Religion is hardwired in the brain, scientists theorize

[Stone Island]

Religion is hardwired in the brain, scientists theorize (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html?full=true):
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 attribute

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.

ALLAHPUNDIT (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/04/heart-ache-religion-is-hardwired-in-the-brain-scientists-theorize/)is annoyed because,

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.

[Stone Island]

Also from the article (because I know how you think):

So if religion is a natural consequence of how our brains work, where does that leave god? All the researchers involved stress that none of this says anything about the existence or otherwise of gods: as Barratt points out, whether or not a belief is true is independent of why people believe it.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Religion is hardwired in the brain, scientists theorize

Not in mine, it isn't

[Hokulele]

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.


I call shenanigans. How much of this is an artifact of language rather than belief?

[linusrichard]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be taking away from this. As usual, Stone Island doesn't dare to make an argument in his OP. The only thing I can think of is that, if you thought that the existence of religion was evidence of the existence of God, this article might take the wind out of that sail. I have a feeling that wasn't Stone Island's point, but I don't know how he thinks (even though he knows how I think, apparently).

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be taking away from this. As usual, Stone Island doesn't dare to make an argument in his OP. The only thing I can think of is that, if you thought that the existence of religion was evidence of the existence of God, this article might take the wind out of that sail. I have a feeling that wasn't Stone Island's point, but I don't know how he thinks (even though he knows how I think, apparently).

I think he's making the implication that we are all Religious deep down inside because it's the number one Meme that mankind can't survive with. A very poor argument of course. It's like claiming that everyone is a Republican deep down inside. They just won't admit it.

[Bikewer]

You could make just as strong a case that religion (in it's most primitive forms) is a reaction of our ancestors to phenomena that they couldn't explain, coupled with a unique and discomforting reality of mortality.
I try to think of what it must have been like for our imaginative but primitive ancestors trying to explain the movement of heavenly bodies, earthquakes, thunder, volcanoes, and the like...
As well oddments like auditory hallucinations ("I swear, Oog, I heard mama call my name, and she's been dead these many moons..."), dreams, and so forth.

We may have in us the hard-wired tendency to create "spiritual" explanations for these things; our ancestors would have likely come to no other conclusion.

[Mister Agenda]

Our prefrontal cortex allows us to override at least some of our 'hardwired' programming. Culture often reinforces instinct, but it can also counter it. We may well have tendencies to attribute agency to the nonconscious (as my brother demonstrates when he is working on his car), but we can recognize this tendency for what it is and temper it (well, I'm not sure my brother can).

[Safe-Keeper]

Humans very likely have an innate "religion drive". Doesn't make said religion more true, of course.

[INRM]

Safe-Keeper,

I don't think there is a specific part of the brain that controls religion... I don't think there's a "religious cortex"

[godless dave]

As Stone Island points out, this is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether a god or gods exist.

[Nursefoxfire]

There's an article in today's Time magazine called How Faith Can Heal: The Biology of Belief.

Here's a linky: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1879016,00.html

I haven't don't more than skim it yet, but it might contribute to this conversation.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Well even if this article is true the religious fundamentalists would just appeal to naive scientific antirealism and be on their merry way.

[Silentknight]

However, if there's any natural variation in this type of behavior, just as there is across all types of behaviors, then it also implies that some people simply aren't wired for religion in the first place. If this was meant to be an argument that deep down we're all religious, it kind of backfires.

[Fiona]

This is a very strange article indeed.

People readily form relationships with non-existent others:

What does this mean? On the face of it this seems to me to be completely untrue.

roughly half of all 4-year-olds have had an imaginary friend,

Really? How is that determined? Is this research distinguishing between what is commonly understood by the term "imaginary friend" and the much more common (IMO) "pretend friend"? Again this just does not ring true to me though I am open to correction because I have not seen any studies on this


and adults often form and maintain relationships with dead relatives, fictional characters and fantasy partners.

Often????


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.

Is he saying that the ability to empathise is dependent on imaginary friends? I don't understand this at all.

[rocketdodger]

I don't see anything wrong with the conclusions of that article.

So what if supernatural belief is hard-wired?

[Fiona]

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/taylor1993.pdf

[MG1962]

Perhaps the sense of awarness leads to a spiritual side. Although still a touch inconclusive, if one accepts the position that Neanderthal man had religion. Then self aware intelligence is batting 2 - 0

Now the question then becomes, what off other self aware higher mammals. Chimps dolphins and potentially elephants have a sense of morality. If they had religion or spirituality, could the communicate the concept to us

[babbits]

I have believed this for years. How else do you explain how those theists who are otherwise intelligent people can 'switch modes of perception' , from active and analytical to uncritical and passive, seamlessly and without conscious awareness? It's not the dumb theists I marvel at. It's how the smart ones, skeptics when the 'real' world is concerned, can accept the silliest crap imaginable about the imaginary world.

