
Why Religion Is More Durable Than We Thought in Modern Society - el_duderino
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/28/525895389/why-religion-is-more-durable-than-we-thought-in-modern-society
======
stcredzero
_" Religion provides people with a lot more than just explanations for the
natural world," Schwadel said. "It provides community. It provides them with
friends. It provides them with psychological support and economic support. It
provides a lot more than simply an understanding of where they are in the
world in relation to the afterlife."_

Daniel Dennett has talked about precisely this.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5tGpMcFF7U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5tGpMcFF7U)

In particular, the major world religions are particularly good at creating
community and support groups. In part, it's because the major world religions
have an ideological emphasis on love and compassion. While this often fails
when dealing with out-groups, it succeeds in making true communities where
people feel emotionally safe.

I say this as an Atheist: as a group, Atheists do many things that are the
opposite of what religious communities do. In my experience, I am far more
likely to be thrown under the bus in a group of people who announce themselves
to be Atheists than, say, at some kind of a Unitarian or Episcopalian meeting.
To go by my personal experience and the output of various YouTubers concerning
the dramas and dissolution of various Atheist groups, it seems like Atheists
spend a lot of time attacking each other and out-groups. In fact, this seems
to apply almost universally to any kind of 21st century movement that spreads
online and somehow involves politics. Outrage sells easily and goes viral
easily. As a result, many 21st century movements, while professing the
opposite, have a strong dependence on in-group/out-group _hate._

~~~
mrec
You make an interesting point in the last para. I agree about the focus on
outrage in modern identity politics (if you haven't already read it, SSC's
_The Toxoplasma of Rage_ [1] is the best overview I've seen), but I'm not sure
it's ever occurred to me to include atheism in there.

Possibly because in my case the "outraged" aspect of my atheism was mostly a
reaction to having religion shoved down my throat at school, and had largely
faded by the time we got the Internet. But possibly also because I want
nothing to do with identity politics of any stripe and didn't want to make
that particular connection.

[1] [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-
rage/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/)

~~~
Analemma_
It's a good essay, but FWIW, a few months ago in one of his link dumps (which
unfortunately I can't find atm) Scott approvingly reblogged an essay arguing
that atheists _should_ go back to being like outspoken and ardently anti-
theist, like in the heyday of the late-2000's/early-2010's. I didn't agree
with it myself, but it did raise some good points, and I wouldn't characterize
Scott as being opposed to identity politics of all sorts.

~~~
stcredzero
_Scott approvingly reblogged an essay arguing that atheists should go back to
being like outspoken and ardently anti-theist, like in the heyday of the
late-2000 's/early-2010's._

There's nothing wrong with that on the face of it. However, I find that too
many people in the 2nd or 3rd echelon and below are actually motivated by hate
and self-promotion. (A minority, but enough to poison the well.) The same goes
for most anything involved with identity politics.

------
pembrook
This article uses the US as its example for a "modern society." However, our
education levels are drastically lower than many European nations who are
indeed becoming quickly non-religious. The most extreme levels of average
education correspond with the highest level of secularization in the Nordic
countries. As with many other things, the US is the bizarro outlier here, not
the norm among industrialized nations.

~~~
JBReefer
I see this opinion a lot, and it bothers me. The idea that Intelligence +
Education == Secularism 100% of the time is kind of sad, because there is so
much to be gained from reading religious texts and religious philosophy.

I guess it's a part of that larger "everyone before us was stupid" thing that
seems big now, but I promise, the major names in religious thinking _were_
brilliant. There is something to believing in something greater than what we
see, and when you go on atheist forums, they never really seem like
enlightened or happy places.

I don't really have a cogent argument here, but this smells like 1950s
Utopianism, where everything that went before was considered obsolete, and
many of the good parts of culture and our cities were just thrown away in the
name of progress.

~~~
3131s
> _when you go on atheist forums, they never really seem like enlightened or
> happy places._

That's because only dogmatic atheists would frequent those places. I am an
atheist / agnostic, and have been my entire life, but I've never understood
why I would seek out community with others over a shared non-belief. So what
if we both don't believe in some particular thing? That's no basis for a
connection at all. I also got over the need to let others know about being an
atheist in about 6th grade.

