Is religion fundamental to human nature?

[evenpath]

So this is a statement I posted in my introduction thread. A bit out there, perhaps, but it is what I believe.
The reason I chose to study religion studies is because I was so intrigued by how widespread religion is. Although there is some debate on the topic, practically every culture knows some form of religion, no matter how remote or primitive they might be. Or how evolved and modern, for that matter. Isn't it interesting that all over the world, people have beliefs in something? It might be a belief in ancestors or spirits of nature, or deities or gods or magic or some sort of energy that surrounds us all - whatever the case may be, there is hardly a culture to be found that believes there is absolutely nothing else than what meets the eye. The most obvious example is burial rites - so many customs and rituals to ease the "soul's" passing. Why bother if we're all just humps of flesh?

I was just wondering how you all feel about this. I know in modern times it is increasingly popular to state that one believes in nothing - but how true is that, really?

Great thread….In find that religion resides and is situated through cultural norms. To exist outside of them would be socially impossible. These norms are what give society a sense of security. Familiar rituals, superstitions or collective traditions are the function of a metaphysical belief. For some, it gives them hope or even a reason why they suffer in life. For many others, they find that religion is no longer relevant.

 

[George-ananda]

I've been thinking about that. I understand these are all functions of religion, important ones, too, and I know some scholars have claimed these were the bases for many religions. But was religion really the only way to accomplish such goals? It got me thinking, perhaps there actually is some kind of thing, some feeling or instinct that all people feel or felt and that inspired them to believe. Why else would it be so similar all over the world?

I didn't mean to imply that what you quoted from me above was the whole story. I also said that I believe people experienced (shaman, holy men, everyday people) experienced more than the physical (spirits). Also I believe that God is the core in all of us and there is this pull in all of us that wants wholeness and spiritual experience.

If religion were just some kind of "coping system", wouldn't there have been cultures that came up with different systems or solutions to those difficulties?

I agree there is more to it.

 

[Gambit]

Yes, religion is fundamental to human nature.

 

[LuisDantas]

But that's what I was wondering. Is it possible to have no such feelings whatsoever? I understand that not all people feel the need to pray or join a community etc,

Prayer, as I understand it, is an appeal to some external intelligence. Hardly universal, indeed.

Joining communities is a far more general drive by comparison.

but don't we all believe there is something beyond us?

Sure. There is a huge universe out there, and so many people that I will never meet. Most of them will survive my own existence.

But if you mean some sort of "other existence", an afterlife of some sort, then no.

I mean, even people who don't believe in "anything" have thoughts about death. What about believe in a soul that survives death?

I can assure you that those specific feelings and thoughts are by no means universal. Personally, I think the concepts of soul and afterlife are all-out damaging to religion.

Religion as I understand it has no need for deities (although many practicioners do) and no affinity for concepts of souls and afterlives. Those end up being distractions from the actual core doctrine, which IMO must by definition deal with mutual responsibility and ethics.

 

[Nerissa]

Yes, religion is fundamental to human nature.

Ah. I'm glad we have that settled, then

 

[Gambit]

Ah. I'm glad we have that settled, then

There are some individuals who appear to be "spiritually" tone deaf. But generally speaking, most people are spiritually or religiously inclined.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Interesting thread.

If you define religion in an extremely broad sense, it's pretty clear that the vast majority of people through history have been exposed to, and have some sort of religious belief.
The nature of these religious beliefs varies enormously, as do their cultural impact.
However, there appear to be common threads which are generally involved. How was the world/humans created? What happens when we die? Why are we here?

I think it's human nature to examine these questions, and I think it's human nature to define an answer, regardless of the individual's capacity to understand and support it. Whilst I wouldn't go so far as saying it's universal, it certainly seems common.

Religions (as already mentioned) were commonly less separate to society than many would know see them. Instead, they were part of the cultural whole.

• How do we mark the transition of a child to adult?
• How do we mark the passing of a human?
• How do we mark the joining of a man and woman in marriage?

(as common examples)

We want these things to be meaningful on a grand scale. We want them to matter in a universal sense. They matter to our community, particularly when that community is smaller, more connected. We celebrate them together. We have common ceremonies and markers.
Combine that with the universal questions of the unknown, and a lack of any feasible way of answering those questions, and you go somewhat towards explaining religion (regardless of whether any hold truth)

From my perspective, there is massive variance in religions, and religious stories/cultures/approaches. Their commonality tells us something, but I believe their difference also does.

