On the nature of religion and religion as an aspect of human nature

Excerpts from my answers to some questions from a friend concerning some of my "big picture" view of religion and humanity...

On cultural archetypes and religion

[F]rom what I understand it is not unreasonable to suggest that comparative religion and cultural anthropology can be used to support the idea that there are common themes and relationships that are embodied in symbolic forms in each "culture" or "cultural system". These symbols reflect generally shared stories and meanings which are then passed on and reinforced or reinterpreted from one generation to the next. There are frequently noted similarities between symbols or between stories of different cultures that are not though to come from a common (even if distantly remote) shared history or diffusion. Sometimes these similarities are very superficial, such as two cultures using a particular shape or image. Other times the similarities can appear to be profound, which is to say, that deep down they seem to be re-telling a common mythical form, or as Jung referred to them, an archetype. It is also true that we each have our own frame for understanding our experiences and the reported experiences of others, a way in which we construct and amend our individual maps of "reality". And sharing the same stories and symbols, i.e. the same cultural "text", suggests we share substantial portions of this frame and/or of our maps. To what degree the apparent similarities reflect our interpretations of the symbols and stories of others based on our own frame and map (i.e. ethnocentrism) and to what degree these similarities reflect similar evolved behaviors and the same needs as members of our species (and commonalities in how we perceive reality and encode our maps) is an interesting issue. To claim that the social and behavioral sciences have made any conclusive and sweeping refutation of any useful application of Jungian thought at this level of analysis strikes me as either ignorance or limiting oneself to a very narrow selection of scholarship and a more narrow form of interpreting that scholarship. This level of analysis neither "proves" nor "disproves" the supernatural (which, as you know, I am personally disinclined to accept).

On whether religion as normative for humans

I would say that it seems perfectly normative for people to be religious. That of course begs the question of what it means to be religious. There are several definitions that I like, but to be consistent with my answer above, I suggest it involves the priorities we use in framing and mapping our reality and in particular how we understand the meaning of existence and our place within it. This often includes shared stories and symbols about our distant origin and what a complete and well-lived human experience entails. This is frequently associated with the various transitions recognized throughout life - common transitions include birth, becoming an adult, marriage and/or becoming a parent, and death). It can also point to other aspects of what it means to live a full and proper life, including an orientation towards something beyond our own ego/superego, which may include a system of socially conscious ethics or the production of and participation in (sacred) art and music, to name a couple of common examples. Even the tendency towards magical and superstitious thinking, which may play major or minor roles in such framings and mappings of reality, seems to be a fundamental aspect of human psychology. And as a part of a cultural system, there is rich source of symbolism reflecting generally shared stories and meanings which are then passed on and reinforced or reinterpreted from one generation to the next. The thing to keep in mind is that the idea of "religion" as a distinct part of our maps of reality (or even as a separate map) is not the normal human condition. It is, as you are aware, a Western concept rooted in the Enlightenment. Speaking from my own personal thoughts and speculations, I would say that "religion" (without such separation and distinction and as I have defined it here) is the original foundation of/reflection of our ancestors' maps of reality. To say it is "normative" to our species would almost be an understatement.

On the "God spot" in the brain and mysticism

The God module in the brain has recently been challenged by new research, but even without that challenge, there is nothing that says that such a "module" couldn't be a part of the inherited biology of all human beings from a common ancestor with that same trait. Besides, this makes the presumption that God=religion or that religion must include God. Even if one accepted that premise, I don't think such research can demonstrate the reality of God. The "light/perception" analogy demonstrates why I believe this.

To reiterate my perspective, essentially everything of which we are aware stems from our own direct experience. We then construct mental "maps" based on our own explanation-forming mental processes as well as from sharing and borrowing the explanations of others that we know and trust. These maps form the basis for what we call "reality", and when we believe that there is one true reality that can be known, we tend to refer to this as "objective reality". It is somewhat ironic then that our belief in and assumptions about an "objective reality" come from a consensus of subjective experiences about what is real! Hence even claims of "objectivity" are still extremely subjective. And when we go beyond the individual level, it can get more complicated when many people share large portions or overviews of their mental maps of reality. We tend to trust our maps based not only on our own interpretations of our experiences but because others claim to see things the same way.

A blind person might not have "light" on their map of reality, and hence the experience of light, which occurs in the perception known as "sight", would be some kind of false experience of reality (i.e. hallucination, delusion, etc). Furthermore, this blind person might suggest that based on brain scans of people claiming to "see", there consistently is a certain kind of activity in a particular region of the brain. Not allowing for light on her map of reality, this blind individual assumes that this brain activity must be giving a false sensation and a false perception, i.e., that "sight" and belief in "light" is just in your head and not objectively real. If we substitute "the Divine" or "God" for "light" and "mystical experience/samadhi" for "sight", then we can see why this analogy is apt. It corresponds to the work you implicitly refer to that has been done to try to show that when Buddhist monks, Christian nuns, and other contemplatives are in deep prayer and meditation, a similar reaction occurs in their brains. On the surface, the shared experience and its physical correlation do not "prove" or "disprove" the "objective" nature of mystical encounters. This of course is just as much of a problem for someone wanting to disprove the reality of the Divine as it is for someone trying to "prove" it. I would also suggest that [this] is unnecessary and may confuse the issue.

These experiences are reportedly "noetic", which would suggest that their reality can only be confirmed by experiencing them first-hand. However, I do recall recently reading passage and corresponding footnote in The God We Never Knew by Marcus Borg in which people who study visions, shamanic encounters, and other phenomena do distinguish (as do many people in these non-industrialized cultures) between hallucinations (in which reality is simply confused and distorted) and visions (in which there a different aspect of reality is said to be experienced). [I haven't read it yet, but I do believe there is a book with a title like "Cosmic Serpent" which deals with the question of whether such shamanic experiences are just hallucinations by examining the anthropological investigation of a group living in the Amazon.] I would say that direct experience of the Divine is the best argument for its reality. Ironically, such experiences, from what I have read, point to the reality beyond our maps, beyond our concepts and categories. In other words, from various accounts God/the Divine is experienced as a depth to reality that goes beyond our normal "frame" of understanding and which cannot (at least not accurately) be "placed" on our maps. In fact, allowing for a greater fluidity of our reality and flexibility of our maps would seem to be pre-requisite for having a such a deep spiritual revelation (and would be a part of it). Hence, to borrow an old and well-used image but very appropriate image (also used in that Borg book and by a Buddhist monk I know), it is like a sphere passing through Flatland.

On the notion asserted by some atheists that religion is just a failed or primitive science

Yes, well, that model suits (some of) them, doesn't it? But religion is a big tent where people put everything, and then they can't figure out why it doesn't all make sense as a big jumbled mess. We have to be very specific about what we mean when we discuss religion. For example, from a Western perspective, superstition can be viewed a way people gain a feeling of control over that which they cannot control, of knowing what they cannot know. Magic, the engine of superstition, can then be presumed to be an incorrect or unsubstantiated attribution of causality. What you are describing your complaint is "religion as superstition and magic". Similarly, we can define the supernatural as the hidden or occult realm of superstition and magic where the unseen forces at work operate, and we can describe the supernatural as a set of ontological category violations which provoke a sense of mystery (see Pascal Boyer's theory of religion, which he conflates with supernaturalism). But again, that is just one set of human experiences which are tied together. In fact, it is typical for us to simply label any beliefs or activities involving such themes as "religion". I have previously given my own preferred definition of religion, which does not require any of these elements (although they are often associated with religion because magic and the supernatural are generally presumed to be a part of the reality which religion is ordering).

--
The rest of the original discussion also includes evolutionary speculations as well.