Is religiosity an inevitable consequence of human psychology?

[Vendetta]

Oh, I could bend your ear on this.... *resists urge to threadjack*

Well the keyword(s) I believe I used was "I don't think." I really think largely our seeing innate desire to be apart of an established cultural organization e.g. Religion is largely due to social influences. If I raise a child on an abandoned Island all the way to age 23 and I release him or head in an urban city not only he or she would have a clue on socialization nor an affinity for religion.

Where is the evidence that religiousity comes into play?

 

[Storm]

Well the keyword(s) I believe I used was "I don't think."

Hon, the evolution of religion is one of my favorite topics. Fair warning.

I really think largely our seeing innate desire to be apart of an established cultural organization e.g. Religion is largely due to social influences. If I raise a child on an abandoned Island all the way to age 23 and I release him or head in an urban city not only he or she would have a clue on socialization nor an affinity for religion.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on their experiences. They'd certainly be far less likely to have an affinity for a given religion, but that's not the question.

Where is the evidence that religiousity comes into play?

It's my strong opinion that the existence of trance states alone is enough to induce faith. Combine them with the observations of the spandrel hypothesis (are you familiar?), and you have a potent recipe for theism in particular.

And here I must play at semantics: Are we talking religion, as in organized institutions, or the faith that precedes them?

I ask because religion didn't spring up fully formed and recognizable by today's meanings. It was evolution in truth.

 

[Vendetta]

Hon, the evolution of religion is one of my favorite topics. Fair warning.


Maybe, maybe not. It depends on their experiences. They'd certainly be far less likely to have an affinity for a given religion, but that's not the question.


It's my strong opinion that the existence of trance states alone is enough to induce faith. Combine them with the observations of the spandrel hypothesis (are you familiar?), and you have a potent recipe for theism in particular.

And here I must play at semantics: Are we talking religion, as in organized institutions, or the faith that precedes them?

I ask because religion didn't spring up fully formed and recognizable by today's meanings. It was evolution in truth.

I am not familiar with the spandrel theory. If you could, please define what it is for me? Thanks!


Also, what do you mean by trance like states?

As far as religion is concerned good question. I think the huge difference here is which is the mind attracted to? God (if so, what God) or religion. By religion I take the common reference of an organization of people with common interest towards a deity and/or bond based on rituals, mystical experiences, and/ or culture.

 

[Storm]

I am not familiar with the spandrel theory. If you could, please define what it is for me? Thanks!

In a nutshell, it's the idea that the tendency to attribute agency was an evolutionary advantage. If you hear the wind in the bushes and run because you think it's a lion, you're embarrassed but alive. If you hear a lion in the bushes and think it's the wind, you're lunch.

It goes on to call faith an evolutionary spandrel - an accidental byproduct of a useful trait.

Also, what do you mean by trance like states?

Not "trance like," trance.

AKA mystical experiences. Specifically the altered states of consciousness studied by neurotheology.

As far as religion is concerned good question. I think the huge difference here is which is the mind attracted to? God (if so, what God) or religion. By religion I take the common reference of an organization of people with common interest towards a deity and/or bond based on rituals, mystical experiences, and/ or culture.

God. Which God is the question religion seeks to answer.

 

[Ahmet Hilmi]

Really? Then evidently a whole lot of people in the world aren't stopping and listening to their conscience, but are getting along just fine, OR they did stop to listen and found no such need.

Then considering all the non-believers, this intelligent power obviously flubbed his responsibility.

Scared? Nope. Not at all.

I assume you have evidence for this claim. And I mean rational evidence that an unbiased party would confirm.

So what of those incapable of inspecting the universe around us to get the message from its Creator? What of them?
We are talking about ABSOLUTE justice , not partial or ill. So everyone will be questioned on the level of his own level of capabilities . If someone is retarded for example , he will not be responsible for not being clever. This situation is related to another issue of life - the comparison issue. That is to say we feel privilaged or blessed to have some faculties or bounties that some others do not possess. and we should offer thanks ..

Why should I bother? Why does he need my support for his existence, mercy, and power etc? Would he fold or wilt without it?

My mistake here , not to support his existence , I meant to support the idea of his existence .. However any beauty or any talent, wants to express or show itself and wants to be known and apriciated. This law contains the creator"s power and talents as well.. He said " I was a hidden tresure , and I wanted to be known, and thus I created heaven and earth. "

You seem to know a lot about intelligent power's motives. You two on a personal one-on-one speaking basis?[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah.. I got his message from 1430 years ago , and I feel close to Him , for example I sometimes want something , say some fruits but tell noone , and one of my friends show up with those fruits .. a little example of myself being heard .. I want eternity , and I believe that I am heard -it is a relief believe me..

 

[Sunstone]

Both major kinds of human religiosity -- the kind that usually leads to beliefs in spirits, ghosts, dead saints, gods, etc., and the kind that occasionally leads to satori or kensho -- seem to originate in neurological processes and events taking place in the human brain. There is increasing evidence for that conclusion, including the work of Scott Atran, Dan Sperber, and Pascal Boyer on the first kind of religiosity. And the work of Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquili on the second kind of religiosity.

If those scientists are right, both kinds of religiosity are grounded in our genes. Hence, both are with us until our species goes extinct.

 

[Sunstone]

As an agnostic, whose psychological makeup does not include any inevitable religiosity, I have to disagree, as I believe would almost all other agnostics and atheists.

Skwim, if by "religiosity" you mean something as superficial as belief in the gods, then perhaps your psychological makeup does not include any inevitable religiosity. But if you mean the modular components of religiosity identified by the likes of Boyer, Pinker, Sperber, and Atran, then to say you do not have a core human religiosity would mean your brain does not perform such tasks as Agent Detection, Theory of Mind, and casual reasoning. If you are severely autistic, then I can understand how your brain does not create a perception that other people and perhaps some things have minds. But if you are not autistic, in that you think other people have minds like your own, then in a scientific sense, you have the stirrings of a religiosity. The same if you see cause and effect in the world, if you jump at sudden noises, if you have respect for your elders, if you feel kinship, and so forth.