Is religion fundamental to human nature?

[Revoltingest]

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?

But dictionaries are great places to go for reaching a common understanding on the use of a word. "Religion" suffers from many alterations here on RF, eg, some say that science is a religion, & even that enthusiasm for a hobby is a religion. So when the question of whether religion is fundamental to the nature of man is raised, it makes sense to define the term.

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

Aye, that was my point, one which we agree upon.

 

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

How do you have a single definition that includes both the Westboro Baptist Church and Zen Buddhism?

Rather quickly, and without thinking about it much, I think that I intuitively responded to your question, and intuitively have an answer: Each of those positions, or orientations, require specific metaphysical presuppositions. They are founded on metaphysical suppositions. And they are attempts to respond to and to answer what are perceived and understood as the requirements of those presuppositions. And it is with that, and in that, that I would locate 'religiousness'.

I do very much agree with you though that a definition of religion is, as you say, nebulous. Starry. Vague. Hard to discern. In my way of seeing things everything hinges in that: It is essentially an existential and metaphysical issue. But I would also assert that even one who denies metaphysics ... is still very involved in metaphysics. Willey, in the post above, quotes Hulme who writes that in order to grasp our situation we require a 'master metaphysician'. It is an intriguing and challenging idea.

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.

What you say is very true. I would again make a reference to the thesis of Peter Berger who delves into the sociology of religion. I am more concerned and interested in the folks who are or become religious than in those who seem to avoid it. And the trend toward religiosity---despite modernity, despite secularism---indicates that, contrary to expectations, 'it' is still very much alive.

I also tend to think that even those who are not outwardly religious---as in practicing a specific liturgy or consciously holding certain beliefs and ideas---still function from an 'essential religious platform'. I realize that I cannot back up this statement with fact. It is an intuitive position I have and am trying to fill out.

 

[SkepticX]

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'd argue our religious nature creates problems for truly fulfilling these needs, because these are more mechanisms to make religion seem relevant than they are needs religion actually fulfills. Our religious nature is about affirming our sensibilities and the perceptions they produce in these areas or by means of them, but not really fulfilling the needs properly. It prevents that.

But it's hard to see this because we're culturally trained to conflate all of that good stuff with religion (also to reify religion as if it were something that exists on its own independently of the mind).

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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?

Even as science has pulled back the vail from what were once fearful experiences like lightening, drought, pain, evil, etc., we're still faced with the same ultimate fear of the unknown they had, death. The hope that there's something more after death drives some to accept unfounded hearsay, replace doubt with blind faith, and declare that an afterlife is a fact. My question is, how deep does self-deception really go? I think reasoned science is making it almost impossible to maintain.

 

[SkepticX]

Even as science has pulled back the vail from what were once fearful experiences like lightening, drought, pain, evil, etc., we're still faced with the same ultimate fear of the unknown they had, death. The hope that there's something more after death drives some to accept unfounded hearsay, replace doubt with blind faith, and declare that an afterlife is a fact. My question is, how deep does self-deception really go? I think reasoned science is making it almost impossible to maintain.

One thing that gives us a glimpse into that is how people deal with the death of a loved one who, according to their beliefs, they'll see again relatively soon. To my eye, generally speaking, they pretty clearly display the deeper grief of complete loss rather than, as many retort, the loss felt from temporary if long term absence.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

One thing that gives us a glimpse into that is how people deal with the death of a loved one who, according to their beliefs, they'll see again relatively soon. To my eye, generally speaking, they pretty clearly display the deeper grief of complete loss rather than, as many retort, the loss felt from temporary if long term absence.

Yes, it's still the Great Big Frightening Unknown that no amount of faith or bravado can assuage.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There seems to be a strong human need for meaning and reassurance in an uncertain and fragile existence, but not all people meet that need with religious belief.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There seems to be a strong human need for meaning and reassurance in an uncertain and fragile existence, but not all people meet that need with religious belief.

The problem is that religion doesn't/can't meet that need, just the opposite. Religions all rely on divine revelation, which is in effect a lie since the only evidence they can provide is hearsay. Even if one religion did have the Truth (and only one could) revealed to it, it would be better for the recipient(s) of that revelation to keep it to himself if communicating it as hearsay was the only option available.

