I’m Gonna Go With “Fear”
The University of Oxford is to undertake a $4 million study to examine what it is that makes people believe in God.
[link]
Fear of the unknown: What happens to me after I die? Some want, no, need, their lives to be more than a complex biological experiment by nature in the creation of more of their species.
Fear of punishment: I don’t want to go to hell and burn for all eternity.
Those observations come from the perspective of an observer outside of organized mainstream religion – in other words, the western majority.
Dualistic, polytheistic, or animistic, belief structures will of course provide very different answers.
What’s your take?
Technorati Tags: religion, god, belief, supernatural, monotheistic, dualistic, polytheistic, animistic, fear
Trackposted to third world county, Right Truth, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Right Voices, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, and CatSynth.com, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
I think the brain has a problem with the concept of mortality. Immortality through faith is a means of comforting our basic instinct and inner knowledge that we’re not going to make it.
Of course those who reject theological concepts can always take the more poetically scientific approach that our atomic structure will become a part of the Earth again, and these parts of us are likely to survive for eons.
…the need for causal explanations in the absence of a rigorous scientific explanation. For instance, before science postulated the heliocentric view of the solar system, the sun was dragged across the sky by a chariot driven by Apollo. Before that, probably something equally plausible. If I track and kill a deer, its because I asked the Great Something for help before I set out, and It gave me the strength and cunning to succeed, where those without Divine Guidance (or at least not the “right” divine guidance) failed.
Human belief in deity (in the broadest sense) is an extension of superstition and the need for causal explanation. Human belief in (the one true) god is a way for the few to subjugate the many (through fear) by propagating an oligopoly of innate superstition and an outdated causal explanation of observed events.
(I’m writing my thesis, so that’s why I am overly verbose.. er, ahem, why I use too many words)
Most people in the West believe in God. They may not be actively involved in organized religion, but they do not believe that the universe is a matter of random chance and that we’re all just a combination of atoms.
I believe in God because I think it’s the only logical answer as to the origins of the Universe.
The reason I have FAITH in God is different.
There are differences in faiths which separate faith and reason. Islam flourished during those times, and both Christianity and Islam stagnated when they did not. Buddhism accepts that theology is an open concept. It takes new discoveries and attempts to understand how they fit into the understanding of the world. To take an approach which literally interprets the Bible is, I think, a huge mistake. Overwhelming scientific theory proves in evolution, the age of the Universe, etc etc. This doesn’t disprove God, but only the dogma of religious texts.
God would also have to be 14 billion years. Minimum.
I think what you’re describing is not need for god but rather need for dogma and dogmatic structures.
Who are most people? Who have you polled? What is God? How is He/She/It/They different from god? The problem with the concept of the study SL quotes, and your blanket statement, is that all people are different and people view God/god/gods in a VERY wide varieties of ways. The question is too broad to study as a single question, and by identifying a search for the belief in “God” biases the answer they’re gonna get.
Or in other words, I would go as toe to toe with SUZANNE’S dogma as much as you would, and probably be more offended at her god’s bidnez in my uterus than you would be (it not being your uterus, after all).
Yet, I believe and respect her experience of faith can be something greater than fear+scientific_stupidity+need if she claims her experience to be such. To make a fear based explanation for God against the reporting of spiritual connection and experience, we have to move to the “false consciousness” argument. It may be true for some sample of people, but to generalize is infantalizing.
It’s weird how I always end up standing with the mono-theists vs. people who are in my ideological camp: but there it is. Perhaps it’s all about Voltaire, rationalism, the construct of gender via language that it pushes my buttons. Classes of non-dominant persons have often heard their experiences dismissed as non-rational. Sometimes the dismissing “rationality” has been based on the bible, and sometimes it’s based on a singular faulty study or studies where cultural variables are insufficiently controlled (IQ and race? Girls can’t do math?), and sometimes it’s been based on the observations of one human about humans who freak him/her out and seem “weird”. In other words, the othered outgroup always looks nuts, and you’ve been spending a lot of time listening to WingNut Radio. I would agree that WingNut radio lives on fear.
Religion’s on a lower and upper axis too. There are authoritarian atheists and non-authoritarian spiritualists/religious folks. Please don’t confuse the authoritarian axis with the god axis, even for mono-theists.
Amen Sister! (And by amen I mean “I agree with you,” and not necessarily that I share your faith and conviction in belief of one or many supreme beings, and am arguing neither for nor against such belief.)
