Virtually all religions hold some supernatural beliefs specific to that religion. That is, a religion’s adherents firmly hold beliefs that conflict with and cannot be confirmed by our experience of the natural world, and that appear implausible to people other than the adherents of that particular religion. For example, Hindus believe there is a monkey god who travels thousands of kilometers at a single somersault. Catholics believe a woman who had not yet been fertilized by a man became pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy, whose body eventually after his death was carried up to a place called heaven, often represented as being located in the sky. The Jewish faith believes that a supernatural being gave a chunk of desert in the Middle East to the being’s favorite people, as their home forever.
No other feature of religion creates a bigger divide between religious believers and modern secular people, to whom it staggers the imagination that anyone could entertain such beliefs. No other feature creates a bigger divide between believers in two different religions, each of whom firmly believes its own beliefs but considers it absurd that the other religion’s believers believe those other beliefs. Why, nevertheless, are supernatural beliefs such universal features of religions?
He goes on to point out that people are willing to believe, and even invest in, non-religious supernatural claims, like in Europe where many people still fear crossing the path of a black cat, or of people in New Guinea who believe that hearing the song of a particular bird portends death of a villager.
Additionally, he notices that the gods of most religions resemble things known in the natural world - animals or humans - with the same characteristics, but with supernatural powers added. No one would worship a common man born through natural means, for example, but one that can shoot thunderbolts from his hands?
Nevertheless, it’s not the case that there are no limits to what can be accepted as a religious supernatural belief. Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer have independently pointed out that actual religious superstitions over the whole world constitute a narrow subset of all the arbitrary random superstitions that one could theoretically invent. To quote Pascal Boyer, there is no religion proclaiming anything like the following tenet: “There is only one God! He is omnipotent. But he exists only on Wednesdays.” Instead, the religious supernatural beings in which we believe are surprisingly similar to humans, animals, or other natural objects, except for having superior powers. They are more far-sighted, longer-lived, and stronger, travel faster, can predict the future, can change shape, can pass through walls, and so on. In other respects, gods and ghosts behave like people. The god of the Old Testament got angry, while Greek gods and goddesses became jealous, ate, drank, and had sex. Their powers surpassing human powers are projections of our own personal power fantasies; they can do what we wish we could do ourselves. I do have fantasies of hurling thunderbolts that destroy evil people, and probably many other people share those fantasies of mine, but I have never fantasized about existing only on Wednesdays. Hence it doesn’t surprise me that gods in many religions are pictured as smiting evil-doers, but that no religion holds out the dream of existing just on Wednesdays. Thus, religious supernatural beliefs are irrational, but emotionally plausible and satisfying. That’s why they’re so believable, despite at the same time being rationally implausible.
*The text in italics is from the article, the bold is mine. As usual, I encourage you to read the entire article for more depth and explanation.
If you are religious, do you find the claims of other religions to be irrational, while those of your religion are logical and rational?Answer Question
Answer by momto2boys973 at 7:07 PM on Jan. 17, 2013
Answer by Nimue930 at 5:56 PM on Jan. 17, 2013
Answer by wendythewriter at 5:35 PM on Jan. 17, 2013
Answer by okmanders at 6:10 PM on Jan. 18, 2013
Answer by Anna92464 at 12:08 AM on Jan. 28, 2013
Recently Bumped in Debate
Michigan Pediatrician Refuses To Treat Baby Because It Has Two Mommies