Dit is die moeite werd om die volgende boek van Pascal Boyer te lees: Religion explained; the human instincts that fashion gods, spirits and ancestors (London: Vintage, 2002). Boyer is 'n filosoof en veral 'n antropoloog. Sy volkekundige agtergrond verduidelik die prominensie wat hy aan die instinktiewe aard van die mens verleen, bv die geneigdheid tot religie. (Ek gebruik die term "religie" omdat dit wyer as "godsdiens" vertolk kan word.)
"Most accounts of the origins of religion amount to one of the following suggestions: human minds demand explanations, human hearts seek comfort, human society requires order, human intellect is illusion-prone. To express this in more detail, here are some possible scenarios:
Religion provides explanations:
(1) People created religion to explain puzzling natural phenomena.
(2) Religion explains puzzling experience: dreams, prescience, etc.
(3) Religion explains the origins of things.
(4) Religion explains why there is evil and suffering.
Religion provides comfort:
(5) Religious explanations make mortality less unbearable.
(6) Religion allays anxiety and makes for a comfortable world.
Religion provides social order:
(7) Religion holds society together.
(8) Religion perpetuates a particular social order.
(9) Religion supports morality.
Religion is a cognitive illusion:
(10) People are superstitious, they will believe anything.
(11) Religious concepts are irrefutable.
(12) Refutation is more difficult than belief" (p 6-7).
Die verklarings wat deur religie verskaf word (items 1 tot 4), verskil aansienlik van gewone verklarings (p 14). "The point of an explanation is to provide a context that makes a phenomenon less surprising than before and in better agreement with the general order of things. Religious explanations often seem to work the other way around, producing more complication instead of less ... religion creates 'relevant mysteries' rather than simple accounts of events" (p 16-17).
Pleks van gerusstelling (items 5 en 6) kan religie die teenoorgestelde tot gevolg he. "A religious world is often far more terrifying than a world without supernatural presence" (p 23).
Oor items 7 tot 9 is Boyer se gevolgtrekking: "Having concepts of gods and spirits does not really make moral rules more compelling but it sometimes makes them more intelligible. So we do not have gods because that makes society function. We have gods in part because we have the mental equipment that makes society possible" (p 31).
Oor items 10 tot 12 sê Boyer oa: "It takes greater effort to challenge and rethink established notions than just accept them. Besides, in most domains of culture we just absorb other people's notions. Religion is no exception" (p 32).
Die mens se liggaam is vatbaar vir sekere siektes en sy gees vir sekere idees, maar dit verskil van indiwidu tot indiwidu en van groep tot groep. "To explain religion is to explain a particular kind of mental epidemic, whereby people develop (on the basis of variable information) rather similar forms of religious concepts and norms" (p 53-54).
Boyer vestig die aandag op 'n kernaspek van religie: "The problem with all religious codes is that they must be general enough to be applicable without change to all possible situations. This is why in most places where you find such religious codes (generally in literate cultures) you also find a whole literature that adds nuances to their application" (p 197).
"Common-sense principles of mental management" soos die volgende word deur Boyer aanbeveel:
* Only allow clear and precise thoughts to enter your mind.
* Only allow consistent thoughts.
* Consider the evidence for a claim before accepting it.
* Only consider refutable claims" (p 344).
"There seems to be one simple process whereby people 'get' their religion and that is heredity ... people generally adhere to the specific religious commitments of their community and ignore other variants as largely irrelevant" (p 365).
Samevattend kan gesê word dat Boyer religie as "mental negligence" beskou (p 384), dus as geestelike luiheid, want idees word sonder meer oorgeneem/geglo pleks van hulle rasioneel te ondersoek.
Ek volstaan met twee voorbeelde van die destruktiewe aard van religie. Toe ek in my eerste skoolstanderd (sub A) was, het ons "'n boetie ryker geword". Ek vra toe waar babas vandaan kom. Die antwoord was: "Die Here bring hulle". Ek vra toe of mense al die hande gesien het wat die babas neersit. Die antwoord was: "Ja". Ludwig Wittgenstein het gesê 'n mens se vrae moet die een of ander tyd tot 'n einde kom. Uiteraard droog antwoorde dan ook op. Sonder om op tegniese besonderhede (soos verskaf in bv embriologie) in te gaan, groei daar by my die vermoede dat ek in sub A mislei is.
Sowat tien jaar gelede was dit hoogmode by mense met ernstige kwale om na Nigerië vir geloofsgenesing te gaan. 'n WP-rugbyspeler het gegaan, maar die geneser wou nie om sy genesing bid nie omdat hy nie die nodige bonatuurlike teken/goedkeuring ontvang het nie. Ek vermoed die geneser het gesien die rugbyspeler is te ver heen en dat sy aansien as geneser daaronder kan ly as hy hom probeer genees. Hy het reg geoordeel want die speler het kort na sy terugkoms gesterf.
'n Springbok-rugbyspeler wat las van 'n kwaadaardige breingewas gehad het, is ook na die Nigeriese geloofsgeneser. Hierdie Springbok se algemene gesondheidstoestand was toe heelwat beter as die van die WP-speler. Die geneser het vir hom gebid, hande opgelê, ens. Hy het na Suid-Afrika teruggekeer vas oortuig dat hy heeltemal genees is. Uit dankbaarheid het hy by talle byeenkomste, bv in kerke, oor hierdie wonderwerk getuig. Hy het aanvanklik alle verdere mediese ondersoeke geweier. Mettertyd het die simptome van sy siekte egter so ernstig geword dat hy medici raadpleeg en operasies ondergaan het. Hy is dood voor sy veertigste verjaardag. Ook in hierdie geval het religie mislei.
Johannes Comestor