Are humans hard-wired for faith?

[Cosmo]

The answer to the origin of religion lies in the self-knowledge that we are all going to die.

Speak for yourself.

 

[cyborg]

The answer is rather straightforward.

Evolution provides adequate, not perfect solutions.

The basic learning mechanism of the brain is sufficient enough to learn things about the environment it is in to allow the organism as a whole to thrive. Since a belief that fire is produced by gods doesn't reduce the benefit of fire there's really no evolutionary reason why such beliefs wouldn't propagate in a culture - the useless ideas get carried along with the useful ones.

Beyond 'faith' there's a whole slew of little cultural idioms that have propagated down the years - many of which the original reasons for have been forgotten - for example the fact that blouses button on the opposite side to shirts coming from a time when servants dressed women.

As such I would not argue we are hardwired for faith any more than we are hardwired to produce blouses and shirts with buttons on complementary sides - just that the form of the cultural idiom is different.

 

[RandFan]

The answer is rather straightforward.

Evolution provides adequate, not perfect solutions.

The basic learning mechanism of the brain is sufficient enough to learn things about the environment it is in to allow the organism as a whole to thrive. Since a belief that fire is produced by gods doesn't reduce the benefit of fire there's really no evolutionary reason why such beliefs wouldn't propagate in a culture - the useless ideas get carried along with the useful ones.

Beyond 'faith' there's a whole slew of little cultural idioms that have propagated down the years - many of which the original reasons for have been forgotten - for example the fact that blouses button on the opposite side to shirts coming from a time when servants dressed women.

As such I would not argue we are hardwired for faith any more than we are hardwired to produce blouses and shirts with buttons on complementary sides - just that the form of the cultural idiom is different.

I tend to agree which is the proposition Dawkins advances with the moth. The problem is that it is difficult to argue post hoc that favoring a belief in god did not benefit humans. Hell, by evolutionary standards we are a very successful species having been able to survive on all continents and thrive to an amazing degree.

So, what do we mean "hardwired" for? Is it that which evolution selects for? I'm guessing you would agree. Are you saying that evolution could not have favored a god believing species?

While I think Dawkins' hypothesis a very good one I'm not willing to jettison the idea that genes that produced god fearing people were favored over those that didn't.

 

[cyborg]

RandFan, I think it is more basic than. The problem with the 'god gene' hypothesis is that the concept of god is just too fluid for this to be a sensible term - it implies there is something set-aside specifically for a particular concept and I just don't see that going on. It's a very back-to-front working. We need to consider things from the pre-cultural perspective - before we acquired all the traditional baggage.

That is there are cultural idiomatic patterns that produce similar results. I'm afraid that 'god' just isn't basic enough.

 

[INRM]

I think this is the exact thing I wanted to cover when I titled my post "People believe in god because our brains' architecture tells us to".

Does the parietal lobe handle all sensory data? And what causes the parietal lobe to produce the feeling of being "one ness with a higher power".

Not that I really believe there necesarily is a higher power, I just want to hear the hard science behind it.

 

[blutoski]

Dawkins make the case of the moth. Why are moths drawn to a flame and commit suicide. Surely this can't be an evolutionary benefit to the moth. If you understand that moths evolved to use the moon as navigation then you can model the behavior and understand why moths commit suicide because of an evolutionary trait that actually has to to do with navigation.

We didn't evolve to believe in god anymore than moths evolved to commit suicide in candle flames. Instead humans evolved to place trust in a parent figures. It is comforting and we trust them. It's easy to understand why we might then transfer those feeling to god.

It sounds reasonable to me but if you don't find it compelling then that's fine.

The problem is that it appears we also have inherited the tendency to believe Dawkins, even when the basic researchers in the field know he's wrong, and out of his league. The man's not a psychologist, so why do we pay any attention to his half-baked theories?

The fact of the matter is that religiousity is a well-studied property of human personality. The current state of the research is that it is an intrinsic property, much less affected by environment than most others. There are three scales to measure religiousity, and they are highly correlative, which suggests they are measuring the same thing.

