rel.DS_Store__MACOSXrel._.DS_StorerelBerger.ppt.docx

rel/.DS_Store
__MACOSX/rel/._.DS_Store
rel/Berger.ppt
A True and Worthy Selfhood: Identity.
The Problem of Identity
We are the “unfinished animal”
-- Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy (1967)
We create our identity by creating culture
Over time humans create categories
for thinking about self and the world –
That is a “dog.”
Dogs are edible.
Dogs taste good.
-- Peter Berger,The Sacred Canopy (1967)
We create our identities by creating culture:

and invent practices
Make fire by rubbing sticks.
Cook the dead dog on the fire
We create our identities by creating culture
and invent practices as well as rules
Do not have sex with siblings.
Never talk to your wife’s mother.
Over time humans create
categories + practices + rules.
Over time humans thereby create culture
Etc.

-- Peter Berger,
The Sacred Canopy (1967)
We create culture.
“Externalization”
Then we get used to the culture.
It begins to seem “natural,”
the objective truth,
the one true way to be human.
Black beans
and rice –
w/o dog.
-- Peter Berger,
1. Create culture.
2. Treat the culture as the natural way.
“Objectification”
“eating dog is normal human behavior”
but whale-blubber is better yet for eating.
-- Peter Berger,
1. Create culture.

3. Internalization
As a person grows up
the person ‘internalizes’ the culture
as the person’s identity –
e.g. I eat dogs; that makes me a noremal person.
-- Peter Berger,
1. Create culture.
2. Treat the culture as the natural way. Internalize the culture
as one’s identity.
examples ??
1. The Problem of Identity
-- Peter Berger,
1. Create culture.
2. Treat the culture as natural.
3. Internalize the culture
Now you know
who you are

-- Peter Berger,
1. Create categories = produce culture.
Now everyone knows who
he or she is.
-- Peter Berger,
Identity is precarious, however
on two levels: individual level --
Have not ‘found yourself’?
-- Peter Berger,

have not ‘found yourself’?
OR: have found self not to
fit with the culture?
-- Peter Berger,
on two levels: individual level – find a self that fits society
social level – find stable clear social order
so you can know what you ought to be like
Religion as a support for identity:
Throughout history religion
has been in fact the major
source of support for
identity, by supporting
the social order and
the values it dictates
At right: a modern secular
chart of personality aspects
related to one’s values

The Problem of Identity,
Religion as a support for identity
Throughout history
the major source of support – for example:
Grand Ayatollah
Khomeini, Iran
Mullah Omar,
Afghanistan,
one-time Taliban leader
What Guided and Guides Muslim life?
“At the end of the 18th century a Muslim visitor
pitied the poor British who did not have a divine law
and had to make up their own” (Lewis, 2002: 113-14).
Answer: Shari’a guides Muslim life.
What is Shari’a?
The Qur’an
+
Sunna [traditions about Muhammad contained in
Hadiths (stories)]
+
Community

consensus
=
Shari’a
[What God commands and what people must obey. Islamic law]
4 Legal traditions
Throughout history
the major source of support -- for example
Throughout history
the major source of support – by saying
about all the social norms:
These norms are guaranteed correct by God. These norms will
be enforced by God.
So you can safely build your own sense of
Identity and self-worth on them.
Some specific ways in which
religion supports identity
“Whirling

Dervishes,”
Sufi dancers
a. Special status for a few people –
e.g., shamans, nuns, rabbis . . . .
b. Special status for everyone –
e.g., bar mitzvah, bat mitzvah
c. Our secret identity --
e.g., Scientology says we are Thetans –
godlike beings caught in
these bodies, until we learn
to become ‘clear’ through
Scientology.

c. Our secret identity –
d. Reassurance for a threatened identity –
e.g., snake-handling?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVDKSK2J_Ps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUdc5h10zTo
Arizona: a small town, where people live by a traditional
nomos.
Chinle sits 5,500 feet above sea level, west of Canyon de
Chelly, where in the 1860s the Navajo held out against Kit
Carson and federal troops who had come to destroy their crops
and burn their homes. Basketball is a passion here. Chinle has
4,500 residents, and its high school arena, the Wildcat Den,
seats 7,000. Fans drive and hitchhike 50, 60, 80 miles to games.
Coaches are regularly tossed aside after a single losing season.
Most of the teenage players observe traditional beliefs:
They bow to the four sacred mountain peaks of Navajo; they
carry corn pollen in case their path crosses that of the coyote, a
notorious trickster; they swallow a bitter herb before games to
guard against envy, jealousy and witchcraft. One senior wears
his unshorn hair in a woven pony tail. He will cut it at age 18
and present the locks to his grandfather. As they wander
canyons, they listen for the voices of ancestors.
For Navajo Team, a Season of Change and Challenge

