Belief and Religion Debate - Research Paper Example

BELIEF and RELIGION Will the sky still be blue, when there is none to see on the earth? -- The Great Founder of advaita – meaning oneness – Adhi Shankara of India. INTRODUCTION Religions are generally based on beliefs, while beliefs are based on already stored information in the human brain and results of experimentation of that information. Religious rites may have been predominantly showing something different outward meanings. But the cores of the rites are based purely on beliefs. The process of Beliefs normally traverses through persuasion and reliability. Religion works out to be a best persuasive force. When a persuader is an expert, his ideas and thoughts and motive of persuasion are easily got done. (Hoveland and Weiss, 1951) likewise honest people are more persuasive. Such persuasion when carried out in mass scale is imbibed in the minds of people as beliefs. There are only four kinds of obstacles for persuasion. They are: 1. Strong attitude. 2. Reactance. 3. Fore warning and 4. Selective avoidance. However, conformity is the most viable tool to keep religious norms in practice. Asch’s (1951, 1955) study of conformity clearly explains why people succumb to the pressure to conform. The second viable course of process in belief system is reliability. Reliability generally means consistency. This reliability is the key to open any belief system. Religious preachers usually advocate meditation. Meditation really reduces tension, anxiety and stress especially physiological stress. (Carington, P,1977 & Mac Lean C. et al, 1997). As the focus on attention gets improved by meditation, the effect of producing reliability gets enhanced by religious preachers. Some extra-ordinary and different acts of people, which are construed as psychotic by psychologists and psychiatrists, are accepted as normal acts in some culture. Cultural differences are thus becoming veils to identify actual symptoms of psychosis. Since belief system is interwoven with expectancy and reliability, the changes of personality is much impacted by religions and religious beliefs. Personality changes in turn pave way to cultural changes. Self-reinforcement is a powerful tool in determining behavior and feelings, which in turn contribute to personality changes. While Freudian theories and humanistic theories do not explain the impact of beliefs and religion, cognitive approach to personality theory attempts to explain changes in personality changes. Development of Neurotheology: Kosslyn and Koenig (1995) argued that ‘the mind is what the brain does’. New brain-scanning technologies have allowed us to observe human brain in action. fMRI is the currently used and most efficacious neuro-imaging technique in reading the human brain at work. This technology tracks the movement of oxygen-filled red blood cells in the brain as a task is performed. To have a better understanding on belief system and its impact on human brain, it would be easier to conceive the effect of reasoning, which normally pulls down the belief processing in opposite direction or at least slows down the process of belief. There are two specific classes of reasoning that are often carried out by human. They are: Deductive reasoning and Inductive reasoning. In Deductive reasoning the rules of logic are applied to a set of assumptions construed as premises to discover what conclusions inevitably follow from those assumptions. This type of deductive reasoning goes from general to particular examples. Neuro – imaging techniques of people carrying out this type of reasoning showed activity in the parietal lobes. (Baker S.C, et al, 1996 & Osherson D, et al, 1998). Inductive reasoning works towards a conclusion by moving from particular to a generalization. Defining of Religion: Popp Baier clearly brings out the blurred image of defining religions by Spilka in The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach (3rd Edition). He points out that spirituality containing certain orientations; actions and experiences have to be well conceived before making any demarcation between religion and spirituality. Religion can be accepted as way of life or style of life but not as mere sentiments. Thus any claim to land on operational definitions lead only to the rites performed in religions by the believers of religion. In doing so, the modalities of rites in any religion cover major portion of focus, leaving very little emphasis on the orientations of such rites. Assuming psychological patterns on the actions of rites certainly dilute the strength of beliefs of those concerned. Researchers are thus forced to take the role of atheists, who are generally viewed to be against God. When the term ‘God’ is put on the anvil, the researcher, whoever he may be, is constrained to accept the beliefs of others either willingly or not. Defining of God becomes thus a prerequisite, which everybody is aware to involve billions of assumptions and actions apart from experiments and science. To avoid such circumstantial veering, the analysts tend to focus on the rites in any religion, giving simply a laboratory look to their research. Our terminological definitions of many aspects of religion simply leave us stranded. Stigmatization of