Beware of simple yet false explanations for religion
It’s not because I am obstinate, though I can be obstinate.
Rather, I simply can’t believe things like: “A virgin had a baby” or “A man who was dead later became alive” or “This piece of bread is really a man’s flesh.” I can’t believe such things because these things are simply not true. To me, such assertions are nonsense and it befuddles me when I hear other people uttering them. It’s especially befuddling to see the way many people utter religious claims. It’s as though they believe they have knives in their backs and they damned well say such things, or else. “Or else what?” I often think. “Let go of those scary thoughts. It’s just a bad dream. Free yourselves! Wake up!”
I also try to be kind. I am sadded to see people wasting their time and energy due to fear and ignorance. I want to do my part to help those who feel compelled to utter patently untrue things, even if they only do this on Sundays.
I am not alone, of course. In our frustration, many of us non-Believers wish to come up with a quick and dirty explanation for why other people publicly proclaim oxymoronic religious claims. It is this urge to quickly dispense of this mystery of religion (the mystery that anyone takes religious claims seriously) that is addressed by Pascal Boyer in his 2003 article, “Religious thought and behavior as byproducts of brain function.” Boyer is a faculty member in the departments of anthropology and psychology at Washington University in St. Louis.
In an earlier post, I briefly mentioned Boyer as one of the prominent writers on religion who holds the position that religion is a byproduct of normal human cognition. This byproduct theory is certainly one emphasis of Boyer’s article. He also reminds us, however, that it might not be easy to determine a simple mechanism causing this byproduct. After all, human cognition, the source of this “byproduct,” is exceedingly complicated.
In his article, Boyer notes that most attempts to explain religion in terms of evolution have proved unsatisfactory “because a single characteristic identified as crucial to the origin of religion is not in fact general.” For instance, my characterization above (that people follow religions due to fear and ignorance) is one of the overly-simple explanations Boyer had in mind. Boyer suggests that any meaningful explanation for religion would to be a cognitive cocktail, requiring reference to many aspects of human cognition.
In his article, Boyer presents a chart to warn us to avoid many of the commonly heard simple (and false) explanations for “why does religion exist?” Here are the commonly heard overly-simple explanations for religion, coupled with Boyer’s refutations:
The claim: Religion answers people’s metaphysical questions.
Why it’s not true: Religious thoughts are typically activated when people deal with concrete situations (this crop, that disease, this new birth, this dead body, etc.).The claim: Religion is about a transcendent God.
Why it’s not true: It is about a variety of agents: ghouls, ghosts, spirits, ancestors, gods, etc., in direct interaction with people.The claim: Religion allays anxiety.
Why it’s not true: It generates as much anxiety as it allays: vengeful ghosts, nasty spirits and aggressive gods are as common as protective deities.The claim: Religion was created at time t in human history.
Why it’s not true: There is no reason to think that the various kinds of thoughts we call ‘religious’ all appeared in human cultures at the same time.The claim: Religion is about explaining natural phenomena.
Why it’s not true: Most religious explanations of natural phenomena actually explain little but produce salient mysteries.The claim: Religion is about explaining mental phenomena (dreams, visions).
Why it’s not true: In places where religion is not invoked to explain them, such phenomena are not seen as intrinsically mystical or supernatural.The claim: Religion is about mortality and the salvation of the soul.
Why it’s not true: The notion of salvation is particular to a few doctrines (Christianity and doctrinal religions of Asia and the Middle-East) and unheard of in most other traditions.The claim: Religion creates social cohesion Religious commitment can (under some conditions) be used as signal of coalitional affiliation.
Why it’s not true: But coalitions create social fission (secession) as often as group integration.The claim: Religious claims are irrefutable. That is why people believe them.
Why it’s not true: There are many irrefutable statements that no-one believes; what makes some of them plausible to some people is what we need to explain.The claim: Religion is irrational/superstitious (therefore not worthy of study).
