The Evolution of Religion: Is Religion Natural?
November 18th, 2006 by 
drunkentune
I. Introduction: Evolution, you say?
As the first real issue I examine, I think it fair to analyze the two most popular theories for the evolution of religion. You, the believer, must understand: to an atheist [specifically, a naturalist such as I], religion can be explained without resorting to God or the supernatural. In fact, it is necessary for the atheist to do so, since if I were to use Occam’s razor in atheism’s favor, it would be in the atheist’s interest to definitively show that religion is not a construct separate from the natural world. If all the evidence pointed in the direction of religion being a construct separate from the natural world, one would beg the question: Did something unnatural create it? Atheism would be on shaky ground, and I recognize this possibility.
I should make clear that this argument is not a refutation of theism or religion by showing that it is natural; it is evidence for naturally occurring theism – specifically occurring through evolution. It is merely a defense for naturalism, not an attack on supernaturalism. From this claim, a more confrontational argument could be made that religion is only a natural process. I don’t want to go there; this site won’t cover it. A much more thorough opinion piece will be posted in conjunction with this post, and if you are interested in the implications, you may read them at a later time here.
I’ll be cribbing scientific facts from several hefty papers on the issue, but this is the general overview of the two theories. I’ll provide a complete bibliography at the end [End notes].
There are two general historic views scientific literature takes when reviewing religion.
II. A possible mistake on the atheist’s part
1. Early cognitive scientists saw religious ritual as a byproduct of cognitive power, and focused primarily on religious behavior, not reasons behind belief (Atran 2002; Guthrie 1993; Kirpatrick 1999; Mithen 1996, 1999). The behavior was seen to be an artifact of survival functions within the brain. These scientists have claimed that such supernatural agents were “mental module misapplications.” To be blunt, these scientists would say, “What we have here is a failure to communicate, think, and act.†I admit that I used to believe this, however, the more I’ve read into the literature, the more I’ve distanced myself from this theory.
Evolution [wiki] states that an individual that has a higher fitness has a greater chance of passing on offspring. The fittest pass on more offspring over all, and the genes that help the individual [expressed by phenotype] are passed on with more frequency. [Whew! That’s me trying to struggle through explaining ‘fitness’. Now on to the good stuff.]
For years I’ve wondered why religious practice and belief has survived, since I see that there has been much lost to religious ritual: knowledge, progress, etc. - but time and energy are most certainly the two largest losses. Days spent without work, initiation rituals that seem counterproductive, years spent believing dissociated ideas. This led me initially to believe that religion was a negative effect to fitness. Yet, this could not be true. There is no reason under this hypothesis for religious ritual to survive: if it is bad for individual and group and merely an artifact, then it should have died out, reduced to a small minority because religious belief was not fit. Oh, I was dead wrong!
III. A second hypothesis
2. Evolutionary anthropologists have proposed that religious behaviors are in fact costly signals that help social cohesion. Richard Sosis and his team have given a plethora of evidence for this position in numerous studies [1], [2], [3], [4] (.pdf). In essence, the evolutionary anthropologist’s hypothesis is that cooperation within religious communities leads to individual fitness gains. Then, religion is in part communication and coordination of social relations.
2.1 A fundamental piece of religion is a dissonance in ontological belief. The existence of the supernatural violates the very world we observe: animals speaking, dead family members communicating beyond the grave, violating the laws of nature with miracles, and invisible gods that are both outside of time and space, but everywhere at once. Everything we understand about the universe stands in opposition to these ideas. These very beliefs seem to violate everything we understand about the universe, yet, why should these beliefs evolve?
2.2 There must be a reason for this, and there most certainly is: Novel counterintuitive ideas retain our attention, and stay the longest in our memory without degradation (Atran 2002; Boyer 2001; Kirpatrick 1999). In fact, when beliefs that were intuitive and counterintuitive were compared, counterintuitive beliefs were easily recalled with little degradation, and transmitted with ease. Of these, religious counterintuitive ideas achieved the “highest rate of delayed recall and lowest rate of memory degradation over time†(Atran and Norenzyan 2004:723). How could this be? One answer is that God put it there; the other does not make an unnecessary addition that adds more unanswered questions, this is namely that sometime in our evolutionary history these very counterintuitive ideas must have been evolutionarily fit.
2.3 In addition to its easy transfer and retention, religious ideas that are ‘out there’ are also nearly impossible for an uninitiated outsider to know. It is, in essence, a code between believers, where the power of the code is that counterintuitive ideas naturally flow to intuitive concepts, but not from intuitive concepts to counterintuitive concepts. For example, “it would be much more likely for a listener to modify ‘talking horse’ to ‘walking horse’ than the converse. These findings … suggest that the chances of spontaneously re-creating a preexistent counterintuitive concept are extremely low. This probability is lowered even further by embedding multiple counterintuitive concepts within belief sets.†(Alcorta and Sosis 2004:328) In layman’s terms, a lot of studies studies show that religious ritual is a ‘key’ or signal used by people in an ‘in group.’ It is highly unlikely for an outsider to spontaneously generate the ‘key,’ or multiple ‘keys,’ so it is almost impossible for a fake to integrate itself into a community.