Very good comment, well put. I do not have any problem with someone having faith, and in most cases I got no beef with the form that faith takes, so long as you don’t expect me to share the same faith as you (or you, SUZANNE). And I certainly don’t want anyone TELLING me what form my faith should take, or telling my girlfriend what to do with her uterus (its her decision, dagdabbit!)
Something that I find positive about the study is that at least they refer to “God, whether it is gods or something superhuman or supernatural,” instead of assuming the monotheistic approach. Although I do take offense to “atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation.” Screw you! I don’t need to explain my belief system, whatever the Hell it is, unless its interfering in your life, Roger.
So the universe formed for no apparent reason and randomly produced a sentient species of which I am a member.
As a sentient being I am able to believe that my actions in life are meaningful and at the same time comprehend my own complete insignificance on anything but a personal scale.
The reason why many believe in “God” is to provide themselves with comfort and meaning in the face of this cosmic joke.
The key questions that most religions answer are not in the realm of the empirical. Why am I here and what’s the point.
I prefer to be agnostic on this issue. Atheism is a depressing choice and is no more compelling empirically than an alternate belief that there is meaning to one’s life .
“I’m gonna go with fear”
Not me, I think “hope” is the reason. We tend to hope that there must be something else beyond life as we know it. Most mainstream religions promise an afterlife providing you are worthy or righteous or whatever the definition. They provide a structure by which you can suppossedly live on in another form in another place. I don’t dismiss fear entirely but for fear to be real there must be some example of what happens if you don’t follow the path of the religion. There isn’t any real example. No one knows for sure what comes after death.
Fear of going to hell? Sure that’s part of it but I think most devoutly religious folks do it for a reward – the hope that there is an afterlife; the hope that good deeds and character will be rewarded at the pearly gates or with 72 virgins of your choice.
*LoL* – JonZor, my husband’s take on the situation is this: Faith is like underwear: yours might be really comfortable for you, but I sure as heck don’t want to wear it.
Actually, there have been some studies indicating a possible evolutionary basis for religious belief – in small hunter-gatherer groups, a common religious belief adds to social cohesion. and since for 98% of human existence, that is how we lived, it probably worked. These days, we are trying to use strategies evolved for living in small nomadic groups for living in large settle groups.
Of course, evolution and genetics only create a more likelihood of a behaviour – we still use our intellect to choose to believe or not to.
So based on all that, while I can understand why people might believe in a God or Gods, I choose not to, based on the shocking lack of evidence for the existence of such an entity.
Actually, I think for me it’s more “comfort”.
Mike, I wonder if you also understand the evolutionary force behind love, but use your stunning powers of intellect to completely avoid experiencing it? *g*
I think our rationalists are missing the *experience* part. Obviously regarding “god”, the revelation experience is non-universal. In fact, for religious people, it appears to be a lot of work which necessitates all sorts of ritualistic and physical manipulation of brain states.
But it does hit people randomly, and the squishy right brained *feely* bits seems to feel really, really, really awesome for most people.
It’s fine to have never felt the feeling, or to decide you don’t want to ascribe anything significant as an external marker to that feeling; it’s true that people have felt that feeling and “felt” there’s something fundamentally atheistic in it. I know at least three “revelation” based atheists — but they wouldn’t completely blame god on fear and superstition, because they “get” that if their experience had involved external divinity, they’d believe that too. Because revelation as an experience is very often a powerful one that causes people a change of priority and of self-image. Like having a baby can change things; the feeling of pair bonding is evolutionary and caused by hormones — but that doesn’t mean you’ll ever sell the case that people don’t objectively love their kids.
And if you claim rational superiority because you reject loving your kids as it’s a trick of hormone, you’ll look either a bit unhinged or perhaps on an agenda. “I walked out on my kids, why can’t you? It’s just biology.”
Wow, Arwen, project much?
In fact, thanks to fMRI imaging and research, love is quite well understood from a biological and evolutionary – it is thought to be an emotional proxy for the calculation required to decide if having a relationship would be dangerous or not or deciding if another person is a kin (since helping and protecting one’s kin, even to the point of giving up one’s life, still allows one’s genes to be propagated into the future. Or as you might no it cooperation and altruism).
I have three kids and love them deeply. Knowing the basis for that love does not change it. And there are lots of folks who actually do walk out on their kids (or worse) despite this love. I’m not sure what your point is.
