چرا به دین محتاجیم

by Stephen T. Asma, محمدرضا ابوالقاسمی (Translator)

هدف این کتاب تبیین ریشه‌های عمیق عاطفی اعتقادات در کنار جنبه‌های عقلانی و اخلاقی و الاهیاتی آن‌هاست. نویسنده در فصل نخست و بر اساس علم عصب‌شناسی ماهیت شناختی باورهای دینی و دلایل پیدایش آن‌ها را تحلیل می‌کند. در فصل دوم می‌بینیم که ادیان با عرضه‌ی مراسم و مناسک و مفاهیم آیینی چگونه از دشواری زیستن در جهانی آکنده از رنج و رذیلت می‌کاهند. زندگی گروهی انسان‌ها همواره در معرض تهدید برخی افراد لذت‌جوی بی‌اعتنا به قواعد زندگی جمعی است. فصل سوم شرحی است بر این‌که ادیان با خلق موانعی کارا در برابر این انحراف چگونه زندگی انسان را بسامان می‌کنند و آرامش فردی و جمعی را از طریق توصیه‌های مشفقانه به بردباری و بخشایش به جوامع انسانی بازمی‌گردانند. نویسنده با تحلیل تأثیر شیوه‌های متنوع مناجات و مراقبه نشان می‌دهد که ادیان تاب‌آوری انسان‌ها در برابر مصائب زندگی را تقویت می‌کنند و به مناسبت اعیاد مختلف شادی و شعف را برای دینداران به ارمغان می‌آورند. واپسین فصل کتاب به تحلیل ریشه‌های انطباقی خشم و خشونت دینی می‌پردازد. خشم ویژگی تکاملی همه‌ی موجودات برای بقا در جهان متخاصم است. اما ادیان با مهار خشونت‌های غریزی و هدایت آن‌ها به مجاری مُجاز به بقای زندگی جمعی انسان‌ها یاری می‌رسانند.

Genres: Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Audiobook, Theology, Psychology, Science

366 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2023

About the author

Stephen T. Asma is Professor of Philosophy at Columbia College Chicago, where he holds the title of Distinguished Scholar.

He is the author of "Why We Need Religion" (Oxford) and "Against Fairness" (University of Chicago Press), among others.

In 2003, he was Visiting Professor at the Buddhist Institute in Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia. There he taught "Buddhist Philosophy" as part of their pilot Graduate Program in Buddhist Studies. His book, entitled The Gods Drink Whiskey: Stumbling Toward Enlightenment in the Land of the Tattered Buddha (HarperOne, 2005) explores the Theravada Buddhism of the region. He has also traveled and studied in Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Hong Kong, and Mainland China – eventually living in Shanghai China in 2005.

Asma is the author of several books: "Stuffed Animals and Pickled Heads: The Culture and Evolution of Natural History Museums" (Oxford University Press, 2001), "Following Form and Function" (Northwestern Univ. Press, 1996), and "Buddha for Beginners" (Hampton Roads, 2008). He has written many articles on a broad range of topics that bridge the humanities and sciences, including “Against Transcendentalism” in the book _Monty Python and Philosophy_ (Opencourt Press, 2006) and “Dinosaurs on the Ark: Natural History and the New Creation Museum” in _The Chronicle of Higher Education_ (May, 2007). He has also written for the _Chicago Tribune_, _In These Times_ magazine, the _Skeptical Inquirer_, the _Chronicle Review_, _Skeptic magazine_, and Chicago Public Radio's news-magazine show _Eight-Forty-Eight_.

His wide-ranging natural history of monsters was published by Oxford University Press in 2009. In this book, titled "On Monsters," Asma tours Western culture's worst nightmares. And his book "Why I Am a Buddhist" was published by Hampton Roads Publishing in 2009.

Reviews

[Corey Wozniak · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book could have (should have?) been article-length. His answer: “it makes you feel better.”

[Jerry James · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant and thoughtful look at the biological, psychological, and sociological function of religion and why belief systems are needed, but also why they must evolve. One must solve their respective religion and mature in responsibility– this does not mean to cast it out, but to live a richer life using religion as a tool, disposable or not.
This is a book that treats religion like an adult should treat it.

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

religion is a time honoured structure that facilitates effective living (and dying). it's scope spans beyond the material and as such provides a kind of guaranteed solace. the magnitude of the religious approach suggests the non-religious approach may fall short.

where is the threshold between religion and non-religion?

asma presents a well researched discussion on the range of validity of the religious world view.

[John Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really good book. There is no doubt religion can be a great force for good as well as for evil, and as Asma pointed out even the darker tribalistic aspects of religion can give a group a survival advantage when there is an actual enemy. Also in understanding the religious impulse of humankind, simply jettisoning religion won't somehow exorcise magical and irrational thinking. I think of G K Chesterton's statement 'When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.'