2.4 This forms a reliable signal of group membership, which fosters trust and cooperation. It’s an honest signal. The efficacy and commitment of the group of believers increases, making the individual’s fitness increase as well. As a tradeoff, however, these signals happen to be very costly, where time and energy are spent fostering trust within the group. This is one of the reasons unbelievers find religious ritual as a negative effect on society. In some cultures, I believe, there is no evolutionary need for such social unity of a small group.
2.5. Frankly, outside of the group, the beliefs and rituals appear highly irrational.
IV. Conclusions?
Religious belief is unlikely to be a simple byproduct of consciousness, refuting hypothesis 1. The second hypothesis explains in a reliable fashion how religion is a natural construct of the world, a result of evolution, where a ‘key’ acquired by costly time and energy allows the believer to communicate and cooperate without the fear of ‘cheaters,’ thus building trust. This speaks nothing of religion being either true or false. It is only a possible development of ritual.
A problem does arise when two such groups interact. This is the beginnings of religious war. Imagine two groups with individual belief systems, both irrational to each other, in conflict. History paints such a picture, and it is not pretty.
V. End notes, bibliography and assorted doodads
…religion’s ability to promote cooperation is its evolutionary function, and that the costliness of religious ritual bears a direct relationship to the nature of the collective action problems faced… Under conditions of ambiguity, or when signals can be easily faked, costlier signals may evolve to improve signal reliability. (Alcorta and Sosis 2004)
>Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function, Pascal Boyer, Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol.7 No.3 March 2003
>Why Is Religion Natural?, Pascal Boyer
Alcorta and Sosis 2004: Ritual, Emotion, and Sacred Symbols: The Evolution of Religion as an Adaptive Complex. Human Nature
Atran 2002: In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
Atran and Norenzayan 2004: Religion’s Evolutionary Landscape: Counterintuition, Commitment, Compassion, Communion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Boyer 2001: Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought
Cronk 1994: The Use of Moralistic Statements in Social Manipulation: A Reply to Roy A. Rappaport. Zygon
Gurthrie 1993: Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion.
Kirpatrick 1999: Toward an Evolutionary Psychology of Religion and Personality. Journal of Personality
Mithen 1996, 1999: The Prehistory of the Mind; Symbolism and the Supernatural
Posted in atheism, evolutionary theory, naturalism, why believers believe | 
November 18th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
I ran into the second hypothesis doing research in an anthropology class in Bible college (in the library, but not in class). Honestly, it rocked me and was one of the main contributions to a year-long agnostic period a couple of years ago. But, understanding the implications of such information, I realized that working against religion would therefore be unethical because it might hamper the survival of our species (if in fact it is a costly survival mech.). So I was like the one kid in the family who knows that Santa isn’t real, but plays along for the good of everyone else’s Christmas. I still went to church, still preached and taught, still studied ministry, and never told a soul, not even my professors or my wife.
One thing I noticed, that could be interpreted a variety of ways, was that when I knew about the “man behind the curtain” my effectiveness in using this “evolutionary mythology” fell off. In other words, the survival mech. if that’s what it is, doesn’t really work that well if you don’t believe it’s supernatural.
The change back to faith came from a hope born in me. I still wanted to believe in transcendence. But if all of faith has a natural explanation, then what? It was the concept of the incarnation that bridged the gap, but it was a choice for the counterintuitive, and IÂ try to humbly remain aware of that.Â
November 18th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
I see nothing wrong with working against religious ritual. In the End notes, I point to “…religion’s ability to promote cooperation is its evolutionary function, and that the costliness of religious ritual bears a direct relationship to the nature of the collective action problems faced…”
I presume that in some cultures where there are few problems facing a society, religious ritual may not be needed, and may actually be a bane against humanity.
In the Conclusions I also note that once the religions become large enough, there will most likely be holy wars.
Both, I find, to be evidence against the need for religion in a society such as ours.
I happen to agree with your second paragraph. If you know the “man behind the curtain” is possibly natural, then it’s very difficult to be sucked back into religious ritual.
November 18th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
I would questions whether we are a culture with “few problems facing” us. It might be true, but I’m not that optimistic. Growing violence, pandemic disease, dissolution of social systems, economic fragmentation and polarization, environmental degradation, increasing poverty due to globalization, renewed nuclear poliferation, political extremism… This is an interpretation not based on fact, but I think a subscribe to the idea that our chances for extinction or general misery are greater now than at any time since the dark ages.
