Big Questions: Why Religion

 

While preparing for this sermon, my mind conjured up an old film I saw in 1980, - The Blue Lagoon.  This film was released on June 20, 1980, by Columbia Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and starred Christopher Atkins (who won a golden globe for best new performer) and the beautiful Brooke Shields who receive a raspberry award for her pitiful performance.  I didn’t notice that her acting was bad because the story was so interesting to me.  These two young folks were shipwrecked as children on this South Pacific paradise island along with an old cook who died during their childhood – leaving them to make it on their own.  Among the many other things they did to survive, they invented their own religion.  They knew the word “God” and the girl thought she had found “God” when she found an old altar on the other side of the island (where they had been forbidden by the cook to go).  The boy carried her to this God when she was sick, and they had regular rituals they made up.  Of course, this was all fiction created by the Irish author of the original novel published in 1908.  Fiction – that like much of fiction that seems to “ring true.”  This young couple had a need to draw upon something supernatural – with rituals and more.  And there have been other deserted isle books that have also shown that need for religion – some with very negative consequences.  These authors tended to view the need for religion as something we’ve evolved for survival.

And guess what?  Much of the research we have draws us to a similar conclusion for most folks.  – Not all, but most.  Of course, we are still evolving, aren’t we?  So, all is always in flux – but with the help of folks a lot smarter than me, I’m going to try to respond to the question of “Why folks seem to need religion – (or not).”

In doing this, I’m drawing from several sources which all draw from other sources.  This is not a paper for academic publication, so I’m not going to site these all these sources.  That will just get in our way for a short message like this.  

Now, the simple reason people have given to this question of “Why Religion?” is because God – (known by many names) is real and people believe because they communicate with God and perceive evidence of God’s involvement in the world.  But there are at least 16% of the world – and the number continues to grow – who don’t buy into anything supernatural or “religious.”  And a recent Pew Poll shows that more than 30% of Americans don’t identify with any religion.  So that “Why Question” still looms large for many of us. 

This is not a new question – Why people are religious.  “Karl Marx, for example, called religion the ‘opium of the masses ’. Sigmund Freud felt that god was an illusion and worshippers were reverting to the childhood needs of security and forgiveness.”

A more recent psychological explanation is the idea that our evolution has created a “god-shaped hole” or has given us a metaphorical “god engine” which can drive us to believe in a deity. Essentially this hypothesis is that religion is a by-product of a number of cognitive and social adaptations which have been extremely important in human development.

And there are scientists who believe our brains are hard-wired for religion.  Rather than try to put this in my own words, I’m going to quote directly from René J. Muller’s article in Psychiatric Times titled Neurotheology: Are We Hardwired for God?“ because he’s explained this well in terms that those who are not neurologists or theologians can understand. 

 

Considering that the brain is increasingly being credited with having a role in everything we think, feel, and do, it was probably just a matter of time before it was postulated that religious belief has a neural substrate. The question of how the brain might be "hardwired" for spirituality has captured the interest of many investigators who have established careers in fields as different as neurology, theology, and neuroscience and spawned the new discipline of neurotheology.

Neurotheologians argue that the structure and function of the human brain predispose us to believe in God. They claim that the site of God's biological substrate is the limbic system deep within the brain, which has long been considered to be the biological center for emotion. Rhawn Joseph, a prominent neurotheologian, goes a step further to suggest that the limbic system is dotted with "God neurons" and "God neurotransmitters."²

Among the limbic structures that have been associated with religious belief, the most frequently credited are the hypothalamus, amygdala, and hippocampus. Neurotheologians point to changes in functional MRI scans in these areas as research subjects engage in religious meditation. They reason that if thinking about God changes the way the brain works, there must be some inherent neural imperative to believe in God in the first place. In making this connection, neurotheologians are following the lead of neuroscientists who claim that changes seen in functional brain scans in persons who are happy, depressed, or obsessed demonstrate that these phenomena are brain driven.

