• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Religion as an Evolved Deal

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Only on the supposition that we should eradicate irrationality, which would leave no room for any type of spirituality, secular or religious, meaning a less meaningful life. If you can have spirituality in a secular sense (optimism, reverence, etc.) and it works well, there's no reason at all why you can't have this with religion, and when you pair this with the wealth of psychological studies pinpointing the protective factors (good) religion instills, you have an even better argument.

No one is making that supposition, at least not in the way you have conceived it. Since religion is not required to fulfil spiritual instincts, one need not eradicate those instincts by extirpating religion. Whereas your first argument suggested that religion was an instinct and therefore could not be overcome, your revised argument shows that it can indeed be overcome without destroying the spiritual dimension of human life.

Sure it does, if we understand religion to mean spirituality (the heart) plus other stuff (the body): eradicating religion would mean negating an instance of spirituality plus other stuff. Are you down with killing off atheist megachurches?

No, it doesn't imply that at all. Religion is not a prerequisite for spirituality. You acknowledged as much in your last post.

Much simpler than it might seem. How do you determine a good tree from a bad tree? How does a psychologist determine goodness from badness? Like the tree, something is good if it contributes to psychological health.

Go on...
 
Upvote 0

True Scotsman

Objectivist
Jul 26, 2014
962
78
✟24,057.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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?

What's hard wired into us is the need for a comprehensive, integrated view of the world we live in and our relationship to it. Religion served a purpose in that it provided this ready made world view that only needed to be accepted on faith. Eventually this "canned philosophy" should be replaced with a fully validated and integrated rational philosophy but this is something that must be undertaken by each individual by choice. It is not an easy undertaking and so I think you're right that the old canned version will always be around to some extent.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟182,802.00
Faith
Seeker
I think "spirituality" (in a very broad sense of the word) will always stay. Whereas "religion" (as in theism and particularly the big three monotheist religions) - as ways of fulfilling our need for "spirituality" - will eventually fade and possibly disappears. Gods have come and gone.
There is a reason why in your attempt to update the Christian god concepts from "silly" to "serious" (your words) you are getting ever closer to deism, pantheism, panentheism etc.
 
Upvote 0