Source
I have been an atheist for the last 15 years of my life. The why and the how are not relevant, at least within the scope of this article. I believe though, that my journey towards atheism was a relatively common one. It started around the age of 15-16 with an initial ‘on-and-off’ stage. That was the time when I had began for the first time to doubt my religious beliefs but I had not removed them from my life completely. During my times of sadness or when I was in need of something, like getting a good mark in my tough, upcoming Math’s test or to find the courage to talk to that beautiful girl I liked, I would ask God for his help. When everything was good and especially if I happened to be spending time with that girl, I would forget all about the rules of the Church, God’s teachings and I’d enjoy my life without feeling a need for the Divine. Later on, in the era of the broadband internet and ‘Islamic terrorism’, I started viewing religion as one of the greatest evils on Earth. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens would become my role models and I was a strong believer in militant atheism. I would ridicule religious people, try to ‘educate’ them and divert them away from the religion that was, in my mind, ‘destroying their lives’. That did not make me particularly popular in the deeply religious culture of the country I grew up in. Then slowly, as I started reading more and more about the human nature and how the human brain works, I realized the irony behind my then current beliefs. I was no different to the religious person I were before - I had just replaced my God with something else. I was still a follower.
Source
Reading books about anthropology and evolutionary psychology helped me understand a lot of things about our species. These books don’t all necessarily agree with each other, but that is of course the beauty of science. One thing though, that they all agree on and one of the most important lessons that I got from these books, is that when a human trait or behaviour is so widespread that it almost seems like it’s universal to our species, it is usually a characteristic that is somehow advantageous to our survival or to our reproduction. Very often we sit in front of our TVs, watching channels like the National Geographic and we admire the beauty and complexity of the animals that we share our planet with and we feel amazed with how their evolutionary hardwiring allows them to fully adapt to and survive in their environment. I believe that humans, even though with an undoubtedly far greater and more complex cognitive power, we are as dependent on our genetic hardwiring as a puppet is on its puppeteer.
Source
Religion is everywhere and it has been around for as long as humans have. There is evidence that prehistoric humans such as the Homo heidelbergensis and the Neanderthals, used to bury their dead. Burial is a ceremonial ritual that is connected with religious beliefs or a belief to the supernatural. Many of the dead have been found buried with stone tools or their animals. This is seen as further evidence of a ritual and even as the first sign of our ancestors’ belief in an afterlife. As humans became more complex, so did our religious beliefs. We transitioned from the first religious drawing of cavemen, to worshipping mountains, plants and statues and finally all the way to the monotheistic religions that are still around today. Therefore, our clear, historic connection to religion is something that has passed from generation to generation for thousands of years and it is linked either directly or indirectly to a trait that is giving us an evolutionary advantage.
So after we have established that religion is indeed ‘natural’ to our species, we need to ask the question: Is religion directly advantageous to us or is it simply a by-product of other traits of humans which have helped us to survive throughout the years? I strongly believe that it is the latter. Religion itself offers no biological advantages to us, but certain characteristics and behaviours that do benefit our survival, make us prone to becoming religious. Most major religions we know, teach things that already characterize us as species and are of an evolutionary benefit. Compassion, forgiveness, doing the right thing, following certain ‘golden rules’ are qualities which help us as animals to survive. Our nature as social animals is reflected on the encouragement of religions to forgive and help each other, our sense of justice and retribution is represented by the Gods who will reward the good and punish the sinners and finally the promise of an afterlife is there to satisfy our constant desire to survive. Religion usually encourages behaviours which will lead to a big family and discourages behaviours that will prevent us from producing offspring. It gratifies our hardwired needs to follow figures of authority, a quality which is vital for children to survive. Probably this is the same reason why humans seem prone to follow political leaders and allow governments to take decisions about their lives.
SourceThis is a huge topic and I will write more articles about it in the future. I do believe that religion is ‘natural’ in the sense that, if we were to discover today a previously unknown human tribe in the middle of the Amazon forest, I would expect that they would have some sort of supernatural beliefs despite the fact that they have never heard about the religions of the rest of the world. Having said that, a differentiation between our ‘nature’ as species and our individual nature can be made and what is a huge part in somebody’s life, could have absolutely no importance in someone else’s.
========================================================================
For more articles like this but also on many other subjects, follow me @nulliusinverba
Good thoughts. There's a study that came out in the last month or so that's relevant to this topic. The authors of the study were researching why intelligence is positively correlated with atheism. Said another way, the more intelligent (not necessarily the more educated) one is, the more likely one is to be an atheist. The authors concluded that religiousity shares certain characteristics with "instincts" and that intelligence is generally assocaited with overcoming or subjugating instinct to reason. So, if religiousity is instinctual, then it makes sense that the more intelligent among us would tend to second-guess it.