Ilia Delio, who is a member of the Roman Catholic Franciscan Order and holds doctoral degrees in pharmacology and historical theology, gives this account of how neurotheologians conflate theology and neuroscience to make the case for a religious neural substrate. "It is tempting to speculate that there is a 'God module' in the brain and that such a module is located in the area of the limbic system; however, such speculation needs to be made cautiously. What these findings do point to, however, is that spirituality involves the brain. For the first time in human history we are beginning to understand spiritual experience not as something apart from the physical human but rather bound up with human matter, that is, the matter of the brain. Thus, matter and spirit are no longer seen to be opposed but are indeed mutually related, if not one and the same."³

Challenging the idea that religious belief is rooted in any particular brain structure or function, David L. Smith, a Roman Catholic priest and clinical psychologist, asks: "If 'God neurons' or 'God neurotransmitters' actually exist in the brain, are they defective in the agnostic and absent in the atheist?"⁴ Implicitly, Smith is holding the neurotheologians to the same standard that neuroscientists would feel obligated to meet when proposing a connection between specific neurons and neurotransmitters and some behavioral phenomenon: these neurons and neurotransmitters must be shown to exist. No scientist or theologian has come forward to stake a clear-cut claim to "God neurons" and "God neurotransmitters." Smith concludes that neurotheology is "a pseudoscience cloaked in the mantle of Cartesian dualism.”

I also read a medical research article which I won’t quote because it used terminology that I had to look up – but basically this article shared how some scientists were able to show different brain activity between those who may identify with different religions. 

My own conclusions as one who claims no expertise but who has great appreciation for both neurology and theology is that “More study is needed.” 

But whether you can locate it in the brain or not – most of us would agree that we seemed to have evolved this need, and of course evolution – both physical and social – is ongoing.

Most of us understand that we develop attachments as young children.  And these attachments can move beyond humans to inanimate objects. “This ability – known as cognitive decoupling – originates in childhood through pretend play. It is a small leap from being able to imagine the mind of someone we know to imagining an omnipotent, omniscient, human-like mind – especially if we have religious texts which tell of their past actions.” It’s not a major leap to become attached to something we cannot see that can provide us with a feeling of security -  Sort of a God or Jesus or whatever as our adult security blanket.  

In addition to what some may call the psychological benefits of security, etc. provided by religion, “the ritual behaviour seen in collective worship makes us enjoy and want to repeat the experience. Dancing, singing and achieving trance-like states were prominent in many ancestral societies and are still exhibited by some today…. As well as being acts of social unity, …formal rituals also alter brain chemistry. They increase levels of serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin in the brain – chemicals that make us feel good, want to do things again and provide a closeness to others.”

Before I became a minister, I used to go to WomenSpirit every year – sometimes for both the fall and spring events at the Mountain.  One of the practices they had every evening was to go up into what we call “The Treehouse” – which is just a big room on the second floor of one of their buildings that feels like it’s in the trees – and do drumming and dancing.  And whether drumming or dancing, folks – I got high!  Not because we were drinking or taking drugs – we were not.  But doing these rituals together as a group sure did increase those levels of all those feel-good chemicals in our brains.  And, I’ve had that happening sometimes here in this room when we are singing or connecting in some other ritual together.  Like Skinner’s rats, I keep coming back for more!  So, there is an immediate reinforcement for worship and long-term benefits.  Studies have also shown that people who regularly participate in communal worship services are healthier and live longer.

Now as I noted at the beginning of this message, a growing number of folks are not religious.  And there is some interesting research related to this as well. 

Perhaps this best source for this information is the Pew Research Center which periodically surveys around the world routinely and asks: “What is your present religion, if any?” Respondents are given a country-specific list of potential responses (which generally include several major world religions, as well as “atheist,” “agnostic” or “nothing in particular”).

What recent surveys have found is an obvious age gap.  Young adults are more likely to be religiously unaffiliated. This is especially true in North America, where in both the U.S. and Canada younger people are less likely to claim a religious identity. (These findings are in line with the rise of the religious “nones” in the U.S., which is being driven largely by high levels of disaffiliation among young generations.) The gap is also prevalent in Europe – in 22 out of 35 countries – and in Latin America, where it applies in 14 out of 19 countries (including Mexico).

