Years ago, I wrote another blog post about religion (July
15, 2008: Garth Kroeker: Religion), and I thought it was time for an update, on
this very important topic. I'm intending
to publish this now, but with the intention of revising and adding to this over
time. This post is almost 25 000 words long, so it might take an hour or two to read.
Introduction
Religion has been woven through my life from the beginning—Mennonite ancestors, a gentle church-going childhood, a religious high school—yet over the years I have come to the view that while religions and other forms of spiritual or mystical belief can be psychologically rich and culturally beautiful, their literal claims are not true, and despite having some positive influences in terms of community cohesion and moral leadership, they have been responsible for numerous types of harm to individuals and to society. As a child and adolescent I was drawn, as many young people are, to the most attractive features of religious life: the warm, apparently unconditional welcome of a “church family”; an altruistic focus on service; a shared language of high ideals—love, justice, forgiveness—personified in the figure of a gentle, loving, all-powerful deity; the emotional power of choral music, worship bands, and camp songs; the ready-made social world of youth groups, retreats, and fun activities that offer belonging to anyone willing to speak the language of faith. For many others, spiritual, magical, or mystical beliefs, such as about fate, destiny, spirits, ghosts, psychic phenomena, etc. can contribute a sense of specialness, meaning, awe, and wonder about life and nature, with an insinuation that there are hidden powers that could help guide or enrich our destiny in an often confusing and unjust world. In this essay I try to hold all of these realities at once: deep respect for the ways faith traditions or spiritual beliefs can offer community, moral reflection, awe, comfort in the face of death, and “nonspecific” therapeutic factors similar to good psychotherapy; and at the same time a clear-eyed critique of dogma, tribalism, magical thinking, and the immense harms that follow when myths are treated as facts or as rigid moral law. I pay particular attention to a tension that is especially visible in youth-oriented and fundamentalist communities: the same structures that create warmth, solidarity, and purpose often become clique-like and exclusionary, subtly demeaning or discriminatory toward out-group members, actively avoidant of serious engagement with natural science, and tightly aligned with right-wing political identities. As a result, these communities can both buffer loneliness and anxiety in their members and, at the same time, amplify prejudice, ignorance, lack of education about nature, and the broader family of problems that flow from ingroup bias. Drawing on evolutionary biology, genetics, neuroscience, cognitive and social psychology, history, and my own clinical experience as a psychiatrist, I explore why people so readily form and defend religious or spiritual beliefs, how these beliefs can both heal and wound, and why understanding the natural world—including evolution, astrophysics, and the brain—need not leave us adrift or nihilistic. My aim is not to sneer at religion or to belittle those who believe, but to invite careful, compassionate, evidence-based reflection on what we believe, what we question, and how we might preserve the best ethical, aesthetic, and communal aspects of religion or spirituality without needing to accept their fictions as literal truth.
Before I begin, I'd like to describe my own personal history with religion: my family background is religious. My ancestors were part of a protestant Christian denomination and cultural group known as "Mennonites," which originated in the Netherlands in the 1500s. While similar to other Protestant denominations, Mennonites stood out for endorsing pacifism, and not participating in wars except as medics or to assist with refugees etc. When I was young I always admired this stance, though I have come to realize that there were situations, such as in World War II, in which this "conscientious objector" policy basically caused other people to have to risk or lose their lives for the greater good, while members of the church got to stay home in safety--so this pacifism was not always admirable.
There was cultural unity among the Mennonites, migrating
together for hundreds of years, maintaining their language of origin, Low
German (Plattdeutsch), and other shared traditions. Such cultural unity is admirable, but there
are downsides, such as reduced genetic diversity leading to an increased rate
of heritable diseases. In groups with a
relatively small and insular founding population, marrying within the community
is genetically comparable to marrying one's third cousin, or even a closer
cousin than that if the families are more closely related.
Many Mennonites migrated east from the Netherlands to
maintain cultural and religious freedom, settling as farmers in the Ukraine
area for over 100 years, after which most eventually relocated again--under the
trauma and duress of war & persecution--to various regions in North
America, such as southern Manitoba. Some
Mennonite subgroups adopted practices comparable to the Amish, while most
others became quite mainstream Protestant denominations, some more conservative
or fundamentalist, some more liberal or progressive. The branch my family was most recently part
of was comparable to other common modern Christian Protestant
denominations. As with many families,
the culture of my family over many centuries has been shaped by its religious
involvement. Varieties of religion
carried in a family are weaved intimately into the family's history, culture,
and values. A lot of this history is
something to feel proud of.
During my childhood, we attended church frequently. For the most part these were positive
experiences. A nice thing about weekly
church attendance is the opportunity for moral reflection. Sermons contain messages about dealing with
difficult issues, or about being a better person. Some sermons appealed more to the
intellectual side of the audience, with references to academic theologians or
philosophers. Others would appeal to the
more emotional or sentimental side. Many
would contain moments of gentle humour or playfulness. Many would deliberately reach out to
children. Sermons would be based on a
Bible passage, many of which were good foundations for moral reflection and also
had a poetic quality. Members of the
congregation would participate in the services, such as by volunteering to read
the Bible passage out loud to the congregation.
I was often moved by stories about Jesus--a gentle, loving, humble,
heroic figure who accomplished amazing, transformative things not through
superhuman strength or military prowess, but through wisdom, love, and
self-sacrificial devotion to others.
The congregation was always reminded to care for members who
had experienced recent loss or illness, or to celebrate members who had
experienced a recent joy such as a marriage or birth. In some church services, perhaps during
prayer or music, some people can be in a type of joyful trance, absorbed and in
a "flow" state. This kind of
regular experience is profoundly healthy for people, to help people have
structured moral reflection with an attitude of gratitude, service and
reverence, couched in a loving and supportive community, being aware and
involved in a caring way with the joys and travails of other people's
lives. However, this format was biased
towards people with good intelligence, strict behavioural practices, and good
attention span; those with ADHD symptoms, physical problems making it difficult
to sit for an hour, or cognitive issues, would surely have found many church
services stiflingly difficult to sit through (I can still think of many
unfortunate children during my childhood who probably got scolded a lot due to
their impatience). I think this is one
of the reasons why some modern fundamentalist churches, which put on more of an
exciting and emotionally dynamic show, with a rock band and other performers,
have been so appealing, especially to the younger generation.
I also attended a religious high school, with lots of
exposure to daily religious practice & education. Once again, this was quite positive, since
the teachers were for the most part kind, thoughtful people, and the motivation
of most of this education was to help the students grow in kindness, morality,
and ethical leadership while being humbly conscious of important issues locally
and in the world (these noble educational efforts, however, were not always successful). Alongside educational content in religion,
there were meaningful, enjoyable, and comforting practices almost every day,
such as choral singing, "chapel time," and opportunities for
community volunteering. I only noticed
huge gaps in parts of the science and social studies curriculum years
afterwards.
At times the family went to a fundamentalist Christian camp in Minnesota for a summer holiday. I have fond memories of camping, being out in nature, camp songs, friendly people. One family there had a wonderful little dog that I loved. I was excited about the use of tambourines by the musicians. People were engrossed by charismatic preachers, energetic sermons every day, many people in an almost trancelike state of excitement or passion with the group energy, music, and prayer. Some people would get baptized in the lake; for many this would be emotionally moving and transformative ("born again"), with tears of joy.
In my young adult life, I also appreciated the philosophical
contributions of many religious thinkers.
C.S. Lewis was a favourite
(following a pleasant introduction, during my early childhood, reading his
children's books aloud with my mother), or Kierkegaard, or Bonhoeffer. I took a course covering historical theology
and its manifestations through art & literature, looking at Western
religious themes through the ages, going back to St. Augustine and beyond.
Prayer and other symbolic actions can have a peaceful,
meditative quality which is psychologically beneficial. It can be comforting to know that someone is
praying for your well-being, and it can feel meaningful that you are praying
for someone else's well-being (mind you, controlled studies such as Benson's
2006 STEP study, show that prayer does not improve anyone's well-being beyond
placebo). Many church buildings are
enjoyable to be in, because of the architecture and acoustics, and association
with calm, comfort, safety, refuge, and transcendence. Church buildings in much of the world have
historically been a sort of architectural gem in the middle of most
communities, sometimes the most visible or distinctive physical feature of the
neighbourhood. Church attendance can
also involve other meaningful activities such as music appreciation or
performance; socializing with familiar, friendly people; having contact with
people of different age groups (children, youth, and elders); and having
opportunities to do safe, well-organized charitable volunteering in the
community. Church members often care for
fellow members or receive care themselves in times of need.
So, I want to emphasize that I did not have some negative or
bitter experience of religion in my childhood which led me to my current stance
on this subject. My current stance, as
we will come to later, is that there has to be great respect and sensitivity
for the many intimate, positive experiences of cultural enrichment and meaning
that religion--or what others might call "spirituality"--bring people
in their own life history and in their family history.
Benefits of Religion
Discussions about religion from a psychological or overall scientific point of view require great care. Many people have deep personal feelings about this issue, which have developed all their life. Religious beliefs are often taught beginning in early childhood, and can represent an attachment and shared culture with parents and other ancestors, sometimes going back hundreds or even thousands of years into a family history. Religious stories, passages from religious text, and other aspects of a religious culture can become like "languages" in terms of the fluency and familiarity that people develop through repeated exposure and practice over a lifetime. Remembering shared religious beliefs and experiences are ways to connect meaningfully with memories of parents, alongside memories of fishing together, playing baseball, going camping, playing music or cooking together, etc. -- the religious association is an intimate, family-oriented memory that makes people value the religion even more dearly. Some parents insist that their children have to like the same interests, such as fishing or baseball; this can get to a harmful extreme in some hobby or sports-obsessed families, if the child isn't so interested in the same hobbies. With religion, this parental pressure often goes to the next level -- parents would often insist, with a sense of grave imperativeness or demand, that their children follow the same religion; if the children were to stray from their parents' faith, there would often be a sense of deep disappointment, fear, anger, or sadness, inducing the children to feel guilty. In some extreme cases parents disown their children over this.
A huge reason why many people are religious is because their
most beloved people have also been religious, especially parents but also
grandparents or other family, mentors, teachers, community leaders, or famous
people who were admired and respected (for me it would be someone like Desmond
Tutu or Martin Luther King). These
beloved people, in turn, might have explained their source of life's meaning
and goodness as flowing from religious faith or from God, and might have
strongly encouraged religious devotion in others. Out of deep respect and admiration for these
beloved people, many people would continue the same type of religious belief,
would associate the religion with the goodness of these beloved people, and would
often feel offended at any questioning of the religious belief, almost as
though someone was insulting or challenging their loved one, or insinuating
that one their loved one's most important moral and intellectual foundations
were somehow wrong or bad. Once a person
has been religious for many years, religion can ingrain itself into identity
such that questioning or challenging religion can feel like renouncing a
precious, meaningful, joyous part of one's own self.
Many people who are lonely, adrift, lacking community, or
struggling to find a sense of purpose in life could be attracted to a religious
or spiritual group which could offer instant social support, new friendships,
mentorship, comforting rituals, a sense of belonging, and answers to deep
questions about life. Churches can offer
a physical and psychological place of refuge and nurturance. This differs from other community organizations
in that there is a sense of gravity or profundity about religion, also with a
sense of commitment and personal connection which many other community
organizations lack.
The brain itself is also "hard-wired" to create
mystical or religious experiences.
Likely this function of the brain developed to foster bonding in
communities, to attempt to create a feeling of meaningfulness in a confusing
environment, and to ease uncertainty or fear about losses or death. This "hard-wired" system can be
artificially manipulated, such as by using various types of drugs which affect
dopaminergic or serotonergic neurons, or even through neurosurgical stimulation
(e.g. Wilder Penfield's classic findings
in mid 20th century). Such stimulation
creates a visceral feeling state, which is then interpreted by higher brain
structures which are not being stimulated--the brain seeks to explain the
unusual feeling by creating a logic that is subjectively valid and rational but
is blind to the underlying true cause; this is consistent with other
neurological phenomena, in which there can be a profound deficit but a lack of
awareness that the deficit exists. In
temporal lobe epilepsy, such spiritual experiences are created by the seizure
focus instead of through a drug or surgical intervention.
Many religious phrases have become adopted into common
parlance that everyone uses; other words or letters or symbols derive
etymologically from references to Roman or sometimes even ancient Egyptian
mythology. Like all languages, it is not
possible to "unlearn" it -- language forms a
lens--"hardwired" in the brain through memory infused with
emotion--through which one will describe or account for experiences. Thus, in a religious household, one will have
a hardwired tendency to interpret situations with some kind of religious
reference in mind. In many religious
families, children would literally learn to read using scripture passages or
religious stories. There were periods of
time in history in which the Bible was virtually the only book ever read in a
household. Whole nations can endorse a
religious tradition, and this can permeate government or legal institutions
even when there is separation of church and state.
In religious families, faith has often been a cornerstone of
culture, and a foundation upon which people have contemplated moral issues,
relationships, and community. Lessons
about how to be a good person, how to be kind, how to be polite, how to deal
with conflict, how to be a good citizen, how to deal with guilt or mistakes
("sin") or loss, how to answer or grapple with questions having to do
with the meaning of life, have often come from weekly sermons in a church or
temple, bolstered further by studying religious texts. Daily habits such as mealtimes can be times
to thoughtfully reflect with respect and gratitude, in the form of saying
grace. Religious services, music, and architecture
have often inspired feelings of awe, reverence, serenity, sometimes even
passionate excitement.
Many of my favourite pieces of music or art, those I found
most meaningful or beautiful, were created in a religious context by the
greatest composers, or refer to religious stories. There is a lot of sacred music, from Bach and
Handel to hymns to Christmas carols to contemporary Christian music, to
Southern Gospel music, to camp songs, that are ingrained permanently in my
memory, filled with positive emotion and a sense of awe.
For many people, their happiest memories, of friendship,
loyalty, meaningful service, celebration, "ecstatic" or
spine-tingling moments of feeling emotionally moved, are associated with
religion, church, or church community. I
think many people believe these ecstatic feelings are manifestations of God, as
opposed to being natural human emotional states which can occur in any setting
where there is meaningful absorption facilitated by a group of like-minded
people (for example, many others might get this type of experience during
concerts, rallies, shared experiences of nature scenes, or even sports
events). A lot of secular artistry, such
as literature and movies, makes use of themes (such as humble, noble, peaceful,
courageous self-sacrifice) present in major religions. For some people these feelings are very
individual, but for most there is also a strong group or shared component.
