Religious belief is inherent, massive study claims

[Hilarion]

Religious belief is human nature, huge new study claims

By Richard Allen Greene, CNN
London (CNN) – Religion comes naturally, even instinctively, to human beings, a massive new study of cultures all around the world suggests.
"We tend to see purpose in the world," Oxford University professor Roger Trigg said Thursday. "We see agency. We think that something is there even if you can't see it. ... All this tends to build up to a religious way of thinking."
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.
"Children in particular found it very easy to think in religious ways," such as believing in God's omniscience, said Trigg. But adults also jumped first for explanations that implied an unseen agent at work in the world, the study found.
The study doesn't say anything about whether God, gods or an afterlife exist, said Justin Barrett, the project's other co-director.
"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.
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.
The blockbuster study may not take a stance on the existence of God, but it has profound implications for religious freedom, Trigg contends.
"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.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...claims/?hpt=C1

I realize this may not be anything new, but it's interesting to see it confirmed by an apparently reputable study.

[(s)AINT]

it was bound to happen.

I am waiting for a study to confirm that monkeys, dogs, cats and horses also have this instinctual "nature".


You see what I mean - thank you.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Violent behaviors are also inherent in all animals.

[Hilarion]

Violent behaviors are also inherent in all animals.

Maybe, but violence in humans has a purpose or objective. Why is religious desire natural if there is no God? Why does man pursue transcendence? As far as I'm concerned, I'm compelled to ask questions about our existence, and Christianity in my case gives a pretty satisfying answer as opposed to the lifelessness of atheism. As Kallistos Ware writes,

"Are we to say that apparent order in the universe is mere coincidence; that conscience is simply the result of social conditioning; and that, when life on this planet finally becomes extinct, all that humankind has experienced and all our potentialities will be as though they had never existed? Such an answer seems to me not only unsatisfying and inhuman, but also extremely unreasonable.

It is fundamental to my character as a human being that I search everywhere for meaningful explanations. I do this with the smaller things in my life; shall I not do this also with the greater? Belief in God helps me to understand why the world should be as it is, with its beauty as well as its ugliness; why I should be as I am, with my nobility as well as my meanness; and why I should love others, affirming their eternal value. Apart from belief in God I can see no other explanation for all this. Faith in God enables me to make sense of things, to see them as a coherent whole, in a way that nothing else can do. Faith enables me to make one out of the many."

[MentshmitT]

I absolutely disagree with the first post. It's utter bullocks. It shows that once again that the study of religions has no justification.

[Hilarion]

I absolutely disagree with the first post. It's utter bullocks.

Okay... care to elaborate? If not you're contributing nothing to the discussion.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

Maybe, but violence in humans has a purpose or objective. Why is religious desire natural if there is no God? Why does man pursue transcendence? As far as I'm concerned, I'm compelled to ask questions about our existence, and Christianity in my case gives a pretty satisfying answer as opposed to the lifelessness of atheism. As Kallistos Ware writes,

Human violence is more often sadistic than employed with a purpose. What comes naturally isn't necessarily good.

I am satisfied by atheism because it doesn't mean that my life is a worthless test.

[justicar5]

Maybe, but violence in humans has a purpose or objective. Why is religious desire natural if there is no God? Why does man pursue transcendence? As far as I'm concerned, I'm compelled to ask questions about our existence, and Christianity in my case gives a pretty satisfying answer as opposed to the lifelessness of atheism. As Kallistos Ware writes,

Seeing patterns and attributing an intelligent cause is natural, it's a survival trait in fact, assuming that noise is just a falling rock is a good way to get killed in the wild, so our minds assign an intelligent cause to it (predator/prey/rival), now turn that up to natural disasters or weather, and you get 'human in the sky who must be appeased' because our instinct is to assign things we don't understand to an intelligent cause, to find patterns (I go here I get food, lets do that again, becomes I was dancing when it started raining, if I dance again it will rain again because sky man likes it) and on from there. We have a whole genome full of instincts we don't trust or use anymore, why should sky-man be nay different?

[Hilarion]

Seeing patterns and attributing an intelligent cause is natural, it's a survival trait in fact, assuming that noise is just a falling rock is a good way to get killed in the wild, so our minds assign an intelligent cause to it (predator/prey/rival), now turn that up to natural disasters or weather, and you get 'human in the sky who must be appeased' because our instinct is to assign things we don't understand to an intelligent cause, to find patterns (I go here I get food, lets do that again, becomes I was dancing when it started raining, if I dance again it will rain again because sky man likes it) and on from there. We have a whole genome full of instincts we don't trust or use anymore, why should sky-man be nay different?

