The Psychology of Religiosity

[Blake]

I am completely new to the whole Objectivist cyber-world, not to mention blogging in general, so bear with me.

After scanning through an earlier post in this forum, I came to a realization; at least it was new to me. The post was discussing how our conscious interpretations of our actions may or may not align with our "objective" or true motives.

Anyhow, what I noticed was this: religious people, by virtue of their professed beliefs, are acting upon self-interest, (which is what their religions claim as an evil).

They are doing exactly what Objectivists preach when we speak of self-interest. One thing that must first be understood is the fact that they actually BELIEVE they will achieve eternal life in heaven. They VALUE eternal life in heaven more than life on Earth. They are trading value for higher value. That value is above all other values. In ethics, their actions align with Objectivism, though clearly not epistemologically speaking.

Unfortunately, their higher value is founded on logical incoherence and driven by faith. Also driven by an apparent dissatisfaction with their present lives, for whatever reason. Values presuppose life, and the presence of alternatives. The only alternatives they take into account are heaven and hell.. A priest isn’t a selfless preacher of the Gospel. He wouldn't do it if he did not BELIEVE that upon entering the gates, he will somehow hold more esteem then his followers. I don’t know, maybe he can cut to the front of the line at Club Angel, god only knows.

What do you guys think about this?

[Selene]

Blake:

Welcome to OL.

This is the argument I have always made with the "witch doctors," as Ayn tagged the mystics. The are rabidly pursuing the path that gives them pleasure by fulfilling their own selfish desires to "help others," or, be one with their God.

Good observations.

Are you a student, or a worker slave for the state?

Musician?

What brought you to Rand?

Adam

[Reidy]

Yes, but their beliefs aren't true. Buying into your values is a necessary but not sufficient condition of doing what is objectively right. Believing that P is a necessary condition of knowing that P, but it isn't sufficient in the case where P is false. The people you describe are, at a minimum, wasting whatever time and energy they spend practicing their religion, and, to the extent that they believe, they will, in a conflict, have to take the side of delusion. This is not what doing the self-interested thing means.

Nathaniel Branden's "Isn't Everyone Selfish" (anthologized in The Virtue of Selfishness) is good to read in this connection. He explains the difference between motivated action and self-interested action.

[Rich Engle]

"They?" What is a "religionist?" For instance, by that do you mean anyone who is not an atheist?

Hope you are enjoying OL!

rde

[9thdoctor]

What do you guys think about this?

Welcome to OL.

So you mean churches are selling after-life insurance? A post-post retirement plan? The main insight I take from this is to disagree with Peikoff and Yaron Brook etc. who criticize religious morality as altruistic. Hierarchically, the problem is that it’s irrational, altruism is different.

[Blake]

Adam:

I read Atlas Shrugged when I was about 17 or 18. For the most part, being what you could call a victim of modern society, I set Rand and her ideas to the side..

After spending a few years engaging in mindless indulgences, and paying the consequences, I started anew with the utmost dedication to ideas, and Objectivism in particular.

As to my musicianship, I've played guitar since I was about 14, and though 8 or so years of playing is a pretty good chunk of time, it doesn't necessarily reflect my skills at the moment >D. I have a band called Bottlerocket, and we have a couple albums on iTunes.

Rich:

In my post, which perhaps I should have specified, I was referring to any of the religions that preach that life on Earth is simply a means to some higher, eternal existence, or 'proper' existence. As far as I know, Christianity and Islam are similar in this regard, though I don't have much interest in sorting through the details. One could certainly narrow the discussion to Christianity.

Reidy:

Thanks for the helpful reference. I know I've read that before.. often things don't stick in my mind unless I'm looking for them, unfortunately. So for it to truly be a value, it must be in our self-interest. To be in our self-interest, it must be in accordance with reality. Correct? This made me wonder about the case where, let's say, you value your girlfriend very much and often give her precedence over smaller values. As it turns out, she was cheating on you the whole time. Your value did not align with reality, therefore it was not a value, (which would be an error in knowledge, not morality).

So let's say there are religious people who have been actually duped into thinking they have knowledge that they will go to heaven, (which I believe there are). Their reality is also misaligned as the man who was mistaken in trusting his cheating girlfriend. Perhaps the key point is, however, that the evidence that the girlfriend might like him is by far more reality oriented than the zero-evidence for an afterlife.

Ninth Doctor:

I am not trying to disagree with anyone per se, nor defend religious people. I just found it to be an interesting connection. Religious morality preaches altruism, correct. But in general, people are exchanging their values on Earth for what they take on faith to be a higher value. Which isn't a value because it doesn't exist.. They still want something, but because it is not reality based, it is not a value, thus not an action motivated by self-interest.

"It is only the legacy of mysticism that permits men to imagine that they are still speaking meaningfully when they declare that one can seek one's happiness in the renunciation of one's happiness."

-NB, VOS, p69

[Reidy]

Yes, correct. I would never hold somebody responsible for what he doesn't know, as long as he'd made an effort to stay in touch with the facts. If he were the victim of deception, he presumably did. If he takes religion seriously, he presumably didn't.

[Rich Engle]

The day any of you guys walked into a free church and attempted to participate, well, then maybe something would happen.

I got stomach-sick somewhere back in O-forum world (and I think it was SOLO) where out of desperation new terms were coined like "Religionists." and all that nasty nonsense.

Mean, soul-sick people. You don't have to be a part of a church to accept people that are in a church. It is so fucking not-funny what goes on, in the hypocrisy. To point, those that do this kind of behavior mirror the very kind of behavior that they protest. It is equally hateful.

I have never met a human being that was happy in their skin being either way.

Here's a a simple triad: Reason, Reverence, Tolerance. That is very old, but they check on each other. Give it a try, it might make you go out and enjoy not only nature, but other humans!

rde

Edited January 23, 2011 by Rich Engle

[Blake]

Rich:

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Who are "you guys", and what about going to a free church? Are you calling me a mean, soul-sick person?

I never used the term "religionists", nor did it spawn in the O-forums you speak of. According to Random House, the term originated in the late 18th century.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Blake,

Welcome to OL.

Belated, but still a warm welcome.

Michael