Some church ministers are wonderful, talented orators, with
an inspiring gift for rhetoric, a marvelous capacity for great storytelling, a
compelling voice, often with a breadth of knowledge about literature and
history which infuse their sermons with wisdom, passion, and humour. Some of the great orators in history, such as
Martin Luther King, were church ministers too.
Without church, with its elements of altruism and community, I suspect
many of these wonderful orators would have had a hard time cultivating their
talents in such an impassioned and selfless way. There are few other modern venues, outside of
religious services, in which one can either give an impassioned speech with
ethical themes, or hear one. Of course,
the dark side of this would be of religious extremists who make use of their
religious community to become demagogues: practicing fiery, charismatic
rhetoric which can be hateful and intolerant, cheered on by a mesmerized
congregation.
In case examples where a person becomes religious despite no
prior cultural or family attachment, that person often has had a state of
loneliness, emptiness, or ungroundedness in life, after which they find warmth,
friendship, acceptance, meaning, and sometimes material support, from a
welcoming community, then leading to a happier, healthier, more prosperous
life. Under these conditions it is
natural that such a person would quickly form a loyal and positive attachment
to the religious doctrines of those who helped them. It is a little bit like an orphan finding a
welcoming adoptive family, and then adopting the family's beliefs and cultural
practices. Related research has been
done by cognitive scientist Nafees Hamid, demonstrating the psychosocial and
neurobiological reasons--including past trauma, lack of community, loneliness,
rejection--why people get drawn into extremist groups. In fact, language about "family"
permeates much religious jargon, such as referring to a "church
family" or "children of God" etc. Sometimes a church minister can have a role
as a counselor or psychotherapist, to help with depression or grief, or to help
an engaged couple practice relationship skills to prepare for a healthy marriage.
A belief in other mystical phenomena, such as ghosts,
spirits, and psychic abilities, can become a framework that some people use to
understand the reality around them, with evidence selectively gathered which
appears to confirm the beliefs. This can
lead to a world that feels more "magical" in a good way, giving
people a feeling of specialness or wonder akin to the feeling you get watching
a fantasy movie such as "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry
Potter." The brain is hard-wired to create such feelings of "mystical
wonder," some people much more prone to this than others, due to
variations in dopaminergic activity and temporal lobe brain circuits, and it
leads to a cognitive illusion in which people interpret such feelings as an
accurate manifestation of reality, particularly when such ideas are propagated
in a group of fellow believers, by cultural norms, or by people claiming to
have special powers, such as psychics.
Religious beliefs, services, and rituals have also helped
almost every person in the world's history to cope psychologically with death
and loss. You can have less fear or
sorrow about death, either facing your own death, or dealing with death of a
loved one, if you have a strong belief that death is simply an entry point to
another world of eternal happiness, and that one day you'll reunite with the
person who passed away. I think in
general it is a psychological skill, for every person to work on, to practice
acceptance of the fact that everything in life, in fact everything in the
universe, comes to an end--every pleasant experience, every day and night,
every song, every meal, every firework, every life, every mountain--they all
have a beginning, an enjoyable moment of existence, and then they disappear,
sometimes literally in a puff of smoke.
It is entropy in action, a manifestation of one of the underlying
realities of the universe. On some
level, religious beliefs can interrupt acceptance of such things, by simply
bypassing the reality that things are lost or that things end, by creating a
fantasy about eternity. This does
assuage fear about loss and death, but it is also a type of avoidance, a
pleasant fantasy that is comforting but not true.
The idea of somehow "taking away" religion would
threaten to take away this very rich and intimate cultural heritage, and one
could imagine this would leave many people feeling adrift or empty, perhaps
devoid of meaning, in the face of death, loss, or tragedy. I don't believe it is actually true that such
a drifting or empty state is necessary -- it is an issue to work on
psychologically, in a mindful way, to accept reality with honour, grace, and
dignity, without having to create fantasies to calm our fears about fate and
loss and oblivion.
Changing one's beliefs about religion could, for some
people, feel like betraying their parents, their extended family, and many of
their most beloved friends or mentors.
They could feel like they are betraying themselves, since many people
have been steeped in religious practice all their lives, and so this set of
experiences and beliefs are built into their memory, and their framework of
conceptualizing reality. People tend to
form a belief that they literally have a "relationship with God" so
challenging belief could represent what they would think is the ultimate
betrayal--a betrayal of God. Most
religions have jargon reflecting such contingencies, such as "turning your
back on God" etc. Much harsher,
punitive language is also used, including terms such as "apostasy."
At times apostasy was considered a crime which carried a death sentence. For many people, there would simply be no
good reason to change or challenge religious belief, since their religion was
always a pure and simple joy of life, a source of meaning, comfort, guidance,
and community, with no negatives whatsoever.
On top of these positive factors, many individuals or
families, in the present generation or throughout the distant past, have been
persecuted or oppressed because of their religion, in some cases in a brutal
manner (often by groups having a different religion or by groups following
different branches of the same religion).
This happened to my own ancestors, most recently in my grandmother's
generation, near the beginning of the Soviet era. There were experiences of brutality and fear
of this time that my grandmother could never talk about for the rest of her
life. This individual or collective
trauma leads to an understandable fierce, loyal protectiveness of the religion
and culture, with an extra layer of grave intensity and quest to secure rights,
freedom, and justice, accentuated by memories of past abuse.
Mind you, people who have questioned religious beliefs have
also been relentlessly persecuted, and often executed, through the ages.
The term "secular" can sometimes evoke feelings of
coldness, like a painting devoid of colour, or music devoid of emotion. Or it can evoke memories of totalitarian
states which discouraged religion, such as the Soviet Union. Some people equate secularism or
"atheism" with nihilism, criminality, a lack of moral grounding, some
kind of pathological state not too far off from psychopathy. Many religious people believe that all moral
foundations come from religion, or from God, without which there would surely
be moral decay. A political candidate
lacking religious belief would surely not be popular. Some political leaders (including one
particularly famous one down south) simply fake their religiosity in order to
get votes.
The Main Thesis
With these acknowledgments in mind, I still have to come around to my main thesis here, that all religions are based on beliefs that are not literally true, with some of the stories having an idealized, embellished, exaggerated relationship to actual historical figures or events, also with many stories borrowed or inspired by other local mythology of the time. All religions contain stories that can have moral lessons and often reflect the history of cultural groups striving to improve justice, security, morality, happiness, and harmony in their civilizations, while reflecting on human foibles. Modern religions are not very much different from any other historical mythology, such as Greek, Roman, or Egyptian mythology, which have impacted the culture, continue to give us interesting, thoughtful stories, but are not considered literal truths.
Much modern organized religion arose in conjunction with the
rise of agriculture and resulting larger political structures, as a means to
unify larger population groups, with frequent themes having to do with defense
against neighbouring tribes, support and guidance regarding agricultural
practices, and rules dealing with how people should behave together in groups
(such as cities) that people were not used to from the preceding
hunter-gatherer lifestyle. There are
many religious stories about war, coping with invasion or conquest, or managing
relationships with hostile neighbouring communities. The stories are impacted by the political or
environmental conditions or agendas of the times they were originally written and
subsequently revised, and of course would tend to aggrandize the moral position
of the home tribe. In this way religions
serve a similar function as other art or cultural forms such as literature,
theatre, dance, poetry, or film, in parallel with civilizations striving to
improve themselves rationally by developing laws, fair government, and a
justice system, though as with these other art forms, they can be instruments
of political persuasion or even propaganda.
People become deeply attached to religious beliefs due to
powerful psychological forces: most of all, there is a longstanding commitment
to the belief system, often beginning in childhood, bolstered by family,
friends, and other admired figures.
People are loyal to their prior commitments--as though roots are formed
with a belief system, which are so powerful that they defy rational
challenge. These roots are also intertwined
with identity, such that weakening them could feel like a threat to one's sense
of self or personal security. For many
people it could feel embarrassing or humiliating to have had a longstanding
commitment to something which proves to be false or misguided; therefore,
people stick to their prior commitments because it feels more comfortable to do
so. We see this in other areas of life,
including in medical practice: if there is a challenge to a longstanding
framework of understanding a health issue, even the best-educated and most
skilled professionals can be irrationally resistant to change: it would require
the acknowledgment that the beliefs one has had or even devoted one's career to
for decades of time were actually all wrong.
There are many examples in the history of science where advances in the
understanding of reality were utterly rejected by the experts of the time,
because it would have required these experts to amend the beliefs they had
grown up with, and devoted their careers to (for example: Copernican
heliocentric astronomy; the germ theory of infectious disease; plate tectonics;
the relationship between H. pylori and ulcers; Boltzmann's atomic theory and
statistical mechanics; Cecilia Payne's work to show that stars are primarily
composed of hydrogen and helium; the existence of prion diseases).
At times, the advent or widespread adoption of some new
religion can be followed by improvements in a society's stability. But the reasons for this, as I will argue,
have little to do with some particular doctrine, or with the embrace of some
kind of divinity with its resulting imagined powers. Rather, it is because of what I would call
"nonspecific factors."
Nonspecific Factors
To explain what I mean by "nonspecific factors," I'd like to share an analogy about psychiatric practice: many styles of psychotherapy have evolved over the past 150 years, each of which having strong dogmatic beliefs or "doctrines" about the cause or treatment of psychological problems. The advent of these therapeutic styles was for the most part beneficial for the world, since finally there was a systematic attempt to help people with mental illness. For example, psychoanalysis was originally developed based on an elaborate, somewhat poetic set of beliefs--with its own compelling, insightful, well-written "scripture" to be found in original texts by Freud, etc.--about the origins of mental health problems lying in particular childhood events, especially involving parents. These beliefs were subsequently found to be mostly false or at least extremely exaggerated (though often with some poetic kernels of partial truth) yet many people clearly benefited from psychoanalysis--so how could this be?
It is because of the FRAME of psychoanalysis, not the
theory: visiting a kind, curious, intelligent person to discuss problems in a
professional setting regularly and frequently for a period of a few years can
be tremendously helpful for many psychiatric problems. Even if the therapist has false beliefs about
causation, and dabbles with fictional or outlandish interpretations, the
overarching experience with the therapist is of patient, non-judgmental,
empathic support.
Some people who visit psychics, mystics, or faith-healers,
have a positive experience and are impressed by the insights provided during
the sessions. This is not because any
such thing as psychic or mystical power exists, but rather it is because at
best, the psychic may offer a comforting frame, good social skills, confidence,
gentle curiosity and attention, open-mindedness, accurate insights based on
verbal and non-verbal cues, and may communicate various ideas using effective
psychotherapeutic techniques bolstered by a strong rapport. There is also the "Barnum Effect,"
in which statements made in such settings sound profoundly insightful but yet
could be applied to almost any situation.
Carefully conducted studies of psychic phenomena or claims have always
been negative, with apparent positive findings attributed to various cognitive
biases or statistical phenomena.
In "dream analysis" there is elaborate
psychoanalytic reasoning about the meaning contained in dreams, some of which
could feel very helpful to the patient.
But this is an illusion -- dreams are intimate experiences with some
reflection of daily events, memories, anxious themes, problem-solving efforts,
or feelings, but are finally mostly a neutral framework on which to project
meaning or interpretation. Just like with
the Forer (Barnum) effect, if you begin with a neutral or low-content vague but
intimate data source, and project meaning onto it through a wise, trusted
person's "interpretation", it could feel special, useful and
effective but it has nothing to do with the dreams being valid guides
literally. Any interpretation of a dream
is likely to feel meaningful, even different interpretations which are entirely
opposite, because of dreams feeling so special and personal in the first
place. But there is no "correct
interpretation" of dreams--dreamscapes are simply a neutral framework to
reflect on the topic of meaning in general, borrowing the incidental events of
the dreams, with some infusion of actual life events in the content. Similarly, religious situations such as
praying, attending church, participating in spiritual practice, etc. are
frameworks in which to contemplate existential issues, and this frame adds to
the gravity of the contemplation, irrespective of whether any literal truths
are provided.
Most psychotherapy styles share these nonspecific factors;
most styles have similar effectiveness provided the nonspecific factors are
similar (there are certain factors which boost effectiveness beyond this,
particularly in my opinion the idea most evident in CBT, though also present in
psychoanalysis as well, that we must have a humble, sincere willingness to work
on changing ourselves, and to face our fears, cognitively and
behaviourally). The dark side of psychoanalysis,
though, is when people can come to misunderstand the cause or appropriate
management of their psychological problems, adding to a layer of guilt or
confusion or judgment or blame, often worsening their problems. Furthermore, people may follow a therapeutic
scheme based on a fictional theory, but not improve, then feel guilty that they
just haven't worked hard enough or applied the theory sincerely enough. Similarly, in religions, there is kind,
stable, loyal group involvement, a chance to spend time with warm, altruistic
mentors, regular devotional practices on a weekly basis or more, a commitment
to values that usually go beyond selfishness or materialism, and exposure to
sermons which often contain useful moral reflections, irrespective of any
reference to religious texts. In
religion this is also couched in a setting with beautiful, moving music,
architecture, engaging activities, sometimes even food and play, often with a
peer group of fellow worshippers with whom one would have many other things in
common.
Faith Healing & Miracles
In more dramatic incidents of religion-based therapeutic interventions, such as "faith healing," these common factors are especially salient, magnified further by the awe of an excited crowd of observers, intense emotions, and a strong attachment to a charismatic human leader. Faith healing, as with similar modalities such as hypnosis, could appear to be particularly effective for problems which have a substantial psychosomatic component, such as factitious, dissociative, somatization, or conversion disorders, or histrionic personality, and could allow patients with these problems to "save face" and feel validated, with a sudden transformation back to apparent health endorsed by the community. Their story could even be seen as particularly special and sacred, as opposed to being a banal case of biopsychosocial problems, thus helping the person's self-esteem. Unfortunately, such "faith healing" dynamics can easily be exploited by charlatans, and one does not have to look far to find many examples. Also there are some obvious biases which are problematic: most people suffering from severe medical problems who attempt faith healing would not have any remission in their illnesses, since their problems are not psychosomatic or particularly amenable to community support, but such people if they are devoutly religious may then conclude that they did not have sufficient "faith" to have the desired recovery, and may feel that they were not special enough or did not work hard enough at it to be worthy of the divine intervention. Or they may conclude, in a resigned fashion, that the divine will is for them to continue suffering from their illness, while others for some inexplicable reason get to have their illnesses cured by a divine hand.
