Religion Is Good for You(?)

[Marat]

The latest electrical charge fired through the corpse of religion in the hopes of reviving it is the new book by Michael McGuire and Lionel Tiger, entitled 'God's Brain.' It's announced goal is to try to recover some respect for theists from atheists, on the reasoning that since 90% of the earth's population believes in some religion, it is inconsistent with biology to assert that such a large proportion of a successful species can be so defective as to be victimized by a merely stupid belief. The authors argue that there is naturally a huge amount of suffering connected with human existence, and that the natural way by which humans preserve their capacity for action amidst despair -- which is in their view the evolutionary purpose of the brain, not primarily thought per se -- is by increasing their serotonin levels and the capacity of their mind for anodyne self-soothing by the boost they get from religious experience. The authors support their hypothesis of the biologically beneficial effect of religion by considerable evidence from empirical psychology, and the conclusion they draw is that what makes people happy ought to be respected as a human virtue, so the faithful should not be held in contempt, as Dawkins and other atheists seem to do.

 

But this entire line of reasoning makes two foundational errors in reasoning. First, just because 90% of people believe in religion does not make it respectable, since the vast majority of people are violent and lazy, which is hardly a reason for respecting those features. Among cultural institutions, an inclination to use intoxicating substances, even to excess, from Ancient Egyptian beer to North American Indian peyote, is also nearly universal, but that practice cannot claim respect just for that reason.

 

Second, Kant once remarked that "Your life doesn't have to be happy to have value," and a famous problem in philosophy is usually stated as, "Would it be better to be a deliriously happy pig or an occasionally morose Socrates?" Since it would obviously be better to be Socrates, since humans strive more for value than for mere happiness, we have to recognize that the highest virtue for humans is to be creatures defined by their intellectual dignity and moral courage in the face of an honest confrontation with a world that resists their wishes and the meanings they seek to superimpose on it. Our proper goal is not to be entities submerged in stupid pleasure derived from deliberate ignorance or belief in an intellectually contemptable fantasy generated to protect people from having to face up to the true, existential challenges of a world where the only meaning humans can expect is one they produce for themselves, without some imaginary superstructure to guarantee for them that it is correct or that it guarantees some sort of reward.

[lemur]

Although my values agree more with elite intellectualism, that is a substantial evolutionist point that 90% of humans wouldn't be religious if there weren't some survival value in it. I think that you're too quick to be with or against religion, though. There are religious elites who are intellectuals and there are religious masses who only recite dogma for the pragmatic effects that come with doing so. Science is the same. There are the dogmatic masses who worship evolutionary theory only because it supports their rejection of their parents' religion and there are elites who actually pay attention to scientific questions regarding the evolution of species. Certainly popularity doesn't make anything respectable, but that is because respectable is an elite value whereas popular/normal is, well, a popular one. It is normal to participate in religion for many people, so that has survival value for them. It may just as well be loving Mickey Mouse; it's about agreeing with other people and gaining social perks by doing so.

[Marat]

This is part of the McGuire/Tiger hypothesis, that since religion encourages group cohesiveness in a way that few other things seem able to do, it has a unique value for human social organization, which is clearly an evolutionary advantage.

 

At points McGuire and Tiger argue that the serotonin-promoting and happiness-enhancing powers of religion are values which cannot be replicated by any other kind of cultural artifact humans have invented. They also theorize that the reason why increased drug addiction seems to coincide with increased secularity is that people are seeking to replace the lost religious 'high' with the next best thing, which carries more negative side-effects for health than religion does with all of its potentially negative side-effects, such as increasing intolerance or religious wars, for example.

 

But even if we accept all of this, I still think McGuire and Tiger are wrong, because they persist in the mistake that the goal of human existence is simply happiness rather than the achievement of intellectual dignity. Rats hooked up to a lever which stimulated the pleasure center of their brain preferred to press on that lever all day, every day, even to the extent of neglecting to eat or drink. But if the same device could be hooked up to all of humanity, with a few unlucky individuals selected to keep the machinery operating, would we be better off simply because we were now perpetually deliriously happy? There would in that case never be another Beethoven, Shakespeare, Plato, or Heisenberg, but the Angst of life would also be gone. I think the price would be too high. It is better to retain our critical faculties and our intellectual dignity, even if it means rejecting a religious view which would make us perfectly happy but also call into question our stature as critical thinking beings.

