Why is spirituality and religion such an integral part of the human condition?

[CasBit]

I have a guess.

It doesn't meet the scientific criteria of a theory because it is based entirely on my observations and musings and has not been tested or researched.

My guess is that the majority (say 70-90%) of human beings have a psycho-physiological requirement to believe in the certainty of an afterlife.
To accommodate this, elaborate reinforcement systems need to be in place to address the logical difficulties and to provide the detail and background that eases acceptance.

I base this on my observation that, throughout history, the vast majority of religious and spiritual belief systems have evolved the afterlife as a common core, even those that have developed independently of others. Change some important aspect of a religion, and you have a new branch or derivation. Remove the possibility of an afterlife and the religion will cease to be.

On the other hand, those with brain chemistries capable of accepting death as it appears to be, the permanent cessation of any awareness of self, often find it impossible to believe with any certainty the existence of spiritual or metaphysical realms or beings. Even those that who wish to are overwhelmed by and endless list of inconsistencies, conundrums, improbabilities, impossibilities, and unanswerable questions.

This is the category I put myself into. I know for absolute certainty that no spiritual or metaphysical realms or beings exist, that consciousness is the product of very complex chemistry and electrophysiology, and my awareness of self will forever cease when enough of my brain cells die.

But if I could take a pill that would alter my brain chemistry causing me to believe in the certainty of an afterlife, I would take it in a second.

After all, believing in an afterlife is just a good and the actual existence of it.

Tom

[nara]

It’s a very interesting subject. I agree with you CasBit and I’m going to take your idea and run with it a little. Hopefully it won’t distract too much from your main point.

I feel that religion and spirituality is such an integral part of the human condition because the human mind is not capable of handling the complexity of existence. There is only so much information that can be held in the human mind at one time while solving a problem. To compensate, we abstract the data to make it more manageable. In doing that, details often get lost and are filled in by wonder and awe among other things.

I’ve often thought of what would happen if we were able to create a sentient artificial intelligence that was similar to us in all ways (even emotionally) but could think at such speeds that in a second it’s mind would think enough thoughts to equal the lifetime of the smartest human. Would this robot still be able to relish in the moments where it feels love? Could it look lovingly into the eyes of a newborn baby or cuddly puppy? IMO, only if it was to divert the majority of its power into its emotional subsystems and drastically slow down its’ logical thinking. Otherwise, its’ conscious thoughts would quickly override its’ emotions.

What would this robot say if you asked its’ thoughts on your religion or spiritual beliefs? It would probably say “I cannot completely disprove your belief but…”, then it would begin telling you all the reasons that the belief was not likely. Eventually you would get so tired of hearing it talk you would tell it to shut up, and curse technology because the majority of what was said went right over your head.

To explain to you in a way that you would quickly understand, the robot would have to explain in metaphors and relational stories. There is danger in that though because details are lost and it runs the risk of stirring your emotions. Once emotions have been stirred there is an even higher risk that you will misinterpret the information.

This is what our ancestors did when faced with the complexities of existence. They created gods and stories to make sense of it all. It has happened all throughout history and is happening even today especially with quantum mechanics. Nobody really understands the quantum world yet but many people are all too eager to use it to justify their spiritual views or use it to create new ones. Like you said, people want certainty and not necessarily the truth.

To be fair, I do believe there is some underlying mystery to our existence that makes IM, ghosts, psychic abilities, astral projection, NDEs and OBEs possible. I’ve had experiences with IM, ghosts and astral projection. However, I believe it is the inadequacies of the human mind that lead us to label the under-workings of these experiences to “the Universe”, “spirit guides”, “higher self” etc. I have a few theories on how these things work but I don’t have much to back them up with yet and they are rather hard to explain. They don’t, however, require a god or an afterlife.

I put myself into the same category as you. I long for the truth of our existence and I’ve found other things to help me sleep easy at night so I don’t care what that truth is. If I’m destined to be worm food, I can accept that. A pill would be nice though. It would certainly mean less headaches earned from pondering this stuff.

