I decided to post this topic under the psychology board because I am a psychology major with a religion minor and not the other way around. One thing that has always fascinated me is the human mind’s need to establish some sort of belief in a higher power, a belief which eventually evolves into some sort of religion.
My theory as to why religion was invented is a two parter.
First, it evolved as a way to sort of box in the world to make it not so big. By placing something bigger outside of what we see and what we know it sort of box ends infinity and gives us a floor, four walls, and a celeing which we can be comfortable with. It allows us to have some sort of control over our own lives so we are not flailing through infinity beliving are actions have no lasting effect whatsoever. If someone believes that whatever they do doesn’t matter, then they will begin to feel helpless and depressed. By creating some sort of bigger entity outside of everything, our actions have some lasting effect beyond the moment.
Second, religion is the ultimate way of controlling people. You look at most of the religious doctrine that states various laws of how human beings shall act and you’ll find it talks about the most basic of human decency laws. I don’t know how tightly knit society was thousands of years ago but I’d bet they didn’t adhere to the same set of manners and social standards we do today, and by giving the people 10 commandements to live by, it was basically a big slap on the wrist telling everyone that they needed to behave or else. Without these laws established early on there would be no reprocutions for our behavior and society might as well just disolve and the world slip into anarchy.
The one question I’ve always wanted to study is do people who don’t believe in a higher power and/or believe in an afterlife commit more crimes than those who do?
I too have always been puzzled by the high percentage of people who believe in a higher power, given the complete absence of any verifiable manifestation of that higher power in their lives.
I think the propensity for humans to believe in a god has developed over the course of human evolution as a means of allowing people to live together harmoniously in tribal societies. If you look at the natural history of gods, they started out as rulers. The ancient Egyptians, for example, worshipped their kings as gods, and that condition continued in some societies into modern times. If people adore their ruler, rather than merely respect him, they are much more likely to obey the ruler even if it goes against their own interests and desires. Social animals may have something similar, because they appear to defer to the leader of their group against self-interest. Support for the theory of an evolutionary basis for religious belief has come from studies that show religious belief has a heritable component.
As societies grew bigger and people learned more about the world, they realized that human rulers were not divine, and they therefore had to find an outlet for their hard-wired need to adore a leader by making up an immaterial god. It is an open question whether the instinct for religion is still serving its original purpose now that people no longer live in small tribal societies. Religion today seems like more of a source of social strife than social comity.
I more-or-less agree with much of what has been said here.
I, personally, think Durkheim pretty much got it right, so religion is a reminant of the ‘collective consciousness’ or the ‘active intellect’ if you want to get slightly more classical . . . a sort of social glue that serves to remind us that our individuality is an afterthought.
It also contains within it the first rules necessary for dealing with the advent of the individual as well as the proto-science of the time it was created. Even in the modern era when we encounter something we don’t understand we call it a ‘force’. Replace ‘force’ with ‘God’ and anthropomorphize it and there you go.
Actually I see it quite different. The obvious evidence of Purpose we see in all things points to some designer and this has always lead people to believe in some sort of being that is above us all in intelligence and power. If I was never introduced to any form of religion or idea of God I would still wonder why there was so much connectivity and continuity in the natural laws and think it was designed. BTW, not all religions are about controlling others, many are about controlling yourself which is necessary in society.
…My discussion of this topic from an earlier post.
I was discussing ‘spiritual aspects of living’ on various online forums. One group was a dedicated atheists discussion list with most members only offering bitter personal attacks instead of adding anything substantive to the discussion. But to be fair to these atheists, I’ve known many a religious fellow that are just as bitter, if not more so, than atheists I meet. So just being ‘religious’ is not a guarantee of being at peace. Each man made religion contains perfection’s as well as imperfections. It is up to the practitioner or end user to use the tools in the right way. The problem is not the wisdom that is defective. The problem lies with religious practitioners who are defective in their practice of this wisdom. The wisdom works - we don’t work the wisdom.
Many times we are too busy for peace. As one atheist list member wrote, 'It took awhile - far too long, really - but I’ve finally found that one can find peace by simply being undisturbed." Yes, peace is our birthright, if we are not destroying it by our own actions. In order to slow down enough to be able to use peace as a tool I needed to apply simplicity and renunciation to my life. I am not an acetic or total renunciate by any means, but I did have to let go of many peace destroying habits before making room for inner peace to enter my life. As we get rid of one thing, it make room for another thing to enter.
