Why is Religion so Widespread in Human Society?

We can approach this question by recalling the words of the pragmatist psychologist and philosopher William James, who held that there are direct and immediate benefits to believing some things without evidence.  To illustrate his point, James tells a little story of a person walking on an isolated mountain trail in winter.  This person is faced with the necessity of crossing a dangerous icy ledge to continue on.  Only if the hiker believes he/she can make it across will the attempt be made, and this belief will help bring about the crossing.  James concludes, “there are cases where a fact cannot come at all unless there is a previous faith that it will come.  And where faith in a fact can help create the fact.”  In this case, belief builds confidence and courage, which are valuable assets to people everywhere. 

Applying these ideas to religious belief, most religions hold that there is some kind of God (or gods) that care about people and about how they live.  This care is usually linked to a moral code that prescribes how humans ought to act.  Another central belief is that there is an afterlife, and the quality of this afterlife is determined by the degree to which people abide by the precepts of the moral code.  These beliefs, James held, give people a reason for living.  They instill a peace of mind, and help them get through personal loss such as the death of a friend or loved one.  But most important, they help to relieve the fear of one’s own death because believers come to see death as a kind of transition between one kind of living and another.  Also, religious beliefs give a reason for acting morally.  Only those who abide by the rules will make it into heaven.  Further, religious beliefs motivate empathy and altruism, which improves the lives of everyone living in a religious community.  In short, James held that religious beliefs enrich life and make for a healthy mind, and they are quite appropriate as long as the existence of God is an open question. 

Interestingly, the atheist psychologist Sigmund Freud agreed with James about many of the effects of religion.  Freud acknowledged the fact that life is hard.  People everywhere suffer from the effects of cancer, heart disease, and countless other illnesses, producing misery and pain; friends betray friends, and spouses cheat on spouses, leading to distress and heartbreak; and even the outside world turns against us when wild fires and floods destroy homes and livelihoods.  In the face of these constant assaults, people grasp at anything to relieve the pain, and one of those things is religion.  Many religions assure us of an afterlife where everything will be better than it is now.  Religion takes the inconvenient aspects of life and neatly tucks them away to a place where they won’t cause trouble.  But where James held that religion promoted a healthy mind, Freud claimed that it produced a mind that was seriously sick.   

The reason for this diametrically opposite conclusion is that Freud interpreted religious beliefs as illusions grounded in neuroses traceable to infantile needs.  The child loves the protection given by its father, and as the child grows older, it projects this need and love for a father into a god figure who will love and protect it.  So religious beliefs are cases of wishful thinking.  Freud compared this kind of thinking to a young girl’s hope and expectation that a prince will come to marry her.  This kind of thinking is baseless, disconnected from reality, and it perpetuates a constant state of psychological immaturity.  In the same way, religion perpetuates infantile illusions in the minds of believers, it interferes with the normal functioning of reason, and it dilutes the significance of scientific discoveries.  Many people naturally outgrow the neurotic need for a protective and loving father figure, but those who do not can obtain relief through a course of psychoanalysis. 

The theory developed in Religion, Power, and Illusion agrees with Freud that religious beliefs are illusions, but it disagrees with him as to the cause of those illusions.  Where Freud sees them as originating in early childhood needs, I see them originating in the drive for power that motivates the promoters of religion.  Michel Foucault argued that a primary manifestation of power was controlling the lives of others, and it should be obvious that this is what most religious leaders manage to do.  And as a result of this control these leaders enjoy many benefits including wealth, social status, recognition, and respect.  And of course these leaders deserve these benefits because they are close to God.  What these promoters fail to disclose is that they are the very ones who created God (and the gods) thousands of years ago, and they have sustained belief in these entities all the way to the present day. 

All three of these theories, the pragmatist theory of James, Freud’s theory based on the father figure, and the power theory developed in RPI, serve to explain why religion is so widespread in human society.  James held that where an outcome is good, a belief that supports that outcome may be justified.  People everywhere and for thousands of years have had to face the loss of friends, the fear of approaching death, and the threat of hostile outside forces.  Therefore, if religious beliefs will alleviate these evils, they offer a good solution.  Moreover, as a matter of fact, people throughout history have held religious beliefs precisely for these reasons.  Religion makes life comfortable, so it’s no wonder that many people are attracted to it. 

Freud’s theory is based on the feeling of protection that most of us receive from our fathers.  We come to depend on that protection, so as we get older we project that need onto an all-powerful cosmic father, which we call God.  All of us have fathers, so belief in God and the religion that goes with it are widespread throughout society.  There may be some plausibility to this reasoning, since many of us see God as a father.  A famous prayer begins with the words “Our Father….”  Why not “Our Uncle…” or “Our Brother…”?  The idea of an all-powerful Father is important to many religions.  While it is true that Freud’s idea of fatherhood is tied to nineteenth century Austria, where fathers tended to be authoritarian, it is probably true that for most people the idea of fatherhood is that of a strong parent who protects his children. 

The theory that religion is based on power serves even better, I think, to explain the widespread acceptability of religion.  People have been motivated by power for as long as they have walked the earth.  People want good things for themselves.  They want a nice home, a loving spouse, the respect of their fellows, and an influential position in society.  To get these things people think they need power and money.  So it is to be expected that some innovative individuals, people whom I call priests, would come up with the idea of a being whom they call God who can rain all sorts of benefits on ordinary humans.  To obtain these benefits, all the ordinary ones need to do is reward the priests, who have the ear of God, with wealth, power, and influence.  If religion, as a social phenomenon, were to disappear tomorrow, it would not be long till it re-emerged through the efforts of these clever and imaginative individuals. 

Religion is widespread, but the fact remains that it is not universal.  Every society has nonbelievers, and many have a great number.  How is this explained?  James might argue that not everyone agrees with his pragmatist approach to religion, and those who do not may decline to become religious even though religion produces some good results.  Freud would point out that most people grow up, and since religion is an infantile disposition, many people naturally grow out of it.  They come to see that their religious beliefs are really cases of wishful thinking.  Those who agree with the power theory see the promoters of religion as gluttons for control.  Controlling others is one form of power, and religious promoters gain this control by inventing countless rules that regulate every detail of daily life.  They justify these rules by saying that they reflect the will of God.  But in fact the rules exist to augment the power of the promoters.