But, before we atheists get all haughty, other studies have shown that the religious among us generally score higher on levels of happiness, and intelligence is positively correlated with depression. So...there's that.
That's very interesting. ''Instinct'' is something typically used by people who frequently are emotional decision makers. So it does make sense that they would be more religious. Intelligence is something very difficult to define. I don't know how the researches defined it, but usually the mainstream methods to measure it have many flaws. Intelligence has so many multiple components that it is impossible to measure just by the ability of someone to solve number sequences and put shapes in the correct order. People who learn to practice their critical thinking, no matter what educational background they have, are the ones that as you said, overcome instinct to reason. The association with ''depression'' is truly interesting and I would love to read more about that!
"intelligence has so many multiple components"
I touched upon this here, if you're interested. (at the end)
https://steemit.com/life/@josephd/are-7-billion-people-too-much-for-the-earth-to-sustain
Great article!
I agree. I learned a lot about this some years ago from a book called "Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer who explained how our brain functions like Agent Detection and Disgust predispose us to accept religion. There are lots of other sources on this in books and online, but that was a big one, for me.
What is this CFT I see reference to? :-) I may have missed it but didn't see it explained here in the comments. Sounds like something I may be interested in checking out.
That is a great book! I may need to re-read it since I believe that now i will understand it much better than the first time.
CFT is a group promoting free and critical thinking. It's definitely worth checking out but I do believe it might be in a foreign language for you. If you speak Greek, message me on the chat and i can give you more details.
I think I read it twice already, but maybe I'll do it once more!
Hmmm, I think the only Greek word I know is "gyro" -- quite delicious! Sounds like a good group though. I also promote free and critical thinking. Best wishes!
haha!! That will be one of the most important words if you ever have a vacation in Greece!
Excellent post. I too have followed a similar path. In fact, while I was reading your article I saw myself in way too many instances.
Religious belief more or less stems from the human ability to ponder into the future and make 3rd person associations. When we talk about a friend and we picture them in our mind, we are essentially creating something supernatural. This mechanism is an integral part of religion (and belief in general).
Delve a bit deeper and you see a fetus born prematurely due to its extreme brain size (in respect to the cervix) having a massive brain plasticity and associating the creature that provides food and love with a "higher being". A cry is nothing more than a prayer. Imaginary tea parties are tier 2 for this evolution. Santa claus tier 3. God and the government tier 4. Freud was more or less correct. We do have daddy issues (but in the conventional way). We rather associate control and authority with a concept that is "above" us. This is how and why human beings often seek meaning in things "greater than themselves".
Looking forward for your future posts. Hope I provided some inspiration. I wrote about these concepts in the past as well.
(also shared in CFT :) )
@kyriacos I believe I have told you before here, how much I appreciate all your articles. I've been reading them for 3-4 years now on CFT and you've definitely been inspirational. And it was from your book recommendations there, that I did a lot of my reading.
I think most people follow a similar path with atheism, but a lot don't take the last step of accepting religion as something 'normal' in humans. It's especially surprising to see this in people like Richard Dawkins. In one of his lectures that i saw on YouTube and in his books, he clearly accepts that religion in humans is 'reasonable' and even that it promotes evolutionary beneficial traits, yet he is still a militant atheist. He says that many traits that lead humans to religion do have an evolutionary benefit but they could also have consequences which can be destructive. That makes sense, I guess, it's similar to how evolution has made us crave for carbs and fats so much but it couldn't 'predict' that one day there would be such an abundance of food, that we would end up getting addicted to it and slowly kill ourselves by eating too much. Yet the possible bad consequences don't explain his hatred towards religion and blaming it for the horrible things that some people do in its name.
Everyone is selling something and you can bet your ass no one is not gonna sell shit if they are just analyzing or describing things. Conflict creates attention for the masses that will in return transform it into profit.
I believe this basic factor eludes many that think of the new atheists as people with no motives, no financial interests. This also explains how and why most neo-atheists stem from the political left (that supposedly acts without having profit in their mind). It also demonstrates why they fail to realize how politics become religion and why they fall for the same meme.
As you can see it is quite easy to create a belief among people. This is where Dawkins and others have invested. This is why most neo-atheists can't think for themselves. It is a process but it requires constant revision and shuffling of the book case. Most people need an enemy so they can create their own heroic narrative. For neoatheists, non belief is the effective replacement of religion. Without religion there is no meaning, no evil to fight against.
