Why is religion so ubiquitous?

[Royston]

Opposable thumbs are really useful. They have enabled humans and other apes to use tools and otherwise manipulate and control their environment in a way that they could not do without opposable thumbs. In evolutionary terms, opposable thumbs are selected for, probably because they confer an advantage that makes the individual more successful than its non-opposable thumbed rivals.

Language and communication are also really useful. Not so much for the individual, but for the family and social group. It enables better hunting and gathering, dealing with crises and situations by allowing people to share experience and expertise. It probably goes hand-in-hand with extra brain capacity and memory, and I am not trying to argue which caused which, I am just using it as an example of an evolutionary trait that is selected for because it confers an advantage on a group.

Almost every culture or society has, or had, a religion of some sort. Some worship the sun, some revere trees; others believe in a coffin suspended halfway between heaven and earth, or a cosmic Jewish zombie. Presumably, such a ubiquitous piece of social behaviour is also selected for, evolutionarily. I cannot think of any other reason that religion would be so ubiquitous across humanity, unless it was something that was (on a social level at any rate) selected for. The only thing is, I cannot for the life of me figure out why: what advantage does religion confer to the social group?

Richard Dawkins discussed it in The God Delusion. To paraphrase, he said that there seemed to be a god-shaped hole in the human psyche, and that churches and shamans and charlatans had attempted to fill that hole with all sorts of belief systems. Then he tried to hammer the square peg of science into the round god-shaped hole in the human psyche. It did not fit to my satisfaction, I have to say.

But it did get me thinking: religions are never that dissimilar, they all steal bits of each others' mythology, like Christmas and Yule being at the same time, like bunnies and eggs being symbolic of Easter (instead of naked men with nails hammered into them). The Roman gods bear more than a little resemblance to their Greek precursors. The need, the gap that they fill, does seem to be fairly consistent across the whole of the human race; and much like modern politicians and political parties they all seem to be fighting over the same ideological or theological ground (ie the god-shaped hole in our psyches).

Indeed, when you remove religion, make it illegal or frowned upon as it was in the Soviet Union or Communist China, it is often replaced by a personality cult, a deification of the individual if you like, for example Lenin, Mao or Castro. The human 'need', or desire to worship something or someone, always seems to find a way to be expressed even when it is suppressed. People seem to derive satistaction from it: it seems to help them make sense of their lives; and without it they sense a lack.

As an atheist, I am aware that I have nothing to fill that particular gap in my human psyche. I have no higher power to fall back on when I am troubled, I have no way of rationalising the random and chaotic things that life throws at me. There are no cathedrals to atheism, there is no great social gathering of atheists, nowhere that we explore our common ground and our differences. I do not deify Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan or Brian Cox. I like them, I think they are smart and entertaining, but I don't think they are gods. I think that some people do put people like that on a pedestal, but that is not a trap I am about to fall into.

If we accept (as I do) that there is no god, and that religion has no basis in reality, the gap that religion fills does not go away. So my question is this: what can we do to fill that gap in our collective psyche, and make ourselves more whole and rounded individuals as part of an atheist society / community / whatever, without giving in to superstition and irrationality?

I have a funny feeling this might be a very big question.

[Faith No More]

I think personal experience and reflection is the only way to fill that hole. It's got to be different for each person, so each person has to decide for themselves. Personally, I suffered from severe depression and struggled throughout my life to find meaning. Since I have mostly come out of my depression, I find meaning just by being happy and just enjoying the little things in life. Eventually, when I have time, I would like to help others suffering from depression as I try to do when I meet anyone who does suffer from this emotional illness. One day though, I would like to maybe even be a therapist and write a book about my experiences. This is what gives my life a higher purpose, but I've found meaning in every day life.

There is no one answer for filling that inherent hole in the human psyche other than self-reflection on one's own life. It's going to be different for each individual.

[Napoléon]

If we accept (as I do) that there is no god, and that religion has no basis in reality, the gap that religion fills does not go away. So my question is this: what can we do to fill that gap in our collective psyche, and make ourselves more whole and rounded individuals as part of an atheist society / community / whatever, without giving in to superstition and irrationality?

Science is the answer!

---

Or that ^

[Minimalist]

Why is religion so ubiquitous?

Because lots of people are terribly stupid.

