<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" > <channel> <title> Comments on: Religion: It’s almost like being in love </title> <atom:link href="https://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/20/religion-its-almost-like-being-in-love/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/20/religion-its-almost-like-being-in-love/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=religion-its-almost-like-being-in-love&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=religion-its-almost-like-being-in-love</link> <description>Human Animals at the Crossroads of Science, Religion, Media and Culture</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:14:01 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <item> <title> By: Erich Vieth </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/20/religion-its-almost-like-being-in-love/comment-page-1/#comment-79974</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Erich Vieth]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:14:01 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=14829#comment-79974</guid> <description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/144080/religious-americans-enjoy-higher-wellbeing.aspx" rel="nofollow">Gallup confirms</a>, in accordance with numerous other surveys, that religious folks are happier. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/29/gallup-most-religious-ame_n_776255.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/29/gallup-m...</a> Does this have anything to do with any <em>particular</em> set of religious beliefs? Not at all. This study (and other similar studies) survey people of many types of religion. Consider, also, <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/144080/religious-americans-enjoy-higher-wellbeing.aspx" rel="nofollow">this thoughtful analysis by Gallup</a>. Consistent with the Gallup numbers and analysis is that human animals have a deep biological craving to be <em>social</em>, and that religious invite widespread face-to-face social networking at low-risk for being rejected (as long as one utters the prescribed prayers and beliefs, regardless of whether one believes them to be true). I see a parallel here to the evolutionary perspective on depression, which should, according to Randolf Nesse, be seen as an adaptation, not an aberration. <a href="http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/08/30/depression-as-an-adaptation/" rel="nofollow">http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/08/30/depre...</a> Perhaps skepticism, like depression, entails costs to immediate well-being, but for a big payoff: The ability to deactivate one's rose-colored lenses through which one normally perceives a "meaningful" life, and thus allows one to re-evaluate one's situation from a much more neutral perspective, leading to solutions to which one is normally blind. In short, depression and skepticism are strong medicine to allow one to see reality in a more raw form. The price to pay is lower well-being, but the payoff if significant. For more on a possible reason for which we willing put on our rose-colored glasses, see the many posts at this site that reference "terror management theory." (e.g., <a href="http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/07/culture-as-a-collective-fabrication-facilitating-our-quest-for-immortality/" rel="nofollow">http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/07/cultu...</a> ) ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/144080/religious-americans-enjoy-higher-wellbeing.aspx" rel="nofollow">Gallup confirms</a>, in accordance with numerous other surveys, that religious folks are happier. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/29/gallup-most-religious-ame_n_776255.html" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/29/gallup-m" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/29/gallup-m</a>… </p> <p>Does this have anything to do with any <em>particular</em> set of religious beliefs? Not at all. This study (and other similar studies) survey people of many types of religion. Consider, also, <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/144080/religious-americans-enjoy-higher-wellbeing.aspx" rel="nofollow">this thoughtful analysis by Gallup</a>.</p> <p>Consistent with the Gallup numbers and analysis is that human animals have a deep biological craving to be <em>social</em>, and that religious invite widespread face-to-face social networking at low-risk for being rejected (as long as one utters the prescribed prayers and beliefs, regardless of whether one believes them to be true). </p> <p>I see a parallel here to the evolutionary perspective on depression, which should, according to Randolf Nesse, be seen as an adaptation, not an aberration. <a href="http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/08/30/depression-as-an-adaptation/" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/08/30/depre" rel="ugc">http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/08/30/depre</a>… Perhaps skepticism, like depression, entails costs to immediate well-being, but for a big payoff: The ability to deactivate one's rose-colored lenses through which one normally perceives a "meaningful" life, and thus allows one to re-evaluate one's situation from a much more neutral perspective, leading to solutions to which one is normally blind. </p> <p>In short, depression and skepticism are strong medicine to allow one to see reality in a more raw form. The price to pay is lower well-being, but the payoff if significant. </p> <p>For more on a possible reason for which we willing put on our rose-colored glasses, see the many posts at this site that reference "terror management theory." (e.g., <a href="http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/07/culture-as-a-collective-fabrication-facilitating-our-quest-for-immortality/" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/07/cultu" rel="ugc">http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/07/cultu</a>… ) </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Jim Razinha </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/20/religion-its-almost-like-being-in-love/comment-page-1/#comment-79874</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim Razinha]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:51:58 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=14829#comment-79874</guid> <description><![CDATA[Erich - I'd argue that one of the characteristics of non-religious folks is that they don't have their own herds. Dogmas? yes; even dogmas of relatively common bases. But I believe a reason there hasn't been a more organized backlash to the fundamentalist coopting of the right wing is that non-theists tend to be individualists with the common bond being that they all don't believe together. But for as many different reasons, if not more, than those who do. This past spring, I was simultaneously working my way through Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" and Boyer's "Religion Explained" to try understand the evolutionary/biological component to the tendency toward belief. After Friday (PE exam), I am getting back into them. There appears to me to be enough evidence to support your thought that it is a survival mechanism. In our not too distant past, individuals did not fair well along natural selection lines (or they did, but being individuals, perhaps were overwhelmed by the herd, thus their lines were diluted). We aren't that far removed from our evolutionary roots to have made much progress in eliminating the herd instinct, or many other characteristics (aggression?) for that matter. And human natural selection no longer works as it has historically with our advances in medicine, so whatever is prominent will continue. (Opinion, of course). ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Erich – I'd argue that one of the characteristics of non-religious folks is that they don't have their own herds. Dogmas? yes; even dogmas of relatively common bases. But I believe a reason there hasn't been a more organized backlash to the fundamentalist coopting of the right wing is that non-theists tend to be individualists with the common bond being that they all don't believe together. But for as many different reasons, if not more, than those who do.</p> <p>This past spring, I was simultaneously working my way through Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" and Boyer's "Religion Explained" to try understand the evolutionary/biological component to the tendency toward belief. After Friday (PE exam), I am getting back into them. There appears to me to be enough evidence to support your thought that it is a survival mechanism. In our not too distant past, individuals did not fair well along natural selection lines (or they did, but being individuals, perhaps were overwhelmed by the herd, thus their lines were diluted). We aren't that far removed from our evolutionary roots to have made much progress in eliminating the herd instinct, or many other characteristics (aggression?) for that matter. And human natural selection no longer works as it has historically with our advances in medicine, so whatever is prominent will continue. (Opinion, of course). </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Al Moritzh </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/20/religion-its-almost-like-being-in-love/comment-page-1/#comment-79735</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Al Moritzh]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:34:54 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=14829#comment-79735</guid> <description><![CDATA[Erich: I was never much of a herd person. I like my 'herd', but if I saw evidential reason to leave my faith, the 'herd' would be the least thing to hold me back. I agree that if I had been raised in the Middle East, I'd likely be honoring Allah. But this would not be the biggest of all problems, even though it would not allow for as rich a relationship with God. As Pope John Paul once told a cheering crowd of Muslims at a visit in the Middle East, "we all believe in one God." I am a Catholic, and Catholicism holds that people of other religions can reach salvation, see heading "Roman Catholic interpretation" under: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_ecclesiam_nulla_salus" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_ecclesiam_null...</a> ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Erich: I was never much of a herd person. I like my 'herd', but if I saw evidential reason to leave my faith, the 'herd' would be the least thing to hold me back.</p> <p>I agree that if I had been raised in the Middle East, I'd likely be honoring Allah. But this would not be the biggest of all problems, even though it would not allow for as rich a relationship with God. As Pope John Paul once told a cheering crowd of Muslims at a visit in the Middle East, "we all believe in one God." I am a Catholic, and Catholicism holds that people of other religions can reach salvation, see heading "Roman Catholic interpretation" under:</p> <p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_ecclesiam_nulla_salus" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_ecclesiam_null" rel="nofollow ugc">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_ecclesiam_null</a>… </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Erich Vieth </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/20/religion-its-almost-like-being-in-love/comment-page-1/#comment-79713</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Erich Vieth]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:58:26 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=14829#comment-79713</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/20/religion-its-almost-like-being-in-love/comment-page-1/#comment-79665">Al Moritz</a>. Al: My main point isn't that you are "in love" with your God (though I find this conflation in modern Christian music interesting). My main point is that believers feel a strong compulsion to belong that apparently evolved over time to be so strong that in most of us, this deep compulsion overwhelms the ability to consider evidence that might tempt one to question one's own group's articulated "reason" for coming together (it doesn't keep you from questioning other groups, because those groups are not offering <em>you </em>a survival advantage--much to the contrary). I suspect that this deep compulsion of human animals to glom onto each other has evolved this way