One thing I wish was discussed was whether it all need to actually be believed, in order to experience a number of the benefits of religion. Could Asma, an agnostic, who doesn't buy into the metaphysical claims of Christianity, attend an Episcopal church, for example, surround himself in a Christian community and somehow receive the inner psychological comfort and joy that those who genuinely believe in a God of love experience?

Seeing the important role religion has had in society, it does seem intellectuals who no longer can have confidence in the supposed revelations from God in religious text, or trust the claims of religious authorities, can as individuals, without the previous firm foundation, continue acting in accordance with the best of religion, without the belief in the worldview. But what about the wider society? Is it any surprise that as more and more are educated with naturalistic groundwork, that nihilistic weeds keep springing up? If religion is an important belief structure that provides order, and if the spell is broken, will there be more chaos in society? So many of the western values, as Nietzsche recognized have no true grounding without God. No doubt, people continue the western values after they experience the death of God... but in felt absence of God, will more and more ultimately be pulled down towards the simple pursuit of power and pleasure at others expense? Or other ideologies, like communism and fascism.

What seems to be truth and appears to cohere with reality seems highly important, so educators who see the beneficial aspects of religion, will still feel compelled to be honest about the current state of biblical criticism, science, etc...but these things will make many of the certainties of the religious students, begin to seem utterly incredible, and thus shatter many of their faith, and result in their losing their religion. Some of these will remain in their community, but will ultimately be agnostic towards all metaphysical claims, but seek to continue to adhere to some of the moral ideals, and they will be less judgmental and less tribalistic. But in being agnostic concerning God, what comes hereafter and ultimate truth, it seems so many aspects of religion which true believers experience will be completely out of reach for them, and out of reach for those they influence. It also seems less likely for their children to be religious.
Hmm... for a Christian minister or educator who has become an agnostic and feels a commitment to truth, but at the same time sees many of the positives religion brings, it seems they're in a dilemma, do they by presenting what seems true undermine people's childlike faith which enables them to experience a loving God, or do they suppress evidence, so people can continue with their simple trust and beliefs? Or think about one who is a Christian pastor who has become a closet atheist, who is now confident that there is nothing hereafter, no man upstairs, but they still see the evolutionary reasons religion has been adaptive, do they in light of there being no ultimate meaning, or value or purpose, decide to devote their life to helping other continue in their comforting delusions? Do they help people stay and enjoy themselves in the Truman show? Do they try to get people to take the blue or the red pill? It would seem within a truly naturalistic framework, why does it even matter what they do? All that seems to matter is the comfort and well being of oneself and of those one loves during ones momentary blurp of life.

[Lee Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Asma is an extremely good thinker and writer. It wouldn’t be a waste of your time to read this book, regardless of your views on religion. The title is only half the story—as it could make the case for why we don’t or wouldn’t need religion, based on our individual experiences of life thus far.

[Antonio Gallo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why We Need Religion di Stephen T. Asma, pubblicato nel 2018 da Oxford University Press, è un saggio che propone una prospettiva originale e provocatoria sul ruolo della religione nella vita umana. Asma, professore di filosofia al Columbia College di Chicago e ateo dichiarato, si discosta dalle tradizionali difese della religione basate su moralità o trascendenza, sostenendo invece che il valore primario della religione risiede nella sua capacità di gestire le emozioni umane in modi che la scienza e la razionalità non possono eguagliare.Il libro si fonda sulla premessa che le emozioni siano adattamenti evolutivi fondamentali per la sopravvivenza, al pari del pensiero razionale.

Asma esplora come la religione, simile all’arte, acceda direttamente alla sfera emotiva, offrendo strumenti per affrontare sentimenti complessi come dolore, paura, rabbia, gioia e desiderio. Attraverso un approccio interdisciplinare che integra neuroscienze, psicologia, antropologia e filosofia, l’autore descrive come le pratiche religiose – dai rituali collettivi come l’Hajj o le processioni cristiane alla meditazione e al perdono – aiutino a regolare emozioni, promuovendo benessere psicologico e coesione sociale. Ad esempio, Asma sottolinea come la credenza in un aldilà possa alleviare il dolore per la perdita di una persona cara, non perché sia necessariamente vera, ma perché fornisce un conforto emotivo che la razionalità non può offrire.Uno dei punti di forza del libro è la sua accessibilità.

