There is some news making the rounds that we are born to believe in God:
Atheism really may be fighting against nature: humans have been hardwired by evolution to believe in God, scientists have suggested.
The idea has emerged from studies of the way children’s brains develop and of the workings of the brain during religious experiences. They suggest that during evolution groups of humans with religious tendencies began to benefit from their beliefs, perhaps because they tended to work together better and so stood a greater chance of survival.
The findings challenge campaigners against organised religion, such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. He has long argued that religious beliefs result from poor education and childhood “indoctrination”.
This conclusion is based on research by Bruce Hood:
“Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works,” he said.
“As they grow up they overlay these beliefs with more rational approaches but the tendency to illogical supernatural beliefs remains as religion.”
I don’t see much to disagree with. Clearly superstition has been successful in social evolution. That doesn’t make it wrong or right, only that it is. I also don’t see how this challenges Dawkins — people by nature are superstitious. It takes education to get the superstition out. Isn’t that what Dawkins is saying?
This seems far-fetched:
In one study he found even ardent atheists balked at the idea of accepting an organ transplant from a murderer, because of a superstitious belief that an individual’s personality could be stored in their organs. “This shows how superstition is hardwired into our brains,” he said.
I’m curious — would any atheists here balk at getting an organ transplant from a murderer because you might get some of the murderer’s personality? That seems completely absurd and irrational to me.
What are your thoughts on this study? Does it change how you think about religion and why people believe?
I’m pretty sure that Dawkins ALSO said that religion was tied to evolution.
And no, I wouldn’t have any problem accepting an organ from a murderer. Or a pedophile. Or a black magic voodoo witch doctor who placed a curse on the organ.
Yes, Dawkins and I both agree that evolution produces brains that entertain supernatural beliefs and in the God Delusion he mentions some of the research from studies of children. Where we differ is that he thinks that we are born to believe what we are told and that beliefs spread like mental viruses (memes). I agree this is certainly the case for religion but I would contend that there are all manner of secular supernatural beliefs that are not spread by memes but rather emerge spontaneously in children as a by-product of the way they interpret the world. All religions have supernatural beliefs but not all supernatural beliefs are religious. Another point where we differ is that while education can help, I argue that supernatural beliefs do not necessarily vanish – they can remain latent in adults and emerge under the right circumstances.
Read the book – I think I make my position very clear.
Here is my response to the story you report
http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/i-never-said/
Thanks for making your position clear, Bruce!
I see a big difference between possessing certain adaptive traits that can evince themselves in a longing for help from a Higher Source and being “wired” to believe in God.
Everybody needs to read this article about the evolutive nature of religion:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3534,The-Evolution-of-Religion,R-Elisabeth-Cornwell-PhD-J-Anderson-Thomson-MD
Daniel, the study is probably correct about the organ transplant and atheist thing. I’ve read of other well documented studies (I think the book was called DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU THINK) that show people have an aversion to objects touched by a “bad person”. For example, people are reluctant to wear a sweater they were told once belonged to a serial killer. It’s called sympathetic magic and/or contagion magic. You can read more about this in a book called THE GOLDEN BOUGH. It’s out of copyright and in the public domain.
Anyway, even atheists aren’t perfectly rational in all circumstances. For example, I’ve seen a youtube video of Derren Brown where he claims to be a faith healer before a room of atheists. He asks for a volunteer to stand at the front of the class room with his eyes closed, make motions like he’s giving them the holy spirit and the atheist falls back. When he comes to, he describes having a sort of religious revelation, apparently all this is authentic.
When Derren ask who else would like to receive the gifts of the holy spirit, fully half of the atheists get up and walk out because they’re afraid they’ll be changed. The half that stay are already convinced by the little show that there must be something to the supernatural and may have converted on the spot.
Now a perfectly rational person would have gone into their little mind shell, realized what they’ve seen is impossible even though they don’t understand it, come to the conclusion it’s some sort of trick, and laughed along with the performances. It sounds neat in theory but in practice is much harder.
Sometimes we atheists are accused of being closed minded but sometimes, as in the previous example, it’s the best thing to be. We should take our grounding in the physical world, rejection of the supernatural, and knowledge of human nature as absolutes and use them to defend ourselves against the forces of unreason.