The religious individual will consolidate this religiousity in the local cultural form, but the baseline religiousity is not produced environmentally. This is why, for example, Madelyn Murray-O'Hair's son is a priest: they both had relatively high levels of intrinsic religiosity, which manifest in different chosen religions.

There are the curious examples of separated twins who have very close levels of religiosity, even when one was brought up in a non-religious family.

I found Dawkins' book to be more of a screed than actually educational. There are some passages that are downright misinformitive. Skeptics must be cautious to use the same level of skepticism toward authors who say what we want to hear that we would apply against authors whose theses we disagree with.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, I think it is more basic than. The problem with the 'god gene' hypothesis is that the concept of god is just too fluid for this to be a sensible term - it implies there is something set-aside specifically for a particular concept and I just don't see that going on. It's a very back-to-front working. We need to consider things from the pre-cultural perspective - before we acquired all the traditional baggage.

That is there are cultural idiomatic patterns that produce similar results. I'm afraid that 'god' just isn't basic enough.

What you "see" is really not argument. You are simply arguing from personal incredulity. I respect your opinion but it is not at all compelling. The notion that something implies that something is set aside is a non-sequitur. It implies no such thing. Also, I have no idea what you mean by "very back-to-front" working. I understand top to bottom or bottom up design as mentioned by Dennett and Dawkins. Is this what you are referring to? Nor do I believe in a "god gene". That our genetics predisposes us to a belief in god does not at all mean that there is a god gene.

Why did we acquire cultural baggage at all? I suppose culture could be dismissed as a beginning evolutionary byproduct but I really don't think that is the position of most anthropologists. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[triadboy]

Speak for yourself.

...unless you are radioactive.

 

[RandFan]

The problem is that it appears we also have inherited the tendency to believe Dawkins, even when the basic researchers in the field know he's wrong, and out of his league. The man's not a psychologist, so why do we pay any attention to his half-baked theories?

This is a claim. One that you have not substantiated. I'm simply proposing a theory put forth by Dawkins. I don't hold to it dogmatically. If shown wrong I'll let it go. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and I don't think your ad hominem fair. Dawkins is highly respected in his field. Your attack is not justified.

The fact of the matter is that religiousity is a well-studied property of human personality. The current state of the research is that it is an intrinsic property, much less affected by environment than most others. There are three scales to measure religiousity, and they are highly correlative, which suggests they are measuring the same thing.

"Fact"? Oh, now you are declaring what is fact? Really? And you are appealing to your authority for confirmation?

The religious individual will consolidate this religiousity in the local cultural form, but the baseline religiousity is not produced environmentally. This is why, for example, Madelyn Murray-O'Hair's son is a priest: they both had relatively high levels of intrinsic religiosity, which manifest in different chosen religions.

There are the curious examples of separated twins who have very close levels of religiosity, even when one was brought up in a non-religious family.

None of this counters Dawkins. On the contrary. It confirms him.

I found Dawkins' book to be more of a screed than actually educational. There are some passages that are downright misinformitive. Skeptics must be cautious to use the same level of skepticism toward authors who say what we want to hear that we would apply against authors whose theses we disagree with.

I don't agree with everything Dawkins says and I don't appeal to him as to the truth of a proposition. Please to show me where I state something is "fact".

You'll forgive me if I take a very dim view of your soapbox lecture of skepticism after stating that something is "fact" when you offer no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Dawkins book is heavily footnoted and an argument made for every proposition. Not once does he simply declare something as fact and then expect everyone to take his word for it as you have done. On the contrary he makes arguments and backs the arguments with scientific study and evidence. Further, in subsequent releases he makes changes where he has been shown wrong. So he is not dogmatic and is willing to reconsider his ideas.

Now, if you want to argue against the positions taken by Dawkins I would say that is fine but declaring Dawkins wrong and asserting facts without argument or evidence is really poor form.

 

[Macoy]

if evolution gave us the god gene, then evolution is just as surely in the process of removing it.

if god gave us the god gene, then he's fallible.