religions as ‘superstitious’ clearly brings out the incapability of the studies, which are attempting to define instead of trying to read and observe what religion really, is. Scientific approach to Religion: Scientific approach comprises chiefly experimentation and evidence based hypotheses. Religion – a belief based concept – when subjected to scientific analysis, shackles the researchers to the extent that they are often going away from their target of either generalization or particularization. This is because the belief system in religion is so deep – rooted that the seed of the belief system could not easily be detected. The complexity in the cluster of outward findings is typically a mess delaying or obstructing the attainment of any clear-cut derivation. Usual allowance for further research, as being followed in other studies such as, medicine, economic, humanities, sociology etc, is the only hope that the Truth could be neared though not absorbed. The study on Psychology of Religious behavior, belief and experiences is conducted by many researchers drawing much attention to issues concerned with laboratory experiments, quasi-experimental designs, samplings, measurement and data analysis. As pointed out by Andrew Greely in the review on Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Belief and Experience by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi et al the interface between Behaviour, Belief and Attitude and the problems in researching religion are not discussed in depth. However, Evolutionary Theorists suggest that psychological approach towards religion and belief system would get further momentum when behavior genetics is included. Sandra Scarr’s commentary on Buss’s derivation of specific predictions from hypotheses via general theoretical principles and middle level evolutionary theories is a very good landmark on the scientific revolution. As observed by Kuhn (1970, p111) the queer and different outlook by scientists would throw much light in understanding what religion really is. Incorporating genetic variations alongside the natural selection of Darwinian theory the psychological research on religion would bring new vistas. Ilkka Pyysaiainen (2003) has well conceived the role of human brain in belief system. He has given a generic finding that reflective beliefs and attitudes are copied in the temporary buffer of some internal device of the mind. He is of a clear view that belirf systems are based on communication rather than perception. (p112). Jonathan A. Waskan (2003) deals the same issue in a more detailed manner. He acknowledges the basic findings of cognitive psychology, which has refined our understandings of myriad mechanisms involved in the encoding, storage and retrieval of declarative memories. The strongest impressions laid in religious belief system is well explained in his findings that long term declarative memories are stored in hippocampus area of human brain for three years during which period the brain engages in a process of consolidation whereby the long-term memories are progressively given more permanent storage at the cortical surface. (p. 642, 643)(Jonathan A.Waskan, 2003) When was God born? Man never lives alone. Even while being alone human mind tends to act or react to the feedback received from its own actions. Sensory motor feedback in respect of auditory and visual feedback has been studied and found that a steady uninterrupted hissing or any noise in the environment and the inherent homogeneity becomes uncomfortable for humans. Unable to stand the monotony, man begins to produce his own varieties by way of whistling or singing alone. Research has found that this interaction to be a component of all behavior, from neutral episodes to crises. The link between belief and behavior raises many problematic issues like even war. Sam Harris in his End of Faith reserves his concern over the killing of innocents for adhering to a belief system different from others. He endorses the act of violence in self defense as found in the act of US in Afghan. (Sam Harris, 2004). His zeal in a scientific understanding of human subjectivity is conceivable as he claims Buddhism as a scientific religion lest some of its religious encumbrances. The lack of awareness to the pervasive role of such feedback in the conduct of human is where the religious belief system silently enters into. The feedback generally moves from one’s physical action to one’s sensory channels or to the central nervous system. Imposing a condition of delayed auditory and visual feedback showed that the subjects were much confused distorted and irritated. Experiments show that man is not simply sensorily dependent upon his larger environment; but dependent on that part of the environment where he himself produced a moment earlier. (Murray Melbin, 1972). This is a fine niche where the concept of God finds its easiest way to be placed. Personification of God as human form is the biggest block in the furtherance. On affixing human shape to God, the characters of human automatically get added to it. This is where the feasibility of understanding God in its fullest sense gets pragmatically veered. In such distracted course, we are forced to resort to analogical representations often. Even