The online discussions based in bitterness brought up the question of “what guiding light do atheists use to be at peace?” Not much was offered in reply to my question. I got a few answers here or there. It seems whenever the discussion turns to ‘inner peace’ many of the people I talk with are silent, this even goes for ‘pious’ Catholic priests. But, one fellow on the forum mentioned ‘truth and philosophy,’ as his tools - both of these being good answers for peace generation with proper application. Philosophy plays a big role in my life as well for providing tools to live at peace. I also supplement my spiritual path from many other sources as I will go into below. I am only interested in practical application of philosophy though and not bickering and arguing over the unanswerable. So, I prefer truth based discussions over ego based discussions where the truth gets overshadowed by rhetoric. As someone once wrote … “if you don’t know the answer then just say so.”
I was at a philosophy symposium last year and talked with a professor about a teaching / mentor relationship he had with Ayn Rand. He went on to say how after a year they broke up the mentor relationship on a sour note. After I questioned the professor about Rand’s personal life as well as her state of inner peace and happiness, I could see that with all her talents of ‘smarts’ she was bankrupt when the subject turned to peace smarts, contentment and happiness. She was ego based and not practice based when it came to peace generation. Furthermore, she not only destroyed her peace, but from the information that came out of our discussion, the then student’s peace was disturbed at the time and it still sounded disturbed decades later as a distinguished professor and author. Academic smarts are not the same as peace smarts.
The branch of philosophy that deals with the study of ethics and virtue has also helped me along in life. What is virtue and ethics? Some authorities define it as ‘excellence of the soul’ or moral excellence. (Although the Greeks thought of ‘soul and form’ in different terms than say Christians think of soul. For example, the soul of an eye would be its ability to ‘see’ and whether this ability was good or bad would decide whether the soul of an eye had ‘virtue’ or excellence.) The concept for understanding virtue can be told in a story of the ‘Ring of Gyges’ or ‘Myth of Gyges’. This story was taken from Plato’s Republic and recounts how the shepherd Gyges finds a ring on a hand extending from a crack in the earth and removes the ring from the hand and puts it on. Gyges discovers the magic ring gives him powers to be invisible at will and then uses these powers to kill the king, rape the queen and take over the kingdom. As James Allen tells us in “As A Man Thinketh” - “Circumstances does not make the man - it reveals him to himself”
What is virtuous behavior in a flourishing human being? In readily understandable terms we can help define virtue for us from this story of Gyges and by asking ourselves the question, “What would we do if no one was looking or we knew we would not get caught?” No heaven, no hell, no God, no karma, no police, nothing but us and our virtue? Would our actions promote our inner peace as well as the inner peace of others or would our actions destroy our peace and the peace of others? Virtue is not learned from the classroom, other than memorizing definitions. Remember, a fool can only say what he knows ~ it takes a wise man to know what he says. How do we become a success at living a virtuous life and really know what we say? As a lecture on Aristotle mentioned: “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.” We develop it by practice. Practicing ‘excellence of the human soul’ is how.
Beside the philosophical studies of ethics and virtue, a Buddhist or Taoist practice is another good peace developer for anyone to adopt whether atheist, agnostic or believer. Buddhists are generally not required to believe or not believe in God, so anyone can make use of this philosophy irrespective of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. But be careful with your Buddhist studies if you decide to head in this direction. For Buddhism is riddled with useless ego based dogma. If you can sift through the useless as a freethinker and find the gems you will do well.
Personally, I’ve settled on the essence of Buddhism and that is what I work on and find much peace with this type of simplified Buddhist practice.
“The Three Pillars of Buddhism”
1- Practicing mindfulness and meditation to develop peace and self awareness of our own true nature.
2- Accepting the liberating wisdom of impermanence and practicing non-clinging and a lessening of craving and desires.
3- The development of compassion for others.
In addition to the three pillars, we can use the eightfold path to guide us. Within the three pillars and the eightfold path are a lifetime of practice. No need to get lost in endless debate and spend your precious time in idle talk that only serves to massage one’s ego. Plenty of work to do right here, right now, unless we prefer to keep our minds distracted through our perpetual complexities we are so addicted to. We do need to give some thought of the ‘right’ way to live as the eightfold path tells us, so we should never try and be devoid of thought in our lives, but instead look for a balance and let thought serve us for once.
