[les3547]

A few excerpts from here:

Religion comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings, a massive new study of cultures all around the world suggests. . . . Trigg is co-director of the three-year Oxford-based project, which incorporated more than 40 different studies by dozens of researchers looking at countries from China to Poland and the United States to Micronesia.

Studies around the world came up with similar findings, including widespread belief in some kind of afterlife and an instinctive tendency to suggest that natural phenomena happen for a purpose. [Quoting Trigg] "This project does not set out to prove God or gods exist. Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact," he said.

Of course, atheists and the faithful interpret the findings in different ways:

Both atheists and religious people could use the study to argue their sides, Trigg told CNN. Famed secularist Richard "Dawkins would accept our findings and say we've got to grow out of it," Trigg argued. But people of faith could argue that the universality of religious sentiment serves God's purpose, the philosophy professor said. "Religious people would say, 'If there is a God, then ... he would have given us inclinations to look for him,'" Trigg said.

It does have interesting implications for political philosophy and societal design principles, possiby most for those (like Dawkins) who would like to outlaw religion:

"If you've got something so deep-rooted in human nature, thwarting it is in some sense not enabling humans to fulfill their basic interests," Trigg said. "There is quite a drive to think that religion is private," he said, arguing that such a belief is wrong. "It isn't just a quirky interest of a few, it's basic human nature."

"This shows that it's much more universal, prevalent, and deep-rooted. It's got to be reckoned with. You can't just pretend it isn't there," he said. And the Oxford study, known as the Cognition, Religion and Theology Project, strongly implies that religion will not wither away, he said. "The secularization thesis of the 1960s - I think that was hopeless," Trigg concluded.

[JohnBee]

I think most people recognized this as a fact based on human history.
I guess it took a scientific study to cross the t's and dot the i's for some people.

Guys like Dawkins do make me laugh though.

[ihasa]

This isn't a new or surprising idea. I remember the Richard Dawkins christmas lectures as a kid, and he went big on the 'evolutionary' basis for religion. We see agency at work in the world, because 9 times out of 10, that's a helpful way of thinking. I don't think Dawkins is hell bent on destroying religion, he just rightly has pointed out (after decades of abuse from the fundamentalist Christians and their frustrating attacks on the work he does) some of the negatives, the fact there is no EVIDENCE for God, and the silliness of the way we put religion on a special pedestal which can't be challenged for fear of causing offence.

[normhead]

Most of the anti-religiuous haven't argued that people don't have an innate understanding of it. People also have a tendencies to buy lottery tickets, to have illicit sex, to do drugs, to buy things from scam artists, etc. etc. There are lots of human tendencies that aren't particularly good for us. People who have had certain experiences, believe in things they can't understand. They have a choice, deny their experience or deny their system of logic.

In one of Carlos Castenadas books he describes a conversation he had with don Juan about what's "out there". Carlos makes a little pile of the salt and pepper shakers and ketchup bottle in the middle of the table. He porcedes to label the things. Pepper is science, salt is matter, Carlos says "what about god?" well it turn out, the ketchup is god. Don Juan then goes on to state, the rest of the table is things we don't understand. And the rest of the room is things we simply don't have the cognitive ability to understand. All those experiences we have that are influenced by the things we don't even have the cognitive ability to understand or don't understand, are often interpreted by religion. So of course there is an attempt made to understand and put these things into some kind of cognitive framework. We are affected by things we don't understand. The problem is that often, religion doesn't get it right. Miracles are important because they give the impression that others with their advance understanding know more than we do. And that may be true. But the fact is, they are still messing around on the table, the rest of the room 99% of what's out there, even they can't touch.

So, nothing at all surprising about this study. It's quite predictable.

[Ratmagiclady]

Yeah, the fact that it's natural does suggest it can serve purposes in our lives and experiences: the atheists-v-monotheists (v monotheists v monotheists) debate, (with each 'side' tending to lump everyone else in the world into the 'other side' ) ...is really about *competing authority claims,* not so much philosophical absolutes, which tend to be the ring where they like to contest authority, but which of itself doesn't and can't *solve* anything, generally by the very rules of that contest to begin with.

Atheists of the Dawkins stripe may well have important things to say about countering someone *else's* authority claims, but too often they simply claim the problem is people aren't converting to some 'one truth' of literalistic, legalistic, authority-based *atheism.*

Studies about our capacities for what we call 'spiritual' are different from either of these in many ways: certainly the capacities and tendencies are *there,* and can't simply be argued *away,* (Or 'into submission,' conversely,) and in fact, are in fact part of what makes us human, whether we take that to theism or not.

