Sadly, I think ritual has proven a remarkably ineffective way of determining who can be trusted, as human history is jam packed with those who are willing to participate in those rituals and to engage in the costly signaling, not because of shared values, but in order to manipulate others in the group, to exploit the trust of those group members in the ritual and language for their own interests, and often to the detriment of the group (as the New testament authors depict Jesus as explicitly pointing out, with his condemnation of those who draw near unto him with their lips, but whose hearts are far from him).
Yes, there are always those willing to do some or all of whatever costly social signaling is necessary in order to cheat others. I think this becomes more of an issue the larger the group grows because it takes longer for the disconnect between the obvious signals and the actual behavior (hypocrisy) to be detected and/or filter into general knowledge. Under a certain size or with a certain transparency (like with a free press doing investigative journalism) the hypocrisy (failure to adhere to the group norms) is evident sooner. I don't think it necessarily fails as a marker though because even though someone "professes the faith", the very fact that they are NOT actually following it is an indication of their lack of trustworthiness. Perhaps that is why, in my family at least, which exact flavor of religion one followed was less important than how much one tried to follow the general moral precepts which are common to most religions. This exact issue is why I always thought it ridiculous that America in the 1950s thought putting "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance would foil the "godless Communists". If they are godless then an oath referencing God means nothing so parroting what are, to them, meaningless words is no barrier to what they believe is their duty to their country or ideals (depending on if their espionage is prompted by patriotism or idealism)
@@81caspen I would suspect not. I think a better solution would be to encourage people to NOT rely on tribal association and specific, superficial costly signaling to determine trustworthiness, but rather to examine based on a wider range of behaviors and criteria that go beyond tribal identity markers, instead focusing on signs of deeper values. In other words, thinking critically, and realizing there are no shortcuts to those evaluations.
The question was followed by 'seriously', so I think that helps imply that it was a genuine question. Just because emotion came with the question, that doesn't discredit the question as being genuine.
Hi, Professor! I think I understand the economy of using jargon, avoiding the time-consuming task of simplifying, but by using such words as teleological, agency, cognitive, accretion, sociality, etc., you may exclude those too impatient to look up every new term. Simpler synonyms would be welcome. The end times, making our own choices, what has to do with the mind and thinking, sticking to, needing togetherness, etc. By the way, I'm going through each one of your videos. I love a recent episode of yours and Dan's on the infancy narratives. Amazing. Shalom.
What an amazingly succinct and cogent explanation. As a student of philosophy, sociology, psychology and social psychology, I can attest to the accuracy or at least this is the rational explanation embraced by scholars. If you think through the implications of Dan’s explanation, you can sus out the economics of it as well
I really appreciate the bibliography with this one, such an interesting subject and as a lapsed Catholic from Pittsburgh, resonates on multiple levels…
It's wild that people use the "he just says things because he's a mormon" thing against Dan. Like, dude talks about his personal beliefs so little that he can be hard to distinguish from an atheist.
@@Debunked421 i get the feeling he's a "cultural" mormon the same way Dawkins is a "cultural" christian. He enjoys the social and cultural aspects but doesn't actually believe the mythology
When I was in college -- many, many years ago -- I learned from the sociologist Andrew Greeley (who was drawing from the work of Clifford Geertz) that ALL of us are born into one or more "traditions" (nationalistic, cultural, etc.), and that these traditions have their staying power due to possessing 5 components: Symbols, Rituals, Community, Heritage, and a Differentiation from those outside the tradition. Religions are just another one of those traditions most of us are born into, and they possess those 5 components in spades! There's data to prove all that. 🙂
This explanation is excellent because it manages to answer the question, without the necessity for a inclusion of a diety or deities in the concept of a religion. There are plenty of modes of thinking that meet the criteria of what we think of as a religion without a supernatural element.
Thanks Dan, an excellent and workable summary definition of what ‘Religion’ means/is. In this upload you encompass the use/usefulness of Religion for the individual trying to make sense of, and to order their understanding/experience of ‘the other’ beyond the physical world. This is its use to the individual congregant or member. What you don’t go into is how others have always used religion as a tool for social control. This is its use for people like the Pope or the Protestant evangelical mega-church pastor. As a teenager growing up in a multi-generational extended fundamentalist evangelical Protestant family spread across North America I was steeped in ‘religion’ and then later as a young adult I left home to go to a major university in a big city which was a effervescent with all sorts of ideas and I came to understand just what Lenin meant by his observation that religion is the opiate of the masses. A quote paradoxically that fundamentalist evangelicals like to use to teach the supposed horrors of ‘godless’ Communism. For leaders religion is the way to shut down individual inquiry and especially of critical thinking and review of the bath of assumptions that I and all fundamentalist evangelicals (and conservative Catholics and LDS) are brought up in. Questioning errant nonsense is dealt with by the very successful technique of calling such apostasy and a sin and such a person must be expelled from the flock of sheeple.
My answer: Culture, tradition, humanity's desire to believe in something and other more complexities. On 1 hand, we have those who believe in gods dogmatically, and on the other hand, we have those who acknowledge the limits of their believed gods while accepting the changing data. And those in between.
I can’t like this video enough. Such a good overview and I’ve read a few. I haven’t read any of the ones listed in this video though and would love to - thanks for the recommendations.
THAT was an extremely well defined explanation of religion. Beyond that I would say that many religious people use religion as a way of justifying their personal prejudices and bigotries and xenophobia by claiming these things are in some way "approved" by their God, in much the same way as the men who wrote the Torah/Old Testament scriptures wrote that it was actually God who ordained both slavery and genocide.
@Dalekzilla i would not say that's necessary why Religion (capital intended) is still a thing as there are so many types of religions across the world. From living traditions like hinduism to revived traditions like hellenism and hethenism
@@Dalekzilla fair enough, I just wanted to say something because while i agree that religious people being bigots is a problem, I don't think it's a major reason religion is still a thing.
4 วันที่ผ่านมา +3
that's one of the social aspects of religion. another one is autocracy. religions are almost always authoritarian.
Define "almost always" You take your experience with modern, american prodestantism and pain the entire concept of religion across the entire world and hundreds of thousands of years of human existence with that brush. Were the religions of people in siberia inherently bigoted and autocratic? How about Polynesia?
What makes you believe it's well-argued? I'm curious because I see no arguing. I see appeals to some weak claims about how things could be based on certain factors, but that would be like saying I have argued why you believe you were born by appealing to traits appealing to cultural belief and a necessity for explanation or something of that sort.
@natanaellizama6559 Oh my, I was simply giving my own opinion, and didn't mean to upset anyone. I have viewed a great many of Dan's offerings and found that he can always substantiate his arguments. This subject doesn't lend itself to clinical dissection or hard and fast answers. We're dealing with the human mind here. It is a matter of pointing out the diverse reasons which lead one person to believe and another doubt. I don't know why some people choose to believe in one god or many gods and some to scorn those beliefs. I'm content to leave them to their own ways of thinking, and to wish them, and you well.
@@elainethomson7146 No problem! I did not mean to give the notion I was upset or anything. Was just opening a dialogue and a bit of pushback which I think necessary and healthy. In my view, Dan is not exempt from the very thing he criticizes, and at times falls harder on it, taking controversial, multiple angled topics(like this one) and stretching a personal view with a given interpretation as if it were either fact or overwhelming scholar consensus, and I find that in a deeper insight it turns out to be neither. So a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted, and even times something stronger than that(as his own claims turn to be more philosophically and ideologically motivated and structured than mere scholarship).
@natanaellizama6559 No offence taken, I was a bit worried that I'd caused upset to anyone. You're right. Of course, healthy scepticism is a good and necessary thing, not practiced enough. I thought you were looking for a definitive answer to what's really an unanswerable question. I'm not a believer myself but do respect others' right to believe if not their actual beliefs. However, I can't understand why anyone today should still think that entities outside our material world can have agency in it. Thank you for a very polite and respectful reply. I do wish you well for the future.
As if hyperactive agency detection, ego/duality and teleological instinct weren't enough... I really like your inclusions of ritual as investment toward social proof. It's true for probably every social or ideological group. Even as we "prove" to others we also prove to ourselves. It's kind of strange to think that aspect of us that led to recognizing random items in the world as potential tools also led us to ask "why" (function and intent) about everything.
And yet religion has been and continues to be one of the most divisive social constructs humans have come up with. The slightest difference in beliefs or practices can bring about brutal conflicts that can last for centuries.
It has been beneficial to those in power to leverage religion to serve their purposes. Since it is a helpful social construct for establishing trust, it stands to reason that it can also be used to draw your people together and label everyone else "other" and therefore untrustworthy.
@@giantflamingrabbitmonster8124Never believe someone when they say "I used to be an atheist" lol it's not likely that they're telling the truth. If they are, there's a medication for that, or they were never an atheist and don't know what the word actually means. It's highly unbelievable that a rational person who doesn't believe this stuff is suddenly talking to a god when there isn't one. That's a red flag. I see this bait so often, usually in atheist circles.