Similarly, the many miracle stories in religious texts, of
individuals being healed from blindness or even raised from the dead, are
awe-inspiring for the reader if one takes them literally--but it should be kept
in mind that perhaps 10% of the population of the earth was suffering from some
horrible illness at the time these stories were written; some of this suffering
was due to random physical illness (most of these in the modern era totally
curable or preventable using scientific methods), some of it due to economic
deprivation, malnutrition, political oppression or warfare or poverty. A shockingly high proportion (30% or more) of
all infants and young children died in the first few years of life. The probability of a mother dying during
birth was also much higher. Almost none
of these millions of people, regardless of their sincerity or faithfulness,
experienced any miraculous healing of their problems. Some of the specific modalities of simple,
massively effective healing, such as improving the safety of the water supply,
improving sanitation, or improving nutrition, are never addressed in religious
stories of the day. So miracle stories
are a little bit like discussing lottery winners -- if such miracles truly
occur, they are very rare and may depend on some extremely unlikely
contingency. As with lotteries, one is
not well-advised to include potential winnings in one's financial planning. Therefore miracle stories have limited value
as moral guides, and are mainly flashy, exaggerated advertisements to entice
awestruck people to join the religion.
On a slight tangent, there are various poetic references in
religious texts to aspects of natural ecology.
For example, there are numerous references to birds, with the
insinuation that birds have a peaceful, joyous life, are singing happily, and
are being fed through divine providence.
This is an attractive idea, but it demonstrates a lack of understanding
of biology -- creatures in the wild in fact suffer a high death rate due to
starvation, disease, or predation, and a great many individual animals have a
short and brutal life. Bird songs have
various natural functions, but it would be a stretch, unless in the most
figurative of senses, that they are manifestations of joy or instruments of
bringing joy to the human listeners.
Similarly, "lilies of the field" (also mentioned in the Bible)
actually have a difficult life, dealing with disease, predation, and
competition for resources--the blooming lilies we see in a field do not inform
us of the many others which did not survive.
Dogma
Aside from the common factors, religions feature dogmatic belief, which in some cases can be very strict. This is where the biggest problems lie, since these beliefs are not literally true, unless understood to be a type of mythical construct, not to be taken literally but rather to be understood as poetic, figurative, or a focus of moral reflection. Some dogmatic beliefs could contain some type of wise reflection about morality or justice, but when people take these dogmas literally, it often leads to narrow or rigid moral reductionism. Furthermore, some particular religious stories, even if only understood as metaphors, can be brutal and totally contradictory to other aspects of the religion's doctrines, so it can be quite a stretch to find some beneficial figurative interpretation. One can often find, in the same religious text, examples of stories which utterly contradict each other, in terms of what they say literally, or even in terms of figurative meaning. Because of this, some individuals "pick and choose" scripture passages to bolster a pre-existing stance about almost any subject.
Many people feel that their guidance regarding "right
and wrong," i.e. their foundation of morality comes from religion or from
religious texts. People may consider the
Ten Commandments to be an obvious moral guide, a set of instructions about
right and wrong. Yet this reminds me of
the moral development of children. At an
early stage of development, a child may understand the morality of a situation
to be dictated by a rigid external rule, for example "don't take that
cookie" or "you'll be punished if you take that cookie." The
foundation of morality is then dictated in this case by the external rule,
and/or by the fear of punishment: cookies are not to be taken because mom said
not to, or because dad will punish me if I take one. But the moral grounding of this is
precarious: it would obviously be morally superior for the child to be able to
reason about the morality of complex situations beyond following an external
instruction or fearing punishment. The
child's safety and success in life may depend on being able to think flexibly
about moral issues, so as not to blindly follow instructions from potentially
malevolent or unreliable authority figures.
In psychopathic disorders, people may not be able to go farther than
this childlike type of moral development.
Imagine if you were with someone for whom the main reason they are not
assaulting you or stealing from you is because they are strictly following an
external rule, or a scripture passage, or that they feared punishment if they
were to rob you--would you feel comfortable with this person or their
character? Deep moral development, the
kind I'm sure most people would desire for themselves or require in their
friendships, is having a capacity to reason deeply about why or why not to do
an action, balancing desires with social consequences, balancing short term
factors with long term factors, and recognizing the rare need for exceptions to
fixed rules (e.g. perhaps sometimes you may need to steal something in order to
save a starving child). Such moral
development occurs naturally in humans, irrespective of any religious
belief. And there are good reasons why
it does occur naturally, but we'll have to come to that later.
I do have to acknowledge that some religious texts do make
inspired statements about moral reasoning, for example "The Sermon on the
Mount" (what I love about this sermon is its emphasis on kindness,
unconditional love, and humility). But
the ideas here are not unique; for example there are various examples and
variations of the Golden Rule in almost every ancient culture and religion
across the world; this is not a simple coincidence nor evidence of some kind of
divinity, it is an expected moral concept which is expected to evolve and be
strongly selected for in any social species.
The treatment of religious texts as perfect moral
instructions is problematic on many levels.
Most would agree that each individual letter or word in a religious text
should not be considered "divine" since any sentence in the language
also contains the same words. The next
higher level of organization would be a sentence (usually called a
"verse"), which is most commonly studied and focused on in sermons or
religious meetings. Many churches have a
sort of "book club" style format in which small groups of congregants
meet at someone's home--refreshments served--with some particular scriptural
text the topic each time, often guided, as with other book clubs, by some
published interpretations of these texts which fit with the group's style of
thinking. Sometimes the text analysis
stops here--at the verse level--in part due to practicality, since it would be
complicated and confusing to amalgamate a collection of interrelated passages
present throughout the entire religious text (such as the Bible). For example, for each given theme or topic or
figure of speech or even vocabulary term present in some particular verse,
there may be dozens of references or allusions in other verses, sometimes in
widely disparate parts of the Bible, which touch on the same themes. It is not uncommon that contradictions are to
be found in these other verses--either frank, direct contradictions or
qualitative ones--yet this is less commonly a topic of a church sermon. Also, as with studying literature, it is a
narrow way to learn or understand a text to only look at the
"granular" structure of the writing (i.e. at the verse level, or
quoting a passage from a novel)--much of the meaning in literature comes from a
more holistic analysis. Likewise, if you
look at anything that you consider a deep manifestation of reality, such as a
photograph, it would not make sense to divide the photograph into tiny
sections, and analyze each of them separately to derive meaning--it would
obviously be necessary to look at the photograph as a whole, and perhaps
reflect on its contrasts. It is
inconvenient to do such a holistic analysis during most sermons or religious
study group sessions, so it is quite common that people stop at the verse level
of analysis, or at best a short section or chapter of verses.
Charlatanism
There are many examples of charlatanism in religious history, and in the history of various spiritual practices. Psychics and fortune-tellers are obvious examples. But some psychics or fortune-tellers could have valid wisdom to share, akin to a very perceptive psychotherapist: once again, it is a "frame" issue -- if there is a setting in which a perceptive person pays close attention to a needy and trusting client, there could be a variety of helpful interactions that are possible, some of which with accurate predictive value. Many other pseudo-predictions create a "Forer Effect" in which the feedback given is so vague or all-inclusive that it could apply to almost anyone, yet framed in a way which sounds profoundly insightful. Ironically, there might need to be "faith" in the mechanism of the interaction in order for the visit to be helpful (i.e. if you believe in psychic powers, you might be more likely to have a positive experience of visiting a psychic, since you would be more trusting and likely more open). Abundant research shows us an utter lack of evidence of any parapsychological phenomena. Claims to the contrary, often coming from testimonial accounts, are products either of charlatanism, errors of understanding, delusional beliefs, exaggeration, coincidence, or vague insights coming from mechanistic observation. But as with many who believe in such things, there could be great offense given to challenge the veracity of such beliefs, and a logical debate about the facts could simply cause the believing person to become angry that the skeptic is close-minded or narrow.
I am aware of a few followers of new-age mystical beliefs
who do have a delightful, warm, thoughtful style. For example, one particularly famous
therapeutic figure who specialized in creating "affirmations" to help
people with self-esteem and to cope with adversity. Many of these affirmations are quite
beautiful, and I think it is a more poetic and intimate form of cognitive
therapy. One of the shortcomings of CBT
theory is its cool mechanistic nature, and this affirmations approach is
refreshingly different. So I do often
encourage patients to make use of "affirmations." But alongside the
affirmations idea, this author has various dogmas and mystical beliefs about
causation, such as "cancer comes from resentment," or "arthritis
is stored criticism," etc. which while having a slight kernel of truth
(i.e. many chronic diseases are indeed affected by psychological or life-style
factors), is a massive distortion of complex causation, and insinuates that
people who develop tragic diseases through no fault of their own are basically
to blame for their illness because of having the wrong attitudes or emotional
management. Also such attitudes can lead
to misguided treatments, as with other forms of alternative health care:
exaggerated beliefs in these mystical factors, even if they do have some
apparent psychological benefits, are very problematic if they delay or obstruct
people from getting timely evidence-based medical care.
Video & Reading List
In order to explore more of the evidence about my main thesis here, I now have to defer to experts who are masters of their respective fields. I would say I have an amateur or undergraduate-level appreciation of many of these fields, so I don't want to falsely pose as an expert in fields such as genetics, history, physics, astronomy, biology, etc. Yet with many complex topics, it is valuable to have a moderate level of expertise in multiple areas. A human limitation is that most experts in one area (such as astronomy) are not necessarily experts in another (such as genetics). But in any case, I'd like to introduce and discuss a video and reading list to get started:
1) The most approachable place to start for many people
would be to take a look at nature documentaries. David Attenborough is the greatest nature
documentarian in the world's history--and a truly wonderful person, hard not to
admire regardless of one's political or religious orientation--and I hope that
everyone would enjoy very much his narration of the following BBC masterpieces
(there are many more, but here are some to get started with):
2) Earth: The Biography (2008) by geologist Iain
Stewart. This is an enjoyable
introduction to the earth's geology and history, which helps viewers to
understand--once again with mountains (!) of evidence that the earth is
billions of years old. This is relevant
to the topic of religion because many believers in literal religious dogma
think that the earth is just a few thousand years old.
3) Cosmos (the original in 1980 with Carl Sagan, and the new
series in 2014 by Neil deGrasse Tyson) -- a nice introduction to topics from
the history of science and astronomy.
Documentaries of this type help viewers to understand the very strong
evidence for the origins of the universe, the life cycle of stars, etc. -- with the time scales involved here being
billions of years. Once again, this is
important regarding the discussion about religion, since dogmatic religious
faith often has particular beliefs about origins and age of the world. In presenting evidence about science, there
is never a claim that "science has all the answers," but it very much
is the claim that scientific knowledge has given us a wonderful, inspiring
insight into the workings of nature and of our origins, flexibly growing and
changing, correcting mistakes when they are found, which have very little in
common with religious accounts.
4) The Incredible Human Journey, narrated by Alice Roberts
(2019): here we are shown evidence about the early history of humans,
originating in Africa over 100 000 years ago and migrating over tens of
thousands of years to other continents.
It's a profoundly interesting story, very "hands on" in terms
of evidence, and once again directly challenges the notions that many religions
have about where people originated from, and over what scale of time. Once again, a delightful and inspiring
scientist narrator.
5) The historian Christopher Clark, who is currently the
Regius Professor of History at Cambridge University, has done a marvelous set
of videos about the history of Europe, starting with "Origins and
Identity: The Story of Europe," which can be found on YouTube. It is so refreshing to see a well-crafted
documentary narrated by such a deeply intelligent and accomplished person. It is useful to reflect on the history of
Europe and the impact of various religious movements along the way. Every type of religion, including
Christianity and Islam, had some connections with various social or educational
developments or advances, thanks to their organizational structure and culture,
but the recurring theme to be aware of is the horrific abuses, massacres, wars,
etc. all done under the banner of religion.
If exploring historical scholarship, one should be aware that there are
various religious apologists, who try to make the incredible claim that
religion (usually the particular narrator's preferred religion) has led to
moral or societal advancement, without considering the many horrors. If one looks at history from any other region
of the world, there will be many similar examples.
6) Evolution (7-part PBS Series, 2001), narrated by Liam
Neeson. This is the best introductory
series of its type, but unfortunately it is very dated now, and the production
values are poor by modern standards.
Parts of it are tiresome, such as dramatizations in the first episode
about the life of Charles Darwin. Also
there could be much clearer, better examples, case studies, and explanations of
the biological and biochemical foundations and details of how evolution
works. Evolutionary biology is a wonderfully
interesting and extremely robust, well-researched subject, and this is a good
place to get started (I invite you not to stop at this documentary, but to have
a project to read extensively about evolutionary biology if you have any
interest in nature or ecology. The
evidence here is overwhelmingly strong and clear, and also the basics of it are
not hard to understand. I should add
that pretty much every scientific point or example (such as from paleontology
or genetics) presented in this program has been followed in the past 25 years
by many more robust, expansive findings, bolstered greatly by the huge
advancements of genetic research and ongoing paleontological work since
then. The final episode is about religion
and fundamentalist religious attitudes towards the topic of evolutionary
science, which was difficult and disturbing for me to watch.
An understanding of evolutionary processes does not need to
dampen morale or lead to some existential crisis in some way any more than
understanding that the earth is not the centre of the solar system (this basic
Copernican astronomy was also scandalous and considered heretical by religious
leaders of the day) or that the sun appears to rise because of the rotation of
the earth--it is simply a really interesting and clear system of understanding
how biological systems in nature operate, and why various phenomena have arisen
in the natural world.
One small critique about the language (rhetorical style)
used in this documentary and others is that it can lapse into
"personification" just as religions do. This has to do with how we use language
figuratively to communicate, and speaks to a cognitive and stylistic bias that
is common to all humans. For example,
passages in the documentary could use language such as "nature wants"
or "evolution tinkers" which evokes an image in a literal-minded
listener of "nature" or "evolution" being something like a person
who is deciding to do a thing. All
languages engage in such subtle personification--this very sentence is doing
it!--in the way many common phrases are constructed (in fact, developmentally
in humans, we acquire a tendency beginning in infancy to "personify"
attributions, to look at any sequence of events and form a conviction that a
person is causing the action). But the
authors of this documentary don't literally mean this, it is simply a figure of
speech. What they mean is that a process
happens as a result of the way nature or evolution is organized--things do not
happen because "nature decides" or "evolution tinkers."
Nature and evolution are not beings; they are systems which operate under a set
of logical organizational rules which we are growing to understand better and
better. I have to mention this point
because documentaries of this type must be very precise with their language, in
order to best engage people unfamiliar with the science or who are poised to
criticize it.
7) Various documentaries, such as "Into the
Universe" (2010), featuring Stephen Hawking, the great cosmologist:
appreciating a scientific view about how the universe formed, and its likely
destiny, couched in philosophical reflection that is approachable by viewers
who don't need to have an advanced education in astronomy or physics. There are always new insights and discoveries
in this field, and it is so interesting to follow it even if you're not an expert. Alongside this topic there would be a need to
acquaint oneself with at least the basics of Einstein's special and general
relativity, and of quantum mechanics, with the intention of reflecting upon
their existential implications.
