…and this is a 
Viewing religion through Panglossian spectacles
Category: Religion
Posted on: November 30, 2007 2:00 PM, by PZ Myers
Let's ruin a perfectly pleasant Friday with a poll full of ugly reality.
The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.
It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.
Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research.
Only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believed in Darwin's theory which largely informs how biology and related sciences are approached. While often referred to as evolution it is in fact the 19th century British intellectual's theory of "natural selection."
I keep hearing from people that criticizing religion is over-generalizing, that we shouldn't judge it by the minority of fundamentalist loons who get all the attention in the media, or by those few, rare exploiters who represent religious beliefs poorly. I am sick of it. Ask people directly whether they believe literally in a damnable stupid doctrine like hell, and they don't waffle, they don't pose like pedants and maunder on about metaphysics and socioeconomic influences and tradition, the majority simply say "yes". This is the reality. The majority of Americans do not think, they just accept this nonsense at face value, and we have to deal with stupidity on a national scale.
This is what it means:
More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.
It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world.
We are screwed up.
Can we please acknowledge this is a problem, rather than making excuses for it?
It seems that too many scholars of religion are in the business of either apologetics or denial. I found this debate between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson infuriating for that reason; Wilson is a smart guy, but he has his eyes closed to the awful inanity of religious belief, waving it away with the Panglossian adaptationist rationalization that if it exists, it must have a productive and adaptive function. Here's a beautiful example of the attitude I find intensely frustrating.
With apologies to Natalie, I think there's a kind of a silliness to banging away at religious beliefs for their obvious falsehood, when in fact, if you're an evolutionist, the only way you would want to evaluate these beliefs is to examine what they cause people to do. Do they help people function in their communities? Then this might be an explanation for why they exist. It also makes it unnecessary to criticize these ideas, again and again, because they depart from factual reality. We should be more sophisticated in the way we evaluate beliefs.
In other words, never mind the obvious falsehoods, there has to be a good reason Americans are so dedicated to dismantling the whole field of biology. I could not believe Wilson actually said something so blind; it's just not the way I can think, where we should be willing to overlook "obvious falsehoods". Natalie's reply is very good.
This reminds me of the White Queen who says, "I can believe six impossible things before breakfast." First of all, this is the kind of thinking that can be easily manipulated. Second, this seems to be the antithesis of what science is about. Believing in something that isn't true, because it motivates you to act, is not the kind of fundamental understanding that motivates science. If you believe you're going to be resurrected after you die, which I think is a fairy tale, this is ultimately a dissatisfying way to promote life, and I don't think that it's going to get us anywhere as a culture. I think it's a barrier that cultural evolution has to take us past. We need to move in the direction of accepting the universe as it truly is, rather than as we wish it to be.
If scientists won't stand up for accuracy, empiricism, and an honest evaluation of reality, who will? The priests? Wilson is plainly in denial. Here he goes on about the causes of religion, and I think he's partly right, but is intentionally overlooking a huge part of the story.
Other parts of the world, such as Europe, are becoming more secular, because the environment is favoring that. But the world as a whole is becoming more religious, more fundamentalist. Why is this? It's because it's becoming more dangerous and chaotic. Governments aren't providing the services that people need, and religions are. Again and again you hear about these so-called terrorist organizations providing services for their people. When I hear my respected colleagues, such as Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins, talk about religion, I think they are smart people doing something which is not so smart. They ask, "How can people believe such dumb stuff?" But they are not looking at the ecological bases for these beliefs. If you think of these systems as successful in some environments, but not others, then you can isolate the environmental factors. If you want liberalism to thrive, religious or non-religious, then provide the proper environment, and it will grow spontaneously.
I think he's right that danger and chaos do foster environments that religious belief can readily exploit, and that instability in the world can encourage a kind of nucleation around certainties, even false certainties, that give people something to which they can cling. We can reduce the opportunities for religion to infest a culture by encouraging economic prosperity.
However, he explicitly, consciously excludes America from this analysis, for obvious reasons — we are filthy rich compared to much of the rest of the world, and we're also pathologically religious. He doesn't address this fact at all, except to later call the US "an anomaly". I think a scientist ought not to disregard the facts in the poll mentioned at the top of this article.
Wilson needs to shake off an assumption. There is this attitude that because something exists, it must have value; because people are religious, it must be good for them in some way, and all we have to do is look hard enough, and we will find something to rationalize its existence. This is not necessarily true. What we are is collections of accidents, and evolution has worked to remove the most debilitatingly destructive of them, but it has not honed us to a state of perfection. We are loaded with features and shortcuts and quirks that work "good enough" to let us get by, and that, under most conditions, don't hamper the truly advantageous adaptations that allow us to thrive.