to inculcate certain beliefs and faiths analogy becomes inevitable making us really frail to deal direct with God. Idol worship thus has become a by product of such incapability in our understanding of the Ultimate Truth. Such Perceptional Freeze paves way for religious belief system to work more. The magnitude of its entirety could not completely be laid on the concept of God, since human form has been already assigned to God in many of the religions. If a relatively less stature of some inanimate complexion /character is assigned to God for the sake of understanding its fullness, something like Sun, Moon or any other celestial object, then we are quite natural to fall short of our natural urge for supreme power. Steven Pinker calls this a God gene within us that strives for higher power. (Steven Pinker, 2006) Man can never live alone. If at all a desire for living alone erupts, it’s purely a symptom of psychosis. The inward thoughts and imaginations make him alone with tremendous amount of either enthusiasm or boredom accumulating on his personality. John Price’s analysis of psychotic patients with delusional experiences brings out four categories of myth. His study focused on the delusional experiences, capacity for a radical change of belief system, capacity to be converted from one’s original belief system to a new system and non engagement in either of the archetypal group processes of expansion or splitting. (John Price, 2007) Thin textured belief system: Ilkka Pyysianen, (2006) (Ilkka Pyysianen, 2006, “True Fiction: Philosophy and psychology of religious belief”, Philosophical Psychology, Vol 16. No.1, Routledge) delineates how the belief system is knit with weak concepts. While reviewing Boyer on relief, the author reveals that belief is not considered as conclusive before reasoning. Given mental mechanisms send bits of information to other mental mechanisms, treating them as facts. These implicit processes produce (…) kinds of intutions about how things are in the world. (p.110). Intuitions are just overshadowed images of beliefs. Attainment or nearing the Truth is evaded in these processes. A common physical fact should be laid here as: the directional aspect of nearing the Truth is quite opposite to that of belief system. When an intuition becomes true, belief pulls towards the Truth. But, reasoning forms its own course towards the attainment of Truth. In this process there is possibility of not reaching the Truth, which is considered as a way to the Truth paving way for further research in reasoning. But intuitional failures are just buried in the stage of fetus itself. On quoting Cosmides and Tooby the author noted that human information processing typified by the ability to use information considered true only temporarily, locally rather than universally and stably (p114). The author also finds out that human behavior regulation is heavily inference-dependent leading to both valid and invalid inferences being taken into consideration. These two findings clearly portray that need for an instant proof readily available at easy access and the necessity of validity emphasize that belief system can stand only on evidence based convictions. This is vividly put forth by the author in the attitudes of religious believers being worried when the paradox in their faith/beliefs are pointed out. (p116). A still convincing depiction of the weak structure of belief system is made by the author in emulating the flip side of belief, ie., unbelief. Although beliefs tend to retard actions or at least reduce the speed of actions, nobody is prepared to place beliefs at the corner bearing responsibilities for non achievements. Believing that the growth of the crops depends on the proper worship of the ancestors must not lead to abandoning work in the fields. (p. 118). A clear understanding of cause - and - effect chain, in which every effect becomes cause for a subsequent effect, throws much light on the weak formation of belief system. We can thus arrive at an inferential deduction as follows: Fulfillments of desires accrue to form beliefs. In religious belief system even non fulfillment of desire is accepted in Toto. Disbelief, unbelief or breeches of belief are the stands adopted in every day life. But in case of religious belief, unbelief is accommodated to the extent that non-fulfillment of desires are accepted in the name of ‘surrender to God’. This clearly indicates that those who uphold surrender hypothesis confess to themselves that their desires are unjust. It is this code of ethical thrust by just that leads to surrender. Reproduction of the following lines from the author (p.122) sustains the above: Conscious unbelief necessitates that one adopts a representational stance towards religious ideas. One regards religious beliefs as representations, not as facts in a situation theorist manner. Belief in a just world is generally the under tone of every religion. Some Oriental and Eastern religions thus personify their gods as vice-killers. Punishments for sinners in those religions are accepted as a destined route for their acts. This belief in a just world (Lerner. M.J, 1980) naturally distorts our attributions. It tries to imbibe the law of deserving that stipulates we get what we