[basketball],
By MICHAEL POWELL, New York Times, FEB. 26, 2017.
Downloaded, Feb. 27, 2017
Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy. 1967
Analysis: Berger “reduces” religion to a cultural product (an
“externalization”) whose function is to support and stabilize the
social order by attributing it to a sacred or cosmic source.
Motivation: to avoid “anomy” – a sense of lawless chaos,
which threatens individual identity based on the social nomos
(lawful and coherent rule of life/society). It can be called an
intellectualist theory to the extent that it portrays religion as a
conscious construction to bring and support society.
Critique: 1. This may describe how religious ideas usually
function in a society. Primitive folktales which explain the
origin of parts of reality and of social rules usually impart a
sense of correctness and permanence to such realities; so does
attributing social patterns to the will of the gods or God. But
we have no evidence that anyone ever sat down and said “I
think I will invent religious beliefs in order to uphold the social
nomos” – or do we? (The “priestly” writer in the O.T. devised
seven days of creation to include a Sabbath for worship.)
2. This theory may not account for the metaphysical notion of
God.
__MACOSX/rel/._Berger.ppt
rel/Exam#2.rtf
Rel 376 Spring, 2017. Exam #2. Worth up to 100 points

The questions for this exam are intended to give you a chance to
make cross-comparisons among
the various theories we have looked at, as a way of giving you a
larger map of the territory rather
than end up only with familiarity with individuals pieces of the
terrain, though ability to describe
these individual pieces will provide a starting point for your
comparisons. Major aspects that
allow for comparisons include these: a common tendency to use
functionalist reductionism to
explain the origin and function of religion, as well as a range of
types of explanation of the origin
of religion – intellectualist, psychological, genetic, and
sociological.
1. Both Tylor and Feuerbach have somewhat intellectualist
theories of religion, in that both
think that it is human awareness of certain questions which lead
people to believe there are
anthropomorphic beings or a Being. Describe these two
different theories of why people
believe in spiritual beings or Beings, but also describe the
differences between the two
theories.
2. Both Marx and Freud accepted Feuerbach’s basic idea that
people create God, so to speak,
rather than the other way around. Explain their basic ideas
about how and why we do this,
particularly the differences in the two theories as to what
particular human need or needs are
being fulfilled by belief in God.
3. Both Barrett and Guthrie think that the human tendency to
believe in anthropomorphic beings
have a genetic origin. Barrett does not much speculate on the

origin of this tendency itself.
Guthrie, however, does. Describe both Barrett’s type of
evidence that children do this, and
also describe Guthrie’s theory as to the origin of this tendency.
4. Berger provides a sociological theory focused on the
problem of human identity and social
stability. He does not provide an explanation, however, of how
humankind might have hit
upon using “cosmization in a sacred mode” as a way of solving
this problem. First describe
his basic theory in some detail. Then discuss how this might be
characterized also as a
“functional reductionism.”
5. Feuerbach, Freud, and Barrett (see the last paragraphs on
the sheet summarizing his views)
all address the response theologians have made to their theories
about anthropomorphizations
by saying the only valid description of God is non-
anthropomorphic. Describe the non-anthropomorphic notion of
God (see #3 on the pink handout with 3 notions of God), and
describe how Feuerbach, Freud, and Barrett respond to the
theologians. (You will find
material for this in the handout from Feuerbach, and in Pals’
analysis and critique of Freud).
__MACOSX/rel/._Exam#2.rtf
rel/Freud.ppt
Sigmund Freud 1856-1939

Major Topics:
Freud the life-long atheist
Freud on Religion:
Totem and Taboo
The Future of an Illusion
Excerpt from Future of an Illusion
Moses and Monotheism
Analysis
Critique
If you begin as an atheist,
what is the most bothersome question
about religion?
Ans: why are people in general all religious?
about religion?
Tylor and Frazer shared an answer:
mistaken attempts to explain reality – magic, spirits.

about religion?
Freud digs deeper than Tylor and Frazer
to try to find hidden sources/causes/motives’drives.
Freud’s writings on religion.
Totem and Taboo (1913) – Pals’ outline:
Tylor and Frazer did not go far enough.
They saw religion as attempt at rational explanation.
Freud looked for the unconscious basis of religion
(so did Durkheim)
Freud’s question is WHY primitive people
established totems and taboos
– especially incest taboos and
-- taboo against eating the totem (except in rare cases).
What is his answer as to WHY primitive people do this?
Totem and Taboo

His answer:
Primordial horde (males) to get women,
killed the patriarch, and ate his body.
Then out of fear of the dead father’s spirit,
they try to appease it ceremoniously
making a totem their “father”
and sharing it in a sacred meal.
This = the age-old “Oedipus complex” working itself out,
as in the Christian communion service also.
These practices evolved into new forms over time.
Your opinion of this theory?
Totem and Taboo – main theory in this:
Pals’ version:
Nature threatens us with death and decay.
As children our parents protect us.
But we grow up.
So we “project” a father-figure into the sky,
who will protect us
and assure us of ultimate justice.
Totem and Taboo :

