Fear of God - It's what makes us nicer: Study

[bilby]

...Lion IRC, I challenge you to name one good thing a human can do or one good aspect of human life that cannot be had without religion.

Ah...Hitchens' challenge.

I think there are a few contenders. But first you have to resolve the problem of the God-shaped hole in our heart which accounts for people doing good things for "no reason".
"Because it's good to do good things" but you're not sure exactly why you ought to do good^TM things.

If you take away religion or 'spirituality' you have atheists instinctively doing 'good' things and intuitively feeling good about having done so - but what's actually going on here?

What is going on is atheists instinctively doing 'good' things and intuitively feeling good about having done so.

This is not a mystery, except to those who have started from the false premise that it is impossible.

The only holes in my heart are the openings of the pulmonary veins and arteries, plus the vena cavae and aorta; If you have any others (of any shape), I suggest an urgent visit to a cardiologist.

A mate of mine is sadly addicted to drugs; He can't imagine how anyone can live without them, and feels that they are the only thing that gives his life meaning, and that other people cannot possibly be happy without taking drugs.

He is, of course, wrong. But he is absolutely incapable of being persuaded of his error. Just like you. Addicted to the idea of a god, you simply cannot see that the crutch that supports your entire way of life is completely needless.

 

[DrZoidberg]

...Lion IRC, I challenge you to name one good thing a human can do or one good aspect of human life that cannot be had without religion.

Ah...Hitchens' challenge.

I think there are a few contenders. But first you have to resolve the problem of the God-shaped hole in our heart which accounts for people doing good things for "no reason".
"Because it's good to do good things" but you're not sure exactly why you ought to do good^TM things.

If you take away religion or 'spirituality' you have atheists instinctively doing 'good' things and intuitively feeling good about having done so - but what's actually going on here?

View attachment 9711

All you need is a quirk of evolution. Genetic drift from when our brains first evolved. There are many theories as to why we seem to have a need for ritual, both with others and alone. But that's not necessarily theistic religion.

His whole point with the book is to explain why God/gods are unnecessary to religion.

I've read that book and agree with Alain de Botton 100%. That book changed my life. I'm still an atheist

 

[migrant]

Michel Quiost was being metaphorical rather than metaphysical when he coined the phrase "God-shaped hole" back in the Sixties.
I don't think it's an unhelpful phrase if we eject Jehovah from the equation.
You could even say it's what De Botton is writing about - and surely Browning was not really meaning the place with harps and fluffy clouds when he said, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for?"
We have a natural urge to growth like every other living thing. We see growth in various ways.
In English we say "Growing up," in some languages they say "Growing out."
This urge was quickly seen by the Christian Church as a stick with which to beat us, and commandeered as one of their selling points.
It's what all Nature does, and some of us see the possibility of growth in our understanding, and those attributes which foster the general good.

Naturally the Church is jealous of its self-appointed status as the only true agent for Divine Love -- there's nothing more dangerous than people taking on this responsibility for themselves and pushing Jehovah's nose out of the situation as they learn to love and respect their fellow citizens, and feel the concomitant benefits of simply being nice - without the threat of Hell's fire.
But I soak my soul in vino tinto to be on the safe side, wet souls don't burn too well.
Maybe these fervent God-Botherers are, in Bogart's phrase - "Just a couple of drinks behind."

I'll read the book Dr Z, muchas gracias.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Michel Quiost was being metaphorical rather than metaphysical when he coined the phrase "God-shaped hole" back in the Sixties.
I don't think it's an unhelpful phrase if we eject Jehovah from the equation.
You could even say it's what De Botton is writing about - and surely Browning was not really meaning the place with harps and fluffy clouds when he said, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for?"
We have a natural urge to growth like every other living thing. We see growth in various ways.
In English we say "Growing up," in some languages they say "Growing out."
This urge was quickly seen by the Christian Church as a stick with which to beat us, and commandeered as one of their selling points.
It's what all Nature does, and some of us see the possibility of growth in our understanding, and those attributes which foster the general good.

