One of the arguments against religion is that it’s a social construction – that is, that religion (particularly, belief in an interventionist or “moralistic” god, meaning a god interested in human affairs and morality) is something invented by society, in order to regulate its citizenry. One of the best arguments in favor of this is that more developed societies have more developed religious systems, and are more likely to believe in a god who cares about morality:
This has led to a chicken-and-egg question: does a “pro-social” religion (that is, a religion whose morality is conducive towards healthy social conduct) help to cause the rise of complex societies, or does the rise of such a state help to cause the rise of pro-social religion?
As PBS notes, dozens of studies throughout the 2000s pointed to the former answer: moral religion seems to have come first, and complex society followed. But a new study, published in Nature, argues the opposite: that complex societies precede moralizing gods throughout world history. In other words, only once a society hits about a population of about 1 million do we see widespread belief in a god interested in moral questions.
This result is much ballyhooed, because it seems to suggest that moral religion is just a social construct – the State (or at least social forces) need to police their people, and so they start saying “God doesn’t want you to misbehave,” and boom, moral religion is born. But there are a few problems:
- The Nature article is extremely premature. Joe Henrich, chair of Harvard University’s Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, said “These guys were a little bit quick on the draw with putting this paper out because the data is largely not checked.” That’s a diplomatic way of putting it. The claims behind the Nature study require careful historical examination of thousands of ancient texts to determine age and whether or not the text implies moral religion. As PBS notes, actually doing that research carefully will take years.
- Forward bias. There’s a related problem with dating. Let’s say you find a manuscript from the 4th century. Does that mean that it’s the version handwritten by the original author? Frequently, what we have are copies of copies – whatever happened to have been written on a reliable material (like papyrus) and stored in the right climate (like a cave in Egypt, where it won’t be impacted by the elements). The vast majority of what human beings have written throughout history has probably been destroyed. Back in 2012, a small Greek fragment was discovered of St. Justin Martyr’s First Apology. Justin Martyr wrote his text between A.D. 155-157. The scrap that was discovered dates to the 300s. But here’s the crucial thing: until that point, the oldest copy we had of that document was from more than a thousand years later. Why does that matter? Because the society-came-first hypothesis falls completely apart if it turns out that moral religion is older than the fragments we have.
- The anti-religion conclusions don’t follow. Let’s say that it’s true that moral religion doesn’t really spread until a society’s population hits a million people or so. (Again, it’s quite premature for that, but let’s assume for the sake of argument). Does it follow that religion is just a social construct? Not at all. Think about it this way: science doesn’t really take off until society hits a certain point of complexity, advancement, and stability. When a society is spending its time avoiding getting eaten by tigers, they’re not pondering the Big Questions of life, or at least, they’re not taking the time to write those down and preserve them. So (despite the ballyhoo) very little about the truth or falsity of religion or science can be proven from the dating question.
To look at it from another angle, as communities develop, they’re more likely to believe in a moral god… but that’s only true to a certain point. Extremely large societies actually get a little less religious. So one could just as easily argue that irreligion is a “social construct” (or deconstruction) for particularly powerful countries. And it’s easy to come up with theories about this: powerful empires want single-minded obedience to the state and political rulers, not to the gods or religious leaders. But notice that these are just ways of impugning peoples’ motives for belief or disbelief – they tell us preciously little about the question that really matters… whether or not religion is TRUE.
The closest we get to that, at least in the PBS article, comes from the anthropologist Peter Peregrine, who says “There are no societies that are a-religious. Belief in the supernatural, in a spiritual world is a fundamental human feature. It’s part of the human condition.” This creates a real pickle for atheists. If you try to explain away this innate belief structure evolutionarily, that our minds believe a falsehood like religion because it’s beneficial for group survival, you’re undermining the reliability of the mind. In other words, if you’re using your mind to say that your mind is hardwired to believe convenient fictions, is there any reason to believe that religion is the fiction, and not your waving it away?
Fr. (now Bishop) Robert Barron points out a fascinating argument that Pope Benedict XVI made, pointing in this same direction:
Ratzinger commences with the observation that finite being, as we experience it, is marked, through and through, by intelligibility, that it is to say, by a formal structure that makes it understandable to an inquiring mind. In point of fact, all of the sciences – physics, chemistry, psychology, astronomy, biology, and so forth – rest on the assumption that at all levels, microscopic and macroscopic, being can be known. The same principle was acknowledged in ancient times by Pythagoras, who said that all existing things correspond in numeric value, and in medieval times by the scholastic philosophers who formulated the dictum omne ens est scibile (all being in knowable).