Pals’ version
But this is an illusion:
wish-fulfillment.
and for Freud a delusion also
It is like a childhood neurosis
continuing into adulthood.
We should learn to outgrow it.
Totem and Taboo
Specifics from the excerpts from FI.
1. In response to the threat of nature (“Fate”)
2. And to the sufferings imposed on people by civilization.
[#2 sounds odd. Freud’s theory is that in order to live with
one another we have to impose collective rules on ourselves
(the “superego”). These rules prevent us from having all the
fun and power which we (the “id”) naturally want. So to be
civilized is to be safer but sadder. The “ego” represents
intellectual and moral maturity which accepts civilization.]
Totem and Taboo

a. The humanization of nature’s forces
turns them into gods.
b. Scientific thought turns nature in reliable laws.
c. But gods are still needed for 3 things -- to
i. exorcize the terrors of nature;
ii reconcile people “to the cruelty of Fate” and death;
iii compensate them for sufferings caused by society.
Totem and Taboo
2. On the nature of “illusion” – belief as wish fulfillment:
Some religious beliefs are very improbable – delusions?
Other religious beliefs are beyond proof or refutation.
An imaginary interlocuter then asks:
If some beliefs cannot be refuted, why not believe?
Freud responds as an atheist: this is “a lame excuse.”
“Ignorance is ignorance; no right to believe anything
can be derived from it.”
Totem and Taboo

Moses and Monotheism (1938)
Moses was Egyptian, a follower of Akhenaton
He adopted the Hebrews, gave them a single God.
But the Hebrews revolted, killed him, & chose a new god,
“a violent, volcano-deity named Yahweh.”
Centuries later, monotheistic prophets called
the Hebrews back to worship of Moses’
noble God
Ques: Is any of this plausible?
Major Topics:
Freud on Religion:
Totem and Taboo
Analysis
Critique
Analysis – by Pals
“Depth” psychology
finds religion more valuable
e.g., Jung – religion as expression of psychic depths.
[e.g. Abraham Maslow and peak experiences;
e.g. Gordon Allport – extrinsic, intrinsic;

e.g. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled . . . .]
Freud was borrowing the “projection” theory
from Feuerbach.
But after Tylor and Frazer, more people were open
to theories which explained religion as a mistake.
Freud could add an answer, though,
why religion persists in these ‘enlightened’ times.
(His answer is thoroughly reductionist.)
Major Topics:
Freud on Religion:
Totem and Taboo
Analysis
Critique
Critique

1. If religion is based on a father figure,
why are there non-theistic religions?
2. How do we know that individual development
mirrors cultural development?
Or that the sacred meal rituals arose from murder?
Or that Jewish history is anything like Freud’s version?
“Circularity” – presupposed religion is irrational;
Presupposes that all “projections” are incorrect.
4. P.S. Psychoanalysis is unscientific?
Major Topics:
Freud on Religion:
Totem and Taboo
Analysis
Critique
Additional Theological Comments
As with Marx, has Freud just pointed out ways
in which religion fulfills real human needs --

sense of hope, of ultimate justice?
Religion also links religion to love of neighbor, etc.,
as a constructive force in history.
Freud also refused to accept “oceanic experience,”
a notion of God as the infinite horizon of human existence,
as “real” religion. Why?
Because an anthropomorphic God is easier to treat as
illusory?
Major Topics:
Freud on Religion:
Totem and Taboo
Analysis
Critique
__MACOSX/rel/._Freud.ppt
rel/GuthrieAnthrop-2011.ppt
Stewart Guthrie, Faces in the Clouds
Oxford UP, 1993

We constantly anthropomorphize
This is probably a genetic inclination
It is the source of religious belief
in spirits, gods, God
Oxford UP, 1993
Sun god
Germ
“Animism”/ anthropomorphism.
4-6 children suspect computers are alive
because of activity on the screen;
6-8 year olds base it on the fact

that the computer responds actively;
after age 9 some children begin
to wonder whether computers
have feelings.
Sherry Turkle, The Second Self:
Computers and the Human Spirit
(NY: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 324-332
Oxford UP, 1993
Oxford UP, 1993
Yanomamö
of Brazil/Venezuela
Evolutionary
Psychology
(”sociobiology”
applied to humans)

Genes which aid their
carriers to eat, survive,
and reproduce, get
reproduced.
Stewart Guthrie, Faces in the Clouds (1993),
and Justin Barrett, Why Would Anyone Believe in God
(2004)
Evolutionary Psychology
proposes a genetic basis for any near-universal human
behaviors.
Stewart Guthrie observes a near-universal tendency to
anthropomorphize
Why do we do this?
Freud et alii said -- for comfort: but the gods or God can be a
huge threat.
Barrett & Guthrie – HADD (hyperactive agent detection
device)
Those with a genetic
tendency to anthropomorphize
will suspect an “agent” is about
to pounce – and kill?
Yanomamö
of Brazil/Venezuela
Evolutionary
Psychology
(”sociobiology”
applied to humans)

Genes which make
their carriers ready
to anthropomorphize,
by suspecting that the
noise was made by enemies,
will make their carriers
more alert to danger
Yanomamö
of Brazil/Venezuela
Evolutionary
Psychology
(”sociobiology”
applied to humans)
People more alert to danger
will more often survive –
to reproduce. So the
‘anthropomorphizing’
gene gets reproduced.
Alternative explanation: overextension of
“theory of mind”
Also produces tendency to anthropomorphize
-- I.e. to imagine thoughts and intentions
even where we would say there are none.