[Nick_A]

Hello Royston

If we accept (as I do) that there is no god, and that religion has no basis in reality, the gap that religion fills does not go away. So my question is this: what can we do to fill that gap in our collective psyche, and make ourselves more whole and rounded individuals as part of an atheist society / community / whatever, without giving in to superstition and irrationality?

I have a funny feeling this might be a very big question.

It is a very big and important question. All I can add is how I've come to understand it. But to begin with, I'll have to first appreciate Man in a different way then you are used to. So if you are open to our differences you will at least learn of a different perspective.

We both accept mechanical evolution and we may even agree that Man is the most complete form of mechanical evolution through the addition of the thinking process. This is where evolution stops for a great many.

However, I've become open to this idea of conscious evolution or the continuation of mechanical evolution. From this perspective Man on earth serves as this point of connection that can lead to conscious evolution.

Society should serve this purpose and aid in the means for the creation of individuality or conscious evolution. However, the human condition is such that we collectively lack the conscious experience and become enchanted with the shadows on the wall as described in Plato's cave. As a result only a few partake in conscious evolution since they neither sense its value or have the will or the capacity for conscious attention necessary to "know thyself."

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil

The quality of humanism you are suggesting is impossible for Man as he is since we will always be governed by "prestige" regardles of the finest platitudes.

Simone is not suggesting a personal God but just becoming capable of psychologically receiving the quality of energy called "grace." It is through grace that one becomes conscious to the degree that objective conscience becomes active in a person. In other words values mean more than words since their truths are felt.

She describes a person as like a plant. The roots are fed by the culture it is growing in. If the culture serves to promote consciousness it is good food for the plant.

The leaves of a plant receive light from the sun for its growth. The light of grace feeds man's higher parts again opening the way towards conscious evolution.

So as you can see, our primary difference would be our conception of the nature of Man. Is Man just a creature of the earth as any other mammal or does Man have the completion that can allow for the transition from mechanical evolution into conscious evolution?

My guess is that all cultures have this calling much like a moth is drawn to the light but is powerless in front of it. The problem is that Man's nature has allowed Man and society to be governed by imagination and lacking conscious attention. Plato called this society the "Beast." The question for me then is if a person can become more than just a mechanical part of the Great Beast and evolve in the direction of conscious humanity?

[The Grand Nudger]

Why should I need to replace something that I never had. Why fill a gap in my psyche that doesn't exist? Maybe it's just me, but this question seems to be a sort of "I've stopped believing in werewolves, but a universe without werewolves is unsatisfying. What should I put in the place of werewolves so that I feel comfortable in a werewolfless universe?" Perhaps there was always something in your psyche, and you used "werewolves" as the center of focus for that impulse. But hey, what do I know.

[BethK]

I have read a good bit of Dawkins and in _The God Delusion_, he says that it's a piggy-back on the need for children to obey and believe their parents and elders if they are going to survive. "Don't go near that cliff!" and "Don't swim in that lake with crocodiles" are information that the child needs in order to survive, without checking and testing it. These same people who they must believe and obey if they are to survive also tells them "There's a big guy up in the sky watching your every move." and "We must throw a virgin in the volcano every spring to ensure the success of our crops.", they will be unlikely to question it.

Or, as children, we had to obey. It was for our own good in many cases, but some rules seemed arbitrary, sometimes punishment was undeserved and unjust. But, our parents took care of our needs - they made sure we had food, clothing, a home, were at least somewhat safe. We seek to keep that in adulthood. The world is a scary place on our own. Or, if we didn't have a great childhood and had abusive, neglectful parents, we may still seek to "correct" our childhood with "Big Daddy" in the sky who "loves" us. We accept that bad things all happen for a reason, he loves us, and will give us everlasting happiness. Yeah, right. Can't I just watch "Little House on the Prairie" to see what a "Good father" might be?

We just want a parent to take care of us (again).

[BloodyHeretic]

I don't go in for this whole "God shaped hole" business. We're the only animal that knows it's going to die, so we look for meaning in our lives, big deal. Give a purpose to your own life, don't wait for religion or whatever to fill it.

[Epimethean]

Why is religion so ubiquitous?

Because lots of people are terribly stupid.

I'd up the ante there a bit:

Because so many are so ignorant, and because a set few love to control them.