danyboy809

That is what gives religion so many followers, right?

Well, here is my question, and I would like your input: If man was at a mentally mature age,(which is up to each reader's discretion) and he was first introduced to religious ideas and customs, do you think he would accept the beliefs? And if so, would he accept the beliefs that had been grounded in reason or science, or would he accept the beliefs that require a faith in them? Moreover, Since the child that is inculcated religious beliefs comes out believing through much faith, would man at a mentally mature age repulse the idea of faith or accept it? How and why would he accept faith? What would happen to religion's existence if it were a subject at school, like history, and it was not inculcated at an early age?

These are my questions, and I would also laud any books you recommend that would touch up on these subjects.

AtlanticCitySlave

I think it would, since there are many people who say they didn't come from religious households, later "found christ" (or something else), and became Christians (or some other religion). Whether it would be through faith or reason I don't really know, but I imagine it would be a mixture of both, with faith winning out in the long run. Reason would do it since most Christians already think they have good reason for believing in God (faith being one of them). People like Swinburne, Plantinga, etc., put a lot of weight in reason, science, etc. ("The Existence of God" by Swinburne is a book I would suggest, as well as his others). Obviously, us, the atheists, just think their reasons are bad ones, and they think they are goods, ours are bad, etc. Thus, the game goes on.
Religion, in my view, has been around, in one form or another, for so long, that's it not going anywhere. Ideally, if we could somehow stop the introduction of religion until a later age, I don't think it would alter the fact that religion would still exist, although the numbers of believers might change (obviously).
Of course, there is really no way to know (I imagine), since some men might embrace faith, oters abhor it, etc. I would guess that the number of believers would lessen by a lot though if such a world/social set-up, existed.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]</p>

One of the last sane

He would if under severe psychological stress. Read William Sargant's "Battle for the Mind" - an oldie but a goodie.

seebs

Well... obviously, either:
1. Religious beliefs are true.

or:

2. If not introduced to them, people would make them up.

It exists, therefore, it came from somewhere. Either people observed these things in the real world, or people are naturally inclined to make them up.

So... Yes, religion would exist. The alternative is to suppose that everyone has always been raised in it from an early age, and this implies that it predates humanity, which I have a hard time with.

The Admiral

All of the above, but how much religion do you suppose there would be if not for their tax free status? I don't know, but a lot less I would think ,and a much better world.

The Admiral

Goliath

The Admiral,

Agreed. Ah, if we could only make each church pay backtaxes for the number of years that said church has been around.

I can dream, can't I?

Sincerely,

Goliath

(editud cuz me not gotten such gooder grammer)

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Fiach

The hypothesis that theism and/or religion were a Darwinian survival trait or survival advantage has much merit. I am an Atheist. But I know that worldwide I am only 20% of the world's population and only 5% over there in America. That must mean something. In centuries past, such as the Middle Ages, Atheism was extremely rare as far as we know. Religion pervaded society.

I postulate, that religion is brain based. It occurs only in those humans whose brains are hard wired to process religious concepts unquestioningly. Atheists by contrast have circuits that reject religious concepts and magical thinking. We are incapable of believing in gods or invisible pink unicorns because of our brain structure as well as early programming perhaps. We now know that our brain structure is 95% determined by genetic codes in the Human Genome, while about 5% may be experience or programming altered synaptic connections. Therefore, a nucleotide code ultimately determines whether you or I will be likely believers or resistant sceptics.

Why would greater than 80% of all humans have such a gene? As a Neo-Darwinian molecular geneticist and neuroscientist, the answer seems obvious. The "religion gene" must have given the ancestors of modern humans a survival advantage. Early humans who possessed the genes survived while most of those who didn't possess it perished or failed to pass on the "sceptical gene". What advantages did the gene confer?

First we must look at religion and religious behaviour. Religion today provides a worldview, but it is also a restrictive and exclusive worldview. It sets those with the same view apart from others. This gives the group an identity, and makes others who differ, unwelcome if not dangerous. We have seen that religion is associated with suspicion of others, and quite often homicidal violence against "wrong believers". Each group creates its gods. The group members fear and hate those who reject their gods and vice versa. Religion is associated with hyper sexuality (even hyper homosexuality) that usually results in higher birthrates.

