Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion

I'm curious. I am currently re-reading "Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion," by Stewart E. Guthrie, Oxford University Press, Co. 1993. Guthrie is a very engaging writer, an anthropologist who focused on 'systematic anthropomorphism' in humans as the root cause of religion. That is, our brains are hard-wired to seek patterns everywhere, and especially to attribute human qualities & characteristics to what we 'see as' human faces. He says that this is a survival mechanism which has stood us in good evolutionary stead. So far as I am concerned, he has successfully made his case that this is where human religiosity has its root--in the way our brains function, quite automatically, as a survival mechanism. Its a good bet to think that dark blob in the forest is a bear than to brush it off as a big rock. If you're right, you probably live, but if you're wrong, well, not good at all!I am interested because it short-circuits any debates on whether specific religious dogma or lore is 'accurate' or 'true' and forces the discussion back to a much more foundational point. If it is our brains hard-wiring (i.e., generating pattern recognition or the sense of experiencing a transcendental 'Oneness with the Universe'/or god...) which leads us to Belief, then the beliefs themselves are fairly irrelevant, as any or all are on an even neurologically-generated basis. Need an explanation for thunder and lighting, for floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, human suffering, death, dying, or other natural event? Blame it on an angry deity. Feel an overwhelming sense of awe and thankfulness? Someone must have 'caused' the good things to happen! Thus, gods and religion are born! Somewhere along the way anonymous humans (and maybe even pre-humans) formulated theories which were cast as certainties and became dogmas.Is this the thing which causes a group of Believers to kill 141 school-children and their teachers in Pakistan or to be willing to fly airplanes into buildings, killing thousands? If it is, then the entire 'religion thing' ought to be rethought. It may have served when we were illiterate and unknowing of the natural world, but it has clearly ceased its evolutionary adaptive purposes. It should, in fact, be obsolete.I am a Cultural Geographer with Anthropology as my minor area, so I am well-grounded in Guthrie's field. If you have not read this book, you may have missed a critical underpinning for our understanding of the human invention of religion. Get it. Read it! You'll be glad you did!

This is a book length explanation of a very simple idea.People tend to anthropomorphise things around them because it is a useful strategy with survival value. Assuming that the things you come across are animate and purposeful is a safer mistake to make than the converse. We have evolved to see persons everywhere. With typical sloppiness, our brains use the "dealing with people" faculties to handle interactions with things that are not people at all.Primitive man sees an animal footprint. Who made it? An elk. Why did it make it? What was it thinking? It was thirsty, and heading toward water. Identifying the personalities behind phenomena allows us to predict what will happen next. Sometimes, we can even to strike a bargain with another person, so controlling what happens next.Stewart Gutherie's idea is that religion, all religion, at it's core is nothing other than applying this useful and important survival strategy to the world at large. Anthropomorphism is not an error that the religious sometimes fall into. It is the very essence of religious thought and feeling.The problem, of course, is that it is all a very reasonable and safe mistake. There is no God. There is no conciousness behind nature. But we persist in seeing it anyway, just as we persist in seeing humanlike figures in inkblots. That's why religion is so pervasive. That's why it seems so natural. That's why "so many people" can be so wrong.You may be interested in following the whole of the book, which is first, an explanation of why a new theory of religion is needed; second, an exposition of how pervasive anthropomorphism is; and finally linking the two.For me, the theory was so obviously simple, right and powerful, fitting the facts so well, that the first and final chapters alone would have been enough for me. However, it's certainly a worthwhile addition to my growing personal library.