Animals also seek patterns. But why is it the Homo sapien in particular who from the very beginning of his existence in painting animals on cave walls adhered to some form of religious or transcendental pursuit, while no other animal attempts it? Your dog may beg for treats every time he sees food, but has he tried to create a work of art or performed any rituals to understand his higher purpose of existence? Have dolphins or chimpanzees shown any sign of objective thinking about themselves or their species as a whole in relation to the world? If contemplating who we are is exclusive to mankind, why is it exclusive to mankind? It is not something that developed through evolution but appeared apparently out of nowhere in our species.

[CamilleBonparte]

it was bound to happen.

I am waiting for a study to confirm that monkeys, dogs, cats and horses also have this instinctual "nature".

You see what I mean - thank you.

Nobody sees what you mean because you haven't actually made a point here. A study to confirm animals are religiously inclined is unlikely any time in the near future, to say the least...

The bull in this stupid article starts with silly terms like "human nature" and ends with "universal", "deep-rooted". It's not worth to discuss stuff that leans on the kind of empty rhethorics.*

Is there a point somewhere in this post? I see you vaguely criticizing the terminology used in the article but offering nothing to explain your reasons for these criticisms. Once again, another pointless post...

Personally the article does not surprise me. Human beings are rational creatures, and considering even when I was an Atheist I could not deny a sense of purpose in the world, a reason for things, I am easily able to relate to the findings in the article. I'm not saying the article proves anything of course, as stated in the article, these findings are open to interpretation, and could be easily used to support either world view (theist or atheist).

[Lord Romanus III]

Personally the article does not surprise me. Human beings are rational creatures, and considering even when I was an Atheist I could not deny a sense of purpose in the world, a reason for things, I am easily able to relate to the findings in the article. I'm not saying the article proves anything of course, as stated in the article, these findings are open to interpretation, and could be easily used to support either world view (theist or atheist).

Are you saying that because you were a former atheist and that you couldn't get over your superstitions that the article actually has more weight? Moreover, I find this article surprising not in the least because, just as most people in the world do not understand how it functions, they will continue to cling to their only other form of 'understanding', that is, religion. It is far easier for most uneducated or those not inclined to study to attribute the world to something beyond their understanding.

[MentshmitT]

I am easily able to relate to the findings in the article ...

And this fact does not make you warily?

[Musthavename]

If this study is true, why in an ever more increasing secular society in Western nations are more and more people simply being irreligious?

The problem with a study about either this or secularisation is inherant bias in many researchers, coupled with the fact of how can you prove wether or not any religious tendencies are instinctive or not? Personally from what I can see, the one large deciding factor of wether or not someone is religious is wether their parents are also religious. It's not instinct, it's upbringing. The vast majority of those with religious parents take on that religion. The vast majority in a Western society with secular parents pay very little attention to religion. Yes, there's atheists that find religion, just as there's those that come to reject their religion, but in terms of averages it's clear that upbringing is the decisive factor.

Personally, i've never felt any purpose to the universe or my life and only concern myself with their apparant existance. I've never felt that there was any being that projected "love" or "benevolence". That doesn't disprove the study, after all we're all individuals, but i'm fairly sure i'm not alone.

[The Dude]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...claims/?hpt=C1

I realize this may not be anything new, but it's interesting to see it confirmed by an apparently reputable study.

It's not anything new in an academic sense. If you've read Spinoza then you've read the most convincing case possible in favour of inherent religious belief. But overall I think this is new to most folk, and will probably be used as a justification by the ignorant in favour of god.

What it signifies to me is that human beings have a disposition to regard the world in an antropocentric manner and that quickly leads to belief in the benevolent god of intervention.

If this study is true, why in an ever more increasing secular society in Western nations are more and more people simply being irreligious?

People are irreligious not due to any well considered spiritual pondering. People are irreligious due to a growing apathy for otherwordly affairs. It's increasingly seen as vague and irrelevant and boring by a growing group of people who favour dealing with immanent material things in their daily life. Now this is not me promoting religion, but what it is is recognising that the irreligious state of affairs in the current Western world is not due to any form of so-called enlightment but rather the exact opposite of that. We think we've been enlightened and so we act as we think enlightened people should, only then absent of all the content and wisdom that enlightment begets. It's a shallow life of imitation, for the most part.

