Religion - a rational basis for social cohesiveness

[zorathruster]

How would we describe the social network that happens when humans form various levels of social bond? The people are bound by a common precept which appears to direct their actions. This common precept need not be true or valid to have an actual effect on the actions of people.

This tendency manifests itself in often weird acts to prove devotion to the group norms. An example is in the Amazon where the men build tall towers and tie vines to their ankles then jump off. The act proves they are devoted to the group and willing to endure fear and pain to be a part of the group. Likewise, other groups bond together by professing various devotions. At the most basic level is the marriage bond where a man and woman profess sexual exclusivity between each other. Some of these social obligations are practical, such as marriage ensuring the exclusive access to sexual activities and progeny. Some are fairly impractical such as inserting ever larger plates into a cut in the lower lip somewhat resembling a human duck.

The whole concept though is to show dedication to the group morrays which combine both practical (to be beneficial) and impractical (to create devotion) activities and actions. I remember once going on a "clean up the beach" program where we marched along picking up trash. Earl and I rounded the corner and found about one dump truck load of garbage dumped behind a dune. We looked at each other and both realized there was no way to practically remove this much garbage without a dump truck size operation, which we really didn’t have. We quietly moved back to the beach where we continued to collect smaller trash articles. The "clean up the beach" was an activity where people with common purpose were trying to accomplish some form of good in their world. In reality their effect was limited because of the overwhelming problem that was present. But by having a common purpose, no matter how futile the effort, was what getting together and "ACTING" was all about. Group bonding, group effort, group consensus all reinforced the group cohesiveness and group dynamics. Even though it was in reality a futile gesture, the clean the beach effort was practical in it’s effect on bringing the people together for a common purpose, increasing group cohesion, and reinforcing the common goal of a clean beach.

That is what religion does, it increases group cohesiveness. The precept is as ignorant as thinking 30 people with trash bags are going to clean up a beach where dump truck loads of garbage collect. Total futility. Religion brings people together to eat crackers, feel better about their circumstances, and try to act in a more civil manner toward their neighbor. Many people really need that type of communal exercise in their lives. (I must point out that many who weekly attend such exercises still lack the understanding and fail to adapt their lives to the concept)

So in my opinion, religion is a social creation designed to decrease social conflict and moderate the aggressive nature of humans. It is difficult to maintain animosity towards people you think have common (often invalid) precepts. Therefore, it is also important that religion have some form of outlandish, provably false doctrines that ensure the devotion of the followers to the group concepts. You know your neighbor is part of the group because despite all evidence to the contrary, he thinks humans are the result of special creation... he thinks prayer really works... he thinks there is a Santa Claus like being sitting in the clouds keeping track of who’s naughty and who’s nice, and when someone dies they actually go off to another dimension where they get a set of wings, sing and play the harp. Therefore, many in society conclude, "in that case I’ll put up with this guy because he thinks like me".

For the naturalist, or atheist, if this position is correct, life needs to include such group behavior to reinforce acceptance. Acceptance of them as individuals, acceptance of the social structure of mutual support, and acceptance of other people with common ideals problems and motivations. I don't find a lot of atheist churches, although the Universalist Unitarians come about as close and accepting a group as is out there with little of the mal-precepts of most christian churches.

[neonmagek]

I agree with most of what you said. What I disagree with is that the beliefs or actions need to be outlandish. They just need to be identifiable by other members of the group. It can be something as simple as having a symbol on one's arm (gang tattoos come to mind), a way of dressing (goths, the millitary, business men) or some sort of jewlery (Christians, Neo-Pagans). The Wiccans have a means of identification that I think is ingenious. The phrase merry meet. If they say it to someone from their own group, the other person knows they are a member of the group. If they say it to someone who is not and would be hostile to them if they knew, they usualy do not know what the phrase means. They can then say to the person who is not in the group, oh it is just a way of saying hi.

[cwecksrun]

You might have a point there.

However, I would add, in addition to what you have said, that the more exclusive the group is, the more close knit the social fabric of the group weaves together those individuals.

Evidence for this rule might be the cohesiveness members of smaller groups and clubs of schools tend to have with each other compared with any random members of the school. Also, immediate families (Mom, Dad, Sister, etc.) are much more exclusive groups, and much more intimate groups, then extended families (cousins, 2nds, great-grandparents, etc.).

Exclusivity means cohesion among those involved, which by inverse means that the more inclusive a group is, the less the effects of cohesion on members of that group. In this way, an incorporative church like the one you suggested would not have the same bonding affects that other churches do, if everyone joined. Instead, the weak bonds of an incorporative church like you suggested church might be on par with something like "being an American" or "being a member of the set of people living in North America". Would this have affects? Maybe, but they would be minimal at best, I think..

Let me know what you think.
-Chris

[neonmagek]

You might have a point there.

However, I would add, in addition to what you have said, that the more exclusive the group is, the more close knit the social fabric of the group weaves together those individuals.

Evidence for this rule might be the cohesiveness members of smaller groups and clubs of schools tend to have with each other compared with any random members of the school. Also, immediate families (Mom, Dad, Sister, etc.) are much more exclusive groups, and much more intimate groups, then extended families (cousins, 2nds, great-grandparents, etc.).