Re-ligio was attributed a double origin in Latin : legere (to read) and ligare (to bond) + re : repetition. Thus, it seeks to create bonds between people, through 'reading again' what the past has transmitted. From there, a religion is an attempt to define the human being, because that is the common trait between all those who are involved in the religion
Religious wars between variations of the same religion, wars between different religions, and the extermination of individuals whose lives are not considered valuable for not believing in a specific religion, prove that religion is not a social tool that promotes cohesiveness and cooperative coexistence among people.
sample bias. How would these groups who fight over religion reach their numbers without religion? Non-religious society cant even keep human brain together (mental health and unliving statistics), not speaking of families or state.
My question is: How is it that the New Testament is able to say that something happened from noon to three o'clock and that Jesus cried out at 3 o'clock when there were no clocks. What sort of time-keeping did they use and what language was used in the ancient manuscripts that indicate time so precisely? (e.g. Mark 15:33-34)
Sundials were pretty old technology by the first century C.E. Of course, nobody would say "3 o'clock" - they'd say 'the ninth hour', since sunrise to sunset were divided into 12 hours.
Hi Mary - John (above) is correct. You're automatically thinking of our modern clock time, which is only 500 or 600 years old. But ancient civilizations like China and Egypt developed ways of keeping approximate time during the day (sundials) and both day and night (water clocks, hourglasses). If you stop and think about it, keeping time, at least during the day, is vital to organize civic life. If you read "History of timekeeping devices" in Wikipedia, you'll find all the wonderful details. So the Roman soldiers would be gathered to bring Jesus out of his cell maybe shortly after sunrise, then after the long, slow trek to Calvary, they would crucify him around 3 hours later (their 3rd Hour, our 9am), etc.
This question is typically posed in terms of science: with all the flood of scientific discoveries of the past 200 years, how can anybody still believe in religion? Dan gives the best answer - that the human mind is still built like it always has been. Corollary: modern science uses an artificial set of rules in its activity, running counter to evolved thought processes. That's OK, though; practically all our technology is artificial, but we use it anyway.
@@Merrick Some of the artificial rules: - Formal logic - Mathemics beyond arithmetic* - Formation of testable hypotheses - Reliance on repeatable observation for verification of ideas, aka: - Developing ideas (theories) that generalize from observations, and using them to apply to conditions not yet observed - Use of tools (e.g. microscopes, telescopes) to observe phenomena outside the scope of human senses - No miracles; no arbitrary actions by deities - Building on previous knowledge, rather than honoring ancient wisdom, including: - Abandoning old ideas that no longer fit (new) observations; not cling to a faith * One could argue that any math beyond simple addition is artificial. To see natural human thought in action, look up Flat Earthers. They deny all of classical physics in favor of naive common sense. (There’s no gravity, no relative motion, no outer space in their world. They believe that the sun and moon and stars are merely lights in the sky.)
@@Merrick Presumably Roytee means the scientific method where one proposes an experiment that will confirm or disprove one's explanation for a phenomenon, rigorously tests one's hypothesis, and makes the appropriate changes when all or a portion of a hypothesis is disproven. As opposed to telling ourselves a story explaining the phenomenon enough times until we believe it.
Great answer. You know, this would be a fun conversation with you and Dr.Justin Sledge of the Esoterica channel. If memory serves he practices a non-theistic form of Judaism and it would be interesting to listen to you both talk about how a scholar of religion and religious history addresses their own sense of spiritual or mindfulness practice. 🖖
"So, from an evolutionary psychology perspective by the individual... And then from a evo-sociology level.... And can I mention the terms 'discursive' and 'in-group signalling' too?" He just casually did a tour of several academic fields, and it's blowing my mind.
4 วันที่ผ่านมา +1
@@interiot2 he didn't say anything I didn't figure out by age 10
His PhD thesis at the University of Exeter focused on cognitive linguistics and the cognitive science of religion. So the statements he made in this video are pretty authoritative.
The great thinkers down, the ages have pondered these questions over their lifetimes. And people think that four minute explanation is great! Sounds like some sort of bias to me. Einstein said that you should make things as simple as possible, but no more simple. To me, reducing such a question to a four minute answer (which is a great achievement!) Is clear evidence that the question has not been adequately addressed.
I know that I would have become an atheist after listening to Dr. Dan. ... But I already have that covered. I've been a Buddhist for over 50 years. 😊 His scholarship is so all-encompassing that I am in awe of his ability to learn.
@Dice_roller I believe that you are speaking of Hinduism. Anyone can become a buddha. It is a life condition that everyone possesses. Not the worship of the historical Buddha, Shakyamuni. Although some sects still believe he has the power to grant wishes. The Buddha taught different forms of practice over a 50 year period in response to his audience at the time.
Great answer to the question of where religion came from. The reason it is still around is because the powerful and the religious have conspired to stand in the way of educating the populace. Religion is born from ignorance and powerful and wealthy forces work hard to keep people ignorant.
I liked what Dan said. I like most of what Dan says! But I’m left with a big “but“……. It felt to me like a clever academic answer, which is actually invalidating the experience of millions of people. On this occasion, Dan sounded a bit like a “nothing, but-er” I felt this answer was more worthy of Richard Dawkins - who is quite happy to assert that all religious people are either stupid or delusional.
Also, religion as it is practiced now and the knowable past, feels good for many practitioners. People who have faith in an afterlife and salvation are measurably happier than those who don't. As a general average. But it makes sense as there is a lot more contentment in the certainty that one is going to Heaven than the certainty that one will simply stop existing.
I know that Dan McClellan doesn't discuss his personal religious views, but I suspect that, like many of us, he arrived at the precipice between reason and the supernatural and took the Kierkegaardian leap of faith. And because of it, we live in a sort of parallel reality where both things can 'be' at the same time.
Humans have spiritual needs, and religion helps people meet those needs. Margaret Atwood pointed out that while people aren't traditionally religious anymore, people replace religion with yoga, gym memberships, nature worship, etc. There is really strong evidence that believing in a compassionate, loving deity is correlated with well-being, and people often have experiences that cannot be captured in the language of science. Science explains how they happen and describes what is happening in cold, detached ways. I even have a friend studying the experience of awe. But science is not made to understand the spiritual world. It helps us understand the material world and meet our material needs.
4 วันที่ผ่านมา +1
spirits don't exist except as psychological constructs
Yoga and "nature worship" ARE elements of traditional religions, just not Abrahamic ones I'm not saying that everyone who practices them does so in a religious/spiritual manner, but they developed in very ancient religious contexts and many people still engage with them in those contexts. Many do not, ofc, but many do. Your assertion seems a little close to the "everyone has a religion some people just worship their jobs or money instead of (my idea of usually rhe Xtian) God" I see from many Evangelicals. I think perhaps you might need to expand your idea of religion and spirituality beyond such hard-lined binaries (as Dan pointed out, its messy because human brains and social dynamics are messy)
I think an aspect missing from this explanation is that we also seem to desperately want these explanations and boundaries. Just to highlight that: Lee Kuan Yew, the benevolent dictator and father of Singapore, had no answer to the question of how to deal with the growing religious tension and oppression that was beginning to form in Singapore in the later stages of his life. This was a man who helped create a nation out of oppressive circumstances; figured out how to create a government that is phobic towards corruption; get a group of people made up of disparate ethnic backgrounds, languages, and histories to interact in peace; and grow the wealth of the nation and its importance on the global stage while maintaining wealth equality to the point of getting them to the top of the GINI index. And his answer to the question of how to deal with growing religious tension in Singapore? "I don't know, but whatever is done must be done with delicacy." A man who used arguably brutal methods to create a stable and free society had no answer besides "delicacy" to deal with religious tension. That is how desperately we cling to our beliefs.
@@ME-jy8jk I know what teleology is. Not to be rude, but you should look up what the word "reductive" means, which is what you and the other commentor are doing. At no point did any of Mr. McClellan's explicit argument address the incredibly strong desire we have to seek explanations and set boundaries to the point of being violent or causing social instability. He argues the exact opposite, in fact. He literally says it persists because of our evolutionary/sociological need to create stability. I highlight an explicit example of how that is not necessarily the case (Singapore and the social instability it experiences because of religion), and bring up how religion also fills a need that other ways of creating explanations or setting boundaries do not. His argument doesn't cover how we need to assert dominance, or how we also use our explanations or boundary setting to sidestep the evolutionary or sociological need to be cooperative. That is what I'm talking about when I give the example of Singapore. On top of that, his argument doesn't cover the unique sort of catharsis a religious idea can provide. Religion persists not just because of the evolutionary need to explain and order, but also because of our evolutionary need to satisfy strong emotions and resolve deep emotional tension. We are demonstrably one of the most, if not the most, emotional animals on the planet. We have created countless ways of resolving our emotional tensions, and many of our most complex inventions are for resolving our strongest emotional tensions. Religion is almost totally unique in that regard. For instance, you're not going to find many (or any) scientists standing on street corners screaming about the end times, collecting in mass groups just to feel special about the scientific method together, or murdering each other because of their differing opinions about set theory or cosmology. There are many ways a person can explain a thing or set a boundary without any emotional investment at all. But, demonstrably, that isn't good enough. We need the ones like religion which not only offer explanations and set boundaries, but satisfy deeply help expectations and resolve powerful emotional tension. None of that even addresses that even if the points were categorically the same (they're related but not the same), at most Mr. McClellan gave a "statement of existence" argument while I provided an explicit example. In any case, I'm not trying to undermine his point. I felt it was missing something, so I added what I felt was missing to it. I am literally trying to reinforce his point. I agree with his statements, I just don't think he covered every aspect of it, and I'm pretty sure he'll agree his 4-minute long TH-cam video on why religion persists is not an exhaustive explanation by any means.