“The Eightfold Path”
Right View
Right Intention
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Concentration
How can you differentiate right from wrong? By peace. You learn what destroys your peace and the peace of others as well as what promotes you inner peace and the inner peace of others. Do you need a teacher for that? Or the Pope to tell you? Or just listen to peace as the best teacher?
The Five precepts are the ‘commandments’ more or less for Buddhists. Although you are not commanded to do a thing. If you wish to live at peace, then proceed the best you can - but it is your choice.
“The Five Precepts”
Refrain from Killing
Refrain from Stealing
Refrain from Sexual Misconduct
Refrain from False Speech
Refrain from the Use of Intoxicants
Once I am at peace, I can share with others about finding peace for themselves, which is the secondary reason I practice. I have no interest in practicing Buddhism for extinguishing reincarnation. These “fear based” reasons for being a Buddhist are not authentic or natural - the persons actions are based on fear or negative consequences otherwise they would not do them. My actions are based on inner peace and if I stray - there goes my peace - it is my choice. Remember what I wrote about above with the myth of Gyges? Take away the fear of pain of karma or hell and you have a different person? A truly virtuous life remains the same irrespective of such fears and is not based on them.
I enjoy life and realize that due to natural law, suffering comes about as part of the process and I accept it as a fair trade off for the privilege of living. Buddhism helps makes this trade off of life and pain more in my favor by lending me support to live a life at peace. I do not practice Buddhism to earn merit for the next life - I practice Buddhism for my own peace generation in THIS LIFE. You see, once a religion requires faith, this is where I leave off with it’s teaching. I only use the tools that can be applied in this life that can be tested to yield peace. Otherwise, if I succumb to fantasy notions I start heading towards the road of delusion. So whether it is heaven, hell, reincarnation or chanting ‘Namo Amitabha Buddha’ for the Buddha to carry me off to the pure land…none of this can be proven as fact and is just based on ego based man and their fantasies.
Still, I am not shy about benefiting from any religious path that offers tools for me to live at peace. I take from ALL spiritual paths without prejudice, my only requirement is that the religious or spiritual tool be one that offers peace. Any tool always has to pass the peace test, this way it speaks of a ‘higher authority’ than just man made dogma - it speaks of universal truth. But, this all has to be done in balance. For there are many true things that are good - but done in excess they become bad. For, even though air and water give us life, they will also give us death when in excess. So always seek balance. For instance, the Muslims have a practice of praying five times a day to Allah. For those that do not know, Allah is the same God of the Jews and of the Old Testament that the Christians worship.
The Muslims pray at sun up, when the sun is at its zenith at noon, when the sun is part way down in the afternoon, when the sun sets and when they go to bed. Even though I am not a Muslim, I borrowed from the Muslim’s prayer schedule to use as a reminder to be mindful of “gratitude” in my life. If you do not want to develop a practice of gratitude, then what about using it as a reminder 5 times a day to relax your breath, practice mindfulness and bring your thoughts back to the present moment? When you have come to a point of gratitude for being able to open your eyes in the morning and being able to take a breath of air everything else is just gravy so to speak. Gratitude plays an important part with finding inner peace, just as being mindful of the present moment and being aware of anything that causes this mindfulness to wander.
If I could define the basis of my spiritual practice it would be that of peace and practicality. Inner peace is the foundation of it all, for we cannot have world peace without first being at peace within. I used to be a Catholic for many years of my life as well as a freethinking Buddhist before becoming an agnostic freethinker.
A few years ago a lady moderator on a Christian forum banned me for claiming that God is peace, telling me “you don’t know who God is.” Funny thing about the Christians. I was a Christian as well as a freethinking Buddhist in my earlier life and 100% of the Christian forums have banned me, and 90% of the Buddhist forums have also banned me. This says something about the Christians and Buddhists and whether they practice what they preach? The Christians chanting the Golden rule of Reciprocity and Charity and Humility? and the Buddhists preaching Compassion, Do No Harm and Egoless Non-Self?
