Heart-ache: Religion is hardwired in the brain, scientists theorize
posted at 5:20 pm on February 4, 2009 by Allahpundit
Sigh. I was hoping it was a cultural construct, like the urge to reproduce.
That’s the bad news. The worse news? Guess what we probably owe it to.
There is plenty of evidence that thinking about disembodied minds comes naturally. People readily form relationships with non-existent others: roughly half of all 4-year-olds have had an imaginary friend, and adults often form and maintain relationships with dead relatives, fictional characters and fantasy partners. As Barrett points out, this is an evolutionarily useful skill. Without it we would be unable to maintain large social hierarchies and alliances or anticipate what an unseen enemy might be planning. “Requiring a body around to think about its mind would be a great liability,” he says…
The mind has another essential attribute: an overdeveloped sense of cause and effect which primes us to see purpose and design everywhere, even where there is none. “You see bushes rustle, you assume there’s somebody or something there,” Bloom says.
This over-attribution of cause and effect probably evolved for survival. If there are predators around, it is no good spotting them 9 times out of 10. Running away when you don’t have to is a small price to pay for avoiding danger when the threat is real…
Boyer is keen to point out that religious adults are not childish or weak-minded. Studies reveal that religious adults have very different mindsets from children, concentrating more on the moral dimensions of their faith and less on its supernatural attributes.
Even so, religion is an inescapable artefact of the wiring in our brain, says Bloom. “All humans possess the brain circuitry and that never goes away.” Petrovich adds that even adults who describe themselves as atheists and agnostics are prone to supernatural thinking. Bering has seen this too. When one of his students carried out interviews with atheists, it became clear that they often tacitly attribute purpose to significant or traumatic moments in their lives, as if some agency were intervening to make it happen. “They don’t completely exorcise the ghost of god – they just muzzle it,” Bering says.
The whole thing’s worth reading but pay special attention to the experiment correlating religious devotion with loss of control. Oh, and this quote: “It does, however, suggests that god isn’t going away, and that atheism will always be a hard sell. Religious belief is the ‘path of least resistance’, says Boyer, while disbelief requires effort.” My new slogan: Atheists — we try harder. Exit question for Ben Stein’s next movie: As argued early on in the piece, isn’t a belief in the afterlife evolutionarily disadvantageous? The more comfortable you are with death, the weaker your survival instinct should be. Or is it that the more comfortable you are with death, the more risks you’re willing to take and the more attractive you’ll be to females? Who’s the alpha male, in other words, the believer or the atheist? I … fear I know the answer. Double heart-ache.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
right4, I realize that you exist in your own deluded version of reality and that your fundamentalist “brain” will likely be unable to process the concept, but when multiple posters in a thread (many of them self-professed evangelical Christians) call you out on your nonsense and defective personality, it’s probably time for a bit of self-reflection. You appear to be a very troubled person and not much of a Christian.
dakine on February 5, 2009 at 3:54 PM
is that the best you can do? you bore me sonny boy. yawn.
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 4:00 PM
right4, that would be the predictable response from a guy with your obvious problems. At some point, even a guy as far gone as you has to begin to wonder why so many folks of varying backgrounds think you’re a nut job.
dakine on February 5, 2009 at 4:08 PM
keep focusing on me, and following me around..I know its all ya got in your sad little pathetic life.
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 4:14 PM
WWJD right4? WWJD? Start living your faith.
dakine on February 5, 2009 at 4:15 PM
He’s probably say something like:
Get thee behind me Satan…
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Do you think he would approve of the way you treat your fellow posters here at HA? Would he use words similar to the ones you use here?
dakine on February 5, 2009 at 4:21 PM
I love you too sweetums!
We all know trolls when we see them.
I’m not worried about the ugly schtick.
I’m actually a hot blonde chick with a hot cowboy husband.
I do not need confirmation from the likes of trolls.
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 4:22 PM
uh yeah every girl on the internet says that!! too funny!!
you need to ‘evolve’ some original lines…
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 4:25 PM
I really don’t need to get a ‘line’. I know what I am bcs like you said earlier-look in the mirror-I have. It’s all good.
Dude-you are really hilarious.
Can you quit stalking me now?
In the real world, you’d be at the end of my rope-with my horse dragging your juvenile a$$ through town.
Now of course, I mean that in the nicest way possible.
I would certainly treat you humanely. I wouldn’t drag you over any sharp rocks or anything.
*SIGH*
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I’m evolving myself out of this childishness.
ta
29Victor on February 5, 2009 at 4:47 PM
I take your lead.
Buh buye!