One could make the argument, though I’m not sure I would like to yet, that the West is the most dangerous culture to our race, and yet it is the most secular (Martin Luther King Jr. made some statements to this effect). I could also be argued that uniting the world under a single religion could be a viable solution, evolutionarily speaking, especially if that religion values peace as a central tenent (but where could we find such a religion, and would it work practically?). As a mechanism for communication and social conformity, religion is remarkably effective (consider how Islam is spreading Arabis culture across the world). After all, the current global crisis involving religion seems to be in their variety and diversity, rather than their basic existence. At the very least, the historical and evolutionary evidence would seem to support religion’s role in the survival of the speices, religious wars aside. While sci-fi shows (esp. StarTrek) have messed with atheistic models in worlds where most problems have been solved, it seems that human progress and technology has so far succeeded in producing as many new problems as it illiminates (see Clare Graves on this). So far the real world attempts to remove religion from populaces have not gone well (such as Maoism and Marxism with cummatively amount to amazing death tolls far beyond the crusades), though I’m sure there are a variety of ideas as to what exactly went wrong.
I think, when talking about the survival of our species, I prefer a conservative approach which would go more with what has been working in the several thousand years of written history and what we can squeeze from sound evolutionary theory, rather than something untested [*wink*].  However, I would be very concerned with calling that “seeking the truth” or “being honest”. Religion simply for the sake of our survival, if really a farce, is dispicably dishonest. I used religion at the time I was agnostic in such a way because I thought it was ethical. I would no longer agree with that. Now, I would struggle with this question: is our survival worth living a lie?
Your comment made me contemplate something, drunkentune. You said:
Ever since I went agnostic and returned, I’ve had no taste for “religious ritual”. I’m not very found of your standard worship services and less fond of high liturgy. I went along with it before, back when I was still deep in church culture. It made sense. It spoke to me. I never really thought about it before, but while I believe deeply in Jesus, I never came to believe again in the “survival mechanism” that these papers talk about. Even though “ritual” and “liturgy” is much in vogue in the circles of the emerging church where I live, I tend to avoid them as if it is all somehow selling out or being brainwashed. What I do have in common with other believers is similar life commitments, shared narrative, and a basically orthodox theology. That’s very interesting. I’ll have to think more on this…
November 19th, 2006 at 3:10 am
I find this one of the most powerful and intelligent statements a Christian I know has given. I’m glad you realize that if religion is false, then living a lie for survival, or aesthetics, or for emotional needs, is still a lie.
You really are an openminded Christian.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Thanks drunkentune.
Naturalistic explanations for religion have been in popular media quite a bit. Newsweek ran an article called “The God Gene” about the research of Dean Hamer, author of a book by the same name. He claims to have located a gene related to faith and ecstatic experience [see Washington Times Article]. People in both the scientific community and theological circles have raised their eyebrows due to his failed attempt in the 90’s to prove homosexuality’s link to a gene. But his research is still interesting, and for many, challenging.
It poses some challenges to Hypothesis II, however. Hamer says his research shows little influence of social group on adoption of religious ideas. It’s primarily genetic, seeming to skip generations and be dispersed throughout groups. This would seem to go against research that sees religion as a adaptation for social survival and does not explain the widespread adherance you’ve mentioned before. I’m interested in your thoughts on this. It may be junk science, it could, if modified, be complementary to HII, or it could be a third possibility. I think Hamer’s statments that it could indicate design is just a ploy to sell books to the masses.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Of what I’ve read on the subject, information on Hamer overly simplifies a “god gene.”
If this is true, then there are most likely many god genes that interact with each other to produce faith. In 1993 Hamer claimed to discover the “gay gene.” Make of it what you will, but I think that’s bunk. I happen to agree with you. It sounds like his words have been used to sell plenty of newspapers.
However, I think this has little to do with hypothesis 2. Faith that a god exists does not equate to desire to practice religious ritual.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:47 am
One of the effects of religious belief is that it can modify behaviour for supernatural reasons.
This might work by making society more co-operative, and therefore more beneficial for members.
It may work by promoting a long term view - behave better so you don’t go to hell.
It also might work by encouraging fighters to fight ferociously, unafraid to die due to the promise to martyrs of eternal happiness. The advantage of having more ferocious fighters may compensate for any disadvantages generated by the religion.
The presence of some or all of the above may have given groups with thess characteristics a greater chance of survival or of defeating rivals.
November 22nd, 2006 at 4:13 pm
SB,
In other words, gods are “envisioned as possessing knowledge of socially strategic information, having unlimited perceptual access to socially maligned behaviors that occur in private and therefore outside the perceptual boundaries of everyday human agents.” (Bering 2005 The Evolutionary History of an Illusion: Religious Causal Beliefs in Children and Adults, p. 419)
What you said, only florid.
What do you mean by “supernatural”?
November 22nd, 2006 at 5:17 pm
drunkentune, I was speculating as to whether religion is beneficial in an evolutionary sense. It seems to have been endemic in pre-modern times, and may be that groups who adopted religion fared better than groups that did not.
You are proposing a mechanism, which is a different question. I wonder if all religions operate through the same basic mechanisms?