I was pretty much born an animist, but I didn't expect I'd end up having much to do with Gods, (Neither did my spirit guides, nyuck, nyuck) ..but, you know, it's a deeper and richer world, and that's not so much about *belief,* anyway.

Our experience, though, that has to be encountered: not proscribed, prescribed, or controlled or fenced away: we may hope to *enlighten* the process, but it can neither be banished nor long imprisoned.

[Nesster]

...and another view onto this: the universe itself is 'religious' when self-aware, i.e. some property of self-awareness seems to generate this sort of awareness. A Dawkins might say this is a glitch in the sysem, a malfunction or inefficiency. But the universe doesn't know inefficiency And a hard-wired brain guy would also say consciousness is an epiphenomenon, an illusion What do they know?

But this property of self-awareness does tend to support what Les (and I) have talked about re. the universe, or consciousness, having a direction

[les3547]

. . . the fact there is no EVIDENCE for God, and the silliness of the way we put religion on a special pedestal which can't be challenged for fear of causing offence.

Not so. All you are actually saying is that there is no scientific evidence. Fine, now comes a relevant question: who can prove that science has the ability to know all there is to know? If I study geology, I sense information that will become "evidence" by using my eyes, my ears, (i.e., my physical senses). But if I try to sense God, I use an entirely other part of me. Why is it not a possibility that if we can sense one way, we can learn to sense another (extra-sensorily)?

I always seem to get a bit miffed when someone claims "there is no evidence," a conclusion reached by conveniently applying the only epistemology they accept. Before definitively making such statements, please study religious mysticism thoroughly. A good place to start I think would be Evelyn Underhill's book "Mysticism."

From the bio here it reads, "Rationalism is not the only path to reality ' in fact, according to Evelyn Underhill, it may even be an impediment. Born in England and educated at King's College for Women in London, Underhill wrote several novels and books of light verse, but has found lasting fame through her writings on Christian mysticism. Written in 1911 on the eve of World War I, Practical Mysticism reviews the greatest Western mystics, including Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich, and Thomas of Kempis, and urges readers toward a disciplined investigation of the reality that lies beyond the senses."

The kind of inner evidence collecting Underhill reports is found in Islam, Buddhism, and Judiasm (e.g., the Baal Shem Tov)

[normhead]

B

ut this property of self-awareness does tend to support what Les (and I) have talked about re. the universe, or consciousness, having a direction

The problem is not that the universe might or not have a direction.. the problem is that people think they might know what it is. Or as Adrija Pucharic pointed out, matter is just energy with consciousness, or as the Hindus point out, our reality is the dream of Brahman, when he wakes it dissolves. While I appreciate the work of mystics in understanding our universe, they tend for the most part to be a little stodgy, and confined in their own mental space.

[JohnBee]

the fact there is no EVIDENCE for God, and the silliness of the way we put religion on a special pedestal which can't be challenged for fear of causing offence.

I know someone else already addressed this, and so I won't bother dragging things out much further. However, I suspect that the issue revolving around this mindset comes in way of ones qualifications toward what suitable evidence truly is.

Though in a nutshell, I think our own existence(human nature) and the laws which bind us offer a suitable platform from which to posit whether not not God either could or does exist.

And so for me, I've never particularly considered the accountability for explanations as an address toward the existence of God per say. Which is about the equivalent of saying... "there you see... the fact that we know how this works means God either doesn't or couldn't exist." - which is a misconception as these never actually dealt with the root of the issue at all(see: causation).

And so I guess my answer would line-up with les3547's comment which states that it is not that we have no evidence per say that is the issue, but where we have no means from which to assess the evidence at the levels at which the origins of our universe would come into question.

[Ratmagiclady]

Most of the anti-religiuous haven't argued that people don't have an innate understanding of it. People also have a tendencies to buy lottery tickets, to have illicit sex, to do drugs, to buy things from scam artists, etc. etc. There are lots of human tendencies that aren't particularly good for us. People who have had certain experiences, believe in things they can't understand. They have a choice, deny their experience or deny their system of logic.