 

[cyborg]

What you "see" is really not argument. You are simply arguing from personal incredulity.

No, I'm arguing from cognition - I think the concept of god gets in the way - it doesn't help that it is so very muddled. There is very much a tendency for those who have god beliefs to equate them with other similar god beliefs even if they are quite different in form. That's the problem when you start from high level abstractions.

I respect your opinion but it is not at all compelling. The notion that something implies that something is set aside is a non-sequitur. It implies no such thing.

I'm not really sure what you mean. My point is that arguing that 'god belief' is hardwired doesn't jive with the fact that the specifics of that belief vary wildly.

Also, I have no idea what you mean by "very back-to-front" working. I understand top to bottom or bottom up design as mentioned by Dennett and Dawkins. Is this what you are referring to?

Pretty much. If we start with the high level 'god' concept then we can easily miss the more fundamental aspects - we have to decompose the process thoroughly.

Nor do I believe in a "god gene". That our genetics predisposes us to a belief in god does not at all mean that there is a god gene.

That's what I'm getting at.

Why did we acquire cultural baggage at all?

It seems pretty inevitable to me - something hard to avoid in fact once you have such a system in place capable of transferring knowledge in an imperfect fashion from one generation to the next.

The baggage is, after all, indistinguishable from the useful stuff for most people (and from the perspective of the cognitive mechanisms by which culture becomes part of our identity) - isn't that the basic problem when it comes to trying to wrest believers from their incorrect beliefs?

I suppose culture could be dismissed as a beginning evolutionary byproduct but I really don't think that is the position of most anthropologists. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not sure I'm arguing that culture be dismissed as a byproduct - just that the mechanics of culture naturally arise from the mechanics of cognition.

 

[Macoy]

The baggage is, after all, indistinguishable from the useful stuff for most people (and from the perspective of the cognitive mechanisms by which culture becomes part of our identity) - isn't that the basic problem when it comes to trying to wrest believers from their incorrect beliefs?

does wresting believers from their incorrect beliefs involve keeping their baggage for legitimate disposal?

 

[blutoski]

This is a claim. One that you have not substantiated. I'm simply proposing a theory put forth by Dawkins. I don't hold to it dogmatically. If shown wrong I'll let it go. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and I don't think your ad hominem fair. Dawkins is highly respected in his field. Your attack is not justified.

Dawkins is highly respected in his field. I[/ib] respect him in his field. The point is, though, that he has extended beyond his field in this part of the polemic, and is locking horns with actual experts.

"Fact"? Oh, now you are declaring what is fact? Really? And you are appealing to your authority for confirmation?

This is a casual discussion, so my commentary was not fortified with footnotes. However, I stand by my statement: religiousity has been examined in the same way as other personality traits for almost a century. Different traits have different degrees of social plasticity, and religiousity appears very rigid.

Regarding my authority: I think I am one in this case. More than Dawkins, anyway, and probably more than anybody on this forum. My field of study within psychology was family psychology and the transmission of values and beliefs. I focused on trans-cultural adoptions.

None of this counters Dawkins. On the contrary. It confirms him.

I disagree: Dawkins suggests that religion is largely a learned phenomenon. He goes beyond indicating that the human predisposition is just a fertile environment for memes. It is suspicious that Dawkins does not mention any of these studies that show that religiosity is very resistant to environmental influence, or point out that his view has been rejected by most who are active in the field.

For example, if a child has a moderate-to-high baseline religiouisity, it would be negligent to refuse to provide religious training on ideological grounds - perhaps even child abuse. Dawkins does not address this obvious point.

I don't agree with everything Dawkins says and I don't appeal to him as to the truth of a proposition. Please to show me where I state something is "fact".

I don't think I said you did. Chill.

You'll forgive me if I take a very dim view of your soapbox lecture of skepticism after stating that something is "fact" when you offer no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

This is a centuries old debate, with support for both sides. Dawkins fails the reader somewhat by implying somewhat that this is a new discussion. A recent book on the subject that should be in every Skeptic's library is "Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature", by Steven Pinker.

