In the last essay, we glanced briefly at the nature of religious experiences, defined as a profound and meaningful shift in perspective—whether of time, space, function, relation, or state of being—involving an embodied sensation and a resultant interpretation that is explicitly religious in nature. Such experiences generally have three components: (1) pre-existing schemas, (2) a somato-emotional event, and (3) an interpretation involving religious concepts. We also looked at some broad experiential categories, including: non-dual mysticism, psychism, portaling, group and individual affiliative connectivity, occultism, spiritual transformation, and tranquility. Finally, we introduced the Experience Grid, composed of emotional (tranquil to ecstatic) and rationality (rational to irrational) spectrums as a way to organize various experiences.

I ended that post with the two following statements:

1) All sensory experiences involve a physical process within the brain and so must be caused and mediated by physical objects and processes. As such, all metaphysical or supernatural sources or states are considered non-veridical.

2) Religious experiences, regardless of the veridicality of the interpreted source or medium, certainly do occur phenomenologically and can lead to increased well-being. As such, they possess great potential value.

The first assertion is perfectly reasonable in the context of religious naturalism, which denies the reality of non-corporeal consciousness, change at a distance, supra-terrestrial planes, and similar supernatural beliefs. As such, the objective existence of things like deities, spirits, demons, subtle bodies, or occult energies cannot be acknowledged.

But what must be acknowledged is the fact that so many people deeply value their belief in them. The supernatural might not be real, but the underlying human needs that keep them alive certainly are, some of which might not be satisfied in any other way but for religion. Furthermore, there is no doubt that, under the right conditions, certain religious experiences can have beneficial effects, such as improved physical health and emotional well-being.

Researchers and theorists have been trying to uncover the nature of those needs and their related functions for quite a while. This is an important area of inquiry, for if we are to design a system of religious practice that does not directly contradict empirical science, then we must understand what purposes religious experiences serve.

There are, of course, countless theories on this topic. I was going to present a review of the literature, but its scope and my limited time made this impractical. So, I will for now provide my own ideas based on readings and personal experiences. Imperfect, yes, but it's a place to start. Eventually I hope to expand on it.

Religious Origins: Safety, Agency, Knowledge, Creativity, Emotions, and (Mal)functions
I suspect that at the heart of the "religious instinct" is the desire for safety and a reduction of existential anxiety. This desire plays out in many ways, creating a complex tapestry of drives and behaviors. (The outline below should not be interpreted as a comprehensive list of simple or isolated effects—each of these are tied into other systems, such as reproductive drives and culture, as well as individual differences. That said, this is a preliminary and incomplete list of fundamental human drives that might influence the nature of and desire for various religious experiences).

One key way that people feel safer is to feel connected, especially to a social group. However, with our powerful neocortex, we can derive similar or even greater satisfaction from feeling connected to abstractions, such as "God" or "Nature." And so, the first major need is a sense of connectivity, which can influence everything from group affiliation to the aspiration of a non-dual state.

Another common manifestation is the desire for agency, a sense that one is able to influence events effectively. There are many ways in which this drive for competence is expressed. One in particular—the drive for control and power—is especially prevalent in religion. This drive partially explains those cases where people seek or claim special powers, traits, or authority based on their spiritual experiences. Similarly, for some there is a strong need for maintaining a sense of internal and/or external order, which reduces anxiety related to life's unpredictability.

Another expression of agency is knowledge-seeking. Humans certainly have an unquenchable desire to know things and to acquire novel experiences which underlies our natural curiosity, love of mystery, and sense of adventure. On the whole, the more knowledge I have, the more competent I can be and the less unpredictable the world becomes, so it makes sense that we would develop a powerful drive to learn and discover. It often manifests in religious terms as the search for the Big Answers or the Ultimate Truth. A common result of this religious orientation is a sense of wonder, the feeling of excitement when encountering something novel that is perceived as intensely meaningful or beautiful.