Religion is a bad thing. It encourages people to believe in things that are not true. It really is as simple as that; we'd be better off if people valued truth over comfortable delusions. You can find instances where religious organizations step in to provide support, but these are not optimal situations by any means — secular organizations can and do provide the same support, without the baggage of expecting people to accept utter nonsense. It may be an interesting scientific question to consider how people come to think that such nonsense is valuable, and I think Wilson's work is useful in that way, but it's a gross error to then conclude that understanding the how of it makes the phenomenon itself a desirable end. We're fortunate that medical research doesn't usually go in the direction of mistaking the etiology of disease for a justification for its perpetuation, but those who study religion often fall into that trap.
I depart strongly from David Sloan Wilson's position. It is necessary to criticize these ideas, again and again, because they depart from factual reality. This is the scientist's job, to strive for closer and closer approximations to factual reality, and when three quarters of the population are embracing counterfactual idiocy, we are failing.
I am not interested in resigning ourselves to accepting lies that a culture regards as virtues. I'd rather we aspired to understand the universe as it is.
Comments
I still think Dawkins's example of a shot of morphine being comforting is the best rebuttal to all this "but religion is comforting" nonsense.
Posted by: G | November 30, 2007 2:11 PM
Yes, but the fun begins tonight when D'Souza debates Dannett. Wilson might change his opinion if he ever encounters D'Douche.
Posted by: danley | November 30, 2007 2:16 PM
Dungeon entrant 19/20 was perhaps not far off in his view that we're all (i.e. humanity) idiots. Of course, opinions differ regarding D19/20's self assessment of his exclusion from said set.
Anyway- it's weird that some members of our species invented quantum electrodynamics whereas other members still believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago. I guess that evolution spent a lot of time in giving us big brains but didn't spend so much in telling us what to do with them.
Posted by: Christianjb | November 30, 2007 2:20 PM
Wilson needs to shake off an assumption. There is this attitude that because something exists, it must have value; because people are religious, it must be good for them in some way, and all we have to do is look hard enough, and we will find something to rationalize its existence.
I think we will find such a something, but it's nature is not likely to give comfort to the religious. What I mean is, if you unpack the assumption you're talking about, it's not just "because [religion] exists, it must have value [to someone or something]," it's "because religion exists, it must have value to religious people." A different thing, and much less likely to be true. Religions may well have value --to themselves, and be perfectly horrible brain-parasites where infected individuals are concerned. That would rationalize their existence somewhat, but, one suspects, not in the way Wilson et al would prefer.
Posted by: CJO | November 30, 2007 2:20 PM
apologies for horrible its/it's thing. Apostrophe abuse!
(and I even previewed) >:(
Posted by: CJO | November 30, 2007 2:22 PM
You'd think that people of reason would all understand how big of a problem religion is, it boggles my mind that some just can't grasp this basic truth.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | November 30, 2007 2:23 PM
I wonder if D'Souza will recover from the ass-kicking he'll undoubtedly get from Dennett in time for his debate with Shermer next week.
We can only pray he does.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 30, 2007 2:23 PM
There's also the evolutionary psychologist's argument that much of human behavior, if adaptive, is adapted to an archaic environment. In other words, even if one buys that religious belief (or the tendency to buy into religious belief) has an ultimate explanation involving natural selection, that does NOT mean it is still adaptive in our current environment, which has resulted from blindingly rapid (in an evolutionary context) change.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 30, 2007 2:31 PM
#1: That's a salient and witty point. When I hosted the Atheist Experience TV show in Austin, I couldn't tell you the number of live callers who would defend sleazy televangelists or crank psychics on the grounds they were "making people happy." My response was always that heroin dealers make people happy; that doesn't mean what they're selling is good for you.
Posted by: Martin | November 30, 2007 2:42 PM
Speaking of accepting reality. The thesis that religion has an evolutionary adaptionist value is speculative and without definitive data is just a hypothesis.
My view is that the Tendency to believe in some sort of religion is hard wired into us. Whether or not it is adaptive. I do not mean that there is a god module somewhere next to the hypothalamus, some more general property. The data:
1. Virtually all societies, primitive and modern have some sort of religion.
2. The Soviety Union and Red China spent a lot of time and blood trying to suppress religion. Without much to show for it. As soon as the Soviets fell, religion sprang up like mushrooms after a rain. These days they have their own fundie problems and a lot of oddball cults. The same thing is happening in China. One site of questionable veracity claims that since the commies gave up politics for making money, 45 million Chinese have converted to Xianity, a new fad over there.
3. Many atheists fall into the trap of pseudo-religious thinking. They get dogmatic, schism to form sects, issue fatwas, excommunicate each other, repeat the same logical fallacies. It is amusing for a while but gets old watching fundies without Jesus and Yahweh.
When I hear people talk about stamping out religion, it sounds a lot like getting out in the water and stopping the tide. Good luck.
Note I said the Tendency. While 82% of the US population believes in a god(s), 18% do not. Biology is not always destiny.