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:15 pm
By ’supernatural’ I meant some belief (usually in a higher power) that would make you do something that people without such a belief would not do.
November 22nd, 2006 at 7:27 pm
SB,
Thanks for clarifying. Of what literature out there, it seems that some religions are intrinsically different than others, and thus have different functions depending on the environment:
[1] Totemic spirits, during which shamanistic rituals take place (for instance, the Aurnta of Australia).
[2] Ancestral ghosts, that enable communication with deceased family (for instance, the Nakoda of North America).
[3] Hierarchical gods, that tell people what they should or shouldn’t do (for instance, the Maya of Central America, or the Ashanti of Africa).
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Can I buy into this discussion about “naturalism?”
“Naturalism (philosophy), any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.”
So, a “naturalist” in philosophy, has a number of philosophical choices.
1. They may consider that claims of the supernatural are false.
2. They may consider that claims of the supernatural are unknowable.
3. Or they may consider that supernatural claims are not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
I tend to lean towards the last one. Supernatural claims having their origins in attempts to explain the natural world.
Where there is a lack of knowledge about the natural world, there is inevitably offered a supernatural explanation.
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Beepbeepitsme: I tend to lean towards the last one. Supernatural claims having their origins in attempts to explain the natural world.
Where there is a lack of knowledge about the natural world, there is inevitably offered a supernatural explanation.
This would explain why religious belief is less common in recent times when science is able to explain more things.
If the field of operation of religion is the unexplained, it is shrinking.
If on the other hand religion serves other functions then its future may not be so grim.
November 23rd, 2006 at 1:32 pm
First, a disclaimer: I’m not making any arguement based on popularity (which is one of the common theistic defenses I question highly). But I’m not sure about the factual basis of the statement:
While organized religion in America (and the West) is indeed shrinking [solo article], that does not equal less religious belief, but simply less people finding traditional forms (such as church)Â meaningful to that belief. Some researchers would even argue that religious belief has not changed significantly in America [Barna 2003]. Likewise, drunkentune has already pointed out that statistically most of the world believes (at least 98%: adherents.com). In fact, due to missionary activities, major world religions are growing outside the West at the expense of minor localized religions, which means the religious deck is shuffling in the developing world, but not necessarily losing cards.
Even in increasingly secular socieities where science is part of popular culture, religious belief seems to be doing fine, though changing — like in the UK where such phenomenons as Paganism and even Jedi are growing [wiki]. I’m not trying to debunk the naturalistic theory of religious origin, nor the idea that the use of religion to explain the unexplained is fading. I’m just pointing out that I have noticed the some people/media who are expressing the idea of the decline of belief, which may or may not hold water.
I think you’re on the right track with this idea:
According to the field of values systems (sometimes called “spiral dynamics” or “cyclical, emergent levels of existence”), especially the work of Clare Graves [site] and those following his path in behavorial psychology, worldviews are born in answer to existential problems. As problems shift, so do worldviews. The more complex the problems, the more complex the worldview. This would mean religion, as a component of worldview, is likely to adapt to serve functions identified by the existential problems at hand. For example, the recent (but still incomplete shift) of focus in evangelical Christianity (esp. in emerging streams) from cutlural control to social justice may reflect a shift in the existential problems of the group: perhaps from existential problems concerning nationalism to internationalism based on the increased public sentiment that our greatest threats are now dealing with the world at large and the divisions of society. In such theory, the emergence of such religions as Jedi would mean that there is still something functional about religious mythology, hinting at some existential problem mythology addresses.
November 23rd, 2006 at 7:45 pm
My understanding of The jedi thing basically started from people wanting to “take the pi**” out of the census forms.
It became a bit of a game here in australia for people to fill in “jedi knight” where the form asked you to state your religion.
So, I wouldn’t take the jedi knight thing as an indication of a new religion. If anything, it was an example of non-religious people havin a laff.
November 24th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Some people seem to take it more seriously than the census gag (see the Jedi Temple). Some Jedi subscribe to the view of religion and mythology held by Joseph Campbell [site], who consulted Lucas as he developed the project during the same time as Campbell’s ”Hero with a Thousand Faces” work. The idea is that all religious mythology is communicating deep realities of our bodies and minds that could not otherwise be expressed and responded to, thus any mythology is as good as another.
The point I was making was not about Jedi specifically. I could have as easily used Neopaganism [wiki] as an example of a new religion growing in the West. In neopaganism’s case, several adherents I’ve talked to seem to connect it to a strong existential need for 1) connection to nature and 2) power in the everyday and mundane. All I’m saying is that religion is such a versatile tool of worldview, I would doubt whether it will ever cease to be functional in the naturalistic sense.
This does nothing to prove religion, but it may put a notch in theories that religion will some day be obsolete. Even major scholars are saying that religion is not declining as the world modernizes. Take for example Peter Berger, Director of the Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs at Boston University. A globalization expert, Berger [wiki] once predicted that modernization and globalization would lead to the decline of religion. Just the opposite has been true [see radio interview here].
