Which came first: the chicken or the egg? Or if you're a Harry Potter fan was it the Phoenix or the flame? That is the question that anthropologist Pascal Boyer brings forth in his essay titled Religion: Bound to believe? However, rather than dealing with poultry origins he seems to be more curious about religion and its origins in our culture. Boyer wants to find out if "religion [is] an adaptation or a by-product of our evolution" and though it would be great to have one single answer it appears to be a question that can be argued in many different ways.
Pascal Boyer is a french anthropologist who continues his work today as a Professor at Washington University in St. Louis Missouri, and has published multiple books, including Religion Explained (2001), 
and The Naturalness of Religious Ideas (1994). He studied anthropology at the University of Paris and at Cambridge, and was a professor at Cambridge, San Diego, Lyon and Santa Barbara before finally settling in St. Louis Missouri, where he continues to teach anthropology and psychology today.
Religion and Its' Contributing Factors
Boyer's research mainly discusses why cultures have religious beliefs, and why it continues to be such a popular topic of conversation and controversy among groups. He discusses how findings from cognitive psychology, neuroscience, cultural anthropology and archaeology all contribute to ours and/or other culture's basis of religion.
- Cognitive Psychology: scientific study of mind and mental function including learning, memory, attention, perception, reasoning, language, etc.
- Neuroscience: sciences which deal with the structure or function of the nervous system and brain
- Cultural Anthropology: branch of anthropology that deals with human culture and society
- Archaeology: study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains
Religious Theories
So these are some of the contributing factors behind our religious ideas, but what are some of the actual beliefs people hold on the topic? Due to the many perceptions of religion by different groups in society, multiple theories have surfaced. Many religious people do not want religion to be dissected and explained through science, because they feel as though it will lose its power if science is able to explain it. On the other hand, certain scientists believe that religion is childish or make-believe, and so they disregard it and view it as unimportant.
What we have come to realize is that religion should not be dissected or examined too closely by science. Religion is represented by the combination of the following practices: Ritual, morality, metaphysics, and social identity.
- Ritual: established or prescribed procedure for religion or another rite
- Morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct
- Metaphysics: branch of psychology that treats of first principles, including ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology
- Social Identity: one's sense of self as a member of a social group (or groups)
The Social Identity Theory is a popular idea today,because everyone can relate to it. Henri Tajfel believed that groups that we belong to are important because they give us pride and boost our self esteem. Here at the University of Alabama we all know what it is like to have a sense of social identity, because anytime anyone says anything about our school we can't help but be proud to say "Roll Tide". As humans we want to feel like we belong and like we are a part of 
something that is bigger than ourselves. However, like in any social group, at Alabama we discriminate and stereotype those who are not a part of the Crimson Tide. For instance, anytime we see someone with an Auburn license plate, or an Auburn sweatshirt on we automatically assume that said Auburn fan is stupid... or redneck... or inbred, etc. (just a few examples). What Henry Tajfel believed was that this is a normal part of social identity: separating the "us" from the "them". This kind of separation increases our pride in our own social group, and gives one a sense of belonging.
Religion As We Grow
Our view of religion as we grow older can be compared to our view of Santa as we were kids. Growing up your parents would always tell you that you had to be good because Santa was watching, and if you weren't good you'd end up with coal in your stocking. Therefore we would keep track of the things we did right and wrong because we thought that Santa only cared about acts that involved morality. Boyer explains that our thought processes with religion are very similar. We tend to pray and ask for God's forgiveness when we have done something wrong because we believe God knows when those events occur, yet we don't concern ourselves with God's opinion on random events in our day to day lives that don't actually have anything to do with morality. This is just one of the things about humans that make us unique to other species: our sense and understanding about morality.
Another unique trait among humans is our ability to form bonds with large groups of people with which we have no relation to whatsoever. Our ability to form and maintain these bonds affect our religious beliefs. It all can be linked back to the social identity theory, because part of being involved with organized religion is submitting to one groups sets of certain beliefs, while completely disregarding another group's. This signals that one is ready to fully submit to a group and in return this person can now include religion as a part of their social identity.