Nice! haha!
whoops, that was supposed to go on the below comment. My bad.
This is about CHILDREN’S brains. I’m an adult and have a fully formed ability to thing and reason. PZ got pretty upset about this strawman as well. I guess the conclusion from this is that religious people are childish.
thing=think Need edit function
I heard this somewhere, cannot remember where.
Imagine yourself as proto-man in the savanna walking through the tall grass and from the corner of your eye you see movement. If you believe it is just the wind in the grass and you are wrong. You will likely get eaten. If however you believe it might be a lion and run away, you might live; even if it was just the wind. Thus evolution weeds out the “non-believers” only those with a predisposition to believing in the unseen survive.
Actually, this has a name and is slightly subtler than that: the intentional stance. It’s the third step, after the physical stance and the design stance, which are part of a classification coined by Daniel Dennet on how we try to predict how things will behave.
The physical stance is basically trying to understand from physical laws. Quite slow and not the best in every situation.
The design stance is trying to understand from the way an object is designed what function it has. It can prove faster than the physical stance in many cases.
The intentional stance is a shortcut where you ‘guess’ what the intention of the object is. It has the best survival value. In your example, you see the grass move, your survival instinct kicks in and you crouch (or run) in case it’s a predator. That’s the intentional stance, you don’t think about wind direction and velocity.
This is believed to have evolved naturally, and has nothing to do with belief in the unseen per se.
As mentioned elsewhere, children don’t know the physical laws or correlation between design and function (or not very well), therefore they mainly use the intentional stance. With a limited understanding of the physical world, they more readily tend to attibute events to the supernatural (including god).
Saying our brains are wired to believe in the supernatural is not evidence that the supernatural is real, any more than saying that our bodies are 70% water is evidence that we are descended from mermaids. There is no logical connection from that fact to any reality outside the brain itself. If anything, it provides further evidence for why people continue to hold religious beliefs even when there is no reason to support them.
I agree, it is hardwired for some social behavior purpose but in no way does it proves that religion is true.
My wife once made me watch a terrible chick flick where David X-Files lost his wife in a car accident. His wife’s heart was donated to another woman, who after a year met David and they fell in love. And then she found out it was his wife that had given her heart. OH MY GOD PASS THE KLEENEX!!!1
So maybe evil can’t be contained in an organ, but LOVE CAN??
Or maybe Hollywood sucks.
Also, I’d be inclined to believe there’s an evolutionary reason why children are hard-wired to believe whatever adults in authority tell them, regardless of how fantastical it is. That goes a long way to explaining
Santareligion.I think the thing about the murderer’s organ needs a different perspective. Yes, I would recoil at the thought of receiving a murderer’s organ, but NOT because I would be afraid of inheriting any personality trait of the donor. I would recoil at the thought of having a part of someone I am disgusted by or intensely dislike becoming a part of my own body, much in the same way I wouldn’t WANT to shag someone I dislike even if we were the last two people one earth. Even if it was for the repopulation of earth. I might do it because it makes sense, but I wouldn’t LIKE it or WANT to do it. And here ends my strange questionable analogy. Don’t judge me, people.
I completely agree. Rationally I know that the evil personality of a murderer is going to be passed on to me through his kidney or liver but it still disgusts me to think of his organs becoming my own.
isn’t. i meant isn’t. shit.
That and its extraordinary easy to be picky about hypothetical organs. Now ask a person in dire need of a transplant if they would take an organ from a serial killer now, or would they like to wait a few more weeks.
I predict you will find people will be much less squeamish. :)
I am skeptical of any studies at all. And polls. Unless it can be shown that they are done well, they are useless.
Personally, I couldn’t care less where an organ, bood, etc. came from. I wouldn’t want the serial killer’s sweater, artwork, kitchenware etc. Not because I think the item itself is harmful but because just looking at it would remind me of the evil some people are capable of and the poor people who suffered by someone’s hand.
Exactly. Why would I want a constant reminder of some horrible actions by wearing a killers sweater. Additionally the killer obviously had horrible judgment, why trust their judgment in sweaters?
