Jul 10 2008
Gods “R” Us
The worldwide similarity of religious phenomena is easy to point out: they include formalized ritual behavior appropriate for veneration; the practice of offerings, sacrifices, vows and prayers with reference to superior beings; and songs, tales, teachings, and explanations about these beings and the worship they demand.
- Burkert (33)
In his book Darwin’s Cathedral, Wilson speculated about the social function of religion. He wrote, “Spirituality is in part a feeling of being connected to something larger than oneself. Religion is in part a collection of beliefs and practices that honor spirituality.”(34) This of course begs the question that what is the thing larger than oneself that people can feel connected to? Burkert points out that an outstanding feature of many religious rituals is the theme of submission. Why submission? “Religion is generally accepted as a system of rank, implying dependence, subordination and submission to unseen superiors. The awareness of rank and dependence in religion is particularly clear in all the ancient religions. God means power, rule, and honors due.” (35)
In the all-time best-selling book called “the Bible” we read of an invisible agent that is in no way referred to as a subordinate agent. On the contrary, the god of the Bible is a great father, the almighty, the King of Kings, etc. Above and beyond any personal or functional qualities, the Bible god is an alpha. Strike that, he is the most alpha of alphas, and thou shalt have no others before him.
Wilson contends that an integral part of religion is the spiritual sensation of being connected to not something other, but something greater. And today we hear that sentiment expressed time and time again. In the specific canons and practices of many religions (most?) and in the abstract musing of “spirituality” we can discern the central idea that there is something greater out there. Greater than what? Greater than a rock, greater than a tree, greater than a mountain? No. Greater than me.
In July of 2004, an atheist attempted to give the opening invocation of the Tampa Bay city council meeting. As reported in the St. Petersburg Times, three council members walked out before the atheist uttered a word. One of Tampa’s elected officials said, “I just can’t sit here and listen to someone that does not believe in a supreme being.” That atheists are frequently reviled and accused of being unworthy of trust and respect is absolutely connected to the concept of a god as a people’s alpha, as their most high ruler. How could you not be suspicious of a person who doesn’t recognize and respect your great leader? Atheists are perceived as dangerous precisely because they don’t believe in a greater being, in something above them that might “keep them in line.”
Imagine that you are a primate living in the forest. Yours is a small tribe with a well-defined hierarchy, and stability at the top helps keep your social group cohesive and relatively peaceful. As primatologist de Waal reminds us, “The formal hierarchy may be seen as a device to maintain cohesion is spite of rivalry.”(36) Into the land across the river moves a new band of primates. This causes you concern. Will they battle you for your land? Even more concerning, this band has powerful members that submit to none. They bow to no alpha. You wonder how peaceful co-existence could be possible, for their very nature threatens more than your land, it threatens your hierarchy: the invisible glue of your social world.
Of course, religions across the globe are very different, as are the supernatural agents that animate them.(37) Some are esteemed ancestors, others half-beast, others poorly defined forces. In Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion, Guthrie examines the central role anthropomorphizing plays in religion.(38) Boyer echoes that notion: “That gods and spirits are construed very much like persons is probably one of the best know traits of religion.”(39) Why is that? Why are humans not inclined to worship fully alien and/or inanimate entities? The answer: for the simple reason that religion is not an intellectual phenomenon so much as it is emotional. As a thoroughly social species, what most moves us is social relationships and dynamics. “Thoughts about what the gods want or what the ancestors know can induce strong feelings of fear, guilt, anger, but also reassurance or comfort.” (40) Worshipping a tree that is nothing more than a tree is unlikely to move a person via guilt or reassurance or any other human emotion.
Many people have used the term “religion” quite broadly, sometimes going so far as declaring that atheists have their own religion (this being as absurd as arguing that not playing tennis is a sport). I think we must remember that there are two important components to religions. Central to religions are one or a number of supernatural entities. Yet it is possible to believe in ghosts, for example, without this ghost-belief constituting a religion. Boyer explains: “We generally call supernatural concepts ‘religious’ when they have such important social effects, when rituals are performed that include these concepts, when people define their group identity in connection with them, when strong emotional states are associated with them, and so on.” (41)
If not obviously human-like, gods are human in their social qualities: in what power they have, what they know, and what they care about. As much as people may try to deny it, behind the veil of the invisible and unobservable, the gods are us.
—
(33) Burkert, W., Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996, p.4
(34) Wilson, D.S. Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2002., p.3
(35) Burkert, p. 81
(36) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p. 52
(37) Boyer, P. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, Basic Books, New York, 2001, p.7
(38) Guthrie, S. E. Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion, Oxford University Press, New York, 1993. p.200
(39) Boyer, 2001, p.142
(40) Boyer, 2001, p.137
(41) Boyer, 2001, p.90
[July hiatus automated re-post. First appeared here: http://almightyalpha.blogspot.com/2007/09/gods-r-us.html]
Thank you