The Biological Value of Religion

[Mudhammam]

As my studies have taken me to likes of Immanuel Kant and William James, I have recently felt compelled to soften my stance towards religion, in its broadest sense, and taken as a whole. I know that is a very general statement so I will attempt to clarify, though remaining brief in my present comments.

While clearly there are thousands of religions with contradicting creeds, to a great degree there is a common thread that runs through them: an uneasiness, that is, there is something wrong about mankind as he naturally stands, and a solution, a sense of being saved from the wrong. People of all faiths and beliefs tend to also commonly share the practice of a "prayerful communion," a powerful connection they feel with some type of an ideal that is infinitely beyond the limits of everyday sense. I do not share any sympathies for theology, but as a psychological exercise, religion seems to me to be something of a survival mechanism not completely discordant with the unique functions of any other given species. Whereas evolution has shaped bodily functions to succeed in certain physical environments, I cannot help but think it has also shaped a kind of psychological disposition to enable creatures with the capacity for rational thought to survive in a world that to many minds often appears irrational. This is religion, and just as all creatures vary in an abundant of ways, some more successful than others, so does religious belief. I find myself drawn to the pragmatic approach: it is not a matter of whether or not our ideas are true so much as they are useful. Is religion useful? For many, this is an indisputable and resounding yes.

This doesn't change the fact that religion can also be dangerous and restrictive, but we should parse between harmful or helpful religious beliefs in the same way we would with more or less tolerable political ideologies or hobbies or what have you. Anyway, those our my initial thoughts and I'd love to explore them further with anyone who's interested.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

While it is clear that a lot of people gain solace from religious faith, isn't this obviously a false kind of solace, akin to people who need to take drugs to cope, or those poor sorts with OCD who can't make out their front door without going through pointless (to the rest of us, anyroad) rituals?

I would no more excuse religion on the basis of it being a coping mechanism than I would excuse the dangers of drugs abuse because it helps some people get through the day.

On a no less practical level, is the ostensible 'good' done by religion worth the vile and obscene horrors that ALL religions have always perpetrated? Human sacrifice, mutilation, pointless restrictions on diet, sex, and bodily functions, the inculcation of false ideas, abuse of the young (both physically and psychically), the systematic retardation of event attempts to expand human knowledge, murders both wholesale and retail, the promotion of war, the coddling of fascism, etc etc etc.

Sorry, but the coping mechanism of religion isn't NEARLY enough to save it from the ash-heap of history to which it so rightly belongs.

Boru

[Mudhammam]

While it is clear that a lot of people gain solace from religious faith, isn't this obviously a false kind of solace, akin to people who need to take drugs to cope, or those poor sorts with OCD who can't make out their front door without going through pointless (to the rest of us, anyroad) rituals?

I would no more excuse religion on the basis of it being a coping mechanism than I would excuse the dangers of drugs abuse because it helps some people get through the day.

I'm not so sure, Boru. Is it a false kind of solace if it works for that person? Who am I to tell anyone whether or not their source for peace and comfort is genuine, whether it be a drug or a faith in possibilities not available in the typical run-of-the-mill materialistic philosophies, if that is what in fact does bring them the most solace? I think the comparison with drugs is an apt one; clearly, drugs do work for some people, but not for everyone, and nor should it. In terms of the religious experience, is it a matter of true versus false or useful versus useless? I think I tend to side with the sentiment, "Our responsible concern is with our private destiny," and if something works for you, you know what? Fine, great. Should we really demand or expect that a person's chief affections lie with anything else besides their own happiness and prosperity (obviously not at the expense of others, but in coexistence with them)? Whether one adopts materialism or religion, I don't see why it ought to be so. Now on the other hand...

On a no less practical level, is the ostensible 'good' done by religion worth the vile and obscene horrors that ALL religions have always perpetrated? Human sacrifice, mutilation, pointless restrictions on diet, sex, and bodily functions, the inculcation of false ideas, abuse of the young (both physically and psychically), the systematic retardation of event attempts to expand human knowledge, murders both wholesale and retail, the promotion of war, the coddling of fascism, etc etc etc.

Sorry, but the coping mechanism of religion isn't NEARLY enough to save it from the ash-heap of history to which it so rightly belongs.

Boru

Clearly I'd be unfathomably naive or simply insane to dispute that many religious beliefs have resulted in abominable practices, and for these theological dogmas and doctrines, I share your desire to see them forever disintegrate into the past. But I also think it would be a mistake to overlook the difference between ecclesiastical and private religion, the former of which I think is far more to blame for the atrocities that have occurred than the latter. Consider the analogy of government; there has never been a government that hasn't been the active participant of some incredible evil or injustice, and yet we'd be fools to wish all forms of it away. There are indeed valuable, and some might say necessary, principles upon which governments, no matter how corrupt, are initially formed. I wonder if perhaps the same could be said about religion. The experiences themselves--are they not a crucial part of the inner life for the vast majority of human beings?--and only when intellectualized into systems that seek to establish rule through dogmatic, coercive reasoning do we find that true conflict begins to take root? Perhaps the "intellectual content" that various religions offer is necessary for different kinds of experiences for different kinds of individuals, that is, the doctrines give the sensations private meaning, but should never pretend to be Absolute Truths. And if this was the attitude of more religious practitioners, as it is for many (though not enough), could it find its proper place as a valuable human tool for coping and/or surviving (going back to the biological question)? With some reluctance, I confess, I think it could.