[Edtharan]

The latest electrical charge fired through the corpse of religion in the hopes of reviving it is the new book by Michael McGuire and Lionel Tiger, entitled 'God's Brain.' It's announced goal is to try to recover some respect for theists from atheists, on the reasoning that since 90% of the earth's population believes in some religion, it is inconsistent with biology to assert that such a large proportion of a successful species can be so defective as to be victimized by a merely stupid belief.

This amounts to an argument from popularity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

They are trying to use evolution to conclude that because a belief is popular it must be true. This is not the case. It is possible for a population to have negative traits, and yet still be successful, if their positive traits still make them fit for survival despite their negative traits.

 

Now, belief itself can be a positive trait even if it is possible for a specific belief to cause negative effects. For example, if, of the savannah, someone from your group yells out that there is a lion in the grass near you, it is a survival advantage to believe them rather than require proof before acting.

 

So, the fact that if the positives out way the negatives, then negative traits can still survive in a population, and that belief can be both positive and negative means that this type of argument for religion is false. Unless, of course, they show that belief is such a negative trait that it would be impossible for us to survive as a species (but then that would also constitute and argument against religion - so I doubt they would try that ).

 

The authors argue that there is naturally a huge amount of suffering connected with human existence, and that the natural way by which humans preserve their capacity for action amidst despair -- which is in their view the evolutionary purpose of the brain, not primarily thought per se -- is by increasing their serotonin levels and the capacity of their mind for anodyne self-soothing by the boost they get from religious experience.

Well, how much suffering comes from religious beliefs? To be brought up thinking that you are worthless because of what some ancestor of yours did, and the only way you can be of any worth is to grovel and plead that some great and powerful being has enough mercy to forgive you (despite being called infinitely merciful) for something you didn't do.

 

This is suffering. Making someone fell worthless like that causes suffering. Making people hate others because they believe something different causes suffering. I think that religion causes a lot more suffering than it alleviates.

 

The authors support their hypothesis of the biologically beneficial effect of religion by considerable evidence from empirical psychology, and the conclusion they draw is that what makes people happy ought to be respected as a human virtue, so the faithful should not be held in contempt, as Dawkins and other atheists seem to do.

 

But this entire line of reasoning makes two foundational errors in reasoning. First, just because 90% of people believe in religion does not make it respectable, since the vast majority of people are violent and lazy, which is hardly a reason for respecting those features. Among cultural institutions, an inclination to use intoxicating substances, even to excess, from Ancient Egyptian beer to North American Indian peyote, is also nearly universal, but that practice cannot claim respect just for that reason.

Yes, drugs offer a much faster and quicker way to get this "happiness". So according to that argument, we should freely allow people to engage in any sort of recreational drug use they like, regardless of the suffering it causes (because as I showed above, even religion causes suffering).

[jimmydasaint]

Wow, Marat. McGuire and Tiger seem to be re-stating Utilitarianistic ethics Easy version of Utilitarianism with a bit of Darwinian Natural Selection added on at the end to justify religious behaviour.

 

But even if we accept all of this, I still think McGuire and Tiger are wrong, because they persist in the mistake that the goal of human existence is simply happiness rather than the achievement of intellectual dignity. Rats hooked up to a lever which stimulated the pleasure center of their brain preferred to press on that lever all day, every day, even to the extent of neglecting to eat or drink. But if the same device could be hooked up to all of humanity, with a few unlucky individuals selected to keep the machinery operating, would we be better off simply because we were now perpetually deliriously happy? There would in that case never be another Beethoven, Shakespeare, Plato, or Heisenberg, but the Angst of life would also be gone. I think the price would be too high. It is better to retain our critical faculties and our intellectual dignity, even if it means rejecting a religious view which would make us perfectly happy but also call into question our stature as critical thinking beings.

 

IIRC, Samuel Johnson wrote the story of Rasselas, a prince, who was permanently kept safe from harm and not allowed to wander beyond the confines of the Palace grounds. He escapes to seek reality and finds what is morally and intellectually confusing and harmful to him when he escapes. He eventually runs to his Palace for protection from the madness outside, but finally realises what is good because he has experienced the opposite. Summary of Rasselas I too don't believe in the Utilitarian idea of happiness as the ultimate ideal. However, having read some Camus, isn't that what he also believed in, either in irony or in actuality, as an existentialist?