Bash away, but forget the fatwas, accusations of heresy, and threats of excommunication. After dealing with wingnut Xian fundies, they just go into a mental trash can.
Posted by: raven | November 30, 2007 2:42 PM
I'm skeptical of these polls. I think there are a large number of ambivalent theist-by-default folk out there who are simply cagey about answering questions in a way that might lead them to be labelled with that terrible term,'atheist'. I'm sure there are those who, as Dennett suggested, believe more in the belief of theism rather than its concrete reality.
Plus, I recall that poll numbers for people who even know what natural selection is is less than 50%. It would be more enlightening to know what proportion of those who understand the basic premise of the theory support it or disagree with it.
I think education is the major issue here. Evolution has only relatively recently made it into the class room unmolested, which I think is a major reason for its poor showing in the polls. The drive now should be to ensure that it stays in the classroom, and is not allowed to be challenged by pseudoscience.
Posted by: DSK Samways | November 30, 2007 2:44 PM
Well all that good science education enabled the US to finish "statistically significantly below average" in the OECD international science assessment:
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/8/39700724.pdf
Posted by: Stan Jones | November 30, 2007 2:48 PM
That really is somewhat disconcerting however remember that a recent poll showed the non religious at nearly 40% in the under 40 crowd and even this poll has it at 20%.
This is something that will occur gradually. It's 40% in the younger generations now, 45% after that, and so on and so forth. The injection of religion into our politics while currently disgusting and very dangerous seems to be having the effect of turning folks away and making them question dogma.
Although it is still a sad state of affairs when good science is so poorly thought of in the USA.
Posted by: Uber | November 30, 2007 2:49 PM
I was just thinking about how I agreed with Pat Condell's optimism that religion is just too daft to carry on forever, and that he believes it will eventually be seen for what it is and blight civilisation no more.
Reading this sort of thing makes me rethink my position :-(
Posted by: Scrofulum | November 30, 2007 2:51 PM
So "Candid" should be required reading for "Intro to Evolutionary Psychology."
Posted by: caynazzo | November 30, 2007 2:52 PM
"Only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believed in Darwin's theory" Actually it's much worse than that. Every poll I have ever seen has only at most 15% of Americans accepting evolution without invoking god to help it and/or invent it. Compare that to the 100% of biologists who accept evolution without invoking magic. Part of the reason for this stupidity is evolution is still not being taught in many biology classes. There's still a large number of science teachers who throw out evolution to avoid harassment and threats from christian thugs.
Posted by: BobC | November 30, 2007 2:53 PM
While I think your fundie atheist comment is out to lunch and silly the above to me illustrates a very common primate behaviour. When a group becomes large the population breaks into smaller groups. I think that is what happens with most of these religious groups and it is at the root biology.
Posted by: Uber | November 30, 2007 2:55 PM
This is really depressing. I agree with DSK that these polls may be a bit inflated but it's still sad that there are so many people willing to sign on to this nonsense. I've hated this gullibility for years but it's only the last few years that I've realized how truly evil religion is.
Posted by: Lana | November 30, 2007 2:59 PM
I'm not inclined to put much faith in Harris Poll data. Their SOP is to poll a random sample using land-line telephones. The resulting sample is going to exclude people who have cell phones only, as well as people who have caller ID. How much of a skewing effect that might have is questionable, of course, but it is an issue.
Then again, some of the stuff I used to hear while riding public transit did nothing to encourage belief in the intelligence (or educational achievements) of the average American. Not only do the gullible masses believe in angels and benevolent sky fathers, quite a few were (and probably still are) convinced The X-Files were documentaries.
Posted by: Nan | November 30, 2007 3:03 PM
Polls such as those cited always raise questions for me. I wonder how many people who respond "yes" to belief in god, hell, etc. really do believe. What I'm suggesting is maybe that religious doubt is more widespread than the polls might lead us to conclude. It raises the question of what it really means (to the respondent) to say that one "believes". Without any evidence to cite, I have a hunch that the majority of "believers" may just be answering out of social convention.
Posted by: Shaggy Manaic | November 30, 2007 3:03 PM
Although I am not an expert in poll taking, this seems like a very small sampling. Plus, I want to know more about where they were sampling too. In front of a WalMart is going to give you diffrent results than an exit poll of people in Silicone Valley.
The poll looks like it was done in Dallas - which explains the skewed results to me, and this may even be the 2nd shot (Chris Combs being the first) in the TX War On Darwin.
Posted by: J-Dog | November 30, 2007 3:04 PM
DSK (#11):
Sorry, I had a delay between posting and refreshing the comments; I didn't mean to discount what you had already posted.
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | November 30, 2007 3:07 PM
I don't know if it's true of all editions of the book, but on the back cover of my copy of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion there's a quote from "Penn and Teller" (don't ask me how you get one quote from a duo, but so be it). The quote is, "The God Delusion is smart, compassionate, and true like ice, like fire. If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
I think we're all screwed.
