Aspects of the psycho-sociology of belief

This piece is one of a number of articles on belief:

Anselm on God

The Manufacture of opinion

The Irrelevance of the Extremists of Belief I.html

The Irrelevance of the Extremists of Belief II.html

The Irrelevance of the Extremists of Belief III.html

There is a relatively systematic discussion of belief in Journey in Being-New World-2007

My previous post was going to be my last response to ‘Atheism's contribution to humanity.’ However, I was struck by a comment from a woman named Tatiana. Tatiana refers to the Unitarians as an example of a ‘faith’ that has done much for humanity without a Christian foundation

I agree with what Tatiana says about the Unitarians but would add that the degree of ‘Christian-ness’ and importance of faith varies among congregations—and that is, of course, consistent with the open mindedness of the Unitarians

The Unitarians are a relatively small denomination and this might seem to imply limited influence. However, influence is not measured by numbers alone. One man, e.g. an Einstein, a Jesus, or a Mohammed, has more influence than a hundred apologists for either science or religion. It is perhaps in Greek thought where, in the Western world, democracy was conceived, that some of the greatest influence on today’s world lies. The influence of ideas in human affairs is not as obvious as but is at least equal to the influence of force (and propaganda.) Mere propaganda is ultimately self-limiting and even though it is a form of idea it cannot match the true idea which is stabilizing whereas propaganda is at most self-propagating

A problem with the true idea is that its truth may be difficult to see and its effect may take time. The nineteenth / twentieth century philosopher Alfred North Whitehead estimated the time for the significant idea to have effect to be as much as a thousand years. Whitehead was referring to philosophy; science has a more immediate effect

It seems though that people are weak; that they need an external moral compass; that they need education on cosmology, i.e. the way the world is. Cosmology is important because it relates to how we act in this life. A scientific cosmology in which all is matter, the universe is about 10 billion years old and is headed towards a ‘heat death’ in about another 10 billion years, and in which humankind is an inconsequential accident will tend to have one kind of effect; a kinder cosmology will have another kind of effect; hopefully, in either case, men and women will remain moral

I was, of course, being harsh in saying that people are weak. People are what they are. People are varied and some people come with greater moral and cosmological imagination or, if you are rationalistic, greater moral and cosmological computational power. ‘Division of labor’ suggests that some will win bread while others will write moral and cosmological scriptures—all according to their ability. The principle of division of labor of course also suggests that there is a need for the various products of labor; that includes ideas and scriptures. What is the value of scripture? One value is just what I have already stated: the provision of morals and cosmology. But why then do the scriptures, at least in their literal interpretation, and science appear to contradict one another? Adherence to what does not make common sense may be perhaps because the scriptures were written in an earlier time, perhaps because of their non-literal interpretation… Non-literal does not mean non-factual. How so? We may interpret ‘rising from the dead’ to suggest that we do not know the true nature of death—for those who say there is nothing after death, I say, since you have not yet died how can you know that; you are making an inference; what is more the inference seems reasonable on some accounts but when you examine the limits of science and common sense it may not be so reasonable. Thus the scriptures continue to have various values. However it is also true that many ‘believers’ insist on the literal interpretation even lacking empirical evidence precisely where empirical evidence is needed (the point has been made by many that there are domains beyond empirical evidence—e.g. the limits of science—but it is then a leap to suggest that all Scriptural claims are beyond evidence… to which the response may be that a certain nineteenth century jurist—Simon Greenleaf the Harvard professor who was an expert in legal evidence—was convinced of the truth of the Bible which is to truly say nothing except perhaps that the writings of that jurist may merit some attention)

What is the source of fundamentalism? Possibilities are: people are weak of morals and imagination; people brought up in the faith like its comforting message; the ego—how can someone else tell me I’m wrong; people are unable or unwilling to compartmentalize the different aspects of scripture as literal / non-literal / and literally untrue… Anthropological research further suggests than when a belief impacts daily living and survival, humans tend to demand the truth; when not, the demand is less. Thus people compartmentalize knowledge—and this is apparently how some though not all scientists who also have faith deal with potential conflicts of science and religion (as I’ve pointed out though, if they were to think things through and to be able to give up any truly absurd aspects of faith they would eliminate any need for conflict.) In the modern world where survival is not an affair of ‘tooth and claw’ our belief systems do not impact our daily lives as much as more immediate and practical knowledge so the immediate survival pressure to test our faith is not particularly intense unless one is somehow predisposed to test it (try walking on water or depending on multiplication of loaves of bread instead of working for money) or predisposed to have a concern with truth

There is however, a further factor. The ‘great religions’ provide a rallying cry. They are thus cohesive. And being cohesive gives them an institutional quality and a powerful one at that. This power leads to the religion being spread. There are of course abuses. But it is a world in which there are other powerful institutions and institutional faiths. The institution of religion is one around which societies and cultures have survived even though such survival may not be the explicit or implicit intent of religion. The foregoing statements concern the impact of religion for groups of people—societies and so on. However, there must be something in the individual that dovetails into the institution forming ability of faith. Many have been mentioned above. However there needs to be one more. If the institution is to be powerful there should be some mechanism to prevent ‘defection.’ We know of many external mechanisms: the isolation of the individual from social support, the Spanish Inquisition, the positive value of religion when it is recognized by the individual. However the most powerful anti-defection mechanism may be adherence to the faith. Thus, even if the original human being had no tendency to accept faith as an internal article, selection pressure might breed the tendency to faith—at least as default if not positively. These same phenomena may explain how even science, which is supposedly rational, acquires adherence in non-rational ways and how some of the apologists for science are not altogether rational (even though they could be and still maintain what is true of their positions)

Another social—sociological—factor is the plain fact that communal belief involves propagation through sharing; and to some degree, this lies outside logic and outside politics. There are perhaps various mechanisms of propagation of belief; these include selection. However, sharing is a communal fact rather than a mechanism

Where does that leave us? If you believe in rationality and if you interpret that belief to suggest that the world should be free of faith based religion—due to its irrationality and its tendency to abuse—then you may want to consider that the world is not about to oblige you. It explains the appeal of Dawkins and D’Souza, especially in their irrational aspects. It suggests that there will always be a Dawkins or D'Souza with an irrational element—cloaked in rationalism—which of course allows for ebb and flow in dark versus light

It suggests that if you are ‘into truth’ you are on your own. I have found that this is true even for the Unitarians. I say this even though when I go to Church it is to the Unitarian Church. I have found the Unitarians to be somewhat spiritually empty; perhaps there is no spiritual dimension; I do not believe that but if I did I would then wonder ‘why go to Church at all;’ and I have found the Unitarians to be rather dogmatic in their unbelief and so on—and that all fits in with the nature of belief. That said, the Unitarians are good people

It remains true, however, that if you want truth you are on your own; and you may ultimately find little support; therefore, the—process—truth must be its own reward