Why am I banned so much? Is it for getting in fights or flame wars? No…I get banned for writing about truth. When someone disagrees with you, apply the law of opposites to get at the truth. This removes the personalities and focusses on the principles and helps you see the entire picture. If God is not peace, then God must be the opposite of peace…turmoil and unrest. I prefer to believe God is peace and God is the authority on the subject of peace. The difference between an authority and an authoritarian is this. An authority speaks from a place of truth and such speaks as an authority. Whereas an authoritarian rules by fear and not by truth. For the truth stands on it own and the authoritarian stands on their ego.
The Buddhists have a set of rules they use to determine what are definitive truths and what are not. This can also be applied to such questions.
Do not rely on just the person but rely on the doctrine.
With respect to the doctrine, do not rely on just the words, but rely on the meaning.
With respect to the meaning, do not rely on just meaning requiring interpretation, but rely on meaning that is definitive.
With respect to definitive meaning, do not rely on just dualistic understanding but rely on the wisdom of the direct perception of the truth.
Bringing this worship business back to the topic of religion, do we worship a higher power out of fear for if we do not worship this higher power we will be killed? Sounds like the aliens in an old “Superman” movies that came to earth to tell us to bow down to them or else? If there was a God or a higher power does this entity need us to ‘bow down’ to a ‘big ego’ or does God need us to ‘act right’ to our companions as well as to act right to ourselves? Bowing down produces no peace, whether in the person that demands it due to an over bloated ego, nor does it foster peace within the person forced to worship against their will. But this is how man made religions work - they are run by fear, greed and ego. I prefer to be truth and peace based. Many think God is like ‘Santa Claus’ and must come through with their demands, just as we did as greedy children making up a long, impossible list for Santa to fill. This smacks of the ego based practitioner.
The ego based person prays thinking they know better than God does. The truly spiritual based person prays for God’s will and not their own, for if they truly knew better than God…the practitioner would be the God. Nothing wrong with asking if one is a believer, but always end such requests humbly with accepting Gods or a higher powers will with gratitude. Can you imagine if everyone’s prayers were answered according to our self centered and conflicting demands? The world would be in real turmoil then. No, I prefer to make the God of Peace and the God of Nature two Gods I serve and as such my actions can be evaluated in simple terms of bringing me in harmony with these two Gods or not.
Many times we violate the three branches of laws that govern us and constantly ask God or a higher power to give us ‘hall passes’ to avoid the consequences of our actions. Such prayer is again ego based, thinking we should have preference over the rest of the world for wishing to be exempt from our actions
We are all governed by these three areas of laws.
1 - Natural Law
2 - Divine or spiritual law (if you believe in spiritual matters)
3 - Manmade laws
I find that sometime spiritual practitioners neglect the natural laws that govern our bodies and suffer in this area from lack of living a balanced life. Some of us forget we are spiritual beings residing in physical bodies living in physical world and governed my both spiritual and physical or natural laws in addition to man made laws. We need some effort with spiritual work and some effort in physical work for a good balance. Some of us think we can defy man made laws as well as divine or spiritual laws. But no matter how defiant the person is…we all answer to natural law. We all bow to nature in the end.
Anyway, you are free to think or not think of God or higher power as you see fit. I am only a ‘minor authority’ on peace and do not wish to be an authoritarian, so I allow freedom for all to think as they wish and only ask the same courtesy be extended to me - reciprocity. Psychologist William James once said, “A great many people believe they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” This applies to atheists as well as the religious or the pious. To avoid prejudice, we have to be careful of ‘black or white’ absolutes if you claim to truth based and not ego based in your beliefs. I work to keep an open mind for all religions as well as those persons that believe nothing.
When I discussed Christian principles one time an Atheist piped up to say “the Christians have no principles,” and “Jesus was a fabled creation of the Christians.” When we sperate the personalities from the principles it makes looking at things much easier. When I am referring to Christian principles I speak of such things as charity, works of mercy and the golden rule, where the emphasis is on principles and not on the personalities of the church. For even if Jesus was just created as a fable, these Christian principles are universal truths in their own right if one desires to live a life at peace and promote the inner peace of others in this world.