Badger40 on February 5, 2009 at 4:51 PM
you came into this thread and posted to me. moron.
why do you wackos alwasy descend to threats?? good luck with your little plans…we both know you’re all talk…and you’re fat and ugly too!
right4life on February 5, 2009 at 4:54 PM
All well and good, but Japan would not be the Japan you so admire without Christian men who sacrificed much to defeat their empire, instill our values, our style of government, and economic system.
Try a little thought experiment on what Japan might look like today without America.
MechEng5by5 on February 5, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Not at all.
That’s a far different argument from saying that liberals are less intelligent.
Yes, I know this isn’t the first time you’ve called my intelligence into question and it likely won’t be the last, though on the subject of tenacity, I think it’s hard to argue that I’m any worse than you are.
This is a superficial explanation that doesn’t address true intelligence in the realm of political analysis. If we’re talking pure politics (not ideas, but the game itself), then obviously your statement is false, because Obama is a political genius and showed that properly this past election.
Even if we’re talking pure ideas on what to do with the economy and what should be done in the world, it’s still shallow to argue that the end justifies labeling one intelligent or not. Reaching the “correct” conclusion doesn’t mean you did so intelligently, and reaching the incorrect one doesn’t mean you did so without intelligence.
I argue that liberals can be intelligent because I see some like my husband who, while still ultimately wrong, point out things that others miss and provide deep insight on issues rather than slogans and catch phrases.
Just because a conservative can say “drill, baby, drill,” it doesn’t make that person intelligent unless they can explain what the hell they mean.
And last, the full truth is that no one person has a lock on the absolute truth of what should be done in this country no matter how zealously you believe you do. Without discussing our ideas together and coming into these debates with at least a partial open mind, even intelligent people do incredibly dumb things.
You make a very ridiculous point though in calling me tenacious, as opposed to intelligent, while making the argument that tenacity is the natural byproduct of intelligence.
Esthier on February 5, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Tantor: “…and religion whithers away as a result.”
Akzed: “Which is, of course, not happening. Or were Stalin & Mao at the pinnacle of this evolution you posit?”
Have you seen how many empty cathedrals there are in Europe, ones that seat 20,000 people and ran multiple services on Sunday centuries ago? Now they are museums without congregations.
Tantor on February 5, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Yeah, I tried that line on him once and then he claimed that he never said he was a good Christian and that suddenly makes it OK for him to insult everyone who disagrees with him.
Just don’t even bother. I’ve only seen him with one friend here, and they’re perfectly suited for each other.
Esthier on February 5, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Yes, Europe is in a state, but not just with religion. Try looking over here. Churches are alive and well.
If you truly believe what you’ve typed, then you have no reason to insult others and instead should just appreciate your good fortune to not be as brain dead as the rest of us.
Esthier on February 5, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Also, generally speaking, religion no longer has the total social hold that it once held, even as recent as a hundred years ago. There was time when the parish priest was a figure to fear, and be guided by (or ordered around).
OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Of course, but the same is also true of the government, which points towards an issue with authority, not necessarily religion.
Esthier on February 5, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Correct me if i”m wrong, Ethier, but isn’t religion in america based upon a voluntary system, rather than a state imposed condition?
Anyone who joins a church in America does so without social pressure from an organized sect, backed up by government in some way.
OldEnglish on February 5, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Yes, that’s very much true. That likely has something to do with why they’re still successful.
Esthier on February 5, 2009 at 6:20 PM
I have no interest in sniffing anywhere near your brain, dimwit.
MadisonConservative on February 5, 2009 at 10:33 PM
First, an English lesson: “Gods” is only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence, like “humans.” “Gods” are natural phenomena anthroporphized into supernatural beings. “God” may be capitalized, when it refers not to an individual god, but as a proper pronoun referring to the ultimate source of reality. In Hinduism, for example, (which is both monotheist and polytheist) Brahman is God, but Brahma is a god.
Second, was the poll given in English? Because if it was given in Japanese, the term “god” would probably have been translated as “kami.” Like all translations, there are problems with this.
Well, if they wrote a whole book, it must be true. Which countries did they sample? Also, I would point out that there is a difference between “God” and “belief in God.” The people of any country can choose not to believe in God; actually being without God depends upon circumstances beyond their control.
I neither stated nor implied that you held the belief that all theists are insane. I said that atheists make straw-man arguments against theism, and you’ve just defended with a straw-man argument.
q2600 on February 6, 2009 at 12:55 AM
Proving that taste in religion has changed, but not that religion is “withering away.”
q2600 on February 6, 2009 at 1:08 AM
After a closer reading of your post, I would point out that every Christian, Muslim, Jew and Buddhist in the world would also answer that he did not “believe in any gods.”
q2600 on February 6, 2009 at 1:18 AM
First an internet lesson: expect jotted off posts to be less polished than dissertations. And expect grammar Nazis to be looked down upon.
I suppose I would have to check my Cambridge Companion to Atheism to see how the poll was conducted. I do know that the poll itself was conducted by Gallup, which is generally very well respected. And I also understand that there is a distinction between self identifying as having a non belief in a god or gods and self identifying as atheist or nonreligious. The poll itself used the more liberal question of nonbelief in god or gods. I’m fully aware that far fewer people would self identify as atheist or nonreligious.
Not at all what I was implying. I was trying to imply that the book itself makes a very convincing case than the first nations to embrace atheism willfully, and not through state mandate, are in fact doing very well. It’s a good read and highly recommended. It focuses on Denmark and Sweden.
I suppose that’s a matter of perspective. I would argue that everyone is without God. Just some people believe otherwise. As such, I use “without God” and “without a belief in God” interchangeably.
I neither stated nor implied that I think that you believe that I believe that all theists are insane. You did refer to straw men, however, and one of the most common straw men is that athesits employ is the “delusional theist”, a la Dawkins’ “The God Delusion.” I simply wanted to make clear that I do not employ this common straw man, whether you believe that I had that particular image of theists in my head or not.
justfinethanks on February 6, 2009 at 1:33 AM
Seconded!
OldEnglish on February 6, 2009 at 2:15 AM
Fair enough, if it was an honest mistake. You should be aware, however, that this “mistake” of capitalization is so commonly used as a deliberate baiting tactic by atheists on the internet, that it would be worth taking pains to avoid if you wish to have a civil conversation.
Again, with the capitalization. There is a signficant difference between the question “Do you believe in god (sic) or gods?” and the the question “Do you believe in any gods?” You can’t interpret the poll from a half-remembered translation of a question viewed from your own understanding of metaphysics–the results are only valid if you understand exactly what was asked and how the population understood the answers they were giving.
Finally, if you know the difference between disbelief in gods and identifying as atheist, then you shouldn’t have quoted the study in your original post.
Ah. Then I suppose that it depends upon one’s definition of “very well.”
I’m sure you would. My choice of words was quite deliberate, however: Whether God exists or not, being without God is due to circumstances beyond our control. We may choose to believe whether or not He exists, but we cannot make either reality true by choice.
You quite clearly implied it, by bringing it up in your rebuttal. I certainly didn’t mention it.
Fair enough. The particular straw man to which I was referring is the practice of the atheist defining God as something which obviously does not exist, and then proving that it does not exist (as opposed to arguing against the theist’s definition of God). I suppose that that might more properly be considered “begging the question.” Sorry for any confusion.
q2600 on February 6, 2009 at 2:34 AM
Understood.
Well, this really strikes at the problem of self identification, where you get Christians who don’t believe that Jesus was God or atheists who believe in God. What they claim to believe doesn’t always sync up with their self identification, in terms of clear definitions of the terms. I broadly define atheism as a mere nonbelief in God or gods, which of course opens the door for someone to be a deeply religious atheist. I would argue that anyone who profeses such a disbelief is an atheist, whether they choose to apply that label to themselves or not, just as I would argue that anyone who believes that Jesus was God is a Christian, even if they don’t choose that label.
Low crime rate, good health, good education, and happy. Denmark consistently polls as one of the happiest nations on earth. Though I can tell that you take an awfully skeptical approach to this kind of polling.
Though I certainly understand that some religious people find that these markers of a healthy country are irrelavant if they aren’t right with God, they certainly serve as validation for the secular humanist. They serve as good examples when theists bring up Soviet Russia, North Korea, or the Jacobins.
Fair enough.
Ah, so you were more talking about straw gods than straw men. My misunderstanding then.
justfinethanks on February 6, 2009 at 3:10 AM
Possibly, although sometimes it is a problem of definitions. For example, being Gnostic I identify myself as a theist–although no atheist and few theists have ever agreed with my definition of God.
I actually agree with your definition of atheism. However, the simple belief that “Jesus was God” does not make one a Christian; hence the Nicene Council.
I am skeptical of interpretation.
If you were being clever, well done! However, on the chance that you are not aware, I’ll point out that “raising a straw man” is a specific logical fallacy in which one creates a false arguement to divert your opponent’s attacks away from the real point.
q2600 on February 6, 2009 at 3:44 AM