Is Religion a Natural Phenomenon?

In case you want to continue with the majority angle, you should know that it is a fallacy. Argumentum ad populum.

 

It certainly seems to be the case that if a particular trait or behavior is nearly universal, and if the possession of that trait or the carrying out of that behavior is costly, then there is a high probability that the trait or behavior in question is a direct result of evolutionary adaptation.

That being said I do not perceive religion to fall under the category of direct adaptation. Firstly it is important to note that the modern concept of religion is extremely complicated and involves a huge number of facets including concepts about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, folk psychology, folk physics, taboo, ritual, worship, prayer, sacrifice, moral codes, and many other things. I think it is clear that the tendency to form modern religions cannot be a direct evolutionary adaptation. However I do think that some of the basic aspects of religiosity are the side effects of adaptations, and I believe further that the aspects of modern religion emerge from these basic aspects over time in a society.

An analogous example would be the propensity of humans to build shelter, from mud huts to log cabins to skyscrapers. The building of shelter is universal, and yet it seems clear that humans did not evolve to build particular types of buildings. What did evolve is the mental and physical structures necessary to carry out the environmental manipulations required to build shelter, as well as the mental structures necessary to provide both the understanding necessary to arrive at the conclusion that one ought to build a shelter, and the mental structures necessary to generate the motivation needed to build.

I think it is the same with religion. For example humans, as a by-product of various evolved mental structures, tend to see intentionality where there is none. Another by-product of various evolved mental structures is that we tend to perceive faces and voices where there are none (as in when presented with ambiguous stimulation, both visual and auditory).

Of course the whole story is much too complicated to tell here but the basic idea is that these tendencies, and others, combine to bring about the kinds of experiences which religions seem to based on at their roots. For example hearing a voice in the wilderness, or seeing physical events happen and automatically seeing intentionality. Of course it then takes a group of people capable of a high level of thought in order to expand upon these basic happenings to the point where doctrines are created and entire systems are set up around those shared beliefs. Something can be universal without contributing to reproductive success, and this is fine in light of evolutionary theory. Most of us are not believers in ultra-adaptation.

 

Early on, I discussed the work of Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell, which summarizes a lot of the research on the subject by scholars who've devoted years of study to it and based their conclusions on gobs of data from field studies, archeology, and historical documents. Their view is far less simplistic. By the way, Dennett is a leading atheist and one of the so-called atheisst Four Horsemen.

If "biological reason" excludes cultural and social factors, and if "need to believe" suggests a" God gene", I'd agree with you. I'm distinguishing "natural" from the supernatural, not from social and cultural variables. I think that certain features of the evolving human brain predisposed humans to believe in supernatural agents. These predispositions were reinforced by the needs of society. I'm certainly not suggesting that this means that supernatural agents exist--only that humans are predisposed by evolution to believe in them.

 

That is basically what I was saying. For the most part this claim is not even controversial, at least not among those who accept evolution.

 

Yeah. You said it very well in your earlier post. I'm just trying to get a better handle on it, as a means of studying the transition to modern forms. Assuming that there must be a selective advantage from religion and demonstrating it are, of course, two different things--the big problem being that the evolutionary process was well underway before there was a history to record it. The best we can do is piece together a plausible account on the basis of archaeology and anthropological studies of religions in contemporary hunter-gatherer communities, all of which may be "contaminated" by contacts with less "primitive" societies.

From what I've picked up, at least three different parts of the human psyche are involved (1) cognitive, especially the propensity to perceive patterns and agency in the environment; (2) ego defense, including the unconscious mechanisms of coping with life's insecurities and anxieties; and (3) learning, the process of acquiring knowledge, skills and habits.

Cognitive anthropologists seem to agree that the human tendency to perceive patterns and agency in the environment, whether or not there is any, gave early humans an evolutionary advantage. In a sense, this is a primitive, unconscious version of Pascal's wager: if that object in the water is just a log, and I react to it as though it were a crocodile, no problem--except for some possible embarrassment; but if I react to it as though it were a log, and it turns out to be a crocodile, big problem! Hence our evolved capacity to perceive faces in clouds, and to react to perceived natural objects as though they were alive or possessed by spirits. This could be the foundation of primitive animism. The experience of dreaming must have presented major explanatory problems to early humans, and it is understandable the they would have developed a sense of participation in a spirit world. Also, the sense of awe at the numinous which Rudolph Otto emphasizes, is likely to have been involved at some level, although it would be admittedly hard to document. Dawkins, Hitchens et al have acknowleged that need, but have had more difficulty explaining how it can be accommodated without religion.

Humans also have a need for ego defense against the insecurities and anxieties of daily living. To the best of our knowledge, we're the only species that can contemplate our own death and the death of loved ones. We can also sense pervasive danger in our environment, the experience of disease and aging, and lack of assurance about our food supply. It's likely that early humans were as prone as we are to be paralyzed by such fears, unless some psychic means could be found to allay our insecurities. Enter religion, with comforting explanations. Sympathetic magic seems to have been part of the prehistoric human experience to control the environment, as reflected in cave paintings of game and hunting.

Social learning is also important. Humans are, more than other animals, dependent on prolonged parental nurturing and information for survival. We've evolved a basic trust in what our parents tell us because, while some of it may be wrong, for the most part enough of it is right to give us an edge in survival. So traditions about supernatural agents are handed down and elaborated on from one generation to another. Right or wrong, I think the propensities for religious belief have adaptive value or are an inescapable part of adaptive biological traits. I know that these ideas are not exactly new or earth shaking, and leave out the important role of social institutions in shaping and perpetuating religious memes, but I wonder if at least we can agree on this much as a basis for further discussion. The big questions are: is religion "nothing but" the product of these factors and (2) could we, or society as a whole, get by without it or some functional equivalent of it.

 

Okiefreak I agree with what you are saying, and I also agree that the questions you posed at the end of your post are important.

To answer the first question, in a general sense it is clear that religion cannot be 'nothing but' these biological factors we've discussed. Just as surely as the propensity to build skyscrapers is certainly more than just our basic propensity to understand and manipulate the environment. A complete religious system, as you mentioned, has a major social component. And within a social context basic religious ideas are obviously often greatly elaborated. In the cases in which this elaboration is not arbitrary, but rather based on scientific facts or deep philosophical thought, it is possible to see something emerging from religion that is clearly more than just a by-product of the mental organs which give rise to its basic facets.

As for the second question it is clear that individuals can get along just fine without religion, so I would like to think that society in general can as well, but it isn't completely clear.

Also this all raises a further question: Why is it that people in fact derive relief and comfort from religious type beliefs? Most people can agree that faith in a divine being can bring relief and comfort to a person, but why should this be the case? It is not at all obvious.

 

It is simple enough really. People fear the unknown, what awaits them after death. In order to alleviate the fear, they allow themselves to believe in a higher power that basically informs them of what they can expect after death. There is also the happiness factor and the morality factor. Some people believe they cannot be happy without a belief in a higher power. Without God, they believe they would be depressed individuals. The fact that people daily find happiness in other ways, family and friends, seems to be lost on them. There is also the morality factor. Believers feel they would commit atrocious acts without a higher power saying, "This is my word, and you musn't do this". The logic that nonbelievers are perfectly moral, law abiding citizens escapes them because all they see is sin being committed by heathens. The fact that believers would commit horrible crimes if their belief system was completely shattered means that they are veritable psychopaths void of any real sense of empathy. It should be common sense to realize that one should be good for the sake of being good without needing a higher power to inform you to be good.

 

Along with all the other factors under consideration, shouldn't we be asking if there were at least some early humans who had perceptions outside the normal five senses? Such perceptions, if they occurred, would tend to give rise to belief systems to explain them.

Another point to consider is that in some modern tribes there are shamans who gain spiritual knowledge or visions through the use of psychotropic plants. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there may have been similar experiences among earlier humans? And if so, again, people would tend to create belief systems around those experiences.

 

The fact that people's minds seem to be opened wider through the usage of mind altering drugs does not prove that what is experienced is anything more than hallucinations. Some people have even gone so far as to describe highly orgasmic sex as a gateway to understanding God, but then some people are willing to believe anything supernatural without the facts to support their ideas.

 

The point we're discussing is whether religion is a natural phenomenon. To discuss that question we're getting into the issues of brain evolution and attributes of the species as factors that may have contributed to the development of religious thinking. I am now suggesting further thoughts as to how certain experiences or perceptions may have contributed to the development of religious thinking via the types of thinking mechanisms inherent in human brains. I don't think the existence or non-existence of God or a spirit world is even on the table for this discussion, is it?

I'll concede that for it to be possible to perceive a spirit world, there would need to actually be a spirit world.

 

That is a proximate answer, I am looking for an ultimate one. What is it about the brain that allows it to derive relief from superstitious beliefs and why do we have that type of brain?

 

That question is almost as basic and unanswerable as "Why is there something instead of nothing." I'll take a stab.

As I said earlier, the believing brain is useful to us in cognitive processing, ego defense, and learning. Cognitively, it protects us against Type 2 errors. In statistics, a Type 2 error is rejecting a truth. I've argued before that scientific thinking is useful in protecting us from Type 1 errors (accepting falsehoods) but at the expense of risking Type 2 errors. If early humans were good scientists, they might say: that object looks like a crocodile, but it might be just a log. I'll need to test it further. That's why we have so many "superstitious" people around. Our scientific ancestors were eaten by crocodiles before they could reproduce.

Also, there is evidence that "superstitious beliefs can aid survival by improving our health. The placebo effect is a good example. Prayer, meditation and worship seems to be correlated with better health. Therapists treating stress disorders sometimes use visualization techniques. "Imagine you're sitting by a babbling brook. Birds are singing, fish are jumpin', the cotton is high, your daddy's rich, Your maw is good looking." But along come a skeptic and says: There is no brook." That's essentially what Daniel Dennett is trying to do in Breaking The Spell. Thanks, Dan. If there were more of you around, we might never have made it through the Pleistocine.

From the standpoint of learning, it might be, as Dawkins et al suggest, that "supertitious beliefs are spandrels, by-products of something else that has survival value--i.e., trusting your elders. For the most part, that's a good strategy, since their experience is often valuable. Sometimes, of course, they get it wrong or tell us well-meaning falsehoods like Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.

You mention brain evolution, which is not something I'm really up on. There is a whole new field called Neurotheology that tries to deal with religious issues in a neurobiological context. (See Newberg, Principles of Neurotheology,Mecklenburger, Our Religious Brains,Gay, ed., Neuroscience and Religion. Off hand, I'd say that dopamine, a nerotransmitter related to associative learning (and addiction) would be something to look into, along with the nucleus accumbens cluster of neurons which it activates. Mohr, Brugger et al think that dopamine functions in helping to discern meaningful patterns from background noise. People with low dopamine levels are prone to Type 2 errors; those with high dopamine levels are prone to Type 1 errors, i.e., seeing or hearing things that aren't there. Brain hemispheric differences may be relevant--the right hemisphere being more inclined to pattern detection and holistic, intuitive thinking than the more analytical, reductionist left hemisphere. Another area of the brain that may be involved is the parietal lobe, or orientation area of the brain. During mystical states, neuronal information may be blocked from reaching this area.

But presumably non-believers as well as believers are products of brain physiology and chemistry, and the grounds for saying one is "better" or "truer" than another are shaky. It's difficult for the blind to distinguish beautiful landscapes from hallucinations.

 

Allow me to clarify my question. I am not wondering why we have superstitious belief, and neither am I wondering in what ways could superstitious belief have been beneficial in the ancestral environment (of course due to my interest in evolution and psychology I am interested in the question of which aspects of superstitious belief evolved directly and which are 'spandrels').

What I am wondering is why people can actually feel relief regarding various worries as a result of superstitious belief. This includes things as strange and complicated as anxiety over what happens after death (I am of course not suggesting that it is strange to ponder or even worry about what happens after death, I meant strange and complex from an information processing point of view. The brain is an information processing device after all).

 

It is interesting to note that parkinson's treatments which boost dopamine levels sometimes result in schizophrenic like symptoms, and treatments for schizophrenia which lower dopamine produce parkinson's symptoms.

Serotonin must play quite a bit of a role in the brain chemistry of mystical experiences as well. The most common psychedelics tend to have a fairly complex relationship with various serotonin receptors, and there is no shortage of anecdotal evidence regarding the mystical experiences induced by such substances.

As a computer programmer I am interested in something that I will probably never come close to knowing. I don't just want to know the evolutionary logic behind these things. I want to see the lines of code that make it happen. I want to know the brain's algorithms.

 

Why, when, as you say, you'll "never come close to knowing"? But who am I to question. I've logged in 3,523 posts, all dealing with God, who is probably unknowable. Welcome to the Don Quixote Club! I have the feeling that for "normal" folks, religious and political affiliation is a way of getting the subjects out of the way so they can spend their time on more productive ventures, like making money or chasing skirts.

 

When I was in college, during the days when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, I majored in biochemistry with the thought that maybe as a scientist I could discover the neurophysiological mechanisms by which the brain receives psychic perceptions. After getting most of the way through my undergrad courses, I started to realize that the knowledge base at that time was nowhere near what it needed to be for discoveries like that within my lifetime. I decided that the experience itself was more interesting to me, and I would prefer spending a lifetime on that project rather than putting in years of lab work without any major advancements. Lab work is not intrinsically fun enough for me.

 

Well unlike the god question, which may involve facets that go beyond the limits of the cognitive powers of people and may therefore be truly unknowable, the thing that I am interested in is theoretically within our ability to discover. It is doubtful that it will be done in my lifetime, but people are studying the circuits of the mind, and a day may come when we can translate the logic of the mind into some sort of meaningful output (other than behavior of course because behavior is the meaningful output of the mind, but that's not what I mean).

The topic is endlessly fascinating to me.

Though I do spend a fair amount of time chasing skirts. In the face of the unknowable I can hardly think of a better way to spend my time. And when I succeed, that's even better.

 

Something I found on a Facebook page:
https://www.************/PissingOffTheReligiousRight

 

Ironically, much the same could be said about Freud. Once a godlike figure in his field, his theories of religion are seen as somewhat antique by contemporary psychologists. I don't know the original source of the passage quoted, but some of Freud's works on religion, e.g., Moses and Monotheism and Totem and Taboo, are howlers. Future of an Illusion is better, and makes a useful distinction between "illusion" and "delusion" (Dawkins take note) Freud's former associate and later rival, Carl Jung, had a positive view of religion, as did Alfred Adler. Some psychologists have even turned the tables on the great Father by applying psychoanalytic methods against Freud in particular and atheism in general. See the work of psychoanalyst Paul Vitz, who sees atheism as a product of the Oedipus complex--especially a reaction to inadequate fathering. Freud regarded his father as weak for depending on his wife's family for financial help and for allowing an anti-Semite to knock his hat off. Other famous atheists, like Marx, Feuerbach and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, also had problematic relations with their fathers. Vitz thinks they identifird their fathers with God, as did Freud, and unconsciously wanted to kill him, just like Oedipus did, by killing Him (God), According to Vitz: "God is dead" is simply an undisguised Oedipal wish-fulfillment. It is certainly not hard to understand the Oedipal character of so much contemporary atheism and skepticism". Of course, one could wonder if Vitz might also be suffering from an Oedipus complex in trying to "kill" the "father of psychoanalysis". Do I believe this? No, I take it with a grain of salt as I do most speculations based on shaky empirical foundations. But something to think about.

One problem with Freud's theory, though, is that it seems culture bound. Not all religions have Alpha Male deities. Goddess worship was common in antiquity and in parts of the world today. Freud's Jewishness may be showing.

 

Almost all of what Freud said was a howler. It is amazing that so much attention has been paid to someone who was so wrong. He even believed in the hydraulic theory of the mind, and that was proven false before his time.

The major problem with Freud is that his explanations (aside from being false) are merely proximate explanations. The idea that religion is explained away because someone can point out some benefit derived from religion (for example the sense of security derived from a powerful father figure) is absurd.