“The Corporal Works of Mercy”
To feed the hungry
To give drink to the thirsty
To clothe the naked
To harbour the harbourless
To visit the sick
To ransom the captive
To bury the dead
“The Spiritual Works of Mercy”
To instruct the ignorant
To counsel the doubtful
To admonish sinners
To bear wrongs patiently
To forgive offenses willingly
To comfort the afflicted
To pray for the living and the dead
You see, by applying the rule of reciprocity or rule of opposites we can see if we were in these positions of the needy mentioned above, we would like such charity bestowed on us for the most part. What about our children, parents and loved ones? Wouldn’t we wish the same for them? We have no loved ones? What about our neighbors? The Christian ethic says to treat one another as we would wish to be treated. As we give ~ so we receive. Even if an atheist, as we give peace - we receive inner peace as many of the tools I mentioned above do not require belief in God, they only requirement is a desire to be at peace and to bring peace to others. This is the Christian doctrine in a nutshell, when we put principles before personalities.
As you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds and water these seeds within you as well. As James Allen wrote in “As a man Thinketh” ~ To think well of all, to be cheerful with all, to patiently learn to find the good in all - such unselfish thoughts are the very portals of heaven; and to dwell day by day in thoughts of peace toward every creature will bring abounding peace to their possessor." This is universal truth that transcends man made religions. Remember, we do not have to do it perfectly. Just look for direction and forget perfection - for perfection or range is of the ego and form is of the soul. There are many tools for peace within the worlds spiritual paths, no one said these paths are perfect, in fact, it was once said that walking the spiritual path is akin to walking on a razors edge. But if we bother to be honest, non prejudicial and to look, we can find tools that can help us be at peace whether atheist, agnostic or believer.
In the Gnostic gospel of Thomas, it was reported:
“The disciples asked Jesus, when will the kingdom come? Jesus replied, 'The kingdom will not come by watching for it. It will not be said - look here or look there. Rather, the kingdom of heaven is spread out upon the earth and men do not see it.”
What does this quote mean for the atheist as well as the religious minded person?
For the atheist or as a nonbeliever of an afterlife: THIS LIFE IS IT - This life is either heaven or hell as you make it. Just grabbing all the gusto you can will not give you peace. It requires much more than that - for greed is never satisfied by attainment, it is only satisfied by contentment. We are reminded to be mindful of each moment given to us and to be grateful for this life. Being of service to others and charitable actions help lead us to contentment and peace. There are 3 components for a happy life: Contentment, love or compassion and gratitude. When we realize that happiness and contentment are there for the taking and that they are independent from our circumstances it sometimes can sink in that there is nothing stopping us from being content and happy this very instant. It is your choice alone as to whether you make this life one of peace for yourself and others or not, but in either case you will reap what you sow. “Just as a life of virtue yields its own reward, a life of vice yields its own punishment” - Plutarch
For the religious minded person and believer in an afterlife: Jesus’ saying will foreshadow things to come. For if we make this earthly life hell for ourselves and others, we have a slim chance of doing better in an afterlife. Just paying lip service to religious principles and doing the opposite will not do it. Again mindfulness of our actions is most important. An old Buddhist saying sheds some light on our journey “when one eye is kept on the destination, it only leaves one eye left for the journey.” If we keep fixated on the after life, and can’t find peace in the present life, we can lose sight of the fact that our actions can turn the present moment in a living hell for us as well as others. Actions speak louder than words and this especially applies to such religious beliefs. By applying the rule of reciprocity and Christian ethics and charity we have better chance at entering any afterlife and in the interim help make this life a peaceful one for all that dwell on earth.
So, whether you are on either end of this spectrum of beliefs, the choices are the same as to the direction we take when it comes to inner peace. The seeds of enlightenment are all around us - we only have to seek the truth and come to peace within to realize this.
A quote on finding peace from Thich Nhat Hanh
“There is no way to peace, peace is the way. This means that we can realize peace right here in the present moment with our look, our smile, our words and our actions. Peace work in not a means, each step we take should be peace. Every step we take should be joy. Every step we take should be happiness. Are you massaging Mother Earth every time your foot touches her? Are you planting seeds of joy and peace? Enlightenment, peace and joy will not be granted by someone else. The well is within us and if we dig deeply in the present moment the water will spring forth. If we are determined, we can do it. We don’t need the future. We can smile, breath fully and relax Everything we want is here in the present moment. Peace is every step. Shall we continue our journey?”
If we consider what we personally would like our experience of life to be then religion falls short. While we want a world without strife and conflict, a world where all are treated as we would like to be, religion creates a world where this is not realizeable.
Religion creates a world of discrimination and conflict, a world where suffering and cruelty are acceptable. There is no one more violent than someone in a religious furor. As a social control mechanism how could one expect anything different.
