Couple years ago, I read a newspaper article about a study on brain
differences between self-identified democrats and republicans.
Democrats, it turned out, tended to have larger anterior cingulate
cortex, which processes empathy, decision making, etc., while
republicans had larger amygdala, a region that recognizes threats.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/political-views-tied-brain-structure/story?id=13317961
To
me, this makes a lot of sense. Think about all the liberal agenda and
positions: immigration reforms, universal health care, social security,
etc. All these are basically politics of empathy. Now if you take the
republican agenda and positions: national security, lower debt, less immigration, etc., all this is
basically politics of fear. And I might add, characteristics of people with developed anterior cingulate cortex is that they're more comfortable with uncertainty.
There's another group of people who are driven by fear. More precisely, fear of death. Care to guess?
Why do people believe in religion? Well, there can be many reasons, but you can't argue against the fact that a significant number of people believe in it because of the idea of afterlife. Some people may deny this because it makes them seem cowardly or uncool, but can you separate Christianity, for example, from afterlife? You really can't, can you? The main idea of Christianity is that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself and took your sins away, but if there is no afterlife, who would give a damn?
Think about it. You have this original sin. You never really felt guilty about the sin - after all, you didn't even know the existence of it until some missionary or pastor told you. Not only that, but someone you've never seen or met, died for you, everyone preceding you, and everyone that will be born from here on after. And now you can live the rest of your vindicated life... until you die... and that is that. This scenario really doesn't work well, because even if you weren't vindicated from the sin (that you never committed), the result is identical.
This whole "Jesus-sacrificed-himself-on-the-cross-for-you," idea works best if there is an afterlife. You were supposed to burn in hell for eternity because of your sins, but Jesus Christ, the son of God, saved you by sacrificing himself. If this were the case, Jesus's death now makes a significant difference. The idea makes sense and is quite effective. I don't think it's a coincidence that hell is only mentioned after Jesus in the bible.
People may be Christians for other reasons, but you can't argue against the fact that afterlife is deeply embedded into Christian doctrine, and that many people directly or indirectly are drawn to Christianity and other religions because of afterlife.
And such fascination with afterlife can be a mere curiosity, but it's also a fear of uncertainty. Nothing in this world is more uncertain than what happens after death. Religion attempts to appease the fear of death through promise of an afterlife.
Of course, I'm not saying that everyone believes in religion because they fear death, but it plays a significant role. How many significant religious doctrines and themes fall apart if you take the factor of afterlife away? Quite a few. It is my opinion that afterlife is deeply embedded with super majority of all religion, and underneath all that is human's innate fear of death and uncertainty.
What would be really interesting is if scientists did a study on whether religious people have larger amygdala or not. My hypothesis is that they do.
So perhaps, it makes complete sense why there aren't many liberal Christians in America. There are few, but not many. As a slight liberal myself, I always knew my views were different from so many pastors and other religious figures. Now I have a hypothesis that explains the difference.
I've said this a gazillion times, but people often make decisions based on emotions (fear) and then rationalize the decision, not the other way around.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

No comments:
Post a Comment