Would the world be a better place without religion?

[dimreepr]

When you say that all religions teach a form of Karma then I want evidence for that.

 

many religions teach a form of karma

 

 

You show me yours and I'll show you mine .

[MonDie]

With nothing better to do, I investigated whether hypnotizability might be related to religiosity and/or mentalizing (theory of mind). There is a theory called the "Empathic Invovlement Theory of Hypnosis", but no link between empathy and hypnotizability has been established and, indeed, autistics may be equally hypnotizable to neurotypicals.

 

Hypnosis Without Empathy? Perspectives from Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Stage Hypnosis (Reid, 2016)

 

Instead I focused on a psychological trait called "absorption", which probably corresponds to the "fantasizer subtype" of the hypnotizable person, rather than the "dissociater subtype", but is probably related to dissociation regardless. I encountered something opposite to my expectations, finding that absorption may be related to higher openness and also to secondary psychopathic traits, which would imply an inverse relationship with religiosity. However, I found that absorption may be positively related to religiosity, but perhaps more specifically to new age spiritual beliefs. This is somewhat consistent with the mixed relationship of religiosity to openness and the stronger relationship of openness to "spirituality", which I posted about on Page 11.

 

Hypnotizability and facets of openness. (Glisky, Kihlstrom, 1993)

 

 

Absorption, a correlate of hypnotizability, is related to a broader dimension of openness to experience, one construal of the "Big Five" structure of personality. But openness itself is very heterogeneous, and some of its facets may be unrelated to hypnotizability.

 

Validating Female Psychopathy Subtypes: Differences in Personality, Antisocial and Violent Behavior, Substance Abuse, Trauma, and Mental Health (Hicks, Vaidyanathan, Patrick 2011)

 

 

 

Primary psychopaths scored lower than control prisoners on Traditionalism and Absorption only. Compared to control prisoners, the secondary psychopaths scored higher on Social Potency, Stress Reaction, Alienation, Aggression, Absorption, and NEM, and lower on Social Closeness, Control, Communal-PEM, and CON.

[...]

Additionally, secondary psychopaths scored high on the personality trait of Absorption, consistent with evidence for dissociative experiences in both PTSD and BPD (Davidson & Foa, 1991; Herman, 1992; Lauer et al., 1993).

 

Validation of the Narrative Emplotment Scale and its correlations with well-being and psychological adjustment (Hill, Terrell, Hladkyj, Nagoshi, 2009)

 

 

Two studies examined correlates of the Narrative Emplotment Scale (NES), which measures the extent to which individuals perceive chance events and unchosen experiences as meaningfully connected. In Study 1 (N=99), the NES demonstrated adequate test-retest stability and good internal reliability. The scale was positively related to paranormal beliefs, mystical experiences, and absorption. In Study 2 (N=342), personality measures indicative of external locus of control, intrinsic religiosity, well-being, satisfaction with life, and a measure of frequency of coincidence experience were all positively correlated with narrative emplotment, providing further support for the construct validity of the scale.

 

Disorganized attachment, absorption, and new age spirituality: a mediational model.

 

 

In this paper, we present a theoretical model and an empirical review linking disorganized attachment with New Age spiritual beliefs and activities via a proposed mediator; the propensity to enter altered states of consciousness (absorption/dissociation).

[...]

Results supported the mediational model, although the bivariate relation between U/d attachment and New Age spirituality was of modest strength.

[NimrodTheGoat]

i cant even imagine the world being the way it is right with out religion, many historical events have been triggered/founded on by religious movements/ beliefs

humans are social animals, we make beliefs, and as a result we create groups*, our in-group and out-group biases made us the way we are today

 

 

 

 

 

*or vice versa not to keen on how i phrase my wording, or how i give explanations/evidence to support it ( i sure wish i could wrote out what i think)

[MonDie]

It will take me a while to incorporate this new territory, but initial reading suggests relevance of oxytocin.

 

Oxytocin increases both mentalizing and in-/out-group favoritism, both of which are correlates of religiosity.

 

Sniffing around oxytocin: review and meta-analysis of trials in healthy and clinical groups with implications for pharmacotherapy (Bakermans-Kranenburg, Jzendoorn, 2013)

 

Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism (Dreur, Gleer, Kleef, Shalvi, Handgraaf, 2011)

 

Oxytocin has a mixed effect on hypnotizability and perhaps religiosity. So far I think it looks as though oxytocin increases hypnotizability only in certain tasks and perhaps only for low hypnotizable people.

