Religiosity; its history, influence, reason for being, and future in human societies .

Religiosity; its history, influence, reason for being, and future in human societies .
The history of religion in human society can be traced back thousands of years, from prehistory, to the earliest recorded times, right up until the modern day practise of religion. The domination of religion in human culture over thousands of years and its influence is viewed positively and negatively by atheists and non believers will be explored in this essay. Likewise, the question of the roots of why people believe in god will be explored, along with the possibility that there is something in human psychology which may pre dispose us to faith. Finally this essay will attempt to predict the further course of religion in the world by examining demographic trends.
The history of religiosity and its roots in human culture and society.
Archaeologists have provided evidence from the early stone age, of careful human burials and the discovery of symbolic finds, which suggests these early humans possessing religious ideas.[1 divok.hubpages.com] In the later periods of the Stone Age, more evidence about the existence of religious ideas has been uncovered, for example the cave paintings from the Chauvet cave in southern France, dating back about 30,000 years. In caves were hundreds of depictions mostly of animals that where strong beasts or predators, which triggers suspicions of it having some sort of religious meaning behind it. Most gods are depicted as powerful characters, you rarely get a god who is portrayed as a mouse, or a butterfly, which has led many people to think that this is a depiction of a higher power, or maybe even the human that is painting it wishing for the power and skill of this particular creature.[2 www.britannica.com] The time frame of the existence of religious ideas is clouded by the absence of written history for much of this period, i.e., from pre-history, as recorded history began only within the last five thousand years.
Whilst accepting that early man may have added religious ideas into their society, the care with which they buried their dead may have been the result of their empathy for loved ones rather than religiosity; therefore this essay will begin the religious timeline somewhat later in the recorded period of ancient history, with the ancient Egyptian gods [3100BC], and ancient Greek gods [3000BC], followed by the similarly polytheist roman gods [600BC] and the Norse gods [9th century AD]. These gods were believed to interact with the human world and represent various aspects of it.
As human society and culture evolved, primitive polytheist religions of earlier, simple societies made way for monotheism, in the form of the three most populous world religions, i.e., Judaism evolving more than a thousand years before Christianity and joined in the 6th century by the related religion Islam. As societies evolved into more complex social and political entities, chieftains and kings began to merge themselves with the divine, to augment their kingly authority. This is exemplified by an inscription on the Reichskrone, the imperial crown of the Holy Roman Emperor in the twelve century: beneath the image of Christ bears the inscription “Per me reges regnant”, “By me kings rule” [Proverbs 8-15, Holy Bible]. In this way medieval monarchs began to rule by “divine right”, and over which Charles 1, king of England, Scotland and Ireland lost his Crown, and his head, in 1649.
[
Kings also used the network of churches and the priesthood in order to communicate their will, in an age before newspapers and televisions; and as an instrument of control. In this way religion was able to dominate human culture and societies, influencing it in positive and negative ways, even after the secularisation of western societies; which separated the powers of church and state. The Dominion of Religion in human culture and society and it’s influences, positive and negative : The importance of religion in its influence in human society and culture is seen in such aspects as it’s laws , morality and social values. The influence of religion is also seen in the institutions of society and it’s wider culture; in writing, the arts, media etc. But whilst in the past the church has imposed a vice-like grip upon its adherents regarding it’s church laws, there is evidence that this is changing in the developed world. [World Values Survey] It is in the values disseminated by religion where the influence is most apparent in society. Moral laws on contraception, fidelity, abstinence, divorce, and the position of women in society, homosexuality and abortion are all values shared by the top three most populous religions in the world today. In societies where church teaching influences government policy, laws concerning personal and family life are strongly affected. For example the restriction or prohibition of abortion, divorce or homosexuality, disregarding the human rights protected in secular countries of some people, namely homosexuals and transgender individuals, and women. Whether or not this is a positive or negative influence of religion depends upon your moral point of view. However , the morality of populations has been surveyed by various means, and shows the difference between the church teachings and the moral views of its followers. [ www.gallup.com; American poll conducted 3rd-6th may 2012 ] Increasingly in the 21st century, members of religions are ignoring their church’s teachings on moral issues, substituting instead, their own, for example, regarding the practice of contraception, which Pope Benedict has described the practice of as “intrinsically evil”. In an American Gallup poll [www.gallup.com, 3.6.12] of values and beliefs included the issue of birth control for the first time. This survey was conducted following the opposition of some religious leaders to some aspects of the 2010 Affordable Care Act in America which required all institutions [secular and religious] to offer contraception as part of employee health care plans. The survey showed