But that's what I was wondering. Is it possible to have no such feelings whatsoever? I understand that not all people feel the need to pray or join a community etc, but don't we all believe there is something beyond us? I mean, even people who don't believe in "anything" have thoughts about death. What about believe in a soul that survives death?

Depending on what you mean, exactly, I might be one of those people who don't believe in "anything". I do, of course, believe in things. But in terms of death, what comes after it, an eternal soul, and afterlife. A Creator. No...no belief. I don't have all the answers for how everything works, and don't feel like I need to. Heck, I only have a basic understanding of how my computer works, and I use that everyday. How should I know what comes after death?

For some, that seems strange. They seem to want an answer. But answers are relatively easy. Perhaps that's why people seem so determined to immediately follow up questions with one?

 

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

It does seem that a fuller description of what is meant by religion is required. My sense, so far, is that man is essentially religious, but what this means to me is that our religion is the way that we relate to existence. Religion did not become a theological exercise, as it seems to be nowadays, until a later period. Knowing something about 'God' means being able to say all sorts of things about 'God'. Or to say many things about what God wants. But it has seemed to me, especially in reading ethnographic literature of so-called primitive tribes, that their religion was a a sort of sum total of their way of being in their world, of responding to it, of being allied to it, of needing to be allied to it to get along.

I have sometimes thought that a person's religion is essentially their stance within their own body and being. I have thought at times that I feel my religion of relationship when I sit with my eyes closed and, for want of a better way to say it, *feel* my relationship with what surrounds me and also what is in me.

It seems to me too that atheism, since it is not a denial of being, and perception-relationship, is more of a rejection of specific religious hallucinations, or certain forms of mental construct and certain theologies that claim this or that about 'God'.

It seems to me too that the experience of God (a wretched but unavoidable way to put it) is an experience of the exploration of one's being, located as we seem to be in mortal flesh bodies, in time, in this strange space that we have no way at all of really defining, though our descriptions give us (what I think is) a false that we know something.

Different predicates offered to that perceiving being, and different ways of acting or relating, can dramatically change a person's relationship to their own being and existence.

It has a good deal to do with the predicates, doesn't it?

My general feeling is that we really have no idea where in fact we are. We grab at descriptions but the descriptions fail us. So, it indeed seems to me that 'religion' will forever be a part of humankind's experience, if indeed it is essentially an exploration of being *here*.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'd suggest it's more accurate to say that human nature is fundamental to religion. After all, we all have the former but not necessarily the latter. It is (some of) the religious who pushed the opposite view for obvious reasons.

You can talk about whether everyone has some form of thoughts or views on matters considered religious (why are we here, where did we come from, what's the purpose of existence etc.) but I'd argue that those concepts should exist beyond just the scope of religion or even any generally defined concept of spirituality since those all presume some specific kind of answer to those questions when they can only really be addressed from a completely open starting point.

I think the fundamental issue is that we don't, and I'd argue (currently) can't answer those questions and where human nature comes in is our imagining comforting answers to alleviate the terrors of the unknown. Imagination is the human superpower but also our kryptonite.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So this is a statement I posted in my introduction thread. A bit out there, perhaps, but it is what I believe.
The reason I chose to study religion studies is because I was so intrigued by how widespread religion is. Although there is some debate on the topic, practically every culture knows some form of religion, no matter how remote or primitive they might be. Or how evolved and modern, for that matter. Isn't it interesting that all over the world, people have beliefs in something? It might be a belief in ancestors or spirits of nature, or deities or gods or magic or some sort of energy that surrounds us all - whatever the case may be, there is hardly a culture to be found that believes there is absolutely nothing else than what meets the eye. The most obvious example is burial rites - so many customs and rituals to ease the "soul's" passing. Why bother if we're all just humps of flesh?

I was just wondering how you all feel about this. I know in modern times it is increasingly popular to state that one believes in nothing - but how true is that, really?

It's true we all believe in something, the world around us is a question for humanity. The fact that we are the only species in millions able to ask this question, in itself suggests we are meant to ask it.

I think the important thing is to acknowledge our belief, our faith, whether in God or a spontaneous natural fluke, the problems always begin where people declare their beliefs, their intellect, and hence their authority, inherently superior

 

[SkepticX]

I'm not sure how it would be considered fundamental (it would need to be defined), but what we call religion when it's applied to the belief that there are gods and such is part of our nature.

So is violence.