There are thoughts going on ‘out there’ in people
(or in “things”?) -- which can hurt or help.
Be ready to impute thought to anything which can
hurt or help you. [This also allows
you to account for events – ‘someone’
intended them.
(Origin of “conspiracy theories”?)]
Theory of Mind
(Keep your eye
on the child
watching the
puppet show.
How old is he?)
Oxford UP, We constantly anthropomorphize
It is the source of religious belief in spirits, gods, God --
belief that events are caused by human-like beings,
many of them invisible.
__MACOSX/rel/._GuthrieAnthrop-2011.ppt
rel/IMG_0666.JPG
__MACOSX/rel/._IMG_0666.JPG

rel/IMG_0667.JPG
rel/IMG_0668.JPG
rel/IMG_0670.JPG
rel/IMG_0671.JPG
rel/IMG_0672.JPG
rel/IMG_0673.JPG
rel/IMG_0685.JPG
rel/IMG_0686.JPG
rel/IMG_0687.JPG

rel/IMG_0688.JPG
rel/IMG_0689.JPG
rel/IMG_0690.JPG
rel/Marx+Feuerb.ppt
Karl Marx (and Feuerbach)
Pals, pp. 134-148
Karl Marx – 1818 --
one the most aggressive critics of religion
A reductionist functionalism
Ludwig Feuerbach –
a source of a major aspect of Marx’s critique.
Pals, pp. 134-148
Marx on capitalism

1. Workers deserve to keep the product of their labor
Their work has produced the value of the product.
But their work becomes a commodity to be sold.
2. Capitalism deprives them of their just reward.
Capitalists force people to work extremely hard,
but for smaller returns than they deserve.
In a capitalist system, no factory owners can
afford to be generous. Their products will
cost too much if wages cost too much.
[Think Walmart today.]
Over-production is inevitable, requiring a
shut-down of some factories [a recession]
Pals, pp. 134-148
Base and Superstructure
Economics is the base of society
Everything else is built upon economics
and guided by it.
[E.g., foraging people are egalitarian because they
must live in small groups, face-to-face.
E.g., agricultural people are hierarchical because
agriculture feeds thousands, who live in cities.
To avoid chaos in cities there must be a ruling class;
to defend the city against other cities, there must be
a warrior class – who defend the ruling class.
See Pals, p. 137 for other examples. ]

Pals, pp. 134-148
and guided by it.
Religion is no exception, says Marx:
theologians (and philosophers) tell the workers
to accept their lot in life; all is as God wills it to be.
This set of ideas is the superstructure built upon
the economic power and interests of the few.
A superstructure which legitimizes economic
power interests = an “ideology.”
Pals, pp. 134-148
and guided by it.
Religion is also an expression of misery --
“Religion is the sigh of the afflicted creature”
-- as well as a consolation for that misery:
“the opium of the people”

Pals, pp. 134-148
Sum:
Religion is part of an “ideology”
a belief system supposedly true,
but whose real function is to
a. legitimize those in power; and
b. console the workers so they accept their misery.
But this is just the social function of religion.
What is the origin of religion in the 1st place?
Answer given by
bristle beard,
Feuerbach
Pals, pp. 134-148
Ludwig Feuerbach, 1804-1872
The Essence of Christianity
1841 !! See the excerpt handed out.
A theory of religion based on an analysis of what it means to be
human.
There are ten parts to this theory:
1. Humans have a special kind of consciousness –
awareness not just of self but of ‘’humanness,”
-- of self and others being part of a single species.
2. This species-awareness is the result of humans
having/being a capacity for the infinite.

Pals, pp. 134-148
1841 !! See the excerpt handed out
human. With this capacity for the infinite we can imagine
an infinite being, just like us except totally perfect.
4. The attributes (“predicates”) of this divine being
are our own attributes which we write in the sky.
Pals, pp. 134-148
human. Some theologians argue that
a) God is beyond all attributes, and
b) we can use attribute-talk nonetheless
if we remind ourselves that God-in-Himself
is infinitely beyond our way of thinking.
This is horse-pucky, says Feuerbach;
the real God of religious people has attributes.

So the real God has “anthropomorphic traits.”
Pals, pp. 134-148
human. People contrast the perfection of God
with human imperfection – and are troubled by it.
They seek union with God, their perfect self.One way they
do this is to obey this God,
who provides moral guidance through laws.
Pals, pp. 134-148
human.
8. But these laws were really produced by people
and then attributed to the divine will.
9. So by obeying God we are really obeying ourselves.

10. But we hide this fact, and thereby hide our own
human powers of making choices from ourselves.
We are thereby [self-]alienated.
Pals, pp. 134-148
Marx adopts Feuerbach:
just as capitalism alienates a person from his/her labor,
so religion alienates a person from the person’s true self
as “creator” of God and morality.
To repeat: why do we do this?
Capitalism causes distress; the worker needs relief.
Religion is “the opium of the people.”
and the “sigh of the oppressed” at the same time.
Pals, pp. 134-148
Pals analysis of Marx on religion:
It is a reductionistic functionalism.
Similar to Durkheim’s stress on social factors,
unlike Freud’s stress on the individual, as we will see.