I speculate that at some point after language was developed, and also at some critical stage in human history, when climate or disease or some x had reduced human numbers, life became so difficult and painful that many just gave up. That last hunting expedition through the snow, and the resulting broken leg? The woman who left her skeletal baby in the snow? Forget it. Wrap up in a skin, turn face to the wall...

But some had the gene. They had been considered amusing before, not taken too seriously. But now, as they began to hallucinate in the cold, their fantasies created a place of bliss, where there was no death, no pain. All you had to do was enter this wonderland. But try as they could, entry didn't happen. So rationalize, why not, without destroying the thread of the fantasy. "It must be that we are not worthy -- yet."

So this hope of better things was what kept them trying, just a little bit longer. And this even helped a few of those who didn't have the gene! Because they would keep up with the group based on pure instinct, now that it was a bit revitalized.

That one small advantage that will result in even one more biological descendant provides a sufficient 'edge', genetically speaking.

Of course the visionaries were too feckless to lead the tribe, but the chiefs and the visionaries saw mutual advantage. The chief saw this as a way to unite the tribe, so the chief, even if he didn't have the gene, would go along. The visionary was happy for the protection of one who had "earthly" power.

Thus began the ancient team of shaman/pope/ayatollah and chief/king/emperor which persists to this day -- viz. Geo. Bush allying with the RR.

[Iconoclast08]

"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."

I would be very curious to see some of the raw interview data on this (i.e., a transcript). Perhaps the student interviewer over-interpreted the rather natural human urge to somehow incorporate a traumatic life event into our "life narrative" and ascribe some sense of personal meaning. That, to me, would be very different from proposing a "higher" purpose as coming from a god figure. There is such a thing as secular meaning-making.

[joobz]

I shall withhold comment.

I am not convinced that this isn't a fishing attempt by stoneisland for help on a class paper. it seems like the kind of subject that would be covered in an undergraduate class.

[Foster Zygote]

I shall withhold comment.

I am not convinced that this isn't a fishing attempt by stoneisland for help on a class paper. it seems like the kind of subject that would be covered in an undergraduate class.

You just want to get *plonked* like the cool kids.

[rikzilla]

So let's say the brain is actually pre-wired to look for "god-patterns", maybe no different from looking for "face-patterns"?? Although the evolutionary use of such a thing eludes me at the moment, maybe there's some social purpose....

Anyway, even given the brain's propensity for dreaming up gods, goddesses, nymphs, and jujus...how does this help Stoney in his quest to convince us that xtianity is the one truth amid the vast sea of dieties?

-z

[Skeptic]

I think he's making the implication that we are all Religious deep down inside because it's the number one Meme that mankind can't survive with.

Even if that were true, so what? If anything, it would be evidence against the truth of religion being true, since it shows people believe in religion for reasons that are hard-wired and not due to any evidence.

[Beerina]

So let's say the brain is actually pre-wired to look for "god-patterns", maybe no different from looking for "face-patterns"?? Although the evolutionary use of such a thing eludes me at the moment, maybe there's some social purpose....

Anyway, even given the brain's propensity for dreaming up gods, goddesses, nymphs, and jujus...how does this help Stoney in his quest to convince us that xtianity is the one truth amid the vast sea of dieties?

-z

Evolutionary biologist/sociologists presume there must have been some benefit to religion, or it wouldn't exist. That's probably going too far.

Such things can exist, and be little more than a parasite that just doesn't harm too much the individuals or the species. There need be nothing positive about it at all for the host for it to exist long-term and stable. Of course, 10k years+ isn't necessarily long-term evolutionarily, so it's a conceit to think the current situation is evidence of either thing.



The idea that it's just an offshoot of the associational mind + the cold hard facts of reality is very parsimonious. Animals associate strange bumps and waving grass as danger -- and they evolved to do so, and wisely, so to speak.

Now increase brainpower, and you start wondering what it is. It's still safest to presume danger, but now you think it could be an animal -- or a human.

But you go look! Nothing there. Huh. Well, maybe I just can't see it. But I can see humans. So maybe there's something else, I'll name it a ghost or spirit, a human or animal or something that I just cannot see.

Ten thousand years of "my god is tougher than your god" one-upsmanship, and presto! The idiotic concept of an "infinitely powerful" (since it's gauche to have a god who is wimpier than other gods -- even if just in theory), "infinitely good" (who wants to worship a bad boy), and "all knowing" (similarl to power, you don't want a god who's second-rate) god vomits into being.

Brain hardwiring not required for this theory, though there may be some specialty circuits dealing with strange noises and tall grass movements that are required for it, along for other things.

Much more disturbing might be "submissal" as a hardwiring -- brought about by 5,000 years of brutal dictatorship. You wanna see something that'll make you puke about the human condition? Think about that.

[Stone Island]

I shall withhold comment.

I am not convinced that this isn't a fishing attempt by stoneisland for help on a class paper. it seems like the kind of subject that would be covered in an undergraduate class.

