Psychology of belief in God/heaven

tech77

Firstly, as a preface to my main query:
Forgive my ignorance, but Is it reasonable to assume that if you're an Atheist (ie someone who doesn't believe in God) you don't believe in heaven/eternal life either.
Or is that a generalisation? (Is Buddhism an exception?)

But anyway my main queries:
Organised religion aside, is it fair to say that thoughts about a higher being/an afterlife tend to be a natural part of people's psychological makeup anyway (ie if you strip away church influences).

And if that is the case, do you guys feel that such widespread tendency toward belief in a higher power/heaven/an afterlife is psychologically problematic?
(Incidentally now that i see the "evolution of religion" thread below, i may as well ask from an evolutionary psychology point of view- what is the basis for the survival of theistic thinking- it must have had some advantages?).
Do you think Atheistic psychology, if nourished (ala organised religion over the centuries) is likely to be evolutionarily as successful?

What informs theistic psychology anyway (apart of course from the church stuff).
Do you think it's an inherent psychological flaw in mankind- no more than an aberrant unsophisticated coping mechanism for the irreconcilable notion of mortality.

In that sense, atheistic psychology is obviously more at one with the notion of mortality.
Arguably a good thing.
Do you think because of that it's necessarily a more robust psychological state than the theistic one (on a whole psychologically i mean- cognitively, emotionally- emotionally in particular i guess, i mean does oblivion for you/your loved ones fill you with despair if not dread).

I fully expect the answer to be a resounding "Yes, psychologically it's more robust" but is there anything about Atheism/no afterlife that you find difficult to deal with psychologically.

Again just interested to hear your views.
I don't mean to be provocative/offensive.

Joe1919

I think it's understandable why religion fits in so well with many people.

Firstly, as Aristotle stated, we are 'goal-directed' creatures. i.e. We tend to plan and look to the future. Humans survive by planning ahead. e.g. Planting crops for later gathering etc. Heaven easily becomes the ultimate goal.

Secondly, the idea of God as a powerful father-figure seems to fit into the natural idea of parental authority and power.

Thirdly, hierarchal social structures seem to be a factor in our development. An example can be given with Newgrange ( 5000 years old). The fact that these huge structures, which took many people to build yet only contain relatively few bones indicates that religion and ritual may have been an important developmental factor in supporting a social hierachy..

There are many who argue that ideas of Gods and myths was really the first science. Humans sough explanations for natural events such as thunder and fire, as well as human tragedies such as wars and famines. Our scientific development has really been a constant revision and re-appraisal of these myths.

ChocolateSauce

tech77 wrote: »

Firstly, as a preface to my main query:
Forgive my ignorance, but Is it reasonable to assume that if you're an Atheist (ie someone who doesn't believe in God) you don't believe in heaven/eternal life either.
Or is that a generalisation? (Is Buddhism an exception?)

I think that's a fair assumption, though I can't speak for everyone.

But anyway my main queries:
Organised religion aside, is it fair to say that thoughts about a higher being/an afterlife tend to be a natural part of people's psychological makeup anyway (ie if you strip away church influences).

And if that is the case, do you guys feel that such widespread tendency toward belief in a higher power/heaven/an afterlife is psychologically problematic?
(Incidentally now that i see the "evolution of religion" thread below, i may as well ask from an evolutionary psychology point of view- what is the basis for the survival of theistic thinking- it must have had some advantages?).

I do think it is problematic in modern society. Evolutionarily speaking, it is better to assume a stick is a snake than the other way around, because if you assume a snake is a stick you're less likely to pass on your genes. In a modern society I think religion stifles rational thought and open debate. The religious part of us was to assume that stick is a snake and leave it be, but the atheist wants to use a machine to measure that unknown and find out for sure. This is overly simplistic for sure, but generally the case, I believe.

Do you think Atheistic psychology, if nourished (ala organised religion over the centuries) is likely to be evolutionarily as successful?

No,if naturally selected. But we have moved beyond that now and have taken control of our own evolution. I think that as long as we try to better ourselves and are continually educated, religion will decline. I can't say how this will affect our psychology though.

What informs theistic psychology anyway (apart of course from the church stuff). Do you think it's an inherent psychological flaw in mankind- no more than an aberrant unsophisticated coping mechanism for the irreconcilable notion of mortality.

A flaw, no. I think it played a useful and perhaps a critical part in the survival of humans in prehistoric times, but it has been obsolete for at least 250 years, perhaps obsolete since the greeks started asking questions about the nature of existence.

In that sense, atheistic psychology is obviously more at one with the notion of mortality. Arguably a good thing.
Do you think because of that it's necessarily a more robust psychological state than the theistic one (on a whole psychologically i mean- cognitively, emotionally- emotionally in particular i guess, i mean does oblivion for you/your loved ones fill you with despair if not dread).

An interesting question, always. I personally do not fear death (a state which I will by definition never experience), as opposed to dying which I do fear, for I've seen people die in great pain. I see death as returning to what I was before I was conceived. In a sense, I will live on, as the atoms that make up my body will one day make up the bodies of millions of people. I could get even more macabre and poetic, but it would just be clichéd...

I think it is the religious who both fear death and have an unrealistic view of it. They see death not as the end, but as the beginning of an eternal voyage, during which they will be conscious and aware. I think this cheapens life. If our life on earth is an infinimatesil part of our existence, why bother?

I fully expect the answer to be a resounding "Yes, psychologically it's more robust" but is there anything about Atheism/no afterlife that you find difficult to deal with psychologically.

I really, really want to find out what happens next. It makes me sad that I'll never see the fate of humanity. But then again, maybe that's a blessing? Maybe in the time after I die humanity will degenerate into a moral quagmire and eventually destroy itself? Who'd want to be around for that?

Agonist

Can anyone recommend any books about this, the evolutionary benefit of unsubstantiated belief and the reason that that proclivity has remained strong?
I thought the chapter on this topic in The God Delusion was patchy.
Film recommendations welcomed too.


In answer to your question, no, I don't believe in eternal life or an afterlife. I'd imagine that it's incompatible to atheism but am open to correction.
I feel strongly that there is a kind of immortality in our memories of loved ones who have died, in term of personality, in mannerisms and sayings that get passed down. Our physical bodies are also part of the bigger cycle of life. I like the thought that I'll add a little chaos to the world when I die, my atoms becoming disorganised. My little bequest to the world.
(If this is wrong scientifically let me know. I'm not well educated on Einstein's theories)

Joe1919

The old controversal classic 'Leviathan' by Thomas Hobbes (1651)esp Ch13 & 44-47 is still worth reading in my view.( find it on-line somewhere)

"This considered, the kingdom of darkness is nothing else but a confederacy of deceivers that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour, by dark and erroneous doctrines, to extinguish in them the light." Chapter XLIV

His vision of how miserable mans life is in the 'state of nature' and his arguments on the necessity of a 'pact' as well as his criticism of religion (which he had to tone down a little to avoid been burnt at the stake)are famous.