![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Wiscon Panel reports: We Are the Apes Who Pray
http://wiscon.piglet.org/program/detail?idItems=100
We Are the Apes Who Pray
To explore the evolution and purpose of the supernatural worldview (in all its forms) as purely a matter of human invention. As an atheist, it is often challenging to foster an uncompromised discussion of religion and spirituality without bowing to the social pressure to 'respect' or treat 'seriously' beliefs and opinions which, ultimately, have no basis in scientific fact. Beginning with the acknowledgement that human beings are, without exception, products of biological evolution, how do we move forward to discuss religion and belief for what they are: neurological, anthropological, psychological and sociological aspects of the human condition whose true value rests in what they reveal about us as apes who pray?
Panelists: Erin Cashier, Catherine Anne Crowe, Janet M. Lafler, Keith R. Watson
Moderator: Richard F. Dutcher
Everyone on the panel was an atheist or agnostic.
Some useful/important things that were said:
There are many kinds of atheism.
Changes in government in the 19th-20th centuries -- moving away from the "parish" as a government entity -- made it possible to be "out" as an atheist. (I'm not sure which countries this applies to.)
Sociology has the concept of habitus, which is your perceptions/beliefs/behaviors or your cultural comfort zone. This is largely made up of things you were taught or things you derived from your existing beliefs. There's considerable inertia in what makes up the habitus. Most of this knowledge is based on...my notes say the panelist called it "experience," but I might describe it more as "assumptions based on past experience and a body of knowledge." The example she gave was, "Even though I haven't seen my living room for a day or so, I know there is no bear in my living room."
Our current experience of living in a world with "competing" philosophies/spheres/ways of life is not the way humans lived for most of human history.
The question arose whether religious belief has a direct evolutionary advantage. I thought this was an interesting question, but the panelists and audience didn't address the point that human behaviors/traits/tendencies can be influenced by evolution without having a direct evolutionary advantage.
There is a physiological component to religious experience and many cultures/religions know this and have ways of creating the religious experience. For example, one of the panelists is a diabetic and said that when she has low blood sugar she can get into a state where she "understands everything." She drew a possible connection between this and the fact that many people fast to achieve a religious experience.
Being part of a group can also affect what a religious experience is like.
Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) are different from other religions because they focus on orthodoxy (you must believe certain things) whereas religions such as Confucianism and Buddhism focus on orthopraxy (you must do certain things). I think this is a good point but I don't think it was described very well. First of all, it's not true of Judaism. Second, insofar as there's a difference between Christianity and Buddhism, say (I'm picking on them because I know something about them) I think it's more of a difference of degree than a difference in kind; there's plenty of orthodoxy in Buddhism and there's plenty of orthopraxy in Christianity. I spoke up with a different quibble, though -- I said that the focus in Buddhism is "your behavior will create the correct states of mind" rather than simply on behavior itself.
There was discussion about how to create community in the absence of religious organizations. Someone jokingly said "science fiction fandom," but I think that's a real answer, not a joke answer. In general groups of people who gather around a particular interest, whether it be science fiction fandom or the Chicago Cubs, can sometimes develop qualities of community similar to those I have seen in religious organizations. (Not that I have ever experienced the greatest models of religious community, so I might be talking out of my butt here.)
There was discussion of why people in the US are more religious than people in Europe, and one theory was that a social democratic government, that makes efforts to meet everyone's survival needs, takes over some of the functions of religion. "Nordic" societies were brought up a few times and an historical argument was made that because they were small, poor, and neutral, no "extreme income pyramid" developed and in this kind of society people tend to take care of each other.
However, no one made the point, which occurred to me just now and I'm not sure it's true but I've heard it, that Nordic societies are fairly homogenous ethically. Maybe homogenous societies don't need religion? (But I know of fairly homogenous societies that do have religion, so maybe not.)