When you've got nothing else to say, you can always go after motives, eh?

[godless dave]

When you've got nothing to say, you can always post an excerpt of someone else's work with no comment.

[Foster Zygote]

When you've got nothing else to say, you can always go after motives, eh?

Joobz has had plenty to say. Stone Island has simply ignored it, along with what most others have said.

[joobz]

When you've got nothing else to say, you can always go after motives, eh?
Yup. And I seem to be validated by the fact that you haven't commented to anyone but my obvious non-comment.
You've started ~5 threads, each with varying degrees of insults to athiests. When you were approached with reasonable critiques and shown why your argument (When you presented an argument) was flawed, you resorted to posting tangentially related quotes with no context provided.

This one seemed a bit different in content and I had to ask, why? The answer I came to was that you were fishing for ideas, knowing there is a wealth of them here. I'm not against providing assistance, but when it's provided under false pretenses, I think it's dishonest.


If you wish a response to the OP: I do not think religion is hardwired as much as social and cultural formation is. Since religion is a reflection of culture (a formalization of group tranditions and customs), it only stands to reason that is is a likely outcome that.


ETA: 22 posts other than mine. Each with much better content and information. Yet, you responded to me.
ARe you going after what you think is low hanging fruit, did you not understand the other posters great contributions, or did I hit too close to home?

[Stone Island]

Not in mine, it isn't

Good for him.

I call shenanigans. How much of this is an artifact of language rather than belief?

Didn't read the OP. What am I supposed to say? RTFOP.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be taking away from this. As usual, Stone Island doesn't dare to make an argument in his OP. The only thing I can think of is that, if you thought that the existence of religion was evidence of the existence of God, this article might take the wind out of that sail. I have a feeling that wasn't Stone Island's point, but I don't know how he thinks (even though he knows how I think, apparently).

Appeal to motives.

I think he's making the implication that we are all Religious deep down inside because it's the number one Meme that mankind can't survive with. A very poor argument of course. It's like claiming that everyone is a Republican deep down inside. They just won't admit it.

Didn't make any implication at all in the OP. Appeal to motives.

You could make just as strong a case that religion (in it's most primitive forms) is a reaction of our ancestors to phenomena that they couldn't explain, coupled with a unique and discomforting reality of mortality.
I try to think of what it must have been like for our imaginative but primitive ancestors trying to explain the movement of heavenly bodies, earthquakes, thunder, volcanoes, and the like...
As well oddments like auditory hallucinations ("I swear, Oog, I heard mama call my name, and she's been dead these many moons..."), dreams, and so forth.

We may have in us the hard-wired tendency to create "spiritual" explanations for these things; our ancestors would have likely come to no other conclusion.

Right, sounds like some of the conclusions from the OP.

Our prefrontal cortex allows us to override at least some of our 'hardwired' programming. Culture often reinforces instinct, but it can also counter it. We may well have tendencies to attribute agency to the nonconscious (as my brother demonstrates when he is working on his car), but we can recognize this tendency for what it is and temper it (well, I'm not sure my brother can).

Fair enough.

Humans very likely have an innate "religion drive". Doesn't make said religion more true, of course.

Didn't read the OP.

Safe-Keeper,

I don't think there is a specific part of the brain that controls religion... I don't think there's a "religious cortex"

May have read the OP. Hard to tell.

Well even if this article is true the religious fundamentalists would just appeal to naive scientific antirealism and be on their merry way.

Pointless denunciation.

However, if there's any natural variation in this type of behavior, just as there is across all types of behaviors, then it also implies that some people simply aren't wired for religion in the first place. If this was meant to be an argument that deep down we're all religious, it kind of backfires.

Interesting point, followed by appeal to motives.

This is a very strange article indeed.

What does this mean? On the face of it this seems to me to be completely untrue.

Really? How is that determined? Is this research distinguishing between what is commonly understood by the term "imaginary friend" and the much more common (IMO) "pretend friend"? Again this just does not ring true to me though I am open to correction because I have not seen any studies on this

Often????

Is he saying that the ability to empathise is dependent on imaginary friends? I don't understand this at all.

You do a few scientific studies, you present your results, and Fiona says, "How can that be true?"

I don't see anything wrong with the conclusions of that article.

So what if supernatural belief is hard-wired?

Right. So what?

So let's say the brain is actually pre-wired to look for "god-patterns", maybe no different from looking for "face-patterns"?? Although the evolutionary use of such a thing eludes me at the moment, maybe there's some social purpose....

Anyway, even given the brain's propensity for dreaming up gods, goddesses, nymphs, and jujus...how does this help Stoney in his quest to convince us that xtianity is the one truth amid the vast sea of dieties?
-z

Not really adding anything followed by appeal to motives.

Evolutionary biologist/sociologists presume there must have been some benefit to religion, or it wouldn't exist. That's probably going too far.