Why it’s not true: Commitment to imagined agents does not really relax or suspend ordinary mechanisms of belief-formation; indeed it can provide important evidence for their functioning (and therefore should be studied attentively).
Boyer warns that most of the mental machinery inviting believe in religion “is not consciously accessible.” Our conscious beliefs represent the tip of the cognitive iceberg. Further, he cites experimental tests demonstrating that
people’s actual religious concepts often diverge from what they believe they believe. This is why theology’s, explicit dogmas, scholarly interpretations of religion cannot be taken as a reliable description of either the contents or the causes of peoples beliefs.
Rather than first-order beliefs, Boyer argues that religious beliefs, which are conscious and explicit, are “interpretations of one’s own mental states.”
As an example of how religious beliefs dovetail with normal cognitive function, Boyer raises the issue of communication with non-present nonphysical entities. When we think of a friendship, we often imagine walking are talking with a friend. Boyer reminds us, however, that “a good deal of spontaneous reflection in humans focuses on past or future social interaction and on counterfactual scenarios. This capacity to run off-line social interaction is already present in young children.” He reminds us that all of us have lingering thoughts and feelings about our acquaintances who are recently dead; all of us are capable of carrying on conversations in our head with dead people.
Indeed, our spiritual “friends” are much like our real-life friends. How startling is should be to us that spirits and gods all communicate with English-speaking believers in English. How odd it should be that the spirits so often agree with our own moral intuitions. How surprising it should be that the things that we find disgusting are also disgusting to them. Their favorite foods and hobbies are the same as ours!
What are the other cognitive systems from which religious beliefs might sprout? Boyer suggests these: “detection and representation of animacy and agency, social exchange, moral intuitions, precaution against natural hazards and understanding of misfortune.”
All of this is fodder for Boyer’s suggestion that we should look for our explanation for religion in the blossoming research on cognitive neuroscience. At bottom, Boyer warns that religion might not be a spectacular or fundamental error of reasoning, as many skeptics would like to believe. Rather, cognitive science suggests “a less dramatic but perhaps more empirically grounded picture of religion as a probable, although by no means inevitable byproduct of the normal operation of human cognition.”
- Scientists who disagree: is religion an aberration or an adaptation?
- What does evolution really have to do with religion? David Sloan Wilson argues that it’s time to find out.
- The importance of false and oxymoronic religious claims
- Pascal Boyer continues his search for natural sources of religious belief
- Do the various claims of miracles made by conflicting religions serve as evidence that all such claims are false?
If “God” is that greate and made all of this: why does he need myths and unclear methods to communicate to his creatures? If he made a plant to have chlorophyl to make use of light- why is it that he has to be all mystical when speaking to man?
Is harder to believe that nature would go against its rules (to create this so called mirecales) or to believe that man would tell a lie and continue telling it, especialy for personal gain?
John McNally:
Thanks for stopping by. It’s like a crazy fireworks show down here in the comments section. Lots of bright colors and convoluted shapes. The extent to which people are displaying great passion does leave me scratching my head. It seems that most of these commentors are using this post as a mere excuse to shoot off their prepackaged positions on science/religion. Very few people have referred to Pascal Boyer or his article (the link to the article is embedded in the post).
Based upon my traffic software, most of these comments are being referred by Netscape. I thus suspect that many of these comments are by people new to this site.
I find it hard to believe there are people still challenging the THEORY of Evolution - that’s like challenging the THEORY of GRAVITY! Duh. . .it’s a term used to gather information, information that may evolve as we get smarter - tho I fear after reading all these responses that is not in the near future. And for those people who have convinced themselves that Science state the Universe was created from nothing - nothing could be further from the truth. You only say that because you are ignorant of Science.
The wars will stop once we get past the myths of god and religion. . .but, again, after reading these responses, I can only feel sadness.