Posted by: Joel Klebanoff | November 30, 2007 3:14 PM
Meanwhile, thousands call for the execution of a teacher for her "crime" of giving a teddy bear the same name as their dead leader. We're not quite up to that level of religious zealotry here, but we're getting closer, day by day.
Posted by: idlemind | November 30, 2007 3:18 PM
All the questioning of the polling (good skepticism) keeps pointing to the failure to admit one galling point--we are a nation that believes in very stupid shit.
Look at that. Nearly 80% of us don't think we really die. Nearly 70% believe in an actual place called hell (my mother being one of them) where folks like me get tortured once we die/aren't dead.
Yes, folks, Americans are that demented as a group. No need to stop trying to say, "It can't be that bad." IT IS!
Posted by: MAJeff | November 30, 2007 3:21 PM
Err, are there evolutionary psychologists who are making that argument, rather than unapologetically approaching modern-day social dynamics from a myopic Panglossian perspective (or viewing modern-day social dynamics as an anomalous and probably pathological departure from the "normal" 1950s dynamics)?
First I've heard of it, but that's good to know.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 30, 2007 3:21 PM
The key issue that Watson is missing is that sure religion may be beneficial, but to who (or what)? Just because religion is popular, does not mean it is necessarily beneficial to humans. Dennett makes it clear in his books (especially DDD and breaking the spell) that religions may be successful in human cultures because they have worked out how to efficiently propagate through human minds. Religions may be simply the weeds of culture.
Posted by: The Naturalist | November 30, 2007 3:23 PM
I teach at Tufts. Skipping Dennet/D'Souza tonight. I have better things to do with my Friday night than spend any time listening to Dinesh D'Souza. After all, I try to avoid spending time with stupid people.
Posted by: MAJeff | November 30, 2007 3:24 PM
Err, are there evolutionary psychologists who are making that argument, rather than unapologetically approaching modern-day social dynamics from a myopic Panglossian perspective (or viewing modern-day social dynamics as an anomalous and probably pathological departure from the "normal" 1950s dynamics)?
Shit, we're not rid of structural functionalists? I thought we got rid of those fools.
Posted by: MAJeff | November 30, 2007 3:25 PM
One critical point (IMO) left out of the article is how they contacted these 2,455 people. I highly suspect every person polled was called via a land line phone, probably listed in the phone book. The pollsters also probably talked only to the head of household.
Speaking strictly from my personal experience, a vast majority of the younger (30 something and below) and educated US citizens I know do NOT have land line phones, at all. They have a cell phone and they're not listed in any directories.
This leads me to hypothesize that these polls are often skewed heavily towards older, poorer, and less educated Americans, and is not remotely a good scientific sample of our fellow Americans.
Posted by: Jon | November 30, 2007 3:27 PM
"Silicone Valley"
Hollywood?
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 30, 2007 3:28 PM
Curious... I wonder what is meant by believing in 'witches'? Do they mean fairy tales witches? I know several witches (neo-pagans) who, I am sure, will be all up in arms with that statement.
Posted by: Brett McCoy | November 30, 2007 3:28 PM
Yeah, I work in Harvard Square and live in Somerville. . . and I'm skipping the Dennett/D'Souza event. It managed to sell out before I found out about it, anyway, and I don't think I'd be able to ask a blistering question from whatever side room they're using to project video for the overflow crowd.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 30, 2007 3:30 PM
One critical point (IMO) left out of the article is how they contacted these 2,455 people. I highly suspect every person polled was called via a land line phone, probably listed in the phone book. The pollsters also probably talked only to the head of household.
No, probably not. It was probably done utilizing random phone number generators. Yes, only land lines, but that's not as significant as you might think. Additionally, they'll probably talk to the first adult they get, not head of household. You're picking more holes than are likely there (yes, I do teach Social Research Methods, thank you).
People just don't want to accept that their fellow citizens are this crazy. Guess what folks: they are!
Posted by: MAJeff | November 30, 2007 3:32 PM
I'm sure PZ will hate me for saying it this way, but it all comes down to framing. If we ask, "Do you believe humans evolved from a different species, due to gene mutations and survival of the fittest?", I think 90% would say no.
And be wrong.
But if you ask, "Do you believe that the genes in bacteria mutate, and we must adjust antibiotics to counteract these mutations?", I think 90% would say yes.
And be right.
So it's all in how you frame the question. There's that word again.
I want to know a lot more about this survey's methodologies.
In my workplace (in California), I really don't think 80% of us think the theory of evolution is wrong. But I work in a professional environment, with scientists and computer professionals. If you asked these survey questions of my co-workers, you probably would not get an accurate reflection of how people in Northern California would respond.