 

I would be delighted to actually live a life of intellectual dignity, despite the madness around me. However, I think that you are generalising far too much. It is not religions that cause the problems of mutual hatred, violence and stupidity - it is the lack of people with the intellectual capacity to understand the use of metaphor and allegory, in favour of what they understand which is ritual and tradition, oftentimes tainted with the ignorance of local 'culture.'

Edited April 20, 2011 by jimmydasaint

[Athena]

I don't know what is worse, religious people or atheist? I think both are pretty threatening.

 

How about metaphysics, the study of the nature of being and reality? Here you need God as you need the X in algebra.

 

 

I would be delighted to actually live a life of intellectual dignity, despite the madness around me. However, I think that you are generalising far too much. It is not religions that cause the problems of mutual hatred, violence and stupidity - it is the lack of people with the intellectual capacity to understand the use of metaphor and allegory, in favour of what they understand which is ritual and tradition, oftentimes tainted with the ignorance of local 'culture.'

 

That is a totally cool thought and what Jefferson and Cicero meant by the Pursuit of Happiness. Jefferson risked everything for the cause of democracy, and spent his fortune promoting the idea of free public education for everyone. He argued this is the only way to assure a strong republic. I will state again, the Statue of Liberty holds a book for literacy and a torch for the enlightenment that comes out of being literate.

 

That said, I am not sure God does not exist and that we are not on course. I am saying I share agreement with book. I think our future begs us to consider the possibility of God's existence, because we can not maintain, but must transition to a New Age. If we fail to make that transition, well, you know about dinosaurs. Like them, we are hitting a wall, and things will get or worse. I think what happens is our choice, and if we do not choose well, things will not get better.

[keelanz]

I don't know what is worse, religious people or atheist? I think both are pretty threatening.

 

How about metaphysics, the study of the nature of being and reality? Here you need God as you need the X in algebra.

 

 

 

That is a totally cool thought and what Jefferson and Cicero meant by the Pursuit of Happiness. Jefferson risked everything for the cause of democracy, and spent his fortune promoting the idea of free public education for everyone. He argued this is the only way to assure a strong republic. I will state again, the Statue of Liberty holds a book for literacy and a torch for the enlightenment that comes out of being literate.

 

That said, I am not sure God does not exist and that we are not on course. I am saying I share agreement with book. I think our future begs us to consider the possibility of God's existence, because we can not maintain, but must transition to a New Age. If we fail to make that transition, well, you know about dinosaurs. Like them, we are hitting a wall, and things will get or worse. I think what happens is our choice, and if we do not choose well, things will not get better.

 

 

there will only be another brick wall at some other point in time though right? we as individuals have absolute choice in the matter but we as a human race are a democracy and our individual vote is alot smaller so the choice is alot more vague and to an extent feels less meaningful.

an example would be that i hold an agnostic point of view about religion, i can philosophize and research religion as much as i want but im never going to conform to any particular religion i will just spread my intelligence around all the theologies and make my own fundamental belief in a god, which is fine thats my absolute choice nobody cna force me to believe something else, now when we include the whole human race we have lots of sub category's of religion which dictate my whole belief system which if it isnt enough on its own they also dictate my culture and mannerisms, this being said it feels as though choice is being taken away by indoctrination which leads me to the meaninglessness of our choice, if so many people are indoctrinated and hence have lost their freedom of religious choice by birth then what chance do the free thinkers ever have of changing people's religious outlook, im not saying everybody needs their religious outlook changing but when certain religious cultures are refusing to budge their beliefs even 1mm into a progressive new way of thinking then isnt the brick wall already created for us?

 

to conclude i think im trying to say that we all have our own choice (given were not indoctrinated from birth) but that choice is almost worthless when compared to the ideology's of humanity itself, its almost pointless to even comprehend humanity in this way because its not as if we have the ability to change anything, which brings me to your thread on education, not even the best teacher in the world can change the idea's that stimulate devout christians, muslims or sikhs. we should only really have the power to change our own beliefs because any other power opens the door to abuse of beliefs, indoctrination and just down right illogical thinking.