Entry 1

I found that the most fascinating part of the article dealt with the socio-cultural aspects of religion. Henig notes that we have innate tendencies to develop language, but the specific language we learn is shaped by our culture. Language, in many respects, is analogous to religion, which according to Paul Bloom is “culturally shaped.” As discussed in class, we noted that culture plays a pivotal role in determining whether one embraces or rejects religion. One student (I can’t remember her name) asserted that though both her parents were Jewish, her predominantly Christian neighborhood seemed to make her less involved with religion. Culture also relates to the relationship between social groups and religion.

The article poses an interesting socio-religious question. Wilson inquires, “Why religious groups are any different from a group of fraternity bothers, or, Yankees fans?” Religion, which creates strong social support groups, seems to many times serve as an innate defense mechanism that helps germinate human love and connection. But Wilson has a point. What makes religious groups so different than other social organizations? Many social groups are capable of feeling love and compassion for one another without an underlying devotion to a spiritual deity. Don’t other social organizations develop their creed around friendship and devotion to others? And doesn’t that devotion serve to create feelings of love amongst the members? Some would argue that religion “generates greater belief commitment because [it] depends on belief rather than proof.” Others would argue that religion is a means to explain our “brutish and short existence” because it elucidates “mysterious and unusual events.” As for me, I think religion presents ambiguous, but many times meaningful ideas that give a sense of meaning and perspective on life.