 

Oxytocin as a moderator of hypnotizability. (Bryant, Hung, Guastella, Mitchell, 2012)

 

Oxytocin Enhances Social Persuasion during Hypnosis (Bryant, Hung, 2013)

 

impedes hypnotizability sometimes Oxytocin impedes the effect of word-blindness post-hypnotic suggestion on Stroop task performance (Parris, Dienes, Bate, Gothhard, 2013)

 

pro-religious Religion priming and an oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) polymorphism interact to affect self-control in a social context (Sasaki, Mojaverian, Kim, 2015)

 

Anti-spritual in Japanese? An association between belief in life after death and serum oxytocin in older people in rural Japan (Imamaura et al, 2017)

 

Oxytocin also seems to be related to psychopathic traits.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24059811

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24059750

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25411990

 

---

 

Edited to add that, oxytocin being involved in bonding, sexual reproduction and childbirth, a connection to religiosity would also help to explain the relationship of religiosity to fecundity.

 

Religiosity and Fertility in the United States: The Role of Fertility Intentions (Hayford, Morga, 2014)

 

---

 

It's linked to autism too. This stuff just keeps coming.

Edited March 11, 2017 by MonDie

[Itoero]

i cant even imagine the world being the way it is right with out religion, many historical events have been triggered/founded on by religious movements/ beliefs

humans are social animals, we make beliefs, and as a result we create groups*, our in-group and out-group biases made us the way we are today

I don't think a world without religion would be possible. (contrary to what I said in OP) A world without religion would be a world without life imo.

Beliefs which are not based on facts(things that actually happened) can evolve into religion.

Those beliefs are a property of life.

 

-When hyenas have a bad experience with a lion then they will try to avoid all lions because they believe all lions behave like that.

 

-The holographic principle is not proven so it concerns an unscientific belief. If it gets proven it will become science.

You show me yours and I'll show you mine .

Hindu texts teach karma and many religions adhere to Hinduism. The Tao Te Ching also teaches karma.

Don't make a statement like that concerning "all religions". You can't prove that for all religions.

[dimreepr]

Hindu texts teach karma and many religions adhere to Hinduism. The Tao Te Ching also teaches karma.

Don't make a statement like that concerning "all religions". You can't prove that for all religions.

 

Just because some religions call it heaven and hell doesn't mean it isn't a (your words) "form of karma" (do good things and good things will happen etc.).

Edited March 13, 2017 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

I don't think a world without religion would be possible. (contrary to what I said in OP) A world without religion would be a world without life imo.

 

I'm pretty sure there was life long before there was religion. Life with religion on this planet is the exception, not the norm.

[Raider5678]

I'm pretty sure there was life long before there was religion. Life with religion on this planet is the exception, not the norm.

What about sentient life without religion?

[zapatos]

What about sentient life without religion?

Of course.

[DanTrentfield]

 

I think people would form competing groups regardless. We have competition within groups and competition between groups, and we always will. Religion is an interesting case because we aren't competing over the pragmatic utility of a consumer product or government system, but the pragmatic utility, regardless of accuracy, of certain beliefs about the nature of reality. Perhaps it can be useful to look at religious beliefs this way, as valuing pragmatic utility over accuracy, but are the same beliefs that were useful one- or two-thousand years ago still useful today? Look at the conflict between creationism and environmentalism for example.

 

---

 

I actually came in to post the chimapnzee research that I failed to link to earlier (the second, bottom hyperlink). They explain the hierarchical nature of personality, i.e. how you can analyze it at the level of two factors, three factors, five factors, etc.

Chimpanzees might have a personality dimension called "dominance" that roughly corresponds to honesty-humility in human personality. Agreeableness fuses with Conscientiousness to form a three-factor dimension called disinhibition/constraint, which then combines with (most of) Neuroticism to form a two-factor dimension called "alpha". I pointed out that the "modesty" facet of Agreeableness, which corresponds to honesty-humility along with the straightforwardness facet, is also correlated and anti-correlated with Neuroticism and Extraversion, respectively. Parts of the following publication read to me as suggestions that the Chimpanzee "dominance" factor follows a similar pattern to honesty-humility, which seems consistent with the low honesty-humility Narcissists being frequently found in positions of leadership.

