On the idea that religion is natural and/or necessary for the human mind.

[Flanker1Six]

Well, I'd be at a complete loss, as its also perfectly natural for us to see things that are not actually grounded in reality... as grounded in reality.

We are programmed to see patterns that do not actually exist; as far as I can tell, religion does not exist without this feature.

There is plenty of meaning to be found in reality if that is the idea, I just don't think religion would be a great way to describe it.

+1 

Though the cynic in me is motivated to mention control.   The more structured (as in command structure) superstitions/cults are all about control.  Why?  Because that shit works, and we (men) like our perks.

I was walking down the street the other day; when all of a sudden a Giant Omnipotent Dog appeared to me in a brilliant flash of light, and a huge puff of smoke (that's right..............I'm special----you're not!)!   

GOD:  This is what's up, here's the Do Not List, the Do List, my authorization of YOU as my sole authorized representative on Earth; all disputes, questions, and pitiful needy shit will be refered to you (as my sole rep) for arbitration.  Don't step on my fucking crank, get uppity, or try to promote.........................and you'll do well!

Me:  Uuuuhhhhhh..................this is all rather sudden.....................are you sure I'm qualified? 

GOD: Are you questioning me you POS??!!!  You wanna see the firery pit??!! 

Me:  I'm good!!!   In fact...................the more I think about it....................the more I like it!!!

GOD:  Mmmmm????   Good!  Common sense, a well honed sense of self preservation.................AND feigned enthusiasm!  I like it!!    No get on your fuckin' game!   Get out there and con your friends and relatives into biting on and validating this shit.  Then go forth and MULTIPLY!!

Me: Roger that!! Aaaaahhhhh..............would it be OK if I acquire vast amounts of property, holdings, and wealth for YOUR work here?   And, maybe  a scantily clad nubile assistant or two?

GOD:  I'm not detail orientated--------------handle it!   

Me: Sir!!       

[drunkenshoe]

This idea is a part of 

-seeing 'development' of humanity as a linear development of religions and belief systems. In simplest terms, if there were no violent-primitive religious laws to begin with, we wouldn't have reached to a better, more secular ones. Which is correct up to a point, but as in terms of evolution in every sense, not in a world created by god with laws and rules. 

-if you do not believe in something bigger than yourself, you are not afraid of anything...the argument we all know; 'universal morality exists and it comes form god'.

-if you do not believe in anything, in an individual level you are doomed to be depressed, selfish...etc.

All of the above is the idea of a fixed childlike construction of human existence, civilisation and universe.


On the other hand, it is difficult to see all this from the point of a modern human. Because it is not as simple as the 21st century general atheist outlook which tends to paint everything in black and white. We are already born into a general culture that is available to us to develop an atheist view/vision of the world. This is very new.

[Mike Cl]

Your premise is not supported by empirical evidence. Religion has evolved along side civilization, but civilization isn't natural. It's a human construct. So the question should be: does atheism need to follow in the footsteps of religion? If yes, then how. If no? End of story.

This part of your statement---but civilization isn't natural---drew my attention.  This is not to quibble or even say you are wrong, but to explore a bit.  The social insects find civilization natural.  Ants always are found in colonies with structure.  Where humans sprung up in any numbers did they not tend to clump together?  Could not those groups or clans or tribes not be the first step on the road to civilization?  I guess a lot would be contingent upon how one defines 'civilization'.  Just musing................

[Jack89]

Your premise is not supported by empirical evidence. Religion has evolved along side civilization, but civilization isn't natural. It's a human construct. So the question should be: does atheism need to follow in the footsteps of religion? If yes, then how. If no? End of story.

The problem with atheism is that it doesn't stand for anything.  It's only a lack of belief.  It creates a vacuum that's filled with another religion or a political ideology that might as well be a religion.  I think religion has the upper had because it's more colorful, mystical and subtle.

[Mike Cl]

The problem with atheism is that it doesn't stand for anything.  It's only a lack of belief.  It creates a vacuum that's filled with another religion or a political ideology that might as well be a religion.  I think religion has the upper had because it's more colorful, mystical and subtle.

Actually, atheism 'stands' for more than nothing.  It stands for reason; at least gives a nod to critical thinking.  It rejects belief as a guiding force in one's life.  Religion, on the other hand, discourages, at the very least, rational thinking and asking reasoned questions; it demands faith--which rejects all  attempts to bring forth empirical evidence of anything.  Religion demands you kill part of your brain (and part of your humanity as I see it) for the sake of the fictional story that a particular religion invented. 

