That seems to be the argument David Hume is making over at The Secular Right:
The fact is that religious traditions are a part of human culture, and they interact with ostensibly non-religious parts of human culture. To extirpate all that is religious from one’s life is to extirpate human culture.
The post is about the “War Against Christmas” hoopla that comes up every December. Hume argues that religious traditions and celebrations have been going on for centuries, even before Christianity. And of course, he’s right. The Christmas tree? Santa? Both (or at least elements of both) are said to descend from pagan traditions. The same case can be made for many elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition. For example, flood stories similar to Noah’s flood has been mentioned in texts since the Sumerian culture existed.
My only quibble with his argument is that Hume uses “culture” where he should probably use either “history” or “nature.” The first becaue it is undeniable that human history is inexplicably linked with the history of religion. The second because humans do have a tendency to go for the “it’s bigger than you and me” reasoning for something they can’t explain. And because if one study is true, a predisposition to religion may quite literally be in our genes.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
My only quibble with his argument is that Hume uses ?culture? where he should probably use either ?history? or ?nature.? The first becaue it is undeniable that human history is inexplicably linked with the history of religion.
The two are not contradictory assertions or usages.
The second because humans do have a tendency to go for the ?it?s bigger than you and me? reasoning for something they can?t explain.
Only smart humans. The top 10% in intelligence (these are the ones making up theologies of course).
And because if one study is true, a predisposition to religion may quite literally be in our genes.
It does lie in our genes, but that’s not really the sort of reason that those predispositions emerged. A tendency toward belief in supernatural agents is probably a byproduct of our cognitive faculties like social modeling, intuitive physics, etc.
Huh? Am I understanding you correctly? Only the most intelligent humans are the ones that tend to seek religious explanations? Somehow I suspect that can’t be what you are saying. What studies have been done in that respect have found a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, though the significant correlations actually came from relating education to religiosit.
Though the post overall I think is solid, I take some issue with the title “Is Religion Inescapable?”. I think there is strong evidence that religion exists as a product or byproduct of different aspects of our cognitive funcions (I would HIGHLY recommend Dennet’s “Breaking the Spell” for a brilliant discussion on the subject). As such it does have a biological aspect. But that does not make it “inescapable” though it does admittedly make it harder to avoid on a societal level.
There is relatively strong evidence to support the notion that racism may have some evolutionary origin. Societies all over the world have segregated, discriminated, intermarried and gone to war on the basis of racial differences, from huge empires to smaller tribes. It may have something to do with our innate ability to recognize ourselves and our kin and to differentiate them from other members of the species that constitute potential competitors. That does not make racism a positive trait and, even more relevant, it does not make racism “inescapable”. (Disclaimer: I’m not making a moral equivalency between racism and all religion, I simply use it as a behavioral trait that could have biological origins).
Whatever the underlying causes of religion, what is clear is that certain needs that are currently fufilled by religion would still need fufilling in the absence of religion. Community and life-marking ceremonies (births, marriages, deaths, as well as season changes) are human needs reflected in almost every society needs that need to be covered. That’s why you see atheists (of which there are millions all over the world, including countries where they are almost dominant) participating in secular versions of traditionally religious ceremonies (like baby-naming in the place of baptism).
I believe that tradition and symbolism is inescapable, but I don’t see a convincing argument that an accompanying supernatural belief is equally inevitable.
I have now begun to call Christmas…Santamas.
Nothing says Christ is born better than an 8 foot inflatable globe on your lawn surrounded by inflatable deer, candy canes, and my favorite.. the inflatable Tigger “(dressed like a snowman, holding a candy cane)”. However, I did see a Nativity scene last week on a lawn, but the 3 wise men were replaced by elves and the only barnyard animal was Rudolf. It’s all pretty disgusting.
Claudia;
How quickly your response degenerated from the foolishness of religious to a discussion of racism. They’re all just part of the same spectrum aren’t they.