“However, the pattern is not as pronounced in other parts of the world. In the Middle East-North Africa region and sub-Saharan Africa, where most people identify as either Muslim or Christian, there are no countries where young people are less affiliated. In fact, the only two countries out of a combined 30 in these regions with an affiliation gap are Chad and Ghana, where young adults are more likely than their elders to claim a religious affiliation – making these nations the only exceptions to the prevailing pattern around the world.”  There is some speculation that the amount of violence and conflict in these countries may contribute to the increased levels of religiosity among the young adults – who may be more likely affected by this violence. 

So again – perhaps when the security blanket is needed, people seek it out regardless of age or geography.  The countries with the increasing numbers of folks who do not identify with a religion or countries where folks may at least not feel that their survival is in doubt. 

This question about religion is especially intriguing to me because of my own religious history – beginning as a southern Baptist who was “born again” at 9 years old and ending up here as a Unitarian Universalist minister and one who finds no meaning personally in the supernatural but seeks meaning in the natural world.  My friends and family have had some difficulties accepting my path, and that’s understandable.  Some of you may face similar situations.  Here’s how I responded to one family member who could just not believe that I did not believe as she did. 

I shared with her that the Bible that both of us knew well shared that we were all given different gifts.  And that it seems that she was blessed with the gift of faith in the unseen – in that which had been taught to her from her early life.  And it seems to me that this gift helped her to have a wonderful life and I respected and admired that.  But that I did not receive that gift.  Instead, I received the gift of a questioning mind.  And that gift had led me to a life of pondering and inquiry that opened many doors for me.  So that, too, was a good gift.  And I hoped she could be happy that I had received a gift that was good for me, just as I was glad her gift was good for her. 

Some have asked why I identify as a religious naturalist and not an Atheist.  Well – in reality – perhaps they are kin.  But the word Atheist shares what you are not.  And it’s true that I’m not a theist.  But it doesn’t share what I am.  I AM a religious person.  Religion means RE – connecting.  And I do need to connect to that which I find as meaningful, good, -- I can even use the words sacred and divine.  So I am thrilled that among the world’s religions is one that allows me to do just that – and that is Unitarian Universalism. 

I can’t answer the question of why people need religion.  But I can share why I need something like Unitarian Universalism and people like you.  I need to be accepted as I am.  I need to be able to work with others to make the world a better place.  I need worship – songs, rituals, messages that will stir me and inspire me to be my best self.  I need others.  I do not need a creator – an omniscient, omnipresent being; but folks – I do need you.  I do need this faith tradition or something like it.  Maybe there are folks who don’t need it – and that’s fine.  But we need to be here for folks like me and you.

Unitarian theologian James Luther Adams called congregations like our Free Churches.  His words – shared as a responsive reading in our hymnal describe the kind of religion that I need.  I invite you to join me as I close this message in sharing this reading responsively.  I’ll read the plain Jane words and you read those in italics.

 

Responsive Reading (2/2): #591 "I Call that Church Free" by James Luther Adams

 

I call that church free which enters into covenant with the ultimate source of existence,

That sustaining and transforming power not made with human hands.

It binds together families and generations, protecting against the idolatry of any human claim to absolute truth or authority.

This covenant is the charter and responsibility and joy of worship in the face of death as well as life.

I call that church free which brings individuals into a caring, trusting fellowship,

That protects and nourishes their integrity and spiritual freedom; that yearns to belong to the church universal;

It is open to insight and conscience from every source; it bursts through rigid tradition, giving rise to new and living language, to new and broader fellowship.

It is a pilgrim church, a servant church, on an adventure of the spirit.

The goal is the prophethood and priesthood of all believers, the one for the liberty of prophesying, the other for the ministry of healing.

It aims to find unity in diversity under the promptings of the spirit "that bloweth where it listeth . . . and maketh all things new."