The very religious are mostly very shallow, desperate people.  They discourage or exclude any factual data about their fairy tale.  They want the easy answers, the answers that can be spoon fed to theim by their appointed leader.  They refuse to see any side of an issue except the one dictated to them by their fictional god.  Atheists on the other hand have no such crutch.  They have to use reasoning and critical thinking, not the empty belief or faith of the religious. 

Jack, you are just flat wrong!! 

[Hydra009]

The problem with atheism is that it doesn't stand for anything.  It's only a lack of belief.  It creates a vacuum that's filled with another religion or a political ideology that might as well be a religion.

One could say the same about afaerism or aghostism, they're simply lack of belief in faeries and ghosts and don't stand for anything as well.  There are lots of things that people don't believe in, yet no one claims that lack belief in ghosts sets the stage for belief in some other superstitious entity or some bad ideology.  Saying that eschewing theism creates a vacuum implies a supernaturalist urge sated by other ideologies, which is an assumption yet to be shown to be accurate.

I think religion has the upper had because it's more colorful, mystical and subtle.

I suppose.  It certainly has its pomp and ceremony.  And it appeals to people's basic hopes and fears.  It has its advantages, particularly in earlier times.

Lately, it seems to have ceded a lot of its previous functions to governments and science.  Humanity's place in the cosmos and the nature of the universe itself has become the domain of science, not religion.  Secular laws have less and less to do with religion and religious crimes like blasphemy have mostly been eliminated in the West.  If you want to get married, you get married by the state, not the church.  Popes used to hold land and lead armies, now they work to manage scandal.  Just a while ago, a friend of mine showed me a picture of a priest blessing a space shuttle.  It struck me as odd, but I couldn't put into words exactly why.  Eventually, the word came to me:  it looked anachronistic.

[Baruch]

People have psychological needs.  For some people, some of these needs are met by religion.  For other people, those same needs might be met by something else.  Generally we are talking about a need for "belonging" ... hence the close connection between religion and politics.  I find political fanatics even more disturbing than religious fanatics.  "very needy" people are dangerous.  So it isn't that "not having a religion" creates a vacuum ... but that people have needs, filled or unfilled.  If unfilled, they will bumble around until they find a way to fill it.  Once filled however, people have a hard time moving on to a different equilibria.  For some people, this need can't be filled by religion, because it is a square peg in a round hole for them.  I always find a psychological POV to be better than an ideological or epistemological one.

[SGOS]

Just a while ago, a friend of mine showed me a picture of a priest blessing a space shuttle.  It struck me as odd, but I couldn't put into words exactly why.  Eventually, the word came to me:  it looked anachronistic.

Finally I had to look up anachronistic.  I've seen it a bunch, but from the context, I always thought it meant doing something weird.  I guess I was close, but not quite there.

[Jack89]

People have psychological needs.  For some people, some of these needs are met by religion.  For other people, those same needs might be met by something else.  Generally we are talking about a need for "belonging" ... hence the close connection between religion and politics.  I find political fanatics even more disturbing than religious fanatics.  "very needy" people are dangerous.  So it isn't that "not having a religion" creates a vacuum ... but that people have needs, filled or unfilled.  If unfilled, they will bumble around until they find a way to fill it.  Once filled however, people have a hard time moving on to a different equilibria.  For some people, this need can't be filled by religion, because it is a square peg in a round hole for them.  I always find a psychological POV to be better than an ideological or epistemological one.

I agree with most of what you're saying as it applies on an individual level, but I was also thinking of the unifying effects of religion and politics.  That sense of belonging you talk about leads to a unified people once they have something in common to rally behind.  Religion and/or political ideology, take your pick.  I think religion has a greater effect in the long run. 

[Sal1981]

Pastafarianism.

Or if you want to scrape the bottom of the barrel. Atheism+ *snicker*

[marom1963]

This has been a topic I've seen cropping up in some circles, and I had a thought. If religion is a natural part of human psychology, then we should be able to design one that satisfies this need while staying grounded in reality.

So, AF.com, how would you go about designing such a religion?