that eighty-two per cent of US Catholics reported their views that contraception was morally acceptable. This figure is almost equal to the 89 % of all Americans and 90% of non-Catholics who agree that contraception is morally accepted. The findings illuminate the difference between the official Catholic Church law and the practice of Catholics in their daily lives. A UN survey [The state of the world population 2012, www.un.org/health/2012], concluded that women who use contraception are generally healthier, better educated and more empowered in their households and communities and more economically productive. The report concludes that “women’s increased labour-force participation boosts nation’s economies”. This injunction against contraception by the official teaching of the Catholic Church, affects more than just reproduction. It also has profound effects on the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, in particular in the developing worlds, which are forbidden to use barrier methods of contraception which would otherwise protect them from the scourge of HIV/ AIDS and other STD’s, which are epidemic in Africa and other parts of the developing world. For example, the UN report showed that the lack of sexual and reproductive health care in young people in Malawi added to the problem of high levels of HIV. The Catholic Church, in the form of the Holy See, a catholic representative body in the United Nations, is also currently arguing against advances in international law which would protect people on the basis of their gender, their sexual orientation or their gender identity. In view of the authoritarian restrictions placed upon the religions’ flock, the question is often asked by non-believers, why are people so drawn to religion. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, religious followers consistently maintain their irrational beliefs, carefully ignoring the evidence which is contrary to their beliefs and championing “evidence “ such as ‘revelation’, ‘feeling’, and ‘scripture, which purports to validate it. So why do believers, believe? Will Storr, author, ‘The Heretics: Adventures with the enemies of Science’, argues that human psychology is at the root of our belief systems. His book gives examples of people deciding to believe with their emotions, i.e. when confronted by a fact people make a decision whether or not believe it on an emotional response basis, and through a variety of processes; chiefly that of ‘confirmation bias’. Therefore religious people seek evidence to justify their emotional response, and evidence to justify their emotional response, and evidence which undermines that emotional response is discarded. Also, the source of the contradictory evidence is often challenged and undermined, thus reinforcing the process of belief. An exchange between Will Storr and a Christian illustrating the idea of ‘confirmation bias’ was aired on television on ‘The Big Questions’ on BBC1 , 17.2,13, as follows: A Christian: “Clearly, God is invisible. We don’t wake up with the huge face of God smiling down on us from the sky. Now is that deliberate? Is God perhaps setting us up? If you think about the story of Beauty and the Beast; so Beauty wakes up and everything is provided for her in this sumptuous mansion. She can’t see who’s in charge; it’s the Beast obviously; and she gets to know his character by what he’s providing for her, so when they meet she understands his actual kindness rather than just judging him from his appearance.” Will Storr: “What we are seeing here is confirmation bias in action. You are an intelligent person, you have this belief in God, but there’s a problem, “where is God? I can’t see him” So now we’re actually watching you do this, “how can we explain this? How can we think our way round this?” The evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins has repeatedly argued that faith is incompatible with science and reason and this process of unthinking faith was also alluded to by the influential theologian Martin Luther, who argued that reason was the greatest enemy a Christian faced, and that Christians should “pluck out the eye of reason “. This approach, combined with ‘authority’ in most of the established religions, policing the flock with ‘thou shalt not’, and moral laws enforced by a violent, punishing, all-seeing God, and the promise of Heaven or Hell. Combined with this, some religions, notably Islam, preach apostasy, the putting to death of those who leave the faith, [Koran]. In the Old Testament, likewise, the God of the Old Testament, Yaweh, demands that followers put to death, with their own hands, a loved one who tries to tempt them away from him. This constitutes a powerful motivator to anyone belonging to those faiths admitting to a sceptical non-belief if they value their lives.
Along with these negative re-in forcers of religious observance there are positive rewards offered to followers. Religion offers consolation and comfort [an eternal life in heaven mitigates losses and suffering in mortal life]; religion offers a sense of belonging to a group [ the ‘fellowship of the church’], which is a common human need; it offers the possibility of justice in an unjust world, ensured by an all-seeing law-giver. Adherents of religion often state their view that without God, morality would not exist, as expressed by Adrian Hawkes, Principal of the Phoenix Academy, which has adopted the accelerated Christian education programme, [ACE], and who was interviewed about faith issues in the programme “Faith Schools Menace?” by Richard Dawkins: Richard Dawkins “The science booklet talks about AIDS being the’ wages of sin’, is that mixing health education with moralistic teaching?” A Hawke: “I suppose the flip side of that is if there is no God, if there is no law-giver, why does it matter what I do? Why is rape wrong? Why is paedophilia wrong? Why are any of these things wrong, if there is no law-giver?” R. Dawkins: “You just said a very revealing thing: are you telling me that the only reason you don’t steal and rape and murder, is that you’re frightened of God?”
