Religion is of Man! Spirit is of God!
A Christian woman, who happened to be a Baptist, said to me one day, “Religion is Man Made! Spirit is of God!”
That is a very true! By looking at some of the
instincts, needs, and drives of a human being, it is easier to grasp the effects, limitations, and weaknesses of religion.
Religion and Religious Beliefs From the Perspective of Emile Durkheim and Clifford Geertz
Raluca M Ghimpu in his paper, Emile Durkheim and Clifford Geertz.docx (academia.edu) did a superb job of outlining the basic principles in the theories of Durkheim and Geertz, so I will at the moment only quote excerpts from his essay. Emile Durkheim was a founding father of sociology who wrote his immortal The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life in 1912. Clifford Geertz, perhaps the most famous contemporary anthropologist, five-part definition of religion first published in 1965 which as the religious scholar Ira Chernus observed has been universally accepted in the social sciences. As a point of order, I noticed Geertz’s five-part definition of religion left out “spirit” so, since I happened to be reading Brian Hayden’s book, Shamans, Sorcerers, and Saints at the time, I emailed Brain Hayden and asked if Geertz’s definition leaving out the concept of spirit altogether left out a major characteristic of religion. To my knowledge, all religions include a concept of spirit in some form or fashion. To my surprise he agreed – in spite of that fact that his book cited and “Agreed” with Geertz’s definition of religion.
“Emile Durkheim and Clifford Geertz shape their theory of religion by highlighting its significance within a certain society or group. Nevertheless, their approaches differ considerably. While Durkheim argues that religion and the sacred represent the society we live in and that we are compelled to bend to its rules and to internalize them, Geertz supports the idea of religion as a cultural system; that is, a cluster of symbols which hold meaning and help us construct our reality.
In Durkheim’s view, the key purpose of religion is to reinforce social solidarity. He argues that “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them” (Durkheim 1995: 44). Thus, society can come into existence only through shared ideals and moral values; religion makes that possible by providing beliefs and practices that unify members and also by offering a way of interpreting the world.
The society decides whether one becomes a full person or not, depending on how well he fulfilled his responsibilities while alive. The individual does not truly exist without the society to define him as such (1973: 295-299). This belief is incessantly reinforced through taboos, religious rituals and “totemistic observances”; these act to constantly remind the members of the group who they are and who they should be (1973: 313).
To my knowledge, no scholar has actually specifically identified a primary function of religious beliefs as being “to form groups.” Both Durkheim, Geertz and many others talk about a function of creating “social solidarity” – yet none seem to take the next step: “A function of religious beliefs is to form groups” – an idea which brings a different perspective, in my view. After all, that is exactly what religious beliefs have done from the beginning of time. Jung stated at one point that a purpose of religions is to enlighten people – which in my view has no historical basis that I can think of.
A Quick Overview of Jung's Views on Religions
Ivana Ryška Vajdová observed in her article, JUNG’S PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF IMAGO DEI, that "Jung’s attitude towards religion was always ambivalent. From the very beginning he criticizes the inhibitory nature of religion, but over the course of his career he starts to appreciate potential healing capacities of religion: for a believer, religious symbolism can become a means of finding a balanced relationship with own unconscious. (Jung's Psychological Analysis Of Imago Dei Spirituality Studies 2 (1) Spring 2016)
A Jung emphasized "The critical notion is that of the individual as, in Jung’s words, “the one source of moral and spiritual progress for society”. Jung’s view of the primacy of the individual and the importance of the individuation process he puts succinctly when he says, “Resistance to the organized mass can be effected only by the man who is as well organized in his individuality as the mass itself ” (Jung CW Vol. 10 par. 540, italics Jung). (The Psychological Landscape Of Spirituality And Religion: A Theoretical And Diagrammatical Exposition by Peggy Kay PhD)
Jung held organized religion at arm's length: "Christian civilization has proved hollow to a terrifying degree: it is all veneer, but the inner man has remained untouched, and therefore unchanged. His soul is out of key with his external beliefs; in his soul the Christian has not kept pace with external developments. Yes, everything is to be found outside-in image and in word, in Church and Bible-but never inside. Inside reign the archaic gods, supreme as of old. ~Carl Jung; Psychology and Alchemy, Page 11."
Instincts, Need for Meaning, and Opinions and Biases in Psychology
In 1933, the famous psychologist Carl Jung observed that at that time the scientific understanding of religion was limited to “the testimony of a few individuals.” He goes on to say, “Our way of looking at things is conditioned by what we are,” and these individuals tend to “see things differently and express themselves differently.” And in the end, “every psychology – my own included-has the character of a subjective confession (Jung, 1933, pp. 116-118).” (p. 420) Things haven’t changed much since then. Much of what is written today about spirit, spirituality and religion is distorted one way or another by the personal views and opinions of the psychologist.
Besides the taboo for spirit and spirituality in psychology (and in psychiatry the prejudices are much worse), there is a taboo in psychology about “instincts” in human behavior. Somehow, it seems many people and psychologists resolutely believe that human beings are above and better than animals and definitely would Not have instincts. I purchased four used (financial considerations were influential) ‘Introduction to Psychology’ textbooks. What was most shocking is that not one textbook referred a Need for meaning in human behavior and consciousness. This is in spite of the fact that the iconic Viktor Frankl advocated the Will to Meaning as the most vital need in human beings. Then there is the famous anthropologist, Clifford Geertz, the prominent social psychologist, Roy Baumeister, the prominent positive psychologist, Paul Wong, not to mention Carl Jung, as well as many existential and positive psychologists who advocate the concept of a powerful Need for meaning in human beings. In fact, there was only one mention of meaning at all and that was in Sorenson’s textbook, and all it referred to was the importance of meaning in the processing of social decision making. In all four textbooks there were only three sentences about “instincts,” which referred to Baumeister an Leary’s work on the powerful Need to Belong.
Everybody knows we (human beings) are descended from the great apes and chimpanzees, and our most primitive ancestors emerged some five million years ago. So, it would be a self-evident truth that ‘we’ have inherited some of our mental processing and emotional structure from the great apes and chimpanzees – for better or worse. Since the prefrontal cortex in great apes and chimpanzees by comparison to human beings is relatively small, it would be an inescapable that great apes operated to a large degree on instinctual processes. And it would likely be a sure bet that human beings inherited at least “some” of those instinctual processes -though likely modified in the human brain to some extent. With that in mind, we should look at current social identity theory.
Social Identity Theory and the Minimal Group Paradigm
Social identity theory appears to be the most prevalent theory of group-related behaviors in psychology today. The theory was first advanced by H. Tajfel, but has been embraced by M. A. Hogg, D. Abrams, J. C. Turner, and many others. The social identity theory is deceptively simple. The theory states that social identification results from the innate tendency of human beings to categorize things and people – Categorization being an attribute stemming from peoples’ need for order and the drive to make sense of the world. That is, the natural process of categorization results in categorization of people into groups, as well as the self-categorization as a member of a group. Hogg and Abrams state, “The inclusion of self in the categorization process is crucial. It is the fact that one’s self is categorized as being stereotypically the same as the ingroup members which creates social attraction – attraction to others because they are ingroupers, regardless of their personal characteristics.” (p.209 soc id)
It was the Minimal Group Paradigm which lent credence to the concept that the cognitive process of categorization leads to the formation of groups and group identity. Tajfel and his colleagues developed what they termed the minimal group paradigm, based on an experiment designed to discover the very barest minimal “input” needed to elicit group related behaviors in subjects and specifically discrimination of out-group members by subjects. Subjects who had no connection or contact with any of the other subjects were assigned to a group so inter-personal favoritism was ruled out. There was no interpersonal contact. Other subjects in the experiment were referred to as code numbers or group identification numbers. This precluded any emotional connections. The summation of the situation was: “Thus these groups are purely cognitive and can be referred to as minimal.” (p49 soc id – my italics)
The subjects were given the task of awarding points, which symbolized money, amongst the different people of the different groups. The subjects were given a matrix of choices from which they could distribute the points. The matrix was a list of pairs of numbers. A pair consisted of two numbers – one number representing a credit for the in group and the other number of the pair represented a credit for the out group. The subjects were only allowed to pick pairs, not individual numbers. Since there was no interpersonal interaction at all most of the psychologists predicted a rather ‘fair’ distribution. However, the subjects favored in group members. In fact, the results showed that subjects chose distributions which maximized the relative differentiation between the groups as opposed to maximizing the reward for the in group. That is, rather than choose an outcome that ‘better’ benefited objectively both groups in terms of reward and which would give the in group an objectively greater reward, the subjects chose a lower maximum reward for the in group if it meant that the in group ended up looking better relative to the out group. “To put this another way, beating the out group is more important than sheer profit.” (p. 49soc id)
Now, the flaw in the theory rests of the reliance of cognitive categorization process to explain group related behaviors. A brief precursory of group related behaviors such as patriotism or religious convictions bring to the fore the very strong emotions involved. Kay Deaux, a prominent social psychologist, relates the seeming pre-occupation with cognitive processes in social psychology to the “emphasis on experimenter-created social groups” which “precluded most affective displays.” That is, experiments conducted in a laboratory would necessarily have a contrived and arbitrary aspect to them. Cognitive structures and paradigms tend to be nice, neat, and precise constructs that are measurable in some sense – which makes them easily subjected to laboratory conditions. Emotions, however, in part due to their subjective aspect, tend to be amorphous and difficult to define. That is, the cognitive characteristics of the group-related behaviors is almost the entire focus of psychologists’ attention and experiments simply because they are nice and neat concepts which are more easily defined and to some extent measurable.
Emotions in Group Behavior
Kay Deaux, in her critical analysis of social psychology, goes on to say, “In contrast, natural groups, whether family, fraternity, or nation, are often the arena for intense displays of emotion and strong affective ties.” (p. 794 Handbook) That is to say, strong emotions are a very salient aspect of group related behaviors and group dynamics. When one views group related behaviors, especially inter-group conflict and violence, it becomes readily apparent that there are incredibly powerful emotions involved in the instinctual group related behaviors. Patriotism, of course, is well known to elicit strong emotions.
In the very violent partition of India and
Pakistan, very powerful emotions connected with the religious groups of Muslims
and Hindu’s emerged in epidemic violence between the two groups. A couple of
historians noted that there were frequent atrocities and there was even an
eyewitness account of a man taking a baby and bashing its head out on a brick
wall. In the rape of Nanking when the Japanese occupying troops massacred what
some number as hundreds of thousands of unarmed Chinese civilians, the Japanese
burned, buried alive, drowned, shot, used Chinese for bayonet practice, and an
eyewitness account related seeing a Japanese soldier bayoneting a pregnant Chinese
woman in the belly. Since World War I, human history records more than ten
genocides of usually unarmed and innocent civilians. The bottom line is that
there are very, very powerful emotions connected with group related behaviors.
It should be said that it is obvious that Trump is tapping into the strong group related emotions connected with patriotism and religious beliefs. In spite of the fact that Trump is the least patriotic “American” in the country, having abased himself before an enemy power (Putin) Trump still gets a reaction when he criticizes the patriotism of the black NFL players protesting the widespread practice of police profiling blacks and the statistical fact that by far more unarmed blacks are shot and killed than any other category. With many people patriotism invokes an unthinking knee-jerk instinctual reaction.
Groups Behaviors are Invoked "Readily and Easily"
From the minimal group experiments and other experiments on group dynamics, Roy Baumeister, a prominent social psychologist, concludes: “In brief, people seem widely and strongly inclined to formsocial relationships quite easily in the absence of eliciting circumstances or ulterior motives. Friendships and group allegiance seem to arise spontaneously and readily, without needing evidence of material advantage or inferred similarity.” Again, Baumeister emphasizes that these behaviors are expressed both “readily” and “easily.” It is interesting that Baumeister, together with Leary, have suggested that some group related behaviors are instinctual in nature. Yet, it seems that Baumeister failed to take his analysis of group-related behaviors that one little step further.
A Refutation of Social Identity Theory, as it is today
It is evident that cognitive categorization processes do not come close to explaining the strong emotions involved in most religious and political groups – or even sports groups. Sports fans are known to be wildly emotional at times. It is evident that the group related behaviors in experimental subjects appear to show up automatically, or “readily” and “easily” as Baumeister puts it, so It would seem an inescapable conclusion that an internalized role or unconscious model of being a group-member is what actually generates the group related ingroup-outgroup biases and the readily adapted norms and values of the group.
That is, the cognitive categorization process is the “trigger” which sets in motion what one neuroscientist called “factory installed software.” That is, the cognitive categorization as a group member triggers or activates a nonconscious process that generates the group related behaviors. It is somewhat puzzling that Baumeister didn’t realize this himself. It’s rather evident. But then again instinctual processes are somewhat taboo in psychology. But the point is that Social Identity Theory is seriously flawed. Social Identity Theory, as it stands today is utterly inadequate in explaining the strong emotions in group related behaviors.
Religion is of Man! Spirit is of God!
So, how does all this relate to religion and religious beliefs? During the Catholic inspired Albigensian crusade against the heretic Cathar religion, when the town of Bezier, in France, was captured by the crusaders, the Vatican legate instructed the soldiers to kill all the heretics. When a soldier asked the legate how they could tell between a Catholic and a Cathar, the legate responded by saying “Kill them all! God will know which are true Catholics and which are heretics!” Clearly that is NOT what Christ would have said. That is a perfect example of religion being “manmade.” In looking at history one need distinguish between group related happenings and Christ’s theology. Personally, it is my view in contemporary times some Christians have strayed off Christ’s way as it were into manmade Christian group-related actions. In John 4: 23-24 Christ commanded people to worship in “Spirit and Truth” and in today’s world it is my personal perception that some Christians have strayed from that principle.
Conclusions: Is it possible to "distinguish religious functions from religious dogmas"
Ivana Ryška Vajdová astutely observes that "Jung’s attitude towards religion changes with time. He accepts it practically – as a cultural convenience that enables people things that are impossible on biological level – progress, sacrifice of oneself, etc. He also acknowledges that religion can serve us in a way of connecting us with the realms of unconscious otherwise unreachable. Therefore, it would be short-sighted to try to replace it altogether with science. The realm of unconscious from which the images of God and the Self emerge are, according to Jung, unknown and uncontrollable (CW 10 1918). As a psychologist, Jung takes into account healing capacities of religion that bring release to chaotic instincts by means of fantasy. Therefore, we cannot simply get rid of religion without putting our own psychic health in jeopardy. Jung proposes to distinguish religious functions from religious dogmas that serve in every religion to prevent believers from confronting their own unconscious (CW 6 1921).
Ivana Ryška Vajdová final quote of Jung ending her article is a brilliant succinct sum of Jung's inner understanding of God: "Finally, let me present one more quotation from a letter to Robert Corti, dated 30 April 1929: “God wants to be born in flame of man’s consciousness, leaping even higher (...) One must be able to suffer God. That is the supreme task for the carrier of ideas. He must be the advocate of the earth (...) My inner principle is: Deus et homo. God needs man in order to become conscious, just as he needs limitation in time and space. Let us therefore be for him limitations in time and space, an earthly tabernacle.“ (Letters 1, 65). (p. 60 Ivana Ryška Vajdová)
At one time I into discussions with a Lutheran Pastor about prophecy which were quite enjoyable. In one of the discussions, Pastor Litton gave me quite a lengthy list of "miracles" which he said proved God. First as St Augustine and St Gregory of Nyssa emphatically stated - God is beyond human comprehension and beyond words. How can you prove something which you can't even put into words. Secondly, I could never never understand how - assuming the miracles were in fact scientifically documented in some way (which they are not), at the end of the day, "What is it exactly that you have proved??" How does that help people understand God?? The proof, in a way defines and describes God. So, the question becomes, "Is that all God is??- A God of Miracles?" Brian Josephson, who won the Nobel prize for his invention of quantum tunneling, observed that scientists are fixated on the supernatural aspect of religious beliefs. The same is true for many religious and Christian leaders as well.
I listened to the sermon of an Anglican priest. His sermon focused on Jesus Christ as the "door" or "doorway" - but the priest never even hinted at what Christ was the door or doorway to! I'm the same way with miracles. OK! There are miracles! That's Great! What is it exactly that miracles do?? Christian leaders today are like a broken record. Christ never said to worship miracles - or even to worship a transcendental God. Christ said to worship in "Spirit and Truth" - which without question - in general - Christians are not following. I am not the only one who finds the superficiality of many Christian leaders appalling. Lena on one of my FB posts stated - with some outrage: "I have a huge problem with people who teach "spirituality" and what they're promising people is that once they are spiritual enough, they will have remarkable supernatural powers." One of the most ignorant comments by an Evangelical minister was that Greta - the young environmental "berserker" who crusades on the very true need for environmental action in light of climate change was "possessed and needed exorcism."
In any case, Jung's argument is basically sound. At the Final Judgment, in a way, it is, in a sense, "God" that is on Judgment. That is, if all Christians are found failing then "God" has failed, in a sense. So, the final proof of a "Christian God" would be Christians!
Post Mortem:
That Pastor, together with the Lutheran leaders at St John's ended up ostracizing me because primarily a Notarized, very detailed and very spiritual precognitive warning about a terrorist attack by the notorious Weathermen terrorist group -= which happened to come true in spades. But what would you expect form Christian leaders whose thinking is so crooked and twisted??
Some Reflections and Concluding Remarks
There are many people today who agree that Contemporary Christian leaders are clearly leading the institution of Christianity to its destruction – the extremism of the Christian leaders is very offensive to a large number of people – especially moderates. I told a Christian leader involved in the Christian No Mask Madness - who excused his violation of Christ’s core teaching and commandment to “love one another” (or for God's sake at least show some minimal concern for others), with some quote from Daniel. I told him he might as well stand at the doors to his church and beat people as they approached the church doors. I got thrown out of the Baltimore County Politics FB group as a result. I also wrote several essays and posted them on FB Christian groups with little or no likes or comments.
