spiritual striving

[Lucas]

I'm writing a paper on the nature of cults and fundamentalist groups, which has me wondering about the almost cultural universal, spiritual striving.

Throughout history all human groups have created some system of beliefs about the world, many about the supernatural(for whatever reason). Isolated groups came up with completely different beliefs, some of which later morphed into large religions. What makes one more true or valid than all the rest? They all can't be true.




fundamentalism<------------------------------------>postmodernism

Fundamentalists, cults and other groups claim to have THE ONE and only truth, and that everyone else is ignorant to it. Postmodernists on the other hand view all beliefs as subjective, none being more accurate than any other, that everything is relative. I hate to say it, but I agree with the postmodernists on this one.

Is there a psychological foundation to all the different worldviews people make? Is life too chaotic and random to live without creating some belief system to make sense of it all? Is this anxiety and dis-ease the source of all our religions and beliefs?

Religious people reject this explanation of 'cultural-anxiety buffers' because it undercuts their particular beliefs. I have a lot I could say about this, but this is already getting a bit long.

Any ideas, opinions, or comments?

[mgb]

I had an excellent class on Millennarian Groups in University. The central theme was that there was an end to the world where believers of a particular faith ended up in "heaven" and no one else does.

I believe another possible common theme is a desire to belong to a group. I think that the social impacts of these groups far outweigh the logical ones. Scientology is probably a great example of this. Or the group that all commited suicide so they could get to the comet as it passed by the solar system (I can't remember their name, there was a good chance the was a lot of NTs in there though, Raelins? maybe).

I think that the main link people have to religions is psychological.

[Sackanaka]

mgbradsh is right about the social/psychological correlation to religion. Perhaps it is due to the increased rise in technology and science, its ability to make clear what has in previous centuries only been explained through "Just because God said so" that postmodernist views can grow in strength. If you cut off an NT from advancing in understanding the nature of things, the NT will probably be forced to accept what is preached as ultimately true, whether it be out of purely logical reasoning, understanding of the significance of Feelings, or out of fear of being an outsider.
People need a reason to live, seems like. This applies to all humans as far as I know, and those who deny reasons to live tend to be suicidal and/or dead. Hurray for Darwinism!... I guess?

[SheepDog]

Fundamentalists, cults and other groups claim to have THE ONE and only truth, and that everyone else is ignorant to it. Postmodernists on the other hand view all beliefs as subjective, none being more accurate than any other, that everything is relative. I hate to say it, but I agree with the postmodernists on this one.
Why do you hate to say this? (I'm being lighthearted, but phrases like this often have some truth to them)

I like the phrase, "were there no god, it would still be necessary for people to create one." Religion plays roles in people's lives. I find it interesting to think about how people at different times, and in different situations are drawn toward certain types of religion (a.k.a. "elective affinities"). For example, poor people are more likely to be drawn to religions that promise to rise them above their current state in future lives/the afterlife.

[CosmicDust]

Or the group that all commited suicide so they could get to the comet as it passed by the solar system (I can't remember their name, there was a good chance the was a lot of NTs in there though, Raelins? maybe).

Heaven's Gate.

Re: the topic: Religion seems to have evolved with the dual function of helping to create group identity and ease existential anxieties. Many people are involved in religion mostly for the group identity. Judaism seems to illustrate this side of religion very well. But others may look to it as a source of order, meaning, and purpose, since chaos scares them or doesn't make sense to them. My dad has voiced the popular opinion that "it can't all be random." Belief in an afterlife or a spirit realm or something else beyond death and beyond the limits of humanity is a well known comfort source, as the notion of complete and permanent destruction apparently for nought (in sentient being reckoning) tends not to be easy to rest with.

My personal spiritual striving, if you can call it that, tends toward seeking peace with a place in the natural world in the likelihood of no afterlife. I can remind myself that I'm part of a vast interacting system that has taken many forms before me and will take many forms after me, and there's no point in dreading the eventuality of my doom too much because I can't escape it anyway.

[songbird36]

Yes it's pretty obvious that human beings are "hardwired" for spirituality in the same way that babies are hardwired for language development.

Religion or spirituality has developed organically in every distinct culture since the dawn of civilization in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys.