But agrees with Freud and not with Durkheim,
because Marx thinks society could get along
quite well without religion, if economics change.
[In fact Freud eventually decided that most people would
never get “rational” enough to abandon religion.]
Pals, pp. 134-148
Pals critique of Marx on religion:
[a superficial mention of a couple points here]
1. Marx’s picture does not explain
primitive religion – which is no opium.
Before private property, no need for religion.
Some facts of history do not seem to fit with Marx’s
theory – perhaps Protestantism produced
capitalism, for example, instead of the opposite.
Pals, pp. 134-148
A theological addition to the analysis –
i.e., how might a theologian respond to Marx:

There are too many variant possibilities overlooked by
reductionism:
1. Divine revelation / inspiration always has to be
filtered through limited human consciousness,
and thus religion takes on odd forms and jobs.
2. There is a divine presence working through all
history, which accounts for the human tendency
to think there is indeed a God.
3. When religion gives consolation, that is a sign of
the value of religion.
Pals, pp. 134-148
Theological critique of Marx
1. Feuerbach & Marx do not prove there is no God.
They just plant a suspicion
by arguing that we have motives to invent “God.”
Feuerbach dismisses belief in an Infinite
and therefore incomprehensible God.
He first insists that the real God of religion
is anthropomorphic -- humanlike.
This allows him to claim we make God in our image.
This allows him to treat God as though a mere god.
__MACOSX/rel/._Marx+Feuerb.ppt

Pals, pp. 134-148
Karl Marx – 1818 --
one the most aggressive critics of religion
A reductionist functionalism
Ludwig Feuerbach –
a source of a major aspect of Marx’s critique.
Pals, pp. 134-148
Marx on capitalism
1. Workers deserve to keep the product of their labor
Their work has produced the value of the product.
But their work becomes a commodity to be sold.
2. Capitalism deprives them of their just reward.
Capitalists force people to work extremely hard,
but for smaller returns than they deserve.
In a capitalist system, no factory owners can
afford to be generous. Their products will
cost too much if wages cost too much.
[Think Walmart today.]
Over-production is inevitable, requiring a
shut-down of some factories [a recession]

Pals, pp. 134-148
and guided by it.
[E.g., foraging people are egalitarian because they
must live in small groups, face-to-face.
E.g., agricultural people are hierarchical because
agriculture feeds thousands, who live in cities.
To avoid chaos in cities there must be a ruling class;
to defend the city against other cities, there must be
a warrior class – who defend the ruling class.
See Pals, p. 137 for other examples. ]
Pals, pp. 134-148
and guided by it.
Religion is no exception, says Marx:
theologians (and philosophers) tell the workers
to accept their lot in life; all is as God wills it to be.
This set of ideas is the superstructure built upon
the economic power and interests of the few.
A superstructure which legitimizes economic
power interests = an “ideology.”

Pals, pp. 134-148
and guided by it.
Religion is also an expression of misery --
“Religion is the sigh of the afflicted creature”
-- as well as a consolation for that misery:
“the opium of the people”
Pals, pp. 134-148
Sum:
Religion is part of an “ideology”
a belief system supposedly true,
but whose real function is to
a. legitimize those in power; and
b. console the workers so they accept their misery.
But this is just the social function of religion.
What is the origin of religion in the 1st place?
Answer given by
bristle beard,
Feuerbach

Pals, pp. 134-148
1841 !! See the excerpt handed out.
human.
There are ten parts to this theory:
1. Humans have a special kind of consciousness –
awareness not just of self but of ‘’humanness,”
-- of self and others being part of a single species.
2. This species-awareness is the result of humans
having/being a capacity for the infinite.
Pals, pp. 134-148
human. With this capacity for the infinite we can imagine
an infinite being, just like us except totally perfect.
4. The attributes (“predicates”) of this divine being
are our own attributes which we write in the sky.

Pals, pp. 134-148
human. Some theologians argue that
a) God is beyond all attributes, and
b) we can use attribute-talk nonetheless
if we remind ourselves that God-in-Himself
is infinitely beyond our way of thinking.
This is horse-pucky, says Feuerbach;
the real God of religious people has attributes.
So the real God has “anthropomorphic traits.”
Pals, pp. 134-148
human. People contrast the perfection of God
with human imperfection – and are troubled by it.

They seek union with God, their perfect self.One way they
do this is to obey this God,
who provides moral guidance through laws.
Pals, pp. 134-148
human.
8. But these laws were really produced by people
and then attributed to the divine will.
9. So by obeying God we are really obeying ourselves.
10. But we hide this fact, and thereby hide our own
human powers of making choices from ourselves.
We are thereby [self-]alienated.
Pals, pp. 134-148
Marx adopts Feuerbach:
just as capitalism alienates a person from his/her labor,
so religion alienates a person from the person’s true self
as “creator” of God and morality.