The extremist right-wing Christians have No Idea how many people they have “pissed off” – something I get earfuls about often because I write about spirituality. Partly due to that and partly due to covid 19, an article about 6 months ago stated that in 18 months somewhere around one in five churches are expected to close their doors permanently.
Many people today would like to see religion and religious groups disappear completely. In the end though that would be like hoping for political groups and organizations to disappear completely. Though large number of Christian leaders today have turned stupidity into an art form, Religion does not have a monopoly on stupidity. Just think of Stalin, communism, as well as Hitler, and countless other horrifically destructive politicians. In fact it is clear that the Materialist Doctrine has undermined spiritual and religious beliefs -big-time. Even a precursory view of Curriculum and specialties of psychology professors at Universities shows that Materialism – which is an ideology – has split society like no other issues since civil rights in the 1960’s. In any case, I agree with Jung that, in the end, the only thing that can replace religion is religion.
What Should Psychology Be - in Theory
In reading the analyses of the decline in religious affiliation, a generalization - (perhaps an oversimplification) would be the decline happened to a large degree because religion just had stopped being "reasonable." The same will likely happen to psychology as people realize that it isn't reasonable.
What should it be? An analogy might be to a sailboat in which psychology is the keel to keep it balance - to be a neutral "battlefield" in which opposing ideas might engage. At the moment - it is the complete and utter opposite. Academia is ruled by the most intolerant - and ignorant - ideology possible - the Materialist Doctrine which Refuses - in my experience to even hear the question because they are so intolerant.
Addendum: Materialist Doctrine = rigid adherence to the arbitrary principle of quantification!
As Claudia Nielsen pointed out, the psychiatrist McGilChrist astutely observed that “The scope of inquiry and understanding of the Materialist Doctrine with its rigid adherence to the actually arbitrary principle of quantification and over-emphasis on physiological characteristics is severely restricted and limited in the analyses that can be performed.”
As Kay Deux, a social psychologist points out the fixation of social psychology on laboratory experiments precludes "affective displays" and emotions. That is, the Materialist Doctrine excludes some facts, information and evidence due to the fixation on physiological quantification. That being said, it is a very important point that when it comes to bypassing and ignoring instincts altogether - which is what psychology did - simply because genocides can’t be put in a laboratory setting, that is not a trivial problem, but has had a major detrimental effect on peoples’ understanding of racism since American leaders do not understand that very powerful emotions are clearly historically connected with group-related instincts in conflicts with outgroups. In human history there has been genocide after genocide after genocide. But social psychology, the APA recommendations on racism, nor neuroscience or neuropsychology do not Emphasize that horrifically powerful emotions are at minimum a major characteristic of racism.
For the record, Carl Jung beat McGilChrist with his own mirror-image analysis almost one hundred years before McGilChrist when he stated: "This grasping of the whole is obviously the aim of science as well, but it is a goal that necessarily lies very far off because science, whenever possible, proceeds experimentally and in all cases statistically. Experiment, however, consists in asking a definite question which excludes as far as possible anything disturbing and irrelevant. It makes conditions, imposes them on Nature, and in this way forces her to give an answer to a question devised by man. She is prevented from answering out of the fullness of her possibilities since these possibilities are restricted as far as partible. For this purpose there is created in the laboratory a situation which is artificially restricted to the question which compels Nature to give an unequivocal answer. The workings of Nature in her unrestricted wholeness are completely excluded. If we want to know what these workings are, we need a method of inquiry which imposes the fewest possible conditions, or if possible no conditions at all, and then leave Nature to answer out of her fullness." (Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle p. 35)
Content Copyrighted Copyright © 2020
References and Footnotes
John Bargh, PhD: http://bargh.socialpsychology.org/
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/bargh/index.html
Viktor Frankl:
http://www.viktor-frankl.com/
Viktor Frankl: http://www.viktorfrankl.org/
Dr. Paul Wong:
http://www.drpaulwong.com/
Dr. Paul Wong: https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/paul-wong-biography/
Clifford Geertz: https://www.biography.com/people/clifford-geertz-9308224
Carl Jung: https://www.biography.com/people/carl-jung-9359134
Emile Durkheim:
http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/
William James:
https://www.biography.com/people/william-james-9352726