In Conclusion
Poyer is able to express many ideas on humans and how religion came to be. His study of our cognitive traits have led to many significant theories and ideas about how religion and humans have intertwining histories and have evolved together through time. So I suppose the question of "Which came first?" isn't as important as we make it seem. The question I would like to pose is how has the development of religion throughout or evolution made us better over time? Has it? Do we want to know the answer? So while we never really decided if one came before the other, it seems as though a continued growth and understanding of how religion and evolution have developed over time is what is most important. After all, a circle has no beginning, right?
One thing that grabbed my attention in particular was the statement that people view their God’s in a very anthropocentric way. I also think this observation can be applied to religious doctrines as well. For example, the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament is a book of laws. Laws are an exclusive by-product of human logic. The things in Leviticus sound pretty illogical to us now but the point is that law (tracing back to the eye for an eye deal) is a very human way of thinking. Not divine. Things like this appear to point to religion being an adaptation; a way to maintain civility in society through fear of consequence. As this essay points out, religion is among many adaptations that separate us from other animals. But what is the point of this adaptation? If it even is one. Maybe it has something to do with an individual need to be redeemed from one’s choices; something beyond the reprimand of the law or the pressure from our peers that would relieve the stress of personal mistakes. But most of all (and most obvious) is the need to believe in something beyond our current physical existence. It’s plausible that we adapted religious mentalities as a means for survival. And by that I mean, literally, a meaning (a reason) to keep surviving. That’s a pretty cynical thought, though.
Being a species of superior intelligence, and the only one that can successfully maintain a relationship with a non-present agent, religion also appears to be a by-product of our evolution. It’s potentially an extra ability we have acquired through our cognitive development. Maybe our abilities to fantasize, experience guilt and think conceptually beyond ourselves have worked together and spun off this exclusively human attribute that we call religion. However, the essay concludes on a notion that religious thoughts seem to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities. I guess if we started out with these cognitive capacities then religion can’t exactly be a part of something we have evolved or adapted to.
Then again, it is such a compelling force. It has undeniably been the instigator for many wars and conflicts in the past and present. Why would we adapt to something so detrimental? Why would natural selection favor a trait that has consistently inhibited our rational thought processes? To me, this points to religion being a product of something beyond our cognitive resources. Diseases are cured, music goes out of style and political ideals change with time, but religion has been essentially timeless. This is what makes it such an interesting topic in anthropology.
This article brings up many great questions about religion and its relationship to evolution. Something that has always baffled me is just how many different religions exist—almost all of which claim to be the one truth. How has the human race managed to create these circumstances? The fact that we have the brain capacity to co-evolve with something as intricate and profound as religion fascinates me, not to mention the intense ways in which humans have used religion to subvert and manipulate each other throughout history. One thing that particularly came to mind as I read the blog post was not only the evolution of religion itself, but also the evolution of religion throughout the individual lifetime. I’m interested in understanding the different ways that brain development affects an individual’s perception of religion and capacity for religious thought. For example, what shift in brain function suddenly causes a child to question the stories and religious “facts” that parents and Sunday school teachers have told him or her? If we are predisposed to religious thinking as Boyer suggests in his article, what is different in the cognition of people who simply don’t believe because it has never occurred to them? And how are they different from active atheists, who “push” against the religious “path of least resistance”? Many religious people use atheism as proof that God does exist; they say that the fact that atheists go against religion confirms that there is actually a substance to go against. Have there been atheists as long as there have been religious people, and if so, how have they evolved?
The second thing that really interested me is the concept of religion as a means of belonging to a certain group. If one person were born into a culture or religion, of course he or she would want to belong to it. But is there a threshold of requirements/behavior that people will eventually come to, and be unwilling to continue just to belong? Or is there no limit to the lengths humans will go to in order to be in the "us" crowd? Why will we do outlandish things just to signify to certain people that we are like them? To me this is important to observe because it seems like such a strong motivation.
If observed outside of cultural context, would we find our own absolute truths and rituals to be rather arbitrary? This reaches way beyond religion and connects to many bigger issues in society. Perhaps this is the next stop on the evolution train.
Being a Ravenclaw myself, I completely appreciate the Harry Potter humor! In fact, the paragraph where Boyer discusses human relationships with non-physical agents made me think about my own “relationships” with the characters from Harry Potter. This may have been especially because of the recent J. K. Rowling news where she supposedly states that Harry and Hermione should have been together over Ron and Hermione. I feel almost devastated by this idea!
Although Boyer says that it is more natural to think the gods care about morally relevant actions, I have to wonder why so many people still pray about completely irrelevant things. If the gods do not care that you “had porridge for breakfast,” they surely do not care to help you find a parking spot.