@@cajonesalt0191 I’m not being reductive; I’m not addressing your disquistion about Lee Kwan Yew at all-there is nothing in the anecdote that compels me to respond. “I think an aspect missing from this explanation is that we also seem to desperately want these explanations and boundaries.” This is categorically false; he directly addresses this point. Teleolgical thinking is the default setting of early cognition; he makes this point, which expressly covers your desire for him to acknowledge that people “want explanations”. The remaining 14,000 words of your reply to me do not signify with regard this point. You are expressing that you want him to acknowledge a point that he specifically made. To adjust your meaning ex post facto does not alter the fact that you claimed that the host did not do something that he did do. Pointing out that a statement you made is false is not reductivist simply because you are disappointed that I did not engage with your other statements.
Wonderful video. I would like to add the fear of death or the unknown after death and the existential questions that arise when considering the nothingness to which our lives return as strong motivations for religion.
I share the belief that as s species we are wired to attribute phenomena to something beyond ourselves in addition to our built in fears of annihilation and finality.
A few of us see the Jesus story as being the most anti-religious story anyone can possibly come up with. Anti, when it comes to authoritative and ritualistic religion. There are some who see it as Jesus being the direct intercessor between our person and the creator. No need for religion, a church, a pope, a priest, a preacher or anything or anyone else. The ultimate solution to religion, for those who think or feel they are connected to something other than this universe. Granted, the ultimate solution for those who didn't need it to begin with is to simply not believe in something other than all this. But for those of us who are victims of the described evolution, the Jesus story can be the ultimate solution. I walked away from religion at age 19, but I didn't have to deconstruct anything. Lucky for me, my particular religion had prepared me for walking away from it without discarding its fundamental teachings. I would have to say the religion I was raised in pushed me out of itself. I was taught Jesus was enough. Granted, there were all sorts of ifs, ands and buts that were embedded in the teachings but in the end, the basic Jesus was enough won out, and I had to walk away from the ifs, ands and buts along with all the authoritative and ritualistic trappings. Basing a religion on the Jesus stories as I interpret them isn't an option. It would be absurd. Religion in my mind, per this era, is a gathering of people into structured practice under authoritative leadership. This is the way we do it. Do this, don't do that.
Not to mention that the "costly signaling" drive is itself a great way to raise money for an institution, whether that institution uses that money for good or just hordes it up for themselves.
Religion is like a free therapy for the broken hearted who wants to be connected to something and believe that something better is waiting after this world.
This surely what is meant by data over dogma. I'm so happy to see the *big Gods* as a reference, it's one those books that profoundly explores religion.
Eugenics always seems to be the underlaying point. In that control and subjection every time. People seek influence to abuse it horribly. Paying the tithe keeps the peace, until the price is set way too high. First and second born.... One Eyebrow Rule.
Yup, pretty much what I would have said. I think ReligionForBreakfast delineated it a bit more on the social side by referring to various definitions that suggest specific features common in social religions. Some might want to include or specifically exclude individual concepts of "spirituality", but I would include them. Some would also include non-theological and even non-spiritual social systems by using the term "religious" to refer to anything about which a person or people are religious about, more at ritualistic, suggesting that Football is a religion. An interesting question is whether belief and rituals to appeal to a deity would still be termed _religion_ if we obtained proof of the existence of deities, either as an extension of physics in our universe or connection to a higher reality or recognition of this reality as a simulation outside or above which other entities exist that can exert influence. At that point, some distinctions required in some definitions of _religion_ might cease to be obtained. As for _agency_ , I might also include the concept of _pattern recognition_ and _pareidolia_ and how humans don't like to believe in random chance or coincidence to explain things. After all, sometimes people do experience events or have perceptions that seem to support the concept of the existence of deities. Also, many people don't like the idea of dying, but they often like the idea of a change in scenery.
@@TerryJLaRue The religious war between American football and the rest of the world footballs would be epic - allegiance to a lemon vs sphere vs prolate spheroid would rival the Abrahamic splits...
I would vote that if we ever found sufficient evidence of deities then related beliefs and practices would cease to be religion. This hunch is based off a pattern I've noticed with spirituality being a dumping ground for intangible experiences and lots of things moved out of the realm of "spirit" once humans got a better grasp of how mind and relationships work.
@@tangoblast7614 I suppose that might depend on what one defines as a deity. A rare animal might be considered an incarnation, even if it acts like any other of its species. However, those who expect it might venerate it and keep alive its memory after it passes as evidence of a real deity. Some humans alive in the past or even today are considered by some to be deities or deity-adjacent. I died and rose on the third day, so I could end up in that class. I get what you're saying about spirituality being a dumping ground for "beliefs", but a large part of many religions is ritual. Some religions focus more on ritual without really worrying about whether a particular adherent believes in any particular doctrine. For some religions, they might consider that lip-service, but for others it's not even an issue, perhaps because the deity or spirit doesn't care how you feel, only what you do.
Yes! Although not as beautifully concise, I would add to the first four reasons you thought of: Expanding your number 4.: To feel less alone and isolated with personal experiences - to feel more connected with others, and part of something greater than ourselves, which helps us feel strengthened and safer. (As we did just before our birth, and as newborns, without a developed sense of self). Humans are innately tribal and social, for development and survival. 5. Fear of loss - a way to manage and minimise the overwhelming experience of grieving for the loss of loved ones, including pets, loss of beautiful nature, loss of a body part, loss of health and function, loss of time of a finite lifetime, etc. 6. Pareidolia - humans are innately pattern seeking, and ascribe meaning to the patterns they see (That's how a toddler knows that 'apple' isn't just one specific item, 'apple' characteristics can be seen and applied to different sized, shaped and coloured versions, in different locations, at different times, in different circumstances, whole, or not, etc.). 7. To feel less vulnerable in an overwhelmingly reality, - on a microcosmic personal level, or a macrocosmic universal/ muti-universal level, perceived patterns, constructs and certainty of belief help manage the overwhelming perceptions of detail, and vast awareness that humans uniquely experience, compared to other living creatures on earth. To create a more manageable sense of order. 8. To feel that life has value, meaning and purpose - to avoid feeling, insignificant, our lives pointless, and that suffering is not for nothing. 9. To manage experiences associated with injustice -believing that rewards and punishments will be fairly exacted and reconciled, if not in this mortal life, in an afterlife. 10. Anatomical likelihood- some people's brains are structurally more likely to be religious. (A neurological study in the U.S. found that people who had far right political beliefs also had the same active regions of the brain associated with religiousity.). I have written all this out due to reason 7. 😅
5. This needs to be demonstrated as a real phenomenon that people can experience. Could they be explained by psychological, neurological, or cultural factors? 6. Many people from different religions have such reasons. How do I differentiate? What makes one claim more credible than another?
The *contradiction of Sentient Life in an Entropic Universe alone* is enough to create an emergent phenomena like Religion -- in Sentient beings. The inherent suffering/consternation thereof would lead many to eventually cry-out in desperate hope to a "Creator". Amazingly -- I can correlate Supernatural physical responses to my personal outbursts of hope. Add-in the corroborating NDE reports -- and *I no longer Doubt* ( I oblige a liberal religion -- for social encouragement)
To many of us, religion is simply not the answer to anything. I think that was what the point of the question. Luckily, religion is on it's way out in modern societies.
Not in America. It's on its way back in thanks to the incoming force of law and the removal of the freedom of religion. It.could very well be a crime to be a nonbeliever or believe any other religion, or at the very least they're going to flip who is persecuted. Atheists already have a bad image thanks to Christianity, and it's about to get worse.
Exactly the type of information I need for my, “Get rich quick by starting a religious cult”scheme. I too hope to one day defraud the poor and the needy by convincing them that their god wants me to own a private jet or three.
4 วันที่ผ่านมา
that's just greed. the mystery is why the poor and needy will agree to that.
If religion fails, which it probably will nowadays, I suggest a much easier route is science. Just convince people things like climate change is real, then as 95% of scientists do, go about your day doing everything possible to make it worse. The 6th great extinction is a wonderously fertile field of mindless science backed consumerism for one to plough this world into dust.
Even though as an atheist and deconverted Christian I'm not angry at religion. This is how we evolved and religious people are not religious because of facts, so religion isn't going anywhere.
“…religious people are not religious because of facts,…” This is precisely why we must always vote for reasonable people and actively support orgs like FFRF and ACLU until our last gasp in the perpetual battle for separation of church and state.
I remember as a five year old carrying out an experiment to figure out how things move away from you when you let go of them. I concluded there was a rule they followed (today we call it gravity) but I never thought it was a deity. Is there a god of gravity in any religion or mythology?
The answer is fascinating. Thank you. But now the question arises: if religion is in part social, in part an answer to deep needs into the human beings... why atheism is growing in advanced societies? Doesn't it have something to do with the spread of public education and the scientific knowledge?