But we must ask, why would God reveal Itself in such an incommunicable way? Why not write it in the sky for everyone to see in all languages, and safe from human tampering? The answer is simple. Our free will depends on having no evidence for (or against) God. Therefore any divine revelation would damn the recipient(s) to a loss of their free will--the exercise of which is the whole point of our existence, and the sole reason for creating the universe in the first place, if indeed it was created.

 

[SkepticX]

Yes, it's still the Great Big Frightening Unknown that no amount of faith or bravado can assuage.

The thing about this particular unknown, though, is that knowing what we can know, at least currently and prior, makes matters worse. Also, it's the ultimate in individual finality, so it's more than understandable that this terrifies people (it certainly terrifies me). I don't disparage believers their comfort on this one, thought it can also become a problem--a very serious one in some cases.

There seems to be a strong human need for meaning and reassurance in an uncertain and fragile existence, but not all people meet that need with religious belief.

I'd argue no one does. That's what all the dissonance and defensiveness are about. We're the best answer to these issues--humans/each other/community. Religion casts our attention elsewhere to placebos, but while I'm a big fan of placebos they're generally not the best option, and definitely not in this case. That's why religious communities are so important to meaningful religious beliefs for the vast majority. What most believers are really experiencing in terms of actual benefits believed to be about religion are about the community. The religious elements are only incidental, and generally detrimental (e.g. the distraction I mentioned above), if often only marginally so.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What most believers are really experiencing in terms of actual benefits believed to be about religion are about the community. The religious elements are only incidental, and generally detrimental (e.g. the distraction I mentioned above), if often only marginally so.

I agree that the sense of community is important for religious groups, but you could make the same argument about many types of social groups with a shared interest. The beliefs and values that people share in a particular group are very important, because it's about a shared direction and value system.

A person with left-wing political views would no doubt feel very uncomfortable being part of a right-wing group, just as an atheist would feel very uncomfortable being part of a traditional Christian group. When it comes to being part of a group what you believe really does matter.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The problem is that religion doesn't/can't meet that need, just the opposite.

But religion is quite popular and clearly does meet a need for a lot of people. Whether religion is a valid way of meeting the need is really another question.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The thing about this particular unknown, though, is that knowing what we can know, at least currently and prior, makes matters worse. Also, it's the ultimate in individual finality, so it's more than understandable that this terrifies people (it certainly terrifies me). I don't disparage believers their comfort on this one, thought it can also become a problem--a very serious one in some cases.

But if you live you're life under the principle that Truth is God/god, you're as well prepared as you can be for whatever is coming. Yes, the worst scenario, oblivion, is possible; but you can choose to focus on hope. The only possibility then is to have that hope fulfilled, since oblivion is non-existent, literally--even as it casts the shadow of a doubt.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

But religion is quite popular and clearly does meet a need for a lot of people. Whether religion is a valid way of meeting the need is really another question.

If it isn't valid, it doesn't meet the need; no matter how hard we try to repress it, we still know it.

 

[SkepticX]

But if you live you're life under the principle that Truth is God/god, you're as well prepared as you can be for whatever is coming.

Assuming a hostile competing god/religious doctrine isn't right of course.

Yes, the worst scenario, oblivion, is possible; but you can choose to focus on hope. The only possibility then is to have that hope fulfilled, since oblivion is non-existent, literally--even as it casts the shadow of a doubt.

Yup. This is one aspect of religious belief I don't argue against. As I said, I don't disparage believers this comfort. To do so would be akin to worrying over whether a terminal cancer patient might develop and addiction to a pain killer. I'm not sure focusing on hope is really a good characterization of the situation though. I think most believers focus on the belief in an afterlife and that belief grown stronger as the stakes get closer to fruition. Many may well be hoping, and maybe all are to some extent, but the more a given believer is hoping the less assured that believer really is, so that kinda defeats or at least diminishes the purpose.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Assuming a hostile competing god/religious doctrine isn't right of course.

But those gods/religions can be shown to be false because they're founded on hearsay--at least that makes the unreasonable and therefore subject to rejection until they come up with some solid evidence.

...but the more a given believer is hoping the less assured that believer really is, so that kinda defeats or at least diminishes the purpose.

Yes, doubt is the enemy of hope, but facing that conundrum is the price we've gotta pay for our (?God given via natural evolution?) self-awareness and free will. I can only hope that when the time comes, and I have the luxury/torment of time to think about it, that I can summon the courage to, as Braveheart put it, die well. One thing for sure, there's no alternative for death.