Religion as Play

Religion is understood by Epicureans as a natural phenomenon, and must be studied as such. Therefore, every Epicurean should be a little bit of an anthropologist in this regard.

To pray is natural. – Epicurus

The plain dismissal of religion as barbaric, as primitive credulity, or as childish superstition–even if at times it exhibits all of the above symptoms, and even if its claims are ridiculous–impedes the acquisition of important insights into its varied nature and uses.

Why have most members of our species, for most of our history, been religious?

In the absence of direct evidence of the gods, ancient Epicureans who were pious argued for their existence based on human nature. Polystratus argued that we have anticipations of the gods (that is, we are psychologically pre-programmed to imagine them and to make them part of our reality) and that this inherited instinct is a dispositional or relational property of human nature, which means that our religious instinct would be triggered by certain things that exist in our environment or in our nature, just as a magnet reacts to iron, just as a moon orbits a planet, just as our bodies change at puberty and through time.

Furthermore, Epicurean masters teach that nature guides us through pleasure, so that the blissful activities that we see in the various religious traditions may be natural behavior meant to be didactic, a rehearsal for important and necessary skills. Might there be a relation between when social animals play to develop social and hunting skills and when man plays at religion, to develop social and psychological skills, perhaps growing better able to cope with difficulties?

From this perspective, nature may be giving humans useful knowledge that is both natural and necessary via religious behavior just as lion cubs, when they play, learn important ambush, hunting and social skills; just as dogs and apes learn about their place in the hierarchy; just as baby chimps stretch and get their physical education, etc. Play behavior in general has a purpose: it’s not necessarily meant to be an idle waste of time. Crucial skills are frequently gained through it.

These behaviors involve bonding between the members of the social group, in addition to learning skills that help survival. It may be that the tendency to personify divine powers is a vestige of the social instinct, the same one by which infants recognize facial features from very early on; and it may also be the case that prayer and piety are ways to act out the needed social instinct for persons who are isolated or alone.

In a recent blog, I discussed a papyrus where a man is saved from committing suicide by his ba, or double, a sort of guardian spirit that ancient Egyptians believed in. Let that be a case study on techniques for coping with stress in our evaluation of religion as a specialized type of natural play behavior that helps to develop coping skills, which may be required by our own nature and by our own psychological complexity.

In our reasonings on piety, it became absolutely clear that gods do not need our worship, do not answer our prayers, and that if they do exist, are imperturbable and in bliss, entirely oblivious to our existence. There, based on Philodemus’ papyrus, we concluded that piety is an act of self-expression and nothing more, that it’s part of our art of living, a way of articulating who we are in relation to life and its difficulties, to the virtues, to nature, to fate, etc. A naturalist understanding of religion as play that has been favored through natural selection reinforces this view.

Further Reading;

Reasonings on Philodemus’ “On Piety” Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

About hiramcrespo

Hiram Crespo is the author of 'Tending the Epicurean Garden' and founder of societyofepicurus.com. He's also written for The Humanist, Eidolon, Occupy, The New Humanism, The Secular Web, Europa Laica, AteístasPR, and many other outlets.
This entry was posted in Ataraxia and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Religion as Play

  1. Hiram very good post. I see this as analogous to “friendship” being a natural activity, in distinction to the allegations that in the “state of nature” men live as isolated brutes. Just as it is natural for men to aspire to live lives better than whatever they are living at the moment, and to look up to the idea that other “beings” may already be doing that, it is natural for men to find greatest happiness in society. So both “religion” properly under stood and “society” properly understood are totally natural for men to experience. Just because it *can* be experienced “improperly” does not mean that it *can’t* be experienced properly, and that should be our goal.

    Like

  2. Pingback: Thoughts On The Natural State of Mankind

  3. Pingback: Religion and the Natural State of Humanity | The Autarkist

  4. Pingback: Epicureanism as a Religious Identity | The Autarkist

  5. Pingback: Reasonings on Religion | Society of Friends of Epicurus

  6. Pingback: Reasonings on Religion | Epicurean Database

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s