[AndyMartin]

nara-nice!

I think there are two problems, and both revolve around an inadequacy in the stories we tell.

First, with religion, it's mostly based on traditions that come from an ethnocentric world view. That's why it's divided on cultural, racial and sectarian lines rather than aggregating around common values that are lived. It's development has been arrested since the rise of rational modernity and scientific formality because rationality had empiricism on its side and religion really only had burning at the stake, and that could only work for so long.

Now, on to science. Also inadequate. The distinction between causation and correlation is lost on many scientists and most laypeople. For example, just because certain brain chemicals increase at the same time that a certain state of consciousness arises, does not mean that the state of consciousness is the result of the chemicals. It just means they are happened at the same time, and therefore for the same reason. Whether it's chicken or egg or something else entirely is wholly unknown. So again, it's a case of bad storytelling.

But at the same time, there is very good science. The evolution of the universe and of life is well understood on a physical level. Why it happened the way it did is completely unknown. Could be random, could be directed by consciousness. Could be the unfolding of consciousness itself. We need to find new stories that fit what we know and still make room for the questions we feel the need to answer. Then we can use those to springboard into a new level of inquiry.

There's where the fun really begins!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by AndyMartin

The distinction between causation and correlation is lost on many scientists and most laypeople.

The distinction between truth and conclusion is also lost on most people; one of the major problems with the public perception of science is that it discovers truth.

It doesn't. It never has. It's not supposed to. The purpose of science is to discover falsehood. To find which correlations are definitely not causations. It is incapable of doing anything else.

You don't go to science for answers; you go to science to see if your answers are wrong.

Originally Posted by nara

I feel that religion and spirituality is such an integral part of the human condition because the human mind is not capable of handling the complexity of existence.

Permit me to point you to this:
TED Blog: David Deutsch on TEDTalks

Neglecting Dharmic religions, most religions do not consider the very large or very small; they remain in "middle world", as Deutsch terms it. My point, since you're probably wondering what it is, is that these two other scales are equally incomprehensible to the human mind, but religions with Western roots do not account for it. American religions (aboriginals with pre-colonial traditions) are typically willing to consider the very large, but do not consider the very small.

Originally Posted by CasBit

Remove the possibility of an afterlife and the religion will cease to be.

There are, at the end of it, three essences that I've been able to distill out of religion and only one of them concerns the afterlife.

1) Religion explains why things are. We see rainbows, according to the Bible, because of God's Covenant with Noah after the Flood. We fear loneliness, according to Hinduism, because the first creature began alone and feared it.
2) Religion tells us what not to do. Theft and blasphemy are wrong. Killing another living being is wrong.
3) Religion tells us what to do. The greatest symbol of this, for me, is the rite of passage adolescent boys in Native American tribes go through (or once went through). The search for the Manitou, returning with it and sharing this gift with one's society is a mimicry of myth and legend: it is self-discovery.

Afterlife is the explanation of the question, "What happens after death?" But I think that there is more to the motivation of religion than afterlife; I do not think it was a mistake that many of the earliest civilizations began with god-kings, priest-kings, avatar-kings: religion was ultimately the first government.

[nara]

I came across this video today and wanted to share it. It's a speech given by Neil Tyson in the Beyond Belief series. It addresses the topic of this thread and explains what I was trying to convey much better, I think. His speech is about 40 minutes long but I also recommend watching the entire video. In fact there are many sessions to Beyond Belief and if you have the time I recommend watching them all. It has a lot of great speakers and covers many ideas.