It appears to me that the spiritual aspect of religion is just a facade for evil lurking below.
It is perplexing to me that religion does this.
So…
I must reject religion
not for its ideals but for its actions.
I walk my own path of ideals that does not devolve into the strife of religion.
… Religion is a philosophy with the following two tenets: 1) “souls”, and 2) before/after life.
That’s all that’s required for a philosophy to be a religion, from time immemorial.
A tenet of God is simply not required for a philosophy to be a religion.
Knowing that “souls” and before/after life are the foundation of all religions, it’s easier to discern the psychology of religion.
“Souls” and before/after life are creative manifestations of the psyche that fall under the category of fantasy coping mechanisms.
From the beginning of humanity when the caveman lost his mate to death, her dead body seemed lifeless … like she was “gone” … “no longer”.
But his lack of brain development in the emotional vein prevented him from mourning that loss unto Occam-like acceptance of the finality of death, and the pain of that loss was powerful, such that he “ran” away from his feelings and into his “head” to avoid it. And his “inclination” to avoid mourning was exacerbated by his own natural fear of his own demise, a fear that was likely, in those days, previously quite exacerbated.
Thus, without grieving the loss, his mind, in order to avoid the pain of that loss, does what the mind usually does under such difficult circumstances: it fantasizes a way out of the difficult reality and the difficult reality’s associated lingering, often debilitating, pain.
So, his mate was dead “and gone”, gone “elsewhere” was the coping mechanism, as she was no longer “there” so she must be “elsewhere”, and her life was now not there but “departed” to “somewhere else”.
For her to go elsewhere, there had to be an elsewhere to go to.
So the “spiritual realm” was concocted as a place to go “to”.
Which implied that there was a separate part of one that was their “spirit” that could go “there”.
Which implied that maybe “there” was where we came “from”.
And the fantasy took on this understandably common life of its own everywhere.
Because ancients lived nearly everywhere on the planet and spread everywhere to boot, the culture of souls and afterlife spread with us … and was ultimately codified and socialized and given a name: religion.
Variations on a theme in all religions, the theme of “souls” and before/after life, a theme which binds all religions by encyclopedic definition, accounts for the different world-wide “brands”.
But they’re all based on the fantasy of “souls” and before/after life, psychological creations that do not reflect reality.
And religion remains today because we remain at the very least culturally predisposed to avoid mourning our losses (despite our brain’s evolutionary adjustments that make mourning easier (at least in women )), and because we cope with the exacerbated fear of the reality of our mortality by wishing that fear away via the fantasy of a “heavenly” afterlife, and because tradition is … comforting.
Indeed, there is no end to this comforting, that’s what TV is for… and alcohol… and philosophy. The latter in that it supplies answers, regardless if they are correct or not they supply comfort for our insecurities, possibly, for awhile anyway, just as religion does, there’s really no difference.
I really can’t find much of a fault with what she’s written. This is horribly out of character for both of us!
To restore equilibrium, I must ask . . .
Sabrina,
What about the Greco-Roman religion that had Gods, but no substantial afterlife or much of a concept of a soul? I’m just curious how you fold that sort of thing in.
Man, you are talkin’ a lot of sense here and in the why psych is the least discussed thread. I think I may have misjudged you and I may be sorry for that.
My thought is that the supernatural is mere speculation. We have no way of knowing if there are supernatural beings or places. Much of the ideas were past down to us over ages and there is no way to disprove or prove that they exist. However, people still believe that the supernatural exists. With that being said, I doubt they exist and thus most likely to approach any idea that is not directly observable with much skepticism. However, I typically run into problems with those of some sort of supernatural faith because they beleive and some won’t recognize that they may be wrong.
I have many ideas about the world and my place in it. I think that the only rational posiiton to take is agnosticism. For we are without knowledge about god or any other supernatural force.
All that’s required is both “souls” and a before/after life.
The “substantial” or “much of a concept” attribute one might observe about a particular religion’s “souls” and before/after life often vary with the religion’s “need” to make much publicity of it.
The less contention about the matter, the less competition from competing religions, the more acceptance that religion’s defining tenets receive.
In the case of Greco-Romans, they simply believed without controversy that death was the separation of body and soul, and the possibility of passing into a new plane of existence after life.
End of story – no more needs to be said for them.