As a whole we've mostly learned to manage our violent nature, and we're also developing restraint regarding our religious nature as well, though with our religious nature we have to re-define how it's manifest in order to do so because part of this particular beastie is default (socialized) veneration. So since as of yet it's still relatively rare for us to recognize it for what it really is (because that's intellectually offensive and we almost unanimously venerate religion--generally in a kind of reified form), instead we modify our understanding of it. This is good, though because we revere Religion so highly (reified = turned into a proper noun) it's very resistant to the changes that need to be made--changes that have been made in other aspects of our nature and societies long before they filter into the application of our religious nature. We're getting there though--the gap is slowly closing, and that process also seems to be accelerating.

 

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

...but I'd argue that those concepts should exist beyond just the scope of religion or even any generally defined concept of spirituality since those all presume some specific kind of answer to those questions when they can only really be addressed from a completely open starting point.

I think the fundamental issue is that we don't, and I'd argue (currently) can't answer those questions and where human nature comes in is our imagining comforting answers to alleviate the terrors of the unknown. Imagination is the human superpower but also our kryptonite.

Very good points. In examining the 17th Century and the rise of a new method of analysis---a wonderful book on the topic is Basil Willey's The Seventeenth Century Background---one is presented with the idea that uniquely at this juncture certain persons began to challenge the tenets of scholasticism through a new group of explanations. He writes:

" 'Explanation' may perhaps be roughly defined as a restatement of something---event, theory, doctrine, etc.---in terms of the current interests and assumptions. It satisfied, as explanation, because it appeals to that particular set of assumptions, as superseding those of a past age or of a former state of mind. Thus it is necessary..." (and below is the rest of the paragraph):​

But I would suggest that when you say 'those concepts should exist beyond the scope of religion or even any generally defined concept of spirituality', that here you are essentially revealing your position as one who has absorbed, and now expresses, only the selfsame new way to gain and assert certainty. I am (certainly!) no less in this 'problem' than you, of course! Really, we all are.

In another part of the first chapter Willey writes:

"As T.E. Hulme and others have pointed out, it is almost insuperably difficult to become critically conscious of one's own habitual assumptions; 'doctrines felt as facts' can only be seen to be doctrines, and not facts, after great efforts of thought, and usually only with the aid of a first-rate metaphysician'.
​

My understanding is that to begin to understand what has occurred in our mental world as a result of these new doctrines and methods of assembling facts, that we have to understand the difference between gaining control over methods and procedures that enable domination of our immediate physical reality---that is to say as an expression of man's power and control in this realm---and to contrast that with the necessarily intuitive and speculative capacity to answer those larger questions which are now, and may forever be, beyond the scope of enquiry of science as we understand it.

The only way that any person will ever answer the greater cosmological and metaphysical question ... is essentially as a mystic. And that means with the total function of their being. It is then similar to dreaming, and one dreams one's metaphysical dream of the world.

I would also suggest that the very same speculative 'art' (if you will): the necessity of asking, and answering, the question about Why we are here, and What must we do? does not in any sense of the word fall away as irrelevant or non-vitally important. No, they rather come out in relief all over again, even more boldly than ever before. A new sobriety is required, perhaps a new method.

We seem to have very little idea how to define what that shall be. We splat against a seemingly insurmountable wall and monolith of Modernity. And there we cry, or rage, defeated. (Cut to melodramatic soundtrack).

;-)

​

 

[SkepticX]

I'd suggest it's more accurate to say that human nature is fundamental to religion. After all, we all have the former but not necessarily the latter. It is (some of) the religious who pushed the opposite view for obvious reasons.

You can talk about whether everyone has some form of thoughts or views on matters considered religious (why are we here, where did we come from, what's the purpose of existence etc.) but I'd argue that those concepts should exist beyond just the scope of religion or even any generally defined concept of spirituality since those all presume some specific kind of answer to those questions when they can only really be addressed from a completely open starting point.

I think the fundamental issue is that we don't, and I'd argue (currently) can't answer those questions and where human nature comes in is our imagining comforting answers to alleviate the terrors of the unknown. Imagination is the human superpower but also our kryptonite.

Nice!

Our religious nature tends to be reified--conceptually and perceptually turned into something separate from us--not just certain aspects of human thought and behavior that manifests in ways which we've called religious or religion, but that's really all it is. When we isolate those things that truly define religion (why is it a religious community rather than some other kind, for example) it's not so venerable as our religious nature demands we perceive it to be if we don't really understand our religious nature and/or don't have it under any real control (if we understand it traditionally and venerate it and protect it from genuine scrutiny). When apologists defend Religion (reified = proper noun) they almost universally really defending the good things that are associated, which are all really more about the way humans behave, particularly in communities.