Session 2 - Beyond Belief 2006 - Google Video

[AAMM77]

Although there is certainly a lot of culturally produced religious/spiritual propaganda that touts the afterlife in many variety, there is also certainly a lot of culturally produced scientific/materialist propaganda that touts that we are bodies and that is it. All I know for sure is that you will never personally die. Death always happens to someone else. If there is afterlife (reincarnation, heaven, ghosts) then, of course, you will never personally die. However, even if there is no afterlife, you still won’t ever personally die, because there will be no you to say, “oh I’m dead.” Again, death always happens to someone else (to me, that is a clue as to what death is all about). I’d say that most people believe in some form of afterlife because in their personal day to day experience they feel more like minds than bodies; bodies seem more like just an interface. And to a person who has ever experienced certain altered states of consciousness, such as those facilitated by certain psychoactive substances, like adequate doses of psychedelic drugs, the body starts to lose all credibility of primacy. Only when a person becomes a brain worshiper and attempts to attribute mind completely to physical organs does afterlife start to seem dismissible. Are you a body or a mind?

[nara]

Originally Posted by AAMM77

Are you a body or a mind?

Thats a good question and I wish more people would do some resarch into it instead of taking the easy feel-good answer of the mind being seperate from the body. In fact if more people got interested in it, I'm pretty sure we could settle this problem within my lifetime.

When I say "settle" I don't mean definatively because I'm sure someone will always find a way to concoct some loophole, but I'm saying there would be little doubt remaining. The current evidence points to the mind and body relying on each other to exist. If one dies the other dies. However, there are some scientists that disagree and have theories to show otherwise. Time will tell if their theory holds and if the evidence stacks in their favor. They could definately use some more great minds helping their cause though.

I've tried a few psychadelic drugs, with wonderful results, and I've even had an astral experience. However, I'm very reluctant to attribute these experiences to the mystical or as evidence to support a mind seperate from the body. Why? Because I recognize people tend to do this when they reach the edge of their current knowledge and majority of the time, they are wrong.

Science has continually taught the human race humility. Meaning we are not as special as many religions would like us to believe. Do we live on after death? Here is where we reach the edge of our current knowledge. We don't know and it's easy to fill up that chasm with sprituality and everything else. I'm certain that one day (probably not in my lifetime) we will find the bridge that crosses over this chasm and thus answering the question. My bet is that we will continue this trend of humility and we will find that mind does not survive death. Is that faith in science or common-sense/logical deduction? I'll let you decide.

[maverickstruth]

Ah, the million dollar question, "why do we have religion"? What purpose does it serve? Why bother? etc.

I don't know that there is a good answer, and I think that part of that stems from the fact that we don't really know what religion is (see the ever-growing thread on that one). How can we know why something exists if we don't even know what it is?

Maybe there is some psychological factor that draws us to religion. Maybe religion is just an aspect of culture which explains anything that is thought to be unexplainable. Maybe there really is something "out there" (or "in here") that is bigger than us -- call it God, call it the Divine, call it the Source, call it whatever -- that is drawing us to it.

The thing is, I don't think there's a "one-size fits all" answer to this question.

Even when it comes to the afterlife, things get murky. Take, for example, Judaism. Many forms of Judaism don't have any answers to the question of "what happens after I die". The approach is that the focus ought to be on this life, not on the afterlife. Beyond that, it's up to the individual to answer those questions for themselves, if they want an answer. Now I realize that this may sound contradictory to what I said in the "Define Religion" thread, but there I was talking more on a micro level (the level of the individual) rather than on the macro / meta level like I am here.

So yeah... I'm not sure why we have religion. Like I said, that's like the million dollar question for a lot of people. :-)

[AAMM77]

I'm certain that one day (probably not in my lifetime) we will find the bridge that crosses over this chasm and thus answering the question.

