[les3547]

But the "religious" nature that the study claims to be "human nature" cannot be assumed as the necessary existence of those conglomerates of myths, laws, values that organized religions are.
That a wide spectrum of societies have some form of those do not make them "intrisic" to the human being...that's what is called a naturalist fallacy and it's the same fallacy some people used to justify the existence of social institutions as slavery (in the time where it existed it was said that it was natural and inherent to human societies, Aristotle for exaple fell in that fallacy).

I agree with all that for the most part, but I'd say you are characterizing the rationalism aspect of it all. However, I also know of something else.

Take this very simple statement about God I've heard many times by the sincerely faithful, "it's something you feel in your heart." Now, we know that is not referring to the actual heart, so what does it refer to?

Another one. Jesus said "I say to you clearly. Unless you accept the kingdom of God as a child, you will never be able to enter it." In other places he recommends guilelessness. The Buddha as well spoke of returning to our original mind, a similar recommendation to childlikeness.

None of it is very complicated, no grand cosmologies or theologies. Feel something inside, return to innocence, be sincere, open your heart . . . . Is it possible that such recommendations are trying to show us how to be more sensitive and therefore able to feel something subtle that is normally obscured by the incessant machinations of the mind? Well, generations of inner practitioners say that is exactly the case; and as I pointed out to Normhead, relative few people carefully distinguish between the person devoted to inner experience from those who practice theological speculation or interpretation from scripture, etc.

So you claim the study doesn't necessarily reveal anything about human nature, which is true. But it just might reflect something about us too, and that is, if we can be quiet enough, open hearted enough, simple enough . . .we may be able to feel something about our nature many don't even realize is there.

[normhead]

What bothers me is the oversimplification, and the formulation of a "human nature"...

Because no one has a clue what human nature is, or how to define it. No one knows what the capabilities are, no one knows what the limits are, there are simply no defined parameters. So if you start with an undefined premise, you end up with an undefined conclusion, garbage in, garbage out.

[Coeurdechene]

So if you start with an undefined premise, you end up with an undefined conclusion

Wich i think is way better than the authoritarian need of some to set some "standarts" that have a lot to do with their point of view, values and interests than with what is "true", as universal and natural conditions. (kind of like in a platonic way where those ideas exist by themselves).

I'd say you are characterizing the rationalism aspect of it all.

Yep..that's true..because the sensitive or emotive personal stance if assumed as such does not tend to become a theocracy drive. The "rationalist" dimension is that from wich power and authority figures are risen and imposed.

But it just might reflect something about us too, and that is, if we can be quiet enough, open hearted enough, simple enough . . .we may be able to feel something about our nature many don't even realize is there

mmm....If it's there or not does not trouble me...what troubles me is that from that personal, individual sentiment people try to define collective outlines that are tied to legal and moral systems (as in Religion with capital R).
I don't deny the sentiment, emotional tie, or subtle feel some people have...but i think that kind of study isn't based on people in that position but much more in "traditional" believers, social believers, religious people (wich does not mean enlightened in any way or with anykind of subtle perception, but much more people raised in a particular society with it's values and myths).
Not sure...i think i'm not getting to say what i mean to say.

[les3547]

I don't deny the sentiment, emotional tie, or subtle feel some people have...but i think that kind of study isn't based on people in that position but much more in "traditional" believers, social believers, religious people (wich does not mean enlightened in any way or with anykind of subtle perception, but much more people raised in a particular society with it's values and myths).
Not sure...i think i'm not getting to say what i mean to say.

Yes, you are being very cogent. I'd agree to part of it; that's because I know of people who will speak in terms of the precepts and beliefs of a religion, yet in actual practice simply are feeling what I mentioned (my mother is like that). So my inclination is to judge the study as reflecting both aspects, that of upbringing, conditioning, etc. as well as that of people who may be part of it due to cultural influences yet also feeling it.

[Ash]

There would also be a difference between inherent tendency for faith and inherited faith behaviours. Growing up with certain belief systems engrained affects the way that person perceives life in a different way to one who accepts there is a higher power at work but was not brought up to believe in it.

Indeed the study could be interpreted in ways to suit, such as suggesting these primordial tendencies are as immature as the self-centredness and selfishness that children are taught are unacceptable as they grow older. Another is that we are innately aware of our limitations and insignificance in the scheme of life, but in our pride do everything in our power to fight against surrendering to the possibility of a God. Perhaps this vulnerability is what society sees as a form of weakness, and thus becomes an undesirable character trait, and thus avoiding this surrender is considered more important than declaring God's sovereignty in our lives.

I think you've shed some good insights into this study's findings Les. Thanks for sharing them with us.

[Wheatfield]

I've always thought that religion represents the ultimate entity for blaming our needing justifying our tendency to do bad things on.
Covet thy neighbors wife? Oh well, just pray forgiveness and it's all good.
How many times have we heard the phrase "God will sort it out in the end" (or some such) when we are trying to justify some hideous act committed in our name?

Historically, more bad than good seems to have come from our need for a belief that something beyond our comprehension is controlling our hand, and more often than not, that belief turns towards some deity or another.