Posted by: MikeM | November 30, 2007 3:36 PM
This is the sample I'd guess is more likely to be biased, the readers of this blog. I'd bet more of the people here identify as atheist, have more densely atheist social networks, are more highly educated, etc. than the general population--I'm still guessing the survey sample is closer to representative of the population than this group of readers--and I'm guessing that's why people are so reluctant to accept these results.
Posted by: MAJeff | November 30, 2007 3:43 PM
I struggle to understand how the US got this way, let alone how best to fix it. The difference between rich and poor Americans seems to be huge, and getting worse. Perhaps moderation in all things, including Capitalism would have been best.
The education system is a failure for a very large number of students, according to the evolution poll and the OECD figures and it is going to get worse, if people like those at the Texas Education Authority aren't stopped.
If only you weren't wasting trillions of dollars to no net benefit in Iraq. Just what kind of lever have you given the Chinese, with all those loans they are holding?
The temptation to be smug about this is well controlled by the realisation that, if America implodes so do her economic partners. Every empire that's ever been has come to an end. The only question is, when?
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | November 30, 2007 3:44 PM
And almost 2500 people is a pretty good sample size.
Posted by: MAJeff | November 30, 2007 3:45 PM
Our science education isn't as awful as most make it out to be. There is only so much a teacher can do when kids go home to an intellectual septic tank.
Posted by: Lycosid | November 30, 2007 3:46 PM
Maybe. All I'm sure of is that neither myself or any of my friends (few of whom I would consider religious) have land line phones, and were therefore excluded en mass from this and similar polls simply because they're smart, successful, and technologically savvy.
You're probably right. But as long as there's even the appearance of something unscientific being passed of as science, somebody should raise their hand, ask questions, and try to poke holes.
Posted by: Jon | November 30, 2007 3:58 PM
Does the phrasing of a poll question actually have anything to do with "framing", as espoused by Lakoff? Back in 2005, when "framing" was only tossed around in political circles, the linguist Mark Liberman said,
Poking through the Language Log archives for Lakoff-related material has more or less convinced me that all the science blogosphere's bafflegab about "framing" is an echo of that which occurred in political discussions two years ago, with some bile against the "New Atheists" added for seasoning. The central piece of terminology, the word framing itself, is horribly chosen: people talk about how poll questions should be worded, instead of considering how we react to information coming from outside our social-psychological mindset.
Bah humbug.
And since my thesis is that all these confusions are basically the same as those which arose when "framing" became a hot topic among armchair politicians, I should offer my opinion on that; the extension to science education should be trivially obvious.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 30, 2007 3:58 PM
NO, because they are part of a social group in which certain practices and devices are favored over others. You weren't not polled because you're smart. You weren't polled because of certain structural conditions.
Can you and your friends find hats to fit on your inflated skulls?
Posted by: MAJeff | November 30, 2007 4:03 PM
"I have -- maybe ill-placed -- a foreboding of an America in my children's generation, or my grandchildren's generation, when all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when we're a service and information-processing economy; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest even grasps the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas, or even to knowledgeably question those who do set the agendas; when there is no practice in questioning those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and religiously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in steep decline, unable to distinguish between what's true and what feels good, we slide, almost without noticing, into superstition and darkness." - Carl Sagan 1994
Posted by: Dennis Hamon | November 30, 2007 4:12 PM
It is when religion becomes an excuse to shut off your brain and end discussion that it becomes a problem. Unfortunately, too many welcome such an excuse.
Posted by: MemeGene | November 30, 2007 4:14 PM
Here's a link to a very similar poll from the same polling company (Harris) only a month ago. The questions appear to be "framed" differently, and the results also appear very different.
Nearly half of Americans are not sure God exists.
I found that searching around for the hard data to the poll PZ linked to. In the process I also found this site, where you can sign up to be one of the people Harris polls "for rewards that include a variety of merchandise and gift certificates". If all of their respondents are people who are doing it for "merchandise and gift certificates", then I'm even more suspicious of the results than I was when I thought they were calling landlines.
Posted by: Jon | November 30, 2007 4:15 PM
All I'm sure of is that neither myself or any of my friends (few of whom I would consider religious) have land line phones, and were therefore excluded en mass from this and similar polls simply because they're smart, successful, and technologically savvy.
And of course no smart, successfull, technologically savvy person has a land line. I think there is a name for this particular logical fallacy.
Posted by: SteveM | November 30, 2007 4:16 PM
I'll repeat what I said in another thread: Everyone who bothered to watch the recent Republican debate already knows how bad it is. They had questions from average Americans and one guy waved around a Bible saying, I paraphrase from memory: "...how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? ... This book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?"
Every Repug candidate said they believed the Bible (which Bible?) was the word of God. They know nothing of the books real history.
Meet Rove's Frankenstein
Posted by: Norman Doering | November 30, 2007 4:19 PM
I've got a YouTube of that debate moment on my site.
I also spent last week in the land of the Iowa Calvinists. Even prepped with sedatives, these folks fucked me up for days.