I accept that everyone passes from that stage. To stuck in it is rather tragic. it shows that one is no different than a religious person like you mentioned.
This is how the movement grew. Transference of evil to another, similar concept. The heroics are much the same.
Suggested reading: The Denial of Death - Ernest Becker.
Glad being an inspiration man. I too enjoy your pieces.
To have someone challenge your beliefs and prove you wrong is one of the greatest gifts you can have. Most people, whether they are religious, neo-atheists, left or right, they choose a belief system and they stick to it. They start hanging around with people who have similar beliefs, they go to lectures of people with the same ideologies as them, they only read those books that agree with them and they usually end up in a circle jerk which makes them feel good about themselves but will never allow them to think freely. I know because I've been there. But once you allow your mind to start accepting other beliefs and you start to understand how your mind works, your critical thinking starts to develop and eventually you even learn to challenge your own beliefs and ideologies.
I want to believe that my thinking is much more free than it was 3-4 years ago but I still have a long way to go. A better understanding of politics, economics and how the market works will be the next step for me.
Thank you for your book suggestion. I will read it over the weekend!
It has been said that religion is similar to shoes. Choose a pair that fits you but don't expect me to walk in your shoes.
When a spiritual leader was asked, what is the best religion, his answer stunned me. He said the best religion is the one that will make you a better person, the one that will encourage you to make this world a better and the one that makes you most alive
Most organized religion is made up of the Sumerian Texts. I'm agnostic, but I feel like humans like to believe in a higher being because they assume they're of value when all we are (humans or dirt), is energy. I suppose something to give them ease while they're alive?
Religion has itself evolved around humans. We keep on adapting it to our needs and understanding of the world. And yes, of course the religious leaders, just like politicians will end up using religion to take advantage of the human nature and manipulate the masses. Most people will follow because a lot of the mechanisms which helped us evolve, also make us prone to religion. The current monotheistic religions are currently facing a crisis because they are starting to get outdated. Cultures also evolve and the old religious books are starting to have no place in our society. Most probably though, religion will also evolve in certain ways in response. It may change so much that monotheistic religions will become just a part of human history but whatever new appears, it will be based on the same principles that all religions are based on.
Hello my friend
Thanks for this post and the wonderful post
I really liked what I wrote in this post
The selection of the post is so lovely
Happy day to you and always
I'm glad you enjoyed my article @mars9!
Most human beings want something more to believe in. When we look up at the stars we can realize we are nothing more then stardust. However some of us (most of us) believe in a higher power as the world we see and our minds and bodies are the most sophisticated "machines". I don't believe in evolution as a mistake of nature. It is highly engineered. By what ; that is the expression of religion.
The results of evolution are definitely not 'mistakes' since evolution doesn't have a final purpose. Without an ''end goal'' we cannot define something as right or wrong, correct or mistake. The genetic mutations that lead to it are ''accidental'', or better put, random. The whole 'purpose' attribute is just something that humans look for and you are right, the search for this purpose can lead humans to religion.
The correlation you make between religion and survival is rather profound, and definitely answers the title of your post with a yes in my book. In the past, I've told people about my conclusion from reading the Bible, and it not conveying to me as being a book of religion, but of law, and they would look at me like a cow staring at a new gate. Since then, it has become clear that part of this is because Christianity has morphed into a religion that serves as a tool to promote the survival of its adherents rather than being a society of people who abide by the law.
The leaders of the church, just like political leaders, are there because they enjoy the power. And the more power they get, the more they want. The ''laws'' in religion take advantage of how the human brain understands the importance of ''sacrifice'' and hard work in order to achieve something and be rewarded. The religious leader will tell the followers that if you do ''X'' you will be rewarded with ''Y'' and the human brain will believe it. There is no doubt that the religious leader is there for his own benefit and not because of altruistic intentions.
The Kingdom of God [ creator ] is a form of government, not a religion.
There are four things needed for a kingdom: a king, a law, citizens, territory.
Religions are man's attempts to understand his experience meshed with other's attempts to keep him in darkness.
Wonderful topic with insightful observations. I enjoy the way you looked at humans as a whole and human nature, but also delved into individual predilections or preferences. I have come to the conclusion that not only with religion, but possibly spirituality in general, that it can be a magnetic attraction to some and of no interest to others. I suppose that being authentic in ones choices may be the most important thing.
