RSS
ATOMWhy is religion so widespread? Freud thought is had to do with a search for a father figure. Others claim that there is a very specific human instinct. I contend that there is a broad “religious instinct” which covers substantially more behavior than religious behavior. Every religion is a manifestation of the religious instinct, but not every manifestation is a religion.
The claimed broad instinct is a conjunction of three factors:
1. An innate human desire to have theories that explain the world around them.
2. An innate human design to belong to a tribe bonded by common beliefs.
3. An innate human tendency to preserve the ego by rationalization of beliefs in the face of contrary evidence.
I am not particular about the terminology. It could be called the “X Instinct”, characterized by the three named elements. I call non-religious manifestations “quasi-religious,” but if someone likes different terminology, that’s fine with me.
In traditional religion a mystical belief, not always a belief in a god or gods, explains the origins, purpose, and conduct life. Believers join in the religion that share the belief and bond as a tribe that reinforce the beliefs. Believers instinctively rationalize their beliefs. Rationalizations involves downplaying or ignoring all data contrary to belief system while embracing all confirming data. Rationalization protects the ego and provides the comfort of certainty.
My speculation is that making theories and refusing to abandon them is an evolved trait that provides a survival advantage. For a primitive person in the wilds, coming up with quick conclusions and then acting with determination is an advantage. As a consequence, many manifestations of the religious instinct have a paranoid aspect. There is a survival advantage in being safe rather than sorry.
Traditional religions are distinguished by a concern with overarching concerns, like the origins and meaning of life. However, the instinct operates at many other levels. Examples include:
1. Racism provides the believer with a simple sweeping explanation as to why many bad things happen. All, or at least a large class, of bad things derive from some race or other identifiable group. The racists bond as tribe to “protect” their tribal interests.
2. Political ideologies explain most of the ills of the world in terms of the ideological beliefs, and the non-believers who oppose them. Believers form a tribe that bonds the believers in a fight against the non-believers.
3. CO2 Climate Theory in the minds of environmental extremists casts non-believers not just as dissenters, but as heretics.
4. Sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome explains nearly all the evils of society in terms of the policies of the President. Agreeing with even one policy is considered an inexcusable pact with the devil. Anything good that Bush has done, like unprecedented humanitarian aid to Africa, is ignored in the interests of rationalization.
5. Some atheists attribute many of the world’s problems to religion, per Hitchins’ “Religion Poisons Everything It Touches.”. It is used as a simple sweeping explanation of social ills. Missionaries helping poor people are ignored in the interests of preserving the rationalization.
I am not arguing that all beliefs are irrational, or even that there is not some measure of truth in each of the five examples of quasi-religious beliefs I have cited. What elevates a mere belief to the the status of a quasi-religious one are the attributes of (a) treating non-believers as enemies of a tribe, (b) a pattern of recognizing confirming evidence and ignoring contrary evidence, and © application of the beliefs broadly to explain things that are not really relevant.
I claim that the instinctual desire to seek simple broad theories is self-evident. The least common answer to any broadly challenging question is “I don’t know.” People almost always call upon some higher principle to come up with an answer. If people did not do this they would be perpetually frozen in indecision. It is absolutely necessary. What is not necessary is sticking with a simple theory in the face of counter-evidence and in a situation that demands questioning.
I don’t think there is much doubt about the tribal instinct of mankind, but [1] is a reference.
The use of rationalization for protecting the ego is presented in [2]. The work by Shermer and Gould [3] is a classic analysis of the use of high intelligence to rationalize strange beliefs.
[1] “Us and Them: Understanding Your Tribal Mind” http://www.amazon.com…
[2] “A Mind of Its Own” A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives” http://www.amazon.com…
[3] “Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time” http://www.amazon.com…
The theory embodied in the resolution explains not only why religion exists so widely, but why many strong non-religious beliefs have a profoundly religious character. the theory is well-ground in knowledge of psychology. It is demonstrated concretely with many examples.
I’m arguing that many things can take on the aspects of overarching belief, tribalism, and rationalization that characterizes religion. However, religions have to be religions, whereas other beliefs only have a potential to take on those aspects. I think that, for example, some atheists do step over the line and attribute most of the world’s ills to religion, but there is no need to do that to be an atheist. Some people seem to make religions out of sports, but there is no necessity to do that.
I am also endorsing the notion that “everybody has to believe in something.” If you wake up every morning pondering whether gravity is going to be working right today, or any other of a thousand things you take for granted, then you are never get anything done. We all must have shortcuts embodied as principles. The issue is what beliefs we are willing to rationalize when placed under scrutiny. Astronauts have no intellectual problem accepting that gravity is different in space, even though 100% of their previous existence passed with gravity always working to pull things down.
To me your three factors: (1) desire for explanations, (2) design for tribalism, and (3) tendency to rationalize, are all very plausible causes for religious behavior, and I agree with them. In fact, I practice them! But they come up short. They do not explain ferverent religious zeal. Your three factors, taken to far extremes, easily explain a jihadist suicide bomb. But what extremes explain a drug addict becoming a missionary after an encounter with Jesus Chirst? There is another factor which you do not cite. In your format, add:
(4) An innate human inability to act selflessly
In religious terminology, the fourth factor is called “sin.” Religion, then, provides formulas for addressing a universal sin problem. Left to ourselves, we by nature have a strong tendency to act in our own self interest, and this causes friction in a world where we live together with other people. Religion teaches us to think and act outside ourselves in our inter-personal relationships. Five of the Ten Commandments, for instance, direct us to act selflessly toward others.
I am not talking about morality. In fact, both missionary work and suicide bombings are selfless acts, albeit at opposite ends of a morality spectrum. I am talking about a fundamental, built-in human deficiency that is not included in your three factors, but it should be.
Here’s how the Bible defines religion. Part of James 1:27 says “Pure religion and undefiled before God is this: To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction.” It is a formula for selflessness.
This idea of selflessness is certainly not new, but I wonder why you did not include it in your factors for religious behavior. Do you categorize it elsewhere?
— Paul Richards · Feb 9, 02:42 PM · #
I, of course, have no need for rationalization, since I’m never wrong. . . .
If there were an innate inability to act selflessly, then we would not see people sacrificing their own interests in favor of group (i.e., tribal) interests. In fact, such sacrifice of individual interests happens all the time. Moreover, some religions encourage selfless acts, even towards infidels, but others do not. Since it is neither universally applied nor universally denied, it cannot be a common motivator or demotivator. All religions, however, provide a community of common belief.
Why would a drug addict embrace Christianity? Because people have an opportunity to choose their tribe, and the Christian tribe offers more social support than the tribe of addicts. Certainly drug addicts do not become Christians because they have an inability to act selflessly.
— Roy Latham · Feb 9, 05:12 PM · #