Comment on this entry
How Atheists View Religion
The struggle between religion and reason for the hearts and minds of the people goes back at least as far as ancient Greece and has been played out time and again through the ages.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Scott M. on 09/14 at 11:45 AM
Another aspect of religion can be found in the book "The Golden Bough". Sorry I don't have time to write more but it's in the public domain and you can readily find it on-line.
Take a look.
Posted by Mark Plus on 09/14 at 01:06 PM
The spontaneous and unplanned implosion of religious belief in most developed democratic countries throws into doubt the claim that humans have "god genes" and the like. Even in the U.S., much of the country outside of the South or its cultural enclaves displays levels of religiosity closer to Western Europe's. (I've lived in both Oklahoma and Arizona, two states with rural "redneck" populations, and I can tell that religion has less influence here than in Oklahoma.)
Gregory S. Paul discusses the apparent cause of the trend away from religion at the following resources:
http://www.equaltimeforfreethought.org/2009/01/18/show-291-the-big-religion-problemssolved/
The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions
http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP07398441_c.pdf
Also you can find an interesting graph of the relationship between religiosity and per capita GDF here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/secularism
Posted by CygnusX1 on 09/14 at 02:45 PM
I cannot comment on this so called "God" gene, yet it makes more sense that it would be a "social" gene that would be responsible for success in evolutionary survival, in the same way that other animals and mammals of all types gather into social orders. For example, whales, dolphins, Elephants, antelopes, big cats, and wild dogs. Especially Merecats! and even birds and fish etc, all these animals gather into social orders to aid survival and for protection. Although there are also some big cat species that do not adhere to social groups, (Tigers, Leopards in particular).
The human intellect also suffers from various identity crises, which may have a singular fundamental root cause? An inherent elementary problem of identity arising from the intellect which is borne into separation and duality, and the inability for this to reconcile Self-awareness or "I-Consciousness" and ego, and it's own apparent separation? This results in a fundamental need to define oneself continually, and to question one's very existence and being. And thus in support of this we gather into intellectual social orders which include religious beliefs and explanations for our own creation, or moreover, in beliefs that negate these notions of God. All is merely an extension of the "social" gene that we may have?
Religions, national identity, cultural traditions, clothing, the food we eat, the sports teams we support, are all divisions and choices we make as individuals to "define" our own existence and being, in a fundamental "need" to belong to a social order?
Thus the underlying questions of creation and of God are natural questions that arise from this genetic and fundamental intellectual question, "who am I?".
Are we sure it is religious fundamentalism and religious fears, (of being wrong about creation), that causes militancy? Or is this merely an excuse propagated for personal aims and manipulation by political groups?
Terrorism may exalt the names of God for a so-called divine purpose, yet all these acts are always politically motivated and religious beliefs usually used to manipulate the sanction of the masses?
Its true, (and obvious), that fundamental views stand steadfast in the way of change, yet I fail to understand why only few seem to promote the "middle way" of agnosticism. Is it really that difficult for an atheist to err on the side of caution, or moreover, extend rationality to include open-mindedness regarding the existence of a divine being, or an elemental special origin of species, (alien, extraterrestrial, supernature or otherwise)?
For myself, there is only a narrow margin between the belief in "creation" and the belief in a "creator", neither of these are currently understood fully or can be definitely confirmed or negated by science at this time.
<<Fundamentalism Agnosticism (the middle way)Atheism>>
Posted by Mike Treder on 09/14 at 03:30 PM
Are we sure it is religious fundamentalism and religious fears (of being wrong about creation) that causes militancy? Or is this merely an excuse propagated for personal aims and manipulation by political groups?
The answer is it's both. It's been well established that believers are more prone to follow authority and thus more susceptible to authoritarian manipulation. But those fears and insecurities you cite also make believers more eager to lash out irrationally -- and sometimes violently -- against those with whom they disagree.
Posted by Good Reason News on 09/14 at 05:44 PM
If there is a genetic basis for religious belief, that implies there once was a valuable evolutionary purpose for it.
No, not a valuable purpose, just a persistent and successful one.
Posted by mjgeddes on 09/14 at 11:27 PM
I'd go with the 'social gene' theory - I think memes are markers of 'social identity' (social signaling) and religion just 'piggybacks' on this - but I think any particularly strong meme which played the same social role could substitute for religion.
