This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1The_Hibernator
Religion Explained, by Pascal Boyer
Hey everyone! A few of us wanted to read Religion Explained, by Pascal Boyer in May. Anyone is welcome to join!
2streamsong
Gotcha starred and have the book on the shelf.
4MarthaJeanne
Thank you for the invitation. It sounds interesting. It's due back at the library in two weeks, so I won't be reading right away.
5The_Hibernator
Thanks Jim!
Welcome MarthaJeanne! Don't worry about starting a little later...I'm sure there will be others who do the same. :)
Welcome MarthaJeanne! Don't worry about starting a little later...I'm sure there will be others who do the same. :)
6TerriBooks
Sounds like an interesting book, and a good way to read it. So count me in.
- Terri
- Terri
7aulsmith
I'm pretty much through Chapter 1 and am having a lot of problems with where the author is coming from and how he's setting up his argument. It's unlikely I'll read much more of the book.
When other folks are finished with Chapter 1, maybe we can discuss it.
When other folks are finished with Chapter 1, maybe we can discuss it.
8The_Hibernator
I'll finish up chapter 1 today and post my thoughts on it. I agree with you about his writing style. It is difficult to dig through because he has dense sentence structure. For instance, he uses the words “that” or “all” etc. two or three times in one sentence. It’s sort of how I write when I’m just jotting something down and don’t bother to polish! His arguments in chapter 1 also aren’t very structured. His logic doesn't flow linearly. Lastly, he says things that are rather confusing such as:
It is in the nature of things that life is for most people nasty, brutish and short. It certainly was so in those Dark Ages when religious concepts were first created by human beings.
I had to pause in my reading to think: Does he really mean that? Is he implying religion was created in the Dark Ages? Is he referring to prehistoric times with the misleading term “Dark Ages?” Is he implying that someone ELSE thinks that religion was created in the Dark Ages?
All these issues distract the reader from his main point. However, I’m taking notes, and I think I’m working it out. I think he has some interesting things to say, he’s just not good at saying them. I’m still eager to hear what he has to say.
It is in the nature of things that life is for most people nasty, brutish and short. It certainly was so in those Dark Ages when religious concepts were first created by human beings.
I had to pause in my reading to think: Does he really mean that? Is he implying religion was created in the Dark Ages? Is he referring to prehistoric times with the misleading term “Dark Ages?” Is he implying that someone ELSE thinks that religion was created in the Dark Ages?
All these issues distract the reader from his main point. However, I’m taking notes, and I think I’m working it out. I think he has some interesting things to say, he’s just not good at saying them. I’m still eager to hear what he has to say.
9_Zoe_
Maybe this explains why I ended up setting the book aside half-read last year. But I'm hoping that with a group read, I can manage to get through it now, because I do think he has a lot of worthwhile things to say.
One thing that irritated me a bit was that he seemed to set it up a bit like a discovery process, instead of just stating at the beginning what he was trying to claim. Instead of having his argument in mind as we go, I feel like we're supposed to wait until it all clicks into place in the end.
But I haven't looked at the book for about a year, so I may be way off base in what I'm remembering. I'll try to peek through it a bit tonight.
One thing that irritated me a bit was that he seemed to set it up a bit like a discovery process, instead of just stating at the beginning what he was trying to claim. Instead of having his argument in mind as we go, I feel like we're supposed to wait until it all clicks into place in the end.
But I haven't looked at the book for about a year, so I may be way off base in what I'm remembering. I'll try to peek through it a bit tonight.
10The_Hibernator
I think you're right Zoe. That was my impression so far of the first chapter. He is telling us about the theories he DOESN'T support, but isn't really telling us what he does think. It would be easier to understand what he's saying if he would tell us at the beginning, and even repeat important points along the way to make sure we're following what his examples are supposed to mean to us. Regardless, I am interested in what he has to say.
11ronincats
I have 96 pages to go in The Closing of the Western Mind before I plan to get started on this book, but this is sparking my curiosity. Surely he cannot have MEANT the medieval Dark Ages, but rather back in the Stone Age or before.
12The_Hibernator
Well, yeah, I finally decided that's what he meant. But if that's what he meant, he shouldn't have used caps. He should really have used different words altogether! :)
13aulsmith
nasty, brutish, short
Isn't he referencing Hobbes? He has a whole lot of unreferenced material in chapter 1.
I'm not having trouble understanding his sentence structure. And he does pretty much tell you what he thinks by the end of the chapter. It's more that I disagree with a lot that he has to say, most particularly with the school of memetics he's expounding, and he's acting as if there's no reason he needs to convince me that the universe is the way he says it is. I should just agree with him because he says so. That kind of book just has me nitpicking every statement, and I end up not learning anything, even if the author gets around to a more nuanced approach later (I did skip ahead to the ritual chapter, and he's still pretty much doing the same thing.)
Isn't he referencing Hobbes? He has a whole lot of unreferenced material in chapter 1.
I'm not having trouble understanding his sentence structure. And he does pretty much tell you what he thinks by the end of the chapter. It's more that I disagree with a lot that he has to say, most particularly with the school of memetics he's expounding, and he's acting as if there's no reason he needs to convince me that the universe is the way he says it is. I should just agree with him because he says so. That kind of book just has me nitpicking every statement, and I end up not learning anything, even if the author gets around to a more nuanced approach later (I did skip ahead to the ritual chapter, and he's still pretty much doing the same thing.)
14The_Hibernator
I diagree with a lot of his arguments too, but I'll save that discussion for when I've finished the chapter :)
15The_Hibernator
So I finished chapter 1. The first half of the chapter introduces four arguments that people generally come up with as explanation of religion. He discusses what about these arguments he supports and what he doesn’t support. I found the first half of the chapter difficult to read (due to sentence structure and abstractness) and was forced to take lots of notes to keep straight what he was saying.