Look I don’t care either way if you force me to put a label on my religious beliefs I’d probably say agnostic, but like, come on… this guy’s gotta be an atheist studying religion right? I mean no one who’s truly devoted to any religion, not just Christianity, is gonna say “here are the evolutionary, psychological, and social reasons why my faith exists as well as every other faith. No, my God(s) and these foundational stories aren’t what created my faith, it’s these evolutionary, psychological, and social reasons.”
Important to distinguish “religion” from a personal relationship where one operates outside those boundaries and confines. How does this explanation of religion explain an actual experiential relationship on an individual level? I think this explains the evolutionary need for people to collect in groups of like minds and the need to expand and be accepted into said group. But that’s only one aspect of religion, not the be all end all definition of it. If religion was only a social club, than pickleball clubs would be more popular than churches.
@@JohnKerr-bq3vo measured how- as forces that transmit their traditions, that serve the needs of their constituents, that function as nuclei of power versus other structures of power? These are often at odds, so to the extent “religion” as a series of institutions refocus its mission on something other than power- or maybe fails to do that- I think it’s hard to say it’s in decline (except to the extent people feel required to identity as a believer in any one religion in particular, in which case, yes).
An interesting observation I’ve noticed studying history and politics is that the radicalizing capacity of religion is not unlike that of political ideology and where they mix (Christian nationalism) and clash (Mao’s Cultural Revolution) I think will be key to countering radicalization. #NotAll, but we’ve certainly seen rabid antitheists commit violence in history just as religious fanatics.
Yes, as Dan mentioned in the video a lot of the "features" of religion which people like to point out, conspiratorial/magical thinking, authoritarianism, tribalism, etc show up in many areas of life and human society. Instead of acting like these are unique to religion I think the approach of trying to understand how these things are influenced in the religious context (and vis versa) to be a better use of my time.
As a lifelong atheist, raised without direct religious influence, I have a hard time understanding peoples need for religion. To me religion and faith is illogical partly because we know so much more now, about how the world works, where mankind really came from and so on. We have a scientific explanation for many questions that were a mystery in the past. Of course we don't know everything and I doubt we ever will and here is where the religious people steps in and wants to put their deity/deities, as the explanation for the unknown.
Yeah. The human mind evolved to want this stuff. But I also evolved lungs for air instead of gills for water. But knowing that doesn’t mean I think I have to stay on land all the time. I can look beyond the land and go swimming, just like I can look beyond my minds evolutionary desire for the supernatural and see science.
Hi Dan, after having deconverted from evangelical fundamentalism 20 years ago, I´m still intrigued by some ideas a (quasi-) christian spirituality can provide for us. What keeps bothering me is how to maintain a more than just superficial connection to the christian narrative in the light of (biological) evolution. I mean: doesn´t the christian narrative necessarily presuppose a perfect creation that was corrupted by the sin of man? Whereas Evolution shows simple, crude beginnings that render it impossible for man to be perfect in the first place. And BTW: how can we expect a “New Heaven and Earth”, a perfect, eternal heavenly Jerusalem when it´s obvious that God (if there even is a creator God, what I doubt) “wanted” death in the first place-death´s not a bug, it´s a feature of creation, isn´t it? (This video of yours seemed the right place to pose my question that has been on my mind for a long time.) … I greatly enjoy watching your videos on a daily basis after having come across your youtube channel some eight or so weeks ago (Brian Dalton played a short snippet of on of your videos in one of his “Way of the mister” episodes; of course I needed to know what that was about-curiosity killed the cat but for us it usually pays out). I really appreciate your work! (My English might read not very idiomatic/natural: I´m swiss and a native german speaker. But I´ve given my best.) All the best, Daniel (yes, I´m a Daniel too)
Could you add text definitions for the big words you sometimes use in your videos? A lot of them seem specific to your academic field. I have a pretty decent vocabulary but I can’t spell to save my life (low-level dyslexia and some audio processing issues) so looking them up can be difficult 😅
I'm really enjoying these short and succinct pieces of knowledge. Thanks D McClellan. What is generally thought of as "religion" rather than "paganist" with scholars? Is it that religion is organized / institutionalized? It does seem that Christianity is very textcentric. That is the data though, I understand. It's interesting regarding textcentrism as I don't think print was widespread nor was 'reading and writing' of the ordinary everyday people of the region/s. I am intrigued enough to search for a more anthropological analysis, if there is one. Cheers!
That's your perception of it. Satan is the good guy to me, because God is the bad guy. As for energy, energy isn't a tangible thing floating around, like when a medium or spiritualist or whatever says "I can feel the energy around me," no they can't, they're making that up to sound like they have some special enlightenment when really they're as lame as anyone else. They're just pretending to have some secret knowledge. Some of them really believe they do, but many of them know that what they believe is total nonsense, they're just stringing people along.
Humans are social animals, and we like a place to hang out every weekend. On top of that, a gathering where they'll tell us that our problems are somebody else's fault, and that Sky Friend is going to blast the people that they're blaming for society's ills? Yeah, that's an idea that will sell itself pretty much forever.
Well done except you did neglect to mention the Transcendent aspect within religion. Go Mystics!!!
4 วันที่ผ่านมา
you mean the feeling of transcendence, which is psychological, and can be achieved through art, sports, love etc. It is a self-induced euphoria, measurable by neurologists.
You can't. It's ways going to exist, even if science figured out a way to invent that machine like Farnsworth created in Futurama where tou could ask it any question and it would not only somehow have the answer, it would show you a video. I'm pretty sure someone asked if there's a god and he said no, that's a dumb question, the answer is no. Ask something better! If we had that machine and it told us there's no god and all these religions are completely made up by man, people would still believe and many of them are choosing to despite not being able to choose your beliefs, this is not true to me. Many have admitted that they would still choose to believe even if they knew that what they believed is wrong or not true. America is unfortunately about to experience a resurgence in Christianity thanks to a certain doofus that's going to force it on everyone. All schools will become Christian schools, because these people are everywhere and they're going to have control of the schools.
Sadly, I think ritual has proven a remarkably ineffective way of determining who can be trusted, as human history is jam packed with those who are willing to participate in those rituals and to engage in the costly signaling, not because of shared values, but in order to manipulate others in the group, to exploit the trust of those group members in the ritual and language for their own interests, and often to the detriment of the group (as the New testament authors depict Jesus as explicitly pointing out, with his condemnation of those who draw near unto him with their lips, but whose hearts are far from him).
Good point to bring up.
Yes, there are always those willing to do some or all of whatever costly social signaling is necessary in order to cheat others. I think this becomes more of an issue the larger the group grows because it takes longer for the disconnect between the obvious signals and the actual behavior (hypocrisy) to be detected and/or filter into general knowledge. Under a certain size or with a certain transparency (like with a free press doing investigative journalism) the hypocrisy (failure to adhere to the group norms) is evident sooner. I don't think it necessarily fails as a marker though because even though someone "professes the faith", the very fact that they are NOT actually following it is an indication of their lack of trustworthiness. Perhaps that is why, in my family at least, which exact flavor of religion one followed was less important than how much one tried to follow the general moral precepts which are common to most religions.
This exact issue is why I always thought it ridiculous that America in the 1950s thought putting "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance would foil the "godless Communists". If they are godless then an oath referencing God means nothing so parroting what are, to them, meaningless words is no barrier to what they believe is their duty to their country or ideals (depending on if their espionage is prompted by patriotism or idealism)
Is it plausible that we could develop more effective rituals for this purpose?
@@81caspen I would suspect not. I think a better solution would be to encourage people to NOT rely on tribal association and specific, superficial costly signaling to determine trustworthiness, but rather to examine based on a wider range of behaviors and criteria that go beyond tribal identity markers, instead focusing on signs of deeper values. In other words, thinking critically, and realizing there are no shortcuts to those evaluations.
I'm not sure the original question was asked in good faith, but I love how it was answered in good faith!
I hope the pun was intended :)
I didn't hear an actual definition.
@@JustADudeGamerthat’s because religion is too broad and nebulous a category to have one singular absolute definition
The question was followed by 'seriously', so I think that helps imply that it was a genuine question. Just because emotion came with the question, that doesn't discredit the question as being genuine.
Hi, Professor! I think I understand the economy of using jargon, avoiding the time-consuming task of simplifying, but by using such words as teleological, agency, cognitive, accretion, sociality, etc., you may exclude those too impatient to look up every new term. Simpler synonyms would be welcome. The end times, making our own choices, what has to do with the mind and thinking, sticking to, needing togetherness, etc. By the way, I'm going through each one of your videos. I love a recent episode of yours and Dan's on the infancy narratives. Amazing. Shalom.
What an amazingly succinct and cogent explanation. As a student of philosophy, sociology, psychology and social psychology, I can attest to the accuracy or at least this is the rational explanation embraced by scholars. If you think through the implications of Dan’s explanation, you can sus out the economics of it as well
I really appreciate the bibliography with this one, such an interesting subject and as a lapsed Catholic from Pittsburgh, resonates on multiple levels…
It's wild that people use the "he just says things because he's a mormon" thing against Dan. Like, dude talks about his personal beliefs so little that he can be hard to distinguish from an atheist.