because it has often enough been successful at helping groupish individuals to survive. No man is an island, and it takes a lot of energy/practice to successfully resist the herding instinct. I also suspect that the self-critical intellect is a relatively recent add-on that, in many of us (in religions or other tight-knit groups) gets tamped down (or even crushed) by the emotion-driven (i.e., long-evolved) craving to be one with the herd. Not that we evolved to be one with a particular <em>kind </em>of herd, but some herd, and most of us choose the type of herd that is most culturally available to us. If you had been raised in the Middle East, you'd likely be honoring Allah (and unable to consider evidence suggesting that <em>that </em>belief was unwarranted). The herding instinct apparently comes with selective blinders to encourage individuals to stay within the safety of a herd, usually their own herd. <em>Non-religious</em> folks often have their own herds and their own dogma, so I'm not only picking on religious folks. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/20/religion-its-almost-like-being-in-love/comment-page-1/#comment-79665">Al Moritz</a>.</p> <p>Al: My main point isn't that you are "in love" with your God (though I find this conflation in modern Christian music interesting). My main point is that believers feel a strong compulsion to belong that apparently evolved over time to be so strong that in most of us, this deep compulsion overwhelms the ability to consider evidence that might tempt one to question one's own group's articulated "reason" for coming together (it doesn't keep you from questioning other groups, because those groups are not offering <em>you </em>a survival advantage–much to the contrary). </p> <p>I suspect that this deep compulsion of human animals to glom onto each other has evolved this way because it has often enough been successful at helping groupish individuals to survive. No man is an island, and it takes a lot of energy/practice to successfully resist the herding instinct.</p> <p>I also suspect that the self-critical intellect is a relatively recent add-on that, in many of us (in religions or other tight-knit groups) gets tamped down (or even crushed) by the emotion-driven (i.e., long-evolved) craving to be one with the herd. Not that we evolved to be one with a particular <em>kind </em>of herd, but some herd, and most of us choose the type of herd that is most culturally available to us. If you had been raised in the Middle East, you'd likely be honoring Allah (and unable to consider evidence suggesting that <em>that </em>belief was unwarranted). The herding instinct apparently comes with selective blinders to encourage individuals to stay within the safety of a herd, usually their own herd. </p> <p><em>Non-religious</em> folks often have their own herds and their own dogma, so I'm not only picking on religious folks. </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Al Moritz </title> <link>https://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/20/religion-its-almost-like-being-in-love/comment-page-1/#comment-79665</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Al Moritz]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:11:36 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=14829#comment-79665</guid> <description><![CDATA[I love God, but I am not 'in love with' God. I am not emotional about my faith, and I have never had a 'religious experience' of God. When it comes to evaluating my faith and the existence of God, you would be surprised how 'cold' my reasoning is, pondering arguments pro and con. If the evidence would have turned out in favor of atheism, which to me necessarily implies the rational feasibility of naturalism, I would have switched quite a while ago; I have, in practical terms, taken the outsider test of faith many times. However, the evidence is in my view still in favor of theism -- naturalism does not cut it for me --, and I stick with the evidence. For me, decisive arguments for the existence of God are cosmological arguments and the argument from reason, see here: <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm" rel="nofollow">http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-...</a> (Arguments for a specific religion, if any, follow different lines than those for the existence of God.) Of course atheists will come with the old standard reply that religious indoctrination prevents me from thinking things through properly. How can you know that? How do you know that your reasoning is more objective than mine *), and how do you know that you are not biased at all? *) and no, science alone does not yield naturalism, that worldview is a philosophical view just like theism ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love God, but I am not 'in love with' God. I am not emotional about my faith, and I have never had a 'religious experience' of God. When it comes to evaluating my faith and the existence of God, you would be surprised how 'cold' my reasoning is, pondering arguments pro and con. If the evidence would have turned out in favor of atheism, which to me necessarily implies the rational feasibility of naturalism, I would have switched quite a while ago; I have, in practical terms, taken the outsider test of faith many times. However, the evidence is in my view still in favor of theism — naturalism does not cut it for me –, and I stick with the evidence. For me, decisive arguments for the existence of God are cosmological arguments and the argument from reason, see here:</p> <p> <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-" rel="nofollow ugc">http://home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-</a>… </p> <p>(Arguments for a specific religion, if any, follow different lines than those for the existence of God.)</p> <p>Of course atheists will come with the old standard reply that religious indoctrination prevents me from thinking things through properly. How can you know that? How do you know that your reasoning is more objective than mine *), and how do you know that you are not biased at all?</p> <p>*) and no, science alone does not yield naturalism, that worldview is a philosophical view just like theism </p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>