There is a great deal of literature on this subject, so I'm not sure where to start. It's like being asked to 'prove that there is a scientific consensus on evolution'. There are several journals dedicated to the subject, probably the most important is JSTOR (Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion). It has been publishing since WWII.

Recently, my focus has shifted to what we know about the relationship between religiousity scores and subjects' MMPI constellations. ie: are the axes completely orthogonal? Can mapping (correlated) axes indicate linked genes? With the advent of the HGP, this can be relevant.

Dawkins book is heavily footnoted and an argument made for every proposition. Not once does he simply declare something as fact and then expect everyone to take his word for it as you have done. On the contrary he makes arguments and backs the arguments with scientific study and evidence. Further, in subsequent releases he makes changes where he has been shown wrong. So he is not dogmatic and is willing to reconsider his ideas.

Dawkins provides references to support his thesis, but indulges in a habit of neglecting to provide context, and appears to just not care when his claims run counter to that of experts in the fields in question. ie: He either is unaware of, or witholds information that, some of his views are rejected by relevant authorities. Theologians, for example. Or psychologists who understand the state of personality studies.

 

[RandFan]

Dawkins is highly respected in his field. I[/ib] respect him in his field. The point is, though, that he has extended beyond his field in this part of the polemic, and is locking horns with actual experts.

Then you will need to demonstrate this. Please to do so? Such unsubstantiated claims are poor form.

This is a casual discussion, so my commentary was not fortified with footnotes. However, I stand by my statement: religiousity has been examined in the same way as other personality traits for almost a century. Different traits have different degrees of social plasticity, and religiousity appears very rigid.

Which tells us absolutely nothing. I'm sorry blutoski but this a skeptics forum. If you are going to spout what is and is not "fact" and speaking with confidence as to your beliefs all the while challenging mine then expect me to ask you to demonstrate your claims.

Regarding my authority: I think I am one in this case. More than Dawkins, anyway, and probably more than anybody on this forum. My field of study within psychology was family psychology and the transmission of values and beliefs. I focused on trans-cultural adoptions.

You are entitled to respect for your work but I'm not simply going to just take your word for it. Give me something more concrete than your word.

I disagree: Dawkins suggests that religion is largely a learned phenomenon. He goes beyond indicating that the human predisposition is just a fertile environment for memes. It is suspicious that Dawkins does not mention any of these studies that show that religiosity is very resistant to environmental influence, or point out that his view has been rejected by most who are active in the field.

{sigh}

Look, first you need to establish that what you claim Dawkins says is what he says. Next you are going to have to show these studies you are so found of and then you are going to demonstrate the views of those who have rejected the view by those who are active in the field.

I really resent your making such statements and having the temerity to suppose that I'm just going to accept what it is you are saying.

For example, if a child has a moderate-to-high baseline religiouisity, it would be negligent to refuse to provide religious training on ideological grounds - perhaps even child abuse. Dawkins does not address this obvious point.

"Obvious"? I'm sorry but this sounds like BS. Please to demonstrate that this is so and not simply state that it is "obvious". That is very poor form.

I don't think I said you did. Chill.

I know you didn't. That's not my point. I never declared anything as "fact". You did. It was I that was having a casual conversation and it was you who marched in and started declaring facts.

This is a centuries old debate, with support for both sides. Dawkins fails the reader somewhat by implying somewhat that this is a new discussion. A recent book on the subject that should be in every Skeptic's library is "Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature", by Steven Pinker.

I don't agree.

There is a great deal of literature on this subject, so I'm not sure where to start. It's like being asked to 'prove that there is a scientific consensus on evolution'. There are several journals dedicated to the subject, probably the most important is JSTOR (Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion). It has been publishing since WWII.

Recently, my focus has shifted to what we know about the relationship between religiousity scores and subjects' MMPI constellations. ie: are the axes completely orthogonal? Can mapping (correlated) axes indicate linked genes? With the advent of the HGP, this can be relevant.

You'll have to point me to something. This tells me nothing.