I think an interesting question is "why". Why was it necessary for our genetic and psychological makeup to have evolved in this way? These tendencies must date back into pre-history.

I wonder if Bill Bryson has an answer?

[songbird36]

By the way does anyone have a coherent definition of "post-modernism"? It used to mean a social, cultural or philosophical system or ideal that was a conglomeration, or pastiche, of ideas and theories that went before it.

I don't think it means that anymore. In fact I think it's a term that is tossed around rather indiscriminately (a book I've read recently on parenting being a case in point).

[CosmicDust]

Spirituality, or what led to it, might have been a lucky break in human evolution...something brewing in the brains of Homo ergaster/erectus must have allowed their Neanderthal and Cro-magnon descendants (and maybe even the new-found hobbits too), if not them, to conceive of such things as afterlives, gods, and supernatural forces. Somehow, this kind of thinking proved advantageous. Strong tribal identity promoted good cooperation for survival, and easing of existential anxiety would have curbed some of the self-destructive tendencies of a creature that can predict its own doom. Thinking from the perspective of modern biology, religion must have become a universal thing because it, or something associated with it, gave a nice survival advantage.

[Lucas]

the notion of complete and permanent destruction apparently for nought (in sentient being reckoning) tends not to be easy to rest with. This is the basis of Terror Management Theory. I think TMT is fascinating because it bridges the psychological with the socio-cultural(creation of worldviews, religions etc.) http://www.geocities.com/zone_omega/terrormanagement.htm



I can remind myself that I'm part of a vast interacting system that has taken many forms before me and will take many forms after me, and there's no point in dreading the eventuality of my doom too much because I can't escape it anyway.

That's exactly how I feel about it. My body is made up of atoms born in dying stars, going through countless forms, and ultimately taken in by our sun. Beautiful isn't it?


Spirituality, or what led to it, might have been a lucky break in human evolution......

It's hard to underestimate the adaptive value of being able to reflect or imagine and then being able to transmit those ideas to others. Maybe our propensity towards spirituality was just a byproduct of our great cognitive abilites however. I agree that it's hard wired into us. This is a hallmark of homo sapiens and has probably existed as long as modern humans have, maybe longer.

[Lucas]

If you cut off an NT from advancing in understanding the nature of things, the NT will probably be forced to accept what is preached as ultimately true, whether it be out of purely logical reasoning, understanding of the significance of Feelings, or out of fear of being an outsider.

People need a reason to live, seems like. This applies to all humans as far as I know, and those who deny reasons to live tend to be suicidal and/or dead. Hurray for Darwinism!... I guess?

Sackanaka made me think about three very NT points (my reason to live by the way):

1. the world-universe is a very confusing place
2. I hope to understand it as best as I can, and
3. possibly do something to make it better, contribute in some significant way.

People have a need to percieve themselves as seeing the world accurately. Maybe all the different beliefs, ideologies, religions were ultimately caused by people trying to understand the world within their cultural and historical context.

Maybe it's the result of people trying to understand the seeming randomness around them, doing something to take control or explain the unexplainable (ie rain dances, wrath of gods) and trying to make life better-within their cultural context- that inadvertently gave rise to different religions/beliefs.

I agree that the social psychological processes explain why they can grow and sustain themselves, but I'm looking at the possible root of them. ????

[mgb]

The root is an interesting question. I can understand the need to try and explain the world and universe around us. Complicated things happen and its nice if we can understand why to either prepare or enjoy them when they do happen.

I find it odd that a supernatural being/s was used to explain this. From a rational standpoint it would be obvious that the event needs to be observed and then informed conclusions could be made from the evidence gathered.

It seems so childish to say, "God did it" to explain everything we can't understand. It truly puzzles me how short sighted we can be as humans. I find that "search for the truth" aspect of religion to be the most unsettling.

PS thanks Cosmic Dust, I was thinking of Heaven's Gate.

[Boneca]

I think your theories are very good.
I've always thought that the most obvious reason for religion is the need to understand the world. But that doesn't explain why fundamental Christians/Moslems/whatever refuse to believe scientific theories that better explain the world.
The need to belong, however, is apparently very strong in humans. This is quite understandable from a biological point of view, since we are pack animals dependant on cooperation.