Exclusivity means cohesion among those involved, which by inverse means that the more inclusive a group is, the less the effects of cohesion on members of that group. In this way, an incorporative church like the one you suggested would not have the same bonding affects that other churches do, if everyone joined. Instead, the weak bonds of an incorporative church like you suggested church might be on par with something like "being an American" or "being a member of the set of people living in North America". Would this have affects? Maybe, but they would be minimal at best, I think..

Let me know what you think.
-Chris

I agree with you on the cohesion bit. I think the inclusive groups do have an effect because there is still a weak "border" between them and others. Due to the weak cohension the inclusive group is likely to brake up into more exlusive sub-groups. For example, Americans can be broken down into sub groups like goths, punks .etc, Goths living in say Washing State are differant than goths living in, say, Virginia. In Virginia they will different according to the city they live in.In the cities it brakes down into different clicks. An American is likely to be much diffant then an English person. We have goths both in the United States and in England, but they will differ from each other just like they did, if not more so, then goths in differant states.

[zorathruster]

Evidence for this rule might be the cohesiveness members of smaller groups and clubs of schools tend to have with each other compared with any random members of the school. Also, immediate families (Mom, Dad, Sister, etc.) are much more exclusive groups, and much more intimate groups, then extended families (cousins, 2nds, great-grandparents, etc.).

Exclusivity means cohesion among those involved, which by inverse means that the more inclusive a group is, the less the effects of cohesion on members of that group. In this way, an incorporative church like the one you suggested would not have the same bonding affects that other churches do, if everyone joined. Instead, the weak bonds of an incorporative church like you suggested church might be on par with something like "being an American" or "being a member of the set of people living in North America".
-Chris

I concur. We exist in ever overlapping circles. Human, American, Conservative, Liberal, Southern, English speaking all attributes attempting to find cohesive commonality to unite groups.

I think the harder it is to get into a group, the higher the standards, the tighter the bond. The exclusive commonality of for example a Navy Seal Team, where the standards are very high physically and mentally just to get there and then the routine training and high threat which requires high skill to deal with creates a very strong common bond for the teams.

Churches in order to survive spread the cohesion over a broader arena. They have to let in new members to expand. If they only take the totally committed, the pews would be empty. But on the other side, they have to ratchet up the acceptance level of participants to keep them. So they have deacons, sunday school teachers and committee chairmen and various other levels of recognition to provide an avenue of greater commitment for members. A deacon probably has greater devotion to the corporate group than an ordinary member.

[zorathruster]

However, I would add, in addition to what you have said, that the more exclusive the group is, the more close knit the social fabric of the group weaves together those individuals.

Evidence for this rule might be the cohesiveness members of smaller groups and clubs of schools tend to have with each other compared with any random members of the school. Also, immediate families (Mom, Dad, Sister, etc.) are much more exclusive groups, and much more intimate groups, then extended families (cousins, 2nds, great-grandparents, etc.).

Exclusivity means cohesion among those involved, which by inverse means that the more inclusive a group is, the less the effects of cohesion on members of that group. In this way, an incorporative church like the one you suggested would not have the same bonding affects that other churches do, if everyone joined. Instead, the weak bonds of an incorporative church like you suggested church might be on par with something like "being an American" or "being a member of the set of people living in North America". Would this have affects? Maybe, but they would be minimal at best, I think..

Let me know what you think.
-Chris

Good points!

The shakers were a group that had very high demands on their members, celibacy being one. For the most part, shakers are now defunk, the reason is clear. When the rules of the group get so demanding that very few can qualify, unless there is an exceptional effort to robust the membership, they disappear.

The Navy seal teams are a very exclusive group which has exceptionally high requirements for membership. It is only the vast amount of effort made by the Navy to continue to robust the ranks of the teams that keeps them around. The actual push is coming from outside the group.

I don't think your position on cohesiveness being inverse is correct. Toleration, although admittedly on a sliding scale, appears to be more binary in the terms of the group. I have read of the Quaki Utils, a northern eskimo tribe, where they only tolerate so far. If a member was too far outside acceptable boundaries, on the next hunting trip...accidents happen. Pretty much binary, either you were acceptable with all your quirks, or you were unacceptable with all your quirks.

Nationalism does have a corallary to group effects. I think the draw of all the groups pivot on a similar desire in humans to be part of the group. When everyone is pissed about 9-11 everyone is behind the military option. Once the truth of Iraq not having weapons of mass destruction, not being inundated by Al Queda, and the US invasion being based on the whims of GW and his Dick, fewer people want to trumpet nationalism.

[Griggsy]

I find Zorathruster right on cohesion ! That and the feeling for divine purpose and love and a future state and the mere feeling there is a supernatural influence behind and beyond the cosmos explains religion. Here we naturalists and anaturalists can do debate fairly.Dawkins is trying for us naturalists to out ourselves in order to show cohesion with other naturalists and to show the religious that we are moral and nice.

[Abelard]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: lilpixieofterror

Naturalism 101 is for non-theist only. Thanks!

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[papas]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: lilpixieofterror

Naturalism is only for non-theist. Thanks!

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.