The second half of the chapter was much smoother writing, which was a relief. It discusses memes and how they are transferred within a society and throughout generations. I'm afraid I got a little lost here. Not that I don't understand the concept of memes...I just couldn't figure out what his thesis was. He kept making statements and then saying: "That makes sense, right? But...." and I got lost amid all the buts. What was he trying to say? I’m happy this is a group-read because maybe someone else was able to get the basic idea of his thesis from the second half. :)
Specific summary with my thoughts in italics
Most explanations about the origin of religion emphasize one or more of four points. 1)religion provides explanations; 2)religion provides comfort; 3)religion provides social order; 4)religion is a cognitive illusion.
1)Religion provides explanations:
Boyer counters this point by claiming that (i)explaining general facts is not equally pressing in all cultures and (ii)the explanations provided by religion are not like ordinary explanations--they introduce more mystery than ordinary explanations. Although I agree with his second counter, I wasn't convinced by his first counter. His examples only convinced me that different people try to explain different things. He makes bold statements and expects us to accept them, as aulsmith said.
Boyer then quotes the general assumption of intellectualism and states that it is "plainly false:" "If a phenomenon is common in human experience and people do not have the conceptual means to understand it, then they will try and find some speculative explanation." Boyer says the mistake of intellectualism is to assume that humans have a general urge to explain everything. Although I agree that we may not have an over-reaching urge to explain everything, I feel he's disregarding intellecutalism too easily. People do have an urge to explain SOME things, and religion explains those things (in a mystical, mysterious sort of way).
He concludes the section with bullet points that summarize his claims. The first point is: “The urge to explain the universe is not the origin of religion.” I feel this conclusion has not been proven and is too strong given his arguments. All he showed is that there is more to a religion than the urge to explain the universe.
2)Religion provides comfort:
Boyer points out that religion does not always provide comfort-sometimes it adds stress. Also, deliverance from mortality is not universal among religions. I'll have to believe him on that, since he didn't provide any examples that I remember. Boyer's thesis is that religious concepts are connected to emotional systems. Humans evolved emotion to deal with our physical need of safety, which affects our religious beliefs.
3)Religion is good for society because it provides a set of morals and holds a society together:
Here, he points out that religion does appear to be good for social order, and should be incorporated into his thesis. But the story is more complicated than just social order.
4)Humans are naturally superstitious:
Boyer and I agree that this is not a good explanation. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a circular argument. What is the origin of superstition then?
And then he discusses memes, and I lost the thread of his thesis.
The second half of the chapter was much smoother writing, which was a relief. It discusses memes and how they are transferred within a society and throughout generations. I'm afraid I got a little lost here. Not that I don't understand the concept of memes...I just couldn't figure out what his thesis was. He kept making statements and then saying: "That makes sense, right? But...." and I got lost amid all the buts. What was he trying to say? I’m happy this is a group-read because maybe someone else was able to get the basic idea of his thesis from the second half. :)
Specific summary with my thoughts in italics
Most explanations about the origin of religion emphasize one or more of four points. 1)religion provides explanations; 2)religion provides comfort; 3)religion provides social order; 4)religion is a cognitive illusion.
1)Religion provides explanations:
Boyer counters this point by claiming that (i)explaining general facts is not equally pressing in all cultures and (ii)the explanations provided by religion are not like ordinary explanations--they introduce more mystery than ordinary explanations. Although I agree with his second counter, I wasn't convinced by his first counter. His examples only convinced me that different people try to explain different things. He makes bold statements and expects us to accept them, as aulsmith said.
Boyer then quotes the general assumption of intellectualism and states that it is "plainly false:" "If a phenomenon is common in human experience and people do not have the conceptual means to understand it, then they will try and find some speculative explanation." Boyer says the mistake of intellectualism is to assume that humans have a general urge to explain everything. Although I agree that we may not have an over-reaching urge to explain everything, I feel he's disregarding intellecutalism too easily. People do have an urge to explain SOME things, and religion explains those things (in a mystical, mysterious sort of way).
He concludes the section with bullet points that summarize his claims. The first point is: “The urge to explain the universe is not the origin of religion.” I feel this conclusion has not been proven and is too strong given his arguments. All he showed is that there is more to a religion than the urge to explain the universe.
2)Religion provides comfort:
Boyer points out that religion does not always provide comfort-sometimes it adds stress. Also, deliverance from mortality is not universal among religions. I'll have to believe him on that, since he didn't provide any examples that I remember. Boyer's thesis is that religious concepts are connected to emotional systems. Humans evolved emotion to deal with our physical need of safety, which affects our religious beliefs.
3)Religion is good for society because it provides a set of morals and holds a society together:
Here, he points out that religion does appear to be good for social order, and should be incorporated into his thesis. But the story is more complicated than just social order.
4)Humans are naturally superstitious:
Boyer and I agree that this is not a good explanation. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a circular argument. What is the origin of superstition then?
And then he discusses memes, and I lost the thread of his thesis.
16aulsmith
Well, first off, the explanations he's counter-arguing aren't "what people generally think about religion". They are academic models of religion from various disciplines. The first three are from mythology/anthropology studies. I'm not sure where he picked up the fourth from (and he's not telling you -- which is my biggest problem with this book. It's probably in one of the suggested readings, but which one?)
From my reading, I've gathered that while no one of the first three explanations is sufficient to explain religion/mythology, they are all useful. Some myths explain. Some religions hold societies together. Some religion and rituals are comforting. At base his argument -- that we need a bigger paradigm to fit all of religious practice into -- would be generally agreed on by academic scholars who deal with the subject.
So he's proposing that using the current paradigm in cognitive sciences that posits that we have specific brain structures that we use to assimilate information and using meme theory as expounded by Don Sperber we can arrive at a comprehensive explanation of religious behavior.
