Is religion a delusion?

[Mulder]

Crows make tools. I wonder if they thought of religion first, though?

[Tony Williams]

New Scientist magazine has a review of 'Supersense: why we believe in the unbelievable', by Bruce M Hood.

The purpose of the book is to examine the reasons for the human preoccupation with the supernatural, despite the lack of supporting evidence. The author
argues that we are all superstitous in some way, even if we don't recognise it. One example he gives - would you like to wear an item of clothing once worn by a notorious serial killer? He argues that most people would feel uncomfortable about this, even though there is no logical reason for such a feeling.

His thesis is that superstitious beliefs have an important role in human thinking, and conferred an indirect evolutionary advantage. The reason is that shared beliefs, superstitions and taboos help to bind a group together, to give them more of a shared outlook on life. And if the group is successful, individuals within it are more likely to survive. As a result, what he calls our "supersense" has evolved with us, to become an integral part of human nature.

An interesting theory which provides a good reason for the existence of
irrational beliefs, regardless of whether or not they have any actual validity.

[Dr B]

You know sometimes i think nothing is new...

One example he gives - would you like to wear an item of clothing once worn by a notorious serial killer? He argues that most people would feel uncomfortable about this, even though there is no logical reason for such a feeling.

15 years ago i was in a lecture when someone did this and I swear i have read about this somewhere else as well. Nice example though.

Yes we are all prone to it (the dirty heuristic thinking is hard-wired) but it is the secondary slower and more effortful rational processes where we differ..... These ideas have been around for some time now - its important they remain in the public's mind - but i cant see anything new here.....

the social groups argument you say he makes is the same as the one i make above and many have made over recent years.

I have not read the article - but is this person seasoned in the field or another pop-science writer devoted to publicising other people's research?

[tolman]

One example he gives - would you like to wear an item of clothing once worn by a notorious serial killer? He argues that most people would feel uncomfortable about this, even though there is no logical reason for such a feeling.

I suspect I'd probably be reluctant to do that.

However, I think a huge amount of that reluctance would be coming from my worries about what other people might think of me if they knew:

Would they think I'm the kind of person who gets a kick out of collecting murder memorabilia?
Would they just think it was very bad taste?
If they're the kind of person with an unusually irrational reaction, would that also make them likely to be the kind of person who'd go on and on about it to other people and try to make me look bad?

Now, if I'd known the killer, and had borrowed an item from them which they'd forgotten about or were very unlikely to mention to anyone else, or if I'd come about the object some fully-anonymous way (solo dumpster diving, stealing in retaliation for something of mine they'd stolen or borrowed and wouldn't return, a gift from someone who told no-one else and then conveniently dropped dead, etc) I'd be hugely less reluctant, and might well be happy to keep/wear the item.

Of course, if I didn't personally know the serial killer, I would likely only happen upon their possessions and be aware of their provenance after the killer was found out, via a process which involved other people, (and where therefore there was at least the potential of people being aware of my ownership) and where if my posession of the items was known I'd be definitely vulnerable to the accusation of being a murder groupie (or worse) even if thet wasn't the case.

[DrS]

On a wider note, I do not think that we're predisposed to religious belief per se. It seems that we, along with most of the animal kingdom, are predisposed toward superstitious (or magical) thinking. e.g. Skinner's pigeons/rats.

Superstitious thinking and rituals have been found in human civilizations universally whereas religion has not. IIRC, the Aborigines did not have religion although they had the same types of superstitious beliefs as everyone else.

I agree with this

So do I. In terms of pre-literate ancient civilizations, the consensus seems to be that mythic thought, and myth itself, is a precursor to religion, and arises out of ritualistic behaviour that could indeed be called superstitious.

In time, such a view would have it, stories developed to explain rituals, so in this sense I wouldn't fully agree that:

they were trying to explain (as a scientist today would) and to understand their environment - but they just did not have the mental tools to do it at that time.

I myself would prefer to say, rather, that they were trying to explain their ritualism, and that the resulting explanations, their myths, shaped the world view by which they understood their environment, i.e. their religion. As this environment changed, so their myths changed as well to prevent a uneasiness at the lack of consistency in their explanations. This is why myth is dynamic, and why there are often so many variations to the same story.

As societies become literate, which many would link to becoming rational too, so their myths become fossilized in written form. They then become identifiable as mythic, perhaps because they are fixed in writing, or because the society has become rational, though this is a moot point if the two are linked.

it is definately based in primal / ancient thinking and not in rational thinking that is for sure.

and I would only add pre-literate too.

[no_tomorow]

is delusion a religion ?

[Tony Williams]

is delusion a religion ?

Judging by the number of people who seem willing to believe almost anything for which there is no solid evidence (astrology, crystal healing, ley lines, alien abductions, etc etc), then a case could be made that they do indeed regard their delusions with a religious devotion.

[Trinoc]

Judging by the number of people who seem willing to believe almost anything for which there is no solid evidence (astrology, crystal healing, ley lines, alien abductions, etc etc), then a case could be made that they do indeed regard their delusions with a religious devotion.

But then, for delusion to be a religion, they would have to be worshipping the delusion as a delusion. If you include things which rational thinkers know are delusions but which believers think of as completely real, then you include just about every religion, cult or mysticism that ever existed.

[Tony Williams]

Exactly...

[panama]

Going back to the original line of the thread...

A belief in a god is perfectly rational as an explanation for how and why the world is the way it is if you have no better theory. Our innate intelligence drives us to try and understand and explain the world we live in ( as per the myth making of aboriginal tribal societies above) and with the observational tools available to pre-modern man it is reasonable for him to theorise an external source as a creator, bringer of good and bad luck, judge and all the other "God" attributes. Religion is the formalisation of that belief and the interface by which man seeks to influence his god in his favour.

Less rational is persisting in believing in a god when there are better theories that fit more closely with observable data.