A Hawkwe: “I think that ALL people, if they think they can get away with something, and there are no consequences, we actually tend to do that. That is the reality. Look at the world in which we live, that is the reality.”Although this idea is widespread, what is the evidence that God is needed in order for us to be good? What would a world without religion look like? The world at present is plagued by the terrorism of religious fundamentalism in spite of the triumph of science in explaining life on earth. Muslim terrorism from 9/11, 7/7, the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict; sectarian terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Holocaust and persecution of the Jews, and numerous conflicts throughout the world would not have occurred in the absence of the tribal identity of religion. In his book, ‘The God Delusion’, Richard Dawkins refutes the commonly-held view [held commonly by religious adherents] that morality is rooted in religion, and that for us to be moral we must follow God’s Law. Dawkins argues that morality through altruism has an evolutionary origin. For example, social species which care for and protect close kin with whom they share genes, and with those they don’t share genes, “reciprocal altruism”, pre-dating religion. The question of human morality has been explored by Marc Hauser in his book “Moral Minds: How nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong”. The book uses interesting ethical dilemmas to test people’s moral sense. He also used statistical survey evidence e.g. people share “a universal moral grammar” which flies “beneath the radar of our awareness”, likening it to the grammatical rules of speech which are sub-consciously applied. Hauser concluded that morality was commonly agreed among all sorts of people whether they were able or not, to explain it, according to its grammar. This idea of shared moral sense has been supported by survey evidence, e.g., Gallup polls which examine values and beliefs. [M.Hauser and P Singer, “Morality without religion”, Free Inquiry 26:1, 2006, 18-19.In his book, “The God Delusion, Dawkins takes evidence from Hauser’s work examining people’s morality in relation to whether they were religious or not. Dawkins argues that if our morality derives from religion, Hauser made use of the moral dilemma scenarios used earlier and compared the responses of respondents who were religious and those who were atheist. Dawkins repeated the dilemmas to illustrate the point, in the God Delusion:
“1. Demises dilemma: 90% of people said it was permissible to divert the trolley, killing the one to save the five.
2. You see a child drowning in a pond and there is no other help in sight. You can save the child, but your trousers will be ruined in the process. Ninety-seven per cent agreed that you should save the child.
3: The organ transplant dilemma whereby five patients are dying with a different organ failing, none of which is available for transplant. Then the surgeon notices a healthy man with all five organs in the waiting room! Ninety-seven per cent of subjects agreed that it is morally forbidden to seize the healthy person in the waiting room and kill him for his organs, thereby saving five people. “
These conclusions did not differ according to religious belief or none=belief, which Dawkins points to as evidence that religion is not necessary in order for human morality to exist. It could also be argued that morality in the absence of God, is more truly moral, as it is not based on the fear of punishment or the favour of reward. Conversely, although religious devotees may claim to derive their morality from scripture, it is apparent, as previously discussed in this essay, that they mostly do not practice what is preached and are very selective about which passages of the bible, for example, they accept. The story of Abraham is pertinent to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as Abraham is seen as the founding father of these religions. However, to modern morals his story of the sacrifice of his son Isaac, which God ordered, and then called off at the last moment before Isaac was made a burnt offering, would appear to be the most appalling child abuse and parental betrayal, perpetrated by both Abraham and God. The Old Testament is full of such immoral tales, how then does scripture teach morality? The Bible does not accord with the modern sense of morality when , according to Leviticus 20: a great number of offences merit the death penalty including working on the Sabbath, being gay, adultery and cursing your parents. It is therefore improbable that religious people derive their morality from scripture, and undesirable that they should.