Reading List:
1) The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. An absolutely devastating critique of all
religious belief, from a scientific point of view, looking in particular at
harmful aspects of religions. But
Dawkins falls short in understanding or affirming the psychological and
sociocultural causes and benefits of religions, irrespective of their many
harms.
2) other books by Richard Dawkins including The Ancestor's
Tale, and The Selfish Gene. These are
excellent introductions to genetics in general, evolutionary biology in
particular, with wonderful case studies highlighting particular organisms or
biological systems. For example, it is
incredibly interesting to understand the genetics of bee reproduction, and how
this affects the behaviour and social organization of bees. (The classic "birds and bees" talk
really should be updated to include this discussion). These books showcase Dawkins as one of the
great science communicators, and show that evolutionary biology can be a
fascinating topic. It has always
bothered me that university students in the sciences can get a degree,
sometimes even in biology, without having read these books. Another good book about the history of
genetics is "She Has Her Mother's Laugh" by Carl Zimmer.
3) Better Angels of Our Nature, by Steven Pinker. This is a brilliant book looking at the
causes of violence through history, and why violence has declined over the
centuries. Simple factors such as better
education for women, clearly have led through multiple mechanisms, to reduced
rates of violence and societal improvement.
Most of all, Pinker shows that reasoned thinking, typified by the
Enlightenment period, is the strongest factor leading to reduced violence. Some religions may emphasize or be associated
with enlightenment-style thinking (i.e. reasoned approaches to justice and
societal organization) but this is an accessory feature of religions, not
always present, a "nonspecific factor" irrespective of any dogmatic
beliefs.
Religions, when they do not cultivate reasoned thinking, or
when their dogmas or ideologies override reasoned aspects to the culture, are
shown to be associated with violence and resistance to social progress
(including resistance to abolition of slavery, equality for women, and medical
advancements). The countries of the
world having the lowest current rates of religious involvement, such as Japan
and the Scandinavian countries, also have the lowest rates of violence. Countries or states with high religiosity,
such as in Latin America, or the U.S. southern "Bible Belt" have much
higher rates of violence. I realize that
there are other socioeconomic factors involved here, but religion is very
clearly not associated with any consistent improvement in quality of life. I have reviewed this book in more detail
previously in this blog: Garth Kroeker: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why
Violence Has Declined, by Steven Pinker: A Book Review, Part 1 and Garth
Kroeker: The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, by Steven
Pinker: A Book Review, Part 2
4) Robert Trivers, "The Folly of Fools", the
chapter on Religion. Trivers, one of the
great biologists of the past generation, argues that the capacity to engage in
deception can be a trait which provides survival advantages, often found in the
natural world. For example, an animal
which can pretend to have some dangerous feature such as poison or large size,
can be more effective either as a predator or to prevent predation. Trivers goes further to argue that the most
effective such deception occurs when one viscerally believes that the deception
is "true." Humans have a capacity for awareness that could diminish
the effectiveness of deceptive tactics, unless the humans involved are totally
invested with the belief that the deception is true.
Trivers' thesis about religion is that it is self-deception
on a collective scale--attributing causation to a mystical being can alleviate
psychological distress, and the more firmly one believes this fictional
construct, bolstered by identical beliefs among your peers and family, the more
substantial the comfort will be. A large
group of people all holding a similar set of fictional beliefs is on the one
hand likely to be more unified and therefore strong, but is also prone to
manipulation on a political level, to persuade the group to engage in
intergroup conflict, war, or persecution of outsiders, while exploiting members
of the group to provide financial and other contributions to leaders. A narcissistic individual can make use of
religious convictions to justify almost any extreme position, with an arrogant
confidence that God is on his (or her) side.
A soldier who no longer fears death, because of a fervent
belief in the afterlife, could be much more effective and dangerous as a
warrior. At worst, this soldier may have
fewer qualms about killing, or accepting a devastating state of war in their
homeland, since the soldier may believe that the people who are killed
(including innocent civilians and children) would simply go to heaven, while
their military opponents would go to hell.
And such a soldier could be persuaded with some kind of religious explanation
that their military exploits are divinely endorsed, and that there would be
heavenly reward if they were killed in battle.
5) various books about cognitive biases in humans, such as
Thinking: Fast and Slow by Kahneman.
(Here's my review: Garth Kroeker: "The Lazy Controller" --
reflections about Kahneman's book) This is relevant to religion because most
religious beliefs are consolidated by various biases: there are obvious ingroup
biases, leading to "belief bubbles" in which followers of a religion
would selectively expose themselves to opinions supporting their beliefs, and
avoid exposure to opinions that would challenge their beliefs. The beliefs themselves become so intimately
associated with the integrity of the ingroup that a logical challenge of the
beliefs could feel like a forceful or dangerous attack, something that would
threaten the integrity or safety of the group, leading to powerful group
retaliation or defense.
Other common cognitive biases which bolster religious
beliefs:
- Ad hominem attacks against people who challenge
religion. One of the first victims of
this was Charles Darwin himself, who was subject to various criticisms of his
character, integrity, etc. as part of a technique to discredit his ideas. Another variant of this is to label religious
critics with a term meant to be derogatory, such as "liberal." For
some people, the term "liberal" is associated with an almost venomous
loathing, as though this is one of the worst things a person could be.
- Following ad hominem attacks, there is Reactive
Devaluation, in which evidence is dismissed not because of its quality but
because one doesn't like the person who expresses it. Conversely, evidence is embraced, irrespective
of its quality, because you simply like the person or know the person well, or
that person has done nice things for you in the past.
- The Availability Cascade: various religious ideas seem
more believable or persuasive simply because of repeated exposure, sometimes
over a lifetime. These ideas are easier
to call to mind, they are more salient in memory, and this can fool people into
thinking that they are more accurate, irrespective of evidence.
- Confirmation Bias: this is when one looks for evidence in
a biased way, collecting individual items of evidence in support of your
previous position, while not attending to, or even being aware of, evidence
against your position.
- Anchoring: this is the tendency to stick to an original
position. One can become
"rooted" with a baseline stance (in this case, religious beliefs),
biasing judgments towards this baseline even in light of dissonant evidence.
- The Sunk Cost Fallacy: this is sticking to an original
position, even when there is strong evidence against it, with the reasoning
that you have invested so much time, effort, and devotion to your original
position that it feels like too much of a loss to let it go.
-"Pascal's Wager" -- the reasoning is as follows:
if you believe (in some particular religion), and the religion is true, then
you get an eternal reward (Heaven); if you don't believe, but the religion is
true, you get infinite punishment (Hell); if you believe, but the religion is
not true, there is no significant loss; if you don't believe, and the religion
is not true, there is also no significant loss.
Therefore, one could reason that the most rational choice would be to
espouse the religious belief, since there is potential infinite gain, potential
avoidance of infinite loss, with no apparent downside. Or another way of putting it is "why
take the chance of being wrong, and miss out on Heaven?" But this
reasoning is preposterously invalid: first of all, one could apply this idea to
any arbitrary belief systems (including any of many world religions), which
feature a concept of infinite rewards or punishments. Which one of these religions should one
follow, or perhaps all of them? But an
implicit requirement in many of these religions is that you must renounce all
others! One could deploy similar
reasoning to require belief in a magical rabbit in orbit around the moon, who
would allow you to get into Heaven and to avoid Hell. Or a belief in the literal Santa Claus,
flying through the world at Christmas to deliver gifts. Or belief in Bertrand Russell's Eternal
Teapot, orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. Furthermore, as I discuss elsewhere in this
post, it is a poor moral foundation to base decisions and beliefs only on a
reward or punishment paradigm, i.e. being motivated either by fear or potential
personal profit; this type of selfishness is contradictory to the moral
messaging of all religions. Furthermore,
if a deity values sincerity, then choosing to believe only because of a profit
or loss analysis would be seen as shallow, selfish, and hypocritical. One could understand through perusal of any
religious text, that the character of a deity would surely be one to reward
intellectual integrity, honesty, virtue, and willingness to doubt as opposed to
blind obedience under threat. Also, the
statement "no apparent downside" (of belief) is clearly not true
(much of the rest of this post is all about this): there are psychological,
social, moral, intellectual, and political consequences, for both short and
long term scales of time, and for both individuals and communities.
Some religious groups might use frightening terminology,
such as "of the Devil," to describe challenges to the established
dogma. Such terminology was used in the
history of religions, including in the early Christian era, to consolidate
group identity and to suppress alternative interpretations of doctrines. In some religious groups (or cults) members
are specifically trained to refute logical challenges to their dogmatic
beliefs. Religions also contain a lot of
"magical thinking," a tendency to be persuaded strongly by a story,
irrespective of evidence (i.e. "Story
bias"), a tendency to form personifications to attribute causation. It is very human to form personifications,
for example to observe a sequence of events and become convinced that there is
someone -- perhaps a divine being -- causing the events to occur... in earlier
religions this could be present in many forms few religious people would
believe today, such as having the notion that a divine being was pulling the
sun across the sky daily.
6) Books about the psychology of tribalism, such as
"The Power of Us" by psychologist Jay Van Bavel (see my review: Garth
Kroeker: "The Power of Us" by Jay Van Bavel & Dominic Packer: a
recommendation, review, and applications in psychiatry). One of the core aspects or causes of religion
is its tribal nature. This tribalism is
an innate property of humans, the tendency to form groups which we value and protect,
but almost always at the expense of outsiders.
The founding or origins of most religions contain implicit
tribalism: usually it is one particular group of people at one particular time
in history that is believed to have received some kind of divine message which
leads to "correct" living, "correct" belief, and eternal
reward, while most of the other people in the world (starting with neighbouring
tribes) are obviously left out of this divine insight, unless members of the
chosen group successfully proselytize through missionary efforts. But of course, even the most efficient
missionary efforts would miss out on conveying the supposedly divine message to
all other groups in the world, or there could be a delay of hundreds of years,
sentencing all these other billions of people to hell, or at the very least to
some lesser eternal reward. This
aggrandization of a particular chosen group and geographical region at the
expense of all other humans on the earth contradicts the spirit of justice
& worldwide non-prejudicial benevolence that most religions, at their best,
endorse. Many texts in religious stories
go on to describe military exploits as well, in which the chosen group defeats
or annihilates outgroup opponents (usually neighbouring tribes, sometimes
including entire cities--see the Book of Joshua; or 1 Samuel 15; or Numbers
31), with divine endorsement. Oddly the
divine help rarely involves settling military problems peacefully.
7) Joseph Campbell: "The Power of Myth" and
"Myths to Live By" -- these were favourites of mine in my young adult
years, though they could come across as a little dated now. Campbell was an anthropologist with a strong
interest in comparative mythology. He
was a great storyteller and saw world myths as a source of poetic insights
about history, humanity, and morality--but these insights would get
extinguished if you started to take the myths literally. In fact I came to appreciate after reading
Campbell that the expression "it's just a myth" doesn't need to be
disparaging--while a myth is not a historical account, it does offer a portrait
of the culture of the time it was written, alongside moral lessons or creative
ideas that the original authors of the myths had thought about, or perhaps
refined over generations as the myth got updated or edited. Yet of course, there would have been
ideological agendas projected onto cultural myths through the generations,
often to support the actions or attitudes of the groups or political leaders of
the day.
But if one takes a myth, such as a religious text,
literally, it is analogous to reading a great novel or watching a great movie
which had reflections about humanity and ethics, but then viewing the movie as
a documentary, an instruction book for how to live, with rigid rules about
behaviour to be obtained by studying the movie's script in detail, and then to
avoid and denigrate other movies as "blasphemy."
It is easy to look at other historical mythical systems,
such as Greek mythology, and to be able to appreciate some of the literary
insights contained within them, while understanding that "Zeus" does
not literally exist. But when it comes
to our own current mythologies, many of us insist that the stories are indeed
literally true.
8) Determined, by the great neuroscientist Robert
Sapolsky. See my review on this book:
Garth Kroeker: "Determined" by Robert Sapolsky The main points here
that pertain to religion have to do with our understanding of causality in
human (or animal) behaviour: Sapolsky shows, with a mountain of evidence, that
behaviours have many deterministic causes, including genetic influences over
hundreds or thousands of years, brain changes due to childhood experiences
(positive or negative), hormonal fluctuations over a period of days to weeks,
and proximal changes in the environment such as hunger, temperature, or random
positive or negative contingencies.
"Free will" is at the very least much less "free" than
what most people believe, and for some people with different genetic or
environmental histories, or current situations, it will be much more difficult
to follow societal rules in a way which is culturally or religiously accepted.
This speaks to another simple issue regarding religious
dogma: if a deity (God) is felt to be all-knowing and all-powerful, this is a contradiction
and also leads to moral problems. If
all-knowing, then God would know all the past and all the future, thus there
would not really be "free will." It would be like God is simply
watching a movie with a fixed script of events in the universe, including of
all human actions, sufferings, and failures, but God would have known the
outcome all along, including of some humans going to heaven or hell.
Or it could be like God has assembled a model of the
universe, a bit like a child assembling a toy marble run, with the outcome
absolutely determined, but in this case the marble run would have various
little "disasters" included in parts of it, where some of the marbles
would plunge down into a pit of fire, while others would successfully complete
their descent. Some of the marbles would
be crafted perfectly, to improve the smoothness of their journey, but others
would deliberately be made with irregularities that would make them tumble off track
more easily. Life would become just a
rather brutal show, full of tragedy and suffering alongside all the joy and
success, but with a fixed outcome (since God in His all-knowing state would
have known the story all along).
Furthermore, if "all-knowing" then God would know
all the past and all the future, but this would imply that fate is fixed,
therefore beyond any power to change it.
If you know for certain what the future will be, this means it is not
changeable by any power, so this contradicts the idea that God could be
all-powerful. A religious apologist may
"hand wave" to explain this one, by suggesting that human logic of
this sort does not apply to divine matters.
9) The Battle for God, by Karen Armstrong. A history of fundamentalism, very engaging to
read, looking at social and political causes of fundamentalism, with many case
examples. She argues that fundamentalism
developed in reaction to feelings of disorientation due to major social changes
of the day, including the rise of women's rights, developments in modern
science (including evolutionary theory), increased secular public education,
suspicion about intellectuals or scholarly "elites," in a cultural
setting which valued individualism and exciting, impassioned "tent
meeting" revivalist styles of preaching.
This style of religiosity subsequently became strongly associated with
right wing politics and has become ever more tribal since its origins. For any member of a particular type of
religious congregation, it could be valuable to understand the cultural history
of how religious denominations in general came to be.