And who said anything about superiority? I merely stated that there is a large element of free will and human choice in the calculus, meaning we are not slaves to genetic predetermination or evolutionary probability. This give us to the ability to use reason to overcome all sorts of natural impulses – like killing strangers on sight – that make sense for survival 100 000 years ago in a forest or savanna, but make no sense at all in a modern urban setting.
As for the point of my original comment, we evolved to be more likely to believe in a god or gods because the social cohesion that produced was a good survival strategy for small hunter-gather groups of less than 100 people, who were either all related or knew each other. It is not perfect though – we believed just enough to remain cohesive. But what worked back then does not work now. There are alternate ways to achieve that cohesion (reason, trade, communication, science etc) in a population that is now predominantly consumers-traders who live together in groups numbering in the millions. Indeed, such beliefs in a god or gods could reasonably be shown to be more of a detriment in the modern context.
So, if you wish to cling to your feeling because it makes you feel better or makes you happier, go for it. Just because you think it is some mystical, supernatural origin doesn’t mean it is. And know it is not does not diminish its power over people or the fact that it can be overcome by reason and free choice.
Knowing the basis for that love does not change it.
Exactly. That was my point.
First, I was pointing out that there is a difference between systems of god belief and revelatory experience.
Secondly, you were placing an interesting and possible (but not necessarily complete) hypothesis on the table that god belief creates social cohesion.
However, even given your hypothesis (like love creates pair bonding and raises offspring or orgasm creates sex and creates offspring), the effect of revelatory experience is individual and will be pursued by the segment of people it affects (like, if you’re alone and non-dogmatic, you might use a hand to get yourself an orgasm, or if you’re gay, you might have orgasms with a partner, without the near threat of conception in either case).
I saw your subthesis: There are alternate ways to achieve that cohesion (reason, trade, communication, science etc) in a population that is now predominantly consumers-traders who live together in groups numbering in the millions. Indeed, such beliefs in a god or gods could reasonably be shown to be more of a detriment in the modern context. in the motivation behind this statement: “even though I understand, I choose not to…” because as a rational actor with an eye towards society you must think your choice is worthwhile in some larger context.
Let’s replace “revelation” with “orgasm”. To choose reproductive technology over orgasm, there are two possibilities I see: 1) you’ve never experienced orgasm, or 2) you think the problems associated with the fulfillment of orgasm in our society outweigh the momentary release. I was willing to extend the possibility that either you’ve never had revelation or your experience of it wasn’t big enough for you to think its problems outweigh the fleeting fulfillment. Since if you’d had the experience and found it important, you’d have a different way of talking about it – like my friends the revelatory atheists, who in part believe in not-god on the same non-logical magical-thinking fairy-tale level of truth and conviction that leads me to believe in probability and Suzanne to believe in Christ.
Churches are big on 2), in the instance of orgasm – that it’s not worth the societal upheaval. And for various reasons to do with the high rate of pregnancy and infant mortality and the long term dependence of children on parents, plus the sense that just letting kids die (evolution’s answer) wasn’t the best of all possible ideas, they were probably, for a time, right.
Secular humanists tend to think orgasms exist and are a function of humanity and repressing them doesn’t work. They use technology in support of orgasm experiences – birth control! – because there’s a basic hedonism there. I embrace that particular approach.
What I find interesting is how different the language changes when it comes to god.
I am suggesting that god is an orgasm of the non-physical nature, and I’m suggesting that it’s an incomplete understanding of biology and evolution to suggest it can easily be put away regardless of the primary evolutionary driver,
regardless of what our brains think the best organization of human systems are.
Cuz hey: sex is a detriment in the modern context in many ways, including rape, dating ritual, family law, and hugely tiresome standup comedians. Orgasms are for reproduction, evolutionarily speaking, and yet we have gay people and masturbation. And no one in the scientific community has decided if female orgasms are specifically necessary, although from my personal experience I’m going to go with “yes”, and suggest that the church also didn’t find female orgasms particularly necessary, (and isn’t amazing how this is all the same shit in a different pile? No, not really amazing at all. See, anywhere we go, we’re still humans.)
But perhaps orgasms are not solely for babies, or – and this is my “radical” interpretation – it could be because we like the experience of orgasm and that in itself is enough. Also, god is not solely for social cohesion – and this is my radical interpretation – we like the experience of revelation and that in and of itself is enough.
Evolution is no more the arbiter of human *experience* than is the Catholic church. Take out god/social cohesion, and put in orgasm/conception, or love/childrearing, and see if it makes any sense to argue that stepping away from the method *because* it no longer is the least detrimental way to serve non-primary evolutionary forces in the human context.