To establish the reasons why an individual chooses non-belief having been brought up as a Christian, I interviewed such an atheist, obtaining consent, in January 2013: Q: Were you brought up in a religion? A: Yes, my parents were C of E, and my sisters and I attended church and Sunday school very week. But we weren’t preached at at home and we were encouraged to think for ourselves. Q: What were the benefits of religion in your experience? A: I enjoyed the bible stories from the New Testament which were accompanied by a lovely colourful stamp illustrating the story, at Sunday school. That and the sausage rolls. Also it was comforting to think of someone looking after you, and when a loved one died they still existed and you would see them again.” Q: When did you become an atheist? A: It was the eve of my confirmation, my sister and I were being confirmed by the Bishop of Whitby in the morning, and we were facing a dilemma. If we were to attend the Dress Rehearsal, we would miss The Generation Game. So we discussed the matter. Are we going to go to the dress rehearsal? “Do you even believe in this?” My sister replied “No, I don’t”. I said “Neither do I”. This was the point I became an atheist but we decided to attend the dress rehearsal and the confirmation, purely to avoid the fuss which would be kicked up if we’d told the truth.” Q: What brought you to the conclusion that you didn’t believe? A: “The big mistake was actually to read the bible, which we’d both avoided up to then, and to start reading on the first page, in the Old Testament. I think the word is ‘appalled’ . The idea of being God-fearing didn’t appeal. Plus it started me thinking. Although the nativity was a nice story, so was father Christmas, and it seemed to me to be equally preposterous. I just didn’t believe it.” Q: What differences did the loss of faith/ gaining an atheist perspective, have on you? A: I didn’t give it much thought for years, and in those days it was considered rude to talk about religion, which suited me, and atheism was a minority thing. I didn’t notice any difference in my moral sense even though I knew nobody was watching me. I considered myself a Christian in the ethical sense without the mumbo jumbo. But the attack on science and reason by fundamentalist religion, the way religion inflicts its damaging views on people [like on women, family life, gays] has made me re-think position. I don’t call myself a Christian with a small ‘c’ anymore – I’m an atheist. Out of the closet. Q: What do you think happens to people when they die? A: The body returns to the earth one way or another. Immortality is in the form of genes carried on by the next generation, and in the influence on others. Q: What do you consider to be the benefits of atheism? A: Well I don’t think it was a question of benefits or drawbacks is the question of whether or not to believe in god. I just didn’t believe, so there was no choice in the matter. But I’d say the benefit is I’m not walking around with a belief in something which is just made up nonsense. I still feel I’m in the minority in that view and it never ceases to amaze me that so many intelligent educated people persist in believing in God.”
In the interests of balance, I also interviewed, with consent, a Christian, as follows:
Q: Were you brought up in a religion? A: Yes, my mum and my dad were Church of England. I went to Sunday school and became a Sunday school teacher, and during the war I was an evacuee and went to live in the vicarage at Ingelby Greenhow with my brother and sister.” Q: What do you consider to be the benefits of religion, in your experience? A:” I get a lot of comfort feeling there is something there caring for me and my family, feeling that I’m not alone. I also feel that people who have died are in heaven and I’ll see them again. God is called our father in heaven, and that is the feeling, of being looked after and protected by a parent.” Q: What does God mean to you? A: “I don’t know if God is like a person, but I feel there is something there, I don’t know what it is exactly. I just believe there is something there.” Q: Have you ever doubted your religious beliefs? A: Well I don’t believe in the world being created in 6 days or Noah’s ark, or that kind of thing. I’ve sometimes thought, well if that is nonsense, may be the rest of it is. And sometimes when awful things happen in the world, I sometimes wonder why God would allow it. But I still think, although I can’t explain everything, that there must be something, like I said.” Q: Do you think there are any drawbacks to religions? A: Well I don’t blame religion for wars or things that happen in the name of religion, like Al-Queda. That is just evil people doing evil things using the excuse of religion, nothing to do with religion really. Churches do a lot of good actually, like the salvation army helping people and running homeless shelters, food banks, and soup kitchens.” Q: What do you think of the church’s teaching on homosexuality? A: “I don’t really know; I haven’t been to church for years, but when I did I’m sure the vicar was gay. I don’t think it should matter to the church, being gay, nowadays. I know the bible is against gays in parts, but I don’t think people take notice of that part of the bible nowadays.” Q: What do you think happens when you die? A: I think you go to heaven, what that is I don’t know exactly, but I believe you will be with your family again, those you love, and be happy, with God forever. I don’t think it is the end, when you die. I hope not!” Q: The bible describes hell as a place of agony and eternal damnation, and unless you accept Jesus as your saviour, you’re going to hell, [regardless of how good you are]. What is your belief in hell A:I don’t believe in hell or the devil. What you’ve got to remember is that the bible was written 2000 years ago, so some of it is a bit odd. I wouldn’t accept that unbaptised babies go to hell, or children, or anyone. I prefer to believe in a loving God, not a God you have to fear. No, I don’t believe in hell.”
What is the future for belief?
The World Religion Data base [World Religion Database, Gordon Conwell Theological seminary, Massachusetts.] , examined the progress of the world’s religions over the twentieth century, finding 10,000 distinct religions, 270 of them with more than a quarter of a million followers. It also tracked non-belief, whose members were less than one per cent at the beginning of the century, ending it at around 14 percent. This increase in market share outstripped any of the other religions during that period. The WRD study also showed that Christianity was notable at having a steady lead of about 35 per cent of the world’s religions throughout the twentieth century, but that the adherents of Islam increased their numbers from around 12 per cent to 21 per cent by the end of the century. The decline in Christianity in the west is contrasted with its increase in the developing world, notably Africa, South America, and parts of Asia. This will be examined in relation to the “secularisation thesis” later in this essay.