 

Personality in Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Exploring the Hierarchical Structure and Associations with the Vasopressin V1A Receptor Gene

 

 

 

 

For a more general overview of the hierarchical structure of personality in both humans and chimps, see:

 

The contribution of genetics and early rearing experiences to hierarchical personality dimensions in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

 

note: DIS=disinhibition, and NEM=negative emotionality which more or less corresponds to Neuroticism.

I suppose the question then is why psychopaths, particularly impulsive, deviant psychopaths, tend to be less religious except perhaps when the emphasis is on these dishonest-arrogant (-dominant ???) traits, whether these differences were always present throughout the history of religion, and how they might have influenced religious teachings and institutions throughout history. It might be interesting to add that men tend to be less Agreeable, less Neurotic, and more Narcissistic.

I'd like to add that it also facilitates an air of morality and calculated risk that our society today is built upon, so while it should not be forced upon anyone it is a pillar of contemplative thought and has led to more than a few important discoveries being preserved by medieval monasteries. Without religion we would see a completely different ethics system take over that facilitates the slaughter of human beings by governments for whatever purpose, and the human being would soon lose value because of the sheer number of them, leading to regression into baser cannabilistic-like practices of sacrifice for nothing at all. Such was the case of the Incas, though they had a religion, it viewed the Emperor of it as a god (Unless I am mistaken) which led to a society of shambling zombies that cannot think for themselves.

 

In conclusion though it can be a great nuisance religion does happen to serve a purpose in modern society as a facet of culture, a by-product of progress, and a source of ethics.

Edited March 15, 2017 by DanTrentfield

[Bender]

The "ethics" that religion brings us is nothing but universal rules required for a social group to function, with some extra's. We can do without the extra's added by religion (as illustrated by your Inka example, where the practices were the result of religion). The main purpose of the extra's is usually to increase the power of the (religious) leaders anyway. That's why a secular government is superior.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Bender

[Raider5678]

The "ethics" that religion brings us is nothing but universal rules required for a social group to function, with some extra's. We can do without the extra's added by religion (as illustrated by your Inka example, where the practices were the result of religion). The main purpose of the extra's is usually to increase the power of the (religious) leaders anyway. That's why a secular government is superior.

Right.

The United States thrived under a religious government when it first began.

Perhaps you think it didn't?

[Prometheus]

The "ethics" that religion brings us is nothing but universal rules required for a social group to function, with some extra's. We can do without the extra's added by religion (as illustrated by your Inka example, where the practices were the result of religion). The main purpose of the extra's is usually to increase the power of the (religious) leaders anyway. That's why a secular government is superior.

 

I agree, but the 'nothing but' is a bit misleading. We all like to believe modern morality is so obvious it couldn't ever have been otherwise. But our morality has taken millennia to develop: there is nothing obvious about it. Discussions thousands of years ago about rape say, were likely as loaded as discussions today about say, euthanasia (consider marital rape is still legal in many places, and only recently illegal in Western law). It is similar to science in that it has developed slowly based on the thoughts of proceeding people and a little more quickly when the occasional person who had deep insight pops up (to be clear only in that aspect do i believe it is similar to science).

 

The Old Testament states an eye for an eye, but it was an improvement to older ethical systems in which the lose of an eye could be repaid with death or more: it states no more than an eye for an eye. Whether we like it or not, and whether for good or bad, religion has contributed significantly to the modern moral landscape - which is one reason why i believe religion is still relevant to modern morality: if only as a reminder of where we have from.

 

 

The United States thrived under a religious government when it first began.

 

I thought the US government was areligious when it first began?

[zapatos]

Right.

The United States thrived under a religious government when it first began.

Perhaps you think it didn't?

While certain members of the government have always been religious, the US government itself has never been a 'religious government'.

Edited March 16, 2017 by zapatos

[Itoero]

I'm pretty sure there was life long before there was religion. Life with religion on this planet is the exception, not the norm.

True, but there was never life without the properties that evolved into religion.

[zapatos]

True, but there was never life without the properties that evolved into religion.

What properties of bacteria evolved into religion?

[Bender]

 

I agree, but the 'nothing but' is a bit misleading. We all like to believe modern morality is so obvious it couldn't ever have been otherwise. But our morality has taken millennia to develop: there is nothing obvious about it. Discussions thousands of years ago about rape say, were likely as loaded as discussions today about say, euthanasia (consider marital rape is still legal in many places, and only recently illegal in Western law). It is similar to science in that it has developed slowly based on the thoughts of proceeding people and a little more quickly when the occasional person who had deep insight pops up (to be clear only in that aspect do i believe it is similar to science).