Naturally the Church is jealous of its self-appointed status as the only true agent for Divine Love -- there's nothing more dangerous than people taking on this responsibility for themselves and pushing Jehovah's nose out of the situation as they learn to love and respect their fellow citizens, and feel the concomitant benefits of simply being nice - without the threat of Hell's fire.
But I soak my soul in vino tinto to be on the safe side, wet souls don't burn too well.
Maybe these fervent God-Botherers are, in Bogart's phrase - "Just a couple of drinks behind."

I'll read the book Dr Z, muchas gracias.

His main line of reasoning is that human society has always had a bunch of needs and behaviours that aren't covered by institutions spontaneously emerging. Some institutions need to be artificially put in place. These are stuff that we've noticed our brains fail us at. So we need some help. We've grouped together these artifical institutions under the label religion. And then slapped on a god or two as a symbol.

These needs have been different throughout the ages. Which is why religions are so different and constantly evolve.

If we just remove religion we remove all this other stuff that has nothing to do with gods.

The conclusion is that if we want to make belief in gods obsolete we need to first replace all the religious institutions with secular equivalents.

Sweden is a good case study. Because between 1900-1950 we did just that. It wasn't any kind of plan. It just worked out that way. We replaced Christianity with socialism and sports. At the end of the 50'ies Sweden had gone to an almost completely atheist country. This has of late reversed somewhat, probably down to the death of socialism.

The problem is the terminology. We've slapped the god label on all religion as a whole. We need to break down religion into its constituent parts/functions and pry the gods from all of them.

Religions have made the banal observation that we're primarily emotionally driven creatures. The modern secular world operates on the erroneous assumption that we're primarily rational creatures, and any dispute can be solved by more information. Obviously religion got it right. The secular world needs to learn from this.

 

[migrant]

Thanks Dr Z -- Your final sentence exploded into my head like the morning sun through the windows of my little cortijo.

"Religions have made the banal observation that we're primarily emotionally driven creatures. The modern secular world operates on the erroneous assumption that we're primarily rational creatures, and any dispute can be solved by more information. Obviously religion got it right. The secular world needs to learn from this."

'Emotionally driven creatures' -- I just can't get the picture of an American political rally out of my mind.
Perhaps in a few hundred years they will have learned to pretend to be rational, like the British do.
The fact that the advertising companies also understand our true nature puts them alongside the Church as successful manipulators of the collective psyche, and I think few would argue that Mr Trump appeals to rationality, further indicating the success of the method in the political sphere.
In the scientific world we see fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins getting extremely emotional about which theory he prefers, he doesn't burn his opponents at the stake, but the impression remains that he would like to.

It seems to me that humans are, to a greater or lesser extent, predators of their own kind -- seeking to control others for their own gain, or "for the general good of society."
As you point out, those who treat us as being primarily emotionally motivated enjoy the most success.
Which is why politics and religion both run on fear...

 

[DrZoidberg]

Thanks Dr Z -- Your final sentence exploded into my head like the morning sun through the windows of my little cortijo.

"Religions have made the banal observation that we're primarily emotionally driven creatures. The modern secular world operates on the erroneous assumption that we're primarily rational creatures, and any dispute can be solved by more information. Obviously religion got it right. The secular world needs to learn from this."

'Emotionally driven creatures' -- I just can't get the picture of an American political rally out of my mind.
Perhaps in a few hundred years they will have learned to pretend to be rational, like the British do.
The fact that the advertising companies also understand our true nature puts them alongside the Church as successful manipulators of the collective psyche, and I think few would argue that Mr Trump appeals to rationality, further indicating the success of the method in the political sphere.
In the scientific world we see fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins getting extremely emotional about which theory he prefers, he doesn't burn his opponents at the stake, but the impression remains that he would like to.

It seems to me that humans are, to a greater or lesser extent, predators of their own kind -- seeking to control others for their own gain, or "for the general good of society."
As you point out, those who treat us as being primarily emotionally motivated enjoy the most success.
Which is why politics and religion both run on fear...

Of course humans will be a predator of its own kind. Other humans occupy the same evolutionary niche. We need to understand and accept this if we're ever going to make society function. Murder isn't irrational or unnatural. Neither is rape. Just a sad fact. We need to make social rules understanding this.