deserve and to do something to deserve what we get. This type of circular reasoning and belief in a just world shape our reactions to violent crimes especially rape. (Karuza J . and Carey T.O, 1984). Such reactions in turn contribute to the practice of blaming the victims instead of the perpetrators. Viewing the plight of the disadvantaged group of people, such as immigrants, as deserved is the out come of these type of blame on victim attitude. (Dalbert C and Yamauchi L, 1994) Marriage and Religion: With scores of cultural variations and internal differences in rites almost all religions consider the consummation of marriage as procreation only. The aspects of cultural variations pose different identities to each religion. Excepting the ultimate target of procreation, no other steadfast strictures could be assigned to any religion. Individuality of cultures normally is intact. As such the main goal of marriages in all cultures remains the same. This universality of the ultimate target has afforded a permanent stature to cult of marriage in all religions. Though every religion accepts procreation as the consummation of marriage, handling of the issues of sex has become an area where almost all religions vacillate to pass a strong and verdict like stipulations. Such dilemma of religious norms have rendered religions to simply segregate a set of people away from household in the names of hermits, nuns, pastors etc, who are expected to refrain from sex. Such deviation against natural force makes religions still thinner in their texture. More over, no religious norms preach any guidelines for households in the matter of sex except that they allow marriage as a tool for the urge. Some sects like Tantrics who preach sex for their inmates do not make any explicit guidelines for households or their teachings are far reaching for households. Only this silence on the part of religions towards sex keeps them in a different plane from that of science and psychology. Psychological research of religions as such have to cross thousands of miles; because an inevitable life force of human survival – that is sex- is deliberately underplayed by all religions for reasons unknown. Psychological studies at higher and senior level college courses have just begun to reduce the belief in myths. (Lionel G.Standing and Herman Huber, 2003) Current Developments in Psychology of Religions: Ken Wilber’s Transpersonal Psychology as lauded by Duane R. Bidwell (Duane R. Bidwell, 1999) illuminates the theory of oneness towards which both religions and the science of Psychology traverse in search of Ultimate Truth. The author elegantly put this as follows: Reality is apprehended directly and immediately; (…) subject and object become one in a timeless and space less act that is beyond any and all forms of mediation. (p. 82). The tremendous works of Wilber clearly looks back a few centuries to the simplest question of Adhi Shankara laid at the out set of this paper about human perception of sky. “Will the sky still be blue, when there is none to see on this earth?”. Grof Stanislav has cutely concluded his paper on Wilber’s Psychology of Spectrum. Citing Thomas Kuhn to his support, Grof has put that the entire history of Western science could be easily written as a history of human errors rather than triumphs. He honestly admits that the reality is much more complex than any of the theories we make about it. Theorizing and attempting to theorize any concept involves development of critical mass of ideas and knowledge to serve as a springboard that could throw us near the Truth thereby placing the science of Psychology of Religion relatively in a fast moving track of development. (p. 177) (Rodney S. Bassett, 2007) Rodney refers Raymond’s finding in his book that finding the answer to the question of meaning’s meaning and its role in religion is essential to create a theory of psychological practice. Even people like George Faller of Iona College who claim that psychology and religion evolve into opposing paradigms and of the view that exact science and its reductionist methods leave little room for matters of faith, believe that search for meaning does not necessarily have to be a religious endeavor. (p. 32). The octo-dimensional neuron-theology when sifted through The Four way Interesting Methodologies is certainly expected to gush a heavy beam of light on both psychology and religion. Again theorizing a worldview about the participating religions of inmates gives way to a better understanding of religions of others and to accommodate them on our earth to the extent that every religion occupy an equal status with diversities among them and without any conflict over those diversities. (Mark E. Koltko-Rivera, 2004) Conclusion: Debates between the believers and non believers of religious norms and faiths are quite futile, as the two never converge at any point of conformity. Psychological research towards the religious beliefs if carried out in its own pace without having any inkling theological character may help understand what the belief systems in general mean and what they really tend to acquire in course of time. Philosophy can not vividly criticize religion. Religion, like any other forms of life has its own internal logic and