In every culture created by humans throughout the speciesí brief history on Earth, there has been religion. Religion is the act or form by which humans indicate their acknowledgment of a higher power, which in some way has control over their destiny. Religious myths and doctrine provide explanations for events deemed unexplainable, and furnish a set of behavioral norms for society. To millions across the globe for thousands of years, these behavioral norms have acted as laws; a set of rules which maintain order and decency. But is that all that they do? An interesting observation can be made when examining the origin of the word religion. The word "religion" derives from the Latin prefix, "re," and the verb "ligio"- to tie, to bind- hence, a practice designed to tie down tightly. Are the rules of religion set in place merely to aid humans in life, or do religions restrict humans from their true nature?
As Robert Wright puts forth in his work, The Moral Animal, humans are not above other species of animals, but simply another branch on the tree of evolution. Human behavior has, over time, been modified by evolution, but has its origins in the same place as the behavior of every species, the drive to survive and reproduce. Historically humans have not wanted to consider themselves equals with other animals, and have searched for differences to prove this idea. It is our hypothesis that religion functions to tie down natural human behavior, to separate our behavior from that of other species.
Our hypothesis is that religion functions to separate humans from our natural behavior. Although this may not be the specific intent of religion, it is the consequence of the morals expressed in religious texts and teachings. Our hypothesis puts religions under the microscope, delving into the validity of their claims. Should religions exist? Does religion restrict what comes natural in humans? Or are religions just the next step in our behavioral evolution, providing great prosperity for the species now and in the future?
Where do humans fit in the animal kingdom? Traditionally, we have reserved ourselves a position at the top. Humans have evolved along the same lines as apes and chimpanzees. In fact, over 98% of our DNA is the exact same as chimpanzee DNA (Rue, 1998). Why then are we so different? How have we evolved such complex systems of culture and language? Moreover, are we all that different from our simian relatives, and do we deserve our self-proclaimed advanced evolutionary status?
Humans have used many reasons and methods to make a distinction between themselves and the rest of the animal kingdom. We have grown to see other animals as savage, and in some senses impure. Therefore, we reached deep into the depths of our very human brains and emerged with all sorts of fascinating stories and theories.
Philosophers exult our ability to reason as the attribute that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom (Pope, 1998). The "I think, therefore I am" philosophy kept humans sedated for awhile. Sure, that must be it. Our massive brain gives us the ability to reason and think clearly. Animal drives and actions are based on instinct. They do not have the ability to organize their thoughts clearly enough to negate these instincts. Therefore, animals can only respond to their natural instincts through action. Humans, on the other hand, can reason out possible alternatives to their instinctual behaviors and act either with or against these instincts.
Despite the obvious differences between humans and chimpanzees, some sociobiologists would assert that they are fundamentally similar. Humans and chimpanzees are both motivated by the same desires of reproduction and self-preservation. Therefore, we share common strategies and behaviors that allow us to achieve these desires. That is not to say that humans and chimpanzees are the same. However, sociobiologists would say that we are not as separate as some humans would like to believe.
In order to curb our natural tendencies, religion has introduced morals that critique these tendencies. In fact, some theologians would argue that human morality has allowed us to make a firm division between ourselves and the rest of the animal kingdom (Williams, 1998). Through strong faith and morality, humans are able to act in a righteous manner. This manner reflects an underlying function in organized religion to separate humans from their natural tendencies.
In support of the idea that religion functions to control natural human tendencies theologian, Loyal Rue, stated that "one of the principal functions of religion is to reprogram our emotions so that we will be motivated to override our default morality (natural tendencies)." This view expresses the way in which religion works to negate our evolutionarily derived instincts. Religion sees many of these instincts as essentially bad, and sets up morality as a vehicle to oppose these instincts.
Although religion puts forth many ideas that seem contradictory to sociobiologically defined propagation of human genes, some theologians say that this is not necessarily true. For example, instead of looking at chastity as a determent to reproduction, one theologian saw chastity as a way for an individual to protect themselves from disease, like AIDS (Schoener, 1998). In this way, religion has allowed for the survival of sexually monogamous individuals that pass their genes on by avoiding disease.