November 24th, 2006 at 10:31 am
soulster,
It’s my understanding that religious ritual and faith are two very different things. While I wish to see ritual go on the decline, it is faith that I, and many other atheists, fight against. I won’t speak for beepbeep, but I see faith as unquestioning obedience to authority, and if a large group of likeminded people can be organized with ritual, then a megalomaniac can easily step forward with “God’s truth” and direct them on a dangerous crusade.
I’d be fine with ritual if we left faith behind.
I do see a possibility of religion becoming obsolete if the problems facing small collectives become fewer. At least. the severity of such rituals. And look where we are: We arrive back at the beginning, our very first comments on the topic. Now, I’d like to address a few of your comments from post No. 3.
While in the modern world our chances of dropping the bomb are much greater, the problems facing small modern communities, such as basic survival, foraging, hunter-gatherer situations, are all close to nil. We have our food and shelter, and we do not have to depend on others in a tight-nit community to acquire them. The tools used to work together on a small scale may eventually prove useless as we become a global community. We may soon go extinct or experience more misery sometime in the future, but I don’t see this as relating to our present modern society’s communities. Of course, since this is mere speculation, I hope for the converse.
November 24th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
drunkentune,
I’m not sure I would agree with this definition of faith. I seems a definition from without rather than from within. For example, Muslims do not view faith as some Christians do. For many Christians, faith is primarily mental assent to certain doctrines. For the Muslim, faith is primarily the practice of the 5 Pillars — primarly a ritualistic understanding. To say that they are two different things, I think, moves outside of the experience of people of faith and into the assumption of the secular and pluralistic understanding of faith. For many people, faith and ritual are intertwined without boundary. In my case, I do not subscribe to much ritual because I see faith as relational trust. But that goes to show that the role of ritual depends on the group of individualks understanding of their own faith.
This doesn’t disprove any naturalistic understandings, but it may show that either faith or ritual or both together may serve naturalistic functions.
I would agree with you that both faith, as you’ve defined it, and ritual can be used in a Machiavellian [wiki] way, and can be highly dangerous. But I think ritual without faith is more dangerous than ritual with faith (I would use nominal American Christianity as a proof), because it tends to solidfy groups for manipulative action without the social controls built into faith systems.
In my understanding of the psychology of individuals and groups (large or small), religion possibly adresses more problems on Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs [wiki] than just lower order survival and protection. Religion today is not merely concerned with low order needs. In fact, you will find that it is, in modern times, adapting to answer the highest level needs — Self-Actualization. That’s why Christian self-help books like Warren’s “Purpose-Driven Life” are national best sellers. My point is this in bring up Grave’s theory, Berger, and others: it seems naturalistic religion is more flexible in function than most researchers at first thought. A broad look at the scientific evidence will show that religion is adapting to modern progress, and the best in social theory seems to indicate the trend will continue.
Now, again, I want to say this does not prove the existence of God or the validity of religion. I just think it is a more truthful look at the way things are. I’m not a big fan of naturalistic religion, and it would be my missional impulse to work aginst it in some ways because I agree that it can be highly dangerous.
November 24th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
soulster,
I happen to agree with your assessment. However, I still see ritual and faith as dividers in a modern environment. When conducting diplomacy, we need to put ritual and faith aside.
Religion most likely (as you point out) has begun to adapt to the modern world. However, there are alternatives that I see as better for humanity. Someone can always find a way to rationalize their actions with a holy text, others will follow them like sheep, and there’s another holy war.
It was my impression that these preachers, with their most recent inductee of hypocrisy being Haggard, are men of great faith. They probably do genuinely believe that they are working for good. Until shown otherwise, I invoke Hanlon’s razor [wiki] in my defense.
While I do agree with you on this point, there are other possibilities:
1. The top-selling books are all over the place. Just this week we have thrillers, diet books, 9/11 conspiracies, biographies of political figures… [here] the list is neither here nor there.
2. Even if a majority of bestseller books happened to be Christian-themed, it would make sense: A majority of Americans have been told that they are unhappy. Since a majority of Americans are Christian, they pick up books that reinforce a positive base for them, i.e. the church.
3. Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” is at #32, peaked at #27, and has spent nine weeks in the top 150. If “The Purpose-Driven Life’s” booksales indicate a desire for Christian “Self-Actualization,” than what does “The God Delusion” bode for their faith?
Between you and me and everyone else that cares to read, I despise “The Purpose-Driven Life.”
November 24th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
I would agree that religion can be very divisive and may increase in that role as time marches on. I am a recent fan of Berger, whom I referenced above. He says that religion is perhaps the most volitile ingredient in the current global conversation, but unfortunately, it is most often left unaddressed. It is his view, and mine, that it needs dragging out of the cloest so it can be dealt with. It needs to become something more central rather than marginal — regardless if it is based on anything real, it is a reality. So, I wouldn’t agree that ritual and faith should be sidelined for the sake of diplomacy. I think it would be a landmine set off immediately after leaving the peace table.