~~~
cmdrfred
I think is the difference between atheist and anti-theist. They are united by
their disdain for religion.

~~~
unclenoriega
This is it. In a largely secular society, an atheist group makes no sense, but
in a largely theistic society, an atheist group is natural.

------
joshjkim
A good example of the durability of religion in the heart of SF/tech: Reality
SF, a thriving, fast-growing church in the Castro, made up mostly of under-35
tech professionals.

One of my favorite sermons in recent memory is quite related to this topic: it
was about "rootedness in community" in the context of SF, and talks about how
most people in SF come with a miner's mentality (come here for material gain,
extract as much value as possible, then move on), whereas the pastor
challenges us to consider a farmer's mentality (invest in the land, care for
it in the long run, treat it like a home for the long run - of course, big
agra is probably more like mining at this point but you get the point!).
highly worth anyone in SF checking the talk out here:
[http://realitysf.com/sermon/slow-church-we-value-
rootedness/](http://realitysf.com/sermon/slow-church-we-value-rootedness/)

some choice quotes he uses in the sermon that I really loved (admittedly a
little romantic, but I think carry some good insight):

"the 20th century will be remembered as an age of wondrous creativity, when
Americans voluntarily shattered their lives into distant and dissonant
fragments. America's industries learned how to assemble atomic bombs,
airplanes, iPads and the genetic codes of life itself in the same era that
American society disassembled the ancient overlap of family, food, faith and
the field of work. Americans reached for the stars as they withered their
roots, inhabited space but lost any sense of place." (David Janzen)

"The failure of the urban promise: That promise concerned human person who
could lead detached, unrooted lives of endless choice and no commitment. It
was glamorized around the virtues of mobility and anonymity that seemed so
full of promise for freedom and self-actualization. But it has failed...It is
now clear that sense of place is a human hunger that urban promise has not
met...It is rootlessness and not meaninglessness that characterizes the
current crisis" (Walter Brueggerman)

[full disclosure: I'm a member!]

------
mmjaa
I've never quite understood the predilection towards hatred of the subject of
religion, and the persistent nagging claim that it must be eradicated.

The world would be a very hard place if we couldn't just suddenly decide that
our description of the universe didn't actually need to make sense, and isn't
relevant anyway, "because <deity/concept/idea of some relevance>".

Well, it just seems naive and reactive, to me, when I encounter the viewpoint
that its all crap and must die.

Its a very common thought.

~~~
Analemma_
> I've never quite understood the predilection towards hatred of the subject
> of religion, and the persistent nagging claim that it must be eradicated.

Most of the really strident atheists and anti-theists grew up in very
oppressive religious environments. The parenting of American evangelicals in
particular can get pretty horrifying - not to say that it always does, but it
can.

It's easy to say that these atheists are going overboard, but bear in mind
that often they grew up in the worst of the worst. I used to be like you and
not understand why they were so loud about it, but then I realized that was
partially because I've always been non-religious (my parents just didn't care)
and I have not had their experience.

I still don't think they're right-- my own attitude toward religion, which I
think is the "most correct" one for an atheist to take, is total disinterest
and not even taking any negative view-- but I see how they got there.

~~~
mmjaa
I see every religion as an opportunity to claim the founding of a new one.

You know, like software; i.e. an expression of the infinite principle.

So most of the hassle is just cultural, in my opinion, and if religion is
killed, culture will be next, i.e. literature, i.e. the idea beyond the
horizon, a sunset on the human mind and imagine and desire to conquer the
universe, infinite and finite and all the space between.

------
betaby
In US/Canada it's 'enforced' from the very top. It is mandatory to have
'religion' affiliation for a politician, even if your real moto 'grab her..'
Starting from special treatment in constitution/constitutional act and all the
way to the schools. Kids, for example, in 6th grade in more secular Quebec
have more exposure to religious ideas than to basic geography. Religion in
US/Canada is special kind of hypocrisy. Thus no surprise.

~~~
douche
> more secular Quebec

Really? I would have assumed Quebec would be more religious than the rest of
Canada. Catholicism sunk its roots deep there.

~~~
betaby
As I recall concept of religious school boards was abandoned in Quebec in
1997. Plus there are other religions other than Christianity flavors. As for
stats, they totally different in Quebec if one ask 'are you
catholic/muslim/etc' or 'do you bel ive in god'. Also Montreal is good in
converting churches to spas and condos.

~~~
jszymborski
Part of the reason Montreal has so many converted churches is because we have
an insane amount of churches.