This increase in the followers of Islam has been linked to the natural increase in population in Muslim countries, namely a higher fertility rate than in the Christian religion. Demographic trends account for the increase in religion as the religious poor have more children, and non-believers have the least [World values survey]. In this way religious populations increase more quickly than non-believers. This effect is endorsed by Eric Kaufman [professor at Birkbeck College], in his book “Shall the religious inherit the Earth? Demography and politics in the 21st century.” The World Values Survey also collected data on religiosity in relation to economic development, noting that the poorest countries were twice as religious as the richest, there being one exception; USA. In the book “2050, Mega change, the world in 2050, The Economist, edited by Daniel Franklin [2012], Anthony Gottlied links this data with a values study linking vulnerability with religiosity by Pippa Norris and Ronald Ingelhart [ Sacred and secular; Religion and politics worldwide, Cambridge UK, Cambridge University Press, 2004]. The thesis argued that religious observance closely correlated to poverty and vulnerability, and in doing so explained the exception-to –the-rule of the United States, which displays the high rates of religious observance usual in poor countries.
Gottlieb also explores the exception of America, examining aspects of poverty, including the measurement of life expectancy. On this scale, America, the richest country in the world should be top of the league in terms of life-expectancy. But as Gottlieb points out, America ranks at 34th of the UN’s member states. [Megachange, the world in 2050]
Gottlieb points out that America has 40m people without medical insurance [although this is now being addressed by Obama’s Affordable Care Act 2010]; and in America the gap between rich and poor is shockingly wide. In America if you lose your job and don’t get another one, you can lose everything; and if you can lose everything; and if you have a chronic illness it can bankrupt your family. Gottlieb argues that American’s are several steps closer to disaster than their European and other rich country counterparts, behaving more like a poor country in terms of social security for its citizens, than a rich one, owing to its Victorian social attitudes. Unlike the American citizen, particularly its poorest, citizens of the rich, secular west, have no need of a god. These findings are echoed by the study “sacred and secular” by Pippa Norris and Ronald Ingelhart.
Some atheists, including Richard Dawkins, claim to be alarmed by the apparent rise in fundamentalism [Islamic and Christian] but in the case of the “religious right” in America this fear appears to be undermined by the evidence from demographic values surveys. For example, “the moral majority” evolved in response to the growing secularisation in America, but has failed to meet its own objectives over the last 3 decades. In this time, according to survey evidence, homosexuality and gay marriage are more accepted, there are more unmarried couples; there are more working mothers and intelligent design has not replaced the teaching of evolution in American schools [Gallup poll] Although America remains a highly religious country, the religious practice by its adherents is more secular in nature and more liberal, and the numbers of non-believers are concurrently rising steadily. In his chapter, “believe it or not” in the book Megachange, Gottlieb also offers some other suggestions to explain the bucking of the trend of religiosity in America. For example, in America almost 12 per cent of the population are immigrants, usually from a poor Christian country, who are more likely to join in with local churches [unlike the immigrants of Europe who tend to be Muslim or Hindu.] Also, in America, the population is more mobile, with frequent house moves for work; Gottleib argues that” churches provide an instant community for recent arrivals”. However, religious observance in the United States is declining, according to poll evidence. In 1948 atheism was about 2 per cent of the population, but by the 1990s it had risen to about 14 per cent. Likewise, in 1971, 41 per cent of the population attended religious services, dropping to 31 per cent in 2002, according to the National Opinion Research Centre [Megachange]. Gottleib also quotes evidence from the Pew Forum that 57 per cent of those aged 65 and older were certain that god existed, dropping to 45 per cent of those aged 29 and younger. This suggests that, given time, America will follow the pattern of the secular west in reducing its religiosity.
In terms of world population the evidence would seem to support the view that as countries develop socially and economically, rates of religiosity wane. In the long run, it can be predicted that developing countries will become richer and more secure for their citizens, with a corresponding decline in religion. Likewise, in developed countries, new migrants from poor, religious countries should predictably follow the historical pattern of assimilation into the host country, leading to increased secularisation of those immigrant groups. This process will be slowed if those immigrant groups fail to join in and instead remain separated and secluded in their own communities, even failing to learn the host language. It is not possible to estimate the time frame for the economic, social and political development of poor countries or whether they will follow a European or American social model which will affect the rate at which they secularise, if Pippa Norris’ theory is correct. However, it would seem that the future is less bright for religion generally and, it seems, it is the non-believers who will inherit the earth.