There's three 'cultural levels':
Level 1: Memes (Identity)
Level 2: Goods/Services (Economic Exchanges)
Level 3: Art (Narratives)
Take me give an analogy between physics and sociology:
Memes are analogous to atoms, goods/serves are analogous to forces, and art is analogous to information.
Religion/Politics is on level 1. Economics is on level 2. But the third level (art) is the deepest. Each of these social levels has a direct one-to-one match with a particular type of decision-making.
Posted by Abraham on 09/14 at 11:44 PM
"From an atheist perspective, though, whether or not religious belief once served a useful purpose, its time is now past. "
I would posit that if a group of modern-day atheists would time travel back 200 years, 500 years, 1000 years, and 3000 years -- at each stop they would say among the people:"religious belief once served a useful purpose, but its time is now past."
"The struggle between religion and reason for the hearts and minds of the people goes back at least as far as ancient Greece "
Let's not forget that those Greeks who stood for reason included the key pillar, Aristotle, who was /not/ an atheist.
Posted by Grinder73 on 09/15 at 12:00 AM
"I fail to understand why only few seem to promote the "middle way" of agnosticism. Is it really that difficult for an atheist to err on the side of caution, or moreover, extend rationality to include open-mindedness regarding the existence of a divine being, or an elemental special origin of species, (alien, extraterrestrial, supernature or otherwise)?"
CygnusX1, you are right about one thing...that you do not understand. Your logic is sound but your premise, that atheists are not open-minded, is not. Gnosticism and Agnosticism pertain to knowledge claims. Theism and Atheism pertain to belief. If you lack the positive belief in Gods (Theism) then you are by default Atheistic. This can, and does, include those who claim not to know whether Gods exist or not. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
Posted by Chris on 09/15 at 04:05 AM
"Calling others stupid doesn't accomplish much"
Actually it does. I was brought up in a society where religious people received unquestioning respect. It would have made it a lot easier for me to resist religious indoctrination if I had been aware that many people thought these beliefs and believers were stupid. That requires atheists to be honest and vocal.
Posted by UNRR on 09/15 at 06:42 AM
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 9/15/2009, at The Unreligious Right
Posted by wiscnok on 09/15 at 11:35 AM
I really like this article Mike. It is an excellent overview of the modern struggle between maintaining the traditions of our ancestors and abandoning those positions in the light of increasing knowledge. I believe you could easily apply the same logic to many of the other issues we face ... healthcare, retirement, cloning, abortion, etc. Are we going to continue to maintain positions that are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the face of advancing technology, or will we abandon those ideals and activities that most would consider the very foundations of what makes us all human and accept that the human race is evolving right before our eyes?
I expect that just as there have been numerous religious, economic, ethnic, and political divisions among humans since the dawn of history, people will once again divide themselves into camps ... only this time, the camps will be the cyborgs, the virtual people, the genetically engineered, the traditional humans, etc. Whether or not these new divisions result in open war, as has so often been the case historically, depends, in my view, on just how much power the evolved humans will have gained with their advancements and how willing they are to use it to defend themselves and/or suppress their opposition.
Posted by kurt on 09/15 at 01:57 PM
///i'm afraid i've ceased to be conciliatory to the hard core religionists (is that a word?) that from time to time regale me w/such utter nonsence! do they know nothing about the "miracles" of science?
Posted by Abraham on 09/15 at 11:35 PM
@wiscnok: "It is an excellent overview of the modern struggle between maintaining the *traditions* of our ancestors and abandoning those positions in the light of increasing knowledge. ... Are we going to continue to maintain *positions* that are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the face of advancing technology, "
Would you kindly list a few of these traditions and positions that conflict with advanced technology?
Example: Many people have a tradition of lighting candles once a week or year for special occasions. According to your words, they should abandon this tradition because, hey, after all, we have lightbulbs now.
Posted by saed on 09/16 at 09:59 AM
"We all come equipped with what you might call a yearning to believe in God"
More like a desire to fit in, mayby. People want to get along.
But if youre going peddle religion with that nonsense then you deserve to be called stupid.
Posted by Abraham on 09/16 at 01:03 PM
@saed:"More like a desire to fit in, mayby. People want to get along."
I agree and disagree. True, people want to fit in, but that in (almost) no way explains this yearning that so many people have.
"But if youre going peddle religion with that nonsense then you deserve to be called stupid."
Which nonsense are you talking about?
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
|
IEET Blog