Though there's more than that binary framing of a choice: often people decry our capacity for *pattern recognition* and blame it for *sorting errors.*

In one of Carlos Castenadas books he describes a conversation he had with don Juan about what's "out there". Carlos makes a little pile of the salt and pepper shakers and ketchup bottle in the middle of the table. He porcedes to label the things. Pepper is science, salt is matter, Carlos says "what about god?" well it turn out, the ketchup is god. Don Juan then goes on to state, the rest of the table is things we don't understand. And the rest of the room is things we simply don't have the cognitive ability to understand. All those experiences we have that are influenced by the things we don't even have the cognitive ability to understand or don't understand, are often interpreted by religion. So of course there is an attempt made to understand and put these things into some kind of cognitive framework. We are affected by things we don't understand. The problem is that often, religion doesn't get it right. Miracles are important because they give the impression that others with their advance understanding know more than we do. And that may be true. But the fact is, they are still messing around on the table, the rest of the room 99% of what's out there, even they can't touch.

Which kinds of gets us back to *authority* claims again. Not a bad metaphor, though I'm really not sure where the ketchup bottle comes in, (Something big you can try to pick up and squirt around and say it rules the table? In my little world, She'd be the table and everything on it, so to speak. )

I do think that seeing 'miracles' only in the terms of supporting authority-claims may miss the point. I've experienced a few, myself, and have been able to do a lot of stuff people say 'can't happen,' ...and I can say this: people really shouldn't mistake 'knowing more about something' for some kind of superiority. (I think this is a problem with trying to cram the world... And people, into some sense of monolithic hierarchy, when things and people in the world being different from each other is a *goodness.*

I like to say that sort of thing's like the wind, breathe and pay attention to the air, you'll feel it gust once in a while. So I've been hang-gliding. If you didn't know about air, you might call it 'miraculous.' Other people can do things I can't, know about things I don't, see things in ways I may not have touched, and that's part of the good stuff. Why there's more than one or two of us in the world, and why we're not alone even in that.

Diversity's a strength, not some kind of 'fallen defect,' and that goes for things that aren't easy to quantify, too. That doesn't mean everybody and everything are or are supposed to be 'the same,' when it comes to the world: where science and logic are of value is in studying that which can be studied in that way, and by virtue of what's *more predictable.* It's *not* some magic authority of righteousness, only a way of being able to know about certain things.

Sucks at saying what 'isn't,' though.

But the *conflict* between 'science' and 'authoritarian religion' isn't where they're *different,* it's over where they're the *same.*

So, nothing at all surprising about this study. It's quite predictable.

Well, some people like that. That's OK, too, usually.

[normhead]

Not a bad metaphor, though I'm really not sure where the ketchup bottle comes in, (Something big you can try to pick up and squirt around and say it rules the table?

That must be it. If you were to say, everyone should listen to me because I speak for the ketchup bottle... it would sound a little silly, and I even know there is a ketchup bottle. Or if you said "he's a very religious man, he's very close to the ketchup bottle." I think there might be a Monty Python skit here.

[les3547]

While I appreciate the work of mystics in understanding our universe, they tend for the most part to be a little stodgy, and confined in their own mental space.

What mystics are you referring to? The mystics who speculate? Or the mystics Underhill wrote about who practiced union? There is a BIG, HUGE, difference. Mystic speculators are just another variety of rationalist, they are not reasoning from first hand experience. That is very different from people who've spent their entire lives mastering the inner experience (very often as monastics) and whose utterings tend not to fit into our materialistic view of reality and so consequently are labeled "mystics."

The achievements of inner practitioners has been a life long study of mine (that began with a degree in the subject 35 years ago). I can attest that very, very few people, especially in the West, have properly distinguished between mystic philosophers-speculators and the sort union practitioners that Underhill writes about who tended to eschew speculation and focus instead on pure experience.

[Coeurdechene]

who can prove that science has the ability to know all there is to know?

No one...they just assume it, they believe, it's a religious act of faith.
Science is a religion when it forgets it's limited, simplistic and instrumental nature, and when the believers try to enthrone it as a source of absolute truth. That's where part of the complex system theories come into play assuming the enormous complexity of reality and our science as a mere tool usefull but not source of any trascendant truth.
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).

[Nesster]

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).

Rather, more correct to say humans have the 'intrinsic' capability to create slavery, or whatever. Capability is different from the choice to do or not to do.

Equally, it is more correct to say humans have the 'intrinsic' capability to create religion... but these same impulses can create something else that we might not label 'religion'.

[Coeurdechene]

'intrinsic' capability

Yep...but that's not what the study concludes...they assume Religion is natural, intrinsic.
Just as it was done with slavery...they did not argue that since it existed we were capable of creating it (wich is a tautology), they said that since it existed it was natural and intrinsic.
And those two things are zillions of miles away!
What bothers me is the oversimplification, and the formulation of a "human nature"...