SO MUCH THIS.
The Mormon accusation is just baseless well poisoning, thats all. Sadly, for many people this sort of argumentation is enough.
Not to mention that his data-based assertions very frequently contradict Mormon theology.
Dans Mormon? Never would have known
@@Debunked421 i get the feeling he's a "cultural" mormon the same way Dawkins is a "cultural" christian. He enjoys the social and cultural aspects but doesn't actually believe the mythology
When I was in college -- many, many years ago -- I learned from the sociologist Andrew Greeley (who was drawing from the work of Clifford Geertz) that ALL of us are born into one or more "traditions" (nationalistic, cultural, etc.), and that these traditions have their staying power due to possessing 5 components: Symbols, Rituals, Community, Heritage, and a Differentiation from those outside the tradition.
Religions are just another one of those traditions most of us are born into, and they possess those 5 components in spades! There's data to prove all that. 🙂
One of my favorite things about this channel is your suggested readings and so I am very excited by the ones you've suggested here.
I've watched many dozens of Dan's videos. I think this is his best one yet - or at least it is my favourite.
bart erman no 1
Sort Dan's videos by "oldest" and you can find longer form videos he's done on this topic.
Dan I will need to play that back a few times - yet it was fabulously succinct and brilliant - thanks !
Excellent!! Great question and Excellent, detailed answer. Thanks! Love it.
Fascinating. Thanks for your service, Dan.
Very helpful, and thank you. Speaks to my own desire to understand this.
Para muchos , si, pero para otros es una forma de vivir
This explanation is excellent because it manages to answer the question, without the necessity for a inclusion of a diety or deities in the concept of a religion. There are plenty of modes of thinking that meet the criteria of what we think of as a religion without a supernatural element.
Thanks Dan, an excellent and workable summary definition of what ‘Religion’ means/is.
In this upload you encompass the use/usefulness of Religion for the individual trying to make sense of, and to order their understanding/experience of ‘the other’ beyond the physical world.
This is its use to the individual congregant or member.
What you don’t go into is how others have always used religion as a tool for social control. This is its use for people like the Pope or the Protestant evangelical mega-church pastor.
As a teenager growing up in a multi-generational extended fundamentalist evangelical Protestant family spread across North America I was steeped in ‘religion’ and then later as a young adult I left home to go to a major university in a big city which was a effervescent with all sorts of ideas and I came to understand just what Lenin meant by his observation that religion is the opiate of the masses. A quote paradoxically that fundamentalist evangelicals like to use to teach the supposed horrors of ‘godless’ Communism.
For leaders religion is the way to shut down individual inquiry and especially of critical thinking and review of the bath of assumptions that I and all fundamentalist evangelicals (and conservative Catholics and LDS) are brought up in.
Questioning errant nonsense is dealt with by the very successful technique of calling such apostasy and a sin and such a person must be expelled from the flock of sheeple.
One could ask, with the access to information we have, how is stupidity still a thing. It’s not even a thing, it’s THE thing.
Thank you so much😀
I think a lot of heads exploded over this one. Keep up the good work!
My answer: Culture, tradition, humanity's desire to believe in something and other more complexities.
On 1 hand, we have those who believe in gods dogmatically, and on the other hand, we have those who acknowledge the limits of their believed gods while accepting the changing data. And those in between.
I can’t like this video enough. Such a good overview and I’ve read a few. I haven’t read any of the ones listed in this video though and would love to - thanks for the recommendations.
Thanks!
THAT was an extremely well defined explanation of religion. Beyond that I would say that many religious people use religion as a way of justifying their personal prejudices and bigotries and xenophobia by claiming these things are in some way "approved" by their God, in much the same way as the men who wrote the Torah/Old Testament scriptures wrote that it was actually God who ordained both slavery and genocide.
@Dalekzilla i would not say that's necessary why Religion (capital intended) is still a thing as there are so many types of religions across the world. From living traditions like hinduism to revived traditions like hellenism and hethenism
@DracoRoma Agreed, that's why I said "many" and not "all".
@@Dalekzilla fair enough, I just wanted to say something because while i agree that religious people being bigots is a problem, I don't think it's a major reason religion is still a thing.
that's one of the social aspects of religion. another one is autocracy. religions are almost always authoritarian.
Define "almost always"
You take your experience with modern, american prodestantism and pain the entire concept of religion across the entire world and hundreds of thousands of years of human existence with that brush.
Were the religions of people in siberia inherently bigoted and autocratic? How about Polynesia?
Excellent and well argued as always, thanks.
What makes you believe it's well-argued? I'm curious because I see no arguing. I see appeals to some weak claims about how things could be based on certain factors, but that would be like saying I have argued why you believe you were born by appealing to traits appealing to cultural belief and a necessity for explanation or something of that sort.
@natanaellizama6559 Oh my, I was simply giving my own opinion, and didn't mean to upset anyone. I have viewed a great many of Dan's offerings and found that he can always substantiate his arguments. This subject doesn't lend itself to clinical dissection or hard and fast answers. We're dealing with the human mind here. It is a matter of pointing out the diverse reasons which lead one person to believe and another doubt. I don't know why some people choose to believe in one god or many gods and some to scorn those beliefs. I'm content to leave them to their own ways of thinking, and to wish them, and you well.
@@elainethomson7146
No problem! I did not mean to give the notion I was upset or anything. Was just opening a dialogue and a bit of pushback which I think necessary and healthy.
In my view, Dan is not exempt from the very thing he criticizes, and at times falls harder on it, taking controversial, multiple angled topics(like this one) and stretching a personal view with a given interpretation as if it were either fact or overwhelming scholar consensus, and I find that in a deeper insight it turns out to be neither. So a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted, and even times something stronger than that(as his own claims turn to be more philosophically and ideologically motivated and structured than mere scholarship).
@natanaellizama6559 No offence taken, I was a bit worried that I'd caused upset to anyone. You're right. Of course, healthy scepticism is a good and necessary thing, not practiced enough. I thought you were looking for a definitive answer to what's really an unanswerable question. I'm not a believer myself but do respect others' right to believe if not their actual beliefs. However, I can't understand why anyone today should still think that entities outside our material world can have agency in it. Thank you for a very polite and respectful reply. I do wish you well for the future.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤thanks Dan!!
As if hyperactive agency detection, ego/duality and teleological instinct weren't enough... I really like your inclusions of ritual as investment toward social proof. It's true for probably every social or ideological group. Even as we "prove" to others we also prove to ourselves.
It's kind of strange to think that aspect of us that led to recognizing random items in the world as potential tools also led us to ask "why" (function and intent) about everything.
And yet religion has been and continues to be one of the most divisive social constructs humans have come up with. The slightest difference in beliefs or practices can bring about brutal conflicts that can last for centuries.
It has been beneficial to those in power to leverage religion to serve their purposes. Since it is a helpful social construct for establishing trust, it stands to reason that it can also be used to draw your people together and label everyone else "other" and therefore untrustworthy.
maybe. brutal conflicts occur without religion.
Well of course they do. That's human nature. Religion just happens to be one of the most frequent and ready-made excuses for those conflicts.
@@christiner6000 I think religion increases the degree of brutality by encouraging fanaticism.
You have an interesting, and I believe valid point. And yet they all seem to claim to be peaceful and loving don't they.
I was an atheist before God answered me. No mushrooms involved. No regrets about revisiting my priors.
I know my Redeemer lives
Well next time you talk, ask them to answer me too. Got a lot of questions that feel pretty important that they seem to be unwilling to talk about.
@ Patience and respect go a long way. But I understand the frustration.
@@giantflamingrabbitmonster8124Never believe someone when they say "I used to be an atheist" lol it's not likely that they're telling the truth. If they are, there's a medication for that, or they were never an atheist and don't know what the word actually means. It's highly unbelievable that a rational person who doesn't believe this stuff is suddenly talking to a god when there isn't one. That's a red flag. I see this bait so often, usually in atheist circles.
Re-ligio was attributed a double origin in Latin : legere (to read) and ligare (to bond) + re : repetition. Thus, it seeks to create bonds between people, through 'reading again' what the past has transmitted. From there, a religion is an attempt to define the human being, because that is the common trait between all those who are involved in the religion
Religious wars between variations of the same religion, wars between different religions, and the extermination of individuals whose lives are not considered valuable for not believing in a specific religion, prove that religion is not a social tool that promotes cohesiveness and cooperative coexistence among people.
Isn't the same with nations most wars have national reasons
Yeah, he leaves out the critical part “among the in-group”
sample bias. How would these groups who fight over religion reach their numbers without religion? Non-religious society cant even keep human brain together (mental health and unliving statistics), not speaking of families or state.
My question is: How is it that the New Testament is able to say that something happened from noon to three o'clock and that Jesus cried out at 3 o'clock when there were no clocks. What sort of time-keeping did they use and what language was used in the ancient manuscripts that indicate time so precisely? (e.g. Mark 15:33-34)
Sundials were pretty old technology by the first century C.E. Of course, nobody would say "3 o'clock" - they'd say 'the ninth hour', since sunrise to sunset were divided into 12 hours.