Ratzinger argues that the only finally satisfying explanation for this universal objective intelligibility is a great Intelligence who has thought the universe into being. Our language provides an intriguing clue in this regard, for we speak of our acks of knowledge as moments of “recognition,” literally a re-cognition, a thinking again what has already been thought. Ratzinger cites Einstein in support of this connection: “in the laws of nature, a mind so superior is revealed that in comparison, our minds are as something worthless.” The prologue to the Gospel of John states, “In the beginning was the Word,” and specifies that all things came to be through this divine Logos, implying thereby that the being of the universe is not dumbly there, but rather intelligently there, imbued by a creative mind with intelligible structure.
In other words, all science presupposes that the universe is intelligible and that our minds are sufficiently reliable that we can make sense of this intelligibility. The universe has a “language” all its own (which points to a Creator) and our minds are capable of speaking this language (which also points to a Creator). To reject the mind as unreliable doesn’t just undermine religion – it undermines all science and all knowledge, which ends up being self-refuting.
So you are left with either saying that the mind is reliable, which means we should listen to its religious impulse, or the mind is unreliable, in which case how are you sure you should trust anything (your senses, your belief in science, your rejection of religion, or even your belief that the mind is unreliable, etc.?).
Religion would exist without any society at all, as long as there was just one person living…say, someone like Adam…as we find in Genesis.
As long as a person has the capability to think and love, it is inevitable that he would speculate on his own creation and spiritual state of being. And this is the beginning of religion: man’s search for answers and enlightenment regarding his own existence..and then also his speculation and concern for his future well being, that is, what happens or changes when you eventually die, and whether this new state of disembodied being might prove to be a pleasant or miserable condition.
In some ways society can impede religious thought and introspection…not enhance it. And this is why we find in history accounts of ‘desert fathers’ and spiritual ascetics (monks and nuns) seeking a life far from society, and closer to raw nature. Moreover, it is a common concept that every man is subject to 3 principle spiritual dangers or enemies in this life, catagorized as ‘The world’, ‘the flesh’ and ‘the Devil’ . And we might note that 2 of these spiritual dangers require ‘society’, whether it be human in nature (from our family and relations) or angelic/demonic from the temptations of Satan.
I personally think religion emanates from personal and innate human intelligence and contemplation which is then corrected, elaborated on, ratified and confirmed by others in society.So, no, religion is not merely a ‘social construct’.
Also, for those claiming religion to be a mere ‘social construct’, it is apparent that they would rather wish that the world were full of atheistic fools. That is, in consideration of the psalm 52:1 teaching :
“The fool said in his heart: There is no God.”
This is my argument when confronted by atheists and agnostics. Why on Earth would you want everyone to think like you, with your human superiority and self-only constitution, when normal, peaceful society’s engine is fueled by us “backwards” Christians who hold to principles created and placed by someone above?
I have yet to receive a satisfying answer . . to me, or to them.
Hi um I like ur response but what happened in the 9th station because I want u to help me finish my homework
It’s laughably sad. The Templeton Foundation funded the study which claims that man precedes religion or ‘god.’ About a dozen authors wrote the paper (one person could have done it in one sentence or less). A glance at the work of the Templeton Foundation reveals its self perpetuation via circular motion, focusing on everything in the world but its creator. It is science, evolution, evolution, materialism, evolution, empiricism, evolution ad infinitum. Please, someone, explain the origins of religion without the original creator of everything! Well, that is exactly what Templeton aims to do. Now you’ve seen the circle, the symbol of perfection.
Perfection is more than a symbol. It is the God of Scripture, the God whose existence was proven by St. Thomas. God is the Unmoved Mover, the First and Final Cause of Everything. He is not a symbol of anything. He Is.
[One reference within the Nature article arrested my development: 4.Watts, J., Sheehan, O., Atkinson, Q. D., Bulbulia, J. & Gray, R. D. Ritual human sacrifice promoted and sustained the evolution of stratified societies. Nature 532, 228–231 (2016). “Ritual human sacrifice promoted and sustained the evolution of stratified societies.” ]
The Templeton Foundation funded the study which claims that man precedes religion or ‘god.’ ”
Margo (et al.,) this pseudoscientific contrived crap is all from the same “Enlightenment”/Marxist wellspring as Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” purport that “the gods are the dreams of men….” and Arthur C. Clark’s “Childhood’s End” conceit that “Humanity had lost its old gods: now it was old enough to have no need for new ones.” So many others, a direct line from Voltaire and Diderot, through Engels and Zola, to Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins…..