Now if they could have possibly burned in hell or received 40 virgins in heaven for slaughtering innocents, you’d hear much more about the concept’s significance on the Coliseum Nightly News.
Here is a link on the topic of Greco-Roman “souls” and before/after life, for those who love links: http://www.theologywebsite.com/history/afterlife.shtml: "Death was defined as the separation of body and soul. Two strands of thought were present in reference to the location of the dead. On one hand, the remains (whether buried, burned, or exposed) were localized in a particular place, important as the spot where the loved ones took their leave of the dead and where honor was appropriately shown to them. On the other hand, there was the possibility that the departed passed into a new plane of existence. … … "
It doesn’t matter how much emphasis is placed on the philosophy’s religion-defining two tenets. All that matters is that they are both present to make the philosophy a religion.
Maybe you misjudged me … and maybe you didn’t.
Regardless, if I yank your chain, don’t take it personally.
The Genealogy of Morals gives a good expose of the religious type, as does one chapter in Beyond Good and Evil. For the psychology of the CHristian/Jewish priest, refer to The Antichrist. (All by Nietzsche) Not to say that these are definitive discussions of the topic but they are very insightful and worth a read.
Crime only exists in the mind, does it not? One act may be criminal to some and not to others.
A crime is relative to a belief system. Under one belief system an act is a crime, and under another it is not.
America has defined crime to mean a set of things and religion defines crime to be a set of things. Sometimes their paths intersect and sometimes they don’t.
Religion is very like science. Science and any religion both need a leap of faith. There are gaps in science just as large as any of the beliefs in God. This need in us puts us above the animal kingdom as well as our communication skills. I agree religion has been used to control people and has been used by power mad people for their own ends, but does this make it wrong?
A more interesting question is why we have this spiritual need?
Have fun with that one.
Aware.
The only leap of faith I am aware of science having is the one brought up by Hume which, while perfectly logical, has very little bearing on real life. I would contend that introducing a situation which no one had considered previously and then retrofitting said concept onto the greater structure and then calling it ‘faith’ is, well, silly.
Religion is a result of humanity’s search for meaning. It is the pursuit of ultimate answers to existential questions such as “Who am I, where did I come from, where am I going?” Societies provided traditional answers to those questions that are adequate for some. It’s in the interest of society to control people as you say. The rapidity of technological and social change, the collision of religious traditions and the viability of secular alternatives are threats to traditional answers. Still the major enduring religions are repositories of the accumulated wisdom of many generations. They have value which should not be lightly dismissed IMHO.
As interesting as your question is, there seem too many variables in religious belief and the human psyche for a simple answer. At the moment I am not aware of any research on the issue. It might be of interest to criminologists too. Maybe they have done research on the subject.
People need a basis to make decisions. We all have a religion because we all need a base from which to make decisions. You have to decide shit every day all the time. The stories from our past are what we use to make those decisions. The stories of our past are our religion. We are all religious.
We use the word ‘religion’ to mean Christianity, Bhuddism, Judaism, but they’re just a common set of stories and interpretations of the stories.
Without a religion, without a way to make decisions we couldn’t do anything. We would be perplexed about whether it was okay to leave the house or not. We would be perplexed about whether it was okay to get in a car and drive it. Religion tells us it’s okay to leave the house and it’s okay to get into the car. It’s not just abortion and fag rights. It’s everything. Everything you believe is your religion.
Bioethics doesn’t have a philosophical base to work off of, certainly not a shared one. Yet, bioethicists routinely reach the same conclusions, despite this.
There has been a fair amount of interest in studying how a foundationless system can and does function while also being quite parsimonious in its decision making.
Here is a paper that tries to retrofit a foundation onto it. Interesting concept, I think.
Common Morality and Human Finitude: A Foundation for Bioethics
Robert Veatch. “Common Morality and Human Finitude: A Foundation for Bioethics.” Weltanschaulilche Offenheit in der Bioethik. Ed. Eva Baumann, Alexander Bink, Arnd T. May, Peter Schroder, Corinna Iris Schutzeiechel. Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot, GmbH, 2004.
)), and because we cope with the exacerbated fear of the reality of our mortality by wishing that fear away via the fantasy of a “heavenly” afterlife, and because tradition is … 
The latter in that it supplies answers, regardless if they are correct or not they supply comfort for our insecurities, possibly, for awhile anyway, just as religion does, there’s really no difference.