 

[bishblaize]

The needs that religion meets are fundamental. I'm not sure whether you can say that religion itself is fundamental.

Its open to debate for sure, but not a given. If its possible to show that those needs can be met by something else, then no its not fundamental.

 

[Revoltingest]

The needs that religion meets are fundamental. I'm not sure whether you can say that religion itself is fundamental.
Its open to debate for sure, but not a given. If its possible to show that those needs can be met by something else, then no its not fundamental.

I don't have those needs for things provided by religion.
Does this disprove the claim that religion is fundamental, or am I just an anomaly?

 

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

The needs that religion meets are fundamental. I'm not sure whether you can say that religion itself is fundamental.

Good point. Yet we still need a definition of 'religion'. I extend it to indicate one's psychological and existential platform, a questioning being in an indescribable and incomprehensible Reality, and as such a concomitant of consciousness. What you seem to mean (?) is more the specific outer trappings of a religious modality and the identification: I am a Christian, I am a Buddhist, I am an Atheist, etc.

I will admit that my definition is quite broad. Yet I feel it is a necessary point in order to broaden the scope of what religion and 'religiousness' actually mean and also why religion is not diminishing, except in Europe.

Here is some interesting analysis by Dr. Peter Berger. Relatively short:

 

[bishblaize]

I don't have those needs for things provided by religion.
Does this disprove the claim that religion is fundamental, or am I just an anomaly?

If you are wholly unaffected by one, some or all of the following - need for community, inspiration, fear of the unknown, curiosity about the unknown, artistic inspiration, moral justification, tribal loyalties, figure(s) of hate, a connection with one's history, fear of death, spiritual understanding, tendency towards veneration - I'd be interested to hear more about that.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you are wholly unaffected by one, some or all of the following - need for community, inspiration, fear of the unknown, curiosity about the unknown, artistic inspiration, moral justification, tribal loyalties, figure(s) of hate, a connection with one's history, fear of death, spiritual understanding, tendency towards veneration - I'd be interested to hear more about that.

I suspected that many would think that many of the above needs are religious.
But I find that most of them are independent.
Let's look at what religion is according to the primary definition at dictionary.com....

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Things such as artistic inspiration, curiosity about the unknown, fear of death, etc aren't in the definition of religion.
What I've never experienced is a desire to venerate or a belief/desire to believe in a supernatural being.

 

[bishblaize]

Good point. Yet we still need a definition of 'religion'. I extend it to indicate one's psychological and existential platform, a questioning being in an indescribable and incomprehensible Reality, and as such a concomitant of consciousness. What you seem to mean (?) is more the specific outer trappings of a religious modality and the identification: I am a Christian, I am a Buddhist, I am an Atheist, etc.

I will admit that my definition is quite broad. Yet I feel it is a necessary point in order to broaden the scope of what religion and 'religiousness' actually mean and also why religion is not diminishing, except in Europe.

Here is some interesting analysis by Dr. Peter Berger. Relatively short:

Can't watch the vid right now but will watch it later, thanks.

In terms of definition, I find trying to define nebulous concepts in principle a bit unhelpful. Often it's easier to define something in practice but not in principle. Religions vary so much they're hard to compare. How do you have a single definition that includes both the Westboro Baptist Church and Zen Buddhism?

I'd also suggest the range of engagement people have with religion means that thinking about it in terms of an existential platform isn't going to capture all people. Some people go to church every Sunday and have done for 20 years and have never once wondered about why they're religious or what it means to them, any more than they wonder why they buy their food from a given shop. For them the simple habit and ritual of church going is all that there is in their religion.

 

[bishblaize]

I suspected that many would think that many of the above needs are religious.
But I find that most of them are independent.
Let's look at what religion is according to the primary definition at dictionary.com....

Things such as artistic inspiration, curiosity about the unknown, fear of death, etc aren't in the definition of religion.
What I've never experienced is a desire to venerate or a belief/desire to believe in a supernatural being.

Dictionaries are rarely good places to go for deep explorations, particularly when they don't include what is easily observed. Some artists are inspired by religions. Some people go to religions to understand what happens when we die. I don't think that's open to debate is it?

I'm not saying that artistic expression itself is religious, or that fear of death is. I'm saying it's a human need that can be met by religion. That need can be met elsewhere too of course.