If you wanted to prove that the Christian religions was false and that God does not exist - not just the rediculous virgin idea - all you would have to do would be to carry on as Jesus did. As the Jewish Mesiah who would lead the Jews out from under Roman rule - like Moses with the Egyptions - Jesus was hung out to dry. No mirical happened and now his family’s tomb, including Jesus’, has been found. The bible was written to reinterpret Jesus’ life and times. Nothing in Christianity has any merit other than as a social experiment to prove the opposit of what the religion currently stands for.
Pardon me Erich and others who are reading the post. I degress for a moment to answer a comment made to me. Please understand that this comment is my personal belief and does not in anyway refer to anyone besides the person I am sending the message.
Mo King I understand that you may be upset with what I wrote. I made no mention of God nor of the Bible. I believe as you do about both. Then I have also talked with people who say they are Christians and I have noticed differences that have caused mass divisions even within the same chuch to the point that one group breaks away from another because they believe that thier interpretation of the Bible is better than the other’s. For example, the question of Baptism. Variations vary from is it necessary, or not? Does the person needs to be submerged under water or just sprinkled? A baby needs to be baptised or the person needs to be cognizant and fully aware of the choices he is making? I could go on, but the simple idea as baptism has been interpreted in many ways. Who is right? I cannot say, but if I had a chance to talk to Jesus himself he could answer the question. Until that happens each of us no matter what religion we belong to have to go on faith and THAT is what this is all about. I apoligize to anyone who is not Christian or belongs to a faith that believes in Baptisms one way or another. I am not siding with anyone. This is just my observations.
I am saying that the only way to find out the truth is to talk to the people who wrote what is now written no matter what religion they are affiliated with. By talking with the originators or contributors you will learn truely what is going on. To witness the events as they transpire will be definitely an eye opener. Perhaps if it could happen it would change the way even those who believe in a faith to really answer the questions like, do we crack the egg from the small end or the big end? Perhaps it should be cracked in the middle or perhaps it does not matter?
Until then have faith in what you believe in. Seek the truth for yourself.
There are free spelling lessons available on-line, in case anyone is interested. I’m not necessarily directing this comment at those who are most vehemently attacking this post.
For example, see http://www.spelling.hemscott.net/
Erich-I am not fearful of putting religion under the microscope. There has always been people and entire societies, kingdoms, etc, that have misinterpreted the bible. That doesn’t make the Bible wrong but it does say something about the people who misinterpret the Bible. So, you can say the same about people who speak of the theory of evolution as if it were fact and draw reference to an individual that has the same opinion as himself.
Erich, you have put religion under the microscope possibly biased. I think that mankind basically rebells at the thought of answering to a supreme being especially when they think they are more intelligent than the vast majority.
You are in the same boat as some religious people. You need to stop shooting holes in the bottom so your boat.
Don’t worry about people and their spelling. This is an exchange of ideas and belief. Your not their teacher nor their parent you arrogant a**.
Spelling: Get the FireFox browser. More secure than IE, built-in spell-checking for all entry fields, and it will copy all your IE favorites, bookmarks, etc. when it installs.
Jerry:
The Bible, which you claim to be an extraordinarily perfect book, is a document that promotes slavery (and see here) as well as all sorts of oppression and violence (and especially see here). These huge problems with the Bible are some of the reasons that traditional religious beliefs are fading in America.
These major problems with the Bible lead to shameless cherry-picking by Believers-they read only the useful parts and pretend the embarrassing parts aren’t even there. Children can see through these techniques. That’s why 88 percent of the children raised in evangelical homes leave church at the age of 18, never to return.
Because the Bible is so full of violence, ambiguities and contradictions, I seek a better way. You consider my need to seek truth beyond the Bible as arrogant, which is your prerogative. I carefully treat all religious books with the same level of skepticism with which I treat all other written works, including science books. Can you assert the same?
I’m not harping on people who follow religions. Many religious people (They include many close friends) are truly extraordinary and generous people. My problem is with people who gullibly follow religions because they’ve been scared into doing so. My problem is also with people who strut around thinking that they are superior to good-hearted non-religious people just because they claim to read and claim to believe the Bible.
BTW, did you call me an offensive name because you’ve run out of arguments?
Look at all you people shouting your opinions at one another. Many of you not actually spellling anything correctly or using somewhat proper grammar. That is all beside the point though. My opinion (more about your comments not about the article so much) is this, what is the point? We all go six feet under at some point, and we (living humans) will most likely never know what, if anything, happens after death. Not to mention we (the people responding) won’t be around to see the day the world ends anyway, so let’s all go outside and enjoy the fresh air.
Erich I never made any of the claims you have stated and it is clear that you strut around thinking that you are superior to good-hearted religious people.
Of course I think you are full of it. Bye
Erich: Jerry evidently is a follower of the late huckster , Rev. Gerry Falwell, who said ” Christians, like soldiers and slaves, don’t ask questions”. That statement made many of his followers very proud that he would say such a thing. I take the statement as a celebration of the group’s ignorance.
Why is that a cause for celebration? Oh, I forgot. You’re not supposed to ask questions!
Erich beware not to follow into the same trap that you say others do. You claim that “they read only the useful parts and pretend the embarrassing parts aren’t even there.” It is often the same with people who wish to say bad things about the Bible. They point the bad things as in the slavery theory and all the bad things in the Bible and do not look at all the good things in the Bible and promote the same with equal enthusiasm. I also agree that the Bible is so full of violence, ambiguities and contradicions. Yes, even Jesus lost his temper and died a gruesome death. It is part of humanity. Personally I have found the United States if not all parts of the world where man lives to be full of violence, ambiguities and contradicions but, I do not want to leave it and go some where else. Instead I look at it try to make sense of all this violence, ambiguities and contradicions and make peace with myself. To be truthful if I was a child of some of these Evangelist I would take off as soon as I can because many I have met are insufferable. I would not swallow lot of the things they teach because God said for them to say it.
The Bible is not a flowery book that hides all the bad things and only promote the good. Many religions and sadly even Christians promote the good and try to hide the bad. People tend to do that. I have not met one politician who truthfully tells it all. Instead they promote the good and hide the bad (as much as possibly.) They too are often full of ambiguities and contradictions. Those who are truthful or open are often shunned or thought badly(and not in office long). I personally am ashamed of some of the things I have done.
I do believe that many Christians do only read the parts of the Bible they can accept and ignore the rest. They are even willing to excerpt parts of the Bible to make outlandish claims on how people both Christians and non-Christians should behave or act. It should be the opposite as the Bible should be teaching the reading Christians how to behave and act.
Again I am not defending the Bible, but I hope you take the time to make a study of the Bible and not just one, but the many versions of it to determine what is going on why is the Bible is so full of violence, ambiguities and contradicions. Perhaps you can make peace with yourself about the Bible.
Xiaogou: The reason a few fatal defects are important to note in the Bible is that most of the most vocal and insufferable supporters of the Bible are people who claim that the Bible is “inerrant,” totally and completely true and without error.
Until we can agree that the Bible has errors, contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible, there is little hope of a conversation between believers and skeptics. It is clear that there are hundreds of errors, inaccuracies, and episodes of senseless violence in the Bible (see http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/). Until we can agree that the Bible is in many ways unsavory and that Believers do their cherry-picking in much the same way that skeptics consider candidates for valid moral principles, the prospects of a conversation are dim, indeed (for evidence, see the numerous comments to this post, in which the commentor shows no indication that he or she has actually read or understood the post).
Your advice is well taken, however.
Erich I find no argument to your last post. First there are many Bibles and many vary for one another on more than one point so yes there has to be problems with someone saying that the Bible is totally beyond tampering with. Second, I am not asking for you to have a logical dialog with believers of the Bible. Trying to speak logically with them I agree will be pointless and counterproductive. I have had same lack of success as you.