True! Authenticity and individuality of the mind is important. Understanding how the human brain works and using it for critical thinking is how you can understand the world around you in the best way possible.
awesome article couldn't agree more! I went through a similar transition. Raised a Catholic and went to a Catholic school, and when I was around 15-16 and I started studying more of the Science and Maths subjects I began to wonder if Religion only exists to control certain groups of people, or to give people spiritual guidelines to make them think they're living 'correctly'. Great stuff, just followed!
Thank you harris!! I look forward to reading some of your articles too!
Great article if you would please look up the Cambrian Explosion.... It is an era in biological evolution that cannot be explained by the contemporary theory of Evolution..... Just some good food for thought for the case of intelligent design.
I will check it out, thank you! Or even better, if you have written a piece about it share with me the link so I can read it.
Will do am just starting to make my change over to steemit soon I'll have all my stuff here....look up Zoroaster... For some reason I think you might find it interesting.
Follow me @south-paw
Morals...why have them? Why do children seem to understand right from wrong in every culture without guided persuation? 🤔
Why not kill another person if it elevates our social status in the 'herd'...? So evolution provided this universal ideology/moral integrity? All cultures, past and present practiced a code of moral conduct, i simply can't phamtom derived from primordial sea sludge or equivalent. 😒
Morality is subjective and a distinction between right and wrong is not something that is universally agreed. Human beings are social animals, we live in groups. Therefore, behaviours which benefit our social group are generally accepted and those that damage it are punished. Individual ''good'' and the greater, society ''good'' are two things that can co-exist. Those individuals who are able to satisfy their own personal needs and at the same time engage in behaviours that benefit the society, have the evolutionary advantage. Natural selection takes care of the rest. Our genetic hardwiring and the guidance of our group helps us understand it. We are intelligent enough to realize that if we don't steal each other's things and if we don't kill each other, the society will become a better place to live in, which will benefit us directly as individuals.
A religious book is not needed to give a personal a moral code. If someone was to take his morality entirely from the bible for example, he would be a very confused individual since the bible is full of contradicting moral lessons. But most people are able to read the bible and make a distinction between the ''good'' moral lessons and the ''bad'' moral lessons found in it. This only means that they got their morality from somewhere else and not the bible itself.
Dear "In the words of no one" (nulliusinverba):
I don't understand what you mean by "religion".
By the term, I understand "giving to God what is his due", such as prayer and thanksgiving and honor.
By the term, "morality", I understand, "giving to neighbor what is his or her due", such as respect for his or her life, property and other elementary human rights.
Unfortunately, there have always been "priests" or castes of priests that stand between God and us using or abusing this charge to extort monies or services. In this way, they not only violate morality, but authentic religion: God does not need our goods nor does He want to rob us (if you want to believe it). These "priests" or "preachers" screw both God and human persons. The worst part about it may be that they give God a bad name. God is not a thief. But because of the priests, an outraged humanity rises up against the priests -- understandably -- and also against God, but God is not directly at fault.
It seems that you are starting from a misunderstanding of religion to justify a rejection of morality. Why mix the two?
Okay, so there are nasty preachers, priests and Pharisees, but why should rejecting God and religion be an excuse for rejecting morality as well? (And by the way, I believe there are also good priests and preachers.)
Here's a moral law, the most fundamental of all moral laws: Do good, and avoid evil.
As it stands, who can disagree with that? Someone may say "good" and "evil" are different for each individual, so this can't be a universal and objective law. But the "Golden Rule" defines good and evil in a way that almost everyone (except truly psychopathic people) can agree:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Do not do unto others, as you would not have anyone do unto you.
Does that rule not apply to (almost) everyone? If it does, then "good" and "evil" do have universal meaning and are objective, and the meaning of each term is not reducible to that of the other.
I think you should hold that "good" and "evil" and the Golden Rule provide an elementary groundwork for holding that there is universal, objective moral law. The problem of bad "religion" is a different problem that should not be mixed up with that of authentic morality, of rendering to the neighbor what is due here on earth, where we must live with each other.
@apollonius
I didn't reject morality in my article. I actually made a separation between morality and religion. I even mentioned how the 'Golden Rule' is something that most humans understand subconsciously and behave according to that. If they don't, the society usually rejects them. But even within the Golden Rule, morality can be subjective. For example, I will assume that the majority of humans will tell you that murder is a ''bad'' thing. But then if you go ahead and ask them ''When is it okay to kill someone?'' you will see that you get a variety of responses, subject to each individual's morality. Some will tell you it's okay to kill someone who breaks into your home, others will tell you that it's okay to kill someone who killed someone else. Some will tell you that it's okay to kill a suffering human to get him out of his misery and others will tell you that it's okay to kill only if your own life is being threatened. The point I made in my article that morality is subjective and it has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
Amid the commentary to your article, I may have lost its main thrust. I do not believe that there exists a perfect objectivity, so objective as to be deprived of all subjectivity. Similarly, I do not believe in a perfectly pure subjectivity. In particular, I don't see morality as purely subjective or objective. But I do have trouble with reducing morality to pure subjectivity.
