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.”
Please read the life story of ST Paul.
Dee: I don't recall ever reading that St. Paul scientifically studied the psychological motivations for professing beliefs in unsubstantiated tales.
I sympathize with your opinion, even though opinions are far from changing the world much like Christianity has done. If you cannot see the beauty of a miracle, or feel like miracles happen in your personal world… well then, you might be void of any imagination. Which, is amazing, because even a dog can see the beauty of existence around it. And if an abused child can imagine a better place for him/herself, just so they can feel happy… even if it's not real, then so be it. My point being to you… TO BE A HAPPY PERSON, BE HAPPY FOR SOMEONE ELSE. You should try it.
Erich: I don't recall anyone proving the THEORY of Evolution or the THEORY of Electronics. So what makes you any different than Dee. I hope you are not one who thinks that you are more intelligent than almost everyone. Oh, and I don't think psychology is a proven science either, but I could be wrong.
"I don’t think psychology is a proven science"
Psychology is both an academic and applied discipline involving the scientific study of mental processes and behavior. Psychologists study such phenomena as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Psychology also refers to the application of such knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including issues related to daily life—e.g. family, education, and work—and the treatment of mental health problems.
As a social science, psychology attempts to understand the role human behavior plays in social dynamics (e.g., culture, economics, and politics). Although psychology differs from biology and neuroscience as a field of study, current psychological science incorporates physiological and neurological processes into its conceptions of mental functioning. Psychology includes many sub-fields of study and application concerned with such areas as human development, sports, health, industry, forensics, and spirituality.
Experimental psychological research is conducted in a laboratory under controlled conditions. This method of research relies on the application of the scientific method to understand behavior. Experiments use several types of measurements, including rate of response, reaction time, and various psychometric measurements. Experiments are designed to test specific hypotheses (deductive approach) or evaluate functional relationships (inductive approach). They are important for psychological research because they allow researchers to establish causal relationships between different aspects of behavior and the environment. Importantly, in an experiment, one or more variables of interest are controlled by the experimenter (independent variable) and another variable is measured in response to different conditions (dependent variable). (See also hypothesis testing.) Experiments are one of the primary research methodologies in many areas of psychology, particularly cognitive and biological psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#Developme…
Jerry: The theory of evolution has survived all challenges for a hundred years longer than the theory that germs cause disease or that atoms contain neutrons.
In science, for a "theory" to be "proven", it only has to be more accurate and more useful than all the alternative theories combined.
Newton's Theory of Gravity is pretty good, but still can't absolutely contradict the earlier idea that sin is the force holding man down (and therefore those without sin can bodily rise to heaven).
am: What has a complex and meaningful understanding of many amazing facets of human nature have to do with an inability to see beauty? Does greater understanding imply less imagination?
am: You confuse me. Did I deny the existence of beautiful things? Did I suggest that abused children should give up their dreams of ever being happy?
It seems like you're suggesting that Christianity has brought nothing but goodness and happiness to the world. As though people haven't also used religion to justify intolerance, ignorance, superstition, and violence. I'm not denying that Christians aren't often kind-hearted people. What I doubt is that they wouldn't have been kind-hearted without their religious beliefs.
Jerry: I see that you fear the thought of putting religion under the microscope of science. You aren't alone in this fear. Do you really think that reading St. Paul would add anything to Pascal Boyer's analysis? If reading outlandish religious claims helps us understand science, maybe we should also read Joseph Smith's accounts that ancient Israelites traveled to Central America in pre-Columbian times? Or let's consider that Zeus defeated Atlas and punished him by forcing Atlas to hold up the sky. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus Those things will really sharpen our science!
Am I more intelligent than "almost everyone"? Where did I make that claim? I'm tempted to think that Boyer's work hit a raw nerve for am and Jerry. They want to be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe, without anyone daring to question to abject lack of evidence for those beliefs.
You don't recall anyone "proving the theory of evolution?" Have you taken even a few hours to understand the basic principles of evolution? What part of the theory do you disagree with? I'd recommend that you go here and read up on evolution. Or just go to your public library and pick up a good book–there are many of them. Then feel free to come back and visit.
What makes me different than Dee? She reads St. Paul and Believes. I read thousands of people, including many that disagree with each other, and I question. Who do you trust more, gullible people who wear blinders or skeptical people who ask questions and follow the evidence where it leads?
Symbolic logic has a postulate (postulates cannot be proven or dis-proven) that states you cannot prove absolute truth. Probability theory states that zero and one do not exist in nature. 0 & 1 of course are certainties (truth).