I also take issue with "manipulative". Us talking now is manipulation. If we didn't think we might manipulate other people's behaviour we'd keep our mouths shut. It's pretty fundamental in communication theory.

Religions just do it better. A sermon will always be more persuasive than a scientific paper. Because one is adapted to how humans actually think and the other only on presenting truth. And let's the human puruade themselves.

The secular world needs to make themselves more like religions if they want to destroy the gods

 

[Lion IRC]

Premise - most humans throughout history have had some sort of reverence/awe/fear/worship of the divine. (Abstract concept - divinity)

Premise - humans (who are predominantly theistic) are mostly in agreement that we 'ought' to obey moral imperatives. (Abstract concept - ought)

Premise - no empirical, verifiable, (non-abstract) definition of "nice" exists or is held to by any cohort in society (apart from religious definitions proposed by adherents of religion.)

Therefore - the only existing explanatory motive for being "nice" is derived from religion (ie. God)

Fear of God (or rather, the awareness of God) - it's what makes us "nicer"
...unless and until someone can show a more concrete, verifiable explanation.

 

[Angry Floof]

The secular world needs to make themselves more like religions if they want to destroy the gods

I couldn't disagree more. We can do much better, and we do so all the time. We have the tools and means to understand human nature beyond literal interpretations of folk tales.

It is that contagious nature of religious doctrines, the little package of cognitive mechanisms that hijack the limbic system and starve the frontal lobes that we need to overcome. We do not need to continue responding to the world with the most savage and stupid of our reflexive behaviors while believing the righteous little stories we tell ourselves about what we're doing. That's religion. That seems like an enlightened, aware society to you?

What values would we be broadcasting from our banner of Truth? That our superior ideology is a good enough excuse for treating people as we please? Would we take hard-wiring our cognitive pitfalls and base reactions as a lifestyle? Maybe we just need a big, fat, stupid Authority to give the illusion of cohesion and order and to spare us the discomfort of exercising our own conscience?

We can do better, of course, but not bloody likely when so much of our world cultures are ignorant of the source of religious disease.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Premise - most humans throughout history have had some sort of reverence/awe/fear/worship of the divine. (Abstract concept - divinity)

Most have been animist. Which is a world apart from an Abrahamic god. It's not honest to put God in the same category as an animist spirit. We've also been pagan longer than monotheist. Also quite different from monotheism.

Premise - humans (who are predominantly theistic) are mostly in agreement that we 'ought' to obey moral imperatives. (Abstract concept - ought)

Absolute nonsense. That's very specific for Abrahamic gods. Which are certainly not the most common in history. The pagan gods were not moral and didn't care if it's cult members were moral. Buddhism teaches that it's in our own best interest to be moral. But nothing magical is going to punish you if you aren't.

Premise - no empirical, verifiable, (non-abstract) definition of "nice" exists or is held to by any cohort in society (apart from religious definitions proposed by adherents of religion.)

Therefore - the only existing explanatory motive for being "nice" is derived from religion (ie. God)

Fear of God (or rather, the awareness of God) - it's what makes us "nicer"
...unless and until someone can show a more concrete, verifiable explanation.

Please read the Euthyphro dilemma. It's older than Christianity itself. Morals have never come from religion. It works the other way around. First something is moral, then we add it to religion.

 

[abaddon]

The secular world needs to make themselves more like religions if they want to destroy the gods

I couldn't disagree more.

I agree with DrZoidberg.*

Consider these possibilities:

1) modifying religion would be desirable if defeating it is not possible.
2) an earth-adoring, science-informed religion with no old myths might grow in popularity. Those who find secular life "arid" but fantastical religions silly might find a "home" in this if they knew the alternative is there (among others like modern Buddhism). Where, now, there's a stark but needless dichotomy.

#2 feels a necessity to my inborn nature, and I doubt that I'm a rare bird in this regard. People ask “Why add that spirituality stuff on top 'plain’ reality?” and it strikes as a misinformed (ideological) question. I’m not “adding” a thing, I’m just not vivisecting myself to strive for an excess of rationality.