Mark Twain famously said of Montreal, "This is the first time I was ever in a
city where you couldn't throw a brick without breaking a church window." [0]

[0]
[http://www.twainquotes.com/18811210.html](http://www.twainquotes.com/18811210.html)

------
briga
It's been suggested that humans have an innate biological desire to believe in
religion. I think from an evolutionary perspective this hypothesis makes
sense. Groups of humans inclined to believe in religions must have been
selected for at some point in our evolutionary past, considering the great
benefits in group morale and cohesion religion offers. A tribe of humans with
a shared belief system and a sense of purpose and meaning beyond everyday
human existence would be much more likely to survive a harsh winter, than say,
a tribe of humans with no such belief system.

Religion isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

~~~
faitswulff
It could be an emergent property of the fact that our brains are pattern-
recognition machines, even when there are no patterns to be had. Couple that
with being social, conformist animals and it's easy to start seeing the
invisible hand of god everywhere.

------
bengovero
Religion, especially Judeo-Christianity, has existed longer than any empire,
philosophy or worldview. It will outlive western modern secularism too. Only
our groupthink and hubris leads us to believe otherwise.

~~~
methodover
You qualified secularism there. How is western modern secularism different
from plain ole secularism?

~~~
bengovero
Well, I'm no academic, but things like modernism, materialism, and scientism
as epistemology would be distinguishing factors.

------
psyc
I think the vast majority need some framework to cope with existential
questions, even if that framework is atheism. No, I'm not saying atheism is a
religion, but it has nevertheless spawned recognizable frameworks. The major
religions remain the major frameworks, however. Getting people off of IE6 will
prove to have been easier than getting them off major religions, assuming you
wanted that in the first place.

------
taxicabjesus
I spent my last two years of high school at a jesuit (catholic) school. The
only thing I really remember from my senior religion class was "you have to
believe something".

The class' assignment was to write a paper about what you believe. I wrote a
crappy paper about how I didn't believe in an afterlife anymore, on account of
my head injury [1]. We all evaluated someone else's paper, and I got a paper
from someone who talked about his out-of-body experiences, which I thought was
a perfectly reasonable proposition, as I'd recently learned about "mental
imagery" (this was before 'aphantasia' [2] was a term)...

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13123659](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13123659)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia)

Modern science was founded on the predication that "everything in the universe
can be explained in terms of matter." This was circa-1845. The predication
would have been more useful if those early scientists thought in terms of
'energy', but we're still stuck with their mistake.

~~~
theseatoms
In what way are we stuck with that mistake?

Interesting story btw.

~~~
taxicabjesus
> In what way are we stuck with that mistake?

Thermodynamics was useful to design better steam engines, circa-1845.

Thermodynamics is a rigid straitjacket that limits modern astronomers' ability
to explain their observations.

> Interesting story btw.

Thanks for this. Someone voted me down right away, then some other users
canceled that downvote out. The crowd here is fickle. :)

------
cpr
Maybe because the Judeo-Christian (considered as one monotheistic religion
developing from the other) tradition is true? Truth would have enduring
qualities. ;-)

(I know, infinite downvotes.)

I don't see how anyone could be atheistic--how can you prove a negative? The
modern scientific materialist creed is mighty hubristic--a religion in itself
--in asserting there is nothing besides matter--an impossibility to prove.

~~~
dvtv75
> I don't see how anyone could be atheistic--how can you prove a negative?

From this, I take it that you believe we walk around disbelieving your god.
"There's no god. Oh look, a tree, that wasn't created by a god. The sky? Not
created by a god."

I don't. I put no thought into religious fictions whatsoever, unless they're
brought up by others. Right now, unless you're tripping on something, you
don't believe there's a little man on the other side of the wall drilling into
it with industrial mining equipment so he can get to you and paint your
genitals purple. You weren't thinking about it until I mentioned it, you
hadn't even considered it until I mentioned it.

That's religious faith to me, right there - something that does not exist
until you think about it, and equally unreal as you think about it.

As a Christian, you're required to help people out selflessly to get into
Heaven, but since your deeds are selfishly intended to get you into Heaven and
avoid your particular god's wrath, you have a small problem.

As an atheist, when I help someone out I do so because I can, because I can
make someone's life a little better (or at least less terrible). I've known
plenty of Christians who go out of their way to punish people for not being
Christian.