We live in a crazy-ass place.
Posted by: MAJeff | November 30, 2007 4:24 PM
This poll DOES exclude at least some geniuses. I don't have a landline phone- and I'm smart as a whip.
Also- any telecommunication based poll would have to get past my tinfoil hat.
Posted by: Christianjb | November 30, 2007 4:24 PM
DS Wilson's group selectionism (actually mutlilevel adaptationism) is the most Panglossian approach around because it revives social organicism, with its 'good of the group,' hyper-functionalist reasoning.
An individual-level approach is more congruent with a conflict view of religion - that a few individuals are full-time parasitic manipulators of others via religious indoctrination in order to justify unfair hierarchies. In this latter formulation, religion is maladaptive for most but adaptive for an elite. The funny thing is that Lewontin himself endorsed DS Wilson's group selectionism, even though the implications of this new version of social organicism for adaptation and social behaviors fly in the face of Gould and Lewontin's famous spandrels paper as well as much of the anti-sociobiology genre.
Side note: The environment of evolutionary adaptiveness (EEA) and the non-adaptiveness of post-EEA behavior is one of the central tenets of evolutionary psychology (in the strict sense - Tooby, Cosmides, Buss...). The notion that evolutionary psychology is Panglossian / hyperadaptationist is derived from the Gouldian characterization of adaptationism, which was attributed to sociobiology and generic evolutionary psychology.
All of these various approaches (evolutionary psychology, multilevel adaptation, dual inheritance...) have their strengths and problems.
Posted by: Colugo | November 30, 2007 4:31 PM
Ok, here's the raw results of the poll in question. The "methodology" section at the bottom rules out any land line debates (poll was only conducted online). There's some curious numbers in there. Apparently, 1% of respondents who identify themselves as "Born-Again Christians" also claim to be "not religious at all".
Posted by: Jon | November 30, 2007 4:38 PM
My view is that the Tendency to believe in some sort of religion is hard wired into us.
If you want to express that as "the tendency to believe in religion because religion exploits several other more basic human/primate traits," I'd be inclined to agree with you. I think you're seeing "religion" where there's actually a lot more going on.
Religion feeds on some basic human/primate tendencies. The big one, the one that all primates seem to share, is tribalism. There are all kinds of social behaviours that one sees perfectly replicated in religion that you can see in any social grouping from a colony of monkeys on up. Within tribalism, you get the expression of "in-groups" and "out-groups," and a set of socially sanctioned and forbidden behaviours that cause or allow actors in the system to cross from one set to another. Once you have in-groups and out-groups, you also have things like shunning, which is why these sorts of behaviours crop up as frequently among atheists as they do among funnymentalist nutcases.
Another tendency that religion exploits, and is IMO the key psychological motivator behind religion, is humans' hard-wired desire to view things around us as narratives (stories). This is a net positive, in that it allows us to understand things like time, cause and effect, and even science (which relies on our being able to interpret and remember sequences of events and make observations about repeated phenomena). For more information about this, you could read Mark Turner's book The Literary Mind. All religion is, at its base, is a series of "just-so stories" aimed at explaining Life, The Universe, and Everything. A big, big narrative that happens to be a side effect of being human.
A third tendency that religion exploits in a big way is the human capacity for analogy (metaphor). Human beings think of a lot of basic concepts in terms of metaphor. For example, a lot of cultures express time as a journey (which "direction" in time equals "back" or "forward" is a matter of some contention between cultures, however). Besides being a narrative, religion is also an elaborate system of metaphor (we usually call it symbology, but a symbol is also a metaphor of sorts, based on an assumed shared trait).
The deal that I can see is to get people to use their natural capacity for social bonding, narrative construction, and analogy in ways that are positive and beneficial, instead of wasting them on religion. If you don't like the idea of "eliminating religion," why not say we're trying to redirect people's innate talents to more productive uses?
Posted by: Interrobang | November 30, 2007 4:42 PM
I've never understood that thinking. Many things of no positive merit, at least to humanity, exist, such as bigotry, racism, homophobia, HIV, cancer and malaria. Existence of a thing, or concept, is not proof of a "productive or adaptive" function in human society.
Posted by: Moses | November 30, 2007 4:42 PM
One thing that seems fishy about the numbers: 82% believe in God, and 72% believe that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Do (religious) Jews, Muslims, and deists only make up 10% of the population?
Posted by: jdb | November 30, 2007 4:46 PM
We live in a crazy-ass place.
You Tube debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJr0V1m0SzM
(starts at 2:40)
"Do you believe this book?"
Giuliani: "the greatest book ever written."
Romney: "I believe the Bible is the word of God."
Huckabee: "It's the word of revelation to us from God himself. [...] The Bible is a revelation of an infinite God and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it."
Lay it on thick, you assholes, you wouldn't want to upset your fundie base!