The traits of "religion" are often depicted as supernaturalism, dogmatism and veneration of old texts. But the exceptions in world religions prove that's not true. I only know one trait common to all religions: veneration of something more-than-human. They tend to want to communalize that, to bond a community.

The ugliness in religion is the ugliness in politics. Ideologues, especially the conservative ones, get atavistic and try to enforce it. That's something inside humans that needs fixing. Trying to obliterate a facet of human expression that's prone to that problem is not a fix to that problem.

* (ETA: I mean I agree with the points DrZoidberg makes for religion being an innate feature, and emotions and instincts need a healthy expression rather than repressed. I don't know that the whole secular world needs to make itself "more like religions". My stance is everyone should rethink their habitual thoughts about religions and take care not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater").

 

[abaddon]

Fear of God (or rather, the awareness of God) - it's what makes us "nicer"
...unless and until someone can show a more concrete, verifiable explanation.

Psych studies show fear of an authority makes people compliant, not nicer or good. Some minds think being compliant is being moral. Obeying orders and torturing someone is “good” in the eyes of the authority that commands it. But these compliant "good" persons are doing evil.

An authority cannot define what good is even if the authority is God.

 

[Angry Floof]

I couldn't disagree more.

I agree with DrZoidberg.

Consider these possibilities:

1) modifying religion would be desirable if defeating it is not possible.
2) an earth-adoring, science-informed religion with no old myths might grow in popularity. Those who find secular life "arid" but fantastical religions silly might find a "home" in this if they knew the alternative is there (among others like modern Buddhism). Where, now, there's a stark but needless dichotomy.

#2 feels a necessity to my inborn nature, and I doubt that I'm a rare bird in this regard. People ask “Why add that spirituality stuff on top 'plain’ reality?” and it strikes as a misinformed (ideological) question. I’m not “adding” a thing, I’m just not vivisecting myself to strive for an excess of rationality.

The traits of "religion" are often depicted as supernaturalism, dogmatism and veneration of old texts. But the exceptions in world religions prove that's not true. I only know one trait common to all religions: veneration of something more-than-human. They tend to want to communalize that, to bond a community.

The ugliness in religion is the ugliness in politics. Ideologues, especially the conservative ones, get atavistic and try to enforce it. That's something inside humans that needs fixing. Trying to obliterate a facet of human expression that's prone to that problem is not a fix to that problem.

OH, if you mean religion simply in terms of group values, beliefs, and rituals that recognize the ineffable nature of human consciousness and experience, along with some humane tenets such as respect for the environment and other species, then yes, I agree. These days, we tend to talk about religion in terms of ideology and identity, not spiritual enlightenment. The kind of religion you describe doesn't often make headlines, and if its teachings include some realistic truth-finding tools and respect for autonomy as holy sacraments, it doesn't need to rely on tribalism for cohesion, which is crucial to survival of outmoded, archaic, and practically irrelevant traditions.

But Dr. Zoidberg was talking in terms of successfully destroying gods, and of secular society being "more like religion." He did not specify what aspects of religion would serve us (since "secular" does mean "not religious" after all) or in what ways other than how to spread an ideology. The things that make the religions we object to so objectionable come part and parcel with the very cognitive pitfalls that make religion such a virulent disease to begin with. There was an allusion in Dr. Z's post to preachers in church speaking to the collective animal brain being a powerful tool of persuasion, which is true, but it's not necessarily desirable as a method of proliferating humane values.

I do agree with his statement that manipulation is a day to day reality of human interaction, though. There is no time when we are not manipulating each other in our communications to some extent, and in ways we don't even fully understand. Some conversations about manipulation deserve some qualification of the word. Appealing to fear and prejudice is a form of manipulation that I object to in general, regardless of how prevalent it is. If someone thinks "secular" should become a universally meaningful, socially cohesive culture that encompasses all of human experience, then relying on traditional, cognitively unaware, reflexive behaviors as means of cohesion and stability (such as going to church to learn about a petty, judgmental god) has been proven weak and vulnerable to much pestilence not the least of which is fascism.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Excellent points. I just want to add that we don't have any shortage of modern religious myths. Pick any book. Any movie. We're awash with stories to learn from. Agreeing on just one set of myths is unnecessarily limiting.