All of science is false. It is based on continual improvement (change)
This brings us to the problem – DOGMA.
God (Infinity) gave us a mind to use and we must NOT hold on to beliefs in the face of a better reality!
Isn't it a fact that today a woman who is a virgin can become pregnant through artificial insemination? What makes you think this was not possible by the power of a higher being we call God?
wow, many of you sound very well versed on you opinions. but, the bottom line is whether you choose to believe in Christ or not does not negate His existence as both Savior and Lord. i am a recent convert and can attest to the power of God being beyond rational. which is why your theories and thoughts lead you to denying Him. His power is beyond human understanding. i once thought as you did. and by human standards had a pretty good argument against Christians. but to use a cliche I have seen the Light. i see many differing opinions above which seem to be well researched. but we are not really arguing whether evolution exists or if a man was born of a virgin. this is about God. if you believe in God then you believe He can do anything. if you don't believe in God then there are many things of this world to explain. i do find it strange that many of you try to use science to disprove God when i believe science makes His existence undeniable. good luck to you all, may you find the truth you seek.
Prophecy has come true in the Bible and that is magic. If God's Prophecies come true two thousand years later, why can't other, seemingly magical, things in the Bible be true also?
A couple of things. First: Psychology. It may be a science, but it is not exact. There are misdiagnosis' (?) just as there are misconceptions about religion and God. Man did not create God. God created man. Wheather it took a week or thousands of years in "mans" time, man is not just happenstance. Second: Religion. There are faults with all religions. There are faults in science. There are faults with man in general. God on the other hand is without fault. The written word is man. It too is full of fault. We simply can not do anything perfect.
The old saying that there are no athiests in foxholes is true.
In this day and age with all of man's accomplishments we have become so arrogant that we have re-created God. This is ultimately going to be the root of our demise.
Acknowledging that religion is riddled with questionable "facts", even knowing the "facts" that the study of history provides us with, I feel and suggest to you my friend this simple statement to consider.
I would much rather believe in God and discover I was wrong than to NOT believe in God and find out I was wrong. Wouldn't you?
Very interesting indeed.
Scientific method requires that hypothesis must be falsifiable. Existence of God isn't falsifiable, ergo: it is as valid to scientific knowledge as it is poetry.
Also, scientific method doesn't prove that something is true, never.
The argument in favor or against the existence of god will never be scientific, it will be a not falsifiable personal belief.
Scientist should study religion, its sources, its effects, etc.
For example; why has it been identified a particular area in the brain that, when stimulated, makes the subject experience strong spiritual phenomema? what is the role of that area in the brain? is religion a self defense mechanism the brain has developed against depresion or alike? etc …
For what I have say, it doesn't matter if I believe in god or not. But something I will agree with some thoughts shared here. If science finds a strong relation between Faith in God (religion in short) and mental illnesses; I am prepared to stop believing (if I haven't stop believing already, 🙂 )
cheers
Alejandro
Erich: Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. I'd like to know, what do you think about Voltaire and his famous last words?
"I see that you fear the thought of putting religion under the microscope of science."
Why not put science under the "microscope of science":
Science says, "Everything came from nothing."
Religion says, "Everything came from something."
This is the fundamental difference between atheism and theism; science and religion. Why is it that the belief in magic represented by Science is accepted as more intelligent? Methinks science requires a lot more blind faith than religion.
You r a saddest. if u do not believe in religion, why don't u keep them to ur self? why tell everyone. There's a God and u dam well believe, Mary is a Virgin. U will roth in Hell u mad bastard.
Which is harder to believe- a universe came out of nothing, or a virgin had a child? If you don't believe in God, you have to believe in 'something from nothing'. You can hide in your doubtfulness over in the area of criticism of things that are hard to believe, but, if you can't explain where everything came from (and you can't), your atheism counsels against your very existence.
Religious and political leaders have brainwashed "believers" into thinking that appreciating joy, beauty, etc. is "religious." They fail to note that people of all faiths or no faith experience these–it is human rather than religious to do so.
It seems likely that certain behaviors, such as sharing social practices and myths, have survival value for the species. It seems to have put in a placeholder for cognition that might (or might not) come later.
Since (simplistically speaking) normal human learning involves state formation with cognitive dissonance and revised state formation to account for new data, it appears that children and entire cultures progress in similar ways with respect to attaining a deeper understanding of any entity or situation.