I think it highly unlikely that a large number of those who read “The Purpose-Driven Life” and claim to have faith will also read “The God Delusion”, so I don’t think it bodes much for their faith personally, but it may for the spiritual landscape of America in general but that remains to be seen.
There is a lot of controversy over whether or not religion will decline and whether or not that is or is not a good thing (with major scholars religious and secular with each position). I have my theories, but I am not smarter than those who disagree. I do not think religion will decline, though it may change. And, I see myself as having some responsbility as to whether or not that turns out a good or bad thing. If it is purely naturalistic, it is very expolitable and highly dangerous as history and CNN tells. So it is my position that 1) naturalistic origins and utilitarian uses are major drivers for much of the religion in the world, and 2) it is the ethical mandate of the Jesus-follower to only practice and teach the practice of religion that transcends the naturalistic, though it may in some ways carefully use it, if such exists. To fellow believers, I would say that this is consistent with Missio Dei [wiki], the incarnation [wiki], and the missionary practices of Paul who made use of Judaism where appropriate and Greek philosophers where approriate.
Whether or not Haggard was a great man of faith or not, I do not know. Some say, yes, some say no. He is clearly a deeply troubled person, and whatever faith he had did not prevent that. While nominalism is rampant, and I dispise it, I would not venture judgments beyond my knowledge, and I only know the intimate details of a few person’s spirituality.
I would be interested in hearing about your “alternatives that I see as better for humanity” so our learning about each other can continue.
As far as best sellers, I think all the books on the list relate to existential needs. The presence of other types of literature does not disprove my point, but rather points to the variety of ways such existential needs are met.
I’m surprise you’ve read “The Purpose Driven Life”. I did not get much from the book myself. A dear friend gave me a copy, but I was unable to finish it. It has had great meaning and influence for other of my friends.
Boy, I love these comment conversations, but if I don’t cut them back, I’ll never get another post written for this site.
November 26th, 2006 at 4:51 am
Is religion “natural?”
That depends on what you mean by natural. Religion as a concept is evidenced only, as far as I am aware, in the human mind.
If the human mind is part of “the natural world”, then religion might be construed as being part of the natural world.
But then, so would any other concept of which the human mind was capable of generating, even the ones which we do not by tradition and culture, approve of. Such as genocide.
Is genocide natural? If the human mind is part of the natural world, then the concept of geneocide likewise would be considered natural.
AS would the concept of pedophilia, homosexuality and torture. These also would have to be considered natural if they are products of a “natural human mind.”
Human beings are born with the potential to believe and to learn many things.
But no one, to my knowledge, is born with religious belief. It is a learned concept.
In the same way that belief in a particular political ideology is a learned concept.
The only way to claim that these things are not a product of the natural world, is to claim that the human mind is not part of the natural world.
I know of no instance where a mind exists outside of the natural world, though I am sure that theists BELIEVE that a mind exists outside of a material and natural world.
So whether these things are evidenced in nature as the products of the human mind, (which is itself part of the natural world); does not suggest that human beings would accept or reject these concepts based on the criterion of naturalism.
November 26th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
soulster,
My alternatives are quite humble:
1. Religion and government should remain separate spheres of life. One’s religious beliefs are a private matter, so they should remain in the home. Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, and Luke 20:20-26 agree.
2. Don’t rationalize how one must act with an ancient text. You wouldn’t use the Egyptian Book of the Dead to live your life in the 21st century. It’s outdated, and contains plenty of information that is faulty, or can be quoted in any context for any end you wish. To an atheist, the same principles apply to the Bible. The world two thousand years ago was quite different, and applying the knowledge from then to today restricts progress.
3. In fact, we shouldn’t base how we live out lives on any writing, or what someone else tells us to do.
A friend gave a copy to me as well. I could barely read it. While I accepted the humanistic premise, as a skeptic, when he says
and gives no evidence to back this up, it’s obvious to me that it is merely a prayer devotional targeted at the lay-Christian, selling a message of passivity and acceptance of one’s place. A thorough fisking of the book takes place here.
Now that I’ve made my reasons clear, what were your reasons for disliking it?
November 27th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
I can’t help feeling like your thoughts have bearing for our ethics discussion on Can Atheists be Good? I guess I need to think through whether I, as a believer, could endorse a basis for society that was secular by definition. Hmmmmm….
Most of my critcisims of Purpose-Driven Life are personal, meaning they are about my tastes. My feelings in those categories shouldn’t be taken than more than opinion: 1) I don’t like self-help books, 2) I thought the writing was repetitive and shallow, 3)did I mention I don’t like self-help books?