It is important to examine the question of whether or not religion functions to curb natural human tendencies because it allows for a greater understanding of how social forces interact with biological forces to influence human behavior. The question of Nurture vs. Nature is continuously resurfacing in scientific and social debates. It shapes how we view our relationships with each other and the natural world around us. Therefore, through the careful examination of the interaction of religion and sociobiological tendencies, we can add a piece to this terribly incomplete puzzle.
Materials & Methods
The main portion of our experimental design will be a survey. The survey is meant to investigate our question of whether or not religion separates man from his natural tendencies. The survey will investigate this question by addressing several aspects of both natural and religious living. In this way, by using the definitions of human nature found in The Moral Animal we can compare the actions and thoughts of a typically religious and non-religious person. Then we can make conclusions on the function of religious and whether or not it is an inherent part of human nature, or whether it is simply a restricting agent of natural tendencies. We will use Statview to analyze our data. We will use the many tests in Statview to compare the questions on our survey to one another to see how the answers to each question correlate to our overall ideas of what a religious and natural life should be.
The other portion of our experimental design will consist of research done concerning the various aspects of a religious lifestyle as compared with a more "natural" lifestyle. We will have to concern ourselves with many questions involved in the definition of these two different types of lifestyles. First, what is a religious lifestyle? What common threads run through all religions? Is religion necessarily tied to morals? What do these morals imply for living? As far as natural lifestyles go, we will use the theories of the evolutionary psychologists to determine what exactly is mean by a "natural" lifestyle. This will be difficult for us to surmise, as there is no culture that we know of that functions today without some religious background or influence. These theories will have to be taken as just that: theories. They are, however, all we have to go on for the determining of a "natural" lifestyle.
The most important piece of material that we have to go on for this research project is our survey. The survey is responsible for bringing us the living, breathing data of the people around us. We distributed 120 surveys to Miami students at Shriver and received 81 surveys back (49 females and 32 males). Herein follows our survey:
1. Are you male____ or female____ ?
2. How connected do you feel with the natural world?
Not very 1 2 3 4 5 very
3. What is the most important difference between humans and animals?
a) there is no difference
b) language
c) reason
d) religion
e) art
4. How high a priority is it for you to have children at some point in your life?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 very important
5. How many children would you like to have?
a) 0
b) 1-2
c) 3-4
d) 5-6
e) 7 or more
6. How important is sexual abstinence in your belief system?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 very important
7. How often is violence a necessary part of life?
Never 1 2 3 4 5 always
8. Circle the following that apply. Altruism is:
a) not important
b) important with my family
c) important with my friends
d) deserved by everybody
9. Do you consider yourself spiritual? Yes No
10. Do you affiliate with an organized religion? Yes No
If so, which one? ____________________
11. How religious are you?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very
12. How often do you attend church?
a) never
b) once a year
c) once a month
d) once a week
e) more than once a week
13. How often do you read your particular religious text?
a) never
b) once a year
c) once a month
d) once a week
e) more than once a week
Results
By taking an average of the number of children desired from each category of religious devotion (increasing from 1 to 5 on the x-axis), we received the results summarized in figure 1. Also, using regression analysis for this data, we received a p-value of .063 and an R squared value of .753.
The following graph (figure 2) shows the correlation between religious devotion (increasing from 1 to 5 on the x-axis) and the importance of sexual abstinence. We used regression analysis to obtain a p-value of .3619 and an R squared value of .277.
Figure 3 is a graph of the correlation between religious devotion (increasing from 1 to 5 on the x-axis) and attitudes about the necessity of violence. Regression analysis gave us a p-value of .274 and an R squared value of .373.
Figures 4 and 5 are graph of the attitudes of both religious and non-religious people about altruism. We compared the result of these two graphs using a paired t-test and received a p-value of .2186.
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu
IMPORTANT: For each Response, make sure the title of the response is different than previous titles shown above!
Weather & Earth Science Resources|Weather & Environmental Sites | Radar & Severe Weather |Earth Science Resources | Astronomy| Global Change | |
Tropical Ecosystem CoursesImages: Tropical Marine Ecology of the Florida Keys, Everglades, and San Salvador, Bahamas Images: Tropical Ecosystems of Costa Rica 2000 Syllabus:Tropical Ecosystems of Costa Rica 2000 Syllabus :Tropical Marine Ecology of the Florida Keys, Everglades, & San Salvador, Bahamas |
Tools & Other StuffNecessities: Macintosh Resources | Search Engines | Library Resources | Server Stats | |