As I’m working, I’m musing further on the subject…last year, I had a patient who refused to be scheduled for surgery for September 11th, because it was an unlucky date.
I’m curious — would any atheists here balk at getting an organ transplant from a murderer because you might get some of that person’s personality? That seems completely absurd and irrational to me.
No, not for that reason. I might have reservations about getting a transplant from a murderer for different reasons though.
1) Criminals are not famous for healthy living. I would wonder about the health of the organs involved, hepatitis, etc.
2) Taking organs from prisoners, or recently executed prisoners, is ethically dicey. Some would make a “slippery slope” argument that this would lead to killing people specifically so their organs could be used.
That makes more sense to me. Certainly there could be reasons not to take an organ from a muderer — or anyone else — but inheriting their personality seems a very unreasonable reason.
This is a non-question and is unfair. Since when do transplant recipients get to choose who donates an organ to them. The scenario means nothing as this would never happen in the real world. Asking “Would you say no to a murderer’s liver?” is the same as asking “Would you say no to blue eyes?” There’s no choice in the matter. You get the organ you get.
It’s a real question, even if it’s not something we can normally choose.
As for when transplant recipients get to choose organ donors, I know plenty. A friend of mine had a kidney transplant from his sister, for instance.
I believe Bruce Hood would argue that these are post hoc rationalizations, and that the initial sense of repugnance we feel at the idea comes from an embedded wariness of contamination.
Obviously he covers this in his book, but he also gets into a long discussion with Steven Novella on this topic during his interview at the Skeptic’s Guide.
(Reposting from above)
Its extraordinary easy to be picky about hypothetical organs.
Now ask a actual person in dire need of a transplant if they would take an organ from a serial killer now, or would they like to wait a few more weeks.
I predict you will find people will be much less squeamish. :)
I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that we have an evolved “anthropomorphism module” in our brains, that inclined us to default to perceiving non-human entities and objects as human or human-like. Believing in a deity or deities would just be one side effect or manifestation of that tendency.
Yes, I agree. It is one thing to show that we are “wired” to believe in “God,” and it is another to show that “God” is a product (and by no means the only product) of an irrational, death-fearing, hierarchy-minded, comfort-desiring, story-telling, intention-attributing, truth-seeking, fantasy-loving species.
Moreover, if all of this shows how superstition is hardwired into our brains, then I think the word “superstition” is going to have to be qualified in just the same way that “faith” has to be qualified when theists tell atheists “take things on faith, too!”
well said. funny how “god” is surprisingly human-like isn’t it? That, to me, is the most perfect proof to the described god’s non-existence.
It’s too bad that it would be impossible to do a study where a child raised in modern society is 100% completely shielded from any conceivable idea of god. I highly doubt that child would grow up and mature with a superstitious mentality. Explaining the un-explained using completely unprovable concepts and beings is an ancient concept that infects generation after generation because it is taught.
Superstition might be easy for the childs mind to grasp (with all their sense of wonder and what not), but the concept of god is a bit more complex and requires the mind to hold on to those “childish” ideas in order to personify them. I think if these concepts aren’t omnipresent and taught during the road to maturity they wouldn’t manifest in the adult mind.
I still think that those children will generate some superstition, to somehow make sense of the illogical parts of this world. Sometimes things happen with no direct reason but it is hard to grasp such abstract stuff so when you create an imaginary story then it gets easier to grasp reality and your uncertainty goes away.
Look at people that lost a loved ones, the grieve period is used to create a fictive story so their own position in life makes more logical sense. But when you check their explanations, it is pure made up.
Ayn Rand, in response to the question: “Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?”
RAND: “Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very—how should I say it?—dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.”
“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.
“In one study he found even ardent atheists balked at the idea of accepting an organ transplant from a murderer, because of a superstitious belief that an individual’s personality could be stored in their organs. “This shows how superstition is hardwired into our brains,” he said.”
Horsesh*t!
“would any atheists here balk at getting an organ transplant from a murderer because you might get some of the murderer’s personality?”
Cause they saw the movie Body Parts!!
Human beings are serial apopheniacs. This, I believe, is the defining characteristic of humanity, what makes us special. This ability/disorder finds its fullest, uncontrolled flower in religion, and is harnessed and mastered (somewhat) in the practice of science.