To repeat: why do we do this?
Capitalism causes distress; the worker needs relief.
Religion is “the opium of the people.”
and the “sigh of the oppressed” at the same time.
Pals, pp. 134-148
Pals analysis of Marx on religion:
It is a reductionistic functionalism.
Similar to Durkheim’s stress on social factors,
unlike Freud’s stress on the individual, as we will see.
But agrees with Freud and not with Durkheim,
because Marx thinks society could get along
quite well without religion, if economics change.
[In fact Freud eventually decided that most people would
never get “rational” enough to abandon religion.]
Pals, pp. 134-148
Pals critique of Marx on religion:

[a superficial mention of a couple points here]
1. Marx’s picture does not explain
primitive religion – which is no opium.
Before private property, no need for religion.
Some facts of history do not seem to fit with Marx’s
theory – perhaps Protestantism produced
capitalism, for example, instead of the opposite.
Pals, pp. 134-148
A theological addition to the analysis –
i.e., how might a theologian respond to Marx:
There are too many variant possibilities overlooked by
reductionism:
1. Divine revelation / inspiration always has to be
filtered through limited human consciousness,
and thus religion takes on odd forms and jobs.
2. There is a divine presence working through all
history, which accounts for the human tendency
to think there is indeed a God.
3. When religion gives consolation, that is a sign of
the value of religion.
Pals, pp. 134-148

Theological critique of Marx
1. Feuerbach & Marx do not prove there is no God.
They just plant a suspicion
by arguing that we have motives to invent “God.”
Feuerbach dismisses belief in an Infinite
and therefore incomprehensible God.
He first insists that the real God of religion
is anthropomorphic -- humanlike.
This allows him to claim we make God in our image.
This allows him to treat God as though a mere god.
Oxford UP, 1993
Oxford UP, 1993

Sun god
Germ
“Animism”/ anthropomorphism.
4-6 children suspect computers are alive
because of activity on the screen;
6-8 year olds base it on the fact
that the computer responds actively;
after age 9 some children begin
to wonder whether computers
have feelings.
Sherry Turkle, The Second Self:
Computers and the Human Spirit
(NY: Simon and Schuster, 1984), 324-332
Oxford UP, 1993

Oxford UP, 1993
Yanomamö
of Brazil/Venezuela
Evolutionary
Psychology
(”sociobiology”
applied to humans)
Genes which aid their
carriers to eat, survive,
and reproduce, get
reproduced.
Stewart Guthrie, Faces in the Clouds (1993),
and Justin Barrett, Why Would Anyone Believe in God
(2004)
Evolutionary Psychology
proposes a genetic basis for any near-universal human
behaviors.

Stewart Guthrie observes a near-universal tendency to
anthropomorphize
Why do we do this?
Freud et alii said -- for comfort: but the gods or God can be a
huge threat.
Barrett & Guthrie – HADD (hyperactive agent detection
device)
Those with a genetic
tendency to anthropomorphize
will suspect an “agent” is about
to pounce – and kill?
Yanomamö
of Brazil/Venezuela
Evolutionary
Psychology
(”sociobiology”
applied to humans)
Genes which make
their carriers ready
to anthropomorphize,
by suspecting that the
noise was made by enemies,
will make their carriers
more alert to danger
Yanomamö
of Brazil/Venezuela
Evolutionary
Psychology
(”sociobiology”

applied to humans)
People more alert to danger
will more often survive –
to reproduce. So the
‘anthropomorphizing’
gene gets reproduced.
Also produces tendency to anthropomorphize
-- I.e. to imagine thoughts and intentions
even where we would say there are none.
There are thoughts going on ‘out there’ in people
(or in “things”?) -- which can hurt or help.
Be ready to impute thought to anything which can
hurt or help you. [This also allows
you to account for events – ‘someone’
intended them.
(Origin of “conspiracy theories”?)]
Theory of Mind

(Keep your eye
on the child
watching the
puppet show.
How old is he?)
Oxford UP, We constantly anthropomorphize
It is the source of religious belief in spirits, gods, God --
belief that events are caused by human-like beings,
many of them invisible.
Major Topics:
Freud on Religion:
Totem and Taboo
Analysis
Critique

about religion?
about religion?
Tylor and Frazer shared an answer:
mistaken attempts to explain reality – magic, spirits.
about religion?
Freud digs deeper than Tylor and Frazer
to try to find hidden sources/causes/motives’drives.

Totem and Taboo (1913) – Pals’ outline:
Tylor and Frazer did not go far enough.
They saw religion as attempt at rational explanation.
Freud looked for the unconscious basis of religion
(so did Durkheim)
Freud’s question is WHY primitive people
established totems and taboos
– especially incest taboos and
-- taboo against eating the totem (except in rare cases).
What is his answer as to WHY primitive people do this?
Totem and Taboo
His answer:
Primordial horde (males) to get women,
killed the patriarch, and ate his body.
Then out of fear of the dead father’s spirit,
they try to appease it ceremoniously
making a totem their “father”
and sharing it in a sacred meal.
This = the age-old “Oedipus complex” working itself out,
as in the Christian communion service also.
These practices evolved into new forms over time.
Your opinion of this theory?