Hi Mary - John (above) is correct. You're automatically thinking of our modern clock time, which is only 500 or 600 years old. But ancient civilizations like China and Egypt developed ways of keeping approximate time during the day (sundials) and both day and night (water clocks, hourglasses). If you stop and think about it, keeping time, at least during the day, is vital to organize civic life. If you read "History of timekeeping devices" in Wikipedia, you'll find all the wonderful details.
So the Roman soldiers would be gathered to bring Jesus out of his cell maybe shortly after sunrise, then after the long, slow trek to Calvary, they would crucify him around 3 hours later (their 3rd Hour, our 9am), etc.
This question is typically posed in terms of science: with all the flood of scientific discoveries of the past 200 years, how can anybody still believe in religion?
Dan gives the best answer - that the human mind is still built like it always has been.
Corollary: modern science uses an artificial set of rules in its activity, running counter to evolved thought processes. That's OK, though; practically all our technology is artificial, but we use it anyway.
what artificial rule does science follow?
@@Merrick Some of the artificial rules:
- Formal logic
- Mathemics beyond arithmetic*
- Formation of testable hypotheses
- Reliance on repeatable observation for verification of ideas, aka:
- Developing ideas (theories) that generalize from observations, and using them to apply to conditions not yet observed
- Use of tools (e.g. microscopes, telescopes) to observe phenomena outside the scope of human senses
- No miracles; no arbitrary actions by deities
- Building on previous knowledge, rather than honoring ancient wisdom, including:
- Abandoning old ideas that no longer fit (new) observations; not cling to a faith
* One could argue that any math beyond simple addition is artificial.
To see natural human thought in action, look up Flat Earthers. They deny all of classical physics in favor of naive common sense. (There’s no gravity, no relative motion, no outer space in their world. They believe that the sun and moon and stars are merely lights in the sky.)
@@Merrick Presumably Roytee means the scientific method where one proposes an experiment that will confirm or disprove one's explanation for a phenomenon, rigorously tests one's hypothesis, and makes the appropriate changes when all or a portion of a hypothesis is disproven. As opposed to telling ourselves a story explaining the phenomenon enough times until we believe it.
Great answer. You know, this would be a fun conversation with you and Dr.Justin Sledge of the Esoterica channel. If memory serves he practices a non-theistic form of Judaism and it would be interesting to listen to you both talk about how a scholar of religion and religious history addresses their own sense of spiritual or mindfulness practice. 🖖
Thanks, Dan!
That was the best explanation of all time!
"So, from an evolutionary psychology perspective by the individual... And then from a evo-sociology level.... And can I mention the terms 'discursive' and 'in-group signalling' too?"
He just casually did a tour of several academic fields, and it's blowing my mind.
@@interiot2 he didn't say anything I didn't figure out by age 10
His PhD thesis at the University of Exeter focused on cognitive linguistics and the cognitive science of religion. So the statements he made in this video are pretty authoritative.
The great thinkers down, the ages have pondered these questions over their lifetimes.
And people think that four minute explanation is great!
Sounds like some sort of bias to me.
Einstein said that you should make things as simple as possible, but no more simple.
To me, reducing such a question to a four minute answer (which is a great achievement!) Is clear evidence that the question has not been adequately addressed.
I know that I would have become an atheist after listening to Dr. Dan. ... But I already have that covered. I've been a Buddhist for over 50 years. 😊
His scholarship is so all-encompassing that I am in awe of his ability to learn.
Buddhism is not atheistic though, far from it. There are countless Gods, Deities stacked upon Deities stacked upon further more.
@Dice_roller Ya! you tell that dumb Buddhist what they believe...
@Dice_roller some forms of Buddhism are atheistic
@Dice_roller
I believe that you are speaking of Hinduism.
Anyone can become a buddha. It is a life condition that everyone possesses. Not the worship of the historical Buddha, Shakyamuni. Although some sects still believe he has the power to grant wishes. The Buddha taught different forms of practice over a 50 year period in response to his audience at the time.
Great answer to the question of where religion came from. The reason it is still around is because the powerful and the religious have conspired to stand in the way of educating the populace. Religion is born from ignorance and powerful and wealthy forces work hard to keep people ignorant.
It’s a rhetorical point. An insight per the OED requires “deep understanding.”
WOW leave it to Dan McClellan to explain religion clearly and concisely in under four minutes. 🔥🤯
I liked what Dan said. I like most of what Dan says!
But I’m left with a big “but“…….
It felt to me like a clever academic answer, which is actually invalidating the experience of millions of people.
On this occasion, Dan sounded a bit like a “nothing, but-er”
I felt this answer was more worthy of Richard Dawkins - who is quite happy to assert that all religious people are either stupid or delusional.
@@micklumsden3956if you are an atheist, you are a rare gem.
Also, religion as it is practiced now and the knowable past, feels good for many practitioners. People who have faith in an afterlife and salvation are measurably happier than those who don't. As a general average. But it makes sense as there is a lot more contentment in the certainty that one is going to Heaven than the certainty that one will simply stop existing.
I know that Dan McClellan doesn't discuss his personal religious views, but I suspect that, like many of us, he arrived at the precipice between reason and the supernatural and took the Kierkegaardian leap of faith. And because of it, we live in a sort of parallel reality where both things can 'be' at the same time.
Exactly. It’s Hegel’s dialectic in action.
@@jeffreynolds9772 don't know what that is. Looking it up now
@@Ed_Lima777 How did you get to Kierkegaard without hitting Hegel?
@@MerrickI must have taken the shortcut 😊
cognitive dissonance is a helluva drug
Excellent answer. Worth mulling over
Humans have spiritual needs, and religion helps people meet those needs. Margaret Atwood pointed out that while people aren't traditionally religious anymore, people replace religion with yoga, gym memberships, nature worship, etc. There is really strong evidence that believing in a compassionate, loving deity is correlated with well-being, and people often have experiences that cannot be captured in the language of science. Science explains how they happen and describes what is happening in cold, detached ways. I even have a friend studying the experience of awe. But science is not made to understand the spiritual world. It helps us understand the material world and meet our material needs.
spirits don't exist except as psychological constructs
Yoga and "nature worship" ARE elements of traditional religions, just not Abrahamic ones
I'm not saying that everyone who practices them does so in a religious/spiritual manner, but they developed in very ancient religious contexts and many people still engage with them in those contexts. Many do not, ofc, but many do.
Your assertion seems a little close to the "everyone has a religion some people just worship their jobs or money instead of (my idea of usually rhe Xtian) God" I see from many Evangelicals.
I think perhaps you might need to expand your idea of religion and spirituality beyond such hard-lined binaries (as Dan pointed out, its messy because human brains and social dynamics are messy)
The cognitive science of religion is so fascinating.
I think an aspect missing from this explanation is that we also seem to desperately want these explanations and boundaries. Just to highlight that: Lee Kuan Yew, the benevolent dictator and father of Singapore, had no answer to the question of how to deal with the growing religious tension and oppression that was beginning to form in Singapore in the later stages of his life. This was a man who helped create a nation out of oppressive circumstances; figured out how to create a government that is phobic towards corruption; get a group of people made up of disparate ethnic backgrounds, languages, and histories to interact in peace; and grow the wealth of the nation and its importance on the global stage while maintaining wealth equality to the point of getting them to the top of the GINI index. And his answer to the question of how to deal with growing religious tension in Singapore? "I don't know, but whatever is done must be done with delicacy." A man who used arguably brutal methods to create a stable and free society had no answer besides "delicacy" to deal with religious tension. That is how desperately we cling to our beliefs.
Fascinating!
That isn't missing from Dan's explanation. You account involves psychological and social components. That's what he said.
He directly addresses this. Look up the word teleological (1:23).
@@ME-jy8jk I know what teleology is. Not to be rude, but you should look up what the word "reductive" means, which is what you and the other commentor are doing. At no point did any of Mr. McClellan's explicit argument address the incredibly strong desire we have to seek explanations and set boundaries to the point of being violent or causing social instability. He argues the exact opposite, in fact. He literally says it persists because of our evolutionary/sociological need to create stability. I highlight an explicit example of how that is not necessarily the case (Singapore and the social instability it experiences because of religion), and bring up how religion also fills a need that other ways of creating explanations or setting boundaries do not. His argument doesn't cover how we need to assert dominance, or how we also use our explanations or boundary setting to sidestep the evolutionary or sociological need to be cooperative. That is what I'm talking about when I give the example of Singapore.
On top of that, his argument doesn't cover the unique sort of catharsis a religious idea can provide. Religion persists not just because of the evolutionary need to explain and order, but also because of our evolutionary need to satisfy strong emotions and resolve deep emotional tension. We are demonstrably one of the most, if not the most, emotional animals on the planet. We have created countless ways of resolving our emotional tensions, and many of our most complex inventions are for resolving our strongest emotional tensions.
Religion is almost totally unique in that regard. For instance, you're not going to find many (or any) scientists standing on street corners screaming about the end times, collecting in mass groups just to feel special about the scientific method together, or murdering each other because of their differing opinions about set theory or cosmology. There are many ways a person can explain a thing or set a boundary without any emotional investment at all. But, demonstrably, that isn't good enough. We need the ones like religion which not only offer explanations and set boundaries, but satisfy deeply help expectations and resolve powerful emotional tension.
None of that even addresses that even if the points were categorically the same (they're related but not the same), at most Mr. McClellan gave a "statement of existence" argument while I provided an explicit example.
In any case, I'm not trying to undermine his point. I felt it was missing something, so I added what I felt was missing to it. I am literally trying to reinforce his point. I agree with his statements, I just don't think he covered every aspect of it, and I'm pretty sure he'll agree his 4-minute long TH-cam video on why religion persists is not an exhaustive explanation by any means.
@@cajonesalt0191 I’m not being reductive; I’m not addressing your disquistion about Lee Kwan Yew at all-there is nothing in the anecdote that compels me to respond. “I think an aspect missing from this explanation is that we also seem to desperately want these explanations and boundaries.” This is categorically false; he directly addresses this point. Teleolgical thinking is the default setting of early cognition; he makes this point, which expressly covers your desire for him to acknowledge that people “want explanations”. The remaining 14,000 words of your reply to me do not signify with regard this point. You are expressing that you want him to acknowledge a point that he specifically made. To adjust your meaning ex post facto does not alter the fact that you claimed that the host did not do something that he did do. Pointing out that a statement you made is false is not reductivist simply because you are disappointed that I did not engage with your other statements.
Dan I don’t know if you have already done it, but I would be interested In a longer video and discussion to hear more about these ideas .
Damn Dude Dan!... That was well defined!
Cool answer! The Crash Course channel has a series on religion, and the caveats pile up very quickly! Great series, as always from them
Wonderful video. I would like to add the fear of death or the unknown after death and the existential questions that arise when considering the nothingness to which our lives return as strong motivations for religion.
People will draw upon anything or concept that will give them the perception/illusion of power over others.
Religion isn't necessarily an issue, it's the self-reinforcing dogma that needs to be delineated.
yeah gaza people wittnesing over this issues
just don't get drunk and you will be fine....
@@Narlo_ what? You comment like you've been drinking yourself. 😂
I share the belief that as s species we are wired to attribute phenomena to something beyond ourselves in addition to our built in fears of annihilation and finality.
Totally. We're preprogrammed for some magical thinking, but it takes fear and greed to make a "Religion"
Religion is our Nature.
From Instinct to Religion.
A few of us see the Jesus story as being the most anti-religious story anyone can possibly come up with. Anti, when it comes to authoritative and ritualistic religion.
There are some who see it as Jesus being the direct intercessor between our person and the creator. No need for religion, a church, a pope, a priest, a preacher or anything or anyone else. The ultimate solution to religion, for those who think or feel they are connected to something other than this universe.
Granted, the ultimate solution for those who didn't need it to begin with is to simply not believe in something other than all this.
But for those of us who are victims of the described evolution, the Jesus story can be the ultimate solution.
I walked away from religion at age 19, but I didn't have to deconstruct anything. Lucky for me, my particular religion had prepared me for walking away from it without discarding its fundamental teachings. I would have to say the religion I was raised in pushed me out of itself. I was taught Jesus was enough. Granted, there were all sorts of ifs, ands and buts that were embedded in the teachings but in the end, the basic Jesus was enough won out, and I had to walk away from the ifs, ands and buts along with all the authoritative and ritualistic trappings.
Basing a religion on the Jesus stories as I interpret them isn't an option. It would be absurd.
Religion in my mind, per this era, is a gathering of people into structured practice under authoritative leadership. This is the way we do it. Do this, don't do that.
Not to mention that the "costly signaling" drive is itself a great way to raise money for an institution, whether that institution uses that money for good or just hordes it up for themselves.
Religion is like a free therapy for the broken hearted who wants to be connected to something and believe that something better is waiting after this world.
Standing ovation.
Religion is a social construct.
This surely what is meant by data over dogma. I'm so happy to see the *big Gods* as a reference, it's one those books that profoundly explores religion.
Eugenics always seems to be the underlaying point. In that control and subjection every time. People seek influence to abuse it horribly. Paying the tithe keeps the peace, until the price is set way too high. First and second born.... One Eyebrow Rule.
Yup, pretty much what I would have said. I think ReligionForBreakfast delineated it a bit more on the social side by referring to various definitions that suggest specific features common in social religions. Some might want to include or specifically exclude individual concepts of "spirituality", but I would include them. Some would also include non-theological and even non-spiritual social systems by using the term "religious" to refer to anything about which a person or people are religious about, more at ritualistic, suggesting that Football is a religion.
An interesting question is whether belief and rituals to appeal to a deity would still be termed _religion_ if we obtained proof of the existence of deities, either as an extension of physics in our universe or connection to a higher reality or recognition of this reality as a simulation outside or above which other entities exist that can exert influence. At that point, some distinctions required in some definitions of _religion_ might cease to be obtained.
As for _agency_ , I might also include the concept of _pattern recognition_ and _pareidolia_ and how humans don't like to believe in random chance or coincidence to explain things. After all, sometimes people do experience events or have perceptions that seem to support the concept of the existence of deities. Also, many people don't like the idea of dying, but they often like the idea of a change in scenery.
I like the idea of football being a religion. At least a football exists.
@@TerryJLaRue The religious war between American football and the rest of the world footballs would be epic - allegiance to a lemon vs sphere vs prolate spheroid would rival the Abrahamic splits...
I would vote that if we ever found sufficient evidence of deities then related beliefs and practices would cease to be religion. This hunch is based off a pattern I've noticed with spirituality being a dumping ground for intangible experiences and lots of things moved out of the realm of "spirit" once humans got a better grasp of how mind and relationships work.
@@tangoblast7614 I suppose that might depend on what one defines as a deity. A rare animal might be considered an incarnation, even if it acts like any other of its species. However, those who expect it might venerate it and keep alive its memory after it passes as evidence of a real deity.
Some humans alive in the past or even today are considered by some to be deities or deity-adjacent. I died and rose on the third day, so I could end up in that class.
I get what you're saying about spirituality being a dumping ground for "beliefs", but a large part of many religions is ritual. Some religions focus more on ritual without really worrying about whether a particular adherent believes in any particular doctrine. For some religions, they might consider that lip-service, but for others it's not even an issue, perhaps because the deity or spirit doesn't care how you feel, only what you do.
I miss the beard.
Deities also started off as ancestors that made a big impact on the culture, in many cases. Saints in Christianity would be an example.
I would give at least four reasons:
1. Childhood indoctrination.
2. Fear of death.
3. A desire to explain the unknown.
4. A desire for community.
That's it! ☺︎
@@bryntnjal9446 thank you 🙋🏼♂
Yes!
Although not as beautifully concise, I would add to the first four reasons you thought of:
Expanding your number 4.: To feel less alone and isolated with personal experiences - to feel more connected with others, and part of something greater than ourselves, which helps us feel strengthened and safer. (As we did just before our birth, and as newborns, without a developed sense of self). Humans are innately tribal and social, for development and survival.
5. Fear of loss - a way to manage and minimise the overwhelming experience of grieving for the loss of loved ones, including pets, loss of beautiful nature, loss of a body part, loss of health and function, loss of time of a finite lifetime, etc.
6. Pareidolia - humans are innately pattern seeking, and ascribe meaning to the patterns they see (That's how a toddler knows that 'apple' isn't just one specific item, 'apple' characteristics can be seen and applied to different sized, shaped and coloured versions, in different locations, at different times, in different circumstances, whole, or not, etc.).
7. To feel less vulnerable in an overwhelmingly reality, - on a microcosmic personal level, or a macrocosmic universal/ muti-universal level, perceived patterns, constructs and certainty of belief help manage the overwhelming perceptions of detail, and vast awareness that humans uniquely experience, compared to other living creatures on earth. To create a more manageable sense of order.
8. To feel that life has value, meaning and purpose - to avoid feeling, insignificant, our lives pointless, and that suffering is not for nothing.
9. To manage experiences associated with injustice -believing that rewards and punishments will be fairly exacted and reconciled, if not in this mortal life, in an afterlife.
10. Anatomical likelihood- some people's brains are structurally more likely to be religious. (A neurological study in the U.S. found that people who had far right political beliefs also had the same active regions of the brain associated with religiousity.).
I have written all this out due to reason 7. 😅
5.- A direct encounter with the noumenal.
6.- Strong rational positive reasons.
5. This needs to be demonstrated as a real phenomenon that people can experience. Could they be explained by psychological, neurological, or cultural factors?
6. Many people from different religions have such reasons. How do I differentiate?
What makes one claim more credible than another?
Thank God for you, Dr. McClellan.
Har har har
Thing is though - the biblical God is not running a religion he is running a Government.
The *contradiction of Sentient Life in an Entropic Universe alone* is enough to create an emergent phenomena like Religion -- in Sentient beings. The inherent suffering/consternation thereof would lead many to eventually cry-out in desperate hope to a "Creator". Amazingly -- I can correlate Supernatural physical responses to my personal outbursts of hope. Add-in the corroborating NDE reports -- and *I no longer Doubt* ( I oblige a liberal religion -- for social encouragement)
To many of us, religion is simply not the answer to anything. I think that was what the point of the question. Luckily, religion is on it's way out in modern societies.