Another manifestation of the agency drive I'll mention is creativity. Creativity, at a basic level, arose out of the need to solve survival problems combined with an evolving neocortex that allowed for abstract thought. Suddenly humans could imagine future events, make plans, and try new options when something didn't work. Creativity can be split into two main branches—pragmatic and aesthetic—the former being grounded in problem solving and the latter in the pleasure of beauty. Needless to say, the creative impulse eventually developed a vast array of expressive vehicles and became integrated in one way or another into virtually everything we do, religion being no exception. (Although this is only getting a brief mention now, eventually creativity, and more specifically, art, will become one core theme in my exploration of the Sacred River).

Many of our basic emotions also serve as secondary influencers of religious experience. For example, two basic emotions—guilt and shame—underlie many beliefs and activities. It should be noted that evolutionary psychology posits that such emotions were, at least at one time, beneficial for survival. The idea was to correct for behavior that might get one kicked out of the tribe or demoted to a non-reproductive social strata; they are not beneficial or desirable emotions in and of themselves. From my perspective, it seems tragic that religious structures have been set up to encourage such feelings along with demeaning or punishing actions in response to them.

At the same time there are the pleasurable emotions, such as happiness, ecstasy, and tranquility. They too strongly influence religious experience, sometimes in conjunction with directly fulfilling our needs (e.g. being socially connected) and sometimes as byproducts of brain function (e.g. entheogenic consumption). While experiencing such emotions can make for a rich life, they can (as in substance abuse) become either addictive or used to ignore intractable problems in life (so-called spiritual bypassing).

Finally, there are religious elements that have arisen as by-products of brain (mal)functions. I've already mentioned apophenia, the perception of patterns where there are none, which seemingly developed as a response to feelings of powerlessness or confusion. My last post also mentioned psychism, involving sensory intrusions into consciousness; this happens to everyone to one degree or another, and is likely one source of beliefs regarding otherworldly and non-corporeal activity. And of course there is psychosis, a biological condition that can involve vivid and complex delusions and hallucinations.

To quickly summarize, the engine of religion is fueled by the need to reduce existential anxiety and to feel safe. This drive manifests in several ways, including seeking a sense of connectivity and a need for agency and competence (related to a desire for power, knowledge-seeking and creativity). Both positive and negative emotions also play an important role, sometimes beneficially and sometimes not. Religious beliefs are also influenced by unusual brain activity, including sensory intrusions into consciousness, the perception of non-existent patterns, and outright psychosis. In the future, I plan to argue that the three elements related to this list that can most effectively lead to meaning, fulfillment, and joy are connectivity, exploration, and creativity.

Commentary
It might seem as if reducing the religious instinct down to limbic drives somehow eliminates the positive or noble aspects of spiritual pursuits. Not so! The drives outlined above remain as fundamental to human existence as they ever have, and fulfilling them is one of the most meaningful things anyone can do. Moreover, the fact that religion can be understood in terms of basic drives doesn't erase the reality that religion can also influence a sense of grandeur and awe, the fight for social justice, a desire for personal and cultural development, and the creation of astounding beauty in art and music.

It is the expression of such things that makes religion worthwhile, even when certain beliefs and spiritual experiences have no relation to fact. Religion, like technology, is in itself morally neutral. Judging it as good or bad depends on how it manifests. For myself, religion falls in the "good" category when it promotes physical, mental, and characterological health; when it fosters vibrant, just, and caring communities; and when it contributes to greater meaning, fulfillment, and joy in people's lives. It falls in the "bad" category when it suppresses critical thinking and reason; when it encourages hatred, violence, ignorance, and passive obedience; and when it places ideology, faith, and fortunes of religious leaders above the general welfare of members.

This is the point of my exploring the internal workings of the human religious mechanism. If religion can be good or bad depending on the effects it has in people's lives, then it is imperative that we explore the reasons it exists in the first place—not just as a social phenomenon, but also as a personal, embodied experience. Because such experiences often seem so real, and because the underlying drives are so strong, no argument, no matter how rational or compelling, will eradicate religion. Ever. So, the question becomes a simple one: what kind of religion do we want?

We are human, and so we have a choice in this matter. I hope that in the coming years—in light of our daunting ecological, social, and economic struggles—we choose wisely.