From: J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: The origin of Religion
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:53:04 GMT
 <1992Nov04.111929.318@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
 <1992Nov4.150144.24070@spectrum.xerox.com>
 <1992Nov06.094608.20334@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Nov06.094608.20334@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca
(Douglas Graham) says:
>
>In article <1992Nov4.150144.24070@spectrum.xerox.com>
>eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU
>(Erik Radmall) writes:
[concering archtypes in religions]
>>
>>Yup, it is Jungian -- the depths of the subconscious have yet to be plumbed.
>>For example, tests were done with freshly hatched chicks. [ . . .]
[consult original post for details of this famous ethological experiment]
>>Somewhere in their fresh little brains was a program that responded
>>predictably to this goose/hawk shadow.
>
>I guess what throws me is that religious belief seems come in such variety
>that there really doesn't seem to be any common denominator other than
>the satisfying of some basic emotions.

Well then, you need to do some reading in comparative literature/
mythology/religion.  Joseph Campbell's popular books might be a place
to start.  Or, inquire about the common denominator in alt.mythology.

>For example, the specific beliefs
>of Scientology don't appear to have much in common with those of Christianity,
>yet they both appear to be quite successful in infecting the brains of
>their hosts.  The only similarity that I can detect is that they both
>promise immortality of one sort or another.

Scientology isn't exactly a long-standing, major religion.

>If religious belief really
>did stem from a preprogrammed unconscious, I would expect to see more
>similarities.  I do believe that humans do come preprogrammed with some
>instinctual reactions similar to that of the chicks (such as a fear of
>snakes), but I would expect those reactions to be more directly related
>to the business of survival than some fuzzy belief in gods.

Isn't foreknowledge of our death an enormously relevant issue vis-a-vis
our survival?  Michael Persinger, in his *Neuropsychological bases of
God beliefs* suggests that illusions of immortality protect us from
from the despair of realizing we can't escape death.

>
>To me, the puzzling aspect of religion is not the specifics of what
>is believed, but rather the ability of people to maintain those beliefs
>in face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.  It seems that all that's
>needed is to provide a set of completely arbitrary beliefs so that
>people don't have to think for themselves, possibly a promise of immortality,
>and some innoculation against skepticism (eg. promote faith as a virtue).
>If this is roughly true, where do the archetypes fit into this scheme?

It would be presumptuous of me to attempt a proper summary of the theory
of archetypes in a brief post.  But, essentially, archetypal symbols
represent issues of universal human concern (birth, initiation into
adulthood, marriage, death, etc.).  When shared by a group in the form
of myths, legends, and religious rituals, archetypes provide a
psychological linkage among the group members, leading to solidarity
and, for the individual, reassurance and comfort.  I think all properly
educated persons should read some Jung.  Give it a go.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.bizarre,talk.religion.misc,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion