LittleToe:
Belief is an inherent part of the human psyche.
Agreed. Belief - specifically belief in supernatural beings or forces that affect us - is common to all cultures, and a tendency towards belief appears to be inborn.
This does not tell us anything about whether belief is a good thing! Greed, hubris, jealousy and self-pity are all also entrenched qualities of the human condition. But this does not mean we should celebrate or embrace them. And it should be noted that people who do not display any of these qualities are no less human than those who have them in abundance.
What is it about belief that allows it to thrive in so many diverse cultures? It certainly can't be the veracity of the claims believed, as many mutually incompatible beliefs are held with great fervour by different people.
Here is where the nature of belief steps up to the plate. Externalising the source of the change is one (and only one) method of improving success. It allows the conscious mind to "release" the problem, after articulation, allowing the subconscious mind to operate. There are often tangible physiological reactions, too, in that the experimenter relaxes.
There is certainly a case to me made that belief works somewhat like a placebo, but I have to question whether the advantages of this approach outweigh the disadvantages. Placebos can be of benefit to someone who has a minor illness, or even a chronic condition that cannot be effectively relieved by medical treatment, but someone who takes them when there is a real problem, as adherents to "alternative medicines" often do, risks losing their life to a preventable medical condition.
It is my contention that religious belief comes with similar costs. Belief in an afterlife may comfort the bereaved, and having someone to talk to (either a deity or a human proxy) can bring comfort in times of distress, but like alternative medicine, when there's a real problem, a real solution is needed and belief in itself cannot provide one. Those who have developed a high level of dependency on their religion may find themselves ill-equipped to deal with real-world problems, or may be unwilling to do so, preferring to rely on faith.
A drunk will likewise tend to suffer less damage from a fall, due to inebriation of the senses and a more relaxed musculature.
It's important to note here that a drunk is more likely to fall in the first place due to the same inebriation.
One time-worn method of "releasing" the problem, in the Western mystical tradition, is prayer. Here the "catch" is magnified in that the process really does require belief, not just credulity or the begrudging experiments of an objectively focussed mind. By handing over the problem to "someone" whom we trust, we are enabled to engage with the process at the subconscious level necessary. Building that level of trust is another story, however, as it takes dedication to the task.
This is a huge part of my issue with belief. You can show me all the data you want proving the benefits of belief, I can agree that you are right and that the healthiest thing for me to do would be to start believing in God. But I can't. I just can't do it. I cannot believe in something I don't believe in. I can't just decide to change my mind. Believe or get sick? Can't do it. Believe or die? Still nothing. Believe or be tortured for eternity? Even less than the previous one as I can't believe in eternal torture either. Just act like I believe? I find myself unable to live a lie. Most likely, it wouldn't benefit me psychologically or with the deity in question if it happened to exist, and certainly not with its rivals.
I don't fully know the answer to the question of whether belief is necessary for society. I'm fairly certain it's not necessary for individuals as I have been a non-believer for over a decade and I'm doing just fine. There are, in fact, many successful and happy unbelievers and there is no evidence to indicate that those who believe are happier or more successful than those who do not.
But perhaps it's necessary for some people, the hoi polloi, the working classes. Perhaps they need religion to give meaning to their dull and tedious lives. Perhaps the cognoscenti need it to stop the "peasants" revolting. Perhaps, but that doesn't seem very noble to me. It strikes me as degrading to those who are deemed incapable of living a good life without belief, a patronising dismissal of their intellect, or a calculated, manipulative way of suppressing civil unrest.
My personal opinion is that religious belief comes from a combination of our desire to understand the world and our preprogrammed trust in our parents and community leaders. These quirks of our species, combined perhaps with the unifying community-building effects of religion have led to a world where religion is ubiquitous.
But I think we can do without it. As children growing up no longer need their security blankets, so too, we enlightened moderns should be able to step into the light and view the world as it really is, not as we wish it to be.
Suggested reading:
Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer
The Meme Machine by Susan J. Blackmore
and if you can handle it:
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
Great strides are being made in exploring the "outer" world, and there's no doubt about the tangible benefits this has produced. Unfortunately our understanding of the "inner" world is atrophying through materialist neglect. I guess it's understandable, as few are willing to take the abuse that it heaped upon them for daring to study such a "worthless" science.
Nonsense! Materialists in many relevant fields (neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, sociobiology etc.) are busy probing the "'inner' world" of mind and consciousness. Some of the above mentioned books touch on this subject, especially Blackmore. Dennett's Consciousness Explained does exactly what it says on the tin, or at least makes a pretty good stab at it.Other titles that come to mind are How The Mind Works and The Blank Slate:The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker, The Feeling of What Happens: Body, Emotion and the Making of Consciousness by Antonio Damasio and The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks.
The only danger of atrophy, it seems to me, comes from that school of thought that already has answers and is not interested in learning anything new or testing whether they are right or wrong.
, belief rests more on presupposition. Maybe a better question is, How do we "know" what we know? How do we "know" anything?