I have three major problems with this thesis.
The first is how is he defining religious behavior? The examples he offers at the begining of the chapter all contain a super-natural element -- which would coincide with the anthropological definition of religion (I think, I'm not well-read in that area). However, with one exception, I was able to easily think of equivalent behaviors that did not depend on the supernatural. So is he only going to explain the supernatural part or is he going to discuss the more widely behaviors that can be involved in religion and other (non-rational) human endeavors? He doesn't say. Sometimes, he sounds like he's only concerned with the supernatural and sometimes he seems to go beyond that. Skipping ahead to the chapter on ritual, he's still going back and forth.
My second problem is with the cognitive science model. This model, which I was introduced to through Chomsky's linguistic theory, is the current dominant paradigm in much of the study of culture. I don't have any inherent problems with it. It has a lot of explanatory strength. However, to the best of my knowledge, we're still without any physical evidence to confirm the model. We can infer what the brain does by looking at the results both in the learning of children and cross-cultural comparisons. But that's all they are, inferences. Because of Boyer's glib style and lack of footnotes, I can't tell the difference between careful inferences that have been derived from lots of data and are cross-checked by many people and something Boyer jotted down on the back of a paper napkin.
Finally there is Sperber's memetics. (BTW, you have to follow the footnotes pretty carefully to even find Sperber) From what I could gather about Sperber on the Internet, he's part of the epidemiological paradigm of memetics. While I don't have problems with the concept of memes, I have a huge problem with the epidemiological paradigm. Again, we're an area of inference: memetics has a lot of explanatory power, but is not reproducible under laboratory conditions (as of my last reading -- I can dig out the cite if anyone's interested). So, all we're doing with memetics is using a biological metaphor to talk about social information. The epidemiological model tends to ignore everything else that we know about evolutionary biology and concentrate only on how diseases work. I really think that it's an inadequate model which fails to explain much of what I think is interesting in religion. Also, while I see the strength of the biological model, genes don't work like memes. We can't collect genes, stick them in a library for a thousand years and pull them out again to recycle, and until I read a memetic theory that takes that into account, I'm a little leery of the biological model as the only reliable metaphor to explain culture.
So, I'm done with this book, except for maybe trying to pull some stuff out of the bibliography. If people want to unpack my critique more or if you have more current information that backs up Boyer's claim that this is a reasonable approach to explaining religion, I'm still reading this thread.
From my reading, I've gathered that while no one of the first three explanations is sufficient to explain religion/mythology, they are all useful. Some myths explain. Some religions hold societies together. Some religion and rituals are comforting. At base his argument -- that we need a bigger paradigm to fit all of religious practice into -- would be generally agreed on by academic scholars who deal with the subject.
So he's proposing that using the current paradigm in cognitive sciences that posits that we have specific brain structures that we use to assimilate information and using meme theory as expounded by Don Sperber we can arrive at a comprehensive explanation of religious behavior.
I have three major problems with this thesis.
The first is how is he defining religious behavior? The examples he offers at the begining of the chapter all contain a super-natural element -- which would coincide with the anthropological definition of religion (I think, I'm not well-read in that area). However, with one exception, I was able to easily think of equivalent behaviors that did not depend on the supernatural. So is he only going to explain the supernatural part or is he going to discuss the more widely behaviors that can be involved in religion and other (non-rational) human endeavors? He doesn't say. Sometimes, he sounds like he's only concerned with the supernatural and sometimes he seems to go beyond that. Skipping ahead to the chapter on ritual, he's still going back and forth.
My second problem is with the cognitive science model. This model, which I was introduced to through Chomsky's linguistic theory, is the current dominant paradigm in much of the study of culture. I don't have any inherent problems with it. It has a lot of explanatory strength. However, to the best of my knowledge, we're still without any physical evidence to confirm the model. We can infer what the brain does by looking at the results both in the learning of children and cross-cultural comparisons. But that's all they are, inferences. Because of Boyer's glib style and lack of footnotes, I can't tell the difference between careful inferences that have been derived from lots of data and are cross-checked by many people and something Boyer jotted down on the back of a paper napkin.
Finally there is Sperber's memetics. (BTW, you have to follow the footnotes pretty carefully to even find Sperber) From what I could gather about Sperber on the Internet, he's part of the epidemiological paradigm of memetics. While I don't have problems with the concept of memes, I have a huge problem with the epidemiological paradigm. Again, we're an area of inference: memetics has a lot of explanatory power, but is not reproducible under laboratory conditions (as of my last reading -- I can dig out the cite if anyone's interested). So, all we're doing with memetics is using a biological metaphor to talk about social information. The epidemiological model tends to ignore everything else that we know about evolutionary biology and concentrate only on how diseases work. I really think that it's an inadequate model which fails to explain much of what I think is interesting in religion. Also, while I see the strength of the biological model, genes don't work like memes. We can't collect genes, stick them in a library for a thousand years and pull them out again to recycle, and until I read a memetic theory that takes that into account, I'm a little leery of the biological model as the only reliable metaphor to explain culture.
So, I'm done with this book, except for maybe trying to pull some stuff out of the bibliography. If people want to unpack my critique more or if you have more current information that backs up Boyer's claim that this is a reasonable approach to explaining religion, I'm still reading this thread.
17aulsmith
Damn, it's DAN Sperber. http://www.dan.sperber.fr/
18_Zoe_
Thanks for those thoughts; lots of interesting stuff there. I'm particularly interested in your critiques of the epidemiological model. I'm not a social scientist, and I'm always sort of uncomfortable with the role that models (and theories more generally) play in a lot of anthropological work. I can certainly see their value, but then I wonder what happens when the model fails in some way: what's left? Do you think a flawed model is completely useless?