Notice that if we can discuss whether in certain circumstances it's permissible to take a human life, we are nevertheless presupposing the notions of good and evil. That tells me that these are primordial notions that cannot be reduced to pure subjectivity.
And yes, "religion" is related to morality, but it's on another plane and not the same thing. Religion is between God and me, morality between me and other human persons. Maybe that expresses your viewpoint too.
Thanks for the clarification.
Jesus said, "Blessed is he whosoever is not offended in me." I had a problem understanding this because I could not comprehend why anyone would have issues with teachings that promoted peace among men of good will.
I found the answer in the conversation between Eve and the serpent [ caution - easy diversion ]. Eve was told, "...you will be like God, knowing good and evil". The word "knowing" includes the idea of DECIDING. The adversary was telling her she could decide right and wrong on her own, and the rest is, as they say, history. A history of chaos, heartache, destruction and misery.
Smart folks [ meaning those that worship intellect ] are offended by anyone telling them they are sinners [ antinomian - 1 John 3:4 ] or unqualified to decide right and wrong for themselves.
"Natural selection takes care of the rest." This confirms you do not understand the term itself. Furthermore I'd refute anyone who claims the bible morally contradicts itself even once, that my friend, is "subjective".You obviously havent read it in its entirety and certainly not understood it. Lastly to assert morality is an 'evolutionary' trait is rather humerous. Science concludes every living organism EXCEPT MAN has no moral reasoning outside biological advancement within their environment. However, I'm not here to preach to you, I respect your right to believe in whatever you desire my friend.
God Bless ☺
Please explain further. The point I made is that human beings who have the genes that make them able to function well in a society, have an evolutionary advantage.
The Bible is supposed to be, for the religious, the ''word of God''. There's only one God for Christians, so I'd have to make the assumption that he has only ''one word''. Yet the Bible does contradict itself on matters such as killing, stealing, having slaves etc etc. Which of course makes absolute sense, since the Bible was written by every day humans like you and me and they wrote it based on their own morality.
On all these matters I'd love to debate you publicly, however understandably this outlet isn't the place.
" Yet the Bible does contradict itself on matters such as killing, stealing, having slaves etc etc."
This i dont mind correcting. Please simply provide examples. I can shed light on the slave subject. Slaves then was not reminiscent of American slaves or the slave trade in modern history. Most people didnt have denari/coinage/money so they resorted to trade. One most common forms of trade was to work off debt for crop shares, land, etc...this was considered "slaves". Also those who had committed crimes were too "slaves" as a form of payment for the crimes theyd committed.
Hence the Bible informed the Jewish ppl to be good to their "slaves". 😏
Just a couple of quick ones....
Mark 12:31 - The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[a] There is no commandment greater than these
Romans 13:10 - Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
VS.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.
Leviticus 21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
====================
So what should I do to my gay neighbour and my ''slut'' friend? Love them or kill them?
Lol very good my friend, let me elaborate. The first scripture in Mark is part of God's new Covenant with man. Jesus died to abolish the 613 laws of the old testiment, mans law, there are 37 scriptures confirming this. The ten COMMANDMENTS are solid. Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God and yes in the old testiment under the law of Pharisee's they'd kill those who where guilty of committing homosexual acts and women that committed adultry and sold their body. Thank God Jesus paid the price to abolish those laws. In regards to homosexual people as well as whores, love them...don't FALL in love with them, God commands it.
*Note: These are my beliefs as written in the Bible, it's not meant to offend anyone. The Bible also states God is merciful.. Luke 6:36, Ephesians 2:4...many more and He forgives those who ask for it 1 John 1:9. 🕇
You should love them by showing them that their lawlessness [ 1John 3:4 ] is selfish interest in their own pleasure, exemplifying a lack of love for their neighbors [ society ]. If you do this sincerely, they may repent [ change mind ].
What happens when your examples become the rule instead of the exception?
"Which of course makes absolute sense, since the Bible was written by every day humans like you and me and they wrote it based on their own morality."
Why would men write a book that condemns what they want to do and are doing? The first example that comes to mind is Nicolaitanism [ the clergy/laity system] .