This led into a discussion of how religion has been coopted by ruling classes, and about cyclical changes in the role of women in religion. In the West, there have been "waves" of religious "enthusiasm," and in early stages of such a wave, women are welcomed as preachers, but in the middle stages, women are not allowed to be preachers. The panelist claimed that such a wave is occurring right now in the US/UK.
People can view political philosophies, even atheist ones, as if they were religious beliefs. Some early communists were very fervent (espionage novels of Alan Furst, before World War II) and this explains why so many people "walked into Stalin prisons." (E.g., I guess, believed in communism blindly and didn't see the corruption.) Someone suggested that the longer you are devoted to something, the more rigid you can get about it.
There was some discussion about a theory by a guy named Randy Thornhill who says that religion creates a "protective ingroup." And by "protective" he seemed to mean "protective of the immune system." E.g., he claims that some US states are more religious because they have more disease. Personally I might agree there is a protective value to religion but I'm not sure that the theory gets cause and effect quite right about the correlation of states that have more actively religious people and disease. Especially if poverty isn't factored in.
I know that studies have been done where they wire up humans with electrodes and the humans report "seeing god" or having some kind of spiritual experience. I asked whether any such studies have been done on animals. The panel argued that it wouldn't be possible because we wouldn't know what the animals were experiencing and wouldn't know which part of the brain to stimulate--it's easier to find the pleasure center than the god center. And that's a point, but I still think it could be tried. I haven't studied the studies so I don't know where this religious center is in the brain, but I wonder whether maybe it's in a part of the brain that other animals have. I believe that what humans experience as god, other animals experience too, although of course I don't know what they make of the experience. (I made people laugh by saying that when I rub my cat's belly I know she sees god. Of course I don't mean that literally. And besides, I should have said my dog's belly because I know the cat actually thinks that she IS god.)
There was discussion about whether we could "get rid" of religion and get to an "atheist society." Some people took exception to that and said it was anti-freedom, or that we'll never get everyone to agree on a single view of reality. Other people pointed back at the discussion about how the least religious societies are the Northern Europe social democracies.
Our last topic was the relationship between religion and ethics/moral codes. For some reason it got sidetracked onto sociopaths.
We Are the Apes Who Pray
To explore the evolution and purpose of the supernatural worldview (in all its forms) as purely a matter of human invention. As an atheist, it is often challenging to foster an uncompromised discussion of religion and spirituality without bowing to the social pressure to 'respect' or treat 'seriously' beliefs and opinions which, ultimately, have no basis in scientific fact. Beginning with the acknowledgement that human beings are, without exception, products of biological evolution, how do we move forward to discuss religion and belief for what they are: neurological, anthropological, psychological and sociological aspects of the human condition whose true value rests in what they reveal about us as apes who pray?
Panelists: Erin Cashier, Catherine Anne Crowe, Janet M. Lafler, Keith R. Watson
Moderator: Richard F. Dutcher
Everyone on the panel was an atheist or agnostic.
Some useful/important things that were said:
There are many kinds of atheism.
Changes in government in the 19th-20th centuries -- moving away from the "parish" as a government entity -- made it possible to be "out" as an atheist. (I'm not sure which countries this applies to.)
Sociology has the concept of habitus, which is your perceptions/beliefs/behaviors or your cultural comfort zone. This is largely made up of things you were taught or things you derived from your existing beliefs. There's considerable inertia in what makes up the habitus. Most of this knowledge is based on...my notes say the panelist called it "experience," but I might describe it more as "assumptions based on past experience and a body of knowledge." The example she gave was, "Even though I haven't seen my living room for a day or so, I know there is no bear in my living room."
Our current experience of living in a world with "competing" philosophies/spheres/ways of life is not the way humans lived for most of human history.
The question arose whether religious belief has a direct evolutionary advantage. I thought this was an interesting question, but the panelists and audience didn't address the point that human behaviors/traits/tendencies can be influenced by evolution without having a direct evolutionary advantage.
There is a physiological component to religious experience and many cultures/religions know this and have ways of creating the religious experience. For example, one of the panelists is a diabetic and said that when she has low blood sugar she can get into a state where she "understands everything." She drew a possible connection between this and the fact that many people fast to achieve a religious experience.
