On the Origin of Religion

A question from a friend came to me the other day.

The question was that of faith. A religious intellectual, he was struggling to explain the "why" of God to his 12 year old son. He used many sound and logical arguments and even scientific explanation although I am sure a well armed athiest could have debated all of his points.

I have said it many times before. One of the great cognitive distortions of modern thinking is that of "intellectualization". Intellectualization is a cognitive process in which individuals use logic and reasoning to avoid uncomfortable emotions and internal conflict. They keep feelings at a distance by focusing on facts and analysis. The most ardent theist and athiest alike utilize this defense mechanism extensively. It is particularly common in those who pride themselves as being reasonable, logical and scientifically enlightened.

The problem with intellectualization is it does not confront the unconscious conflict. It attempts to circumvent it entirely. While this may provide short term relief, it inevitably leads to greater discomfort and emotional uncertainty in the long term. The polemicist, those highly skilled in the art of debate, frequently exhibit this defense mechanism. And it serves them quite well in the art of debate. There is a sort of zealotry in adhering strictly to logic, reasons, facts and science. Their aggression is fueled by a superficial certainty that they have the 'facts on their side'.

The problem of course is that religion is not science. It in no way has anything to do with science, and it cannot be believed through science, only faith. Faith is a deep perception of that art which speaks to the psyche. Religion is that art, and it appeals to the senses in a way that science cannot. Painting is an art appealing to our sense of vision. Music is an art appealing to our sense of hearing. Religion is an art appealing to our psyche, a sixth sense that encompasses consciousness and our 'experience of experiencing'. The intellectualizer would attempt to reduce these emotions into a scientific framework that, at least in theory, could be explained. They would say that our perceptions are simply neuronal impulses that when fired at a certain frequency, duration and intensity explain all human experience. Not even art then is art. Art is science too. It is simply one in which we lack the ability to reduce the abstract into the concrete. I find this unappealing. Consciousness is not a scientific concept, it is a philosophical one.

The anti-religious polemicist frequently makes the argument that religion historically has served the purpose of explaining natural phenomenon for which there was no science yet to explain. As science has developed, religion progressively becomes less necessary. The moral argument aside, I believe this to be insulting and arrogant. It insists a religious person is unenlightened, lacking reason and the higher intellectual faculties that only a nonbeliever may possess. But of course lack of scientific understanding or critical thinking does not explain faith.

The deep religious conviction that emerges from faith may simply be a complex psychological process. I cannot pretend to know what my fellow man feels in this way. I believe their feelings are sincere regardless if the origin is psychological or divine. Faith emerges not from lack of reason, but of the necessity to resolve unconscious conflict. It is in fact a gift to those who feel it deeply. It is no doubt that the mentally ill are disproportionatlely spiritual, a fact remarked not only by great thinkers such as Freud and Jung but also backed by modern medical statistics. I can say from my own practice it appears to be true as well. So what do we mean by resolving unconscious conflict?

Carl Jung saw religion as a crucial, innate human function for resolving unconscious conflict by connecting individuals to the universal symbols and archetypes of the collective unconscious, guiding them toward wholeness (the Self) through myth, ritual, and inner spiritual experience, though he cautioned organized religion could become a defense against this direct, transformative encounter. Religious practices, when authentic, facilitate individuation, integrating conscious and unconscious opposites, but when reduced to mere dogma, they fail and lead to neurosis, requiring new symbolic expressions for modern life. Hence, new religions emerge from the old. The question is then, in the age of artificial intelligence which religion will emerge next?