C3, how quickly your comment degenerated into a complete mischaracterization of my opinion. I have said nothing whatsoever about whether religion is “foolish” only about whether it is “inevitable” (and specifically mentioned that studies about religion showed that the real correlation was with education, more than intelligence), and I have not placed racism and religion on the same moral level, and yet you happily choose to characterize me this way. This despite my specific words that explained that the comparison was not meant as a moral equivalency but as a possibly biologically influenced behaviour. Or did you not read that far?
Claudia, I’d submit to you that you’re right about religion fulfilling certain needs, and I’d think that even a nonbeliever could see that at the most abstract level religion is simply man’s desire to orient his life toward the ‘greater good’. Some people believe that ‘greater good’ dwells in and derives from a supernatural Being, while others don’t. But why can’t you see that the negative attributes you ascribe to religion will equally apply to any ideology or non-ideology that seeks to fulfill the human needs that you describe? IOW, the negative coaptation of religion for power and nefarious purposes is equally probable no matter who is trying to fill those human needs- it’s not strictly an attribute of religion to be susceptible to that exploitation.
Some of us believe that at least religious philosophy is bound toward ‘good’ because of some defined attributes of God and morality, rather than placing the moral decisions within the individual. I realize that you feel that the belief in the supernatural makes one susceptible to irrational thought, but religion can and is often tied to rational thought even though it’s not a thought system based on empirical evidence. For those of us whose religious experience is based on a rational theology, there’s little danger of exploitation (and whatever you think about Hume’s assertion of intelligence in theology, you seem to have neglected to study the great religious thinkers in your studies of the topic and rely strictly on the writings of religious critics to form your opinions, so there’s little wonder that you don’t have a high opinion of intellect in religious thought.)
I always wonder what people mean when they say “intelligence” as there are multiple ways to measure intelligence. I could see how someone with an aptitude for something very defined, like chemistry or physics, would have a hard time with something as nebulous as religion…
Hume’s article is interesting in that it’s similar to the criticism I’ve heard of recent books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and the like: They underestimate the impact of religion on society. The writings assume that the elimination of religion would result in a society much like today, only more liberal. In contrast, the older atheist writers like Russell or Nietzche noted that eliminating religion would involve a radical change in human society, given religion’s many influences.
I can see this influence even in Claudia’s post: Why have “life marking ceremonies” if there is no God/ultimate power/etc and thus no higher purpose in life? Why bother?
Pretending that the anti-religion hysteria that always comes up this time of year is a fabrication of the religious right doesn’t make it so. The fact of the matter is that Christmas time IS hunting season for many elements of the militant atheist movement. It does exist, they do have power in some institutions (especially education) and their excesses (e.g. banning santa claus as a “religious symbol”, sending students home for wearing a Christmas tree sweater, or enforcing Kwanzaa celebration in classes) are legitimately contemptible to anyone that cares about tolerance as more than just a conditionally useful rhetorical cudgel.
What studies have been done in that respect have found a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity,
I wasn’t talking about religiosity, I was talking about reasoning about religion. Theology, ontologies, etc. That’s the purview of smart people, who confuse the aspects of religion and assume that the intellectualized dimensions are what “religion is about.” Most people don’t reason much because they’re not smart. Religion is less about deep question than superficial intuitions & concrete communities.
If I read correctly you were astonished (if not sure of the opposite) that there could be a positive correlation between religious beliefs and intelligence. Yes, I took the liberty of using the word “foolish” but it seemed to fit with what I saw as your underlying assumption that surely those with a religious understanding are less intelligient.
I was indeed surprised that Mr. Hume was claiming a positive correlation between religiosity and intelligence. My surprise is because such a claim fits very badly with Mr. Hume’s other views. What I’ve read on the subject does show something of a negative correlation, but I don’t see it as solid enough to get past hypothesis. Education level seems to be a far better predictor of religiosity (controlling for other cultural factors) than raw intelligence, a variable that has notable measurement challenges, not the least of which is that it is sensitive to education levels.