Titled simply "Darwin's God," the feature in today's New York Times Sunday Magazine is a overview of theoretical musings -- you can't really call them full-fledges theories -- on why religion is so common among human societies. Not much in the way of new ideas, but a good survey of the current thinking among evolutionary psychologists. It doesn't give enough attention to the latest from the more interesting, and testable, field of neuroscience, however. For that, follow PZ Myers' introduction to a speech by Robert Sapolsky on what schizophrenia and shamanism have in common. There is some food for thought, and fodder for argument, in the Sunday feature, though.
The crux of the issue comes down to this:
If scientists are able to explain God, what then? Is explaining religion the same thing as explaining it away?
Psychologist Justin Barrett says no.
"Why wouldn't God, then, design us in such a way as to find belief in divinity quite natural?" Having a scientific explanation for mental phenomena does not mean we should stop believing in them, he wrote. "Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me -- should I then stop believing that she does?"
I, for one, find this line of thinking bizarre. What's the point of coming up with a logical, testable, empirical explanation for supernatural and/or religious belief if you're simply going to say, "Ahh, but God planned it that way"? Reminds me of the intelligent design arguments. No matter what scientists do, there's always going to be a non-falsifiable objection from the theists. And that's not science.
To Barrett, I paraphrase Monty Python: There you go, bringing god into again." I mean, look -- I know there's an evolutionary, biochemical explanation for the way I feel when I look into my four-month-old son's trusting eyes, but that doesn't make it any less wonderful. Not literally magical, mind you, but wonderful all the same. That says nothing about whether my son or I have an eternal soul. It is what it is -- an experience to cherish. Nothing more, nothing less.
- Log in to post comments
Let's imagine they're talking about something a little less controversial, like hallucinations:
"Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think ravenous mutant bunnies want to tackle me and implant a tracking device into my brain -- should I then stop believing that they're really out there?"
So, according to the religions, God created me with a brain. So I say unto them, I used my brain to figure out that anyone that believes in any type of god is an idiot. Period. End of story. Have a nice day.
It's a lot less mysterious than the accounts given by Darwinian evolutionists: people fear death, and belief in God gives them hope. God is also an intellectual proposition: an explanation for why reality exists and why it takes the form it does. It is not a very good intellectual proposition, but the fact that this concept also gives people hope is why it is so difficult for billions to abandon. In other words: the emotional effects of God-belief trump the intellectual shortcomings of God as a concept.
I don't think that the "Darwin's God" and the Sapolsky article particularly in conflict. The NYT piece seems to be explaining "Why we believe" with generalities about adaptation, group selection etc. to set out a *landscape* in Atran's words for religion. What Sapolsky's ideas seem to do is just add a factor that was not seriously considered in the NYT article, the adaptational advantage of heterozygotes for neuropathologies. IMO, Sapolsky's ideas work even better to explain "What we believe" and "What rituals do we use with our beliefs". Yhe schizotypal personality would set out the framework for a belief system while the obsessive-compulsive would be much more important in the formation of rituals, apologetics and the enforcement of those rituals. What I wonder about is what if both schizotypal behavior and obseeeive-compulsive bahavior are combined in one person. David Koresh, maybe?
I think there is definite merit in studying the evolution of beleif systems. Firstly, if it successful, it should shed important light on the differences amoung religions. This would probably help in learning how to get along in a world of diverse beleifs.
Secondly, while it won't directly challenge religion, the indirect fact that people see how religions could have developed in the absense of supernatural intervention -certainly makes an avenue available for those who do doubt. I think the numbers of doubters will increase as a result, over a few generations that could have a profound impact.
"Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me -- should I then stop believing that she does?"
If you've never had any contact or communications (or even any evidence that she exists) with this female you perceive to be your wife then yes you should stop believing she loves you or even believing she exists for that matter.
I think someone should do some research into why we don't believe. Unbelief has been found in every human culture in every era, even though it has been routinely subjected to vigorous efforts to stamp it out. Maybe unbelief has some adaptive value. Like I say, somone should look into it.
What's the point of coming up with a logical, testable, empirical explanation for supernatural and/or religious belief if you're simply going to say, "Ahh, but God planned it that way"? Reminds me of the intelligent design arguments. No matter what scientists do, there's always going to be a non-falsifiable objection from the theists. And that's not science.
No, it's not science, but it does provide the emotional comfort that the universe means something that some people seem to require to escape the proverbial abyss. Let's face it: some people (most people, as far as I can tell) are going to believe that there are forces out there that we can't see and that are guided by some sort of supernatural intelligence. As far as I'm concerned, it's ok if those people are out there as long as they don't make scientific claims about their beliefs. Some of them inevitably will, but most will just persist in the quiet assurance that god loves them.
The question of the existence or non-existence of a prime mover isn't subject to the scientific method anyway, so why get wrapped around the axle just because some people find solace in the thought that their lives have meaning beyond this earth?
natural, muhr, I think you are spot on!
Some of the cognitive tools discussed in the article are used by neuroscientists, and as long as they correlate to anything measurable however indirect it is fine. But if it is too hard to research it seems to go into the "just so" land of evolutionary psychology.
Atheism is a different proposition, sans rituals and dogmas, so the mode of correlation between personality traits and behavior, if it is at all identifiable as such, is probably not the same as for religion.
But morality depends to a certain degree on ToM. This seems to propose to me that since atheists doesn't use preconceived dogma on moral issues, at least before they choose to adopt an attitude, it may be that they individually benefit from or even need a good ToM.
Er, so my proposal was to look for correlations there, if it is possible to find any at all.