criteria of rationality. Similarly science is one more form of life. Both of these do not need any justification by the other. Classical foundationalism is the back drop of almost all religious norms and faith systems. Classical foundationalism means that a belief is purely basic if and only if it is either self-evident or incorrigible or evident to the senses. (Louis P. Pojman, 1986) This basic tone goes somewhat in unison with science and its formulations of hypotheses. Likewise, the research methodologies must have to adopt a spirit that shakes their hands with religious beliefs including the myths. This is pragmatically difficult for researchers. However, the researchers are currently leaving their findings for further research thereby they admit their concurrent inability in the attainment of Ultimate Truth. Last but not the least thing to be taken into account is the religious femininism. Like all other fields and walk of life, the male domination or at least male prominence is still prevalent in religion too. Women are ever expected to follow and never allowed to lead. Even the good women are supposed to worship and not lead worship. Contrast to the Western Cult and religion, Sri. Ramakrishna Paramahamsa of India personified his god as the Divine Mother. He believed strongly that She destroyed all passions for sex, money and worldly clutches. Such daringness in his thoughts and ideologies are quite hard to be conceived by the West. However some Christian thinkers offered an option of leading to one of the members of Trinity only as a matter of choice. (Peter Nicholas, 1981) . As such religions and the related faith systems can be accepted as a way of life currently being lead by us but not as any sentiments or deviation against the science. History of Psychology of Religion (POR) To considerably understand the POR, the history of POR is firstly to be conceived in the right manners. While trying to do so, so many questions arise that seek clarification for the previous questions. A few may be enlisted as below: 1. Although religion, God and religious thoughts are all purely associated with human mind, why religions were kept away from science (psychology) for eons together? 2. Is there any religion on the earth the norms of which conform to science? 3. What POR is currently attempting to achieve? 4. Does the study of POR accommodate any provision to ease the course of its progress wherein conflicts are prone to erupt? The norms, activities and expression of religions are emerging from unmeasurable universal Truth. But whereas, the eventful journey of science is towards the Truth. This mutually opposite directional aspect made POR seemingly ignominious. so far. Definition, a prime course in science is inadequately attained in case of religions where the contents of definitions are well accepted in the shape of faith or assumptions without any doubt or similar claim. (Christopher Peet, 2005) Many researchers have sought solutions through their studies. (Jacob A. Belzen, 2005). Belzen selectively choose a spell between 1979 and 2003 to analyze the growth and development of Psychology of Religion, wherein he finds that the science contained much conflicts and clashes among the group of researchers, theologists and many. The tabulated representation of member countries that participated in the symposia vividly presents that Germany, Netherlands, UK and some other European nations were constantly focusing on the POR during the spell. The subject matters that were dealt with in those symposia were mostly mental health, religious experiences and POR. This denotes that the criterion of fear on stupendous nature was the origin of Religion and God. The behaviors that were needed to circumvent the fear on nature formed the basic psyche of religious thoughts. Pehr (2006)makes a complete and steady comparison and analysis of both the attachment theorists’ approaches and psychologists who delve with depth perspectives. The critique enlists several demerits of depth perspectives while highlighting the usefulness of attachment theorizing. The role of parents in regard to religion especially God has its indelible impact on a child’s behavior. This is prudently sensed only by attachment theorists as they consider parents as the attachment figures for every child as far as the worldly interactions are concerned. Infantile ingenuity usually stems from auditory perceptions, which a child mostly acquires from its parent especially the mother. The author estimates late 60s to be the emerging period of attachment theory and getting a strong foothold in late 90s out of dissatisfaction over depth approaches. Thus in his view the psychology of religion was taking its shape around 1960 to take a veering from the main stream of psychology that dealt with mostly human behaviors and its impacts on human brains. The nucleus of human behavior and interactions emanating from Freudian id, ego and superego was making somewhat a circulatory trajectory wherein the concept of God was purely individualized. Empirical derivations were thus impossible in the mainstream psychology. Philosophical utterances and approaches are to be weighed meticulously as the science of mind, body and brain deal with ocular and testable factors. Either