For some reason tonight I was thinking about a subject I occasionally return to in thought with more of a passing interest, which is the idea of religion being a negative force in the world. This is an argument often made by those who identify themselves as atheists: religions create collective paradigms that tend to generalize certain aspects of reality which leads to misunderstandings which are acted upon en masse, resulting in intolerance, violence, and hurtful legislation. In my opinion this is an observation which must receive merit by history buffs or really anyone who is aware of current events. One question that may naturally arise, then, is that if these religions have negative effects on individuals and societies in this manner, how can any of these religions be from a loving deity? As I said I thought of these ideas lightly and for some reason tonight I managed to articulate a possible response that I had been considering.
As I postulated in a previous post (if I remember correctly), as individuals go through the process of self-identity, they discover/establish connections between sensory input and the "pleasure center" region of the brain. With the reinforcement of these connections over time they carve deeper ridges into the neural network so as to streamline these regular processes. "Non-objective" information (i.e. hearing that your friend is upset, as opposed to hearing a single tone of 440 Hz) that is put through this network may be rejected or assimilated into the paradigm of the individual based on the inertia of the difference facets of his identity. In a scientific sense, religion is simply a suggested paradigm of reality; it is a set of assumptions that has its basis more in faith than in empirical formula. It is thereby able to conquer some of the dark regions of man's understanding, such as life and death, the cosmos, and other mysteries understood by observation only. From what I have observed, religions generally have an established set of doctrine as well as a culture or multiple cultures resulting from the interpretation of the doctrine. From God to man there occurs the process of interpretation which takes place in every individual, no matter how exhaustive and cogent the syntax of the doctrine. Either undergoing socialization with these assumptions or assimilating them at a later time - which is to say, either growing up under the auspices of religion or converting to one later - these assumptions fill holes in the minds of those who adopt them, holes which may or may not be better filled with different pieces of information. I recognize that there is a difference in the case of one growing up and believe in the practice of teaching children plasticity of thought in these areas. In any case, the idea that I was wording earlier this evening is that the individuals who make manifest the negative effects of their religion upon society haven taken upon them their religion because they failed to complete their identity by alternative sensory input. In other words, their problem is not in the ideas they have adopted but rather in the intellectual holes they could not fill with better information. Had they never heard of the specific religion they chose to espouse, they would have filled the parched mental landscape with other pleasing generalizations, having already rejected more logical information. Now I suppose that this does not apply to all individuals to perpetuate this negative reputation of religion, and acknowledge that identity - the complex connections between sensory input and the pleasure center - is often shaped by religiosity in the home during formative years, and here enters the argument of nature vs nurture, which I won't get into right now. I do believe, however, that this is a measurable consideration in the argument of whether or not religion is a negative force. Would the devout followers of the Westboro Baptist Church have been crazy people if Fred Phelps never existed? Of course there's no way to know, and I suppose it probably would not be to the extend that it currently reaches, but I also suppose many of them would likely have latched onto other illogical things - as we all do to some extent - to fill their psychological needs.
As I postulated in a previous post (if I remember correctly), as individuals go through the process of self-identity, they discover/establish connections between sensory input and the "pleasure center" region of the brain. With the reinforcement of these connections over time they carve deeper ridges into the neural network so as to streamline these regular processes. "Non-objective" information (i.e. hearing that your friend is upset, as opposed to hearing a single tone of 440 Hz) that is put through this network may be rejected or assimilated into the paradigm of the individual based on the inertia of the difference facets of his identity. In a scientific sense, religion is simply a suggested paradigm of reality; it is a set of assumptions that has its basis more in faith than in empirical formula. It is thereby able to conquer some of the dark regions of man's understanding, such as life and death, the cosmos, and other mysteries understood by observation only. From what I have observed, religions generally have an established set of doctrine as well as a culture or multiple cultures resulting from the interpretation of the doctrine. From God to man there occurs the process of interpretation which takes place in every individual, no matter how exhaustive and cogent the syntax of the doctrine. Either undergoing socialization with these assumptions or assimilating them at a later time - which is to say, either growing up under the auspices of religion or converting to one later - these assumptions fill holes in the minds of those who adopt them, holes which may or may not be better filled with different pieces of information. I recognize that there is a difference in the case of one growing up and believe in the practice of teaching children plasticity of thought in these areas. In any case, the idea that I was wording earlier this evening is that the individuals who make manifest the negative effects of their religion upon society haven taken upon them their religion because they failed to complete their identity by alternative sensory input. In other words, their problem is not in the ideas they have adopted but rather in the intellectual holes they could not fill with better information. Had they never heard of the specific religion they chose to espouse, they would have filled the parched mental landscape with other pleasing generalizations, having already rejected more logical information. Now I suppose that this does not apply to all individuals to perpetuate this negative reputation of religion, and acknowledge that identity - the complex connections between sensory input and the pleasure center - is often shaped by religiosity in the home during formative years, and here enters the argument of nature vs nurture, which I won't get into right now. I do believe, however, that this is a measurable consideration in the argument of whether or not religion is a negative force. Would the devout followers of the Westboro Baptist Church have been crazy people if Fred Phelps never existed? Of course there's no way to know, and I suppose it probably would not be to the extend that it currently reaches, but I also suppose many of them would likely have latched onto other illogical things - as we all do to some extent - to fill their psychological needs.