Where’s the study? Because I just see the article that seems to be a typical example of ‘scientific journalism’, where author mixes genuine findings with his own views and interpretations, especially the part about personality-storing organs, as it is obvious nobody would give such an explanation for their choice – either a scientist made a joke, or it’s the author’s ‘explanation’. Clearly he’s spinning the conclusions, to make them seem as somehow validating supernatural beliefs.
You can’t change us; we are born this way. ;)
Even though atheism is in no way synonymous with acceptance of evolutionary theory, there is a certain irony I find in that atheists’ brains may be the black sheep of brains along the evolutionary process.
In addition to working together, I suspect that there are certain advantages to craving leadership that are evolutionary wired as well. So the “head honcho” deity, head coach, CEO, etc is part of the social structure and/or belief system we seek.
“Atheism really may be fighting against nature: humans have been hardwired by evolution to believe in God, scientists have suggested.”
Is this talking about the Yahweh God of the Christian bible or another god? Because Yahweh hasn’t been around as long as the human race, it is illogical to say that humans are wired to believe in *him*. If the study were to show that humans are wired to believe in some form of supernatural higher power that does not necessarily have to be the Xn god, then I would say there may be some validity to the statement, though still rather silly. Children make up stories all the time to explain the workings of their world- each one less realistic than the one before. But this is how a child’s mind works. I used to think that my parents didn’t want me to eat the watermelon seeds because a watermelon would literally grow in my belly. Far fetched? Yes. Easy for a child whose frontal lobe is still very underdeveloped to accept? Yes. Even the bible makes it clear that “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3 NIV). Coincidental? Doubtful. Children are capable of believing very ridiculous stories- Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth fairy, etc. So what makes believing in a supernatural creator of the universe any less ridiculous?
If you’re a Biblical literalist, Yahweh has indeed been around as long as the human race.
If you’re a biblical literalist, then nothing formed of logic and facts will have any meaning for you, and arguments like Tilly’s will just whiz right over your head anyway.
Positively terrifying isn’t it?
I would accept a brain transplant from Charles Manson, a heart transplant from Adolf Hitler, and eye transplants from Stevie Wonder if it would increase my quality of life and allow me to live longer.
I find it hard to believe the transplant part of this article. I also agree that it says nothing good or bad about religion or atheism. I think it even states the obvious. Small remote isolated tribes create their own religions and believe in them as passionately as any suicide bomber or the pope believe in their respective religions. Does that make them right or wrong? No, it just makes them human.
The important part is that we realize that human religious beliefs are in fact an animal instinct and we should attempt to rise above it like many of our animal instincts that have a negative impact on society.
“I would accept a brain transplant from Charles Manson, a heart transplant from Adolf Hitler”
You would become a supervillian!
Wait a minute — if you took a brain transplant from Charles Manson (and such a thing was possible), wouldn’t you become Charles Manson?
Well, yes, of course. That wasn’t really my point. The point is that I will take any part from any person anywhere in the event that I need that part to sustain my life.
I’d take Charles Manson’s….brain stem! Does he have good involuntary brain function?
Already been done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Will_Fear_No_Evil
I would like to see statistics of transference in regard to children raised in secular homes. I see a lot of anecdotal evidence that kids in secular homes do not become religious. My two are an example. Sure, there are biological components that lead to various degrees of superstitious positioning but that is a far cry from the thorough going systems provided by religions.
When attempting to provide a theory of religiosity or sustained gods-belief, how does one effectively feather out inculturation as a component?
I would balk at getting a transplant. Period.
And how exactly would a recipient of an organ know who the donor was?
If you met the organ donor, or the hospital gave you a name, you’d probably know who it was. :)
I keep the organs of my victims in a freezer, just in case I need them later.
In the case of kidney transplants, live donor transplants are very common, and at least where I am the donor is usually a close relative or the spouse of the recipient.
“All religions have supernatural beliefs ”
If you separate the supernatural beliefs from religion what would be left?
Metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics.
Ritual, meaning, values, poetry, community.
Intellect?
is this a trick question?
Nope not a trick.