 

The Old Testament states an eye for an eye, but it was an improvement to older ethical systems in which the lose of an eye could be repaid with death or more: it states no more than an eye for an eye. Whether we like it or not, and whether for good or bad, religion has contributed significantly to the modern moral landscape - which is one reason why i believe religion is still relevant to modern morality: if only as a reminder of where we have from.

I mostly agree, but the religious morality I know of isn't very nuanced, needs lots of interpretation to apply it to the present and is far behind secular morality in terms of equality and liberty. Except for a history lesson, which has its value, I do not agree that religion is still relevant to modern morality. If anything, it is holding us back.

[dimreepr]

I mostly agree, but the religious morality I know of isn't very nuanced, needs lots of interpretation to apply it to the present and is far behind secular morality in terms of equality and liberty. Except for a history lesson, which has its value, I do not agree that religion is still relevant to modern morality. If anything, it is holding us back.

 

Not again, is it ground hog day?

 

I'm sorry, it's not you, but I've gone over this time and again.

 

Before I get into it, please read this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead

[Itoero]

What properties of bacteria evolved into religion?

I have no idea.

Evolution works via cause and effect and is a continuous process so there must have been properties which enabled the evolution/development of that what we call 'religion'.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Itoero

[zapatos]

I have no idea.

Evolution works via cause and effect and is a continuous process so there must have been properties which enabled the evolution/development of that what we call 'religion'.

 

[Bender]

 

Not again, is it ground hog day?

 

I'm sorry, it's not you, but I've gone over this time and again.

 

Before I get into it, please read this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead

I didn't say my statement was new or original .

[Prometheus]

I mostly agree, but the religious morality I know of isn't very nuanced, needs lots of interpretation to apply it to the present and is far behind secular morality in terms of equality and liberty. Except for a history lesson, which has its value, I do not agree that religion is still relevant to modern morality. If anything, it is holding us back.

 

I largely agree too, but where we disagree is interesting. Secular morality exceeded most religious morality some time back, and is now a hindrance to human progression. That is not the same as religion being irrelevant.

 

It is relevant for two reasons. One, which we have touched upon, is that they contain the history of much of modern morality. By analogy, the events and people that have shaped your personal morality are not just some things from your past that you can do without: they fundamentally shaped how you make moral decisions today. So too human history has shaped our morality today, and understanding this history helps us make sense of how we came to our current state and how best to proceed.

 

But perhaps more importantly, the vast majority of the world is religious and uses religion to make ethical decisions. It say religion is irrelevant to any moral discussion is to say the majority voice on Earth is irrelevant because a minority has exceeded such retrograde thought and knows better.

 

In my opinion such sentiments are partially responsible for the wave of populism sweeping through the Western world: many people are getting sick of being considered irrelevant. Instead of telling people they are irrelevant we need to find some way of engaging with them, as unpalatable as that may seem. This means learning to engage with religion as it seems many of the disenfranchised seem to be religious.

[Bender]

You have a point.

[Itoero]

Why didn't you reply (with words)on what I said?

You don't believe that we are related to the first micro organisms?

Edited March 18, 2017 by Itoero

[zapatos]

Why didn't you reply (with words)on what I said?

Because I was left speechless by the speed and distance you were able to move the goalposts from one post to the next, while failing to provide any support or meaningful arguments.

 

You started with:

 

"I don't think a world without religion would be possible... A world without religion would be a world without life..."

 

After being trivially proved wrong you completely changed direction and claimed that the earliest life had certain properties that evolved into religion:

 

"...but there was never life without the properties that evolved into religion..."

 

Finally, after being asked to provide a list of those properties in bacteria you moved onto a complete dodge and another utterly meaningless claim:

 

"I have no idea.

Evolution works via cause and effect and is a continuous process so there must have been properties which enabled the evolution/development of that what we call 'religion'."

 

You may as well have claimed that at approximately 1,000,000 years after the Big Bang the universe contained properties that enabled Chopin to one day compose The Minute Waltz while scratching his ass with his left hand. It may be true but it tells us absolutely nothing and has nothing to do with whether or not life is possible without religion.