Totem and Taboo – main theory in this:
Pals’ version:
Nature threatens us with death and decay.
As children our parents protect us.
But we grow up.
So we “project” a father-figure into the sky,
who will protect us
and assure us of ultimate justice.
Totem and Taboo :
Pals’ version
But this is an illusion:
wish-fulfillment.
and for Freud a delusion also
It is like a childhood neurosis
continuing into adulthood.
We should learn to outgrow it.
Totem and Taboo

2. And to the sufferings imposed on people by civilization.
[#2 sounds odd. Freud’s theory is that in order to live with
one another we have to impose collective rules on ourselves
(the “superego”). These rules prevent us from having all the
fun and power which we (the “id”) naturally want. So to be
civilized is to be safer but sadder. The “ego” represents
intellectual and moral maturity which accepts civilization.]
Totem and Taboo
a. The humanization of nature’s forces
turns them into gods.
b. Scientific thought turns nature in reliable laws.
c. But gods are still needed for 3 things -- to
i. exorcize the terrors of nature;
ii reconcile people “to the cruelty of Fate” and death;
iii compensate them for sufferings caused by society.

Totem and Taboo
2. On the nature of “illusion” – belief as wish fulfillment:
Some religious beliefs are very improbable – delusions?
Other religious beliefs are beyond proof or refutation.
An imaginary interlocuter then asks:
If some beliefs cannot be refuted, why not believe?
Freud responds as an atheist: this is “a lame excuse.”
“Ignorance is ignorance; no right to believe anything
can be derived from it.”
Totem and Taboo
Moses and Monotheism (1938)
Moses was Egyptian, a follower of Akhenaton
He adopted the Hebrews, gave them a single God.
But the Hebrews revolted, killed him, & chose a new god,
“a violent, volcano-deity named Yahweh.”
Centuries later, monotheistic prophets called
the Hebrews back to worship of Moses’
noble God
Ques: Is any of this plausible?

Major Topics:
Freud on Religion:
Totem and Taboo
Analysis
Critique
e.g., Jung – religion as expression of psychic depths.
[e.g. Abraham Maslow and peak experiences;
e.g. Gordon Allport – extrinsic, intrinsic;
e.g. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled . . . .]
Freud was borrowing the “projection” theory
from Feuerbach.
But after Tylor and Frazer, more people were open
to theories which explained religion as a mistake.
Freud could add an answer, though,
why religion persists in these ‘enlightened’ times.
(His answer is thoroughly reductionist.)

Major Topics:
Freud on Religion:
Totem and Taboo
Analysis
Critique
Critique
1. If religion is based on a father figure,
why are there non-theistic religions?
2. How do we know that individual development
mirrors cultural development?
Or that the sacred meal rituals arose from murder?
Or that Jewish history is anything like Freud’s version?
“Circularity” – presupposed religion is irrational;
Presupposes that all “projections” are incorrect.
4. P.S. Psychoanalysis is unscientific?

Major Topics:
Freud on Religion:
Totem and Taboo
Analysis
Critique
As with Marx, has Freud just pointed out ways
in which religion fulfills real human needs --
sense of hope, of ultimate justice?
Religion also links religion to love of neighbor, etc.,
as a constructive force in history.
Freud also refused to accept “oceanic experience,”
a notion of God as the infinite horizon of human existence,
as “real” religion. Why?
Because an anthropomorphic God is easier to treat as
illusory?
Major Topics:

Freud on Religion:
Totem and Taboo
Analysis
Critique
We create our identity by creating culture
for thinking about self and the world –
That is a “dog.”
Dogs are edible.
Dogs taste good.

We create our identities by creating culture:
and invent practices
Make fire by rubbing sticks.
Cook the dead dog on the fire
We create our identities by creating culture
and invent practices as well as rules
Do not have sex with siblings.
Never talk to your wife’s mother.
Over time humans create
categories + practices + rules.
Over time humans thereby create culture
Etc.

-- Peter Berger,
We create culture.
“Externalization”
Then we get used to the culture.
It begins to seem “natural,”
the objective truth,
the one true way to be human.
Black beans
and rice –
w/o dog.
-- Peter Berger,
1. Create culture.
“Objectification”
“eating dog is normal human behavior”
but whale-blubber is better yet for eating.
-- Peter Berger,

1. Create culture.
3. Internalization
As a person grows up
the person ‘internalizes’ the culture
as the person’s identity –
e.g. I eat dogs; that makes me a noremal person.
-- Peter Berger,
1. Create culture.
2. Treat the culture as the natural way. Internalize the culture
examples ??
-- Peter Berger,
1. Create culture.

Now you know
who you are
-- Peter Berger,
1. Create categories = produce culture.
Now everyone knows who
he or she is.
-- Peter Berger,
Have not ‘found yourself’?