I was wondering if you separated all the supernatural stuff from a religion, is whats left still be something we could call a “religion”?
Ask da Buddhists.
New agey Western Buddhists? Or old school Eastern Buddhists?
Because old school Eastern Buddhism is chock full of supernaturalism.
I didn’t say that Buddhism was the answer. I said “ask da Buddhists”.
Ah, ok.
I think I always ask that question because so many assertions are made by westerners about what Buddhism is and isn’t, when it is very clear they are only familiar with the stripped down western version of the religion.
I worked for and with a bunch of eastern Buddhists for three years or so, and I am intimately familiar with the supernatural aspects of the religion.
It almost seems like we westerners have invented a new quasi-religion out of our ideas of what Buddhism should be.
“Ummm, we’ll take Buddhism, hold the monks, hold the prayer burnings, hold the reincarnation please.”
“Uh, but that just leaves a sort of vague easterny philosphy…”
“Perfect, we’ll take it!”
we are not born to believe in God…but I do believe we are born to desire to know God.
I do believe we are born to desire to know God.
I do believe we are born to desire to know dad. And mom. And then we grow up, but the parts of our brain that function to process dad and mom remain. And they need something to do!
Most small children instinctively put whatever they pull out of their nose into their mouth.
Outgrowing infantile behaviors makes for a much more pleasant society.
“…but i do believe we are born to desire to know God.”
I strongly disagree. I believe we are born with the desire to learn– to seek out the answers to our questions. The concept of god just gets mixed in with our journey. An unfortunate mishap, indeed. God is a quick answer to all of our unanswered questions (and most of our answered ones too).
And if we are born with the desire to know god, what do you make of those born with the desire to know a god different than the one you know? It’s not universal. I’m sorry crossroad, but that statement is incredibly flawed.
Wouldn’t you have to believe in something to harbour a desire to know it?
Hmm. It depends on whether desires can be dispositional beliefs. If so, it is entirely possible to desire something and not know it…though it becomes trickier if you have an occurrent belief that the subject of the dispositional belief fails to exist. But, I would maintain it is possible, since it is possible to desire the fulfillment of states that cannot occur.
“Chocolate-covered cheese pizza: where have you been my whole life?!”
OK; but then crossroad faces the dilemma of proving that that knowledge we all desire is knowledge of God; read: Yahweh, not Allah or Zeus or Vishnu. Hehe ^_^
Which was already covered above. Dammit.
The only reason I might be concerned about getting an organ from a murderer is that most murderers in the U.S. use some drugs, and many organs are damaged by certain popular drugs, so it is certainly more likely that a murderer’s organ would be damaged than the average citizen. That said, all organs are checked against the same set of standards, and I do trust the hospital enough not to give me a bad organ, so no way in hell would I refuse.
I’d take the organ.
I think that says it all.
Atheist here… silly. Anyone’s organ is fine for me.
I’ll need a new liver soon. I’m going to hold out for the technology to build me a new copy of my own liver. That would be nice.
In a very limited way I see this a lot just now. I have two daughters, one is 10 the other is 5. My ten year old regularly tries to explain the Big Bang Theory to her little sister, but she just cannot understand. I’ve tried too, but to no avail. The five year old believes it’s been God. We’ve never raised the kids religious in any way, but at 5 years old, God makes sense to her The story of Creation is much easier to grasp than Big Bang. My older daughter struggled and believed in God and ghosts and everything until she was about 8, then she came home and announced that there are too many Gods to choose from and why are there so many Gods, anyways? After another year of school run Religion and Moral Ethics class – which if you don’t know covers most of the world’s religions and isn’t preferential to one, at least not her school (This is in the UK) she announced last year she was a Buddhist because it was kind of spiritual, but not really a God (She’s never able to make set decisions). And now at 10 she’s a confirmed atheist which frustrates my agnostic husband to no end in case his mother finds out.
And on the point of taking an organ from a murder I keep wanting to quote Re-Animator lines, so I’m no help. But basically, parts are parts. If they work then great, why worry?
Children also believe in Santa Claus, Pippi Longstocking and the easter bunny… Its much easier to grow up that way, sheltered from the severities in life.
But then you grow up!