You are seeking answers to religion and as I have pointed out that it is a very deep subject worthy of deep and complex study. The idea is not to become a heckler, but a man of knowledge. If you want to understand religion is to go beyond the written word and understand the heart of what is being said. Learn the lessons in the words and use them to improve your life and in doing so improve the life of others.
The heart of three influential religions lies in the Tanakh, the scriptures of the Hebrew people. From that branch comes the Bible’s New Testament for the related two after that. Finally the Koran is the last text of that major branch of religion, Islam.
One thing to remember when going over these books is that over time there will naturally be errors and inaccuracies due to errors in translation and transmission. Again I cannot stress that unless you can talk to the authors of the various parts who really know what went on. If we could look on them and realize that they are perhaps writing about something way above what their understanding and could easily be explained by a perfectly simple scientific phenomenon accurately. On the other hand you may witness a miracle which is indescribable in human terms. Just as some person in the distance future finding a book on the big bang theory will criticize us because we are observing something that is way beyond our scope of understanding to describe. They will scoff at us say, “The big bang theory is full of errors and inaccuracies.”
As for violence I do not know of any book of human endeavors to be without it. Chemistry has gun powder and chemical warfare. Physics has its A-bomb and laws of gravity to determine the path of artillery shells falling on helpless innocence. Should we stop reading those books as well?
Xiaogou: I appreciate your suggestions. I will continue to look for wisdom in the various holy books, including the Bible. Holy books are not the exclusive depository of wisdom, however. How about reading Shakespeare? How about conversations with ordinary (as in not famous) people? How about the great wisdom you’ll find in many short quotes (e.g., try here: http://www.quotationspage.com/ )? I think it is a great mistake to limit one’s sources of spiritual guidance to the official holy books of bureacratic religions. Worthy advice can be found in innumerable small corners of the world, as well as in non-religious songs, poetry and prose.
One other point. Chemistry and physics books do not pretend to give moral guidance. The Bible, rife with oppression and violence, does.
You are right to look into everything and it is good that you realize that holy books are not the only books of wisdom. Did you read the Bible story that tells of a man who gains wisdom from the mouth of a donkey? Many Christians miss this very important message that wisdom comes from many sources and if one does not keep his eyes and ears open (and preferably mouth shut, which is hard for many Christians) then they miss out on such hidden wisdoms. One message they often miss is when people tell them stop being so annoying:P
I guess I did not make my second point out very clearly. Violence and oppression is part and parcel of human history and endeavors. If you look at the Bible it is not only a spiritual guide, but the chronology of a race of people. If we rule out a book just because they contain violence and oppression, many of the classics that we read will be gone from our book shelves such as Shakespeare, Homer and Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles. So unless we apply the same rule to all our media it becomes prejudice. The key here is spiritual guidance. It is not law, not something immutable or set in stone (unless you count the Ten Commandments which no longer exist except in reference and the Hebrews rejected and broke the first set.) In fact Jesus himself said let us get rid of the Laws. If a Christian uses the Bible as a law of life book and follows it blindly, such as young Christians and legalistic Christians do, they become the modern day Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus berated. Besides, if the Bible was all flowery with rainbows, apple pie and Chevrolet I would definitely be sick or diabetic. On the other hand if the Bible was like an immutable instruction book sans the lives of the people in it, it would be boring and worse be used by all sorts of control freaks leading us.
I understand you are upset with Christians but let’s be fair to the Bible. As Gandhi said I have no problem with Christianity, only with Christians (sorry about the misquote). I say go on bashing Christians who stray off the path. But, let people read the Bible unbiased by other people’s opinions. Let people decide if it is a good book or a book about violence and oppression. I believe not everybody is an idiot and can’t come to a decision by themselves. If they don’t get it I just smile because I know the truth or, as in this conversation with you, we can discuss it. By the way have you actually studied the Bible? I know most Christians have read the Bible, but like Confucius and Zen the meanings are often hidden within the words. I still have problems with Zen.