Nara, it is interesting you threw in that stipulation “probably not in my LIFEtime.” If mind is physically based, science can prove it. If mind is not physically based, science cannot prove it. To be scientifically proven, mind must be traceable to some sort of physical phenomenon from which we can replicate mind. If mind is not physical though, then it is outside the realm of science. And what tool is there besides science that can prove stuff? The only other tool is personal experience, and that is subjective. So, although science has been able to figure out a lot about how bodies/brains operate, that doesn’t mean much if those things are just mental projections of mind, thus making physical reality no more physical than the physical world we experience when dreaming? For as long as science remains unsure about exactly what makes mind, belief that mind is a product of matter is just as much a religious belief as religious belief. So, at this point in time, the mind makes matter hypothesis has yet to be falsified. Even if mind is primary though, that doesn’t mean that religions are exactly right about anything , other than their propensity to believe in something beyond the physical world. I personally think science is great, but I also think scissors are great. Science is a tool, and like most tools, it is useful when applied to the right job. Mind might not be something in the realm of science. Mind invented science after all. We’ll see, but until there is good reason to believe otherwise, my money is on mind makes matter.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by AAMM77

And what tool is there besides science that can prove stuff?

I need to jump on that. Science does not prove anything. Logic does. There is no such thing as "scientifically provable"; the two words simply don't go together. Science is the process by which you either disprove or fail to disprove a hypothesis.

I'm not remarking on your overall point; but the notion that science proves anything is a pop culture belief that needs serious correction.

[Mark Lapierre]

I'm reading Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn series at the moment. He weaves a fantastic tale of humanity's chance encounter with energistic forces beyond our understanding which force us to confront the reality of an existence after death. But it's a reality which has a scientific basis; it is only our lack of understanding which makes it seem otherwise.

I'm not sure that we'll ever find the truth, but I do believe that if there is an afterlife, we'll one day come to some satisfactory, scientifically verifiable conclusions. But if there is no afterlife, how do you demonstrate that nothing exists? And you can't use logic to prove or disprove that an afterlife exists if that logic is based on unsound assumptions.

I agree with what Michael said about the essences of religion, and I think religion is that way because of our initial lack of understanding, coupled with a need for certainty, and a willingness to believe and follow authority figures.

We're born into this world with only our instincts. As we gain a little comprehension of our existance, and some measure of self-awareness, we also become aware of all the gaps in our understanding. We're confused by and perhaps fearful of things that don't make sense to us, so we try to explain them in a way that lays that fear and confusion to rest. And when we meet someone who states their beliefs emphatically, as fact, not opinion, in our more malleable states of mind (which for some people is their only state of mind) we accept their words and make their beliefs our own, also labelling them 'fact'.

As nara pointed out, we can also label our own experiences in a way that assigns them spiritual meaning, and if we're convinced enough of the explanation we tell ourselves, then it's quite likely we could convince others. And a leader who has such experiences could convince a lot of people.

Of course it's possible for those experiences to be real, and those explanations to be valid, and thus we're willing to believe them, and tell them to others, and even have similar experiences ourselves. But sometimes those experiences are not the same as the ones mentioned in the stories we hear.

As an example, I've had many experiences of sleep paralysis. What I experienced was another presence in the room, sometimes clearly defined, mostly not. The first such experience almost convinced me my house was haunted; it was that 'real'. Subsequent experiences allowed me to form an understanding of the environment which gave rise to the experiences, and I'm now certain I could recreate the experience any morning (but you'd have to give me a damn good reason to put myself through that again!)

But the point is, I could have told myself it was either alien abduction or ghosts, but since my influences are scientific, a chemical imbalance seems more likely to me, even though the exact physiology is still unknown. So the scientific and physical world is influenced by the stories we tell just as much as the spiritual and metaphysical.

But as Andy said, new stories could launch us into a new level of inquiry, and who knows, those stories may be the same in both the spiritual and physical worldviews.

[nara]

Originally Posted by AAMM77

Nara, it is interesting you threw in that stipulation “probably not in my LIFEtime.” If mind is physically based, science can prove it. If mind is not physically based, science cannot prove it. To be scientifically proven, mind must be traceable to some sort of physical phenomenon from which we can replicate mind. If mind is not physical though, then it is outside the realm of science.

I don’t like to use the definition that the scientific process is only capable of dealing with questions that pertain to the physical. The better definition is that it deals with questions that are testable given our current understanding of existence. Scientific inquiry is very young yet and it is important that scientists take small steps in bolstering our understanding of existence. We start with the easily observable stuff and then keep moving on from there. So it is in that respect that I state that we may not have a clear enough understanding of things in my lifetime to acquire enough testable evidence to sufficiently explain consciousness. But I think that one day it will be explained.