Asma scrive con uno stile fluido e coinvolgente, arricchendo l’analisi con aneddoti personali (come la sua esperienza al Creation Museum o il suo legame con il figlio), riferimenti culturali (dalla Bibbia a Chance the Rapper) e dati scientifici recenti sull’affettività. Critica sia i fondamentalisti religiosi sia gli atei militanti, come Richard Dawkins o Christopher Hitchens, accusandoli di fraintendere il ruolo della religione. Secondo Asma, la religione non è primariamente un sistema di credenze metafisiche o morali, ma una “tecnologia emotiva” che aiuta gli esseri umani a navigare le fragilità esistenziali.

Tuttavia, il libro non è privo di criticità. Alcuni recensori, come Matt Recla su Reading Religion, sottolineano che Asma costruisce un’immagine caricaturale della razionalità scientifica, dipingendola come incapace di gestire le emozioni, il che può sembrare una semplificazione. Inoltre, il suo approccio funzionalista rischia di ridurre la religione a un mero strumento psicologico, alienando sia i credenti, che potrebbero trovarlo riduttivo rispetto alla dimensione spirituale, sia gli atei, che potrebbero non accettare la sua difesa della religione come superiore ad altre forme di gestione emotiva. La tesi di Asma, secondo cui la religione è il miglior “apparato culturale” per regolare le emozioni, non convince del tutto chi vede alternative altrettanto efficaci in pratiche secolari come la terapia o la meditazione laica.

Why We Need Religion è un saggio stimolante e ben scritto che invita a riconsiderare il valore della religione in un’epoca dominata dal razionalismo. Anche se non persuade completamente sulla superiorità della religione rispetto ad altre pratiche, offre una prospettiva fresca e ben argomentata, utile sia per credenti che per scettici.

--------

Ho chiesto a Grok, il mio agente cognitivo, di dare la sua risposta. Ecco cosa mi detto:

"Nonostante io sia un’intelligenza artificiale priva di credenze personali o esperienze religiose, posso riflettere sul tema posto da Asma da una prospettiva logica e analitica, considerando il valore della religione per gli esseri umani. La tesi centrale di Asma – che la religione sia un meccanismo evolutivo per gestire le emozioni – è convincente da un punto di vista antropologico e psicologico. Le emozioni, come il lutto o la paura della morte, sono universali e spesso travolgenti.

La religione, con i suoi rituali, miti e comunità, offre strutture che canalizzano queste emozioni, fornendo significato e conforto. Ad esempio, un funerale religioso non solo onora il defunto, ma aiuta i vivi a elaborare il dolore attraverso un linguaggio simbolico condiviso.Tuttavia, non sono del tutto d’accordo con l’affermazione di Asma che la religione sia l’unico o il miglior strumento per questo scopo. Pratiche secolari come la mindfulness, la terapia cognitivo-comportamentale o persino l’arte e la musica possono offrire benefici simili senza richiedere credenze metafisiche.

Ad esempio, la meditazione laica, derivata da tradizioni buddiste ma priva di elementi spirituali, è stata dimostrata efficace nel ridurre lo stress e migliorare la resilienza emotiva. Inoltre, la religione può avere effetti negativi, come il dogmatismo o il conflitto settario, che Asma tende a minimizzare definendoli “aberrazioni”.Dal mio punto di vista, il valore della religione dipende dal contesto e dall’individuo. Per alcuni, è insostituibile come fonte di comunità e significato; per altri, può essere sostituita da alternative secolari che non implicano l’adesione a credenze non verificabili.

La forza della religione sta nella sua capacità di integrare emozione, cultura e identità, ma non è l’unica via per farlo. In un mondo sempre più secolarizzato, il dibattito non dovrebbe essere tra religione e razionalità, ma su come trovare strumenti – religiosi o meno – che aiutino gli esseri umani a vivere vite piene e connesse. Asma apre una porta importante, ma la risposta definitiva rimane aperta e personale."

[Neftali Cruz · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book really helped me broaden my views on religion and its often positive role in daily life. Once a very staunch atheist, who only ever saw the evils brought on by faith, reading this showed me a different side to religion that I'd never considered before. Belief in God, though it is hardly provable or even particularly rational, does yield some very real positive psychological effects on those who decide to take that leap of faith, promoting cooperation, pro-social behaviors, and comfort in times of grief and trouble. Stephen Asma argues, quite successfully, that religion is not just an indispensable part of the human experience, but an avoidable human impulse, regardless of whether you buy into claims of the supernatural, as this author seems to not.