People are scared and stupid and easily shoved around and lazy: what other than religion is better suited to take advantage of them? Everything that takes advantage of people uses the very same tools: fear and threats (open or veiled), promises of rewards (which never have to be fulfilled), heroes to worship, and endless ways to debase oneself, either by groveling before a god or by fawning over a celebrity or by being in awe of an "expert". Peter the Great realized that people were as happy w/medals as they were w/the huge tracts of land that his ancestors had given away, so he saved himself and future tsars great heaps of money by giving out medals, rather than estates. Medals and titles, rather than land and wealth. People are stupid. Let them be stupid, he reasoned. Tony DeFries realized that he could make David Bowie a star by telling everyone that Bowie was a star - and so, Bowie became a star - just like that. At least he had talent, unlike most of today's manufactured stars. If you want to know how, study Quentin Crisp! The Naked Civil Servant could tell you all you need to know about turning yourself into a minor religion: you must never work on anything but yourself!

[Flanker1Six]

Quite a few good points.   

Most of the superstitious folks I know are my relatives (exclusively Christian).   Actually; a really nice bunch of folks--none of them are pushy about the topic; I've always been treated very well by them, and don't resent their occasional bible this, and Jesus that references.   Interestingly; the Church I attended as a kid has dwindled from 200+ members down to around 15.............all elderly.  The end is near indeed!   

I have to contend.................most of you have missed the boat on why superstition is so prevalent.   It's the way we're brought up (early life), and it's comfortable (later in life).  Nothing more complicated than behavioral patterning, operant conditioning, and role modeling off guess who?   

If your parents are superstitious; chances are you will be too.  Most people in the US are Christian as it's the predominate superstition.  Most in the Middle East are Muslim because that's the way they were brought up.  Most in Israel (lived there for two years) are Jewish for the same reason.  I further contend if there was anyplace where the bulk of the adult child bearing population was.......................well..........................like us    (Yea!  Scary prospect!) most of the kids would grow up with similar beliefs because they were trained that way.  To a small degree, I think that's actually occurring in Europe and the US, but obviously has not gained a true/overwhelming majority anywhere yet. 

Later in life where most have achieved a degree of autonomous abstract thought, there's the whole angst ridden "why are we here, what does it all mean, what's my purpose in life, blah, blah,blah.   I think most of that comes from superstitions providing a fairly high degree of comfort.  Life direction; most of 'em got a rule book of some sort that frees many/most from doing any thinking about a wide variety of vexing topics/issues---just follow the rules!  The big three all got some sort of afterlife which is a HUGE draw-- reunion with mommy, daddy, puppies, kittens, virgins, bliss, no pain, blah, blah, blah.  Definitely a big sales advantage!  What's atheism and agnosticism got?  YAWNING BLACK NOTHINGNESS.  You have to admit................it is kinda bleak compared to the superstitious option.  Maybe a fresh coat of paint would spruce it up? Twofers???  Out of the superstitious folks I've discussed it with................they seem to split on can't emotionally deal with the idea of YBN, or "choose" not to by sticking with whatever their Rule books plan is. 
A "Final Solution"    kinda thing isn't it? 

In fairness.................if they're peaceful in their superstitious aims/goals.......................if it makes them feel better; what harm is there?   

[widdershins]

This has been a topic I've seen cropping up in some circles, and I had a thought. If religion is a natural part of human psychology, then we should be able to design one that satisfies this need while staying grounded in reality.

So, AF.com, how would you go about designing such a religion?

I think it's the break from reality that is most appealing to most people.  Look at how well Faux News spreads the religion of conservatism with the fear of the black bogeyman.  Look at any other given cult.  To truly tap into the human psyche and take over you have to kick the door in like you own the place and take a shit in the corner.  Conservatism just uses a slightly more realistic break from reality than the "magic" of most religions.

I think the real deep-seated need we as human beings have is a need to feel small and not in control, but have the pretense that we are, odd as it may sound.  For Christianity, the world is going to hell and there's nothing you can do about it.  You can't save even your loved ones.  BUT, you can save yourself.  So even when you take control there's still some desperation there.  For conservatism, the world is going to hell and there's nothing you can do about it.  BUT, you can vote and MAYBE some day America will go "back" to some idealistic time which never really existed.  The commonality there seems to be an overall sense of despair with just a glimmer of hope.  That you can do SOMETHING about it and maybe save the situation from being a total loss, but overall it is out of your control and, thus, everyone's fault but you and yours.

If you sit down and think about it, that describes the environmentalist movement too.  And really, that's something of a religion for some people, and FIRMLY grounded in reality.  So maybe it has already been done and we just didn't notice it.