It seems to me that different religions focus on different aspects of these needs though. Buddhism, f.ex. seems to be very geared towards understanding the world, while the group belonging is secondary. Christians on the other hand seem to be able to accept a quite vague understanding of the world in exchange for a very strong group mentality.

What I wonder is how the older (think 5-10.000 years back) religions compare to the ones that are left today. Is there a reason that f.ex. Christianity and Islam are still around today, when most older nature religions have died out?
Is our need for social belonging stronger in today's chaotic society than it was in ancient times when we lived all our lives in a large family group? Could it be that science pushed away the nature religions, but still struggle with the Christians, because it has no social stability to offer?
And what will happen in the future...what type of religion will we need then?

[SheepDog]

With regard to attempting to understand the world, I think that Science has become a sort of religion in itself. People idealize the methodology, and worship it's "facts". This is, of course, a distortion of what science really is, but people idealize it nonetheless.

The problem, with regard to understanding the world, is that science focuses on things that it can measure or quantify. As one of my favorite INTP's said, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." Understanding the world requires a broader perspective.

[CosmicDust]

What I wonder is how the older (think 5-10.000 years back) religions compare to the ones that are left today. Is there a reason that f.ex. Christianity and Islam are still around today, when most older nature religions have died out?
Is our need for social belonging stronger in today's chaotic society than it was in ancient times when we lived all our lives in a large family group? Could it be that science pushed away the nature religions, but still struggle with the Christians, because it has no social stability to offer?
And what will happen in the future...what type of religion will we need then?
Older nature religions are still followed by traditionally foraging tribes, which are a minority these days. It could very well be that the social belonging or tribal identity/coherence need has increased since ancient times. A larger "tribe," the size of a city or nation or empire, needs a stronger glue to keep it together. Christianity and Islam developed in a time and place when cities, nations, and empires were prominent, and those vast social structures might have influenced the development of potent controls in those religions. I think mostly the destruction of forager tribes by "civilized" nations and empires has pushed away the nature religions, not science. And science is a different beast from religion with only partially overlapping functions (particularly, making sense of the way the world works and providing narratives), so may be unable to fully replace it unless it could provide a more emotionally engaging view of the world complete with answers to "why" questions and provide a community for laypeople.

[Johnny]

Spirituality, or what led to it, might have been a lucky break in human evolution...something brewing in the brains of Homo ergaster/erectus must have allowed their Neanderthal and Cro-magnon descendants (and maybe even the new-found hobbits too), if not them, to conceive of such things as afterlives, gods, and supernatural forces. Somehow, this kind of thinking proved advantageous. Strong tribal identity promoted good cooperation for survival, and easing of existential anxiety would have curbed some of the self-destructive tendencies of a creature that can predict its own doom. Thinking from the perspective of modern biology, religion must have become a universal thing because it, or something associated with it, gave a nice survival advantage.I buy into much of this idea myself. I think the notion that the "afterlife", "heaven" and other such rewards are shaped by the more successful human religions to be offered to those who contribute back to the tribe (or family or society or whatever group) that must continue on when these individuals die.

Much of our American society is in the grips of the "fountain of youth" right now, and terrifying people with old age and death is a big money-making game. Religion, to me, is about embracing personal change in a positive way, about looking to the future and evolution, passing the torch of survival when one's time is at an end and a return to the earth comes. But immortality seems the more popular option right now...stem cells to regenerate organs and brains, robotic limbs and prosthetics, even speculation of a virtual reality for self-managed wish fulfillment.

It reminds me of the Tower of Babel (biblical stories are fun to pull into a thread), and how God caused men to speak different languages to bring it down. Anyone want to discuss odds for the baby boomers?

The boomers have the internet now, you know....

[Clara]

As one of my favorite INTP's said, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." Understanding the world requires a broader perspective.
So, who said that? :) (the second part, by you, is great as well)

[Clara]

Religious people reject this explanation of 'cultural-anxiety buffers' because it undercuts their particular beliefs.

... unlike those who reject religion ;)

I'm teasing - I believe that all our differences are something that ties us together, worldwide and through time...

All the best on your paper :)

[Biff_Loman]

Could it be that science pushed away the nature religions, but still struggle with the Christians, because it has no social stability to offer?

Right on, Boneca! I couldn't agree more.

