Religious belief is virtually ubiquitous. This is obviously very annoying to nonbelievers, but it does raise an important question: why do so many people believe in the existence of some transcendent personal god they've never experienced directly? Some have gone as far as to argue that we are created to believe, that it is a fundamental characteristic of what it means to be a human being, and that this ability distinguishes us from brute animals.In this fascinating lecture, and drawing insights from state-of-the-art neuroscience, cognitive psychology and evolutionary psychology, Andy Thomson argues quite convincingly that spiritual/religious belief is the result of a brain whose evolutionary roots have been hijacked and whose cognitive weaknesses have been exploited. Just like your mind can be tricked by optical illusions because of the way your brain is wired, he argues, your mind can be easily tricked to believe in spooks and invisible agencies. Atheism, on this view, represents the brain's ability to overcome its natural ability to deceive itself.
Wait, so what about the monster hiding in my closet at night, smart guy?
.
I didn't know who this guy was, so I plugged him into "the Google" and found this: http://www.secularstudents.org/node/2042
ReplyDeleteWith the evidence of psychology and neuroscience, the mind is no longer a definitive bastion of religious belief. God sure is running out of places to hide these days...
Belief in supernatural beings can be part or not of a religion. Religion is much more than belief in goods. And religion is adaptive, as David Sloan Wilson has demonstrated. There are secularist religions, and it can be said that religion is the inevitable component of every group.
ReplyDeleteVeneration for the leaders, a pantheon of group founders, either existent or extant, mytical o real ones. A set of formal or informal rules, that include a degree of disinterested mutual help, a set of celebrations of mutual confirmation of membership and acceptance of these rules. A worlview with a set of core beliefs that are taken for granted without question.
All of them are the glue of a society, and these are the components of a religion. No matter it is called "ideology" "movement". It does not matter if you believe in science and Dawkins or Jesus Christ, both give you confidence in yourself, a group you adhere to, a worldview, cellebrations with your peers, mutual help, a philosophy and a set of myths.
It is irrelevant that Dawkins is not dead and it is not enough mitified (Darwin is). Personality cult is a true religion. It does not matter either Dawkins uses science. Many of the evolutionary claims of Dawkins are outdated or are supersceed ( The Selfish gene is one of the many replicators of multilevel selection. The extended fenotype is not falsable) but the dawkins believers, called themselves as "skeptics" don´t care.
Come on, guys, take the facts seriously, don´t diminish things to accomodate the facts of reality to your prejiuces of your core beliefs.
Thanks for your comment, Memetic Warrior, and for calling it as you see it. I certainly understand your point of view, and kudos for bringing up David Sloan Wilson. I love his work. I'm sold on his ideas on multi-level selection as well.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I think it is worth mentioning that the lecture posted above refers to religion as the belief in supernatural forces and agencies. It's true that non-supernatural ideologies can share many attributes with religious beliefs, but if we start calling every single kind of ideology religious, then the word becomes meaningless because absolutely everything becomes religious.
In terms of whether religion is adaptive or not, I must confess my agnosticism. I can see how religious beliefs can be understood, as Wilson does, as driven by group selection. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that groups that cohere as some sort of superorganism, regardless of the reason for their unity, can outcompete less cohesive groups.
As your name indicates, though, I'm sure you're also familiar with the memetic theory, which argues that it's not necessarily the group or the individuals who benefit from religion but the meme itself.
Regardless of our personal beliefs about the social value of religion and its adaptability, the lecture wasn't really about the moral value of religion but an attempt to explain it scientifically. It could very well be the case that religion is false and yet practically useful and adaptive.
Hi Berto. Thanks for your kind reply.
ReplyDeleteFor me, it is clear that religion is the sum of many components, being the belief in supernatural beings a minor part of it. Is really Budha a supernatural being for budhists?. Stalin?. Was this mitified leader a supernatural being? Stalin wrote hundreds of thounsands of books according with the propaganda. It must have been a supernatural being for the the soviet people.
What is more central for religion is to follow the teaching of a leader in a more or less blind way, without going skepting about every part of the belief system. Does not matter if the leader is alive or dead, mitified or a pure supernatural being with living representatives. The supernatural component make things more catchy, more powerful, but by no means make it different.
If the psichological phenomeno is the same, the brain areas that processes are the same, then no matter if you call it ideology or religion. call it ideoloreligion of religideology. It´s all the same.