Also, I wonder whether you'd be more interested in Boyer's The Naturalness of Religious Ideas. I had the idea that it was a more scholarly work, while Religion Explained was the popular version. I won't really help if you fundamentally disagree with his whole approach, but I figure it's worth mentioning anyway.
Also, I wonder whether you'd be more interested in Boyer's The Naturalness of Religious Ideas. I had the idea that it was a more scholarly work, while Religion Explained was the popular version. I won't really help if you fundamentally disagree with his whole approach, but I figure it's worth mentioning anyway.
19The_Hibernator
:) Well, it's too bad to lose you so quickly in the group read--especially since you are clearly a LOT better read on this stuff than I am, and provided a very interesting analysis. I'm looking at it from a much more naive point of view, I suppose. I don't really think ANY model of religion is ever going to be sufficient, to be honest. My only hope is to read a variety of thoughts on the subject, and then come to my own conclusions.
Like you I wish he weren't so lackadaisical about citations.
Like you I wish he weren't so lackadaisical about citations.
20aulsmith
18: A flawed model isn't useless. Most models are flawed, but they're useful until something better comes along. A book that doesn't explain the model well enough so that you can see clearly what it explains and what's left dangling is more problematic, especially in an area, like this one for me, where you're already well read and are attempting to answer specific questions. Thanks for the information on his other book. If he wrote Religion Explained specifically for a popular audience it explains the lack of footnotes. I'll see if I can find a copy, but right now I'm pretty sure that the answer to my questions doesn't lie in the area of epidemiological memetics.
19: I'll try to keep up with the posts here and if I think I can contribute anything I'll throw it in. I'm also interested in what other books you folks decide to read. There certainly are a large variety out there to read.
19: I'll try to keep up with the posts here and if I think I can contribute anything I'll throw it in. I'm also interested in what other books you folks decide to read. There certainly are a large variety out there to read.
21streamsong
I'm just a few pages in. I have no experience in this field so I will probably slog my way through. However, it's obvious in the first couple pages that the guy is no biologist, and I'm having a bit of trouble with his logic.
I found this review from Publisher's Weekly (lifted from Amazon) has given me a bit more idea of where he's going:
From Publishers Weekly
Cognitive anthropologist Boyer does not shrink from the task of explaining "the full history of all religion (ever)" in this engaging but somewhat oversold synopsis of anthropological findings, purporting to show how "the intractable mystery that was religion is now just another set of difficult but manageable problems." Boyer eloquently critiques mainstream academic treatments of religion that, in his view, distort the facts by imposing a single explanatory theory on a complex assortment of religious phenomena. At the same time, he argues that the variety of human religious concepts is not infinite, suggesting an underlying pattern in the way certain kinds of religious concepts engage the mind by "successful activation of a whole variety of mental systems." These patterns increase the probability that such concepts will be remembered and transmitted. Besides the religious concepts' appeal in stimulating individual minds, Boyer's account sees no deeper function or significance in them, a stance he realizes will leave most religious believers nonplussed. "People who think that we have religion because religion is true... will find little here to support their views and in fact no discussion of these views," he cautions. Boyer's strategy of explaining religion in terms of mundane, everyday thought processes puts him at odds with recent neuropsychological studies that identify "special" cognitive structures or events associated with religious experience. Ultimately, it may be Boyer's criticism of the mere concept of "religious experience" that makes this book such a fascinating exercise in devil's advocacy.
I found this review from Publisher's Weekly (lifted from Amazon) has given me a bit more idea of where he's going:
From Publishers Weekly
Cognitive anthropologist Boyer does not shrink from the task of explaining "the full history of all religion (ever)" in this engaging but somewhat oversold synopsis of anthropological findings, purporting to show how "the intractable mystery that was religion is now just another set of difficult but manageable problems." Boyer eloquently critiques mainstream academic treatments of religion that, in his view, distort the facts by imposing a single explanatory theory on a complex assortment of religious phenomena. At the same time, he argues that the variety of human religious concepts is not infinite, suggesting an underlying pattern in the way certain kinds of religious concepts engage the mind by "successful activation of a whole variety of mental systems." These patterns increase the probability that such concepts will be remembered and transmitted. Besides the religious concepts' appeal in stimulating individual minds, Boyer's account sees no deeper function or significance in them, a stance he realizes will leave most religious believers nonplussed. "People who think that we have religion because religion is true... will find little here to support their views and in fact no discussion of these views," he cautions. Boyer's strategy of explaining religion in terms of mundane, everyday thought processes puts him at odds with recent neuropsychological studies that identify "special" cognitive structures or events associated with religious experience. Ultimately, it may be Boyer's criticism of the mere concept of "religious experience" that makes this book such a fascinating exercise in devil's advocacy.
22The_Hibernator
"People who think that we have religion because religion is true... will find little here to support their views and in fact no discussion of these views," he cautions.
Yeah, he said that in chapter 1. I'm curious if he's underestimating the ability of religious people to find evidence that God exists, even in a specifically atheist argument. Some people are quite adept at finding evidence for what they want to believe. I’ll be watching carefully for evidence that God exists in this book. ;)
Yeah, he said that in chapter 1. I'm curious if he's underestimating the ability of religious people to find evidence that God exists, even in a specifically atheist argument. Some people are quite adept at finding evidence for what they want to believe. I’ll be watching carefully for evidence that God exists in this book. ;)
23aulsmith
Since there's currently no known biological basis for the cognitive structures Boyer is advocating, the question of where did these structures come from leaves a large opening of God (which is one reason there was a lot of resistance to the Chomskian model of language acquisition, despite its ability of explain many things).
I personally think we'll eventually figure out the biological base and how it evolved, but until then believing God manipulated evolution to put those structures there so we'd have a religious sense is irrefutable.
I personally think we'll eventually figure out the biological base and how it evolved, but until then believing God manipulated evolution to put those structures there so we'd have a religious sense is irrefutable.
24The_Hibernator
Even if scientists find a reliable model for how religion evolved, there's no way to prove that God didn't guide that evolution. :) I don't think the question will ever be less than irrefutable.
ETA: I believe in God, so naturally I also believe that the issue will always be irrefutable. However, I'm also a logical thinker, so I'd like to believe that if someone were to actually prove (scientifically or logically) that God didn't exist, I would stop believing. I just don't see this ever happening. ;)
ETA: I believe in God, so naturally I also believe that the issue will always be irrefutable. However, I'm also a logical thinker, so I'd like to believe that if someone were to actually prove (scientifically or logically) that God didn't exist, I would stop believing. I just don't see this ever happening. ;)
25TerriBooks
Most of the way through the first chapter, and I see what you (plural you) are saying about his style and his arguments. So far it seems to me that he has picked a set of explanations that are more "what religion causes" than "what causes religion." Also, I think there needs to be a more clear definition of religion vs. belief -- but I could see that I just think that because I happen work for a religious organization!
Even if we grant that this is supposed to be a popular treatment, citations and notes about the arguments he lines up just to shoot down would be useful. How widespread and respected are each of them? From what background or methodology have they developed? Why should think they are respected/respectable?
But as a believer myself, I will admit that I don't think the list of "why we have religion" are good explanations either, and it will be interesting to see what he thinks are better.
Even if we grant that this is supposed to be a popular treatment, citations and notes about the arguments he lines up just to shoot down would be useful. How widespread and respected are each of them? From what background or methodology have they developed? Why should think they are respected/respectable?
But as a believer myself, I will admit that I don't think the list of "why we have religion" are good explanations either, and it will be interesting to see what he thinks are better.
26aulsmith
25: I can only speak for the first three arguments he knocks down, but they are wide-spread and well-respected as partial explanations of religion. I haven't run into any books of recent origin that asserts that any one of them is a complete explanation. Although his documentation is lousy, I suspect that these concepts are discussed in at least one of the books he mentions under Further Reading related to chapter 1. It's not in the Blackmore book which I've skimmed lightly, but is probably in one of the anthropology books. I ran into the concepts in Myth: a very short introduction where their origins and counter-arguments are very clearly laid out and in Shalom Goldman's audio course Ancient Near Eastern Mythology where he doesn't introduce them very well but uses them as the basis for discussing the myths. Basically they're all perspectives in the field of anthropology and I think he thinks you know them because he thinks you took Anthropology 101. By the way, has anyone taken any anthropology? As you can see, I've been more reading around the edges than directly engaging with what anthropology has to say about religion and a more educated opinion would be welcome.
So bottom line, these arguments are in some sense straw men, since I don't think academics in areas that touch on religion think they fully explain the phenomenon. However, he thinks you (the naive reader) has probably run into them and has some baggage related to them and so he wants to address them.
So bottom line, these arguments are in some sense straw men, since I don't think academics in areas that touch on religion think they fully explain the phenomenon. However, he thinks you (the naive reader) has probably run into them and has some baggage related to them and so he wants to address them.
27The_Hibernator
I've heard the first three of those explanations before, but never considered them a complete proof. I actually felt that Boyer's arguments against them weren't very well laid out. I already felt there was more to the story, but his counterarguments fell flat for me.
28ronincats
I've finished Chapter One and agree with aulsmith that Boyer is basically addressing what might be popular conventions in the area, en route to introducing the tools and paradigms of basic cultural anthropology. I had been interested in the summary of the book, being a cognitive psychologist, but I am not familiar with the current field of anthropology nor of social biology. At this point, I am reserving judgment, with some interest in seeing where he is going.
29aulsmith
I read the Further Reading for Chapter 1 more closely and he says that the common approaches to religion are explained in Lawson and McCauley's Rethinking Religion
30streamsong
I've finished Chapter one and made a small start on Chapter 2.
aulsmith I loved your statement in post 13 "That kind of book just has me nitpicking every statement, and I end up not learning anything,
I am sooooo not trying to nitpick (cubs???? who calls them walrus cubs?????? --followed by a quick google search and 20 minutes off the subject looking at pictures of walrus CALVES, although, yes, on the net you can find them called cubs forgodssakedoesntthemanhaveaneditor?)
Loved his poke--presumably at Dawkins-- at the end of Chapter one (p 48) "Most people thought this kind of speculation was better left to theologians or retired scientists." Ah, so we may have a bit of snarky humor to lighten the way.
But starting Chapter two, at least we're not going to be told that flying spaghetti monsters and teapots circling the earth are as likely as any other supernatural belief.
aulsmith I loved your statement in post 13 "That kind of book just has me nitpicking every statement, and I end up not learning anything,
I am sooooo not trying to nitpick (cubs???? who calls them walrus cubs?????? --followed by a quick google search and 20 minutes off the subject looking at pictures of walrus CALVES, although, yes, on the net you can find them called cubs forgodssakedoesntthemanhaveaneditor?)
Loved his poke--presumably at Dawkins-- at the end of Chapter one (p 48) "Most people thought this kind of speculation was better left to theologians or retired scientists." Ah, so we may have a bit of snarky humor to lighten the way.
But starting Chapter two, at least we're not going to be told that flying spaghetti monsters and teapots circling the earth are as likely as any other supernatural belief.
31The_Hibernator
I'm almost finished with chapter 2, and I've found myself distracted by my nit-picking--mostly about the assumptions that he claims most "smart" people will make. I unfortunately make an entirely different set of assumptions and am left pondering "really? I was supposed to assume that?" Though I understand that his thesis is that humans have a limited set of assumptions and (presumably) if we make a list of those assumptions, we'll find that all religious beliefs (and superstitions/fables) fall within a combination of templates. I think he may have done better limiting his argument to JUST religious beliefs instead of including examples about The Frog Prince. Does Harry Potter count too, then? It seems if he kept JUST to religious beliefs, he'd have less concepts to sift through and might make a better overall argument.