10) The philosophical works of Bertrand Russell,
particularly those where he is discussing religion.
11) Works reviewing the controlled studies refuting any
evidence for paranormal phenomena, such as psychic ability, ghosts, etc. This includes James Randi's work over many
years; Richard Wiseman's book and videos about paranormality (which show that
experiences of ghosts, etc. are due to priming, suggestion, environmental
effects, memory distortions, cultural bias, etc.); negative meta-analyses about
the existence of "psi," e.g. by Milton & Wiseman. APA’s position on this topic is that belief
in the paranormal is associated with low statistical literacy and cognitive
biases. Small studies showing paranormal
effects are flawed due to small, statistically insignificant effect sizes, lack
of pre-registration, flexible stopping rules, and publication bias.
12) Books about evolutionary psychology, such as
"Spent" by Geoffrey Miller.
(See my review: Garth Kroeker: "Spent" by Geoffrey Miller -- a
discussion of evolutionary psychology)
13) Various scholars in fields such as archaeology, history
of the Ancient Near East, history of religious texts, history of science, and
philosophy. Look for scholars with
excellent qualifications and background, just as you would evaluate any
expert. Bart Ehrman would be a good
person to start with. One should be
acquainted with scholarship that has to do with careful history of the origins
of religious texts, and to realize that most religious texts have multiple
versions, edits over time (both in wording, translations, theological agendas
of the authors or editors, and in terms of whole sections included or not), and
are often based on or strongly inspired by other myths from other cultural
traditions. But a caution here: as with
many topics affected by culturally-sanctioned, polarized views, there are
plenty of religious apologists to be found in these disciplines, some of whom
could be excitedly persuasive and dismissive of contrary evidence, in the same
way that religions themselves can be.
14) "Astronomy Today" (textbook). An intro textbook about astronomy is really
interesting, even just for esthetic reasons (stars and planets and nebulae are
beautiful!) I think everyone should understand how planets and stars and
galaxies form, what they are made of, the time scales involved, and the
astonishing and delightful research and reasoning that has helped us understand
this.
One particular small point in human religious behaviour,
deriving from ancient practices or traditions, is of referring to God in a
spatial sense. So we have phrases like
"God above." A person stating this may literally look upward. But as we know, if one is looking upward,
this is the same direction as a person on the other side of the earth would be
looking (let's say in Australia), if that person was staring directly down into
the earth. Also, the same look upward
will be pointed in a different direction a few minutes or hours later, because
the earth is rotating, orbiting around the sun, and even the sun is orbiting
around the centre of the galaxy. It is a
pre-Copernican spatial metaphor, consistent with the idea that "up is
good, down is bad." Of course, the looking upward thing is a figurative
action, but many people do take this quite literally. It would be fair for any religious person to
look downwards, or even inwards into one's own body, if they are intending to
look towards God, because these are as valid directions as any other. Or perhaps you could salvage the
"looking up" thing by redefining the spatial location of God to be
"opposite to the orientation of the local gravitational field." Even
then, this would imply that God is located in some particular place more than
others. Should God not be omnipresent,
i.e. equally present in the depths of the planet -- or perhaps even in our own
bodies -- as up in the atmosphere and beyond?
Another variant of this can be seen in various
fundamentalist practices, in which people in an entranced state are reaching
forward with their hands, during a song or prayer, eyes half-closed in revery,
rocking back and forth, the emotional intensity magnified by the presence of
adjacent peers doing the same thing, perhaps repeating some kind of word or
phrase believed to be sacred; this can be understood as a gesture compatible
with ecstatic experience (a normal and ubiquitous human personal and social ability,
found in all cultures, with or without religion), but the gesture implies a
spatial location of God, perhaps reaching out to take in God's warmth literally
with one's hands, as though God is physically located just ahead, perhaps in
the front of the building).
Evolution
The following is a lengthy discussion of evolutionary theory. I feel this is important to discuss in some detail, because it deals with the origins of all life, in a way which directly contradicts all literal religious or other mythological accounts. It is certainly possible to maintain robust religiosity even while understanding evolutionary biology, but many religious people feel this field is an unacceptable affront to their faith. There are experts in evolutionary science who have done a much better job than I to explain this, but I find it so important that I need to set aside space here, with my own professional perspective. An upsurge in fundamentalist religion was provoked specifically by outrage following the advent of evolutionary biology; "Evolution" or even Charles Darwin himself (a gentle, humble, shy, brilliantly rigorous scientist, naturalist, and family-oriented man) became symbolic enemies for many religious people. This is reminiscent of religious outcry following other scientific developments or discoveries in previous eras, particularly about astronomy, medicine, anatomy, geology (e.g. plate tectonics, radiometric dating), microscopy (e.g. germ theory), physiology (e.g. understanding the circulatory system), meteorology (e.g. the cause of lightning), paleontology, microbiology (e.g. regarding vaccines), relativistic physics (denounced as "Jewish science") , anthropology, and sexology.
Natural Selection
This is the main guiding force in evolutionary theory. The principle is profoundly simple, and it only requires that you accept how humans (or other creatures) reproduce, i.e. involving replication of DNA which in turn gives rise to physical and psychological traits. This basic understanding of genetics does not require the belief that heredity is the ONLY cause for traits, only that it is a very strong impactful factor (an overarching finding in massive studies about heritability over the past decades is that genetic factors affecting almost all human traits, physically and psychologically, are almost always much more impactful than people previously believed). One can see evidence for basic heritability occurring all around us every day...traits, both physical and psychological, both quantitative and qualitative, increase the likelihood that these traits would show up in the next generation. We see this in strains of wheat or apples, in the health & behaviour of a new puppy or a racehorse, of the physical and psychological characteristics of one's children, and in the properties of microbes such as environmental pathogens.
If there is a particular inherited trait that increases the
chance of having healthy offspring, then the next generation will have a higher
proportion of this trait (since more healthy offspring with this trait will be
born), and if there is a trait that reduces the chance of having offspring, the
next generation will have less of this trait, since less offspring will be
born! It is extremely simple, clear
logic, with massively abundant data to support this.
Many people may not be aware of the next fundamental
property of DNA-based reproduction, but it is both intuitively obvious and also
richly supported with massive extremely clear and quantified evidence: the DNA
replication process has a small error rate which causes small changes
("mutations") in inherited genetic material from one generation to
the next. Such DNA changes would of
course cause small changes in traits, such as physical or psychological characteristics. "Mutation" here does not mean that
a negative change would occur, only a tiny tweak in a pre-existing state (which
could have a positive, neutral, or negative effect depending on the environment
in which the organism is living).
Mutations cause resulting proteins (manufactured using DNA as a
"recipe") to have small changes, it is like tweaking a recipe for
soup by very slightly changing the amount or type or potency or flavour of this
or that spice, or tweaking the manufacturing of an engine by placing rivets in
a slightly different place or using a slightly different alloy mix. There are various causes for the errors,
which are well-characterized, but finally they occur in a random pattern (an
apologist for religion might argue that the divine influence upon the natural
world occurs exactly at these apparently random moments, where it is actually a
divine "hand" that causes genetic variation based on apparent random
replication error--i.e. that it is God who always is controlling the outcome of
events which appear random--yet in studies of randomness there is no evidence
that such mutation events or other pseudorandom events occur in any different
pattern statistically than being truly random--i.e. no evidence of
"intelligent design" with respect to random or pseudorandom events). When there are small changes in the
replication of DNA from one generation to the next, if these changes reduce the
chance of having offspring in the next generation, this genetic change will
diminish in frequency or disappear in subsequent generations, but if the changes
increase the chance of having offspring, the genetic change will obviously be
passed on to greater numbers of offspring, and therefore increase in frequency.
In this way, reproduction over generations will gradually
cause increased prevalence of traits which are more adapted to the immediate
local environment. If a slight variation
appears that causes a bird to have a slightly longer beak, birds with such long
beaks would appear, and they would flourish in territories where having a long
beak would improve access to food (such as areas where the bird can reach
deeply to catch and eat an insect), while in other territories with different
environments, birds with some other shape or size of beak would survive and
flourish better (Darwin's initial work in the Galapagos Islands led to the
first case studies about exactly this).
This is the foundation of evolution, and it is simple to understand at
its most basic level. Because it takes
time for a new generation to occur, and because of the relatively low rate of
genetic errors, evolutionary changes beyond simple local variations in trait
frequency can take thousands of generations to become obvious. So evolution in larger organisms acts on a
long time scale compared to a human life, just like geological changes (e.g.
the formation of a canyon) and astronomical events such as stellar formation
etc., occur on an immensely longer time scale than a human life.
Small changes of this type, accumulated over thousands of
generations, can gradually cause massive changes to traits, including gradual
changes in complex organ systems such as the heart, the eye, or the brain. The mechanisms of these gradual
transformative changes have been well-characterized. There has been accumulating evidence from
many branches of science, such as paleontology, that intermediate forms for
almost any evolutionary process have existed in the past. Many intermediate forms still exist today
among related species. Apparent
"gaps" in the fossil record are usually due to discoveries which have
just not occurred yet (these "gaps" keep getting filled by new
discoveries) or due to geological/structural factors preventing certain types
of fossils or soft tissues from being easily preserved.
One common misconception about evolution is the statement
along the lines "humans are descended from chimpanzees." This is not
true at all -- evolutionary science shows us that all living creatures are part
of a family tree. We are not descended
from chimpanzees, but rather chimpanzees derive from a different branch of the
phylogenetic tree, and are cousins to humans, with the last common ape-like
ancestor between humans and chimps about 6 million years ago (we all have 2nd
cousins, 3rd cousins, etc., but with chimpanzees they would be something like
300 000th cousins to humans).
The small changes in DNA from one generation to the next,
when measured quantitatively, allow us to determine with good accuracy when the
common ancestor lived. For example,
analysis of DNA differences from human siblings or first cousins would show
with good accuracy that these individuals' common ancestors were parents who
lived a generation ago, or grandparents who lived two generations ago. DNA between distant relatives would show the
common ancestor (e.g. a great-great-great grandparent) lived a few hundred
years ago. Comparing DNA from people
from different parts of the world would demonstrate the common ancestor living
thousands of years ago or longer, depending on how separated the family trees
were of these people. Finally, all
humans trace back their ancestry to common ancestors who lived in Africa over
100 000 years ago. We can take this to
the next level, to show that humans and Neanderthals have a common ancestor
closer to a half million years ago, humans and chimpanzees 6 million years ago,
humans and wolves 85 million years ago, humans and fish 450 million years ago,
humans and plants a billion years ago.
In this way we come to appreciate that all living creatures on the earth
are literally cousins, all of whom having common ancestors which lived long
ago. Just like modern knowledge about
astronomy which began in the Middle Ages, this can be a source of wonder about
nature, rather than some kind of depressing disappointment that our previous
view of the universe was incorrect.
The lens of evolutionary biology can be applied to all
biological systems, starting on a molecular level, going all the way up to cell
types, organ systems, whole organisms, and even behavioural patterns. For example, simply looking at the detailed
structure of common proteins (such as myosin or hemoglobin), studying small
differences gives rise to a similar phylogenetic tree to compare individual
people, or different species, with similar estimates of the date of the common
ancestor. Organ systems such as the
heart or brain can be studied this way as well, with anatomical differences
correlating with differences in associated genes, again allowing an accurate
phylogenetic tree consistent with other modes of study.
In a shorter term, evolutionary changes simply increase
diversity, or cause localized changes in trait frequencies, within existing
species. But over the longer term,
divergence over time of branches of an evolutionary family tree cause creatures
in the different branches to lose the ability to reproduce with each
other. This is what is meant by
"speciation" -- for two diverging groups to be considered separate
species, it means they can in general no longer reproduce with each other. But in nature, genetic divergence leading to
speciation of large animals can take tens of thousands of generations.
A nice "spatial" example of speciation occurs in a
phenomenon called "ring species" in which organisms of the same type
living around a pond having some environmental variation around its periphery
can reproduce easily with strains living nearby along the pond, reproduce less
easily with strains that are a little farther away along the pond's edge, and
cannot reproduce at all with strains living on the opposite side of the
pond. This demonstrates that speciation
itself occurs on a continuum, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory.
It should be noted that just because a feature of life,
either anatomically or behaviourally, has evolved, does not mean that it is
"right" or that we have to passively accept this in terms of moral
reasoning. Evolved features do not
necessarily "improve" in some technical way over time; evolution
leads to features which improve survival for current environmental
conditions. For example, visual acuity
may improve through evolutionary processes in some animals who live in
environments where such acuity would be beneficial (typically for animals which
hunt), but for an animal whose environment is changing such that sharp vision
is less important, the vision in these creatures evolves towards reduced
acuity, since having sharper vision would not create any survival advantage (a
classic example is the naked mole rat).
Many anatomical features have distinct imperfections in design exactly
because they are evolved in an incremental ("tinkering") process
based on previously established forms--for example the human eye ("inside
out" wiring, with blind spot; cephalopod eye development lacks these
problems), or the human spine (poor performance with axial loading, a result of
the evolved origins from creatures with a horizontal spine) . And many human behaviours or tendencies which
result from evolution are not morally ideal.
In order to strive towards improved morality, we have to form cultural
rules and norms, which we cultivate through intelligence and
collaboration. The capacity to have
intelligence and to collaborate to create culture are themselves evolved
capacities, yet their deployment can help to contain other evolved tendencies
among us.
Memetic Evolution
An analogous natural selection and evolutionary process occurs in any phenomenon which "reproduces itself" even in a figurative way. Dawkins was I believe the first to use the word "meme" to describe this non-genetic evolutionary process. For example, language families evolve with time, forming a phylogenetic family tree of language, with each new generation of speakers, often in a different geographic region, having slight variations in vocabulary or grammar or pronunciation. As these branches of language groups drift farther apart over time, respective generations of speakers gradually lose the ability to understand members from a different branch, or contribute to each other's linguistic culture, thus forming different language "species." All languages have "common ancestor" languages, which were often spoken hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example, German and English or German and Dutch. The languages of Europe trace back to ancestral languages such as Latin and Greek, but then further back, alongside the languages of India, to languages that are virtually lost in the mists of time, such as "Proto-Indo-European." One can still see the similarities in many vocabulary words between disparate languages of Europe, as evidence of their common ancestry, with words becoming more and more similar as the common ancestor becomes more recent (e.g. German and Dutch, with a common ancestor language 1000 or so years ago, have much much more similar words and grammar than German and Russian, with common ancestor closer to 5000 years ago).