In the paragraph where Boyer talks about coalitional psychology, he mentions that when people proclaim their faith preference, this signals to the group that they are truly willing to embrace the group’s system of belief. He states that this signal works because, well, why else would you publicly join a group which could easily be mocked by other groups unless you are really in it for the long haul? I think this kind of logic is a bit silly and I do not necessarily think this what that statement signals. I find it hard to believe a church would think in that manner.
I find what Boyer had to say about the relationship Obsessive Compulsive Disorders and religious rituals very interesting and I wish that he had gone more in-depth on the topic. As a girl with high anxiety, I have certain precautionary procedures which sometimes take on a ritualistic nature themselves. For instance, as soon as I get into any car I lock the doors or ask whomever is in the front seat to do so. I am very glad to know that my rituals are simply an evolutionary product for self-protection.
I wonder why it is that so many religions “prefer” to be different from other faiths. When the religions were founded, it makes sense that these founders would want to separate themselves from past faiths. But why would the followers be upset now that we are finding so many similarities between the natures of all religions and the thought processes that lead us to them?
In the very last paragraph Boyer mentions that because religious commitment is so natural to us, it is unlikely to dissipate any time soon. He then goes on to say that lack of religion is much more effort. As an atheist, I have to say I can’t remember having that much trouble losing my religion. It became fairly plain to me as a nine year old that God was as real as Santa Claus. The only struggles I had were my friends’ acceptance, but after 7th grade I had no problems at all (until college, yay Alabama). So either I do not have all of these cognitive functions, or I just use them in a different way. However, it is certainly not “effortful work.”
I appreciated your parallel in the beginning with the question from Harry Potter: “Which came first, the Phoenix or the fire?” If I remember the context appropriately, that question was asked of Luna Lovegood by the portrait guarding the Ravenclaw common room; access to common of the House valuing intellect is only granted upon an appropriate response to a riddle such as this one, unlike the other Houses which require only memorized and parroted passwords. And I believe, instead of giving a direct black-and-white answer like we tend to seek for, Luna answered with a philosophical concept instead: “A circle has no beginning.”
This parallel seems fitting of the question addressed in Pascal Boyer’s article (“Is religion an adaptation or a by-product of our evolution?”) on many levels. Initially, it’s simply frustrating. ‘Let’s write this article in which I open by asking a very interesting question, only to not give my reader a decisive answer!’ I was kind of looking forward to hearing a definitive argument on your opinion one way or the other, Mr. Boyer, but after reading it, I’m not getting anything much clearer than “A circle has no beginning.” In fact, his argument seems to be that we shouldn’t even try to answer the question definitively with his statement: “We should not try to pinpoint the unique origin of religious belief…” Again, initially, that’s even more frustrating. ‘Let’s ask this fascinating question and write this whole article, ultimately to say we shouldn’t answer the question at all.’ Why do I read this stuff? Why ask if it was the Phoenix or the fire first, if actually answering the question isn’t correct?
Well, wait a minute. Maybe that’s the point. As we see in the questions asked of the students of Ravenclaw, it’s not good enough to just memorize and parrot the right answer and expect it to get you places; it’s the ability to ask questions and ponder their significance. It doesn’t really matter where religious beliefs came from, as Boyer says, “because there is no unique domain for religion in human minds,” but it IS important to ask these kinds of questions and try to understand how our beliefs function for us as human beings. Simply asking and considering the questions allows us to expand our views and become more critically thinking as well as empathetic individuals, far more than reading an article and adopting an oversimplified “yes” or “no” answer ever would.
I think my favorite part of this article had to be the social identity section. I think it is all too true that humans naturally want to be part of a group and have a sense of belonging. I think it is also true in most cases that people are more concerned with the social sense of their church than its particular differences on religion, not that those aren't important later on. This may seem like an attack on peoples' reasons for their denomination, I think it holds up fairly well. How many times have you gone to a restaurant where the food was great but the staff was shitty and the service was slow and thought, "Wow, I can't wait to go back"? Sure, the food was good, but I likely won't return. I've been to a lot of churches where I enjoyed the sermon, but the people were uninviting assholes, so I didn't go back.
Though not always true, I believe that for the most part, humans are more interested in finding somewhere they are comfortable and then begin to adopt the beliefs more wholeheartedly. It's relatively easy to find a religion for most Americans (assuming most are Christians) without much effort because of the relatively minor differences between Christian denominations. I'm not trying to demean religion, but religion (large, organized religion, anyways) could not exist if humans didn't have social behavior hardwired into their brains.
I agree with the fact that a circle has no beginning or ending and this is true also for evolution and religion. I really like the social identity theory, and being religious myself I see plenty of "believers" who go to church simply to be viewed as a moral person and belong. I personally think there is a line you cross in which religion becomes solely for this purpose. As Matt was saying, you can go to a church, hear the message, and have like beliefs but feel rejected socially. Or you can go to church, not agree with the message, and put on a front as to have friends or improved social stature. Snowballing from the which came first, I think religion and humanity can't be dissected because not every religious person has the same intentions. I also would like to draw attention to the fact that in the protestant bible it is written out to not judge and to love your neighbor as yourself. This makes me look at the circle of reasoning in a different light, as I ponder on the complicated relationship of religion, evolution, and the straying away of religion from its original purpose. I think when discussing this topic we should take into account the superficial stereotype of religion in this day and age.
I enjoyed reading the section about the Social Identity Theory the most. I have lived in Alabama my entire life, and whether I'm on campus or back at home, I can't help but entertain a hostile thought when I see the Auburn logo. So I know exactly what you mean there.
The section about Santa and religion also interested me. Just like the reason many of us are fans of one team or another because our parents are also fans of that team, many people follow a religion because their parents also follow it. For most children, their parents or guardians are THE most influential and authoritative people in their lives, and when they believe something, you can't help but instinctively follow it as well.
I would like to give my opinion on this, "The question I would like to pose is how has the development of religion throughout or evolution made us better over time? Has it? Do we want to know the answer?" My largely unscientific reply would be that religion has made us no better, but has possible held us back as a species over time. Look no further than the Catholic church executing scientists that dared defy their teachings to find examples. I do realize, however, that religion is almost a necessity for some people who need to believe that SOMETHING happens after death, or they would find life largely meaningless.
"Many religious people do not want religion to be dissected and explained through science, because they feel as though it will lose its power if science is able to explain it." This resistance to scientific study annoys me greatly, as do the scientists who dismiss religion as child's play. It is, has been, and most likely always will be a powerful force for humanity, and should be studied as such, by scientists who respect a religion and its followers.
The thought of group identity has been something I've long been curious about, and I'm glad it was addressed in this blog. I always find myself wondering "Do I enjoy these things because my friends like them? Or do I hang out with my friends because we inherently enjoy the same things?" Clearly people tend to think what they are associated with is the better option, but how much do our personalities drive us towards the clique we join? I’ve always assumed the person we are determines the people we associate ourselves with. Yet after joining college I’ve seen so many friends change into people I would have never expected them to become due to their new friend groups that I can’t help but question this old hypothesis. I’ve even noticed drastic changes in myself since making new friends; my wardrobe is significantly different than high school (I wear a heck of a lot less gym shorts these days), and I don’t listen to any of the old music I used to.
As we grow older finding a sense of community can be difficult as friends get jobs, get married and move off. Religion can offer people a sense of community and most religions are comprised of people of similar ideals, religiously and otherwise. This helps develop a sense of community among the people of the congregation outside of services. I actually read an interesting post from a stranger on the internet the other day; he is an atheist who continues to be an active member in his church because he enjoys the people, and enjoys social work which is readily available in his congregation. I found it interesting that people can put aside the normal connotations of religion for a much more natural, human desires.
This was, and still is, one of my favorite posts on this blog. I can really relate to the social identity theory section, as I'm sure many students here at UA can. Being an Alabama fan allows us to feel like we have achieved something when the team achieves something, even though we do not have any direct involvement with the team whatsoever. (Well, crowd noise is a small factor I suppose) I find myself referring to the football team as "we" constantly, and this can be applied to many groups. Mostly to groups that I actually am involved with ,such as the University of Alabama class of 2017, I can use "we" without guilt in this situation. However, I feel a small amount of guilt when I use "we" to refer to something such as the football team, because as I said I do not have any involvement with their achievements. Yet STILL I receive a sense of accomplishment or superiority when they win. Our ability to identify with large groups of unknown individuals is indeed amazing.
At first, my response to your question was a stout "no" as I believed religion had held us back as a species. But after more classes and discussion, I am weary to give such a concrete answer. Of course science and religion have clashed, but who knows what religion has helped our ancestors cope with, that they otherwise would have had no way to deal with emotionally? I do not believe we w ill ever truly know how we would have turned out without religion in our specie's past.
I was thinking about this blog post again the other day when talking about the subject with some friends. I think which came first, religion or humanity, all depends on what you personally believe. Will there ever be a clear cut answer? Not until the world ends and we see what our fate is as the human race. I think if you believe in a certain type of traditional religion, such as Christianity, you will always believe that religion came first because you believe in creationism. Those who are agnostic or atheist would naturally not believe that religion came first, as they traditionally believe in evolution and the big bang theory. This is logical as to why they would think religion is a byproduct. Anyone religious I think doesn’t pigeonhole their religion into the term religion. In the Christian bible it is spelled out that your relationship with God or Jesus isn’t just a religious belief, but it is buried into the core of your being.
I, in my own religious beliefs, have a merging of opinions on the subject. I think that “religion” came first because I have my own personal beliefs that God created the earth in seven days. I do, however, see God more as a clock maker, setting things in motion but letting them develop themselves. I believe that religion came first but that evolution came after, and therefore that religion was developed as humanity went on, but that religion was first.
Coming back to this article after everything we discussed this semester is pretty wild. Not only does it make a lot more sense after hearing several perspectives on it, but I understand more of the intricacies of the theory. The social identity component reminds me of the African Interregnum article—Boyer draws upon similar ideas as Rossano, saying that one of the main reasons religion developed is due to people’s reliance on groups and social structures. After reading this article again I find that this theory is the one I am most convinced by, because combining it with the information from Rossano’s article it seems the most relevant to the early stages of religion’s evolution. It seems that this article is just a good introduction to the many aspects and theories we studied throughout the semester, and Boyer’s goal was indeed to give an overview of where religion came from and why. Being that there is no one explanation, he touches on the components that have been studied the most and give us the most insight.
Follow-Up Comment:
Topics like this are what I had hoped this class would be addressing when I registered for this course. I guess the description should have tipped me off that it wouldn't be the focus quite as much:
"Human consciousness is often held aloft as one of the distinguishing characteristics of humanity with higher consciousness, self-awareness, and truth generally considered worthwhile lifelong pursuits. But at what cost? Have evolutionary mechanisms propelled humans toward ―analysis paralysis‖ while cultural and psychological adaptations maintain the blinders of blissful ignorance? We will consider these questions in reading about the religious behavior of non-human primates and the chemistry of altered states of consciousness, and engage in experiments and activities to expand and limit our own consciousnesses."
I'm not sure if the description changed from the time of registration, or if I was just desperate for Honors credit, because that doesn't sound like something I would register for at all... And it really wasn't what I was expecting.
This post is what I was expecting: a debate on "which came first," and whether religion exists because of an inherent human need for spirituality, or whether it was created by men as a tool to organize community and answer difficult questions. Since I would say both are factors, I was really looking forward to that conversation, because as this article indicates, there doesn't appear to be a right/wrong, black/white answer; the important part is asking the questions. Perhaps I just registered for the wrong class?
I think there is a common theme among all types of religion that makes it a necessary characteristic of human existence. Just as any trait evolves to increase a species chance of survival, religion serves a purpose too. I think the concepts in this article relate back to our ancestor’s early days, when being a part of a group was critical to survival. Nowadays, we experience feelings of relief and security when we are accepted into a group and have the potential to become painfully lonely when we are rejected. There are many different examples of successful groups and communities but the most powerful, influencing ones are always centered on communally shared and socially accepted perceptions of morality. And these perceptions don’t have to necessarily be moral (by our standards), they just have to be convincing enough that they become accepted widespread as an important cause. The Holocaust is an example of this. Adolf Hitler and his supporters took advantage of their audience’s natural inclinations to participate as a group by convincing them that what they were doing was for the betterment of the group. Because he was so talented at doing this, he brainwashed millions of people into performing heinous acts of cruelty. Though in that particular instance our ancestral adaptations made us vulnerable, it goes to show how powerful the trait really is. Religion utilizes similar instruments. Religion gives people a cause, a purpose and modeled way of living. It brings millions of people together who all share similar values and morals. Depending on the religion, most are widespread and socially accepted by the society where they are practiced. After Toba erupted thousands of years ago, our ancestors were forced to stick together and work as a group which in turn led to our species evolving complex cognitive functions. So is religion an adaptation or an evolutionary by-product? I think it’s a little of both. Our adaptation to environmental changes thousands of years ago and the resulting cognitive advancements both played a part in the emergence of religion.
Follow up:
When I first joined a sorority, I was extremely offended when they tried to dictate how I dressed, looked, or acted. They said that one member is representative of the whole group. That guy you met won’t remember you as an individual, he’ll remember you as whatever your letters are. I didn’t realize how true that was until I was older and saw freshmen embarrassing themselves in my letters and thereby embarrassing me.
A sorority is like any religion, there are plenty of benefits to it. There are also extreme costs, top of which are money and time. At a certain point though, sometimes the costs begin to outweigh the benefits and it is worthwhile to leave. But in the meantime, you are representative of your group and the way you present yourself might also affect how potential members view your group.
I like how Lance said he felt “guilty” using “we” when referring to things like our football team. It’s so true! I have absolutely no part in their success. I hardly stayed for half the games this semester (sorry, I don’t like standing for 5 or more hours). And yet, we still have that feeling of success every time we win and a feeling of shame and failure when we lose. I’ve taken up arms in defense of our football team even though I don’t even care that much, especially in comparison with how much others do care.
I guess, on whole, groups are extremely important and religions are clearly a top choice when it comes to organized groups. While they are useful, I must reiterate what I have said in previous comments: there are plenty of groups out there that might help you on your way, they do not necessarily have to be religious.
The idea of group identity is fascinating when examining the start of religion in early human history to modern times. One of the concepts that was constantly reinforced by a large number of these articles is that religion helped to give early humans a group identity that provided them an evolutionary advantage over individuals that separated themselves from a group and culture. As humans evolved and became more aware of the neuroscientific implications of religion, we became more aware of the importance of fitting into a particular group or community. I believe the amount of different communities that give members an identity in modern society correlates with the current societal decrease in religiosity. The decrease in religiosity stems from a variety of factors, most notably from scientific advances in evolutionary theory and empirical evidence like fossils and carbon dating that have stirred up many critical thoughts. Now that many outlets can provide scientific explanations for religion and its effect on the brain and human behavior, other forms of identity have become just as, if not more important than religious identity. For example, identity within the Greek community is often more important than any other affiliation at the University of Alabama. Also, as we learned through Annemarie's presentation, World of Warcraft can provide another example of an extremely powerful modern social identifier (that some people take to the extreme - like religion!). I am still bothered by the line that reads "What we have come to realize is that religion should not be dissected or examined too closely by science." The scientific study of religion has allowed us to see the aspects of the practice that give adherents an advantage and how we can apply those principles for evolutionary advantage in a modern society.
As far as how people view religion in general terms in current times, many people do not understand the developmental standpoint of religiosity. Being more religious about 60,000 years ago (during the times of shamanistic rituals and bottlenecking of anatomically modern humans) led to a greater level of fitness because the belief in religion allowed them to be more healthy and increased their sense of belonging in the group which also furthered their chances of survival. This “predisposition” to religion might have been passed on and some people have more of this sense of belief than others. Religion is split up into the three B’s: belief, belonging, and upbringing (or something like that, I could be completely wrong, we were sitting on top of the tables when we talked about this) and these different parts of religion allow for different levels of religiosity. And this idea of belongingness coincides with the social identity theory that we discussed (I’m not sure if it’s the same theory as the one saying we can only hold 150 or so stable social connections, but I’m assuming it is) in that the existence of this theory meaning that belongingness and social interactions are a part of our psyche or conscience. That sounded a bit confusing even to me, so another way to think of it is, the fact that we can generalize how we interact with other people through religion or being in a group means that these developed at some point for everyone, and my belief is that they developed in the process of bottlenecking due to the volcanic explosion that brought our species close to extinction. If nothing else, this is all definitely food for thought.
Follow up comment:
I guess I didn't realize it until I started writing all of the follow up comments, but so much of the stuff we talked about this semester ties together. When you talk about the social identity theory and how it "separates the 'us" from the 'them'" and how that in turn increases our pride and sense of belonging, I start to think of kin selection and altruistic behaviors that we talked about. In the days before groups of people intermingled, everybody who wasn't part of 'us' was unknown and potentially dangerous. Besides being a way to comprehend the age-old question "why am I here and what am I supposed to do?” religion could have been developed to solidify bonds and a sense of belonging for our earliest ancestors. People who hunt, eat, and of course, pray together are bound to be more connected than those who lack spiritual interaction with one another. I recognize the fact that religion is about more than some social behavior to develop belongingness, but let's be honest; Religion something that some people carry as the biggest part of their identity. They say it is bad manners to talk about politics or religion at parties, and that's really because the two topics get people so fired up. Going back to what Reagan said about the social identity theory, it is something that separates 'you' from 'us', and sometimes, the 'you', who doesn't share the same feelings, can be a threat.
Yay! Thanks for noticing (& acknowledging)!!
WELL… Rereading my previous comment was a little painful, but I guess that just shows how much of learned over the course of the semester. This article was really a cornerstone of everything we learned this semester, and I feel like almost every article we’ve read can be related back to it. The two points made in the “Religion As We Grow” section are that we use religion to ease our conscience after moral failings and to allow people to join find a common bond in groups that don’t naturally have one. Cases of Social Identity theory have been discussed throughout the semester and not only do they “give us pride and boost our self-esteem” but as depicted by David Sloan Wilson it likely played a crucial role in people’s ability to survive. Fortunately for humans, the role social identity doesn’t have the same importance on our ability to live and reproduce as it once did. I think it’s interesting that we can now look back on the four foundations of religion and realize they are all related. Rituals strengthen social identity because they are generally unique to a specific group of people, such as the Zar. Many parts of morality are locally defined and don’t have cultural translation, like the Jews keeping Kosher, and when you create different lines of morality it becomes easy to view your group as better than another. And of course metaphysics relates to a group’s beliefs and I mean, who doesn’t think that they’re right and everyone else is wrong.
Though I definitely enjoyed this post, and have a lot of opinions on the subject, I do have to take instance with one statement that leapt out at me in this blog: “What we have come to realize is that religion should not be dissected or examined too closely by science. ” I definitely think that trying to quantify and closely examine religion can lead to uncomfortable moments with followers of religions, but the whole point of classes like ours, and anthropology as a science in general, is to examine the human systems that dictate our lives, of which religion is a huge part. Furthermore, your own blog post is an examination of religion.
Okay, now that I’ve got that off of my chest; I’m very interested by this dissection of religion into its main components of Ritual, Morality, Metaphysics, and Social Identity. Like Hillarie mentions, these subcategories that build a religion can also be seen in many other smaller social groups. Every Fraternity and Sorority has their secret rituals, and they are all held (arguably) to the University’s code of moral conduct. It also provides a bedrock of social identity for Freshmen entering our University. Though plenty of non-Greeks complain that Greeks are only willing to associate with other Greeks, it would be much truer to say that new or prospective brothers and sisters are still incorporating themselves into this new social identity, and so must hew much more closely to the organizational “ideal” of having the organization be your life. Furthermore, the metaphysical portion of religion—which acts to define the nature of the world around you—can also be seen in many social organizations. Religion, though, is of course the oldest and strongest of these institutions.
When reviewing these building blocks of religion, I was struck, as I often am, with the inevitability of clashes between religion and science. After all, if you trust to the traditional metaphysics of your religion, science is essentially a process focused entirely on ascertaining the intrinsic truths of untruths of your metaphysics. I’ve certainly seen a real-world correlation between religious groups that accept the basic tenets of modern science and those that have fewer ties to the traditional Christian beliefs of hell, demons, faith healing, and the like. I suppose the greatest reason that science and religion do often disagree is the simple fact that science is based on doubt and empirical evidence, where religion is based upon ritual and faith. It’s a difficult gap to bridge.
Finally, there’s the question of whether or not religion has made us better over time, or if it has had any sort of evolutionary benefit. Unlike Lance, I tend to believe that there are certainly benefits to religion, even when they cause the sorts of reductive thinking that Lance mentions. What many people forget is the way that both Christianity and Islam acted to save information during the Middle Ages, and encouraged early scientists to learn more about the world around them. The dogma of the later church, once it began disagreeing with regulated scientific processes, should not obscure us from acknowledging the way that caring for the in-group made priests, scientists and healer create and conserve medical, astronomical, naturalist, philosophical, and other advantageous texts.