OK, so we have some early humans who have their own protective gods. They are militant and aggressive toward unbeliever tribes. They have strong group identity. The identity is as much kinship as religious. Even tribe members who are kin are banished or killed for heresy and unbelief. Religion is almost always a mind control system as well. That imposes discipline. Underlings follow orders from the shaman or the god appointed chieftain.

So, a religious tribe has identity, discipline, aggressiveness, prolific reproduction, paranoid fear and hatred toward those who are different in belief, a tendency to violence, and may be easily propelled toward attacking an unbeliever tribe by a shaman or a chieftain who also covets the extra land and female slaves taken in a war.

Suppose the tribe nearby is unreligious or weakly religious. Those people would be like modern atheists. They would be argumentative, resistant to orders (i.e. undisciplined), uninterested in risking their lives for hypothetical gods. They sadly would be under-prolific with fewer children and eventually fewer warriors.

So in a war between the two tribes, who would triumph? Obviously the disciplined, more aggressive, mutually supportive, paranoid, violence prone, warriors who believe the gods protect them would win. The result would be that the genes of the religious tribe would be passed down. The sceptical tribe's sceptic gene would be exterminated or nearly so.

The gene that programs for religious belief essentially programs a set of behaviours not just belief in gods. The gene's effect in programming the limbic lobe of the brain produced all of the behaviours that we see today in religion: intolerance, hate, discipline, submission to leaders, willingness to risk life and limb for tribe's god (promising Heaven or Valhalla), gullibility (which makes them pawns of their chief and shaman), and hyper sexuality.

In patients with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, Marcel Mesulam has noted traits of hyper sexuality, violence, seeing/hearing god or gods, and hyper religiosity. The two behaviours are very closely linked anatomically in the limbic/temporal circuits, perhaps the same circuits. Observations of religious charismatic experiences have shown autonomic phenomena similar to sexual orgasm,(pelvic thrusting movements, penile erections in males, submissive sexual postures and flushing in women Pentecostal ecstatic states.)

It is apparent that this gene and its resultant brain hard wiring produced people with the above behavioural tendencies. Anyone who has attended a meeting of the British Humanist Association or a meeting of Evolutionary Psychologists is immediately impressed by the fact that they are all arguing with each other, can' t agree on a common statement of policy, and are as difficult to organise as herding cats. Applying such behaviour to early humans would show that they are at a great disadvantage in a conflict with a hyper religious group or tribe.

Therefore, humans with the religion gene passed it on along with its constellation of behaviours. It was a survival advantage because it facilitated the development of disciplined groups of aggressive, violent, paranoid, relatively fearless of death, gullible followers of leaders, which was a successful formula.

Those with the more recessive sceptical genetic codes have only prospered in modern times with Enlightenment influenced constitutions. Yet, even then they remain a minority in all but a handful of West European and East Asian countries. And perhaps the smaller minority of sceptical gene carriers have been allowed to survive in very religious countries like the USA is because we are useful to the society in providing nearly all of their scientists, physicians, psychologists, and inventers. In those professions the sceptical gene provides an adaptive advantage that religious gene carriers lack.

Sorry its a bit long but I am a convicted gobshite.

Fiach

Autonemesis

I suppose the correct thing to say here is, "God, I love it!"

<strong> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Can I post this elsewhere and take credit for it, pretty please?

Failing to curb your dog is a crime now?

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

excreationist

danyboy809:
I doubt anyone in the world has ever had that experience. But assuming that person existed, I think they would be very puzzled with the people's beliefs... if they people were persuasive and interesting enough the man might buy it. I think we have a hard-coded "connectedness" desire. Religions usually involve you having a relationship with the creator of the universe and learn the secrets about how to exploit this. The benefits usually come in the afterlife so if that person was intelligent he would probably ask for evidence that the afterlife exists. If they can't give him any then he probably wouldn't accept their religion. If they say "heaven is so wonderful, it has to be true - or God said it's true" then he might buy it. It depends how rational he is.

fando

Fiach, you're not the only one who feels that there's a Darwinian reason for religion. However, I find it difficult to believe that the Human brain and subsequently, our personalities, are 95% determined by our genes. I don't think that the existence of a certain set of genes automaitically dictates whether a person will have trait X vs. trait Y. I think of it as a bias, not as a certainity. Not being knowledgable in neurobiology myself, I must be missing something. Could you elaborate on that a bit? And have studies been done about the inheritance of non-belief in religion? Perhaps that's just a side effect of a trend towards smarter humans rather than any particular religion gene.