Another ironic example of memetic evolution concerns
religions themselves. All major
religions have branches, where there have been divergences in belief or
doctrine, and over time the religions "speciate" such that followers
of one particular branch would no longer consider followers of the other branch
to be part of the same fundamental group such as "Christians" at all,
while usually insisting that their own particular branch is the "correct"
one. In Christian religious groups, for
example, there are often schisms, where a church splits apart due to some
disagreement about doctrine, or maybe due to geographical separation. Going farther back, there are larger
divisions--every major denomination has a family of variations, which can be
traced back in a phylogenetic "family tree" to a "common
ancestor." Going farther back to the Reformation, we see a split between
Catholicism and the various types of Protestantism. Farther back, a division between Roman
Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.
Farther back, between Judaism and Christianity. In some cases of recent schisms, followers of
one group would still consider followers of another to have the same
foundation, e.g. "Christians,"
so for example most attendees of Lutheran or United churches would consider
attendees of Baptist churches to be fellow Christians, and vice-versa. But as we go farther, to more distant
denominational "cousins" there is a movement towards
"speciation" in which the divergent groups no longer consider
themselves to have the same unifying principles. So for example, some followers of Baptist
groups would not consider followers of Catholicism to be fellow
Christians. Or some members of
particular Christian groups would not consider followers of the LDS (Mormon)
church to be fellow Christians. We see
similar divergences, "speciation," and "family trees" in
the world's other major religions. This
divergence process continues very actively, and one can easily find examples of
various religious groups who have split in recent years, often over some
doctrine (typically these days about a social issue), quite often with the
resulting groups bitterly disparaging each other while insisting that their
group is "correct."
Many religious groups have disparaged evolutionary
theory. Religious authors, including
some rare ones with expertise in science, have written venomous critiques of
evolutionary biology (very frustrating to read as a scientist), which perhaps
might be persuasive to some relatively uneducated readers, or other
better-educated readers who are loyal adherents to particular ideological
ingroups. This genre reminds me of the
phenomenon we have seen frequently in the past years, which leads, through
spurious reasoning, sometimes by quite intelligent people and good writers with
strong beliefs, to a believe in conspiracy theories (e.g. about vaccines or
even about the earth being flat). As
Shoots-Reinhard et al (2021) have shown, verbal intelligence without
accompanying skill in logical or analytical reasoning, often increases, rather
than decreases, the risk of getting drawn into false beliefs, because one can
deploy spurious verbal arguments bolstered by biased exposure to written
propaganda or emotionally moving biased literature (often obtained online, such
as from Facebook or other social media these days).
Sexual Selection
Another interesting aspect of evolution is so-called "sexual selection," which is a variant of natural selection in which traits and reproductive success are favoured by esthetic phenomena which may not be otherwise functional. The peacock's tail is a classic example--the tail is beautiful but cumbersome and literally weighs the birds down dangerously, making it harder to escape predators. Yet a culture forms, in a co-evolved fashion, for colourful large tails to be a sign of a worthy mate, leading to an escalation of this trait. Most theorists believe that the large tail gives an indirect sign of fitness, since only a robust, healthy, fit male peacock could get away with and survive being weighed down by a huge tail. But my favourite theorist on this topic is a bird specialist, Richard Prum, who argues that sexual selection is not necessarily always founded by indirect assessments of fitness, but rather develops as an esthetic culture in which females (those which carry the higher physiologic burden of gestating or caring for young) of a species can exert a greater degree of choice. One can account for many human traits (such as cultural preferences and styles, fads, or even--as evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller has suggested--human intelligence, humour, and artistry) as driven by a similar process.
Heritability of Religiosity
Religiosity itself--also the tendency to have mystical/paranormal/magical beliefs--is also impacted by heredity, most likely through multiple pathways, some more salient in particular people. While religiosity in childhood is strongly impacted by the family's behaviour, adult religiosity or spiritual belief has moderately high heritability, around 30-50%, which is similar to the heritability for weight, extroversion, or intelligence--or medical conditions such as type II diabetes, migraine, hypertension, and depression. While there have been many very intelligent people through history who have held strong religious beliefs, there is a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, particularly for fundamentalist styles of religiosity. The character trait of "schizotypy" which would give rise to having unusual sensory experiences or loosened associations in thinking, increases the tendency to form mystical beliefs. Schizotypy is not necessarily a "pathology," it is just a trait variation which in small doses could lead to a more "poetic" experience of life, but in extreme cases can cause problems including psychotic states. Schizotypy is a bit like the gain on an amplifier, where high levels could increase sensitivity to stimuli, but at the cost of more "noise" and more tendency to receive erroneous messages. Obsessive-compulsive personality traits, in which a person would have a more rigid or "black and white" understanding of right and wrong, or about rules, with a tendency to denigrate or judge those having a different view, would impact the degree to which a person might adopt theological beliefs that are also very "black and white." As Jonathan Haidt has shown (see my review: Garth Kroeker: Review: "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt), the inherited traits that lead to increased priority for feelings of group loyalty and "moral purity" (as opposed to traits that lead to higher priority in values for fairness, compassion, or justice), increase the probability that one would form strong group allegiances to a religion. Other inherited traits would impact the degree to which one would loyally follow intellectual or ethical principles introduced by others, as opposed to flexibly reasoning through these issues on one's own or being willing to question and challenge based on evidence which refutes your beliefs. Narcissistic personality traits would also increase the tendency for a person to insist--irrespective of evidence--that their beliefs are correct or "better," and to dismissively or angrily conclude that others are wrong.
False Beliefs sometimes have apparent benefits
Another interesting but potentially troubling angle on this is that sometimes latching devoutly onto an entirely fictional or even delusional belief system can lead to positive changes not found otherwise. This would entrench people further into their fictional belief system, since they would see positive results. The mechanism is similar to the deception-mediated one which Trivers described (see above) or my previous example about psychoanalysis.
For example, some people may latch onto an extremely
rigorous or bizarre diet, which is completely unfounded from a scientific or
health point of view, yet achieve stabilization of a prior eating or obesity
problem. In order for the diet to work,
the person would need to have devout belief in the diet's theoretical
benefit. The strength of belief (in this
spurious theory), perhaps bolstered by "spiritual practices" such as
meditations or perusing theoretical texts, or following a charismatic leader,
with the enthusiastic support of fellow dieters, would increase the person's
adherence to the diet, and therefore lead to more disciplined change in prior
eating problems. But the mechanism here
is not that the underlying theory is correct, it is that the theory has
ensnared the person into very devout belief, which increases engagement and
compliance with disciplined dietary change (such as attention to amounts and
timing of eating). The mechanism of
improvement would once again be due to "common factors" of increased
discipline and regular engagement with structured habits, perhaps with the
support of peers, even though the dietary theory could be entirely fictional,
needlessly expensive, and often harmful or medically dangerous. Also very often these diets, or other
examples such as some alternative medicine modalities, are mostly fictional or
outlandish, but also contain some elements of good or effective strategies,
such as reducing consumption of processed foods, eating more vegetables,
exercising regularly, etc.
Sometimes one can just understand these forays into false
belief to be harmless, especially if they are leading to health improvements,
but once again there is a dark side here, of people adopting behaviours which
may be harmful, or of adopting a loyalty to their fictional beliefs, suspending
critical thinking, causing them to reject more helpful treatments when they are
indicated. Also, people following these
beliefs tend to get drawn into a community of others holding similar unusual
beliefs. So for example a belief in
particular alternative medicine practices might increase the probability of
getting involved in some new spiritual beliefs, political or philosophical
leanings, also involving financial contributions (usually, just like with many
religious groups, there is someone making a lot of money from these
things). Furthermore, just as in
religions, if people are loyally adherent to these beliefs, they will tend to well-meaningly
"proselytize" others, to try to "convert" other people to
join their group of believers, while often disparaging outsiders. This, in turn, when it comes to fad diets
etc., can do a lot of harm to public health.
Religions offered an educational venue
Over history, many wise people wanting to use their intelligence and other talents to learn about existential or philosophical or scientific topics while also leading or guiding or helping their community, would have ended up studying religion. At some points in history, the church was the main means of obtaining an education (mind you, in the Dark Ages, there was some risk of the world losing access to the intellectual contributions of the ancient Greeks, due to Christian religious scholars feeling that this knowledge was "pagan" or incompatible with their theology). It would have been hard for a talented person to get an education and develop their skills, outside of the church, and without having to study the theology of the day. Therefore, there would have been a biased association between scholarship and theology. Many scientists would have been well-educated in theology. The scientific skills would overall have helped communities grow, morally and intellectually. The non-causal association between theological education and scientific/scholarly education would have attracted some people to religions, since they would respect such intelligent, accomplished people. This is not because the underlying church doctrines were correct, it was because intelligent, thoughtful, altruistic people are compelling to others, and more often than not are good for society, even if they sometimes hold beliefs which are unfounded.
Religion as a business
Many religions operate as a business: there is marketing (proselytization), branding (including with various symbols people might wear on their clothing or on a necklace), encouragement to be loyal to your brand, criticism of other brands, but then a financial commitment, leading to a financial structure. There is work to be done by members of this business-like structure, with an ultimate goal to expand its membership, to elicit volunteering efforts and financial contributions, while maintaining morale. With some intensely tribal business-like groups (such as gangs or frat houses) there might even be an onerous initiation ritual one would have to do; but in doing this ritual--as social psychologists have shown us--people would tend to form a stronger, more loyal bond with the group. Religions as well usually have ritualistic initiation processes, in which potential members would be vetted, have to attend educational sessions, then finally some sort of public ritual with solemn commitments being given.
Sometimes, as with luxury business models, broad
proselytization does not occur, in fact the business model is to restrict
access to the product. Only a select few
gain entry. In some religions you need
to have advanced membership--often taking years--before you are allowed to
enter certain beautiful buildings such as temples, or partake in certain deep
rituals. Sometimes only men are allowed. But these obstacles would increase the
allure, and attract people who would be able to contribute more commitment,
time, and money. If everybody had a
Rolex watch or a Gucci bag it would cease to be as special. The business itself would also be able to
maintain a claim that its brand was "high end" through exclusivity.
One particular feature of religions, which reminds me of a
corporate tactic, is the valuation of belief alone, or faith, as a key
virtue. Belief or faith without evidence
is encouraged. If a corporation could
successfully propagate this idea, it would be very useful for marketing, since
people would just believe in the brand, form loyalty to the brand, without
looking at any reviews. People who would
express doubts, engage in reviews, or who would soberly consider competitor's
products, would get disparaged as morally or spiritually weak. For the "true believers" they would
even get rewarded for such loyalty--their membership and esteem in the
community would get boosted to a higher level.
In many cases religious groups amass vast wealth, in terms
of property, buildings, etc. Some major
well-known religious groups have investments and property holdings worth around
$100 billion. While many religious
leaders may have modest salaries, there are of course many egregious examples
of charismatic churches in which the leaders become very wealthy from their
congregants' donations. In some cases,
these congregants are living near the poverty line. These business-like structures usually
operate with societal protection and often do not have to pay various types of
tax. There can be insightful cautions in
some religious texts which rise above this, for example, the statement
attributed to Jesus (present in three of the Synoptic Gospels), "it is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
enter the kingdom of God." ...
"Spirituality"
Humans are naturally attracted to superstitious beliefs. Beliefs in spirits, ghosts, magic, luck or fortune determined by some mysterious power, etc. are present in every culture. Some examples in particular cultures get more and more bizarre when viewed from the position of another culture, such as about magical creatures roaming the woods, stones with mysterious powers, etc. It can be astounding to realize how common such beliefs are. The mind has the capacity to see false patterns in random data--the mind craves meaning, and if meaning is not present it simply creates its own. Imaginary stories, or bizarre dreams that someone might have had, give rise to groups of people starting to believe the content literally. And if some people believe in such things, even with the most outlandish explanations, the beliefs become contagious. Such false meanings can feel satisfying, because they relieve some of the distress caused by a life situation which seems to lack rational explanation. Or perhaps it makes life seem more interesting or vivid. From a psychiatric point of view, there is a spectrum in the population with regard to the degree that people have unusual or mystical experience, which is determined in part by dopamine systems in the brain. High activity in these brain systems is akin to having high gain in an amplifier--there are strong and convincing perceptions, but they are subject to high levels of distortion, such that static or random environmental noise gets misconstrued as useful information. Many members of organized religions disparage superstition or other "spirituality," but really all religions and spiritual practices are elaborations of the same human tendencies, and differ only in how organized, politicized, and elaborated the beliefs are.
Sacrifice
Most religions have some form of sacrifice alluded to in their theology. This could literally involve killing, and then perhaps burning, innocent animals (often baby animals) or perhaps giving valuable objects which would then be destroyed. There are references to human sacrifice in some traditions, including in Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, in which willingness to sacrifice one's own son (e.g. in the story of Abraham and his son) is lauded as a sign of piety and obedience, or even the story of Jesus which has a theme of self-sacrifice as a gift for humanity.
Sacrifice is an extension, born in ancient times, present in
almost every ancient culture, of human ideas about reciprocity and gratitude,
but then infused with some magical thinking.
In a community we may do favours or give gifts to others, which we may
experience joyfully and be driven to do from altruistic motives, but such
behaviours require that there be some general norm of reciprocity. Such reciprocity in social behaviour is yet
another evolved trait in humans. If one
believes that there is a mystical power who controls destiny, fate, health,
fertility, wealth, military success, the weather, etc., it is understandable
that one would be motivated to give some kind of gift (i.e. sacrifice) with the
hope that some positive turn of fortune (in present life or imagined afterlife)
might result from such gift-giving behaviour.
There is no escaping the pseudo-logic of this, if one has this
mindset--since if one makes abundant sacrifices yet an adverse outcome still
happens, one could believe that the sacrifice was not good enough, and one
should increase it or make it more "sincere" next time; conversely if
something positive happens after the sacrifice, one would tend to believe that
the sacrifice was effective, and therefore should also be repeated in the
future. The poor creatures getting
sacrificed wouldn't usually have much say in the matter.
Another motivation for sacrificial rituals has to do with
the historic human need to hunt animals, or to kill domestic animals for
food. People would naturally have
various positive feelings such as respect, affection, or even love for the
animals -- we bond to animals, just as we can bond to other humans. It would be troubling to most people to see
animals struggle and suffer as they are being hunted or killed. So sacrificial rituals have often arisen to
symbolically assuage guilt, and to have a gesture of gratitude for the grave
undertaking that was necessary to obtain food.
Sacrifice could also be a type of political performance,
intended to demonstrate power, to consolidate a hierarchy of power (such as
involving priests), and perhaps to instill fear.
Speaking of reciprocity, or reciprocal altruism, it is a
strongly selected trait to favour or help genetic relatives, sometimes even in
a self-sacrificial way. If there is a
person who has a trait which causes them to selectively help relatives, then
this trait would also be carried frequently in the entire genetic family, since
traits obviously run in families.
