancient books and its derived theology, can lead to trouble. For the system to function, the book will have to be held sacred, above criticism. This leads to uncritical thinking, or even worse, stiltifying dogma. Either one accepts the truth, or one doesn't. Both are problematic.

(If George Lucas can tinker with his creative output, so can I)


Most of religious morality and tradition is not derived from the Bible, but from society at large. Contemporary morality creates the Bible, much more than the other way round. A 21st century American doesn't have all that much morality in common with a fourth century Syrian. He does have a lot in common however with a 21st century American atheist.

The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.

Yet, what does this leave for the case for religion, other than that religion is more strictly imposed morality? Morality not grounded on divine truths, but on uncritical acceptation of contemporary morality? One could, as Husar does, and many others do to, leave the faith while still partaking in the community. But this is obviously not a long-term option at large. No emperor can parade around naked indefinately.

If one desperately longs for the benefits of religion as discussed in this thread - communal values, happier people, shared belief system - then the same could be achieved with teaching the Force in all seriousness. Which ought to make the believer in God uncomfortable. Hence, the arguments of the author are not in the least bit supportive of Christianity. (God is dead, long live religion?)
He may be right that religious monolithism creates a happier society, but it will be build on an unsolid foundation.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That is why Rhy 'knows' that the Scottish kirk is right.

Louis, I always like your posts even if we disagree, but I think you should be more careful that you have got things right if you are going to mention individual members. I have not been indoctrinated into any beliefs. As a child, baptism, weddings, and funerals were the sum of my involvement with the Kirk. I was raised by one parent who is nominally religious, another who is practically a militant atheist. In fact, the ridicule and later grudging acceptance I have gotten from friends and family has been important in God breaking me down. Also, I have not been indoctrinated into anything since becoming a Christian, you only need to look at another thread to see what I think of the Kirk of late. As to why I came to the beliefs I have which are similar to those historically held by the Kirk, that is because of my studying of the English Puritans and nothing to do with national identity/whatever you think it is, and that forged the direction in my studying of theology etc. You might even say I did everything of my own free will...

I'm sure the other people you mentioned have not been indoctrinated either, but they can speak for themselves.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis, I always like your posts even if we disagree, but I think you should be more careful that you have got things right if you are going to mention individual members.

That 'you 'know' God exists' is a direct quote from you yourself, from several months ago. (Don't make me drag it up!)

You don't think it at all uncoincidental that a Scotsman would reach the conclusion that the Scottish Kirk is the right church?

People who are religious hold their beliefs to be true, so they aren't morally bankrupt.

I don't think the religious are morally bankrupt. In my first post in this thread, I quoted some of my thoughts about how my aunt, a firm atheist, requested a Catholic burial. I rather enjoyed and admired the tradition, community values, passing on the line, the ritual. I partook in the rite. I have very much mixed feelings about it.

Louis, I feel the author would agree with you completely.

I hate it when that happens.

No, I know. I don't disagree with him either. In my opinion, the loss of religion (I'm urban, atheist European) has not been entirely positive. (But I am not sure where the line is here between religion and tradition, smaller social circles, more community values, involuntary social bonds etc. The author goes some way to describing this connection)
I am making a pre-emptive strike against those who would triumphantly regard the article as a WMD for more Christianity.

Like every arguement against belief in God your has zero traction. Your whole arguement assumes that none of us who believe are actually right, if one of us is you are in big trouble

I am not necessarly arguing God doesn't exist. More that it wouldn't matter if he did or didn't for the arguments brought up here in favour of religion.

Also, there is also one fallacious Christian argument in your post: No, if God does turn out to exist, I still would not worship him. Before He can finish saying 'and these harpsicord-playing Cherubs don't have sex eithe..', I'll have Him guillotined and myself crowned as Emperor. Then I'll pounce earth for forty days with floods and earthquakes for giggles.