Evolutionarily, religion either had adaptive value or it's a giant spandrel (i.e., something that stuck around as a byproduct of another adapted mechanism or trait). So there's that.
Thing is, how realistic is it (especially and maybe exclusively in the spirit of the new atheists) to speak of eradicating religion when religion is an evolved deal? It seems very compelling that, precisely because religion is evolved and therefore instinctual rather than learned and therefore unlearnable culturally and generationally, we'll never get rid of religion. That aiming to end religion is therefore a failed enterprise. Much like Harry Harlow's monkeys under stress (who preferred the soft fake monkey to the wire monkey who dispensed food), religion will continually return due to instinctual drift.
So we can't eradicate it. We have to learn how to process it and change it into something else. So the question becomes: what are those traits which fit really well with religion that can get displaced or sublimated (depending on your view of religion) to other traits or situations?
I think one is the easiest to see: the secular church movement, where people get around and talk about, I don't know, reason and stuff, and instead of praying have moments of meditation. This is an expression of the religious instinct that is the most fully transferred to another setting and culture.
There's other stuff. But what stands out to me is the sense of reverence we have for the universe as we know it, or the mystery in what we don't know. You can see this most clearly in even the most die-hard atheist scientists, who personify Life or the Universe (capitalized for the sake of emphasizing their proper noun-like quality) and speak of it very similarly to how a religious person would speak of the mystery of God or the benevolence of God or other vague constructs that are more felt than rationally considered. Let me be clear here: this is the same sort of reverential instinct that takes place in both religious and secular contexts. I don't think it's easy to see it otherwise.
Another would be the brute optimism most people have, especially atheists and agnostics, about discovering the truth. Far from it being questionable of the value of truth given we simply don't know where it will lead (to more negative realizations of our isolated place in the universe? To the realization that we're really no different on a fundamental level than the selfish and bickering primates who preceded us?), the truth in most secular contexts (i.e., whether you're a theist, atheist, or agnostic) seems to be almost deified with how much weight and unconditional value we put on it: truth at all costs! When really there's no convincing reason for us to value reason so much, as opposed to, say, personal meaning or values, and it's completely unprovable that truth is "good" or "bad" because we can only make these judgments based on the consequences of discovering things to be true, which we can never do given that there is an endless potential for knowledge at no point of which can we say, "yep, that's truth, got it all, so it's good or bad." Implicit in this is a grand optimism that if we keep with the truth it will lead us to brighter and brighter places as we continue down the truthfinding path.
All of these seem, to me, to be religious instincts which are hard wired into us which make us religious if we believe in God but still hold a somewhat irrational (in the sense of unquestioned or believed by default) tendency for reverence and other things mentioned above if we don't. Considering this, it's very unrealistic to suppress and try to eradicate this tendency; you'll always have instinctual drift and displacement or sublimation of it in other areas. So the new atheist goal of "the end of faith" (as Sam Harris, probably my favorite new atheist, put it in one of his book titles) should be modified: not the end of faith, but the end of destructive aspects of faith, and full embracing of those faith-like tendencies like reverence and optimism and others that represent the religious instinct present in each one of us.
Can you think of any other things?
Thing is, how realistic is it (especially and maybe exclusively in the spirit of the new atheists) to speak of eradicating religion when religion is an evolved deal? It seems very compelling that, precisely because religion is evolved and therefore instinctual rather than learned and therefore unlearnable culturally and generationally, we'll never get rid of religion. That aiming to end religion is therefore a failed enterprise. Much like Harry Harlow's monkeys under stress (who preferred the soft fake monkey to the wire monkey who dispensed food), religion will continually return due to instinctual drift.
So we can't eradicate it. We have to learn how to process it and change it into something else. So the question becomes: what are those traits which fit really well with religion that can get displaced or sublimated (depending on your view of religion) to other traits or situations?
I think one is the easiest to see: the secular church movement, where people get around and talk about, I don't know, reason and stuff, and instead of praying have moments of meditation. This is an expression of the religious instinct that is the most fully transferred to another setting and culture.
There's other stuff. But what stands out to me is the sense of reverence we have for the universe as we know it, or the mystery in what we don't know. You can see this most clearly in even the most die-hard atheist scientists, who personify Life or the Universe (capitalized for the sake of emphasizing their proper noun-like quality) and speak of it very similarly to how a religious person would speak of the mystery of God or the benevolence of God or other vague constructs that are more felt than rationally considered. Let me be clear here: this is the same sort of reverential instinct that takes place in both religious and secular contexts. I don't think it's easy to see it otherwise.
Another would be the brute optimism most people have, especially atheists and agnostics, about discovering the truth. Far from it being questionable of the value of truth given we simply don't know where it will lead (to more negative realizations of our isolated place in the universe? To the realization that we're really no different on a fundamental level than the selfish and bickering primates who preceded us?), the truth in most secular contexts (i.e., whether you're a theist, atheist, or agnostic) seems to be almost deified with how much weight and unconditional value we put on it: truth at all costs! When really there's no convincing reason for us to value reason so much, as opposed to, say, personal meaning or values, and it's completely unprovable that truth is "good" or "bad" because we can only make these judgments based on the consequences of discovering things to be true, which we can never do given that there is an endless potential for knowledge at no point of which can we say, "yep, that's truth, got it all, so it's good or bad." Implicit in this is a grand optimism that if we keep with the truth it will lead us to brighter and brighter places as we continue down the truthfinding path.
All of these seem, to me, to be religious instincts which are hard wired into us which make us religious if we believe in God but still hold a somewhat irrational (in the sense of unquestioned or believed by default) tendency for reverence and other things mentioned above if we don't. Considering this, it's very unrealistic to suppress and try to eradicate this tendency; you'll always have instinctual drift and displacement or sublimation of it in other areas. So the new atheist goal of "the end of faith" (as Sam Harris, probably my favorite new atheist, put it in one of his book titles) should be modified: not the end of faith, but the end of destructive aspects of faith, and full embracing of those faith-like tendencies like reverence and optimism and others that represent the religious instinct present in each one of us.
Can you think of any other things?
Last edited:
