Easy J wrote:gurugeorge wrote:But the thing is, for the common people, having nothing to believe in isn't just some fey #firstworldproblem. It directly leads to family breakdown, crime, Idiocracy, etc., etc. Once again: smart people can just about handle it (at least the puzzle itself is an engaging Rubik's cube), but without that mental wherewithal, and without some Big Story in which you "know your place," life for most people is just a bundle of anxiety. ...
And that's religion at its best. I'm not saying that atheists can't do that too, but believing in something (again, even if you're only LARP-ing it) I think somehow integrates the mind, makes the human being feel at home in the universe, happy.
I think this is bang-on. We're a social animal & likely predisposed to adopt belief systems that reinforce group behavior & a satisfying position within the group. A religion that idealized a fierce individuality probably wouldn't gain traction.
I think ideas have an innate emotive resonance, independent of their intellectual content. A bit like music. The catchiness is somewhat independent of any truth contained in the ideas. Our psychology is going to intuitively gravitate toward conclusions that let us participate in the group project.
On a personal note, I don't have the ability to LARP it despite recognizing the need. I don't have the ability to do that "willing suspension of disbelief" thing & it really sucks. I feel like I'm on the outside looking in on the process &
I think our species that will misfire badly if it becomes too aware of it's myths.
Don't think you should be too concerned about that "suspension of disbelief" - for one thing, I expect you read fiction or watch movies such as the Indiana Jones series, all of which call for some degree of that. It's probably a common and useful mental tool of sorts, although too much of it - as in many religions - can be "problematic".
But I think it moot about the consequences of society becoming "too aware of its myths". Maybe somewhat analogous to crutches, kicking them out from under people may be a shock that many are incapable of handling. But an evolution, a progression from a belief in their literal "truth" to an appreciation of their metaphorical truth seems sustainable and of some value. As with many things, Dawkins has some relevant and cogent observations:
.... But the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture. The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods, and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them. ....
Let me not labour the point. I have probably said enough to convince at least my older readers that an atheistic world-view provides no justification for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education. And of course we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam [??], and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals, without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions. We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage. [The God Delusion; pgs 383, 387]
Though, of course, far too many are still unable to "give up belief in God" [at least the anthropomorphic variety] despite the "cognitive dissonance" that entails. Case in point being the recent story of the Catholic Church stipulating their communion wafers can't be gluten-free - guess they did an exhaustive study with thousands of petri dishes with gluten-filled and gluten-free wafers and found that Jesus didn't grow on any of the latter ....
In any case, a somewhat amusing and relevant perspective on cognitive dissonance from
Maggie McNeill [The Honest Courtesan]:
I often struggle to comprehend the incredible ability of the modern mind to not only reconcile cognitive dissonance, but to apparently function without even being aware of its existence. Last week we had to endure the false “controversy” over Disney’s announcement that it was making changes in the animatronic figures featured in the 1960s-era Pirates of the Caribbean ride. ....
And, relative to gurugeorge's "nothing to believe", and "at home in the universe", something from a book that echoes the same theme and phrase, Stuart Kauffman's popularization and discussion of self-organization titled "At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity" (highly recommended):
…. I recently met N. Scott Momaday, a Native American author, winner of the Pulitzer Prize, at a small meeting in northern New Mexico intended to try to articulate the fundamental issues facing humanity. (As if a small group of thinkers could possibly succeed.) Momaday told us that the central issue we confront is to reinvent the sacred. ….
…. But, as I hope to show, the very laws of complexity my colleagues and I are seeking suggest that democracy has evolved as perhaps the optimal mechanism to achieve the best attainable compromises among conflicting practical, political, and moral interests. Momaday must be right as well. We shall also need to reinvent the sacred – this sense of our own deep worth – and reinvest it at the core of the new civilization. [pgs 4, 5]
No doubt there is some poisonous chaff in many religions, some more so than others, but it seems hard to deny that some at least encompass some "wheat" that is of a profound and enduring nature, and that is worth retaining and amplifying. Unwise at best to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. :-)