Members of such a family would help each other, in turn increasing the
survival, prosperity and overall success of the whole family, thus leading to
improved likelihood of passing traits on to the next generation; but these
traits would include this trait for kin altruism. Thus, the proportion of people who treat
family members altruistically will obviously increase in frequency in
subsequent generations. Altruism in
general would similarly be a positively selected trait in all humans, but it
must logically be true that even if people have a very altruistic stance towards
everyone, as a very nice quality of character, there would always be an inherited
tendency to feel less altruistic to people who are likely to be more distantly
related. This, in turn, drives various
negative human tendencies on a population level: the derived traits that all
people have will bias people to treat relatives better than non-relatives. People with different cultures, languages,
and skin colour are likely to be less genetically related than people with the
same culture, language, and skin colour.
Therefore there is a genetic bias to treat outsiders poorly, and at worst
to behave in a racist manner. Such
biases must be addressed on a sociocultural level, to recognize and take active
steps to avoid and mitigate the prejudices that we are all naturally inclined
toward.
Shepherding
A related religious metaphor is of shepherding. Jesus is known as the "Good Shepherd." Various other references in the Bible refer to God as a shepherd. But it is important to consider what actual shepherds did in the region at the time: sheep were raised not just to take care of them--they were food animals! In particular, male lambs were either killed for food or killed in religious rituals. So one should be careful what one wishes for -- do you really want a shepherd-like figure, who will keep you from straying away from the flock until you are slaughtered for food, or perhaps prevent your younger male cousins from escaping? As a child I never thought of this. My children's Bible contained beautiful pastoral artwork depicting kindly shepherds with a hooked staff, perhaps playing a harp, enjoying sunny afternoons on a green pasture, enjoying the scenery as they supervised a cute herd of their wooly friends, perhaps with one of the flock having wandered off. The religious metaphor of a "sheep gone astray" is mentioned several times in the Old and New Testaments, symbolizing people who were supposedly misbehaving in some way. But let us remember that actual sheep if they did not "go astray" would likely be killed and eaten, or would have to bear witness to the younger members of their herd mysteriously disappearing every few weeks.
Prayer
Prayer may mean different things to different people. For many it is a meditative act, a type of philosophical reflection with existential themes, a type of relaxation therapy, a "grounding" moment. The praying person may believe they are having a conversation with God. The manner in which God is understood to speak back is often taken in a broad figurative way, for example if the person would subsequently have an idea or inclination or motivation to make some different decision, perhaps with a redoubling of confidence, or if the person had a new wave of different emotion. Or some people may not expect that God would speak back, they may be ok with simply venting their thoughts in a reverent framework. In some ways it is comparable to classical psychoanalysis, with the therapist rarely speaking.
For many people, they may pray "for something."
There may be a specific request in the prayer, a request for God to intervene
in some way. If God did intervene, it
would I suppose require that there be some exception to the laws of physics and
causation in order to alter future events.
If a deity were to grant the requests in prayers frequently, one would
think that there would be billions of examples per year in the world of the
laws of physics not seeming to apply as expected, and that if you held that some
particular variety of religion was more "correct" or effective than
others, that these exceptions to the laws of physics would occur most often in
particular regions (let's say the U.S.
"Bible Belt") where people more commonly had this favoured
belief system. Yet I am not aware of
geographical regions containing more or less numbers of particular religious
people, in which there are more or less exceptions noted to the laws of
physics.
The moral structure of prayer often conforms to the patterns
by which we experience empathy. Many
people's prayers are truly empathic--they may be thinking of struggling friends
or family members, or sometimes of terrible world events, and requesting that
there be divine comfort given in some way.
But supposing that the prayer led to such divine comfort being provided,
it leads to the counterfactual -- if the prayer had not occurred, then divine
comfort would not have been provided.
But shouldn't God be a provider of comfort to anyone who is suffering,
or a mediator or comforter in all terrible world events, even if nobody is
praying for comfort? In fact, some of
the worst events in the world (in terms of private pain and suffering) occur
without anyone else knowing, so there would be nobody to specifically pray to
mend the situation. Also, in terms of
empathy, it is important to consider psychologist Paul Bloom's insights. See my review of his book "Against
Empathy" (Garth Kroeker: Compassion vs.
Empathy: Reflections on Paul Bloom's Book). Bloom shows us that empathy is often biased
and therefore unjust. We are more likely
to have empathy for those who are similar to us, in terms of having similar
problems, similar attitudes, similar appearance. Thus it is prone to being prejudicial. And empathy is evoked more strongly by an
emotionally dramatic display, irrespective of the gravity of the need, causing
empathic reactions to be excessively swayed by emotive incidents, while those
who suffer quietly or perhaps who show pain in a less socially acceptable way
would evoke less empathy. Relatively
fewer prayers are focused on global fairness and compassion.
Many prayers are not about empathy for others at all, they
are about wishing something for oneself.
There are many battlefield prayers.
Or prayers prior to a medical procedure.
People may pray for money, or to mend a broken relationship (often
without consideration of whether this is actually beneficial for the other
person), or to get a new job, or to heal from a painful illness. There are prayers for the outcome of a
baseball pitch or a hockey game. As a
meditative act this is completely understandable, but the moral structure of
this reminds me a little bit of my comments about sacrifice: if the prayer is
followed by some good thing happening later, the person will tend to feel that
the prayer was successful, and it will bolster the tendency to gratefully pray
again. If the prayer is not followed by
a good thing happening later, people may feel that they simply didn't pray well
enough or long enough or sincerely enough, or perhaps they may feel that God
was just busy with something else, or didn't find the request worthy. But often the motivational foundation is
quite self-oriented. Also supposing one
had not prayed regarding some issue, and then some bad thing happened in the
realm of this issue: one could then logically feel some sense of guilt and
responsibility for not having prayed about it.
This is a type of symptom dynamic that can occur in some forms of OCD,
in which a person has an anxious belief that if they don't do some kind of
ritual (such as checking or counting etc.) then some disaster would
happen. Every time they do the ritual
and a disaster does not immediately happen, they are bolstered further in their
OCD habit. But if some disaster does
happen at some point, the person may insist that it was because they did not do
their OCD habits enough.
Object Relations
Humans have a much more richly developed capacity than that of non-human animals to be able to imagine. A person can create an "internalized" representation of all relationships. In a sense this is like having an imaginary friend. This is a foundation of so-called "object relations theory" which was one of the more insightful and useful branches of psychoanalysis.
Developmentally, we are initially comforted by a literal
parent, but over time we can carry with us, in our memory, an internalized
representation of our parent, which can also be comforting. This allows us to be more confident and
stable, to hold onto positive memories from the past, even when we are alone,
and to deal with grief if the loved one passes away.
For many people, they have an internalized relationship with
an idealized figure they would call God.
Often this figure could have a human-like appearance (often a bearded
man, usually Caucasian in Christian traditions, despite the relative rarity of
Caucasian skin types in the world, including in the so-called "Holy
Land" of the Middle East), and have various qualities that could be deemed
ideal in some way, such as being gentle, kind, fatherly, all-knowing, loving,
wise, consistent, coach-like, or like a therapist. Some people's internalized conceptions of a
divine figure could be frightening or stern, a figure poised to punish if one
were to do something wrong. Often these
are projections of what people have experienced in their own lives or
communities, i.e. valuing father figures who are either lovingly kind and
lenient, or frighteningly strict and punitive.
Just like literal relationships with living humans, people
can be devoutly loyal to their internalized relationship figures, to almost any
extreme--many people would be willing to die in service of their internalized
relationship. People could be extremely
angry and offended if one were to claim that their internalized relationship
was with an entity that did not exist outside of their imagination.
People may also have a personified concept of ultimate evil,
that they may label using some kind of devil-like name. On a psychological level, this could allow
more comfortable or engaging processing of regrettable behaviour, since one
could attribute it to an external evil figure, reframing the moral challenge as
a battle against evil, with God on one's side, as opposed to simply struggling
with one's own moral challenges or bad behaviour. Also, with this framing, the community,
provided such beliefs are shared, may be able to be more empathic about
aberrant behaviour--if such behaviour could be attributed to some external
malevolent character (e.g. "The
devil") rather than the person, then the offending person's character
could be more easily reintegrated into the community, provided some tactic or
simple ritual was done to supposedly deal with it. Thus personified attributions of good and
evil could be socially useful in a small community.
Religious Abuse
Abuse is unfortunately common. It affects every type of community and family. I have seen numerous cases in which religious texts or other elements of religious faith were used as tools to abuse innocent children. This includes the worst case of emotional abuse that I have seen in my career.
In this case, of a teenager with a sweet, loving, gentle,
intelligent, altruistic personality, living in a very wealthy household, there
would be forced family sessions late at night in which this young person would
be made to listen to Bible passages for hours, recited formally by various
family members, sitting in a circle around her in her bedroom, directed by her
brutal, narcissistic father, accusing her of being a bad person. The patient was in fact actively involved in
altruistic leadership at a church, but the family would accuse her of hypocrisy
or of being a "false disciple" using passages such as Matthew 7:21-23
and Matthew 23:13-20. She was told
"God has abandoned you" with many threats that she would be going to
hell. Then there would be a foray into
the Old Testament, with recitations of Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which advised that
a stubborn or rebellious child who does not obey parents should be stoned to
death by the community. Being a gentle,
religious person herself, this type of experience was torturous--permanently
traumatizing--in combination with the family's many other types of abusive and
neglectful behaviour. These episodes
would be interspersed with the family members engaging in evangelical outreach
efforts in the community, "to spread the word." As is often the case
with such family situations, the parents were seen as quite pious and respected
by other members of the community. Of
course, it should be noted that the causes of abusive behaviour are complex,
and that in the absence of religion these parents would surely have been
abusive in some other way. But in this
family, the abuse worsened as the family got more and more involved in their
religious practices. Congregants aware
of what was going on, were horrified by the events but did nothing to help
other than pray.
In another example, children of a very religious mother
experienced profound daily neglect and emotional abuse for years. Once again, members of the religious
community did nothing to help the situation other than perhaps to pray. Once this child was in another environment
with the other parent, with no further exposure to religion, the suffering
remitted, the child grew into an intelligent, gentle, kind, outstanding young
woman, though continues to have post-traumatic symptoms regarding this earlier
phase of life.
In another, a family had previously been happy and
well-integrated with the extended family, but as they became more and more
involved in extreme fundamentalist religion, their personalities seemed to
change -- they became dark, angry, suspicious, eventually estranging themselves
from the rest of the family. Scary
posters appeared on their property with frightening, threatening passages from
scriptures warning people about hell.
Attempts to reach out with kindness were met with angry, scolding
condemnations about religious differences.
A particular low point was an angry, rambling rant about religion given
during the funeral service of a family elder.
These problems correlated with the family becoming more and more
insular, and more and more involved in extreme religious beliefs and
practices. To this day I feel bad for
the poor children in that family who had to grow up in that environment.
There are numerous examples I have seen of estrangements:
often religious parents ostracizing, shaming, and shunning children due to some
lifestyle or religious difference, with these actions encouraged and applauded
by the religious community. In other
cases, religious adults shunned their aging parents, depriving them of access
to grandchildren, once again with some kind of pious explanation. As with other examples, there are factors
other than religiosity--such as personality disorder traits--which have
contributed to these damaging behaviours, but it is quite clear that dogmatic
religious beliefs combined with endorsement of these actions by a religious
community, made the problems worse.
There are many other examples; one was a simple statement
from abusive religious parents: "turn or burn." I find this a concise
epitome of a lurking firm belief that many people hold: if you don't follow my
belief, you're going to be tortured in hell for all of eternity. At once it is a sincere invitation to join
the religion, but at the same time it is a torturous threat. At once it may be well-meaning in a sort of
way, but the spirit of the statement violates the moral foundations of the
religion itself: surely people are not followers of a religion simply because
they fear being tortured for all of eternity if they don't join! Surely, in an advanced, divinely inspired way
of life, there would be a beautiful, ethical foundation for being part of it,
rather than a violent threat!
It can be helpful to hear accounts from people who have
escaped extremely abusive religious communities. Megan Phelps-Roper is a good example. She has good insights about the type of
influences that helped her--the foundation was having relationships and
communications with people who treated her with compassion, respect,
understanding, and who cultivated a friendship before trying to debate with her
about religion.
Historical Atrocities
Humans have engaged in all manner of atrocities, and despite the horrors of the past century, we see similar or often worse scales of atrocity the farther back we look. Many historical atrocities have occurred under the banner of major religions. The human capacity for cruelty has always been devastating, but we see that various human institutions including all major religions have a capacity to make cruelty feel righteous to those inflicting harm. Charlemagne's campaigns against the Saxons fused conquest with coerced "Christianization," and involved mass executions of "pagans" with entire villages wiped out. Refusal of baptism was considered a criminal offense punishable by the death penalty. The Crusades from the 11th-13th centuries, involved mass slaughter of Jews in Europe, and mass slaughter of Muslims and Jews in the Middle East. The Thirty Years' War -- significantly driven by religious differences -- was one of the most devastating slaughters in history, with millions of deaths (many of which caused by famine and disease), and unimaginable psychological trauma. The Spanish Inquisition involved mass horror and systematic coercion in a terrifying atmosphere, including many executions, with a religious motive. Colonial movements in recent centuries have involved millions of deaths, such as using narratives of "civilization" involving missionaries, covering for the reality of forced labour, economic exploitation, etc. -- for example, the Congo Free State terror period in the late 1800s. Much of the slave trade was considered justifiable by religious leaders of the day. The Spanish conquest of the Americas, with missionaries in tow, involved millions of deaths of native Americans (while most of these deaths were due to disease, the religious involvement was at best a passive accompaniment, and at worst an active participant, in the devastation inflicted on these cultural groups). In recent Canadian history, "Christianization" was one of the motives behind Residential Schools, in which over 150 000 First Nations children were subject to state coercion, psychological trauma, disrespect and disruption to cultural traditions, and various other forms of abuse, including many deaths. Of course, in human history, violence and abuse has occurred without being driven by religious belief--but it is very clear that religions have not been protective against the worst destructive drives of humanity, and unfortunately religious faith has often been deployed to justify abuses, to justify discrimination, or to enlist public support for devastatingly harmful policies.
