It seems to me that religion and a belief in God is merely a cultural artefact inherited from those around us. If no one on Earth was religious, would our children seek out some sort of belief in a deity?
Asked
Active
Viewed 146 times
2
-
1First off welcome to philosophy.SE. Within philosophy, answers could be given from any of a number of perspectives, so this questions isn't really a good fit here. (in other words, if you ask this at say biology.SE or cogsci.SE, then maybe there's a definitive answer in those disciplines, but philosophers have taken very different views on this question)., – virmaior Oct 27 '16 at 01:40
-
For the questions as asked, the views of philosophers would be irrelevant as they have no more authority to comment on what *would* happen in such a world than anyone else, it would be nothing more than idle speculation. The closest you are going to get to an answer will come from "feral child" studies which to my knowledge have not indicated any inherent tendency to religion, and neuroscience where people like Bruce Hood and Andrew Newberg have identified parts of the brain seemingly reserved for religious types of experience, but their work remains controversial. – Oct 27 '16 at 07:28
-
@Isaacson - but regarding what subject would the views of philosophers be more relevant than anyone else's? – Luís Henrique Oct 27 '16 at 09:41
-
@Luis That's a controversial question in it's wider context. I only intended my comment to refer to the specific context of this question. What **would** happen is a statement which requires some justification of likelihood at least, which can only be objectively provided by statistical significance tests. At a superficial level, philosophers might get involved in questions of what **could** happen, questions which scientists could then devise experiments to falsify. – Oct 27 '16 at 10:23
-
The key here is that philosophers might be qualified to do this on the grounds of proven skills in critical thinking, but that this would not *exclude* scientists themselves from formulating the questions as their skills in critical thinking are proven to no lesser extent. – Oct 27 '16 at 10:25
-
We left open http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/38424/is-there-an-innate-drive-to-offer-sacrifices-for-a-higher-being/38441#38441 Which is a sub-case of the exact same question. – Oct 27 '16 at 10:56
-
The problem with the idea this notion exists only because it is handed down, is that in order for it to be handed down, it has to have started. And it seems to have started everywhere that there was a dense enough culture, and then been questioned later. It may not be inherent and obligatory in every individual, but it is an idea that seems to arise naturally in some people, and then become a 'meme' very easily. So there is *some* basis outside tradition, or it would either not appeal to us so much, or not arise so broadly. – Oct 27 '16 at 11:01
-
@Jobermark Even in other animals, population density affects survival tactics, so whilst I agree that the notion had to have started somewhere and was clearly not an "oddity", I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it arising everywhere there is a dense enough population is no coincidence and that population density itself (specifically sedentary populations) is a good a cause as any. – Oct 27 '16 at 13:12
-
@Isaacson Perhaps true, but irrelevant. In that case, the cause is still not inside tradition. If it arises spontaneously depending upon the environment somehow due to something about humans and their living patterns, (i.e. it is a Jungian archetype, like counting, or the idea of a bowl) then it is not a given cultural artefact distributed by tradition, which is what the OP is supposing. One Jungian/Kleinian answer would be that if we erased God from our culture, but our parenting patterns remained similar, we would always get some form of God back in a few generations. – Oct 27 '16 at 15:43
-
@Jobermark I don't think it's irrelevant, if someone asks does X=Y, whilst "no" might be a sufficient answer, "no, but I think it might =Z" is better. Anthropologists like Clive Finlayson develop quite sophisticated ideas about how population dynamics affects cultural artefacts in significant ways. I think, this probably is as close to a valid answer as anyone, it's just not philosophy, hence the suggestion is in comments. – Oct 28 '16 at 06:58
-
@Isaacson But half of a cause is not a cause. And he is explicitly suggesting the other half of the cause does not exist. Right? If the internal force did not exist, population would not be an explanation without an additional notion of dynamics you do not provide. It does in fact not cause anything. So under his assumption, your elaboration really is irrelevant. I propose A + B is a cause and you respond 'Yes B might be a cause" But B alone does not suffice to explain the effect. Without A, it is not adequate. And splitting it off that way makes it pointless. – Oct 28 '16 at 15:39
-
@Jobermark You're presuming a *force* is necessary for a cultural artefact to evolve in so many places. There was not a *force* inherent to early life to make any eye, just the ability to, the incentive to and millions of years of evolution. Similarly with religion, for it to have "evolved" in all densely populated societies does not require an innate *force*, only the possibility, the incentive and the time. I have provided a well-respected evidence-based theory, and the author, to explain that idea. I fail to see how that is more "irrelevant" than what some psychoanalyst "reckons". – Oct 29 '16 at 07:35
-
@Isaacson The eye reference undercuts itself. Better odds of survival through more thorough awareness of the environment is a dynamic -- a force. This is becoming nonsense because you are working really hard to ignore the logic of the situation. – Oct 30 '16 at 02:06
-
@Jobermark That the human brain has the ability to develop religious behaviour if the incentives are there, and the human brain having a drive to religiosity inherent in it are two entirely different things especially in answer to the OP's question. In the first case the answer is no, our children would not seek out deity if the external incentive to do so was not there, in the other case the answer would be yes, because they have an innate drive to do so. I can't see how a distinction could be more important to a question than to be the difference between yes and no. – Oct 30 '16 at 07:27
-
@Isaacson *Incentives* are internal features of an animal, not external features of the environment. We want what we want because we are us. So having a set of incentives that predisposes us in that direction is having a drive toward it. Because satisfaction only exists when there is a wish to be satisfied. I am done repeating the obvious. So no, there is not a distinction, and the nonexistent distinction cannot change the answer. – Oct 31 '16 at 14:31