Such things can exist, and be little more than a parasite that just doesn't harm too much the individuals or the species. There need be nothing positive about it at all for the host for it to exist long-term and stable. Of course, 10k years+ isn't necessarily long-term evolutionarily, so it's a conceit to think the current situation is evidence of either thing.

The idea that it's just an offshoot of the associational mind + the cold hard facts of reality is very parsimonious. Animals associate strange bumps and waving grass as danger -- and they evolved to do so, and wisely, so to speak.

Now increase brainpower, and you start wondering what it is. It's still safest to presume danger, but now you think it could be an animal -- or a human.

But you go look! Nothing there. Huh. Well, maybe I just can't see it. But I can see humans. So maybe there's something else, I'll name it a ghost or spirit, a human or animal or something that I just cannot see.

Ten thousand years of "my god is tougher than your god" one-upsmanship, and presto! The idiotic concept of an "infinitely powerful" (since it's gauche to have a god who is wimpier than other gods -- even if just in theory), "infinitely good" (who wants to worship a bad boy), and "all knowing" (similarl to power, you don't want a god who's second-rate) god vomits into being.

Brain hardwiring not required for this theory, though there may be some specialty circuits dealing with strange noises and tall grass movements that are required for it, along for other things.

Much more disturbing might be "submissal" as a hardwiring -- brought about by 5,000 years of brutal dictatorship. You wanna see something that'll make you puke about the human condition? Think about that.

An attempt to come to terms with the OP, mixed up with some nasty assumptions about what religious belief means to people who believe it. It probably wouldn't be helpful to get in some long discussion as to whether the history of religious belief is brutal or whatnot.

Yup. And I seem to be validated by the fact that you haven't commented to anyone but my obvious non-comment.
You've started ~5 threads, each with varying degrees of insults to athiests. When you were approached with reasonable critiques and shown why your argument (When you presented an argument) was flawed, you resorted to posting tangentially related quotes with no context provided.

This one seemed a bit different in content and I had to ask, why? The answer I came to was that you were fishing for ideas, knowing there is a wealth of them here. I'm not against providing assistance, but when it's provided under false pretenses, I think it's dishonest.


If you wish a response to the OP: I do not think religion is hardwired as much as social and cultural formation is. Since religion is a reflection of culture (a formalization of group tranditions and customs), it only stands to reason that is is a likely outcome that.


ETA: 22 posts other than mine. Each with much better content and information. Yet, you responded to me.
ARe you going after what you think is low hanging fruit, did you not understand the other posters great contributions, or did I hit too close to home?

More social and cultural than hardwired. Except,
Much of that evidence comes from experiments carried out on children, who are seen as revealing a "default state" of the mind that persists, albeit in modified form, into adulthood. "Children the world over have a strong natural receptivity to believing in gods because of the way their minds work, and this early developing receptivity continues to anchor our intuitive thinking throughout life," says anthropologist Justin Barrett of the University of Oxford

That is before the social and cultural aspects of human beings are deeply ingrained. You obviously raise a question which is important, but by dealing with children I think the avoid the most obvious objections.

I'm still waiting for a great contribution. What did I miss?

[Stone Island]

Evolutionary biologist/sociologists presume there must have been some benefit to religion, or it wouldn't exist. That's probably going too far.

Such things can exist, and be little more than a parasite that just doesn't harm too much the individuals or the species. There need be nothing positive about it at all for the host for it to exist long-term and stable. Of course, 10k years+ isn't necessarily long-term evolutionarily, so it's a conceit to think the current situation is evidence of either thing.



The idea that it's just an offshoot of the associational mind + the cold hard facts of reality is very parsimonious. Animals associate strange bumps and waving grass as danger -- and they evolved to do so, and wisely, so to speak.

Now increase brainpower, and you start wondering what it is. It's still safest to presume danger, but now you think it could be an animal -- or a human.

But you go look! Nothing there. Huh. Well, maybe I just can't see it. But I can see humans. So maybe there's something else, I'll name it a ghost or spirit, a human or animal or something that I just cannot see.

Ten thousand years of "my god is tougher than your god" one-upsmanship, and presto! The idiotic concept of an "infinitely powerful" (since it's gauche to have a god who is wimpier than other gods -- even if just in theory), "infinitely good" (who wants to worship a bad boy), and "all knowing" (similarl to power, you don't want a god who's second-rate) god vomits into being.

Brain hardwiring not required for this theory, though there may be some specialty circuits dealing with strange noises and tall grass movements that are required for it, along for other things.

Much more disturbing might be "submissal" as a hardwiring -- brought about by 5,000 years of brutal dictatorship. You wanna see something that'll make you puke about the human condition? Think about that.

From the OP:
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that religion is propagated through indoctrination, especially of children. Evolution predisposes children to swallow whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them, he argues, as trusting obedience is valuable for survival. This also leads to what Dawkins calls "slavish gullibility" in the face of religious claims.

If children have an innate belief in god, however, where does that leave the indoctrination hypothesis? "I am thoroughly happy with believing that children are predisposed to believe in invisible gods - I always was," says Dawkins. "But I also find the indoctrination hypothesis plausible. The two influences could, and I suspect do, reinforce one another." He suggests that evolved gullibility converts a child's general predisposition to believe in god into a specific belief in the god (or gods) their parents worship.

[joobz]

More social and cultural than hardwired. Except,


That is before the social and cultural aspects of human beings are deeply ingrained. You obviously raise a question which is important, but by dealing with children I think the avoid the most obvious objections.
Are you telling me that children don't pick up social cultural cues??

Why is it that my 2 year old son will stand with his hands crossed behind his back rocking on his feet exactly like his dad does when he's thinking?
Are you telling me this behavior is nature over nurture?





I'm still waiting for a great contribution. What did I miss?
You called Linus richards an appeal to motives but it was a clear question regarding the point of the OP. That's hardly meaningless.

Hokulele mentioned that much of what was presented can easily be explained through poorly conducted studies.
Fiona concured this assessment by highlighting the weird use of language.
And Misteragenda describes the link to cultural wiring.

[Stone Island]

Are you telling me that children don't pick up social cultural cues??

No. But if you're going to look anywhere to where the hard-wiring has some chance of showing through, it's going to be children.

As for the rest, you should find the article. Look in the literature review section.

[Hokulele]

Didn't read the OP. What am I supposed to say? RTFOP.


RMFP.

They may have found an artifact of language, not necessarily religion. Without the transcripts of the interviews, you cannot conclusively state otherwise.

If I say, "My car died," does this mean I believe it was alive at one point?

[Stone Island]

RMFP.

They may have found an artifact of language, not necessarily religion. Without the transcripts of the interviews, you cannot conclusively state otherwise.

If I say, "My car died," does this mean I believe it was alive at one point?

OMGoodness.

They may have. They may have 200 Xanax fried, homicidal chimps in the back with a bunch of word processors pounding out these studies.

I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they can report their own findings accurately.

[paximperium]

I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they can report their own findings accurately.
So you don't know how to evaluate or review a research paper?

[Stone Island]

So you don't know how to evaluate or review a research paper?

DQOTD.

I'm not going to evaluate a research paper I don't have.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't this the God Gene revisited and haven't we discussed it before?

That said, the Times article is certainly worth a thread on its own.

[Hokulele]

I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they can report their own findings accurately.


Why? It wouldn't be the first time this type of mistake has been made.

I'm not going to evaluate a research paper I don't have.


Ah, you are willing to accept their conclusions, but are unwilling to examine their methods.

[paximperium]

DQOTD.

I'm not going to evaluate a research paper I don't have.
So why are you blindly going to, "give them the benefit of the doubt that they can report their own findings accurately."?

[linusrichard]

Appeal to motives.

Baloney. Along with much or most of the rest of the post, but I'm only quoting your response to me. Which is baloney.

I'm not appealing to anything. I'm not arguing anything. All I'm doing is trying to figure out what I'm supposed to be taking away from the OP, coming up with my honest best guess, but then guessing, again honestly, but based on what little I know of you, that that's not what you intended. If my guess is wrong, say so - say "Why yes, linusrichard, that's exactly what I intended you to take away from this." Or if my guess is right say, "You're right, linusrichard, the point I really thought was relevant was not what you found, but ...." And as a bonus, you can also say, "And here's why the point you took away from it was incorrect: ..." That's how we get good discussions.

Or, you can post this stuff, and let the discussions go where they may.

But instead, you've got this really cowardly MO of posting articles or excerpts or rude questions without making an argument, and then attacking people who attempt to try to turn your OP into something worth discussing. Look, if somebody tries - and yes, people do - to assume you're making an argument you're not making, it's fine to set them straight. I saw a ton of it in the "hanging atheists from trees" thread. A lot of people (in my opinion) missed the point completely. Set them straight, fine. But the people who got the point - or made fair guesses in good faith - don't get a fair chance to address it, because you've retained this plausible deniability. If I say "based on your OP, I think you're arguing x, and here's why x is wrong," and if you weren't intending to argue x, then that's fine. But what were you intending to argue? Because you're standing from a position where, no matter what we guess you're arguing, if we refute it, you can just claim you weren't arguing that, and it's not honest, and it's not fair.

So here's my response again, but laid out better for you:
1. This OP is minimally interesting per se.
2. This OP is significantly interesting if we can get something out of it.
3. The main thing I get out of it is that it makes it less likely that the existence of religion is evidence of the existence of God.
4. I don't think you would post an article because it demonstrates that existence of religion is not good evidence of the existence of God.
5. I don't know why you posted this article, and I am curious.

Now, if 4 is wrong, then 4 is wrong. Tell me, "linusrichard, 4 is wrong." And that's fine. It will surprise me. But if you think you know what "appeal to motives" means, then you are welcome to point out where I have committed this fallacy. Or any of the other people you've falsely accused. I'll give you a hint: Wikipedia says that "Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer." I'll give you a second hint: Nobody's challenged your thesis, because as usual you've allowed us no clue as to what your thesis is.

[Stone Island]

it's not fair.
What, is this some sort of game to you?

[babbits]

Iconoclast says: I would be very curious to see some of the raw interview data on this (i.e., a transcript).

Actually without it, Bering's entire claim is meaningless.

[Hokulele]

Iconoclast says: I would be very curious to see some of the raw interview data on this (i.e., a transcript).

Actually without it, Bering's entire claim is meaningless.


Especially when you review some of the interview data from another study that was included in the article.

Our predisposition to believe in a supernatural world stays with us as we get older. Kelemen has found that adults are just as inclined to see design and intention where there is none. Put under pressure to explain natural phenomena, adults often fall back on teleological arguments, such as "trees produce oxygen so that animals can breathe" or "the sun is hot because warmth nurtures life". Though she doesn't yet have evidence that this tendency is linked to belief in god, Kelemen does have results showing that most adults tacitly believe they have souls.


Like I said, language artifacts.

[linusrichard]

What, is this some sort of game to you?
No. Do you feel fairness should be restricted to games?

ETA:


tl;dr

Noted!

[Stone Island]

4. I don't think you would post an article because it demonstrates that existence of religion is not good evidence of the existence of God.

There is no possible empirical evidence for the existence of God. I agree with Martin that considered from a verificationist perspective, God talk is meaningless. Negative atheism is justified.

My question has always been, is positive atheism justified?

[linusrichard]

There is no possible empirical evidence for the existence of God. I agree with Martin that considered from a verificationist perspective, God talk is meaningless. Negative atheism is justified.

My question has always been, is positive atheism justified?

Depends on how you define it.

"I don't believe in God": Justified
"I believe there is no God, in fact, I'm sure of it": Not justified
"I believe there is no God, in fact, I'm all but sure of it": I lean toward Not justified, but I don't know. This was my position for a long time, and I'm starting to have doubts as to whether it's justified.
"I believe there is no God, but it's only my best guess": I have no idea.

If that's your question, about either of those last two, I agree that it's an interesting one. I don't see how it relates to the OP.

Of course, that assumes you're talking about God as a category. Change it to any specific God, and I don't know if the question is difficult or interesting any longer.

[ThatSoundAgain]

I'm still thinking that if it really is the case that humans are hardwired for theism, this has plausible common-sense explanations. Just look at how we think about the world in general, always constructing narratives, empathising, ascribing agency. Imagining, building, designing.

But I agree that this doesn't necessarily say anything about the truth value of theism. However, once you posit an intervening god of the omnipotent variety, you can't really trust that you can know anything at all. Any apparent explanation for any phenomenon could merely be a perfect illusion sustained by a supreme being. The carpet could be yanked out from under you at any time, the laws of physics change from one moment to the next.

linusrichard, just out of curiosity, what do you see as the line between "god as a category" and "any specific god" in your post above? I ask because even "god as a category" needs some minimum definition to make sense.

[rikzilla]

Ok Stoney, I'll bite aNd ask you the specific $64,000 question: "What is your point in posting this OP?"

So what if the brain likes to dream of gods? Do you imagine that somehow this makes your god more plausible? Of course you seem to be a fairly bright person so you must know that your god idea is merely one of many hundreds or even thousands that have existed in one form or another throughout history and pre-history.

Now I'm going to ask you a very non-ambiguous and specific question: "Is the Christian God more likely to exist than Zeus?" If so, why?

-z

[joobz]

No. But if you're going to look anywhere to where the hard-wiring has some chance of showing through, it's going to be children.
Yes, but because there are so many other possible explanations, studies must be conducted carefully. Anyone who had any exposure to graduate level work should be aware of the fickle nature of studies and how often they can generate illfound conclusions. As I explain to my students, this is the reason why we seperate the results section from the discussion section. Results are what they are and are the reliable part of a paper. The discussion is what we understand from these results and what we accept to be potentially biased and wrong.

As for the rest, you should find the article. Look in the literature review section.
OMGoodness.

They may have. They may have 200 Xanax fried, homicidal chimps in the back with a bunch of word processors pounding out these studies.

I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they can report their own findings accurately.

DQOTD.

I'm not going to evaluate a research paper I don't have.
Amusingly, after asking that I look up the paper you admit to not having read it yourself. Again, it is strange that you would so passively accept the author's conclusions without exercising any critical thinking. For me, after 4 yours of graduate school, it's impossible for me to read any report on a science paper and accept it at face value.

And, if you didn't read the research paper and don't have an understanding of the methodology used, why did you say this to Hok?

Didn't read the OP. What am I supposed to say? RTFOP.
Wouldn't a smarter reply have been, "Hmm, that's a good point. I should look into it more."

[Safe-Keeper]

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argues that religion is propagated through indoctrination, especially of children. Evolution predisposes children to swallow whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them, he argues, as trusting obedience is valuable for survival. This also leads to what Dawkins calls "slavish gullibility" in the face of religious claims.

If children have an innate belief in god, however, where does that leave the indoctrination hypothesis?Right back at you: if children automatically go religious, why the indoctrination? Surely it'd be easier to just let the kid's natural hard-wiring program him or her into an obedient little Yahweh-worshiper?

Not fairWhat, is this some sort of game to you? I was unaware that fairness had to exist only in games. Does the same thing go for courtesy, politeness and justice?

[linusrichard]

linusrichard, just out of curiosity, what do you see as the line between "god as a category" and "any specific god" in your post above? I ask because even "god as a category" needs some minimum definition to make sense.

What I mean by "God as a category" is the small-g god, or deity. I don't know exactly how to define such a thing, but it seems like one possible type of god is the god who just goes off somewhere and hides, undetectable, with no evidence for or against. I don't know if "strong positive atheism" is justified with respect to this god, and thus I don't know if "strong positive atheism" is justified with respect to god as a category.

What I mean by "any specific God" is Jehovah, Rama, Zeus, Odin, Allah (assuming you feel Allah is different from Jehovah, which I don't, but it's kind of like asking if the prince in Hamlet is different from the prince in Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead), Amaterasu, Ahura-Mazda, etc. These Gods supposedly interact with the world, and with people in it, and in these specific cases, the absence of evidence is, I say, evidence of absence, and I think strong positive atheism is probably justified.

I guess where I go wrong is with the God of the Deists. This is a "specific God," I suppose, but one which could exist without any observable evidence, if I understand Deism correctly. So - a hole in my point.

[ThatSoundAgain]

What I mean by "God as a category" is the small-g god, or deity. I don't know exactly how to define such a thing, but it seems like one possible type of god is the god who just goes off somewhere and hides, undetectable, with no evidence for or against. I don't know if "strong positive atheism" is justified with respect to this god, and thus I don't know if "strong positive atheism" is justified with respect to god as a category.

Non-intervening. Still, it'd have to have some other characteristics - supernatural, very (if not all-) powerful, creator of the universe?

What I mean by "any specific God" is Jehovah, Rama, Zeus, Odin, Allah (assuming you feel Allah is different from Jehovah, which I don't, but it's kind of like asking if the prince in Hamlet is different from the prince in Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead), Amaterasu, Ahura-Mazda, etc. These Gods supposedly interact with the world, and with people in it, and in these specific cases, the absence of evidence is, I say, evidence of absence, and I think strong positive atheism is probably justified.

That's the part I wasn't confused about. Agree completely.

I guess where I go wrong is with the God of the Deists. This is a "specific God," I suppose, but one which could exist without any observable evidence, if I understand Deism correctly. So - a hole in my point.

Don't feel bad - the concept is only as specific as "all of the universe" ;)

For all these categories, the pragmatist will say: That's all well and good, but if we cant detect the deity because it doesn't do anything, if it doesn't affect the world, then it can safely be regarded as non-existent.

I'm increasingly finding myself in agreement with that camp. I also think that this is what Dawkins means when he says he's six out of seven on the atheist scale.

[godless dave]

I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they can report their own findings accurately.


Wow. That is precisely the opposite of critical thinking.

[godless dave]

So what if the brain likes to dream of gods? Do you imagine that somehow this makes your god more plausible?

He already said that it doesn't. Studies like this are interesting (at least to me) from a psychological and neurological perspective, but they are irrelevant to the concept of atheism itself.

[Dymanic]

Right back at you: if children automatically go religious, why the indoctrination? Surely it'd be easier to just let the kid's natural hard-wiring program him or her into an obedient little Yahweh-worshiper?Think of language aquisition. Infants and toddlers have a phenomenal capacity for learning language, but do not come front-loaded with a preference for any particular language; Chinese toddlers raised by English-speaking parents learn English as easily as they would have learned Chinese had they been raised by Chinese-speaking parents.

Like language, "religion" is learned; the capacity for it is what is innate. Children automatically go superstitious; magical thinking provides a readily accessible means for interpreting the baffling complexity that surrounds them. When a computer program encounters a gap between known pieces of information, it stops dead in its tracks (often, despite the best efforts by its programmers to anticipate and prevent this very thing). One of the interesting things about the human brain is the swiftness and ease with which it handles the same problem: it just makes something up.

[Safe-Keeper]

Exactly. This was what I was trying to point out to Stone Isle.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Depends on how you define it.

"I don't believe in God": Justified
"I believe there is no God, in fact, I'm sure of it": Not justified
"I believe there is no God, in fact, I'm all but sure of it": I lean toward Not justified, but I don't know. This was my position for a long time, and I'm starting to have doubts as to whether it's justified.
"I believe there is no God, but it's only my best guess": I have no idea.