Not in America. It's on its way back in thanks to the incoming force of law and the removal of the freedom of religion. It.could very well be a crime to be a nonbeliever or believe any other religion, or at the very least they're going to flip who is persecuted. Atheists already have a bad image thanks to Christianity, and it's about to get worse.
Exactly the type of information I need for my, “Get rich quick by starting a religious cult”scheme. I too hope to one day defraud the poor and the needy by convincing them that their god wants me to own a private jet or three.
that's just greed. the mystery is why the poor and needy will agree to that.
If religion fails, which it probably will nowadays, I suggest a much easier route is science. Just convince people things like climate change is real, then as 95% of scientists do, go about your day doing everything possible to make it worse. The 6th great extinction is a wonderously fertile field of mindless science backed consumerism for one to plough this world into dust.
Shaved Dan threw me off but this vid is so good
Even though as an atheist and deconverted Christian I'm not angry at religion. This is how we evolved and religious people are not religious because of facts, so religion isn't going anywhere.
“…religious people are not religious because of facts,…” This is precisely why we must always vote for reasonable people and actively support orgs like FFRF and ACLU until our last gasp in the perpetual battle for separation of church and state.
Provide me the facts if you know it so much though, enlighten us lol
Short version: because we're very primitive animals that are not nearly as logical as we'd like to believe
I remember as a five year old carrying out an experiment to figure out how things move away from you when you let go of them. I concluded there was a rule they followed (today we call it gravity) but I never thought it was a deity. Is there a god of gravity in any religion or mythology?
The answer is fascinating. Thank you.
But now the question arises: if religion is in part social, in part an answer to deep needs into the human beings... why atheism is growing in advanced societies? Doesn't it have something to do with the spread of public education and the scientific knowledge?
Love The beardless look!!!
Dan, I thought you said you weren’t an atheist?
Look I don’t care either way if you force me to put a label on my religious beliefs I’d probably say agnostic, but like, come on… this guy’s gotta be an atheist studying religion right? I mean no one who’s truly devoted to any religion, not just Christianity, is gonna say “here are the evolutionary, psychological, and social reasons why my faith exists as well as every other faith. No, my God(s) and these foundational stories aren’t what created my faith, it’s these evolutionary, psychological, and social reasons.”
Important to distinguish “religion” from a personal relationship where one operates outside those boundaries and confines. How does this explanation of religion explain an actual experiential relationship on an individual level? I think this explains the evolutionary need for people to collect in groups of like minds and the need to expand and be accepted into said group. But that’s only one aspect of religion, not the be all end all definition of it. If religion was only a social club, than pickleball clubs would be more popular than churches.
Extremely fascinating
why then is religion ( in the western world ) in decline?...
@@JohnKerr-bq3vo measured how- as forces that transmit their traditions, that serve the needs of their constituents, that function as nuclei of power versus other structures of power? These are often at odds, so to the extent “religion” as a series of institutions refocus its mission on something other than power- or maybe fails to do that- I think it’s hard to say it’s in decline (except to the extent people feel required to identity as a believer in any one religion in particular, in which case, yes).
I separate faith from religion. I don’t follow a religion, I follow & have faith in Jesus Christ.
An interesting observation I’ve noticed studying history and politics is that the radicalizing capacity of religion is not unlike that of political ideology and where they mix (Christian nationalism) and clash (Mao’s Cultural Revolution) I think will be key to countering radicalization.
#NotAll, but we’ve certainly seen rabid antitheists commit violence in history just as religious fanatics.
Yes, as Dan mentioned in the video a lot of the "features" of religion which people like to point out, conspiratorial/magical thinking, authoritarianism, tribalism, etc show up in many areas of life and human society. Instead of acting like these are unique to religion I think the approach of trying to understand how these things are influenced in the religious context (and vis versa) to be a better use of my time.
As a lifelong atheist, raised without direct religious influence, I have a hard time understanding peoples need for religion. To me religion and faith is illogical partly because we know so much more now, about how the world works, where mankind really came from and so on. We have a scientific explanation for many questions that were a mystery in the past. Of course we don't know everything and I doubt we ever will and here is where the religious people steps in and wants to put their deity/deities, as the explanation for the unknown.
Bedtime stories are the beginning of religion as explained to children.
Yeah. The human mind evolved to want this stuff. But I also evolved lungs for air instead of gills for water. But knowing that doesn’t mean I think I have to stay on land all the time. I can look beyond the land and go swimming, just like I can look beyond my minds evolutionary desire for the supernatural and see science.
Hi Dan,
after having deconverted from evangelical fundamentalism 20 years ago, I´m still intrigued by some ideas a (quasi-) christian spirituality can provide for us.
What keeps bothering me is how to maintain a more than just superficial connection to the christian narrative in the light of (biological) evolution.
I mean: doesn´t the christian narrative necessarily presuppose a perfect creation that was corrupted by the sin of man? Whereas Evolution shows simple, crude beginnings that render it impossible for man to be perfect in the first place.
And BTW: how can we expect a “New Heaven and Earth”, a perfect, eternal heavenly Jerusalem when it´s obvious that God (if there even is a creator God, what I doubt) “wanted” death in the first place-death´s not a bug, it´s a feature of creation, isn´t it?
(This video of yours seemed the right place to pose my question that has been on my mind for a long time.)
… I greatly enjoy watching your videos on a daily basis after having come across your youtube channel some eight or so weeks ago (Brian Dalton played a short snippet of on of your videos in one of his “Way of the mister” episodes; of course I needed to know what that was about-curiosity killed the cat but for us it usually pays out).
I really appreciate your work!
(My English might read not very idiomatic/natural: I´m swiss and a native german speaker. But I´ve given my best.)
All the best,
Daniel (yes, I´m a Daniel too)
Could you add text definitions for the big words you sometimes use in your videos? A lot of them seem specific to your academic field. I have a pretty decent vocabulary but I can’t spell to save my life (low-level dyslexia and some audio processing issues) so looking them up can be difficult 😅
I'm really enjoying these short and succinct pieces of knowledge. Thanks D McClellan. What is generally thought of as "religion" rather than "paganist" with scholars? Is it that religion is organized / institutionalized? It does seem that Christianity is very textcentric. That is the data though, I understand. It's interesting regarding textcentrism as I don't think print was widespread nor was 'reading and writing' of the ordinary everyday people of the region/s. I am intrigued enough to search for a more anthropological analysis, if there is one. Cheers!
I would be very curious to hear Dan's thoughts on the film Heretic if he's seen it.
What I want to know is how Dan has the time to read all of these books and papers.
Wait, Dan, what about the t-shirts?!😅
Bizarro!
@@zxys001 I meant t the free t-shirt giveaway he mentioned yesterday...but maybe I already missed the announcement of who won...😶
@@HandofOmega oh, sorry... darn missed that!
My kid asked me what religion is recently... and the best I could come up with on the spot was, "it's complicated"
I'm a firm believer in the propensity of religion to be baked in our genes. Some people are more evolved away from that propensity.
Kindly read Einsteins own writing in his book " Out of my later Years" Citadel press NJ Albert Einstein.
He stated he was a proud Jew and Zionist.
Is there a correlation between the shirts and the subjects?
It is Energy. Love 💕 or Fear.. If a Bible teaching is Love it is God..if it is Fear..it is Satan. Choose wisely 😊❤
That's your perception of it. Satan is the good guy to me, because God is the bad guy. As for energy, energy isn't a tangible thing floating around, like when a medium or spiritualist or whatever says "I can feel the energy around me," no they can't, they're making that up to sound like they have some special enlightenment when really they're as lame as anyone else. They're just pretending to have some secret knowledge. Some of them really believe they do, but many of them know that what they believe is total nonsense, they're just stringing people along.
Humans are social animals, and we like a place to hang out every weekend.
On top of that, a gathering where they'll tell us that our problems are somebody else's fault, and that Sky Friend is going to blast the people that they're blaming for society's ills? Yeah, that's an idea that will sell itself pretty much forever.
$0.02 for the algorithm. 👍
Well done except you did neglect to mention the Transcendent aspect within religion. Go Mystics!!!
you mean the feeling of transcendence, which is psychological, and can be achieved through art, sports, love etc. It is a self-induced euphoria, measurable by neurologists.
Please examine and investigate Caeayaron and Suzanna Maria Emmanuel
The next question is how to get rid of the damn stuff for good!
You can't. It's ways going to exist, even if science figured out a way to invent that machine like Farnsworth created in Futurama where tou could ask it any question and it would not only somehow have the answer, it would show you a video. I'm pretty sure someone asked if there's a god and he said no, that's a dumb question, the answer is no. Ask something better! If we had that machine and it told us there's no god and all these religions are completely made up by man, people would still believe and many of them are choosing to despite not being able to choose your beliefs, this is not true to me. Many have admitted that they would still choose to believe even if they knew that what they believed is wrong or not true. America is unfortunately about to experience a resurgence in Christianity thanks to a certain doofus that's going to force it on everyone. All schools will become Christian schools, because these people are everywhere and they're going to have control of the schools.