[Whateverist]

I agree. Religion is a huge tent. In it you find a wide variety of people believing hugely divergent things. It includes many examples of atrocities but the beliefs espoused by those who do them are very different from those espoused on this forum by Michael or Jacob before he converted. I imagine it must be very difficult to keep your balance as an open-minded, agnostic theist.

On the other side, we atheists should avoid painting it all with a single brush. When you hold up the worst examples of religion, it is easy but also a mistake to attach them to all of religion. Here too, a dose of agnosticism can keep one from sliding into confirmation bias which narrows and prejudices what we see.

[Diablo]

The problem is that few people could take advantage of such solace unless they were brainwashed into it in the first place, at a very young age. There's not much point in taking non-believers, handing them a bible or a koran, and telling them how much better they'd feel if they signed up for it. They'd read the book and chuck it in the garbage.

Existing believers would be a different matter, and if you're saying that they'd be better staying with their religion, and not trying to persuade them it's actually a load of tripe, then I wouldn't have a problem with that, with one big proviso. I've always said that religion should be like sex, done in private between consenting adults, so there are the big problems of poisoning their children's minds and interfering in public policy, for example by trying to stop equal rights for minorities. If they stopped doing either of those things then can pray away and enjoy their solace. Of course they will not.

You'd be better off offering meditation or something like that which may offer some of the advantages of religion without the side-effects.

[Whateverist]

Yeah, I can't think of any conversion stories (atheist to xtian) I've heard here than didn't involve someone who hadn't been exposed to religion while young, lost it and then recovered it.

[Cato]

Pickup,
I agree with much of what you stated in the OP, but will offer that it is the explanatory power of religion that is biologically/psychologically valuable; not religion in and of itself, understanding that there are non-religious explanations that serve the purpose for most inquiries. For me, religion was a primitive means of providing explanation for events that were unpredictable on the scale of a single human life or whose secrets were undetectable with prevailing technology: why does the ground shake, why did the mountain explode, why did my village flood, what moves the sun across the sky, what causes the seasons to change, why did the sun darken, what causes illness, etc.? Supernatural explanations for these events were then packaged into a set of beliefs that we call religion. As we continued to provide more natural explanations for the phenomenon we encountered, the religions dissipated into myth.

We still have a biological/psychological need for causal explanation; however, religion is not required. This is the basis for wanting to make the distinction. Whether or not it is a distinction with a difference I think depends on what we are explaining. A Greek goat herder can live his entire life believing that Helios is driving the sun across the sky and no harm will come of it. If the same goat herder subscribes to a primitive notion of demon caused disease then there could very likely be problems for him and anyone he comes in contact with.

[Michael]

I think if you're looking for the value of religion, then I would also encourage you to consider the social order brought by religion. This has extended, and extends, from the informal (culture) to the formal (legal). It is interesting that the experiments with a formally, and enforced, atheist social structure have, so far, failed (though I think the reasons for that failure are complex and are hard to disentangle from general failings of Marxism).

[Diablo]

I think if you're looking for the value of religion, then I would also encourage you to consider the social order brought by religion. This has extended, and extends, from the informal (culture) to the formal (legal). It is interesting that the experiments with a formally, and enforced, atheist social structure have, so far, failed (though I think the reasons for that failure are complex and are hard to disentangle from general failings of Marxism).

Hmm. Social order at the expense of the rights of women and minorities. Care for the social order in Iran or Saudi? Thought not. Remember the divine right of kings when the church propped up despots?

The secular democracies of Western Europe and North America have been the beacon as far as social order is concerned, and that's the way that other nations should go.

Maybe you like the Islamic State? That should promote social order, no?

[Michael]

Well, I'm not saying all religions are equally just Diablo. But I don't see the atheist/Marxist record as particularly any better than the worst Islamic state; those systems would allow absolutely no dissent.

But even with Islamic states we should perhaps be prepared to look at the wider sweep of history: Islam has not always been intolerant.

I'm sure I don't need to point out that the democracies that you like so much are based on Judeo-Christian values. Not that I personally see modern America as a beacon for justice and peace; far from it. I see modern America as fermenting worldwide violence as it seeks to violently impose its will on other nations; much better were the days when America kept itself to itself. It would be a complete anachronism (not to mention just a huge historical error) to see them as atheistically secular at their foundations. An open question is how they would develop if they moved further away from those foundations.