32ronincats
I have finished Chapters 2 and 3 now. Chapter 2 got me into familiar territory, with concepts, propositions, and templates. It's clear that this is a fairly scholarly book, as opposed to a popularized one, with a fair summary of his field and its approach to research in this area. I guess I am more likely to give him some slack about assumptions that most people are likely to make--I suspect this group has a much higher ratio of critical thinkers than the population at large. Also, I know that each field develops highly specialized jargon, and that scholars are often perceived as "talking down" when they define those specific terms for the layman. He is defining the basic rules and concepts used in his field of research, most of which are familiar to me from psycholinguistics and cognitive psych, but I'm ignorant of their application in this field. I find the way they have identified supernatural concepts as fitting a template with one and only exception, and tested it across cultures, fascinating. It makes me feel like I am reading one of my cognitive psych textbooks or a journal article, though.
33The_Hibernator
I find the way they have identified supernatural concepts as fitting a template with one and only exception, and tested it across cultures, fascinating.
I find the concept fascinating too, I just think that by including fables like the Frog Prince he’s bogging down his argument with too much information. He would have an easier time making a believable list of templates if he narrowed his criteria a bit. He used the example of the Frog Prince to suggest that our templates lead us to make human->animal transformations in stories. I read a book a while back (Leven Thumps) in which a humanoid being (he was human enough) was turned into a tree. This guy was pretty useless as a tree, but when the tree was chopped up and made into toothpicks, he made quite a delightful toothpick. Perhaps the reason this toothpick was so funny, though, was because it was in defiance of our basic set of assumptions?
Of course I realize that no matter what template he outlines, someone is going to be able to come up with an example where this isn’t true. He’s talking in generalities. I haven’t made up my mind entirely, but I think I might agree with aulsmith that this is not going to be a convincing argument to me. I’m still interested to find out what else he has to say, though. No model is perfect, after all.
I find the concept fascinating too, I just think that by including fables like the Frog Prince he’s bogging down his argument with too much information. He would have an easier time making a believable list of templates if he narrowed his criteria a bit. He used the example of the Frog Prince to suggest that our templates lead us to make human->animal transformations in stories. I read a book a while back (Leven Thumps) in which a humanoid being (he was human enough) was turned into a tree. This guy was pretty useless as a tree, but when the tree was chopped up and made into toothpicks, he made quite a delightful toothpick. Perhaps the reason this toothpick was so funny, though, was because it was in defiance of our basic set of assumptions?
Of course I realize that no matter what template he outlines, someone is going to be able to come up with an example where this isn’t true. He’s talking in generalities. I haven’t made up my mind entirely, but I think I might agree with aulsmith that this is not going to be a convincing argument to me. I’m still interested to find out what else he has to say, though. No model is perfect, after all.
34aulsmith
33. Humans being transformed (temporarily) into animals is a common religious belief so it is something he'd have to explain in order to explain religion.
35aulsmith
32: Based on your review of Chapter 2, I tried again and got stopped on the first page. Here he has a list of propositions that you wouldn't organize a religion around, one of which is (5) There is only one God! He is omniscient but powerless. He cannot do anything or have any effect on what goes on in the world.
Actually I know a lot of people (Unitarian Universalists, Reformed Jews, western Buddhists) whose beliefs could be summarized by that statement and yet they spend a lot of energy on activity they consider religious.
I realize he's from Europe and I'm sure the buddies he had review his list are all European social scientists, while the almost-godless religious activity I've run into is probably largely an American phenomenon. Still, it's a big gap in his analysis and makes me (again) question why I should go along with him. What is he actually explaining? Is his analysis limited simply by definitions of anthropology (i.e. that religion must involve the supernatural) or is he purposely leaving out things to make the analysis more convincing? Is his model going to be a tautology, where he's defined the field in such a way that his analysis works because it is merely a model of the field he's defined? I'll keep reading this discussion to see.
BTW, ronincats, I've lurked on other group reading you've participated in and your chapter analyses are extremely valuable. Thanks for all the work you put into sharing them.
Actually I know a lot of people (Unitarian Universalists, Reformed Jews, western Buddhists) whose beliefs could be summarized by that statement and yet they spend a lot of energy on activity they consider religious.
I realize he's from Europe and I'm sure the buddies he had review his list are all European social scientists, while the almost-godless religious activity I've run into is probably largely an American phenomenon. Still, it's a big gap in his analysis and makes me (again) question why I should go along with him. What is he actually explaining? Is his analysis limited simply by definitions of anthropology (i.e. that religion must involve the supernatural) or is he purposely leaving out things to make the analysis more convincing? Is his model going to be a tautology, where he's defined the field in such a way that his analysis works because it is merely a model of the field he's defined? I'll keep reading this discussion to see.
BTW, ronincats, I've lurked on other group reading you've participated in and your chapter analyses are extremely valuable. Thanks for all the work you put into sharing them.
36streamsong
Hi aulsmith --I don't know if you're continuing onward but his list of propositions aren't necessarily those you wouldn't organize a religion around. He doesn't elaborate on the one you mention (which to my Christian background ears does sound odd) but several of the others on the list he does address. Also I think the Navajo have a version of his number 3 --"The souls of dead people cannot go through walls because walls are solid". At least I believe there is concern about 'trapping' a spirit inside a hogan or dwelling if the person dies inside. I should probably go look that up before I put it on the internet where it can be googled forever. Sigh.
Two quotes that were striking for me in chapter 2.
P80 "Although the results of such experiments may be fascinating, the details of implementation are invariably tedious."
Well, there's a quote I've never heard from a scientist before even when writing for the general public. This one definitely was a headdesk moment for me.