From my perspective, the development of religion/spirituality couldn't be more Darwinian. It's all about the survival of individuals and societies.

I think it is established that humans have a need to make "sense" out of the world - to try to come up with some explanation of how the universe works. However, we also have to come up with a good explanation of how we work.

Consider the burden of consciousness. We are aware of our various states of being: awake; asleep/dreaming; various emotional states ranging from depression to euphoria, ecstacy to terror; intoxicated or sober. We are aware that our minds can enter into different states, but the causes and ramifications aren't always clear. Sleep is still something of a puzzle, and dreaming is enough to make one wonder: what the hell is going on, anyway? There has to be some way to organize these different states into some kind of logical framework to tie it all together. In the end, who am I? What state represents "me"?

We also have various instincts and impulses to help us survive. I read somewhere that the most common bad acid trip involves hallucinations of being lost in a dark wood. Apparently, humans have a strong inherent aversion to being alone in dark woods, and (with a view to our ancestors) with good reason. The dark woods are still scary, though, even if you're reasonably confident that there aren't any jaguars or wolves to kill you. The mind cannot rule the instincts completely, and the fear comes unbidden and unwelcome.

Add to this the fact that thinking takes brainpower, and brainpower takes calories. Hunter-gatherers are typically relentless in their pursuit of innovation and optimization with regards to food supply and other survival strategies. It's not that productive to carry out the scientific method to solve a given problem when one could just as easily set up a net and flush some game into it. When the net wears out, one can try to make it better (lighter, stronger) due to a subjective process, or try to speed up the construction process, or whatever. Cogitating about the nature of the universe is highly unproductive when compared to contemplating better survival strategies. If you think of brainpower as a limited resource that consumes the equivalent of computer processor time, you know the existential questions will come last.

So, all of this being the case: the nature religions win. Spirits make the woods scary and the sun pretty; we adopt the spirits of other animals and supernatural creatures when enter into different states, etc.; and the nature religions save us from having to spend precious time pondering useless questions.

Then there's the whole mating ritual/male intimidation aspect. . . It helps shed some light on why tribal people would spend their free time whooping, hollering and dancing rather than speculating on existential questions. Ultimately, contemplating the existence of God is way lower on the genetic priority list than making sure a rival male doesn't cave in my skull to steal my woman.

<sigh> I'm actually getting weary of this post, so let me sum up by saying that agricultural/urban societies have a higher need for internalized forms of social control, which is why civilized gods spend so much time making their people feel guilty. This is way more efficient than appealing to logic since, as we know, we are under no obligation to accept the results of logic. Guilt and other emotions, however, are persuasive in and of themselves.

Biff out - I'm going to have lunch. Sheesh, I'll write an essay or something on this if I really want to flesh out these ideas.

[Clara]

I'm writing a paper on the nature of cults and fundamentalist groups, which has me wondering about the almost cultural universal, spiritual striving.
So, Lucas, any bits for us, of what you came across, writing that paper?

[Pierce]

I find it odd that a supernatural being/s was used to explain this.


The supernatural being wouldn't find it odd at all. Actually, I find it odd that people attempt to use soley reason to fathom spirituality. If beyond theory, there actually are dimensions of existence, reason would be confined to the space time continum (3rd and 4th dimensions). Human fascination with what is beyond our ken amounts to, as the prophet said, "deep calling unto deep." That would imply that the supposed supernatural being programed that desire into us, and that the archetypes we ponder originate outside the bounds of our comfortable realm of time and space and beyond the reach of reason. The language of type, symbol, metaphor, parables, art, dream and imagination all seek to convey meaning beyond the austere calculations of reason. When pondering the realms of knowledge, power, love and God reason proves to be nothing more than a weak tool of criticism, turning over and over the tailings of unseen giants, pedantically supposing that what lies beyond the gate is nothing more than what lies within the gate, perhaps arranged differently.

Religion then does not represent the vestiges of the primal, unevolved, unenlightened masses, ignorantly struggling to find a comfortable social order. Suppose for a moment that religion is man's struggling, imperfect attempt to answer the call from the great Deep. Beyond the doctrines and rituals and rivalrys lies a common yearning, which at some level is answered in a way reason cannot comprehend. That religion often becomes corrupted is axiomatic, but that there is nothing or no one in the great beyond calling to us is not.