Religion Explained

From: Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Date: Thu Sep 06 2001 - 21:17:06 EDT

  • Next message: George Hammond: "Re: Religion Explained"

    WEDNESDAY AUGUST 29 2001
     
    Religion, Pascal Boyer argues, is nothing more or less than a by-product of
    the human mind
     
    Religion Explained
     
    By Pascal Boyer
    Heinemann, £20; 448 pp
    ISBN 0 434 00843 5
    Times offer: £18 (p&p 99p) 0870 160 80 80
    Buy the book

    There are many theories about the origins of and the reasons for religion.
    Faith has been described as an antidote to mortality, an attempt to make sense
    of puzzling phenomena, to account for evil and suffering, or to discover how
    things came to be. The enemies of religion see it as a failure of rationality.
    Pascal Boyer dismisses all these explanations as inexact.

    Religion, he argues, is nothing more or less than a by-product of the human
    mind. It is a side effect of having a particular kind of brain. By far the
    most fascinating part of this highly accessible and informative book is
    Boyer’s description of the way our minds work. We have an inbuilt set of
    ontological expctations and a tendency to dwell on intuitions which violate
    these, such as mountains that float or companions whom we do not see. From the
    dawn of modern consciousness, men and women have focused on certain imaginary
    personalities that transcend the norm, convinced that they can help them in
    strategic ways. These supernatural agents link with other mental systems, such
    as our moral intuitions and social categories, for which we can find no
    conceptual justification.

    These religious beliefs happen to activate a variety of mental systems so
    efficiently that they become compelling. They are easily transmissible,
    because they correspond to the way people’s minds function in all times and in
    all places. That is why religious ideas tend to be so similar. Boyer includes
    some interesting chapters about the reasons why human corpses are so
    especially problematic, he compare ritual to certain pathological compulsive
    behaviours.

    When, however, Boyer abandons neurology and anthropology for theology and
    religious history, he is less convincing. His accounts of modern
    fundamentalism and the political implications of faith are naive. His theory
    probably works very well with the African tribesmen who were the subjects of
    his field work, but is less satisfactory when applied to the so-called
    advanced religions, whose raison d’être was precisely to go beyond the idea of
    a supernatural agent, which often rejected the gods, and aspire to an
    experience that transcends the normal thought processes.

    Early Buddhism, for example, had no interest in any God, but saw the tranced
    states achieved by means of the disciplines of yoga as entirely natural to men
    and women. Yoga itself was designed precisely to get beyond normal patterns of
    thought and intuition. Even in the monotheistic faiths, the most eminent
    Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians insisted that what we call “God” is
    not another being, and certainly not the counter-intuitive agent discussed by
    Boyer.

    Boyer’s neurological approach to the phenomena of religion is helpful, because
    it reminds us how deeply faith is conditioned by the bias of our minds. But it
    neglects our capacity to build on these to produce ideas and experiences that
    may not be supernatural but which are certainly transcendent. As an art form,
    religion at its best and most creative has exploited these innate natural
    habits, in the same way as poetry has transfigured our ability to speak. This
    urge to go beyond what we do naturally is an essential part of the religious
    project and Boyer’s thesis is the poorer for ignoring it. Karen Armstrong
     
    Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 06 2001 - 21:17:22 EDT