The Difference Between Folk Religion and Organized Religion

[LAGC]

So we can expect that our ancestors, no matter how curious they were by temperament, did more or less what we all still do today: rely on "what everyone knows." Most of what you (think you) know you just accept on faith. By this I do not mean the faith of religious belief, but something much simpler: the practical, always revisable policy of simply trusting the first thing that comes to your mind without obsessing over why it does so. What are the odds that "everybody" is just wrong to think that yawning is harmless or that you should wash your hands after going to the bathroom? (Remember those "good healthy tans" we used to covet?) Unless somebody publishes a study that surprises us all, we take for granted that the common lore we get from our elders and others is correct. And we are wise to do so; we need huge amounts of common knowledge to guide our way through life, and there is no time to sort through all of it, testing every item for soundness. And so, in a tribal society in which "everyone knows" that you need to sacrifice a goat in order to have a healthy baby, you make sure that you sacrifice a goat. Better safe than sorry.

This feature marks a profound difference between folk religion and organized religion: those who practice a folk religion don't think of themselves as practicing a religion at all. Their "religious" practices are a seamless part of their practical lives, alongside their hunting and gathering or tilling and harvesting. And one way to tell that they really believe in the deities to which they make their sacrifices is that they aren't forever talking about how much they believe in their deities -- any more than you or I go around assuring each other that we believe in germs and atoms. Where there is no ambient doubt to speak of, there is no need to speak of faith.

-- Chapter 6, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, by Daniel Dennett


It is amazing, isn't it, how much religious folks have to assure each other that God exists? I mean, if it was so obvious, why the constant reinforcement? Sometimes I think they doth protest too much... especially when the missionaries come to MY door on MY time trying to convince me of something that you'd think wouldn't need convincing. Strange.

[DeSwiss]

1. K&R

In addition to creating a means of social cohesion and social integration for individuals and families, "communal reinforcement" (going to church, constant reinforcement of tenets, ideals, etc.) helps to offset the naturally unsettling psychological response and affects of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs whenever two contradictory ideas occur simultaneously (talking snakes vs. the knowledge that snakes can't talk), and often results in confirmation bias taking the place of the offending and upsetting rational thought(s).

Communal reinforcement explains, in part, why about half of all American adults deny evolution occurred and believe that God created the universe in six days, made the first man and woman out of clay, and a snake talked the woman into disobeying an order from God thereby causing all our problems. It also explains how otherwise rational and intelligent people can be persuaded to accept such stories as true when they are provided by a comforting community in a time of great emotional need. Every cult leader knows the value of communal reinforcement combined with isolating cult members from contrary ideas. (http://www.skepdic.com/comreinf.html">link)

~
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance">link)

~
Confirmation bias is an irrational tendency to search for, interpret or remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions or working hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. These biases in information processing are distinguished from the behavioral confirmation effect (also called self-fulfilling prophecy), in which a person's expectations influence their own behavior. Confirmation bias can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in organizational, military and political contexts. Attempts to teach critical thinking can be counter-productive if confirmation biases are not addressed, since by applying logical thinking only to one side of an argument, thinkers can become "actively closed-minded". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias">link)

on edit: added section on cognitive dissonance

[ironbark]

2. Is it equally “amazing” how much non religious folks have to assure each other

that God does not exist?
"I mean, if it was so obvious, why the constant reinforcement? Sometimes I think they doth protest too much"

;-)


I like the OP premice, questioning the reliance on "what everyone knows."

I like the fact that this questioning cuts both ways.

"missionaries come to MY door on MY time"

At least they knock.
Many of the most pernicious missionaries come seeping through the TV or through my children’s Ipod ear plugs...and what they are proselytising is nastier than any religious doctrine...or, the nastiest religious doctrine of all.
"And so, in a tribal society in which "everyone knows" that you need" stuff, lots of stuff, more stuff and some of that other new stuff...and sacrifice to get it.

Ah yes, unquestioned "Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" ;-)

[LAGC]

7. I take it you speak of the over-commercialization of the society we live in.

Yes, in fact, Dennett later on in the book talks about a market-place of ideas, and how the free market has led to so many people believing in something. When there was just one (state) religion, for example, you had more non-believers, because there were only two choices (believe this one way, or don't believe) versus many appealing options (believe in this one way, or this other one way, or this other... etc.)

As for our product-centric "work, earn, buy" pop culture, I guess all you can do is turn off the tube and unplug. After all, the "message" is pervasive... can't really get away from it, so long as capitalism rules our universe. ;-)

[Jim__]

3. Does Dennett offer any evidence that people today talk about religion more than they do ...

about science? Does he offer any evidence that people who practiced a folk religion didn't think about the religion at all? Or, are these things he just sort of believes?

[Igel]

4. "how much religious folks have to assure each other that God exists?"

In the same way that people who need to constantly talk about evolution don't really believe in it?

No, you have something else going on. People who always talk about evolution (and aren't either teaching it or working in evolutionary biology) do so to highlight a contrast between themselves and some other local, salient group.

Which is why religious folk talk about God: The more of a minority, beleaguered status they think they have the greater the need for rituals and talk that bind them as a coherent group.

It's the same with race. If you're Tutsi and all the people around you are Tutsi and you feel no threat from non-Tutsi, apart from rabid nationalistic imperialist rhetoric you're not going to talk about how wonderful it is to be Tutsi. Feel threatened, and your Tutsiness is suddenly important and needs confirmation.

The thing about folk religion in the OP is that it seems to be a community-based kind of knowledge. In other words, it's background, it's not used to highlight group distinctions in the groups considered in the study. So why should it be the topic of conversation, any more than biological evolution at a functional linguistics meeting?

That's the first thing. The second thing is that folkways tend not to be proselytizing religions with a rationalized creed. You share knowledge, but it's considered factual, commonsensical, and fairly atomistic. Evolutionary thought and Xianity tend to be proselytizing. Therefore talk about it is needed. If I move into an area with well established folkways at odds with my beliefs, I expect no proselytizing. I don't proselytize my religion, so only differences as they crop up would generate discussion, and that discussion would probably be between my "formal" faith and the less well-defined folkways.

A related point--possibly different enough to be a third thing (and there may be more)--is that in the absence of a coherent, rationalized creed there's no orthodoxy to enforce. This allows the folkways to evolve (so today's "culture" is not the same as last century's) while, on the other hand, peer pressure makes for a fair degree of conformity even if people aren't always aware of why they're applying pressure (or feeling it). This isn't true of organized religions to the same degree. You can belong to the Assembly of Prevaricating Predispensationalists and not accept all their beliefs, but non-uniformity will trigger a fair amount of overt one-way discussion, commonly known as "preaching."

[ZombieHorde]

5. I think this is one of the reasons atheists are hated so much,

we remind theists of their own doubts. Every kind of belief can be attacked, except for religious beliefs. If you tell someone their computer does not exist, you are being silly, but tell someone their god does not exist, and you are being a hateful, militant atheist. Theistic doubts seem to be the most likely reason for this strange behavior.

[dimbear]

6. Atheists are trying to deprive theists of their hearts' desires.

With their fancy doubts and slick 'logical thinking' they are taking away the dearest most cherished hopes of the theists, which is that their enemies will burn eternally in hell.

Check any handy Bible, where you will read the tortures of hell described very graphically, while the putative pleasures of heaven are vague and somehow unimportant in comparison.

It is a little known fact that according at least one of the patristic fathers, the second greatest pleasure of those in heaven, second only to the proximity to God, is observing the sufferings of the damned. I think that may have inspired Ambrose Bierce in his sly definition of happiness, which see.

That's why heaven and hell are within shouting distance.

[cleanhippie]

8. .