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 30, 2007 4:59 PM
You are correct. It's called a Hasty Generalization fallacy.
Posted by: Wes | November 30, 2007 5:06 PM
Hmm, I wonder if you missed the implication that the different ways you framed the question STILL means that 90% of the people polled don't have the slightest understanding of what the ToE entails, or how it actually works.
Such is the REAL problem. Who cares if someone can parrot an answer they think is "acceptable" (positive or negative), if they don't really even understand their answer?
Seriously, asking whether someone "accepts" evolution in this country or not is rather silly.
The question that should be asked is:
Do you UNDERSTAND the ToE?
Could you answer even the most basic questions about it?
Frankly, I doubt even 10% of the US population can answer either one of those questions affirmatively, and be honest.
I don't blame this on a complete failure to teach the theory in secondary school (such as it is, I still think the majority of secondary students in the US are at least exposed to the basics of the theory), as much as I blame the "septic tank" homelife referred to by another poster above.
so, one has to ask what it is about american homelife that dumbs down our students to the point they forget, or don't bother to even take in, basic lessons in biological theory.
One obvious answer is religion, but I also doubt this is the ONLY answer.
Hell, 17% of the people in the US (as of 1990, last I checked), still think the sun goes around the earth. A slightly larger proportion didn't even know that 1 year represented the time it takes the earth to go around the sun.
I rather doubt those numbers are in any large part due to the influence of any specific religious dogma, aside from the general dumbing down that some religious ideologies seem to encourage.
so yes, we definetly should be encouraging a migration away from idiotic fairy story ideologies, but I also think there is something more to the story, something underlying the appeal to the overly simplified.
Is religion in america just a way to allow one to justify being lazy and ignorant? It would also explain the tremendous appeal of general "woo" in this country as well (think Depak Chopra). The attacks on science are just psychological defense reactions to what threatens the comfort of being ignorant and lazy, rationalized via invented religious dogma?
Is it all just one way to celebrate and embrace stupidity?
an appeal to the lowest common denominator?
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 30, 2007 5:14 PM
Why I said general properties of technological primate brains, not a god module.
Whether I like the idea of "eliminating religion" or not is irrelevant. It's never been done before despite some serious efforts and a lot of blood.
Left out of the discussion is that not all of religion is bad or this meme would not have survived. People are getting something out of it. My guess. Fear of death amelioration. Sense of community. Social support networks. Tribalism. A socially approved outlet to discriminate against others. Really, it would be nice to channel the energy into benign directions. During the Vietnam war, a lot of the antiwar leadership was from what are considered liberal Xian organizations. The Friends, some Catholic priests, and so on. A lot of the opposition to slavery was religiously based.
We've seen a twisting of the Xian religion by the fundie cults into something that would be a pathetic perversion except that they controlled the country for 6 years and have almost wrecked it. And the inevitable backlash is here as people focus on the most destructive properties.
Posted by: raven | November 30, 2007 5:15 PM
Oh, if only people acted as if that were the case, instead of merely saying so to sound grandiose. I mean, if you can't trust your ability to understand the Bible, how can you use it as a moral guide or a history book? What if that business about "a man should not lie with a person who is a guy" turns out to be one of those parts you don't understand? An infinite God could have an infinite number of reasons to tell a story about a snake and an apple, none of which you would comprehend.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 30, 2007 5:18 PM
To Blake #58:
You're right, but his comments function as a little more than mere grandiose words. Those statements like Huckabee's are insincere. They're usually just a useful club used for knocking down other people's interpretation of [insert overly-revered mythology book here]. Whenever someone interprets the Bible in a way he doesn't like he can just brush the argument aside by claiming that the arguer is "arrogant" for thinking he knows everything about the Bible. But don't expect him (or any other religionist or religion apologist) to apply the same sweeping dismissals to convenient interpretations.
Kinda like how it's "arrogant" to say there is no God and religion is a form of delusion, but "humble" to say there is a God and atheists are immoral, militant and rude. The argument has nomeaning and proves nothing, but it serves a (fallacious) function for the arguer nonetheless.
Posted by: Wes | November 30, 2007 5:27 PM
Err, are there evolutionary psychologists who are making that argument, rather than unapologetically approaching modern-day social dynamics from a myopic Panglossian perspective (or viewing modern-day social dynamics as an anomalous and probably pathological departure from the "normal" 1950s dynamics)?
Thanks Colugo (#49) for your spot-on comments in response to this. For everybody that fundamentally misunderstands the approach and claims of serious evolutionary psychology, read and learn:
Shit, we're not rid of structural functionalists? I thought we got rid of those fools.
I had to look it up (not real current on my cultural anthro/sociology jargon), but when I did, guess whose name popped up? D.S. Wilson's! (down at the end)
Many things of no positive merit, at least to humanity, exist, such as bigotry, racism, homophobia, HIV, cancer and malaria.