And on page 90 he finally defines religion. "We generally call supernatural concepts 'religious' when they have such important social effects, when rituals are performed that include these concepts, when people define their group identity in connection with them, when strong emotional states are associated with them, and so on."
This works for me. It just took him two chapters to get there. It confirms what _Zoe_ said in post 9 about the structure of the book.
Two quotes that were striking for me in chapter 2.
P80 "Although the results of such experiments may be fascinating, the details of implementation are invariably tedious."
Well, there's a quote I've never heard from a scientist before even when writing for the general public. This one definitely was a headdesk moment for me.
And on page 90 he finally defines religion. "We generally call supernatural concepts 'religious' when they have such important social effects, when rituals are performed that include these concepts, when people define their group identity in connection with them, when strong emotional states are associated with them, and so on."
This works for me. It just took him two chapters to get there. It confirms what _Zoe_ said in post 9 about the structure of the book.
37aulsmith
36: Well, that's what I get for not reading on. I see now on p. 52 that he is only contending that they are unlikely to be the "main tenet" of a faith, which I suppose makes sense. All the groups I mentioned above have other main tenets, it's just that the main tenets don't get in the way of people who believe that there is some kind of force in the universe who/which doesn't really affect the physical world in any way from belonging to them.
Clearly, I can't read this book with an open mind.
I also see on p. 90 he says he's finally going to give us evidence to backup his assertions. I'll be interested in the summaries of Chapter 3.
Clearly, I can't read this book with an open mind.
I also see on p. 90 he says he's finally going to give us evidence to backup his assertions. I'll be interested in the summaries of Chapter 3.
38The_Hibernator
I think his statements of what could work and couldn't work as a religious concept are good for a general template, but fall apart upon closer scrutiny. Contradictory examples will always come up, I suspect. Especially since he's including supernatural beliefs, folklore, and fables!
Unfortunately, I am having a difficult time agreeing with his logic. It's counterintuitive to my logic. But that happens sometimes, I guess. For instance, in Chapter 2 he brought up a study in which volunteers read a story about God helping two people simultaneously. Volunteers were asked to summarize the story. No matter what the nationality, volunteers would say God helped one person, and then helped the other person, even though these same people believed that God could do more than one thing at once. Apparently this is evidence that we don't ACTUALLY believe what we think we believe? (Or was he trying to make a different point...I find him difficult to follow sometimes.) But couldn't this effect be an artifact of how the story about God was organized? It is quite possible that the story was written first about one person being helped, then about the other person being helped, and it was simply pointed out that these things were happening at the same time. It is likely whatever half of the story the volunteers read first would be considered as happening "first." What if the same people were shown a video with a split screen where the stories of the two people being helped by God were going on simultaneously? Would he get the same result? I suspect not, but I'm not willing to perform the experiment myself. I would find the details of implementation invariably tedious. ;) I guess that’s why I’m not a psychologist! Anyway, my point is, if he wants me to believe what he’s saying, then he’s going to have to provide more detailed evidence.
Unfortunately, I am having a difficult time agreeing with his logic. It's counterintuitive to my logic. But that happens sometimes, I guess. For instance, in Chapter 2 he brought up a study in which volunteers read a story about God helping two people simultaneously. Volunteers were asked to summarize the story. No matter what the nationality, volunteers would say God helped one person, and then helped the other person, even though these same people believed that God could do more than one thing at once. Apparently this is evidence that we don't ACTUALLY believe what we think we believe? (Or was he trying to make a different point...I find him difficult to follow sometimes.) But couldn't this effect be an artifact of how the story about God was organized? It is quite possible that the story was written first about one person being helped, then about the other person being helped, and it was simply pointed out that these things were happening at the same time. It is likely whatever half of the story the volunteers read first would be considered as happening "first." What if the same people were shown a video with a split screen where the stories of the two people being helped by God were going on simultaneously? Would he get the same result? I suspect not, but I'm not willing to perform the experiment myself. I would find the details of implementation invariably tedious. ;) I guess that’s why I’m not a psychologist! Anyway, my point is, if he wants me to believe what he’s saying, then he’s going to have to provide more detailed evidence.
39aulsmith
38: Or was he trying to say that our brains aren't set up to think about simultaneous events, so that while we can entertain the philosophical notion of simultaneity we can't actually express it? I remember getting the impression in some Bible study years ago that some of the resurrection events in Luke might have been happening simultaneously but not being able to really think about them except as happening sequentially.
40The_Hibernator
>39 aulsmith: Hmmm, well this COULD be what he meant--and if it is what he meant then I find it much more believable.
But I was under the impression that he was trying to say that what we actually believe or do is different than what we think we believe or do. He gave another example of people praying at a statue of the Virgin Mary, and said that the people who pray at this statue SAY they're praying to Mary, but they're actually praying to a statue. His evidence that they were actually praying to a statue and not Mary was that they would be annoyed if he proposed destroying the statue and replacing it with a picture of the statue...however, this example fell flat for me as well, because I feel their reasons for being annoyed when he proposes to destroy the statue might not be because they worship the statue, but because they feel it's a destruction of something beautiful. Just because they value the statue does not mean they aren't praying to Mary. They could pray to Mary without the statue quite well enough. The statue provides tactile and visual stimulation, perhaps making the prayer easier, but that doesn't mean that they worship it.
He might be trying to go somewhere with this line of argument, but he hasn’t explained WHERE he’s going yet. Maybe that will come up in later chapters.
