I'm not sure what you mean by this. Elaborate, please?
Again, I'm unclear. Are you saying that you don't think the spandrel might be overcome by reason, because it's still necessary for survival?
More that I think that at a societal level, reason won't cut it by itself. I mean, we can scientifically determine that there's nothing in the basement to be afraid of, but that doesn't prevent us from having a feeling of dread when we go down there with the lights off.
I think for us to stop favouring Type I errors instead of Type II errors, we would have to be in an environment where there's a general advantage in doing so. To use the "caveman" analogy that I used before, while a predisposition to Type I errors makes you less likely to be a tiger's lunch, it might also make you scared to get a drink of water at the stream.
Basically, I think that what's needed would be a world in which most of the time, it goes against our best interest to perceive agency in things around us.
I admit to a flight of fancy on this point. Allow me to explain:
While I respect the fact that we're only beginning to understand the brain, much less consciousness, the fledgling science of neurotheology excites me on a religious level. As we increase our understanding of the mechanics behind such states, I have every expectation that it will result in new technology (it always does). I fully expect this research to lead to artificial induction of genuine trance states, perhaps even "peak experiences." I think this will happen in the foreseeable future, maybe even within my lifetime.
Assuming my prediction is correct, I fully expect this to revolutioniz religious (and irreligious) thought. No longer will gnosis be exclusive to the mystical elite and occasional fluke. I know you don't believe that theophany is the root of religion, but I do, and the idea of it being within the reach of anyone who wishes one thrills me to the core.
I could ramble on about this for pages, so I'll just stop now.
Hmm.
OTOH, I think that any research that would put theophany "within the reach of anyone" would have to do so by finding some sort of physical cause for it. Maybe that would make theophany a thing of recreation (like the effects of some drugs), but I think it would diminish its religious significance.
Oh, absolutely! That's why I said it would be the easiest to replace. There are plenty of secular rituals even today.
The only problem I see is that, as our society becomes more secular, we seem to devalue ritual. I think that's a mistake, but the trend needn't continue.
And I don't think it will.
Speaking for myself, the older I get, the more I see value in ritual... even arbitrary ritual: for instance (and as a possibly trivial example), I don't think there's any intrinsic link between smoke detectors and Daylight Savings Time, but I think it's
very useful to associate them in a single ritual.
And especially in my martial arts practice, there's a strong underlying message about the importance of ritual, especially the idea that ritualizing something can be a way of expressing its importance.
Now, while some (but not all) of the rituals in my martial arts are derived from religion, mainly Shinto, to me they don't have religious importance.
And I think that's the key difference: it's not that religion has ritual and irreligion doesn't... everyone has rituals. The difference in my mind is the attitude we take toward ritual, and I don't think that the religious attitude toward ritual, i.e. embuing it with
divine importance, is necessary at all.
Agreed, hence my original caveats. While religion has the
potential to be instrumental in forging a healthy world community, it has yet to live up to it.
Why do you say that religion has this potential? I do see how religion can create group coherence, but that same process creates divisiveness between groups.
I don't think you can have the "strong community" aspect of religion you praise without the "tribalism" aspect you criticize. I think they're the same effect looked at in two different ways.
Perhaps you're just exaggerating to make a point, but that's not at all what I was doing.
Maybe I read too much into your post. Sorry.
I can't agree. In the words of G.K. Chesterson, "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."
That Chesterton quote smacks of "no true Scotsman" to me.
If you ignore the inevitable human failing and focus on the teachings, the major religions are all about transcending tribalism.
We just need to work on living up to it.
Well, if religions are the way they are because of "inevitable human failing", then I'd say this represents a normal limitation to religion, wouldn't you?
Unless you're talking about some hypothetical religion with no people in it.
However, I disagree that the major religions are all about "transcending tribalism". I think some may be interested in pulling more members into their own tribe, but even at the level of the teachings and not their practical realities, I don't really know how your claim could be said to be true.
Perhaps, but it's a limitation that must be outgrown.
Sure, but I think that many of the things that religions do go against this goal. When we're talking about larger society, it doesn't help to break down barriers to have groups of people within that society think that they and only they are "the elect", "God's chosen people" or the like.
I'm not saying that we can't create divisiveness in other ways... divisions along cultural/national lines come to mind, for instance. However, I think that just as religions tend to be good at strengthening their own community, they're also good at building walls between their community and others.
I didn't mean to suggest that it's necessary. However, it is a powerful thing, and I can think of no secular replacement.
I think my point is more that its positive power is in proportion to its negative aspects.
And on the subject of necessity, it may well be for some people. How many times have you heard something along the lines of "if God didn't exist, I'd have to invent Him?" Some people need that feeling to get by. Not all, certainly, and I'm not sure it's healthy, but there it is.
I don't hear things like that often, but when I do, they tend to come from people who were raised in religious settings. Speaking for myself, I've never felt any need to "invent" God. In fact, I'd see it as a rather daunting task to fit God into what I know of the world.
Eh, I wouldn't go that far. I absolutely share your philosophy, and, as you're well aware, my faith is just as strong.
You know your own beliefs better than I do, so I won't speak to those... but I'm not just talking about faith in general; I'm talking about this idea of
reliance on a higher power.
If a person believes that their god is watching and protecting humanity, then I agree this could lead to the positive effect you mentioned - it does give people hope: "
I can rely on God, so I know I'll be able to get through this difficult time." However, negative things flow just as easily from it: "
I can rely on God, so it's just as good for me to pray against this injustice as it is for me to fight it myself."
Perhaps. It's an interesting notion, but I'm afraid I don't see its relevance to my point. I mean, I see how you got here from there, but it's not what I was talking about.
Yeah... I guess it was off-topic. It just struck me that I was starting to make it sound like a person has to be an atheist to have a sense of responsibility, and I didn't want people to think that's what I was claiming.