Heaven & Hell
Many religions have concepts of Heaven and Hell. Heaven an eternal state of perfect happiness. And Hell, an eternal state of punishment. Religious doctrines would advise that people live appropriately during their lifetime on earth, and after they die, they would be judged and sent to one place or the other. In some doctrines, the criteria are not even that you live a good life (for example, to be kind, to not hurt others, to contribute to society, to make the world a better place, etc.) but rather the main criterion seems to be whether you profess belief in a very particular way. Thus, one could be the kindest, most helpful person in human history, but still go to hell if the appropriate beliefs are not endorsed. Or one could commit the worst atrocities in history, and just be an all-round hurtful person, yet go to heaven afterwards if the appropriate beliefs are endorsed.
This concept perhaps induces group affiliation using a
combination of threat and reward. It is
like a company which offers permanent financial support and safety if you just
sign a lifetime membership, if you agree to market their products regularly,
and if you guarantee not to deal with other companies. But this company would also make you go
permanently bankrupt, and perhaps break your legs, if you broke the deal. There would even be scary rules in the
contract, such that the act of challenging the company policy would receive
frightening names such as "heresy" or "apostasy," therefore
discouraging anyone from questioning or challenging the status quo.
Such a system is in contradiction to the spirit of fairness,
grace, and justice -- the striving towards mature, advanced morality -- present
in religious doctrines at their best. An
infinite punishment for a finite set of crimes does not make sense. And the idea of punishing someone not for a
crime, but for having an idea, belief, or thought, not conforming to a
prescribed norm, is contrary to most people's concept of a healthy society, to
the "bill of rights" that almost all of us, religious or not, value
highly in our nations.
In the world, on average at this point, there are about 2
deaths per second, 7000 deaths per hour, 5 million deaths per month. Human deaths occur on the earth about twice
as fast as your heartbeat. Only a
fraction of these people who are dying will follow any one particular religious
belief system. Therefore there would be
several thousand deaths per hour of people who would not consider themselves
Christians. Or thousands who would not
consider themselves Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus. Many of these thousands of people would have
lived gentle, kind, loving, generous lives, contributing to their families and
communities. If one has a particularly
strict set of beliefs about "Hell" conforming to a strict
interpretation of doctrine, then it would follow that there would be thousands
of kind-hearted people every hour who would be banished into a state of
eternal, infinite punitive suffering, as a result of their lack of appropriate
belief. Conversely, many others who had
behaved cruelly all their lives would receive an infinite reward, if they had
the correct beliefs in their last moments.
One could imagine a lineup of people (including children & elders)
being pushed--one person every second--into a flaming inferno, worse than any
human concentration camp or medieval torture chamber, since the suffering would
be understood as permanent. And the
person or entity doing this pushing would be the person or entity deemed the most
perfect, wonderful, loving force in the universe (God). If one truly believed this was the fate of
all these thousands or millions of people, one would either need to adopt some
degree of indifference to this suffering, adopt a quite horrific view of the
way the world works, or one would need to devote one's life to "converting"
as many people as possible so as to save them from hell. It would not make sense to devote one's life
to rescuing people on some smaller scale (e.g. being a firefighter or a
therapist etc.) since this would distract from the colossal task of saving many
more people from an infinitely worse fate than any human fire or accident or
mental illness might cause. Being a
proselytizing missionary would seem to be the only reasonable altruistic
activity. And if you wanted to save the
most people efficiently, you should focus your efforts on elders, or others
with shorter life expectancy, since their ensuing eternal torture would be
coming up sooner. If one's own friend or
child strayed from the perceived correct religious involvement, it would be
understandable to view this as the most horrifying contingency you could
possibly imagine, perhaps the most devastating trauma of one's life, far worse
than losing them to a horrible accident or illness or brutal crime, since once
again your belief would be that this loved one would end up in a state of
eternal torturous suffering.
The statement that I think captures the best themes of
Christianity (e.g. grace, love, altruism, selflessness) while still admitting
the possibility of this horrible infinite suffering scenario, comes from Mother
Teresa: she stated that she would leave Heaven willingly, in order to go to
Hell, in order to comfort those who suffer there. I think we should all strive towards such
transcendence of character.
Eschatology
Many religions have a view of how the world, or how life in the world, will end. This is called "eschatology." In some instances there is an almost excited anticipation of the world's ending, with a view that there would subsequently be a glorious ascent of worthy people up to heaven (here's that spatial metaphor again, taken literally by many, as though heaven would be "upwards"). Of course, those with this view would usually assume that they would be among these worthy people. In turn, some would cultivate a sense of passive resignation about attempting to improve the world's problems--they would just say that these are the "end times." To some degree such beliefs can influence political policy. It is a bleak and cynical example of the consequences of taking dogma literally. Such thinking at times leads to very dark extreme behaviour, such as the Heaven's Gate mass suicide in 1997. Even if the world was ending, it seems profoundly dishonourable to adopt passive or even joyful resignation about helpful action--it would be like watching a burning building with no attempt to help the people trapped inside, perhaps having a little inner smile and nod with the thought that heaven is getting closer.
I think most of us would agree that the most noble and
beautiful actions that humans are capable of are being helpful and altruistic,
working towards the improvement of any situation, even if the situation is
bleak or seemingly hopeless. Such a
noble person would not be motivated by thoughts of a glorious heavenly reward
upon death -- they would be motivated to do good things because of the
intrinsic good of the action itself.
Behavioural Restrictions
In some cases, religious groups can prescribe particular types of food, particular styles of dress, and particular behavioural expectations that are only obscurely related to some moral issue, if at all. The main purpose of these behavioural rules, beyond simply being a cultural fad with obscure origins, is signaling value, to remind others (and even oneself) about the group affiliation. Sometimes these can be understood as simple cultural variations, but often there is a sense of these rules being rigid and imperative, such that veering away from these recommendations would be seen as an offence (either an offence towards the religious community or family, or an offence against God). At times the restrictions cause difficulties with living freely or enjoyably in modern society.
This is comparable to other mechanisms used by groups to
bolster loyalty: if there are styles of appearance and behaviour that
demonstrate clearly that one is part of a particular group, these can be extra
signs that make it easier to find fellow group members, and to avoid or have
suspicion about outgroup members. Over
time, one can become fond of these behavioural symbols or signals, it can evoke
feelings associated with the religion, and it can be like wearing a ring that
has special significance every day and night for years of time since
childhood. People would then feel
uncomfortable, or perhaps even guilty, without it, and they would feel a sense
of relief to find others with a similar ring.
It could be quite burdensome if this "ring" so to speak was so
massive and cumbersome that it would significantly hinder normal activity (this
is reminiscent of the peacock's tail).
Another area in modern culture where we see similar
phenomena would be in corporate branding.
Once again, we can understand such phenomena as normal human cultural
variations, but the darker side of this could be when people don't wish to
participate in these behavioural restrictions or rules, or the symbols are used
as tools to suppress behaviour, and where the person would face rejection or
punishment from peers if they didn't follow the rules.
Another related dark side of religious dogma is
doctrine-based condemnation or discrimination against people who have
lifestyles not endorsed by the religion.
Such judgments are often simply founded, at their root, by the human
tendency to exclude or denigrate people who are different in some way, even if
they are not harming anyone. But the
best of religious texts call for people to rise above such prejudicial
thinking, and call for people to be inclusive, non-judgmental, and unfailingly
loving towards everyone, not just towards people who share the same belief
system or lifestyle. There are various
Biblical stories, for example, of reaching out in a loving, accepting way to
members of groups that were vilified by most others in society.
Other Behavioural Phenomena
Some religions feature unusual behaviours that are accepted as manifestations of divinity. For example, glossolalia ("speaking in tongues"). Every cultural group has particular rituals that may symbolize divine intervention somehow, but of course it is concerning in modern times that people would take such things as being literal manifestations of God speaking through someone. One can look up examples online, for example on YouTube of an infamous political leader of a major country whose "Faith Leader" is shown "speaking in tongues" in public. From a psychiatric point of view, it's a particular talent akin to dissociation or hypnosis, combined with robust showmanship, manipulative persuasiveness, and narcissism, basically in which one can create incoherent language while projecting the sense that this is a sublime moment of insight. Metaphorically, it is oddly consistent, since the content of coherent texts from extreme religious ideologues is similarly lacking in rationality. I suppose such a display would be quite entrancing to the excited observers, but the incredibly dark side of this is that it solidifies intense group solidarity, via spectacle and emotional intensity, encouraging people to suspend critical thinking if the show is exciting enough, while allowing the person doing this to exert influence on actual government policy, often based on ideologies that are not well-supported by the public, and are often founded on fictional, extreme, or even bizarre belief.
Narcissism, Obsessiveness, Sanctimony
The combination of religiosity and narcissism is quite common, and leads to people insinuating or directly asserting that their beliefs, their culture, and their moral grounding is simply better than that of other people outside of their faith system. Boastfulness and arrogance and smug self-righteousness then have the effect of belittling other people. These traits would normally be abhorrent on a one-on-one basis, but are more likely to be tolerated in the milieu of shared belief. Once again, such narcissism violates the spirit of religious doctrines at their best, which affirm the traits of humility, meekness, and respect for outsiders.
Obsessiveness, as a personality trait, refers to rigidity
and narrowness, with intolerance of "shades of gray," and with a
tendency to engage in strict judgments of others. The combination of such obsessiveness and
religiosity is also quite common, both in families and in whole communities,
leading to people living in a fearful state of feeling scrutinized or judged
for all actions, large or small. Once
again, such traits if allowed to guide behavior are contrary to the spirit of
religious doctrines at their best, which affirm higher values (such as
"Love thy Neighbor" rather than obsessive adherence to Pharisaical
rules).
Consciousness
There are many unanswered questions about how the universe works. Part of the wonder of science is appreciating that for every advance in understanding, there are always new horizons of the unknown to explore further.
I find that one existential frontier in understanding has to
do with consciousness. Regardless of the
various physical explanations about why we have conscious, subjective
experience (of memory, drives, sensations, emotions, etc.) it remains truly
miraculous that this occurs. It is true
that consciousness exists on a continuum; it has definitely been sculpted by evolutionary forces, and is subject to a lot of variation, with diminished or gradually altered
consciousness caused by sleep, fatigue, anesthesia, substances, neurological
disease, etc. It is interesting
to consider whether consciousness could be a property of nature itself, as
opposed to a property only of a neurological system such as the brain. Some great scientists such as Roger Penrose
have theorized about the mechanisms of consciousness; while I think such
theorizing is interesting and worth following, I'm not sure that the result
would impact my opinion of this matter too much. Even if there was a precise physical
explanation, it does not lessen the miraculousness of it.
I find consciousness even more miraculous than "free
will" since even if the universe was entirely deterministic or
superdeterministic, there would still be human consciousness, which is
something which deserves a feeling of wonder and awe. Some people would say that the phenomenon of
consciousness is a manifestation of the divine -- and I guess I'd have to be ok
with that, perhaps even as a foundational definition of the word
"divine."
Conclusion & Ideas for the Future
In conclusion, religious beliefs and organized group religion in particular has been a part of human civilization for thousands of years. Culturally, religion can have many benefits to help communities come together, to celebrate, to grieve, to contemplate morality, to show gratitude, and to meditate. Religious faith is consolidated by human tendencies to be loyal (in this case, to an ingroup, to one's family, to longstanding beliefs learned and practiced often since childhood, and to an internalized idealized figure), and by the human tendency to form internalized, personified representations (in this case, God being an internalized representation of an ideal good, or an ideal power). Religions are further consolidated by many enjoyable and meaningful human cultural activities: a lot of the world's greatest art, music, literature, and architecture is based on religion. Religions also help people cope with the deepest, most painful, and most frightening experiences of life, such as facing the deaths of our loved ones, or facing one's own mortality. Religions and religious services can also be an enjoyable medium through which to meet friends or potential partners, with a better than average chance of meeting someone with whom you might have values in common.
Yet religions and other spiritual or mystical systems hold
beliefs that are not true. These beliefs
are often taken quite literally, and the dogmatic adherence to and public
profession of these beliefs are often required as signs of loyalty to the
religion. Some such fictions may be
inconsequential most of the time, for example maybe it doesn't matter much to
most people's lives if they don't have an accurate understanding of biology,
astronomy, geology, genetics, or ancient history. Yet the darker side of this has to do with
extremity of group loyalty, such that ingroups and outgroups form, seeding
human conflict. Religions can become an
emblem of group loyalty, which can seed maltreatment of outgroups. The lack of accurate education about the way
the world works finally would be detrimental to any individual, group, or
nation--it is similar to a pilot of an airplane who doesn't understand how the
engines work, and assumes that planes fly due to magic; most of the time this
won't make much difference to the safety and navigation of the plane, but there
is a reduced capacity to deal intelligently with unexpected conditions or
mechanical failures, if the pilot holds such fictional beliefs. And dogmatic pronouncements in religious
belief can often be oppressive to their own members, particularly if they are
narrowly adherent to literalistic interpretation of texts that are considered
sacred.
I think it is valuable that we live lives in which we strive
towards understanding deep truths, about ourselves and about the world, and it
is just not satisfying to settle for fictional belief, even if these fictions
might comfort us in some way. It is
particularly troubling to me for children to be indoctrinated with dogmatic
beliefs, especially if they are not having exposure to accurate information
about the world, in terms of science, history, and culture. It is also troubling to me that there should
be public financial support for religious groups, in the form of tax breaks
etc., unless these are specifically restricted to the charitable components of
religious outreach.
We certainly know that holding religious belief is not
necessary to be a moral, kind, loving, gentle, humble person -- in fact, in
some cases religious beliefs can obstruct these positive qualities, and add to
the world's problems. And it is possible
to face the most difficult aspects of human life--dealing with grief, loss,
pain, and death--while behaving honourably, peacefully, nobly, gently, without
requiring a belief in some kind of eternal reward. In fact, honourable, noble, moral behaviour
engaged in for its intrinsic good, as opposed to being motivated by some
imagined eternal reward, seems to me a much more deeply ethical way to
live. Such a stance does not require
religion, but it does require working on living well and striving to become a
better person, both for the benefit of oneself but also as an act of leadership
for others.
There are examples of keeping the healthiest aspects of
religion -- the focus on values, morality, kindness, altruism, charity,
humility, cultivating meditative emotional self-care, working on
self-improvement and sincerely acknowledging and making amends for mistakes,
caring for group members, beautiful music, art, and architecture, and a focus
on gratitude and reverence -- while not becoming distracted by narrow or rigid
dogma, false beliefs about science, or denigrating outgroup members. For example, there are "interfaith"
movements that strive to cultivate respect and peace between different types of
religions. Or there are branches of
modern religions that are simply less dogmatic, more open to understanding and
affirming modern science, more globally accepting in scope, as opposed to being
tribal or nationalistic.
References: see next post—Garth Kroeker: Reflections on
Religion: Reference List.
No comments:
Post a Comment