Being part of a group can also affect what a religious experience is like.
Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) are different from other religions because they focus on orthodoxy (you must believe certain things) whereas religions such as Confucianism and Buddhism focus on orthopraxy (you must do certain things). I think this is a good point but I don't think it was described very well. First of all, it's not true of Judaism. Second, insofar as there's a difference between Christianity and Buddhism, say (I'm picking on them because I know something about them) I think it's more of a difference of degree than a difference in kind; there's plenty of orthodoxy in Buddhism and there's plenty of orthopraxy in Christianity. I spoke up with a different quibble, though -- I said that the focus in Buddhism is "your behavior will create the correct states of mind" rather than simply on behavior itself.
There was discussion about how to create community in the absence of religious organizations. Someone jokingly said "science fiction fandom," but I think that's a real answer, not a joke answer. In general groups of people who gather around a particular interest, whether it be science fiction fandom or the Chicago Cubs, can sometimes develop qualities of community similar to those I have seen in religious organizations. (Not that I have ever experienced the greatest models of religious community, so I might be talking out of my butt here.)
There was discussion of why people in the US are more religious than people in Europe, and one theory was that a social democratic government, that makes efforts to meet everyone's survival needs, takes over some of the functions of religion. "Nordic" societies were brought up a few times and an historical argument was made that because they were small, poor, and neutral, no "extreme income pyramid" developed and in this kind of society people tend to take care of each other.
However, no one made the point, which occurred to me just now and I'm not sure it's true but I've heard it, that Nordic societies are fairly homogenous ethically. Maybe homogenous societies don't need religion? (But I know of fairly homogenous societies that do have religion, so maybe not.)
This led into a discussion of how religion has been coopted by ruling classes, and about cyclical changes in the role of women in religion. In the West, there have been "waves" of religious "enthusiasm," and in early stages of such a wave, women are welcomed as preachers, but in the middle stages, women are not allowed to be preachers. The panelist claimed that such a wave is occurring right now in the US/UK.
People can view political philosophies, even atheist ones, as if they were religious beliefs. Some early communists were very fervent (espionage novels of Alan Furst, before World War II) and this explains why so many people "walked into Stalin prisons." (E.g., I guess, believed in communism blindly and didn't see the corruption.) Someone suggested that the longer you are devoted to something, the more rigid you can get about it.
There was some discussion about a theory by a guy named Randy Thornhill who says that religion creates a "protective ingroup." And by "protective" he seemed to mean "protective of the immune system." E.g., he claims that some US states are more religious because they have more disease. Personally I might agree there is a protective value to religion but I'm not sure that the theory gets cause and effect quite right about the correlation of states that have more actively religious people and disease. Especially if poverty isn't factored in.
I know that studies have been done where they wire up humans with electrodes and the humans report "seeing god" or having some kind of spiritual experience. I asked whether any such studies have been done on animals. The panel argued that it wouldn't be possible because we wouldn't know what the animals were experiencing and wouldn't know which part of the brain to stimulate--it's easier to find the pleasure center than the god center. And that's a point, but I still think it could be tried. I haven't studied the studies so I don't know where this religious center is in the brain, but I wonder whether maybe it's in a part of the brain that other animals have. I believe that what humans experience as god, other animals experience too, although of course I don't know what they make of the experience. (I made people laugh by saying that when I rub my cat's belly I know she sees god. Of course I don't mean that literally. And besides, I should have said my dog's belly because I know the cat actually thinks that she IS god.)
There was discussion about whether we could "get rid" of religion and get to an "atheist society." Some people took exception to that and said it was anti-freedom, or that we'll never get everyone to agree on a single view of reality. Other people pointed back at the discussion about how the least religious societies are the Northern Europe social democracies.
Our last topic was the relationship between religion and ethics/moral codes. For some reason it got sidetracked onto sociopaths.
no subject