Hello Erich,
Let not just talk about Virgins or coming back from the dead. What about
how he appeared in another form or how about where he told his followers that they should pick up serpents and drink all deadly things. A lot of people are confused about the bible even if they conisder themselves religious or not. However, have you read my book Jesus Is No Excuse that explains all of these question that you and others have. I think it will make you a believer in god and understand that the bible is not sacred but only a history book that man wrote. The only thing that is sacred in the bible is the ten commandments and most athiest follow them better than religious people. How many athiess are in jail compare to christians.? Check out the write-up at http://www.jesusisnoexcuse.com
Jerry,
You don't recall anyone proving the theory of electronics? If all that theroy of electronics was a myth, how do you possibly explain: Telephone communications, wired and wireless, radio and tv station broadcasts that you can receive, microwave link communications from satellites, as well as shuttle communications, microwave ovens, video games, IPods, mp3 players, instrumentation designed for analysis, shall I go on? The list is long, and keeps getting longer. Without scientific inquiry, asking the right questions, and application of proven answers discovered through research, not one of the above would be possible. Proof that it pays to ask questions, and be skeptical.
It doesn't pay to peretuate ignorance, superstition, and unproveable feel good dogma. What does "feelings" have to do with fact investigations, anyhow?
In the global economy, stem cell research in the US will be left behind in our march toward being a third world country, because of how the present administration "feels" about stem cell research……..and that's progress?
Please.
Well, you are right, religion is a thing that people invented on the other hand christianity is something that require faith and goes farther that the simple word "religion"
As a non-believer, I still respect the right of any person to believe whatever they wish. It's the imposition of those beliefs on others that I steadfastly oppose. I find the disdain expressed by many atheists or agnostics toward the so-called faithful to be distasteful at best and counter-intuitive to those of us in perpetual pursuit of the common ground that might allow us to share this planet a bit more peacefully. Having said that, I enjoyed reading your observations, Erich, although the myriad typos prevent me from recommending your piece to others.
There have been many comments submitted to this post. I've allowed a broad sampling of them, but I've rejected others. My main concern with the rejected comments (and with several of the comments I allowed to illustrate the problem) is that the writers were warning me to go read the Bible or to start believing in God or that I was going to hell. Or they bluntly told me that religion is more true than science, without any attempt to explain their positions. Some of the comments told me what an evil person I am for even raising this topic.
The comments I rejected did not indicate that the writers ever read the post (much less Boyer's article). They were merely responding to the fact that I had put "religion" and "science" in the same post.
I invite all comments that make ANY sincere attempt to respond to the posts. To allow the dozens of comments that simply tell me that God is Great, etc., add very little to the conversation.
To those of you who actually responded to the post (and SOME of you who didn't–as an illustration), you'll see your comments displayed above. Thank you for taking the time to join this conversation. I hope you guys don't end up in hell for taking the post seriously!
Erich:
Sorry to have to disabuse you of the prejudices that science has inculcated in you, but I can conceive of physical models of reality that both simplify our understanding of early cosmology, account for a great deal of observational phenomenon that current theory cannot, and includes spirituality.
In such a theory, our three-dimensional physical structure is coupled to higher dimensionality by the "spirit". Gods are real physical phenomena, created by the power of belief, which generates structure in our united spirits. The host is metaphorically Christ's flesh because it carries a portion of his spirit, nurtured by the power of faith and channeled through extra-dimensional structure. Virgins give birth when the effects of sex in higher dimensionality are manifested here.
That things don't make sense to you in a three-dimensional model should be a challenge to you. You should open your mind to other possibilities, because it is a scientist's job to explain human experience, rather than dismiss it.
This is incredibly important, because in fact there is power released through the process of loving reality that is almost incalculable. It may be sufficient to allow someone to push his spirit through time across the moment of his death, and then to travel back to his followers to give them the news that love will be victorious in the future.
Note on the origin of the universe. Several of the comments have noted that religion is superior to science because science says that the universe came from nothing whereas religion points out that the universe came from SOMETHING (allegedly, God).
It amazes me that people can make this argument straight-faced. On the one hand, it ignores that scientists themselves are troubled by the something from nothing idea, so much so that they are busy considering alternatives suggesting that the known universe is simply the known part of an much bigger, ongoing whole (e.g., string theory, the possibility of multiverses–see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang ). On the other hand, most believers overlook that their own God allegedly always existed (allegedly had no cause).
Tell me why it's so much harder for so many people to believe that the universe always existed (no "beginning") than their alternative: that an English-speaking God always existed.