The common thread is first, philosophically to raise humanity to the status of gods. Then actuality, perfect man through the application of social sciences (speaking of social constructs) uninhibited by rank superstition or primitive moral codes made obsolete by technology. And a few failures along the way, the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward, American inner cities and Venezuela…well, Comrade, you want the omelette of a perfect society, you have to break a few eggs. And you can always blame your failures on the CIA….
Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher, an atheist who viewed religion as a “positive force,” once said of this genre of elites, “I would give them everything they want, except power…”
Interesting, a paper was just released on the Shroud of Turin carbon dating some +30 years ago. Seems the labs who did the dating back then released the results of their experiments, but had to be sued into releasing the data. Now the data has been analyzed and a scholarly paper written challenging the results of the C-14 dating done in 1988. But we all know sci-sci-scientists never make errors (especially if they have bad hair and an uppercrust English accent)….especially when debunking superstition….
The original C-14 analysis put the Shroud at ~1260-1325. That is now challenged….
What we have in this life is simply a binary choice with a time limit incorporated, …. either to grow closer to God/ Truth/Love or to recede away from God/Truth/Love. Free will decides the direction and speed of travel towards, or away from, God/Truth/Love, and it also determines the particular degree of love, or hate, a person will eternally have towards God our Father and Creator.
The choice is ours. And, the consequences are ours.
This is what is abundantly taught by Jesus Christ throughout His gospel revelations….and then entrusted to His Mystical Body…the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Atheists merely choose to ignore the voice of God calling them to advance towards His wisdom, truth and love, which again is abundantly revealed in the Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
May His Kingdom Come! On Earth as it is in Heaven!
Amen.
God is He who established religion- the bond with Him – and because He is one God He established only one religion and there has only ever been one religion and if we don’t get that right we will forever wander about taking fake movements seriously.
There has only ever been one religion
Q. What is religion ?
A. Religion, according to St. Augustine, is the bond which unites man to God ; in other words, religion is the society of man with God.
Q. Explain this answer?
A. Between parents and children there exist ties, or natural and sacred relations. In the same manner there exist relations between God, the creator and father of man, and man, who is the creature and child of God. The ties which exist between God and man are even more sacred than those which unite the son to his father.
Q. Why so?
A. Because we owe more to God than a son owes to his father ; God is our creator and our last end, which cannot be said of our earthly fathers. From which we must conclude that our obligations to God are much more holy than are the obligations of children to their parents.
Q. What does the word religion signify?
A. The word religion signifies the tie by excellence, or the re-tieing. The tie by excellence, because religion unites us in a supernatural manner to God, who is the most perfect of beings ; the re-tieing, because our Lord, by offering himself up to his father as a victim for us, has re-established the supernatural union which existed between God and man previous to original sin.
Q. Is there any other religion than the religion of Jesus Christ?
A . No, there is no other religion than the religion of Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ alone, as both God and man, could expiate sin, reconcile man to God, and re-establish the supernatural tie which united them.
Q. Is the true religion, or religion of Jesus Christ, of ancient date?
A. The religion of Jesus Christ is as ancient as the world. For it goes back to the time when the Son of God offered himself to his Father to redeem man, and has always had as the object of its faith and its hope this same Mediator and the same rewards.
Q. Has religion been at all times as fully taught as it is at the present day?
A. No, religion has not been at all times as fully taught as it is at the present day. But it has not on that account ceased to be the same religion, any more than man, by passing through the different stages of life, ceases to be the same man.
Q. What difference is there between the faithful who preceded and those who have come after the Messiah ?
A . The difference is that the ancient just believed in Jesus Christ to come, whilst we believe in Jesus Christ already come. Our faith, our hope, our religion is the same as that of the patriarchs and prophets.
Q. Why did God delay so long the coming of the Messiah ?
A. He delayed the coming of the Messiah so long, 1st, in order that man might know, by a long experience of his miseries, the need he had of a Redeemer, and that he might desire his coming more ardently.
2d, that he might recognise Jesus Christ as the Messiah, seeing that all the figures, promises and prophecies were accomplished and verified in him.
Q. What has been the object of all the designs of God since the commission of original sin ?
A. The object of all the designs of God, since the commission of original sin, has been to save man. Be fore the coming of the Messiah, all his designs had for their end to prepare man s redemption, and since the coming, to maintain and extend its blessings to all men.
