From: tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno)
Subject: Re: Religious feeling
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:40:49 GMT

In article <27936.9208121111@uk.co.lucasauto.eg.lucifer> mikeb@eg.lucasauto.co.uk (Mike Brady) writes:
>
>Subject: Re: Religious Phenomena
>Newsgroups: alt.atheism
>In-Reply-To: <l8fs04INN404@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
>References: <1992Aug6.200101.4420@sics.se> <1992Aug7.050953.23069@cco.caltech.edu> <1992Aug8.235321.18902@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1992Aug09.011504.12639@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <l8dof2INNau@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> <166tgnINNhff@seven-up.East.Sun.COM>
>Organization: Lucas Powertrain Systems, Electronic Control Group, UK
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>
>In article <l8fs04INN404@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> Dano writes:
>>(Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) scribbles:
>>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>>I suppose if you haven't felt it, it might be difficult to
>>describe. I think each person might describe it slightly
>>differently, but since you asked, I would say that a religious
>>feeling is one where a person is gripped by or experiences a
>>personal reaction to something of ultimate concern. And no,
>>I do not intend that language to be used literally :)
>>
>>One need not be a theist to feel a "religious feeling".
>>
>>Dano
>
>
>IMHO religious feeling is the gelling of the different aspects
>of a person in a set of ideas or understanding.  For example,
>personal life experiences and intellectual understanding
>suddenly gell in a moment of profundity when something is
>realised.
>
>The 'something' that is realised does not have to be true, it
>just has to fit the thinkers experiences and provide a framework
>for them to fit together.  The 'something' could equally well
>be: I was created by Yahweh; I was created by evolution or The
>Universe is a figment of my imagination.
>
>All work for different people.  It is tempting to follow this
>religious feeling, because it appears to point towards truth.
>And indeed it does, because it explains a persons experiences.
>However, the feeling does not justify truth.  There are other
>things to be considered, such as the experiences and knowledge
>of others.  If the religious feeling itself is used as
>validation for the idea that gives rise to it then the thinker is
>heading for close-minded stagnation.
>
>Close-minded stagnation does have a certain sense of security
>about it, however.  Until the point is reached where reality
>forces its way through and makes the thinker take notice.  Then
>the structure can collaps in often painful and frightening ways.
>
>Religious feeling is something I understand even though an
>atheist.  I am wary of it when I experience such profound
>moments now, because I am aware that is simply a working of my
>mind.  When things click into place we feel good because the
>world becomes easier to cope with.
>
>To reiterate, however, the religious feeling in itself does not
>justify truth.  This is an error than has caused the mass of
>religions we see and have seen.  To my mind atheism is better,
>at least my version, because it allows religious feeling (which
>is useful as a pointer towards 'best fit' theories) without
>embellishing them with mystical properties.
>

I wonder if the whole system of belief and dogma didn't arise as an
evolutionary adaptation to a massively powerful and complex brain.  (I'll
be euphemistic, and call these two things 'culture.'  Or am I being cynical?
Oh, hell.  =) )  Think about it.  When we first arrive at the 'cultural
horizon,' the ability to trasmit data orally and by example did us a lot of
good.  One didn't have to start from scratch whenever he wanted to make a
cutting edge, or fire, or clothing, or a lean-to.

But... look at the drawbacks.  With the advent of language, you enter the
possibilities of transmitting abstract thoughts.  With concrete 'programming,'
you simply do what you've learned to do, but abstract thought can lead you by
the wayside.  It can get you lost in the complexities of your own programming.
There's no doubt that Mankind's ability to question and revise his own
programming is perhaps his greatest adaptation.  But for most of our ancestors,
absent-minded thought would get you eaten.  If all of our early Homo sapiens
brethren were philosophers, I don't think we'd be here now.  (That leads to
an interesting speculation-- Neanderthals had bigger brains, and THEY went the
way of the dodo-- could it be perhaps that--- Nah...)

But nevertheless, this is how the brain is designed.  So how do you keep 
everyone from becoming existential and nihilistic and wandering off into the
nearest tarpit?  Dogma, of course!  Dogma gives you good, concrete programming
for areas that what normally be relegated to questioning and abstract thought.
Another thing to be transmitted through the generations, so millions of 
hairy barbarians don't have to scratch their heads and puzzle it out for 
themselves, and get the whole tribe chewed up by tigers in the process.  Thus,
most normal heads get filled up with dogma, while the occasional 'freak' 
tosses some new ideas into the cultural pool from time to time.  

Eventually, however, you begin to reach ages where you WON'T get eaten by
tigers for sitting down and thinking all the time, for being depressed about
the emptiness of the universe, and the whatnot.  Enter civilization.  
Theoretically, it's here that the need for dogma should start dropping off.
But no... something's wrong.  Not only do we cling to the dogma we had, but
we go on and make more of the damned stuff.  This is where I think Mankind has
its big problem.  The 'need' for dogma and religion (I think) disappeared a
long time ago-- we can survive very well without it, thank you.  I view
irrational belief as a vestigial appendage, something that was really useful
in its time, but something that really ought to go away eventually.

Maybe I'm right, and one day it'll be that way.  But I have this sinking 
feeling that it's not that simple, or that it's going to take an awful lot
of time to get past the need for dogma.  Hell, we still haven't gotten rid of
our tonsils yet.  =)  

Anyway, enough idle speculations for now.  

>Mike.

tom bruno
archaeology
mit

Cthulhu for President in '92!