[Musthavename]

People are irreligious not due to any well considered spiritual pondering. People are irreligious due to a growing apathy for otherwordly affairs. It's increasingly seen as vague and irrelevant and boring by a growing group of people who favour dealing with immanent material things in their daily life. Now this is not me promoting religion, but what it is is recognising that the irreligious state of affairs in the current Western world is not due to any form of so-called enlightment but rather the exact opposite of that. We think we've been enlightened and so we act as we think enlightened people should, only then absent of all the content and wisdom that enlightment begets. It's a shallow life of imitation, for the most part.

Yet that is exactly my point. If a "religious belief" is somehow instinctive in humans, why in a society where religion is not a default are people not being drawn to it? Infact if it wasn't for religion being passed down religion would very likely go into non-existance among the vast majority of the populace - something that goes against what this study is suggesting.

[The Dude]

Yet that is exactly my point. If a "religious belief" is somehow instinctive in humans, why in a society where religion is not a default are people not being drawn to it? Infact if it wasn't for religion being passed down religion would very likely go into non-existance among the vast majority of the populace - something that goes against what this study is suggesting.

Social stigma, but the same attitude that also gives birth to religious thought still perseveres. Religion is simply one mode of its expression, but there are others way to go about it and as times change so do our expressions of our inherent dispositions.

Many people regard the world around them as an object that exists for their sake, as a means to their ends. The only personal experience valid to them is their own, and while the existence of fellow human beings who all see the world in the same way is by most people casually acknowledged, the implications of it are rarely understood. People still complain when they don't get their way, still feel wronged when another person has gotten what they wanted out of interaction with the world while they did not, etc.

One means of rationalising this all away is the myth of the benevolent interventionist god who has a plan for you. It helps people deal with the reality of life that they are not important to anything except their immediate friends and relatives, and that the world does not exist for their sake, by telling them exactly the opposite: you are very special indeed, and there is a great cosmic creator out there who loves you and will cater to you, but you owe him your existence and thus you owe him your patience. Learn to deal with when things do not go your way, because God knows better.

What I just summed up here is effectively what Spinoza argued in his time, and it should be obvious why it was poorly received. In fact, there are still periods where Spinoza is poorly received and right now we live in a time where thankfully his work does not carry with it the controversy that it used to.

But consider that even without religion, the disposition to regard the world in this primal manner does not vanish. It is now justified by a sort of nihilism, indeed the opposite of religion: the recognition that we are not important and that we simply do not get our way. But again, the full implications of this logic are still not fully understood by the majority and therefore it is a sort of relativist, apathetic attitude that permeates Western society in which people are taught to just shrug and accept that there is no universal truth, there is no greater purpose to their existence, etc etc.

It's once again a mindset to deal with what it is to exist as a human being, except diametrically opposed to the way religion handles it. So I would actually correct the study linked in the OP in this manner: it's not religion that's inherent in people, it's the disposition to regard the world as a means to personal ends that is inherent in people. And this disposition gives birth to any mode of expressing it, of which religion is just one.

[MentshmitT]

Many people regard the world around them as an object that exists for their sake, as a means to their ends. The only personal experience valid to them is their own, and while the existence of fellow human beings who all see the world in the same way is by most people casually acknowledged, the implications of it are rarely understood. People still complain when they don't get their way, still feel wronged when another person has gotten what they wanted out of interaction with the world while they did not, etc.

I think this part is very important, also we infact should be aware that to look from a less subjective point of view on things already requires the activity of a subject.

[godol shmok]

The example with the children is funny.

... the activity of a subject.

Do you mean the activity of the subject that exposes its vulnerability towards other subjects or do you mean the noninvolved observer?
Because they appear to me not to be entirely the same, - although the remark leads already a bit OT.

[Himster]

You could laso say that belief in aliens is an inherent human trait as it is apparently present in every human culture that has ever existed. The concept of aliens is something that is deep-rooted in human nature, thwarting it is in some sense not enabling humans to fulfill their basic interests.

To argue that this study supports theism or atheism would be an exercise in futility.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

You could laso say that belief in aliens is an inherent human trait as it is apparently present in every human culture that has ever existed. The concept of aliens is something that is deep-rooted in human nature, thwarting it is in some sense not enabling humans to fulfill their basic interests.

I don't think people think about that too much, but it's a lot different from God because we actually have some evidence they're likely to exist.