I do see some problems with the book, however, that maybe aren’t just personal. Here they are in no particular order:
1. Although Warren might never have intend this, the way the book is written would seem to encourage consumer Christianity. Why must we always have the carrot of a better life dangled to be interested? Perhaps we are that self-seeking. But, one could seriously question whether ‘purpose’ as Warren means it is really a “bait-and-switch”. Did Jesus’ all disciples lived happier, more relationally connected, more satisfying, more adventurous lives lives for knowing Jesus? More purposeful lives, in the sense of advancing Missio Dei, perhaps. But not this easy-to-sell product Christians want so badly.
2. It is formulistic. While that may work for some people, there is a great danger in persenting such formulas as they usually become a cookie-cutter everyone else is squeezed through. I question following any path that can’t at least tell you a little bit about how it works. Just “do this and you’ll feel better in the long run” doesn’t work for me and might even be dangerous. At least explain how you think it works systemically. I did it and she did it and it worked for us is not good enough for missional people.
3. While Warren’s implication life=purpose could be equated with life=mission, which I would be more likely to agree with if he meant Missio Dei, it comes off as life=churchianity, which I would not agree with.
4. Warren only uses the narrative of Jesus as proof texts for a narrative he is constructing (although narrative isn’t as accurate as process), which makes me question how flexible it could be and how consistent at making Jesus-disciples rather than Warren-disciples. I tend to meet a lot of Warren-disciples in my pastor social circles, and even among my Christian friends.
November 27th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
soulster,
Hah! Your three lighthearted criticisms are quite funny. Thanks for the laugh. I’ve got a thing against self-help books as well.
On 1. I do agree with you. “Consumer” Christianity seems to be very popular today. I don’t have an opinion on its existence yet, but I’m sure much was said of the early Christians and Jews for their easy-access faith.
On 2.
Excellent point. I think we agree that no one should follow any religion (or lack of) because of such an appeal for results. The argument should stand on its own merits, not on expected outcomes.
On 3. While I disagree with life equaling a mission, I can see why a “life=churchianity” argument to a Christian like yourself is ridiculous. Church and Christ seem at odds a good deal of the time. A good example happened today with the resignation of the Rev. Joel Hunter from the Christian Coalition.
On 4. That sounds pretty creepy. Lots of little Warrenheads bobbing around just gives me the willies.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Interesing link. Some of it made me almost lose my dinner. (Not part of our platform! Grrrr. It shouldn’t be everyone’s platform.) Just to those interested: there are believers out there who feel abortion and gay-marriage are not the only issues in the world, and probably don’t even rank in the top 10.
Now, back to the discussion of possible evolutionary origins of religion….
November 27th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
You’re right. We’ve gone a bit off-topic, perhaps? I think this should spark some more discussion:
I found a detailed definition of ‘religion’ in Ritual, Emotion….
What strikes me is the “Separation of the sacred and the profane.” I’m wondering if atheists such as myself consider anything to be sacred, and this can lead to conflict (such as what occurred in Can Atheists be Good?).
To some Christians, what matters is not that God exists, but that they participate in a community with loved ones. God is taken to be true, but it is life that matters more. Well, I won’t claim that all are; only some.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Interesting definition. I would agree that it has applied to most religions. One problem anthropology has had is making definitions in the complex human context. It think some systems emphasize one of these “cross-culturally recurrent reatures” and there is tremendous variation on how they are expressed.
For example, costly ritual is being replaced by entertainment in the Mega-church. It’s based on the seeker-sensitive model of evangelism, which assumes people no longer will invest in costly ritual, so instead we unite and gather them by quality and effectively emotive presentations.
Also, Islam and some traditional forms of Judaism emphasize transmission from infantcy, but seal the transmission with adolescent coming-of-age rites. This definitely agrees with the fourth feature, but shows some variety in expression.
Sacred is defined in contrast to the profane. It is what is separated out of the profane or common. It assumes the existence of something transcendent that surpasses regular reality, so I would question whether an atheist should ever use the term “sacred”, especially if they are a materialist. For example, the cross in urine thing is only offensive to those who believe it is connected to some transcedent person and has meaning much greater than its material properties. That doesn’t mean atheists shouldn’t call things valueable or priceless, like art or human life. But they can probably find a term that doesn’t assume transcendence. Just my thoughts on the matter.
I would agree with you that some [many?] Christians are in it for the social implications and not because they feel they are encountering God. While I believe there is an inescapable tread of this motivation in all of us theists who count themselves part of something as big and culturally potent as a religion, I aspire to be aware of this motive and resist it in favor of an honest theology. Unless theist experience God, we might as well make this thing a club to serve the social purpose without all the struggle associated with wrestling with God (Israel, the idea that to know God is to wrestle with him in some way). But I do not want a club. I want to know God (if he exists of course).
November 28th, 2006 at 11:26 am
I’ll respond to your great comments in a bit, but I’d like to pass on this bit of information.