underestimating or over reliance would lead to the danger of making the psychology of religion as a branch of theology. Bernard Spilka et al 1992 had performed an excellent work on the mystical experiences of religious persons with respect of their state of their lifestyles. Mystical experiences were long time been tried to be understood in the light of human personality development. Although the beginning of 19th century was the start of such endeavors, the study of mystical experiences was virtually outside the ambit of the main stream psychology. The work done at the close of 20th century by Spilka and their team analyzed the three stages of mystical experiences. They called it Pre- current and post experience life styles. Their study found that pre experience dissatisfactions ascribed much to mystical experiences. They found that individual experiencers were trying to find some concrete solutions to their pre experience dissatisfactions through abstract concepts of religion. The team also found that mystical experiences were the best tools for getting them plunged into the search for solutions. Since the dissatisfaction aspects of pre experience were chiefly focused by the team, the personality development criterion was slightly touched in such a manner that positive experiencing and post experience involvement deviated the life track from dissatisfactions. * * * * * * Reference list – Baker S.C, Dolan R.J, and Frith C.D, 1996, “The Functional anatomy of logic: A PET study of inferential reasoning, Neuroimage, 3, S218 Carington, P,1977, “Freedom in Meditation”, Garden City NY, Anchor Press Christopher Peet, 2005,”Defining Religion:Strategies and Reflections on elusive Figure”, Journal of Psychology and Christianity, Vol. 24. No.2, 105-112 Dalbert C and Yamauchi L, 1994, “Belief in a just world and attitudes towards immigrants and foreign workers: A cultural comparison between Hawaii and Germany”, Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 1612-1626 Duane R. Bidwell, 1999, “Ken Wilber’s Transpersonal Psychology: An Introduction to Preliminary Critique”, Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 48. No.2 Hoveland and Weiss, 1951, “The Influence of Source credibility on communication effectiveness”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650 Jacob A. Belzen, 2005, “ The Symposia for European Psychologists of Religion, 1979-2003 - A Retrospective”, International Journal for Psychology of Religion, 15(4) 297- 313, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc John Price, 2007, “Creativity, Madness and Civilization, ed R.Pine, Cambridge Scholars Press, pp 21-32 ISBN 1847180914) In :A Creativity Myth: Madness and Creation of New belief Systems”, Article presented in a seminar on ‘Madness and Creativity’ at Lawrence Durrel School of Corfu Jonathan A.Waskan, 2003, “Folk Psychology and Gauntlet of Irrealism”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol. XLI Karuza J . and Carey T.O, 1984, “Relevence preference and adaptiveness of behavioral blame for observers of rape victims, Journal of Personality, 52, 249-262 Kosslyn, S.M, Koenig, O, 1995, “Wet Mind: The new cognitive neuroscience”, Free Press, New York Lerner. M.J, 1980, “The Belief in a Just World: A fundamental illusion”, Plenum Press, New York Lionel G.Standing and Herman Huber, 2003, “Do Psychological Courses reduce belief in psychological myths?”, Social Behavior and Personality, 31(6), 585-592, Society for Personality Research, Inc. Louis P. Pojman, 1986, pp 123, 125 and 138, “Religious Belief and the Will”, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London Mac Lean C. R.K, Walton K. G, Winneberg S.R, Levitsky D.K, Manderino J.V, Waziri R, Hillis S.L, and Schneider. R.H, 1997, “Effects of the Transcendental Meditationprogram on adaptive mechanisms: Changes in hormone levels and responses to stress after 4 months of practice, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 22, 277-295 Mark E. Koltko-Rivera, 2004, “The Psychology of World views”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 8. No.1, 3-58 Murray Melbin, 1972, pp 36-39, “Alone and with Others: A Grammer of Interpersonal Behavior”, Harper and Row, London Osherson D, Perani D, Cappa S, Schnur T, Grassi F and Fazio F, 1998, “Distinctive brain loci in deductive versus probabilistic reasoning, Neuropsychologia, 36, 369-376 Pehr Granqvist, 2006, “On the Relation between Secular and Divine Relationships: An Emerging attachment Perspective and a Critique of the ‘Depth’ approaches”, International Journal for Psychology of Religion, 16(1) 1-18, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc Peter Nicholas, 1981, “The Pope’s Divisions: the Roman Catholic Churches today”, Faber and Faber , London Rodney S. Bassett, 2007, “Book Reviwe on Hand book of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality by Raymond F. Paloutzian and Crystal L Park, Journal of Psychology and Christianity, Vol. 26 No. 2, 176-183 Sam Harris, 2004, “End of Faith”, pp 52-54, Psychology, Religious, W.W.Norton and Co. ISBN 0393035158 Steven Pinker, 2006, “The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion”, Academic Search Complete,The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion, Vol. 66. Issue 5 Read More