The Science of Religion-recent Economist Article

by BurnTheShips 38 Replies latest jw friends

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    Select Quotes from “The Denial of Death” by Ernest Becker..........................................................The man with the clear head is the man who frees himself from those fantastic "ideas" [the characterological lie about reality] and looks life in the face, realizes that everything in it is problematic, and feels him¬self lost. And this is the simple truth—that to live is to feel oneself lost —he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. ..................................................................................................Once the person begins to look to his relationship to the Ultimate Power, to infinitude, and to refashion his links from those around him to that Ultimate Power, he opens up to himself the horizon of unlimited possibility, of real freedom. This is Kierkegaard's mes¬sage, the culmination of his whole argument about the dead-ends of character, the ideal of health, the school of anxiety, the nature of real possibility and freedom. One goes through it all to arrive at faith, the faith that one's very creatureliness has some meaning to a Creator; that despite one's true insignificance, weakness, death, one's existence has meaning in some ultimate sense because it exists within an eternal and infinite scheme of things brought about and maintained to some kind of design by some creative force. Again and again throughout his writings Kierkegaard repeats the basic formula of faith: one is a creature who can do nothing, but one exists over against a living God for whom "everything is possible."
    His whole argument now becomes crystal clear, as the keystone of faith crowns the structure. We can understand why anxiety "is the possibility of freedom," because anxiety demolishes "all finite aims," and so the "man who is educated by possibility is educated in accordance with his infinity."46 Possibility leads nowhere if it does not lead to faith. It is an intermediate stage between cultural conditioning, the lie of character, and the opening out of infinitude to which one can be related by faith. But without the leap into faith the new helplessness of shedding one’s character armor holds one in sheer terror. It means that one lives unprotected by armor, exposed to his aloneness and helplessness, to constant anxiety. In Kierkegaard’s words:
    Now the dread of possibility holds him as its prey, until it can deliver him saved into the hands of faith. In no other place does he find repose . . . he who went through the curriculum of misfortune offered by possi¬bility lost everything, absolutely everything, in a way that no one has lost it in reality. If in this situation he did not behave falsely towards possibility, if he did not attempt to talk around the dread which would save him, then he received everything back again, as in reality no one ever did even if he received everything tenfold, for the pupil of pos¬sibility received infinity. . . .
    If we put this whole progression in terms of our discussion of the possibilities of heroism, it goes like this: Man breaks through the bounds of merely cultural heroism; he destroys the character lie that had him perform as a hero in the everyday social scheme of things; and by doing so he opens himself up to infinity, to the pos¬sibility of cosmic heroism, to the very service of God. His life thereby acquires ultimate value in place of merely social and cul¬tural, historical value. He links his secret inner self, his authentic talent, his deepest feelings of uniqueness, his inner yearning for absolute significance, to the very ground of creation. Out of the ruins of the broken cultural self there remains the mystery of the private, invisible, inner self which yearned for ultimate significance, for cosmic heroism. This invisible mystery at the heart of every creature now attains cosmic significance by affirming its connection with the invisible mystery at the heart of creation. This is the meaning of faith. At the same time it is the meaning of the merger of psychology and religion in Kierkegaard's thought. The truly open person, the one who has shed his character armor, the vital lie of his cultural conditioning, is beyond the help of any mere "science," of any merely social standard of health. He is absolutely alone and trembling on the brink of oblivion—which is at the same time the brink of infinity. To give him the new support that he needs, the "courage to renounce dread without any dread . . . only faith is capable of," says Kierkegaard. Not that this is an easy out for man, or a cure-all for the human condition..................................................

    For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

    That was powerful Dogpatch

    Burn

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    It is not news that a religious experience can be triggered by chemical means, and by electrical stimulation of certain areas of the brain. The resulting sensation is one that those who claim to have had a 'religious experience', often accompanied by emotional feelings of well-being, hold in common.

    Aye, and if I tickle yer noodle just right, you'll be tasting an apple. Ergo, there are no apples.

    Burn

  • Dogpatch
    Dogpatch

    thanks Burn!

    I care a lot less about WHAT people believe, as to WHY they believe it, along with a disinterest in changing their beliefs for the sake of validating myself. Childish behavior, no?

