• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are humans predisposed (biologically or otherwise) to see the world through a spiritual lense?

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Depends on what you mean by spiritual, of course, but I think there's a large and growing body of science that strongly suggests humans have innate, biologically rooted predilections to see the world in ways that many of us would consider spiritual.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Depends on what you mean by spiritual, of course, but I think there's a large and growing body of science that strongly suggests humans have innate, biologically rooted predilections to see the world in ways that many of us would consider spiritual.

I just kind of mean a predisposition to see things in deific / spiritual / mythological / etc ways.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I just kind of mean a predisposition to see things in deific / spiritual / mythological / etc ways.

"Just a kind of predisposition"? I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but since humans do easily tend to see things in those terms, I guess it could be said we are to some extent predisposed to see things in those terms.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
What we mean exactly by 'spiritual' seems to be an issue.

I see 'spirituality' to be about our relationship to the universe, rather than the physical universe itself. It is how we interact at an intuitive, emotional and experiential level with the universe.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Are humans predisposed to explaining the world in mythical ways?
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
According to the Bible, "yes"

"Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, (or "those who are beggars for the spirit.") since the Kingdom of the heavens belongs to them." - Matthew 5:3

This scripture also implies that some recognize the need and act on it, and some do not, but regardless it teaches that all have it innately.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
According to the Bible, "yes"

"Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, (or "those who are beggars for the spirit.") since the Kingdom of the heavens belongs to them." - Matthew 5:3

This scripture also implies that some recognize the need and act on it, and some do not, but regardless it teaches that all have it innately.

Honestly no offense, but what the bible says is pretty much irrelevant to objective science.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
Honestly no offense, but what the bible says is pretty much irrelevant to objective science.

This is under religious debates, no?

It is a point of view. some might consider it interesting what it's point of view is.
I take no offense, but if you wanted merely a science exclusive answer, I would expect this in a different part of the forum
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
This is under religious debates, no?

It is a point of view. some might consider it interesting what it's point of view is.
I take no offense, but if you wanted merely a science exclusive answer, I would expect this in a different part of the forum

It's the objective aspect of religion.
 

Revasser

Terrible Dancer
It seems to me that most religion and spirituality is like a viral meme that co-opts a natural human tendency toward pattern seeking/recognition and assumption of agency. It can change thinking and behaviour depending on which one you "catch".

So in that respect, we kind of are predisposed to it, in my opinion. At least, the mental and social environment we've grown to create is favourable for their development.

Though that is not to say they are necessary in any way or that we should accept their ongoing presence as inevitable.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
probably. it is highly debatable because we don't know the history of early peoples and anthropologists have drawn lessons from "primitive" cultures such as European contact with native Americans and then tried to apply them to early history. Religion is probably the first way we see the world as a projection of our own human properties, such as attributing the a form of consciousness to change in the world as (I think) happens with animism. It is not however innate or biological as the powers of technology show that we can control to a great extent these natural forces by science- hence supernatural explanations are constantly in retreat as science explains more and more. The more we understand, the less we need the god of the gaps.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
If mythological thinking is natural and unharmful (in certain contexts) then "moving past" it is a unhealthy as stifling other natural aspects of ourselves. It's the militant atheist equivalent of the Christian ban on sex.
 

Revasser

Terrible Dancer
If mythological thinking is natural and unharmful (in certain contexts) then "moving past" it is a unhealthy as stifling other natural aspects of ourselves. It's the militant atheist equivalent of the Christian ban on sex.

Not all mythology is created equal, insofar as it affects human reality.

As well, one needn't have literal beliefs in the supernatural to enjoy and be enriched by myth. Nor to take comfort from acting on harmless superstition or be grounded and find meaning in personal ritual practice.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If mythological thinking is natural and unharmful (in certain contexts) then "moving past" it is a unhealthy as stifling other natural aspects of ourselves. It's the militant atheist equivalent of the Christian ban on sex.

I think this is directed at me. I know what you mean as shoving militant atheism down someone's throat is never the same a genuine belief in atheism.
There is a difference between what is natural for human beings and what we think is natural. The diversity of religious belief proves that no-one belief system is natural or corresponds to our innate desires but that each one can, though in a different way. It therefore follows that an atheist view could well be as compatible with human nature, but only on the basis of a very high level of scientific knowledge which can eliminate the need for supernatural explanations; "the god of the gaps".
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I think this is directed at me. I know what you mean as shoving militant atheism down someone's throat is never the same a genuine belief in atheism.
There is a difference between what is natural for human beings and what we think is natural. The diversity of religious belief proves that no-one belief system is natural or corresponds to our innate desires but that each one can, though in a different way. It therefore follows that an atheist view could well be as compatible with human nature, but only on the basis of a very high level of scientific knowledge which can eliminate the need for supernatural explanations; "the god of the gaps".

The difference in myth isn't much of an issue when you factor in the theoretically infinite variables relative to each group and their environment. Myth could just be necessary for a balanced mind.
 
Are humans predisposed to explaining the world in mythical ways?

Humans are not just predisposed to explaining the world in mythical ways, they can only explain the world in mythical ways.

(By myths I mean fictions: beliefs which are false or objectively 'not proven', but held to be true because it is expedient to do so. This is certainly not limited to Religions)
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The difference in myth isn't much of an issue when you factor in the theoretically infinite variables relative to each group and their environment. Myth could just be necessary for a balanced mind.

I think you're using "myth" to refer to all religious beliefs in contrast to atheist or scientific ones. Both Atheism and Science contain "illusions" (rather than myths) and cannot claim to be absolutely true. giving up the belief in omniscience is indeed necessary for a balanced mind.
Science is often reduced to a very absolute, simplistic and monolithic process which forgets it has philosophical foundations and therefore uncertainty. If religion is based on one philosophy of nature and atheism on another- it is more than possible for atheism to satisfy all the psychological requirements that a religious belief can.
Neither Science nor atheism can ever be absolutely 'true' because our knowledge is ever expanding into what is uncertain and we are therefore overcoming old illusions, but they can adequately substitute religious belief as a philosophical system which relies on supernatural explanations for phenomena.
 
Top