-- Peter Berger,
have not ‘found yourself’?
OR: have found self not to
fit with the culture?
-- Peter Berger,
on two levels: individual level – find a self that fits society
social level – find stable clear social order
so you can know what you ought to be like
Religion as a support for identity:
Throughout history religion
has been in fact the major
source of support for
identity, by supporting
the social order and
the values it dictates

At right: a modern secular
chart of personality aspects
related to one’s values
Throughout history
the major source of support – for example:
Grand Ayatollah
Khomeini, Iran
Mullah Omar,
Afghanistan,
one-time Taliban leader
What Guided and Guides Muslim life?
“At the end of the 18th century a Muslim visitor
pitied the poor British who did not have a divine law
and had to make up their own” (Lewis, 2002: 113-14).
Answer: Shari’a guides Muslim life.
What is Shari’a?
The Qur’an
+
Sunna [traditions about Muhammad contained in

Hadiths (stories)]
+
Community
consensus
=
Shari’a
[What God commands and what people must obey. Islamic law]
4 Legal traditions
Throughout history
the major source of support -- for example
Throughout history
the major source of support – by saying
about all the social norms:
These norms are guaranteed correct by God. These norms will
be enforced by God.
So you can safely build your own sense of
Identity and self-worth on them.

“Whirling
Dervishes,”
Sufi dancers
e.g., shamans, nuns, rabbis . . . .
e.g., bar mitzvah, bat mitzvah
c. Our secret identity --
e.g., Scientology says we are Thetans –
godlike beings caught in
these bodies, until we learn
to become ‘clear’ through

Scientology.
c. Our secret identity –
d. Reassurance for a threatened identity –
e.g., snake-handling?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVDKSK2J_Ps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUdc5h10zTo
Arizona: a small town, where people live by a traditional
nomos.
Chinle sits 5,500 feet above sea level, west of Canyon de
Chelly, where in the 1860s the Navajo held out against Kit
Carson and federal troops who had come to destroy their crops
and burn their homes. Basketball is a passion here. Chinle has
4,500 residents, and its high school arena, the Wildcat Den,
seats 7,000. Fans drive and hitchhike 50, 60, 80 miles to games.
Coaches are regularly tossed aside after a single losing season.
Most of the teenage players observe traditional beliefs:
They bow to the four sacred mountain peaks of Navajo; they
carry corn pollen in case their path crosses that of the coyote, a
notorious trickster; they swallow a bitter herb before games to
guard against envy, jealousy and witchcraft. One senior wears
his unshorn hair in a woven pony tail. He will cut it at age 18
and present the locks to his grandfather. As they wander

canyons, they listen for the voices of ancestors.
For Navajo Team, a Season of Change and Challenge
[basketball],
By MICHAEL POWELL, New York Times, FEB. 26, 2017.
Downloaded, Feb. 27, 2017
Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy. 1967
Analysis: Berger “reduces” religion to a cultural product (an
“externalization”) whose function is to support and stabilize the
social order by attributing it to a sacred or cosmic source.
Motivation: to avoid “anomy” – a sense of lawless chaos,
which threatens individual identity based on the social nomos
(lawful and coherent rule of life/society). It can be called an
intellectualist theory to the extent that it portrays religion as a
conscious construction to bring and support society.
Critique: 1. This may describe how religious ideas usually
function in a society. Primitive folktales which explain the
origin of parts of reality and of social rules usually impart a
sense of correctness and permanence to such realities; so does
attributing social patterns to the will of the gods or God. But
we have no evidence that anyone ever sat down and said “I
think I will invent religious beliefs in order to uphold the social
nomos” – or do we? (The “priestly” writer in the O.T. devised
seven days of creation to include a Sabbath for worship.)
2. This theory may not account for the metaphysical notion of
God.
2/.DS_Store

__MACOSX/2/._.DS_Store
2/IMG_0679.JPG
__MACOSX/2/._IMG_0679.JPG
2/IMG_0682.JPG
2/IMG_0683.JPG
2/IMG_0684.JPG
2/IMG_0685.JPG
2/IMG_0686.JPG
2/IMG_0687.JPG
2/IMG_0688.JPG
2/IMG_0689.JPG

2/IMG_0690.JPG
1/IMG_0666.JPG
1/IMG_0667.JPG
1/IMG_0668.JPG
1/IMG_0670.JPG
1/IMG_0671.JPG
1/IMG_0672.JPG
1/IMG_0673.JPG
1/IMG_0674.JPG

1/IMG_0675.JPG
1/IMG_0676.JPG
1/IMG_0677.JPG
1/IMG_0678.JPG
未命名文件夹/.DS_Store
__MACOSX/未命名文件夹/._.DS_Store
未命名文件夹/IMG_0674.JPG
__MACOSX/未命名文件夹/._IMG_0674.JPG

rel.DS_Store__MACOSXrel._.DS_StorerelBerger.ppt.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to rel.DS_Store__MACOSXrel._.DS_StorerelBerger.ppt.docx

Similar to rel.DS_Store__MACOSXrel._.DS_StorerelBerger.ppt.docx (20)

More from sodhi3

More from sodhi3 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

rel.DS_Store__MACOSXrel._.DS_StorerelBerger.ppt.docx