In the end, I like to think that asd I breathe my last breath, I'll be able to
say "Someone's life was better because I lived."

> The modern scientific materialist creed is mighty hubristic--a religion in
> itself--in asserting there is > nothing besides matter--an impossibility to
> prove.

Science demands verifiable and repeatable proof. If you assert that your god
exists, you have to meet a minimum standard of evidence. Remove that standard
of evidence, and all claims become viable, from "I have a system that will let
me win whenever I gamble!" through to the little man on the other side of your
wall. If he didn't exist, you wouldn't hear noise from that side of that wall,
now would you?

------
mnm1
Humans are attracted to anything that has history regardless of its
usefulness. If it was done in the past, it must be done in the future, even if
it is harmful. This not only applies to religion, but just about everything.
It's the reason we have such difficulty adjusting our societies to the reality
of the day. People seem unable to let go of the things that are holding them
back. Maybe it's nostalgia. Maybe it's the fear of having to provide and
defend one's own interpretation of the world. Maybe it's just a desire to
relax and not have to think for oneself. Either way, it's not surprising.

~~~
helthanatos
It could be because religion is useful

~~~
mnm1
Oh yeah? Which one?

------
vijay_nair
Religion and God are constructs defined to enable people to deal with
situations and phenomena beyond their control. “By controlling this proxy that
controls all situations and phenomena, I can indirectly control the outcomes
of my current predicament” is a frame of mind that gives people hope and
enables them to stick it out until the storm passes.

From the cliff gods that give the bee-hunting Gurung of Nepal the courage to
wade into a literal mountain of bees to collect honey, to Vishnu and Shiva who
help the Hindu mother and child sleep at night while the father’s fighting for
his life in the Intensive Care Unit, to Jesus helping a Christian couple deal
with their childless marriage, there is a plethora of gods available for
people to adopt and use to derive hope no matter who they are and what their
situation is. Because without hope, even those who are otherwise fit to
survive, often don’t. Religion is a placebo that has worked extremely well for
thousands of years and rest assured it's not going away anytime soon.

The alternative is to live a life of total control but boredom is as potent a
killer of men as any other.

~~~
helthanatos
You're throwing polytheistic religions together with monotheistic ones. You
should not do that. Polytheistic religions give hope for short term goals and
explanations about each part of the world. Monotheistic religions give
explanation for the world and give hope for the afterlife.

~~~
vijay_nair
As do polytheistic religions.

A placebo programme that offers several pills of varying shapes, sizes and
colors is not less or more real than a placebo programme that offers just one
pill of a standard shape, size and color.

------
systems
why do we need to give up religion .. in modern society?

this modern society thinking.. seems like a religion in itself

~~~
iratewizard
Would having fewer people who use religion to define themselves reduce the "Us
vs Them" mentality in your opinion? Is a sizable portion of the world ready to
give their life up -- like dedicate it to spreading or supporting an ideology
-- in hopes that they will live again? If people were less confident that
there was an afterlife safety net, how might their behavior change?

Now, that's just the surface of religion. Religions are directly associated
with systematic problems in society. Child molesters en masse hiding behind
the Vatican to continue molesting. The process of belief being pretty well
catalogued as addictive and mentally damaging. Has the "Days since last
jihadist attack in Europe" counter risen above 7 this year? Are there any
religions that don't suffer from all of the symptoms of groupthink?

I don't know exactly what you mean by "modern society thinking" because it's
somewhat vague - but I think your sentiment is right. What we don't need is a
movement towards ending religion or endless propaganda telling everyone to get
with the times and abandon religion. Just some critical thinking.

~~~
systems
the term 'modern society' refers to a set a values, that presumably makes this
society moderns

any set of values, that you have to stick to, to be part of the 'group' .. is
very much a religion .. or religion-like, if we limit the term religion to
only sets or values/rules that link themselves to God or a divine force

i think religion as in, set of guidelines to have or that describe a
relationship with God .. doesn't necessarily contradict with progress .. or
modernism

~~~
iratewizard
I can definitely agree with that. China is a great example of different but
the same. For the most part an atheist country but one of the most
superstitious in the world. A result of there superstition likely being much
higher suicide rates stemming from the belief of reincarnation
([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3205909/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3205909/)).

------
carsongross
Why Jordan Peterson still believes in God:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28i3lWxW5xs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28i3lWxW5xs)