Dawkins provides references to support his thesis, but indulges in a habit of neglecting to provide context, and appears to just not care when his claims run counter to that of experts in the fields in question. ie: He either is unaware of, or witholds information that, some of his views are rejected by relevant authorities. Theologians, for example. Or psychologists who understand the state of personality studies.

Theologians reject Dawkins? Come on, really?

In any event, I don't agree that Dawkins fails to provide context. You are just claiming that it is true. Give me an example?

 

[INRM]

Anyone have an answer to my questions?

 

[Cosmo]

...unless you are radioactive.

Much better, thanks.

 

[Hokulele]

I think this is the exact thing I wanted to cover when I titled my post "People believe in god because our brains' architecture tells us to".

Does the parietal lobe handle all sensory data? And what causes the parietal lobe to produce the feeling of being "one ness with a higher power".

Not that I really believe there necesarily is a higher power, I just want to hear the hard science behind it.

Well,I am no neurologist, but I would recommend the chapter "God and the Limbic System" from the book Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind by V.S. Ramachandran. In this chapter he describes some of the mechanisms for how this kind of thing may be triggered, but not necessarily why. Here is an excerpt (all typos mine):

The third explanation invokes connections between sensory centers (vision and hearing) and the amygdala, that part of the limbic system specialized in recognizing the emotional significance of events in the external world . . .

But consider what might happen if spurious signals stemming from limbic seizure activity were to travel these pathways. You'd get the soty of kindling I described earlier. These "salience" pathways would become strengthened, increasing communication between brain structures. Sensory brain areas that see people and events and hear voices and noises would become more closely linked to emotional centers. The result? Every object and event - not just the salient ones - would become imbued with deep significance, so that the patient would see "the universe in a grain of sand" and "hold infinity n the palm of his hand.".

As for the why, I have no idea. I have always been a bit skeptical of evolutionary psychology, as you can make arguments for almost anything, and there is no way to test any of the hypotheses.

 

[INRM]

The article that was written listed the Frontal and Parietal Lobes in being involved with people believing in God.

I would have been more likely to believe the limbic system too since it houses the emotional centers of the brain. The frontal lobe makes sense since in addition to the ability to focus and concentrate, there are parts of the frontal lobe which help people determine what their place in society is and social obligation. This is why sociopaths are so self-centered and think they're so grand!

I remember hearing the parietal lobe was partially linked with the out of body experiences, but what exactly does the parietal lobe do? And how does it create the feeling that a person feels that they are in the presense something greater than ones self. How did they arrive at this conclusion-- what tests did they do (like how did they induce the state in the person).

Also... what the hell is Neurotheology (that sounds very pseudoscientific to me)?

Tony

 

[INRM]

You know, while slightly off topic.

I, last night, thought about something. "Feeling in the presense of something greater than one's self". I think we've all had this feeling-- and not necessarily in church.

But you ever joined a group of friends, or met somebody that you thought was so cool? Well, i remember having that kind of feeling... you know that your in the presense of great people.

Am I write or wrong, or not understanding the way the statement "in the presence of something greater than one's self" was meant?

If what I said is right, think that's a social mechanism... at least in that circumstance if not totally.

Still, the questions I asked before-- what's Neotheology (and is it pseudoscience)? Still could use an answer.

 

[andyandy]

I, last night, thought about something. "Feeling in the presense of something greater than one's self". I think we've all had this feeling-- and not necessarily in church.

it is a fascinating question....it would be interesting to know about the psychological impact of churches/temples/shrines on human emotion....

the commonality amongst Shinto shrines, Buddhist temples and Christian Churches seems primarily the contemplative silence which is expected to be invoked - ie they are a place for introspection...

perhaps the tendency for high church ceilings is conducive to that empty-silence.....

both buddhist temples and Christian churches both seek to invoke awe through artistry - golden buddha statues, stained glass windows etc.
whereas puritan christian traditions ally more closely with shinto shrines insofar as the decadence is stripped away for a much more natural experience - of simple rock and stone and wood, to invoke a feeling of being closer to nature....