It seems a number of Christians do go through the motions.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
I certainly agree with you here. I find it annoying that “Christian Yoga†or “Christian Rock†are suddenly fashionable. Of course, I understand that it is in part Christians reaching out to spread their faith, but I do agree that it’s co-opting entertainment to spread a message.
I’m not sure what term could be used. I’ve used the word ‘sacred’ before to refer to certain culturally elevated rituals, such as marriage, but I use it in a more emotional fashion. If an action emotes certain responses that we think of as positive, I’d consider that sacred or transcendent.
I know that many Christians believe that they do experience God. The analogy to Israel’s fight with an angel/Yahweh (I still remember that story years later) is an interesting one. What are you wrestling with? Is it sin, or God’s commandments?
November 29th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
drunkentune:
By now you have figured out I am not a star speller.
This is why this dialogue is so good. It really allows us to get into our vocabulary.
While I understand your usage of “sacred” and think you would have popular suppoort for it, I personally don’t like that usage much given the words origins (from the Latin sacrÄre to devote to a God). I think it must imply that it exceeds the profane because of its separation to God. Ex: When I say that marriage is sacred, I do so because it is a vow to God.
Also, I realized when I use “transcend”, I mean it in a thelogical way. You usage above would be to transcend the negative. It could also be used to mean exceeding the mundane or normal. I use it to mean exceeding human ability, perception, stratigies, systems, and creativity.
I would see it as neither wrestling with sin nor commands. In the story, Jacob/Israel wrestles with the angel/Yahweh (I think the angel with proxy authority), so he will not leave without blessing him. My wrestling with God is realitional in the same way. I ask for some things and they do not come, so I wrestle (others do). I question God’s justice in certain situations, so I wrestle. There are times when God is seemingly hiding, and I wrestle. Other times my understanding and experience are incompatible, so I wrestle. Sure there is some aspect of presonal reform that happens in the process, but mostly I wrestle to know God and experience him, which is no easy thing. I would again liken it to my marriage. While I love my wife, I do wrestle with some aspects of her and our relationship, though in the process we grow in knowledge of each other and in the capacity for participation in life together.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Hi all! Your site is amazing! I love soulster and drunkentune!
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 am
??????? ??????? ?????, ????????? ????? http://philaletheia.thetruthtree.com
???????? ???, ??????????, ?? ????????? ????????…
- ????? ????????? ????? ????????????? ?? ????????? ?????? ?????????????? ????? ?? mail.ru ? ?????? ?????? ???????????
- ????? ????????? ????? ????????? ????????? ?? mamba.ru ? loveplanet.ru ?? ???????? ??????????, ??? ???? ??? ??????????? ??????? ??????????????
- ? ????? ?????? ????????? ?? ??????? ????? (????????) “??? ?????? ????????”, ? ????? ? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ? IP ???????? (????????) “?????? ?? ????? megavalenki.ru!”?
- ???? ?????????? ???????? ? ??????? ?-?? “??? ???????? ?? ???? ?????????”, “??????? ????? 2+2?” ? “????? ?????? ????” ? ????? ????????? ?? ??? ?????????
- ????? ????????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ???????, ??????? ????????????? ???????????????? ?? ??? ? ???????? ????????? ????? ? ??????????? ???????
- ? ??? ???? ???????? ? ?????????????? ???????? - phpBB, VBulletin, IPB, ExBB, Icon Board, YaBB, UltimateBB, ?????????? ????????? ????????, ????? ? ???????
- ????? ????????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??? ???? ?????
- ????? ????????? ????????????? ????????? ?????? / SOCKS, ??????????? ??? ?????? ???????????? (?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????)
- ????? ????????? ????? ????????? ???????????? ????????? ???? ????????????? ??????? phpBB, IPB, VBulletin?
- ????? ????????? ??????????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? Google PageRank?
- ????? ????????? ??????? ????????????? ??? ???? ????? ??????????? ?????????? ?? ????????
- ? ??? ???? ??? ????????? ??????????? ? ????????????????.
????? ????: ??? ??? ? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???????????? ????????? XRumer 4.085 Platinum Edition + Hrefer 2.85
?????? ???????? ????? ????????? ??????? ?? ???????????? ?????????? (Washington Post, Wikipedia ? ?.?.), ????? ??????? ????????? ???????? ????? 3-? ???.
?????? ?????? ? ???????!
??. ?????: XRumer 2.9 ???????, ????????? ??? SEO, ????????, ??????? ?? ??????, PPC, ???????? ????????, ???, XRumer forever, ?????? ????????, XRumer, ????????????? ????????? ??????, doorways, ?????? 2.9 ???????, ???? ??? ???, ???? ??? SEO, SEO, white SEO, XRumer 3.0 ???????, ?????? ???, ???????, XRumer Platinum, black SEO, ????????? ??? ???, ??????, ???????? ?? ???????, ??????, ????????? ?? ??????? ? ????????, ?????? 3.0 ???????, ????????????? ?????, ????? ???, ????????? ??? SEO, ???