Erich has caused a little riot here with his post, eh?
Xiaogou, that all makes sense what you say, but I don’t think Erich ever said that the Bible only consists of crime and violence and is worse than other source of spiritual writings. I think he made it quite clear here:
It’s ok if people cherry-pick and prefer the sections about loving thy neighbor. What irritates though is their vehment denial of contradictions in the other parts and their imposing of their beliefs on other people who prefer not to believe due to these flaws. I assume if they would shut up and believe in quiet without disturbing anybody nobody would trouble that much to engage in arguments about their beliefs. Unfortunately, they are not happy with having found the right way, they also feel the need to proselytize and influence other people’s life. I see pointing out the flaws in someone else’s reasoning as a legitimate way to defend myself.
projedtleiterin actually, it would be better to know the enemy (Sun-Tzu.) That would be a better defense. The problem lies in the fact that those Christians are not well versed in the Bible. Should you be well versed in the Bible, not just one, but several. I say several because if you read oneyou will be like them. If you read several you will see what is true. Also read to understand not just to feed your pet peeve. Again if you feed your pet peeve you will be exactly like them. Try to read and understand several Bible then you will be well shielded then you can shed what they say like water off of a duck’s back. If you become skillful in the Bible you may want to correct them into proper behavior, but as a novice I would be happy to evade the conflict (also Sun-Tzu). But if both are ignorant of one another and you wade into this hoping to change that annoying Christian’s way of thinking, THAT is the course of disaster (also Sun-Tzu). Wisdom is your shield not bantering of words.
There is truth in what Erich says, the trick is to see it and use it properly without anger or malice (also Sun-Tsu)
By the way Sun-Tsu if you ever read his works is also not simple it is very deep and worthy of study. But very very violent.
First off, to the angry Christians: Nobody forced you to read the article. In fact, since the article is on a site devoted to liberal and generally non-religious thinking, you should have expected that it would not go along with your views. Why are you attacking Erich for expressing his opinion? Several have commented that he should have kept his beliefs to himself, but none of you are doing the same. They have a word for that: hypocrisy. No one is saying that religion is responsible for everything bad that has happened in this world, so don’t become so defensive. Worse than that, don’t try to point out the bad things that have happened in other religious societies, or societies that are not religous at all. Identifying the negative actions of other groups does not absolve yours from its own historical atrocities.
On a scientific basic, I am utterly awed at the lack of basic logic in some of these posts. That is not an attack on your religious views, it is an attack on common sense. There is no theory that the Universe came from nothingness, because at the moment they are simply that: theories. Theories are unproven, so just because they do not have an explanation just yet, it does not mean they will not eventually find one. It is unfair to call science inferior to religion because it does not answer all of humanity’s questions. If my sock disappears from the dryer, I can say “It must have been evil appliance gremlins that have taken it.” That does not make what I’m saying true, even though it is an explanation. Of course science is not exact; we have only been around for several thousand years, which is not enough time to find all the answers. Things that do not seem to make sense now may one day be answered. My dad always taught me: “Just because there is no scientific explanation thus far, it does not mean it does not exist. We simply do not have the resources to identify them.” It is true that this could also mean that such things as a person coming back from the dead may make sense in some way, but it does not guarantee it and it is therefore not a crime not to believe it.
This holds true for Psychology. I believe Erich probably posted this article because he likes the way Boyer thinks. You don’t have to agree. Attacking psychology in general is not going to change this man’s belief. And, there is good news: there are other scientists out there who disagree. That being said, stop attacking others for their disbelief…I suggest you simply avoid reading articles you might find offensive (especially if they attain to religion).
So, to Erich: I appreciate your insight, and I did read the article, which I found quite thought-provoking! Thank you for posting it.
Arielle
18 years old