There's also the issue of herding cats. Good luck agreeing on a dogma if you don't have some sort of god to point to. If we agree that religions are human inventions than any aspect will be up for debate.

Secular religion will have to be a kind of kaleidoscopic smorgasbord type faith where you pick and chose your flavour of the day.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I agree with DrZoidberg.

Consider these possibilities:

1) modifying religion would be desirable if defeating it is not possible.
2) an earth-adoring, science-informed religion with no old myths might grow in popularity. Those who find secular life "arid" but fantastical religions silly might find a "home" in this if they knew the alternative is there (among others like modern Buddhism). Where, now, there's a stark but needless dichotomy.

#2 feels a necessity to my inborn nature, and I doubt that I'm a rare bird in this regard. People ask “Why add that spirituality stuff on top 'plain’ reality?” and it strikes as a misinformed (ideological) question. I’m not “adding” a thing, I’m just not vivisecting myself to strive for an excess of rationality.

The traits of "religion" are often depicted as supernaturalism, dogmatism and veneration of old texts. But the exceptions in world religions prove that's not true. I only know one trait common to all religions: veneration of something more-than-human. They tend to want to communalize that, to bond a community.

The ugliness in religion is the ugliness in politics. Ideologues, especially the conservative ones, get atavistic and try to enforce it. That's something inside humans that needs fixing. Trying to obliterate a facet of human expression that's prone to that problem is not a fix to that problem.

OH, if you mean religion simply in terms of group values, beliefs, and rituals that recognize the ineffable nature of human consciousness and experience, along with some humane tenets such as respect for the environment and other species, then yes, I agree. These days, we tend to talk about religion in terms of ideology and identity, not spiritual enlightenment. The kind of religion you describe doesn't often make headlines, and if its teachings include some realistic truth-finding tools and respect for autonomy as holy sacraments, it doesn't need to rely on tribalism for cohesion, which is crucial to survival of outmoded, archaic, and practically irrelevant traditions.

But Dr. Zoidberg was talking in terms of successfully destroying gods, and of secular society being "more like religion." He did not specify what aspects of religion would serve us (since "secular" does mean "not religious" after all) or in what ways other than how to spread an ideology. The things that make the religions we object to so objectionable come part and parcel with the very cognitive pitfalls that make religion such a virulent disease to begin with. There was an allusion in Dr. Z's post to preachers in church speaking to the collective animal brain being a powerful tool of persuasion, which is true, but it's not necessarily desirable as a method of proliferating humane values.

I do agree with his statement that manipulation is a day to day reality of human interaction, though. There is no time when we are not manipulating each other in our communications to some extent, and in ways we don't even fully understand. Some conversations about manipulation deserve some qualification of the word. Appealing to fear and prejudice is a form of manipulation that I object to in general, regardless of how prevalent it is. If someone thinks "secular" should become a universally meaningful, socially cohesive culture that encompasses all of human experience, then relying on traditional, cognitively unaware, reflexive behaviors as means of cohesion and stability (such as going to church to learn about a petty, judgmental god) has been proven weak and vulnerable to much pestilence not the least of which is fascism.

You're being awfully narrow. You're also modelling a secular religion on Christianity. I don't have time to give the answer you deserve. But just a thing as regular comunal rituals gives us a peace of mind. Super simple to do. Even just meeting for an hour a week keeping your trap shut is incredibly powerful. Daily prayers. Works fantastically. Daily reminders works great. Write on the wall over your monitor at work "you don't know what shirty day others have had". Will make you more compassionate.

There hundreds of these. Religions are vast packages jam packed with useful practices. Stuff that has been tried and tested you work in very concrete ways.

Religion doesn't need to be dogmatical, hierarchical nor universal. Religion is man made and as such we can make it into whatever we want. If the Christians can do it in a world without God then so can we.

 

[Angry Floof]

Excellent points. I just want to add that we don't have any shortage of modern religious myths. Pick any book. Any movie. We're awash with stories to learn from. Agreeing on just one set of myths is unnecessarily limiting.