For myself, I believe in the church of Our Lady in Perpetual Motion.

[JohnBee]

Covet thy neighbors wife? Oh well, just pray forgiveness and it's all good.

I would ask if this this conducive with reality?

Last I looked, God and forgiveness did not equate bailing people out of their wrong doings(see: David, Solomon etc etc.).

[Wheatfield]

I would ask if this this conducive with reality?

Last I looked, God and forgiveness did not equate bailing people out of their wrong doings(see: David, Solomon etc etc.).

It doesn't matter if you forgive me, only that I forgive me.
If I can forgive myself, then I can do anything.
This is the power of God, in all his guises.
Granted, he has made a few examples of us (Lot's wife comes to mind), but mostly, God is a pretty easy dude to get along with when it comes to letting us out from under our transgressions.

[JohnBee]

Granted, he has made a few examples of us (Lot's wife comes to mind), but mostly, God is a pretty easy dude to get along with when it comes to letting us out from under our transgressions.

I think most people acknowledge than anyone can do anything, and so I don't know if that was ever the issue. However, I'm wonder how many people have accounted for the consequences that follow the actions?

And I'd agree on the devil made me do it as a pretty popular mindset too.

[Ratmagiclady]

I do think it's important not to confuse our capacity/tendency to be religious in some form with a *particular* sort of religion's conditions or commands or even particular perceptions/claims about 'human nature.'

Both people in the dominant religions and atheists who like to lump all 'Religion' together into a single 'thing' tend to do this, but this study doesn't necessarily study *those particular claims.*

Not everyone believes in this 'fallen human nature' nor in all-controlling-all-judging, manipulative-sounding but distant conceptions of an externalized 'One God,' with all problems in the world some failure of those humans to 'submit' to some presumptive authority claimed by other humans to come from there. Not even all monotheists really buy into that, though they may share the same devotions with some who do.

(And polytheism and other beliefs aren't at the core just 'the same thing with more of the same,' though of course they aren't 'proof' against similar behavior, either. Nonetheless the inherent presumptions aren't the same. Nor are the challenges: karma without compassion can lead to callousness, for instance, or in some cases, too much passivity, even victim-blaming at times. )

But in any case, the *forms* that religions may take, especially as we work on getting the bugs out of this thing we call 'civilization,' aren't necessarily demanded by the *capacity* for religiousness, spirituality, mysticism, and the rest.

Mystics, and by that, as Les rightly clarifies, those who are *experience-focused* may have vastly different forms of belief and even come to different conclusions, but when *we* get together, we actually do share common experiences and even frames of reference which may not be implied by what people who come up with or seek to enforce *doctrine* say.


The language of doctrines (And social controls) tend to try to *define,* *draw boundaries,* ...divide, exclude.... Which isn't to say that's *always bad,* but we forget what these kinds of words and processes *mean.*

Between people of various persuasions about religion, I think it's better if everyone sent out their mystics, shamans, bards, and storytellers. Bringing stuff *together* is what that sort of business is about. (And the atheists ought to send their Sagans, not their Hitchenses. The former really knew the knowledge was in no way incompatible with the *wonder.* )




All this study really tells us is that it's something that needs dealing with. Can't be banished, displaced, or put in a box or a cage, cause it's *part of people.*

What we *do* with that is up to us.

[Ash]

If I can forgive myself, then I can do anything.
This is the power of God, in all his guises

This is quite misguided Wheat, but if someone really believes that, then it's to his/her own demise.
Forgiveness is not the license for ongoing sin. Transformation by renewal of the mind is the caveat. It is not acceptable, whether we're talking about God or the law of the land, to know what is wrong and still do it. It is not even OK to plead ignorance. But forgiveness requires repentance. Repentance is the conviction to want to follow the straight and narrow in all circumstances. Only then does forgiveness have true meaning.

Just my 2c worth.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

The title of this thread reminded me of that Onion news:

"New study shows that depression hits losers the hardest!"

[Digitalis]

"I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe"

[wildman]

To the extent that:

Existence is and will remain essentially unknown and thus a mystery,
and...
That in the course of ordinary human life we, as individuals, will be required, by our natures, to assert what ought to be (values, purpose, meaning) rather than simply what is (science),
then "religion" is intrinsic to the human experience.

I would think this is a no-brainer that is self evident.

We need a study to tell us this?

[Wheatfield]

This is quite misguided Wheat, but if someone really believes that, then it's to his/her own demise.
Forgiveness is not the license for ongoing sin. Transformation by renewal of the mind is the caveat. It is not acceptable, whether we're talking about God or the law of the land, to know what is wrong and still do it. It is not even OK to plead ignorance. But forgiveness requires repentance. Repentance is the conviction to want to follow the straight and narrow in all circumstances. Only then does forgiveness have true meaning.

Just my 2c worth.

I look around at all the bad things done in the name of someone's God and am forced to conclude that overall, religious belief is the root of a heck of a lot of evil.
If we include the religion of money into the mix, then it is fairly safe to say that religion is the root of all evil.
I choose to eschew religion in all it's forms as jingoism, and instead, I try to be the person my dog thinks I am.
And I think I'm a better person for it.