Q. What fruit do we derive from this truth ?
A . The fruit we ought to derive from this truth is, to love God as he has loved us, constantly and solely.
Q. Why did God make known the mystery of the redemption only by degrees ?
A. God made known the mystery of the redemption only by degrees, in order to consult man’s weakness. A great many previous miracles were necessary to di pose him to believe this greatest of all miracles.
The Messiah promised and prefigured. First Promise. Adam and Abel the first and second figures or types of the Messiah.
Q. How did God make known the Redeemer to come
A. God made known the Redeemer to come, 1st, by promises, 2d, figures, and 3d, by prophecies.
Q. What do you understand by figures of the Messiah ?
A. By figures of the Messiah, I understand certain actions, certain events, certain personages, that represented beforehand the characteristics and actions of the Messiah.
Q. How do we know that the patriarchs, the sacrifices, and the whole Jewish people were a figure of the Messiah ?
A. We know that the patriarchs, the sacrifices and the whole Jewish people were a figure of the Messiah, 1st, on the authority of our Lord himself, and that of the apostles and evangelists. St. Paul in particular says that Jesus Christ is the end of the Mosaic law, and that whatever happened to the Jews was a figure of what was accomplished among Christians.
2d, on the authority of the fathers of the church ; St. Augustine says that the whole Jewish people were only a grand figure of the Messiah.
3d, by the conformity or resemblance of the figures to our Lord, for in look ing at several portraits of the same person, drawn by
different artists, no one would say that all these por raits resemble the person merely by chance.
Q. Did the patriarchs and ancient Jews know, in general, the sense of the promises, figures, and prophecies of the Redeemer ?
A. The patriarchs and ancient Jews knew, in general, the sense of the promises, figures, and prophecies of the Redeemer : the better instructed among them had a clear knowledge of it, the rest had what was necessary for their salvation.
Catechism of Perseverance, Abbe Gaume
Nice summary, ABS!
It is also a sound rebuttal of those who claim (The Baptist radical, Vox Day, has popularised this error) there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian civilisation/values.
ABS – I had not heard of Vox Day. Interesting he associates with John C. Wright, a very vocal and prolific spiritual Catholic convert from atheism, who very eloquently espouses the Classical, Jewish, and Christian foundations of the West.
ABS regularly reads the Vox Day blog because he does have some interesting things to say but, sadly, one fears he has been successful in persuading others that there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian ethics or values.
He does cite the crucial importance of the Christian basis for western civilisation but one doubts he has much use for the fact that Saint Benedict is the father of Europe nor would he agree with Belloc the Europe is the Faith, the Faith is Europe.
Pope Saint John Paul II publicly declared in Poland, speaking about Europe, “We built it.”
When social doctrine becomes more important in a religion than Christian doctrine, then it is only a social construct.
@ABS – I’ve read Vox Day long enough to know that he knows/views modern Ashkenazim as non-Judaites who practice Babylonian Phariseeism. That’s what he is referring to when he says there is no Judeo-Christian belief, as the Rabbinitie teachings have positions that are contrary to Jesus’ teachings. It also focuses on the Judeo-Christian issue as it regards to the founding of the USA and Western Civilization. Since the term was developed by Jewish immigrants who came to the USA, he uses their term to show that the values they espouse are not reflective of the values of the gentiles whom they live among.
Read his post’s on the phrase more using the search on his blog. That said, pray for him to receive the grace of conversion to the Catholic Faith.
ABS could rightfully say that Vox Day does not practice christianity as one must be Catholic to be a Christian.
Vox has engaged in a war of rhetoric and that rhetoric can be used against him.
Of course, Vox does not hide his hatred of The Catholic Church either and he does not have the self awareness that as a protestant he is in union with Jews as enemies of the Catholic Church.
When it comes to religion, Vox Day should stay with free trade 🙂
Dear GOD/GODS and/or anyone else who can HELP ME (e.g. MEMBERS OF SUPER-INTELLIGENT ALIEN CIVILIZATIONS):
The next time I wake up, please change my physical form to that of FINN MCMILLAN of SOUTH NEW BRIGHTON at 8 YEARS OLD and keep it that way FOREVER.
I am so sick of this chubby Asian man body!
Thank you!
– CHAUL JHIN KIM (a.k.a. A DESPERATE SOUL)
P.S. If you are reading this then please pray for me!
Christ rose from the dead. And left the proof behind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE
Those who wish to rearrange the deck chairs on their spiritual Titanic may do so as long as she floats.