But nothing--nothing!--exists because it's of positive merit to "humanity." These things exist because they are, or were, of positive merit (or are, or were, perceived to be of merit) either to individual members of humanity (or, if you believe DS Wilson, small groups thereof), or to individual viruses, plasmodia, or cells.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 30, 2007 5:27 PM
Left out of the discussion is that not all of religion is bad or this meme would not have survived. People are getting something out of it.
It's not left out of the discussion, it's been challenged in this discussion. I commented on it in #4, and so did The Naturalist in #27. And we both agreed that your conclusion doesn't follow. The meme may be "getting something out of it," at people's expense. All we can say with any degree of confidence is that there are reasons why religion continues to thrive. Religious individuals themselves don't have to benefit for religions to persist.
Posted by: CJO | November 30, 2007 5:30 PM
It really bugs me when people say religion may be in decline in the Western world but is on the rise worldwide. The rise of Christian Fundamentalism in the third world is a product of missionary work. Missionaries are highly methodical groups dedicated to converting people to their religion. The funding of todays Christian missionary groups comes primarily from the US. Christian groups in the US are fat and wealthy due to the permissive legal environment; they don't pay taxes, they're immune to zoning and planning laws, and they get away with defrauding people of their money. The spread of Radical Islam is primarily due to oil rich countries. It's pure economics that's driving the rise of religion.
Implying that the spread of fundamentalism is due to some evolutionary need for religion is like implying that an innate need for Coca Cola explains the worldwide rise of that particular beverage. It's true that people like sugar and caffeine, but if people didn't like sugar and caffeine Coca Cola would have different ingredients, because the point of Coca Cola is simply to sell. Christianity and Islam have similar motivations. If that means providing medicine and the semblance of education then that's what they'll do. They have a lot of money, they're very methodical in their marketing, they've been at it a long time, and they have the entire international legal system of "religious rights" organizations shilling for them so they can establish anywhere and everywhere at low-cost and with benefits not available to any other charitable organization.
We're losing Africa, much of the Middle East, and even some Muslim communities in Europe to these people. While we're squabbling about metaphysics and possible evolutionary explanations for religion, their eye is focused on the bottom line, where it has been for centuries.
Posted by: poke | November 30, 2007 5:34 PM
I couldn't sympathize more with everyone's frustration, but do you think that maybe the use of terms like "these people" might account for secularism's failure to make much of a headway? Or should we just continue with the Dawkinsian "You're either with us or you're a delusional superstitious fool" strategy of winning hearts and minds? I mean, do you actually not see how you're driving people right into the arms of "these people"?
Posted by: Chris Wren | November 30, 2007 5:40 PM
oops.
Here's the bad link in #60:
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 30, 2007 5:41 PM
One difference between the U.S. and the other developed countries is that the latter have all a better social safety net, like health insurance, welfare... whereas in the U.S. your life is more insecure; here in the U.S., too many people are just one paycheck away or one dread disease away from ruin. In light of this, many might think that belonging to some (religious) community might offer some form of protection, both supernatural (pray for good health), and by the assistance of the community (after all charity is much advertised by religious institutions). (Snark: That's why social conservatives are against public health insurance and SCHIP).--
Then, if you live in the countryside, churches are powerful social institutions (and there is nowhere else to go, for entertainment, or business contacts [if you sell anything]). Rural areas are of course overrepresented in the U.S. political system. Also in Europe, rural areas are more religious (but bigger cities are closer by).--
Some churches in the U.S. might be declining, if it were not for immigrants (and immigrant labor priests); e.g. many older Catholic priests are of Irish origin, and the younger ones immigrants from Vietnam, Philippines, even India. (Sorry, I do not mean to slight immigrants, or the Irish,.. this is just an example). It indicates that the younger Irish seem to be less inclined to follow a religious vocation, as they have better job opportunities. The priesthood may be more attractive if you have less other opportunities, and you get a scholarship to study in the U.S.--
But still the rise of protestant fundamentalism in the U.S. is still a surprising development requiring better explanations. Perhaps it is part of a process of social differentiation. And I am still surprised when I -too often - find a high-tech worker being religious.
(And I still remember, when I was a graduate student with a broken leg needing a ride on a Sunday, a nice, religious couple whom I asked, answered that they could not help me, as they'd have to go to church service, but they'd pray for me. That answer was at variance with even my own protestant upbringing.)
Posted by: A | November 30, 2007 5:47 PM
CJO (#61):
I wonder if one could apply the idea of inter-lineage competition to the memes, rather than the people. After all, if you're willing to treat ideas as transmissible parasites, you might as well go all the way and hijack wholesale all the dynamics of host/pathogen systems. Heck, perhaps general propensities to the sorts of behaviors which combine to make religion arise as by-products of adaptations, while the memes responsible for specific religious beliefs are established via multi-level memic selection.
Wes (#59):
Good point.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 30, 2007 5:48 PM