If that's your question, about either of those last two, I agree that it's an interesting one. I don't see how it relates to the OP.

Of course, that assumes you're talking about God as a category. Change it to any specific God, and I don't know if the question is difficult or interesting any longer.I believe the evidence supports the conclusion, god beliefs are generated by human storytelling and myth making. That leaves no god evidence left to worry about.

[Dymanic]

I believe the evidence supports the conclusion, god beliefs are generated by human storytelling and myth making. That leaves no god evidence left to worry about.It is the natural predisposition to magical thinking that enables the stories and myths to get so much traction. Withhold from children those stories and myths, and they'll make up new ones. They'll do it anyway. They'll do it even if they are explicitly discouraged from doing so (as any fundamentalist parent will attest). Infants are not born with "god beliefs", but they are born with a predilection for magical thinking which allows them to be very easily molded into believers of a specific brand of nonsense.

I have a sort of extended family member who is a "periodic" JW. During her latest "relapse", she threw out a perfectly good DVD set of (Peter Jackson's) Lord of the Rings. Too spiritualistic, doncha know. Now, Tolkien doesn't quite do for me what he did when I was fourteen, but I still enjoy the occasional romp through some fantasy land, be it Middle Earth or wherever. I see the ability to indulge that as being a vital aspect of human cognition. It's nice to be able to pull your head back out of that -- to reinstate a suspended disbelief -- but I can't imagine life without imagination (a paradox I am unable to resolve analytically or otherwise).

Even now that most of us have left the African savanna, life and death can still turn on decisions which must be made quickly, and on incomplete information. The human brain can not only respond to this challenge in a host of creative and very flexible ways, it can do so almost instantaneously. But all this instantaneous creativity and flexibility comes at a price: it's hard to turn it off.

[Elizabeth I]

Why? It wouldn't be the first time this type of mistake has been made.

Or that outright evidence-fudging took place, c.f. the "prayer heals" "study."

[Magyar]

so let me get this straight. Most 4 year olds have imaginary friends
there for religion - which is a political/social construct - and god is real.

Wouldn't it be a far more simple and more appropriate conclusion that
human brain wiring is naturally far more susceptible to mental disorders than we care to admit? I mean if I walk around declaring that I am Napoleon, Or the REAL President, they lock me up. The ONLY uniqueness of the religious delusion/mental disorder is that it's more common, thus achieving a sense of normalcy (which is false).

[Dymanic]

so let me get this straight. Most 4 year olds have imaginary friends there for religion - which is a political/social construct - and god is real. That does appear to be in need of some straightening.

Religion is as real as any other social or political construct, regardless of what 4 year olds do or don't imagine; but no one has provided evidence for the existence of God (nor attempted to argue for any such thing on any basis in this thread, unless I've missed something).

[Stone Island]

so let me get this straight. Most 4 year olds have imaginary friends
there for religion - which is a political/social construct - and god is real.

Wouldn't it be a far more simple and more appropriate conclusion that
human brain wiring is naturally far more susceptible to mental disorders than we care to admit? I mean if I walk around declaring that I am Napoleon, Or the REAL President, they lock me up. The ONLY uniqueness of the religious delusion/mental disorder is that it's more common, thus achieving a sense of normalcy (which is false).

I tend to think that capacity for and tendency towards religious belief is a feature, not a bug.

[joobz]

I tend to think that capacity for and tendency towards religious belief is a feature, not a bug.
Actually, the part of our psyche that allows us to create these beliefs is a useful feature. OUr imagination.

Unfortunately, the blurring between our imagination and reality is where religion is birthed.

[Dymanic]

Actually, the part of our psyche that allows us to create these beliefs is a useful feature. OUr imagination.Absolutely. Just imagine: what if there were no hypotheticals? Where would science be then?

[Silentknight]

No, it's not an "appeal to motives." Since Stone Island failed to make any actual argument or take a stance on the subject, one can only speculate as to the intent of the OP. If the subject was intended for discussion (otherwise, why post it on a public message board?) then there's nothing wrong with exploring various stances one might intend to take on the issue, especially when none are explicitly stated. Factor in the poorly veiled pejorative nature of Stone Island's other topics in recent days, and one category of intentions begins to look far more likely than others.


Here's the simple answer. Religion offers an evolutionary advantage in that it organizes cooperative behavior, much like the arts or any other creative activity. So while it does have plenty of inherent value, it's certainly not an exclusive means for this type of organization.

[Dymanic]

Religion offers an evolutionary advantage in that it organizes cooperative behaviorHere's my take on that:

As a meme, a religion obtains an evolutionary advantage over other memes by reinforcing pre-existing tendencies for both magical thinking and approval seeking within a group, and by exploiting pre-existing aspects of human behavior that offer evolutionary advantages through cooperative effort. That the history of religion is so inextricably intertwined with the history of warfare suggests the possibility that the type of organized, cooperative behavior most vital to the success of religious memes has to do with the recruitment and motivation of troops.