Is religion a natural phenomenon?

[thalassa]

This could easily go in debates too...but I think I'll keep it here. I don't think it will really get contentious as long as everyone plays nice!

[habbalah]

Re: Is religion a natural phenomenon?

Religion, no, because a religion is defined by rules and dogma, which were, at some point, formed someone. Whether or not you believe that said rules came from a divine hand, a person still wrote them down, and people are selfish, with their own agendas.

[neráida]

Re: Is religion a natural phenomenon?

Yes, because religion exists as a product of human evolution.

[thalassa]

Re: Is religion a natural phenomenon?

I absolutely believe that religion is a natural phenomenon, in the same way that language is a natural phenomenon, or burning our food before we eat it is a natural phenomnon, etc... The skills necessary to create religion (and yes, I believe that individual religions are created) are a product of evolution--the ability to enter into altered states of consciousness, the ability to attribute agency to things without agency, the ability to develop a relationship with a concept, etc. And these traits also undergo evolution, both biological and (more importantly) cultural.

But way smarter people than I have talked extensively about this...

https://youtu.be/Qo4V7PsX4qU?t=5m57s

[thalassa]

Re: Is religion a natural phenomenon?

And more smart people:

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_humanity_s_stairway_to_self_transcendence?language=en#

[Torgrim]

Re: Is religion a natural phenomenon?

I'll admit I have yet to watch the videos posted (although I plan to soonish), but I suppose the discussion hinges on whether the concept of capital R-Religion is a natural phenomena, or if the building blocks for it are (faith, attributing agency, altered states of consciousness, etc.) and thus Religion itself is not natural, but formed from natural phenomena which can build it.

That might just be going deeply into the territory of semantics, but I partly feel more comfortable saying that Faith is natural and this natural phenomena tied with our other peculiar human tendencies grows into Religion when introduced into a communal setting and the need for constant food gathering is lessened. As was mentioned above, Religion itself seems to be more the framework built around Faith to provide structure to it, while Faith itself to (to me at least) appears to be the natural phenomena that allows Religion to form (but I suppose even from that, you could argue Religion could still be natural since the growth of society tends towards Faith which ultimately becomes Religion, thus completing the cycle regardless of the wording used).

It is an interesting concept to consider regardless!

[Medusa]

Re: Is religion a natural phenomenon?

How can it not be? I can't think of any unnatural act that can withstand this amount of scrutiny and time. It's a product of man, so by definition it's natural..to man.

But that doesn't mean it's natural to the rest of the earth. Not at all. Just go ask a cat.

[anunitu]

Re: Is religion a natural phenomenon?

I agree..religion is a function of human thought..we think a LOT,and with that thought we speculate on our reason for existing..Cats just run in a happening kind of existence,never wondering why,but just existing in the moment. Are we better off with our intelligence?,or would we be happier digging the way of the Cat??

[Medusa]

Re: Is religion a natural phenomenon?

Have you ever seen a cat stare into space? Some serious life changing thoughts are going on there for sure. Or it saw a spider you can't see. Or pretends to see a spider to fuck with you because cats are assholes.

Again. I'm not helping.

[NeoPlatonic]

Re: Is religion a natural phenomenon?

I'll admit I have yet to watch the videos posted (although I plan to soonish), but I suppose the discussion hinges on whether the concept of capital R-Religion is a natural phenomena, or if the building blocks for it are (faith, attributing agency, altered states of consciousness, etc.) and thus Religion itself is not natural, but formed from natural phenomena which can build it.

It is pretty much this. Cooking is not natural, but it steems from natural actions, mainly the desire to satisfy hunger and seeking out food. Building a home is not natural, either, but it steems from the natural desire to find a safe place to sleep or rest. And so forth.

Religion does not occur in nature, but it arises from natural feelings and needs. A tribe's food is spoiled by bad weather so they pray to appease the respective weather god, a Christian is happy so he thanks God, and a thinker creates a philosophy which makes use of many gods to explain existence.

Most dictionaries describe "aritifical" as "human-made". But the desire to explain the world and how it works, even if it is beyond the physical level? That desire is completely natural. Not everyone may get to explore it due to different circumstances, but that does not mean it is not there.

[thalassa]

Re: Is religion a natural phenomenon?

Religion does not occur in nature, but it arises from natural feelings and needs. A tribe's food is spoiled by bad weather so they pray to appease the respective weather god, a Christian is happy so he thanks God, and a thinker creates a philosophy which makes use of many gods to explain existence.

Most dictionaries describe "aritifical" as "human-made". But the desire to explain the world and how it works, even if it is beyond the physical level? That desire is completely natural. Not everyone may get to explore it due to different circumstances, but that does not mean it is not there.

Etymologically, the word artificial comes from the Latin artificialis, or "of or belonging to art"...now I'll agree that art is unique to humans. And it is certainly human-made...but I'd personally consider art natural as well. Modern art has certainly undergone quite a bit of cultural evolution since Lascaux, but its still an instinctual thing. It is very much semantics, but (IMO) the distinction between natural and artificial is certainly...well, artificial. Think about it this way--if a human builds a house, we consider it artificial...even if its just leafy hut or a stick wigwam. But when a Ploceidae (weaver finches) make a house, that's natural...or a beaver makes a dam? People are animals too--when we take sticks and weave them together and daub some mud on it, what actually makes that action different?

Humans are part of nature. The human experience is part of our nature. Is communication natural, but language not? What about whales and dolphins? Their communication seems to have symbolic meaning that allows them to respond to their own names, that allows them to determine the mood of one another, and that even differs enough from "foreign" dolphins to suggest that this communication is to some extent "cultural". Is a rock that a human uses no longer part of nature because the human chooses to use it as a hammer? The use of the rock as a hammer is human-made, its artifical. Take a few chips off that rock, we can use it as an axe. Is the rock-axe artificial? You know, we can teach chimps to make stone tools...is is natural when they do it? What about a stick when a chimp sticks it in a hole on a termite hill to get food? The stick's natural course isn't to be used as a termite catcher.


(by the way, I'm not saying there's a clear answer)

[NeoPlatonic]

Re: Is religion a natural phenomenon?

Well, ultimately as you say it is a question of semantics so my own take on it is that "artificial" does not equate with "bad" and "natural" does not equate with "good" - and the reverse of those statements is not true, either.

It is also a question of how you frame it. Scientists have observed that crows have their own language, but whatever you believe that to be a good or bad - or even neither is a personal observation. Tolkien considered older agrarian lifestyles to be natural and good while viewing industry as inherently bad (and used not by men, dwarves, or elves but orcs). Conversely, early american colonists (by this I mean those of the continent not the nation) considered the closer-to-nature lifestyles of native nations and tribes to be bad and saw their paganism as evil.

As I see it neither were correct but again it becomes about personal beliefs.

[Medusa]

Re: Is religion a natural phenomenon?

So maybe it's more accurate to say 'religion is a natural human occurrence' and not a 'natural occurrence'. There are more then humans on this planet..by species and numbers.