    I find belief to be potentially more powerful than any force in man's arsenal. I understand why so many of ex-JWs are negative on the subject of religion, but get over it! Get over holidays, voting, and all those land mines as well. clear yer heads, fools!

    come join Buss and I in a minimalistic presentation on nonsense on ArmageddonOkies.com on Tuseday April 1st, especially for Fools. :-))

    Randy

    www.RandallWatters.com

  • Dogpatch
    Dogpatch

    test, i just posted this discussion on my main site to see how many more viewers, it is about 330 now.

    shameless dogz here

    www.freeminds.org

  • R.Crusoe
    R.Crusoe

    Wow, I missed some stuff here!

    Thanks for the thoughts and links - most unexpected and I'll take time to contemplate them!

  • Dogpatch
    Dogpatch

    thanks Funky,

    here is one review from the book you mentioned on Amazon, I will get it.

    Dogz

    Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

    35 of 41 people found the following review helpful: 3.0 out of 5 starsDennett Not My First Choice, April 27, 2006

    By D. S. Heersink "D. Stephen Heersink"

    Okay, I confess I like Anglo-American philosophy, even if I am an existentialist to boot. I also confess that Dennett is not one of my favorite Anglo-American philosophers, and this is still another example of why. I thought "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" a tour d'force, while his "Consciousness Explained," "Elbow Room," and "Freedom Evolves" intolerable. If you like what I haven't, then this book may work for you.

    I've read over four dozen books on theodicy, natural religion, Christian theology, and other books purporting to examine religion under a microscope. Only two books have ultimately worked: George Smith's "Atheism" and Pacal Boyer's "Religion Explained." I highly recommend both books, as different as they are.

    Boyer's book approaches religion from an anthropological perspective, drawing heavily from evolutionary theory. I think Dennett is trying to replicate the success of Boyer's work, without Boyer's concision and narration. Like many Anglo-American philosophers, who pride themselves on brevity and conciseness, few hit their mark. Dennett is one who circumlocutes to extremis, with the revelation, as if needed, that religion can be both useful from an evolutionary perspective, but dreadful when in the hands of ideologues. If this is "news," go at once to Boyer's book. Dennett definitely brings out religion's capacity for malfeasance, but given Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, is anyone still surprised?

    Many authors have sought to draw out evolutionary reasons why religion, the Myth of myths, continues to function in modern society. Kwame Appiah in his "Cosmopolitanism" brings it out in Ghana culture, insisting no one decry "their" superstitions, anymore than we decry our own. At some point, we have to insist that if one wants to live by his/her own superstition, then fine, do it, but leave the rest of us alone. Whatever Myth gets you through the day is your business, just don't impose it on the rest of us. The phenomenology of fundamentalism is that it cannot resist being out of power, so it surreptiously enters through the back door. We've seen what it has done to the Middle East, aren't we smart enough to see it on our own frontiers?

    That's the raison d'etre of Dennett's work. If any of this is new, then by all means read the newest kid on the block. But Boyer (acclaimed by E. O. Wilson) has already done the heavy work; his explanation of religion from an evolutionary perspective is top notch, without much confusion in explication.

    Put the same subject in the hands of an analytic philosopher like Dennett, and yes, the same message comes through, but not the same reasons, much less the same clarity. It's not that Dennett misses the boat, it's that others have already tread the waters and have analyzed the matter extensively. If you can't get enough religion-bashing, then add this to your list. But if you already know religion can be bad for us, why bother?

  • Dogpatch
    Dogpatch

    heat this puppy up, where's all the binary thought opposition?

    :-))

    Terry?

  • dawg
    dawg

    In regards to dopamine....

    Increased dopaminergic activity in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain is a consistent finding (in schizophrenics). The mainstay of treatment is pharmacotherapy with antipsychotic medications; these primarily work by suppressing dopamine activity.

    Particular focus has been placed upon the function of dopamine in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain. This focus largely resulted from the accidental finding that a drug group which blocks dopamine function, known as the phenothiazines, could reduce psychotic symptoms. An influential theory, known as the Dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia, proposed that a malfunction involving dopamine pathways was the cause of (the positive symptoms of) schizophrenia. This theory is now thought to be overly simplistic as a complete explanation, partly because newer antipsychotic medication (called atypical antipsychotic medication) can be equally effective as older medication (called typical antipsychotic medication), but also affects serotonin function and may have slightly less of a dopamine blocking effect.[79]Wikipedia, is the source.

    The brain is complex, many factors are associated with it's function... In regards to evolution, the social structure benefits the group, helping one another is good for the both the individual and the group. (cultural Darwinism)replace the word religion with political party, probably get the same results as far as brain activity... thus why we as a people are discouraged from discussing either religion or politics-increased dopamine seems to decrease logic as far as I've seen.