This especially holds true if the spiritual or religious realms are as structured as many claim, with heaven, angels, guides, deceased relatives, different vibrations of existence etc. It should be absolutely possible for experiments, measurements and testing to be done in these realms given the correct understanding of them.

That is assuming these things are not the delusions of the person. I just wish more people would take an interest in trying to understand the workings instead of settling on the “feel-good”, "intuitional" explanations. Unfortunately I think you’ll find that once people distance themselves from the desire (need?) to believe in the spiritual or religious they find there is little to no reason to have ever done so. You can read these accounts of two ex-parapsychologists to get a very brief and small understanding of what I mean:
The Elusive Open Mind: Ten Years of
Why I quit studying parapsychology

For as long as science remains unsure about exactly what makes mind, belief that mind is a product of matter is just as much a religious belief as religious belief. So, at this point in time, the mind makes matter hypothesis has yet to be falsified.

I don’t like to argue semantics but I wanted to clear this up. I disagree that belief that mind is a product of matter is religious belief. Given the bulk of current evidence, the logical conclusion is that mind derives from matter. It is a “religious belief” to believe that the understanding of consciousness will definitely never change and it is also a “religious belief” to assume that it will definitely change. It is a logical conclusion to think that mind derives from matter. It is a religious belief to think that mind is separate from matter because to do so you are putting faith in untested hypothesis. I suppose that may be verbal gymnastics but it’s the way I see things.

Mind might not be something in the realm of science. Mind invented science after all. We’ll see, but until there is good reason to believe otherwise, my money is on mind makes matter.

I read a bit of your website and while there is a lot that I could argue about, I don't think this is the right thread (or even the right forum) so I wish you good luck with your website and that belief.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by AAMM77

Yes, I suppose if we want to play semantical acrobatics, science proves nothing. It is logic combined with reproducible scientific experimentation that seemingly proves stuff. Logic alone can prove stuff to oneself, but unless there is some scientifically reproducible external phenomenon to point to, getting others to accept that proof is another matter.

*sighs*

Science invalidates falsehoods.
Logic proves truth from truth.
Getting others to accept stuff is communication.

It is not about making people believe you. It is about the discovery of truth. These are entirely different things.

So I guess it was my mistake to assume that, by proof, you meant truth when you actually meant convincing. Thanks for clearing it up.

[ethereal]

Hehe, a quick quote (paraphrased) that I wanted to share:

Audience question: "Why should we care about spirituality or religion at all? What if there is no afterlife, there is no God or heaven, and life doesn't have a purpose?"
David Hawkins: "Then you would have lived a happy, fulfilling, and virtuous life for nothing"

[AAMM77]

Nara, your money is obviously on matter makes mind. My money used to be on matter makes mind until I got heavy into philosophy and had some weird experiences. Now, my money is on mind makes matter (like a dream). We all have preferences based on or wishes and experiences. And so, preferences as to what seems more reasonable color the way we look at data. For example, studying quantum physics has given rise to data that to some people shows that mind influences matter. However, people whose faith is in matter over mind (the majority of the scientific community) find ways to dismiss strange phenomenon such as that. And as long as there is doubt on either side, there will be room for argument. I personally tend to treat the universe as a fictional, ethereal entity, like a dream. Am I right? The only way we will ever find out is if we wake up for ourselves. For as long as we don’t wake up, the dream will seem like reality and we’ll try to convince ourselves it is real to keep the dream going. Maybe it is real and that is why we haven’t awakened. The business of waking up though is kind of like the inverse of science. Things like meditation and shamanic journeying constitute inverse forms of science. Pursuing such things eventually facilitate first hand experiences that are like waking up unto another reality. It is subjective experience though. And you can’t scientifically convince people of subjective experience. But that doesn’t make it untrue.