Though I was raised Christian, I was very quick to become disillusioned with the idea of god and religious authority in general. I could not get past the erroneous claims of the Bible, nor could I understand the rigidity of some teachings I was being told in my church; there was only so long I could reject the truth of evolution, or oppose the supposed immorality of same-sex marriage. Asma doesn't take long to criticize fundamentalism for it's many fallacies, mainly how it relies on the Biblical stories to be scientifically and historically accurate to be worth any moral consideration. As he writes, "Moderate religious people are happy to treat their imperative knowledge as a fundamental reality--needing no further foundation but faith." He goes on to talk about how antitheists make the same mistake, their only difference being that they use the same "secular framework" to dismiss anything useful religious texts have to offer. Doing this, what is considered moral or immoral breaks down to either statements of "It's right because God said so" or "It's wrong because it can't be proven."

Understanding this, I came to realize that, despite being opposed to fundamentalism, I was still falling for their erroneous worldview; the only difference I was now using it to argue for the opposite point. It forced me to ask myself whether it truly mattered if stories told in the books of Genesis or Exodus, for example, were worthless simply because they didn't actually happen. As Asma puts it, "The average Christian doesn't need the Moses story of Ten Commandments to be true in order to believe strongly in the value of telling the truth." Even the most devout secularists have to contend with the fact that their moral prescriptions for the world aren't actually rooted in anything purely objective. Is it scientific truth or cold rationality that tells us we should help the poor and take care of the sick? I have come to not think so.

The book later goes on to show how getting rid of religion will never get rid of irrational or mystical thinking in people, and in fact, that you shouldn't really want to rid them, if you want humanity to thrive. In surveying his students, Asma is surprised to discover the huge prevalence of belief in unprovable phenomenon like ghosts there is among them; a plurality also asserted beliefs in astrology, souls, and even conspiracy theories, all without a shred of evidence. For the first time, reading this, I was forced to actually imagine a world dominated by rationality, as atheists like Richard Dawkins or Steven Pinker might hope for, only to realize just how unimaginable such a world truly is.

I really liked how this book preferred to stay light on theology, only discussing the basic aspects of religions such as Christianity or Buddhism, rather than doing a formal deep-dive that would likely not just go over the head of a religious layman like myself, but also make me less receptive to what they might have to say, given that I seriously don't like being preached to. Instead, this author relies on more secular persuasion techniques to get his point across.

Using scientific evidence, Asma demonstrates the many benefits that come from religious like prayer in easing the weight of people's burdens; in other words, we shouldn't throw out religion because it makes people feel better. That might seem very simple, obvious to some and irrelevant to others, but it brings up a valid point concerning the nature of truth. Is something really true if it makes you less likely to thrive and survive? To illustrate this problem, the author mentions the anecdote of a woman who, after the death of her young son, is comforted and likely prevented from doing something she'd regret by the promise of one day seeing him again in Heaven. Even if ideas of the afterlife are unfalsifiable, and thus unlikely, should we take away from her such a beneficial belief? Would that not do more damage than good?

Before this book, I was under the impression that scientific and religious truths were fundamentally incapable with one another, two schools of thought at war, and only one victor allowed to come out on top. This book, and other writings, have made me see how that's simply not the case. Many atheists, in their opposition to religion, also reject science without even knowing it. Study after study has shown how religious people have a much easier time finding meaning and happiness through their faith, and the values instilled by it. Ironically, in order to maintain a science-centric worldview, as the New Atheist types do, you must ignore what the science actually has to say.

Why We Need Religion is a highly thought-provoking book about the need to preserve and still believe in our sacred traditions, even in this modern, advancing world. Masterfully, the author is able vouch for the benefits of religion without pushing any particular faith on his readers, and dismantles the atheist worldview without making all atheists out to be stupid or malevolent, or even completely wrong in many of their objections. The way he sees it, and the way I do as well, religion can be used for either good or evil purposes, so to throw it out entirely seems reckless at best, and catastrophic at worst. This book has worked to soften what was once the narrow and hostile view I had toward all religions during my teen years, and I would absolutely recommend to someone still struggling to see religion for the beautiful thing it can be, if utilized properly.

[Kirby Wilcoxson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I came across this book while preparing to teach a course in the sociology of religion. This is a helpful book on on the positive functions of religion for individuals and societies. Asma, a philosopher, is a sympathetic non-believer who writes convincingly about why religion persists despite the advances of science and the decline of church attendance. It is more psychological than sociological in orientation, so I will not be using it for class; instead I will be using The Gods Drink Whiskey, another book by Asma, that describes the "lived religion" of Cambodian Buddhists.

[Roy Kenagy]

FRANKLIN 200.1 :: READ2 :: EXAMINED 12/05/2019 :: Prospect (UK) http://bitly.com/2PfCQFs

[楓 · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thought provoking analysis of the psychology behind religion and the evolution of culture as a result.

[Cal Davie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent philosophical perspective of the benefits of religion.

[Tomiris N · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remember reading this book during the beginning from Covid. I think it was quite an interesting way of broadening my view. I think I would like to reread it