-
@Isaacson Then the problem becomes whether the idea simply arises in context and rather directly satisfies a need, or whether it has to be supported by culture in order to get traction. Is it dependent upon tradition, or is it not. (E.g. phobia of spiders does not require specific experiences to elicit or maintain it, only to see it expressed, social phobia does require reinforcement, or it fades.) – Oct 31 '16 at 14:53
-
@Jobermark Incentive - from incite, a transitive verb i.e something that is done to someone or something, something external, check your dictionary. If you are done repeating the obvious, then by all means stop, no-one is forcing you to comment. – Oct 31 '16 at 17:35
-
@Isaacson "Check your dictionary" is below the standard *I* consider appropriate here. I am done with you. – Oct 31 '16 at 20:10
-
@Isaacson Even by that "definition", something is not an incentive if there is not a trigger there to incite. So 'stimuli' or 'incentives' cannot be entirely externally defined. They depend upon the matching of external and internal states. I am disappointed that insulting me was more important than considering the rest of the definition. – Oct 31 '16 at 20:13
-
@Isaacson The attentions of a beautiful woman might be an incentive to you but would never be so to me. So those attentions themselves are not in-and-of themselves incentive. Right? Their being an incentive requires properties of the person being incited. So incentives are *never* really aspects of the environment, they are incentives if and only if the one who percieves them is in fact affected by that sort of thing. – Oct 31 '16 at 20:17
-
@Isaacson And I stand by the assertion, given the obviousness of what you chose to ignore, that you are, in fact, not trying as hard to understand what I am saying as I am trying to understand you. Given that, I suggest we not converse. – Oct 31 '16 at 20:19
-
I think the question could be better suited for Psy.SE and the answer would be "no" since infants are not even aware of what religion is (but for the same reason infants are not scientists, artists, etc.). More interesting, of course, it would be to demarcate the age when a child can be called religious. – rus9384 Nov 07 '18 at 08:52
3 Answers
1
I wouldn't put too much time into interpreting his aphorisms, but Wittgenstein's perspective might shed some light on the subject for you.
"As long as there continues to be a verb 'to be' that looks as if it functions in the same way as 'to eat' and 'to drink', as long as we have the adjectives 'identical', 'true', 'false', 'possible', as long as we continue to talk of a river of time, of an expanse of space, etc. etc., people will keep stumbling over the same puzzling difficulties and find themselves staring at something which no explanation seems capable of clearing up. And what's more, this satisfies a longing for transcendence, because in so far as people think they see the 'limits of human understanding', they believe of course that they can see beyond these."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein
"Culture and Value", pg. 15e c.1931
MmmHmm
- 2,401
- 13
- 28
-
I appreciate the response, Mr. Kennedy. As much of a fan of Wittgenstein as I am, I feel as though this quote might simply be a not so terse way of saying, "who knows?" Do you really think we can't make any headway on this one? – Harvey Meale Oct 27 '16 at 02:25
-
Heh - I certainly have no idea ;) While deity is mostly imponderable and at best redundant, religion is, speaking broadly, just community, ritual and reverence. In this sense, I think as long as there are humans as we know them, there'll be religion. Whether religion is natural or nurtured, I would likely ask isn't nurturing natural and aren't humans a part of nature? I like the LW quote cuz it teases the issue of how language shapes our thinking as well as "bewitches our senses". As for anthropology, if you haven't, check out "[Secrets of the Tribe](https://vimeo.com/88335569)". – MmmHmm Oct 27 '16 at 02:42
-
Actually, I think Wittgenstein was not of the notion 'Who knows?" But "We know better, but It is better not to know better because everyone has the wrong notion of 'better' in mind." It is more human to take part in language games that have their own emotional content and perform cultural maintenance as long as you do not treat them as you would science or news. "Make sure your religion is an affair between you and God alone." – Oct 27 '16 at 11:21
0
"religion and a belief in God" , have lot of commonalities in one sense, but they are very different in another sense. There are religions that are atheistic and there are leaders of major theistic religions who have expressed skepticism about God.
Regarding the question of the nature of a 'cultural artifact', you'll find extremely strong opposing views among philosophers. In fact one of the biggest clash points between analytic and pragmatist philosophers is about the nature of 'warrant' or justification. There are many pragmatists who make the extreme claim that even 'warrant is a sociological notion' or 'warrant is a cultural artifact'.
So 21st century philosophy cant give any definite answers to your question (I'm assuming that pragmatism has a significant influence here), if at all it can to anything. Regarding your question on children and deities, you should probably ask a child psychologist.
user2277550
- 746
- 4
- 11
0
I believe that Religion in the true sense, i.e., questioning the existence of oneself, nature, order and causations and their methodology of work, which is primarily metaphysical, is inborn in every human being. However, Religion in the sense of rituals, prayers and customs, are, to a large extent, cultural artefacts and requires social nurturing.
vidyarthi
- 267
- 1
- 9
-
Do you suggest that philosophy is the true religion? It is philosophy. And religion is religion. – rus9384 Nov 07 '18 at 08:53
-
@rus9384 the notion you have of religion is of subordination, or, seeking to have a large tyranny, and its associated rituals. However, true religion, in my sense, is really metaphysical. Yes, modern philosophy is highly varied from metaphysics, and, in fact, some portions(like logic) and anti-methaphysical). In that case, philosophy is philosophy and religion is religion – vidyarthi Nov 08 '18 at 06:16
-
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, while religion was a term to describe practices like worship, faith, etc. There is no point in redefining the term. – rus9384 Nov 08 '18 at 09:01
-
@rus9384 the term religion is derived from the latin term 're ligare'. The meaning of it, aptly would have some element of metaphysics in it. The common notion of religion is , I hope, not exact, and, would be just like describing Mathematics as Calculation or Computation – vidyarthi Nov 08 '18 at 10:25