But I was under the impression that he was trying to say that what we actually believe or do is different than what we think we believe or do. He gave another example of people praying at a statue of the Virgin Mary, and said that the people who pray at this statue SAY they're praying to Mary, but they're actually praying to a statue. His evidence that they were actually praying to a statue and not Mary was that they would be annoyed if he proposed destroying the statue and replacing it with a picture of the statue...however, this example fell flat for me as well, because I feel their reasons for being annoyed when he proposes to destroy the statue might not be because they worship the statue, but because they feel it's a destruction of something beautiful. Just because they value the statue does not mean they aren't praying to Mary. They could pray to Mary without the statue quite well enough. The statue provides tactile and visual stimulation, perhaps making the prayer easier, but that doesn't mean that they worship it.
He might be trying to go somewhere with this line of argument, but he hasn’t explained WHERE he’s going yet. Maybe that will come up in later chapters.
41sibylline
Phew, I meant to join in on this read, but I'm swamped. However I will star this and settle down later today and read the thread and be an enthusiastic follower!
42The_Hibernator
Hey Lucy! It's no rush if you decide to start the book a little late. I know I, for one, am not reading this fast enough to finish this month.
43The_Hibernator
Well, I'm afraid I'm going to have to throw in the towel on this book. I'm interested in what he has to say, but have difficulty digging through the way he says it. I am completely unfamiliar with psychology/anthropology/sociology terminology, and he uses it pretty heavily in this book. I can generally figure out what he means, but the effort of slogging through makes me need to take a nap every 10 pages! I'm afraid this book is over my reading level. :( There are just too many books for me to read, so I should just move on. I'll keep checking the thread, though, looking for summaries and discussions. I hope everyone else enjoys the journey...
45The_Hibernator
I've gotten through Chapter 4...
46MarthaJeanne
I finished the book yesterday, and really enjoyed it. I've read a lot of both theology and anthopology, so I had no problem with the style.
47ronincats
He really is explaining his academic field and research, so it is pretty dry for the most part. I'm finding it interesting, but as I find a journal article rather than a popular book. I'm at the end of Chapter 4 and plan on continuing, but at the rate of a few sections a night.
Oh, and I didn't mean to ignore your comment, aulsmith (is this Billie or Tim?), about my summaries. I appreciated it. Thank you.
Oh, and I didn't mean to ignore your comment, aulsmith (is this Billie or Tim?), about my summaries. I appreciated it. Thank you.
48aulsmith
47: It's Billie.
46: So what did you think of his argument/s. Or are you waiting for someone else to finish before discussing?
46: So what did you think of his argument/s. Or are you waiting for someone else to finish before discussing?
49TerriBooks
I really do want to keep up on this book, but I've been so busy at work I just don't have the time or energy to read something I actually have to think about! But I have been reading these comments, so I hope someone keeps up, even if it lasts past May.
50_Zoe_
We had said initially that we would do one group read every three months, so I don't think there's a problem with one discussion lasting the whole three months if necessary. I probably won't even be able to give this book much attention until next month, so I certainly hope someone will still be talking about it then. I sort of lost interest in God's Philosophers when the discussion abruptly ended, though I think that's less likely to be the case for me here.
51MarthaJeanne
This is another one of these things that only explains up to a certain point. I like the fact that he doesn't give a simple explanation for religion. Those readers who find the going slow - it more or less has to be, because he is building up layers of explanation. He is also very good at explaining why certain common explanations don't work.
On the other hand, it becomes more and more obvious that he thinks that these various mental processes are all that is needed to explain every aspect of religion. He leaves me feeling that he has finished by saying, 'It's turtles all the way down.'* I miss a solid base behind it all.
*There is said to have been a 'native' explaining his tribe's understanding of the world to an anthropologist. 'The whole world is on the back of a big turtle.'
'And what is that turtle standing on?'
'Another, even bigger turtle.'
'And below that?'
...
On the other hand, it becomes more and more obvious that he thinks that these various mental processes are all that is needed to explain every aspect of religion. He leaves me feeling that he has finished by saying, 'It's turtles all the way down.'* I miss a solid base behind it all.
*There is said to have been a 'native' explaining his tribe's understanding of the world to an anthropologist. 'The whole world is on the back of a big turtle.'
'And what is that turtle standing on?'
'Another, even bigger turtle.'
'And below that?'
...
52The_Hibernator
It looks like everyone is reading slowly enough that the discussion won't completely wimp out, though it might have dry spells like this last week. I'm making this post for those of you who I picked up from the 12in12 group: as Zoe said, we plan on reading a book with the theme of Science, Religion, and/or History every three months. If you'd like to participate in our votes and general discussions, you can find the link here.
ETA: I was grumpy on Thursday and Friday of last week when I gave up...I might take a little peeksee at the book on Monday and see if I want to continue after all. :)
ETA: I was grumpy on Thursday and Friday of last week when I gave up...I might take a little peeksee at the book on Monday and see if I want to continue after all. :)
53ronincats
Whew! Finally done. Very interesting, but very dry. I'm not going to continue summaries, as I am still summarizing The Closing of the Western Mind on my thread, and that is consuming my brain's resources to the exclusion of doing the same for this book.
54aulsmith
I just read the first chapter of Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works, which was listed in Boyer's suggestions for further reading. It is very lucid and goes a long way to explaining where Boyer is coming from. I'm not going to finish Pinker or go back to Boyer now, myself, but I can see that reading the whole Pinker book would give a much better basis for evaluating Boyer's research than what I had when I started Boyer.
55The_Hibernator
I've been meaning to read some of Pinker's works...But I never get around to SO much that I mean to read.
56ronincats
How The Mind Works is sitting on my bookshelf here, unread, although I have read Pinker's The Language Instinct. Maybe I need to move it up the tbr priority list.
57aulsmith
56: You're the cognitive psychologist, aren't you? I don't think you'll find anything that's new to you in How the Mind Works. It's basically a survey of (fairly current) evolutionary psychology. It's very well argued and laid out, so if you've had questions or reservations about the schema they're dealing with, this might be helpful. Otherwise, I think it'll be a rehash of material you're already familiar with.