There's also the issue of herding cats. Good luck agreeing on a dogma if you don't have some sort of god to point to. If we agree that religions are human inventions than any aspect will be up for debate.

Secular religion will have to be a kind of kaleidoscopic smorgasbord type faith where you pick and chose your flavour of the day.

This I agree with. I call it new mythology, although it's not new at all, ongoing for millennia, just the contents are new and if you ask me, pretty crazy in this technological age. We've got aliens and space stations and surveillance technology alongside ancient god concepts. Cats alone have shown ridiculous potential for relevant metaphors and ideas that challenge outdated assumptions of all kinds. Interesting times.

 

[Angry Floof]

To your next post, I agree with that, too, except that I'm not being too narrow. I'm being specific about just what it is about religion you are suggesting is going to serve humanity. You're being too broad if you're not addressing the source of religion itself: human heads. And I see that you acknowledge that now, but the post I was responding to seemed to suggest that such a culture "works" because of gut-level reactions to persuasive preaching. I suggest that this is just more of the same exploitation of cognitive pitfalls that has been going on for thousands of years.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Excellent points. I just want to add that we don't have any shortage of modern religious myths. Pick any book. Any movie. We're awash with stories to learn from. Agreeing on just one set of myths is unnecessarily limiting.

There's also the issue of herding cats. Good luck agreeing on a dogma if you don't have some sort of god to point to. If we agree that religions are human inventions than any aspect will be up for debate.

Secular religion will have to be a kind of kaleidoscopic smorgasbord type faith where you pick and chose your flavour of the day.

This I agree with. I call it new mythology, although it's not new at all, ongoing for millennia, just the contents are new and if you ask me, pretty crazy in this technological age. We've got aliens and space stations and surveillance technology alongside ancient god concepts. Cats alone have shown ridiculous potential for relevant metaphors and ideas that challenge outdated assumptions of all kinds. Interesting times.

This was a comment on Abondon's post

Sorry about the lack of quotes

 

[DrZoidberg]

To your next post, I agree with that, too, except that I'm not being too narrow. I'm being specific about just what it is about religion you are suggesting is going to serve humanity. You're being too broad if you're not addressing the source of religion itself: human heads. And I see that you acknowledge that now, but the post I was responding to seemed to suggest that such a culture "works" because of gut-level reactions to persuasive preaching. I suggest that this is just more of the same exploitation of cognitive pitfalls that has been going on for thousands of years.

What do you mean by source? Isn't it enough that it makes us more at peace with life and better at coping with hardships? We have evolved to live in bands of about 30-40 people. With a religious congregation you can create the band artificially.

Most of us are going to be suckers for persuasive preaching no matter what. That's already the case. Why not start preaching atheism and secular values Christian style?

When socialism first came all its institutions were one for one based on and modelled on the Christian Church. The similarities are striking. Socialist agitators would read from socialist texts the same way as priest would the Bible. And socialist texts were treated like holy books. It worked!

 

[migrant]

My inborn nature also resonates more with the second choice abaddon, but as to religion (as in belief in and worship of a superhuman entity) I find it hard to imagine that as innate.
Buddhism is not a religion by that definition, and its spread from its roots in India, its subsequent growth in China, and its final flowering as Zen in Japan show that different nations can find it useful without needing to draw on a magical being who looks down on us from the sky.
Where is their innate urge to invent a deity ? Their need to worship ?

So I'm looking into the bathwater, but as yet there's no sign of the baby.
What is there in religion that's worth hanging on to ?

 

[abaddon]

... but as to religion (as in belief in and worship of a superhuman entity) I find it hard to imagine that as innate.
Buddhism is not a religion by that definition?

Not by that recent, eurocentric definition as I'd already said. You chose to reverse the more broadly descriptive definition back to a narrow ideologically useful one. I'll answer the rest of your post after you say what you think Buddhism is if it's not a religion. If you say either "philosophy" or some variant on "life-way" then don't leave it vague. Be specific about how mystical practices including devotions, chanting, prayers, rituals to unify self with ultimate reality fit non-religiously into whatever Buddhism really is.