    Dogmatic religions have adverse effects on the societies in which they prevail (look at almost all Muslim countries if you need proof)...I find fault with studying communes outside the social order of the countries in which they exist; that's because they can exist only in political structures which recognizes the value of free thought on religion. So in these cases, they only exist because the political structure allows them to exist. So, for that reason, focusing just on the impact religion may have on evolution doesn't make sense; as we all know they go hand in hand. It depends on the culture and the religion...just ask the followers of Jim Jones, Heavens gate, and David Koresh if you need examples... they are all dead and thus aren't contributing to the gene pool... Religion had an adverse effect in these cases

    Going against the religious or political parties in which you are raised decreases your chances of spreading your genes. Thus, free thinkers have had their genes repressed over the years, the people with the highest IQ's have less children even today. But this study can probably be directed at all species, why do antelopes stand together in herds? It increases their chances for survival and thus the spreading of genes-antelope society helps their evolution the same as social groups helps ours. same can be said of wolves and so on and so on. Cooperation in our species helps us build better buildings, increase technology... that's great for evolution, but proves nothing else.

    Interesting study although, I look forward to hearing the results.

  • garybuss
    garybuss

    I tried to think about religion from an economic viewpoint once but I kept going back to my original thought that religion is more like a social test kitchen. Like when new recipes are tried out. Food is still the big attraction to religion for me.

    Witness events used to be about food number one, and everything else number two. Our circuit had an old school bus that was converted to a mobile kitchen and all the supplies were stored in it between assemblies. After one winter assembly, some over zealous brothers loaded all the food trays just inside the back emergency door and when the bus went over the fifth set of railroad tracks, those trays got to bouncing and the bus broke right in half. The roof broke and everything behind the rear axle broke right off and the back bumper went right to the ground.

    The moral of the story is, don't put too much weight on your rear end.

  • Dogpatch
    Dogpatch

    Cool, Dawg joins the fray.

    You quote wikipedia,

    An influential theory, known as the Dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia, proposed that a malfunction involving dopamine pathways was the cause of (the positive symptoms of) schizophrenia.

    That sounds like me, I’m off on natural dopeness right now!

    Seriously, good thoughts Dawg.

    You say,

    The brain is complex, many factors are associated with it's function... In regards to evolution, the social structure benefits the group, helping one another is good for the both the individual and the group. (cultural Darwinism)replace the word religion with political party, probably get the same results as far as brain activity... thus why we as a people are discouraged from discussing either religion or politics-increased dopamine seems to decrease logic as far as I've seen.

    Interesting on the increased-decrease note of yours—do you have any examples of what you mean? (no trolls here please to hijack this, not a flame post please).

    Dogmatic religions have adverse effects on the societies in which they prevail (look at almost all Muslim countries if you need proof)...

    Or is it the other way around, that primitive tribal cultures, already functioning the same as a cult by their overpowering need to survive, create their own religions as a manifestation of their POWER (or perceived power) and as a tool merely to increase their already existing power? I think “religion” is a scapegoat, it is the fancy garment of a control freak or freaks. People spend far too much time and fascination on the subject of religion, when it should be on the primal man (at least as far as understanding man himself). Looking in the wrong place, methinks!

    I find fault with studying communes outside the social order of the countries in which they exist; that's because they can exist only in political structures which recognizes the value of free thought on religion. So in these cases, they only exist because the political structure allows them to exist. So, for that reason, focusing just on the impact religion may have on evolution doesn't make sense; as we all know they go hand in hand. It depends on the culture and the religion...just ask the followers of Jim Jones, Heavens gate, and David Koresh if you need examples... they are all dead and thus aren't contributing to the gene pool... Religion had an adverse effect in these cases

    Fatalities :-))

    Going against the religious or political parties in which you are raised decreases your chances of spreading your genes. Thus, free thinkers have had their genes repressed over the years, the people with the highest IQ's have less children even today. But this study can probably be directed at all species, why do antelopes stand together in herds? It increases their chances for survival and thus the spreading of genes-antelope society helps their evolution the same as social groups helps ours. same can be said of wolves and so on and so on. Cooperation in our species helps us build better buildings, increase technology... that's great for evolution, but proves nothing else.

    Why do antelopes stand together in herds, Gary? Oops, sorry.

    Yes, Dawg, I agree with the above. Not sure it has to prove anything, what do you mean Dawg? I’m not sure what I was trying to prove, mostly interesting observations. :-))

    Randy

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit