Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Darwin’s God

I read an interesting article in the NY Times recently that takes a slightly different tact on the whole God/atheism issue. Instead of debating whether there is a God or not -- an issue that most of us have pretty strong views on already -- let's look at why some people believe in God:
"...Call it God; call it superstition; call it ... “belief in hope beyond reason” — whatever you call it, there seems an inherent human drive to believe in something transcendent, unfathomable and otherworldly, something beyond the reach or understanding of science. ..."

"... Atran is Darwinian in his approach, which means he tries to explain behavior by how it might once have solved problems of survival and reproduction for our early ancestors. But it was not clear to him what evolutionary problems might have been solved by religious belief. Religion seemed to use up physical and mental resources without an obvious benefit for survival. Why, he wondered, was religion so pervasive, when it was something that seemed so costly from an evolutionary point of view? ..."

Some say that it has to do with the earliest humans, " ... that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history ...". CK reviewed a book that says something to that effect.

The subject of the article makes the startling (to some) assertion that a belief in God may be the most natural state because the brain is hardwired for it:
"... Why, he wondered, did people work so hard against their preference for logical explanations to maintain two views of the world, the real and the unreal, the intuitive and the counterintuitive?

Maybe cognitive effort was precisely the point. Maybe it took less mental work than Atran realized to hold belief in God in one’s mind. Maybe, in fact, belief was the default position for the human mind, something that took no cognitive effort at all...."

Another interesting note, if we assume a Darwinian evolution of religion, is that religion may have once served a practical purpose for human survival or may have just been a side note to something else:
"... Darwinians who study physical evolution distinguish between traits that are themselves adaptive, like having blood cells that can transport oxygen, and traits that are byproducts of adaptations, like the redness of blood. There is no survival advantage to blood’s being red instead of turquoise; it is just a byproduct of the trait that is adaptive, having blood that contains hemoglobin.

Something similar explains aspects of brain evolution, too, say the byproduct theorists. Which brings us to the idea of the spandrel.

Stephen Jay Gould, the famed evolutionary biologist at Harvard who died in 2002, and his colleague Richard Lewontin proposed “spandrel” to describe a trait that has no adaptive value of its own. They borrowed the term from architecture, where it originally referred to the V-shaped structure formed between two rounded arches. The structure is not there for any purpose; it is there because that is what happens when arches align.

In architecture, a spandrel can be neutral or it can be made functional. Building a staircase, for instance, creates a space underneath that is innocuous, just a blank sort of triangle. But if you put a closet there, the under-stairs space takes on a function, unrelated to the staircase’s but useful nonetheless. Either way, functional or nonfunctional, the space under the stairs is a spandrel, an unintended byproduct.

“Natural selection made the human brain big,” Gould wrote, “but most of our mental properties and potentials may be spandrels — that is, nonadaptive side consequences of building a device with such structural complexity.”

The possibility that God could be a spandrel offered Atran a new way of understanding the evolution of religion. But a spandrel of what, exactly?..."

The fact that this "byproduct" has stuck around is common in evolution:
"... Atran ascribes the persistence to evolutionary misdirection, which, he says, happens all the time: “Evolution always produces something that works for what it works for, and then there’s no control for however else it’s used.” On a sunny weekday morning, over breakfast at a French cafe on upper Broadway, he tried to think of an analogy and grinned when he came up with an old standby: women’s breasts. Because they are associated with female hormones, he explained, full breasts indicate a woman is fertile, and the evolution of the male brain’s preference for them was a clever mating strategy. But breasts are now used for purposes unrelated to reproduction, to sell anything from deodorant to beer. “A Martian anthropologist might look at this and say, ‘Oh, yes, so these breasts must have somehow evolved to sell hygienic stuff or food to human beings,’ ” Atran said. But the Martian would, of course, be wrong. Equally wrong would be to make the same mistake about religion, thinking it must have evolved to make people behave a certain way or feel a certain allegiance. ..."

As I mentioned earlier, the belief in God may be a standard position for the brain at birth:
"...The bottom line, according to byproduct theorists, is that children are born with a tendency to believe in omniscience, invisible minds, immaterial souls — and then they grow up in cultures that fill their minds, hard-wired for belief, with specifics. It is a little like language acquisition, Paul Bloom says, with the essential difference that language is a biological adaptation and religion, in his view, is not. We are born with an innate facility for language but the specific language we learn depends on the environment in which we are raised. In much the same way, he says, we are born with an innate tendency for belief, but the specifics of what we grow up believing — whether there is one God or many, whether the soul goes to heaven or occupies another animal after death — are culturally shaped. ..."

The article goes in to many different things (it's 19 pages long). It touches on the possible benefits of religion in an evolutionary sense if you assume that it served a purpose instead of being a byproduct.

It talks of the conflicts between scientists who both believe in evolution (Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, for example).

One final thing that the author said that I found intriguing was how it was hard to be an atheist because it is not the default position of the brain. I don't agree with this view, but I found it interesting nonetheless:
"...What can be made of atheists, then? If the evolutionary view of religion is true, they have to work hard at being atheists, to resist slipping into intrinsic habits of mind that make it easier to believe than not to believe. Atran says he faces an emotional and intellectual struggle to live without God in a nonatheist world, and he suspects that is where his little superstitions come from, his passing thought about crossing his fingers during turbulence or knocking on wood just in case. It is like an atavistic theism erupting when his guard is down. The comforts and consolations of belief are alluring even to him, he says, and probably will become more so as he gets closer to the end of his life. He fights it because he is a scientist and holds the values of rationalism higher than the values of spiritualism. ..."

I find it easy to not believe in God, but I do find myself being superstitious at times for no apparent reason. Is it because the brain is set up to be that way, regardless of whether you believe in God or not?

I'm curious what all of you will take from the article (Christian and atheist).

17 comments:

CyberKitten said...

Interesting.

I don't have much of a problem with the idea that we have 'belief engines' hardwired into our brains. For many reasons - not least of which is intellectual economy - they would seem to have an evolutionary advantage. I have a *big* problem with the idea that we're programmed to be theists though.

Atran's thoughts on the 'unnaturalness' of atheism says more about his own beliefs than about the evolution of belief in general. Like you dbackdad I feel that it takes less effort *not* to believe in God than I think it would take me to believe in Him. As far as I can tell the only way theists don't need to constantly question their beliefs is by having huge blindspots regarding contrary evidence.

Sadie Lou said...

It's funny that sometimes I hear information from your camp that sounds so much like information from my camp.
The Bible says that each one of us is given a mustard seed of faith. A mustard seed is very, very tiny.
So that would support this theory that we are hardwired to believe in a god.
Maybe some people nurture their mustard seed of faith and maybe people that have had their mustard seed grow and mature, often help to nurture the mustard seed in others (evangelism).
And maybe some people (atheists) let their mustard seed remain a mustard seed. And maybe God allows it.
I don't really know.
dbackdad,
Maybe when you are feeling superstitious are the times your little mustard seed is trying to grow?

CyberKitten said...

Sadie said: It's funny that sometimes I hear information from your camp that sounds so much like information from my camp.

Funnily it always makes me immediately suspicious.... [grin].

Sadie said: Maybe when you are feeling superstitious are the times your little mustard seed is trying to grow?

Or maybe its just something hanging around from our childhood....?

Sadie Lou said...

hanging around from childhood?
How's that?
A lot of us were not raised like that.

dbackdad said...

"... sometimes I hear information from your camp that sounds so much like information from my camp." -- not my camp. I just thought he had a take on the whole issue that would encourage discussion.

I don't happen to agree with his contention that belief in God may be hardwired. Like CK, I believe there may be some evolutionary reason for ingrained belief systems of some kind, but nothing so specific as a belief in God.

Sadie Lou said...

-- not my camp. I just thought he had a take on the whole issue that would encourage discussion.

Oops. Sorry for the confusion.

I don't happen to agree with his contention that belief in God may be hardwired. Like CK, I believe there may be some evolutionary reason for ingrained belief systems of some kind, but nothing so specific as a belief in God.

Well, do you think that a sense of morality and the ability to determine right from wrong is hardwired in our minds too?

CyberKitten said...

Sadie asked: hanging around from childhood? How's that? A lot of us were not raised like that.

Children pick up a lot of things without thinking very much about them. Superstitions are just one of those things.

Sadie asked: Well, do you think that a sense of morality and the ability to determine right from wrong is hardwired in our minds too?

To an small extent yes. However, I think that the vast majority of moral and ethical thinking is cultural. There is no such thing as an in-built Universal Morality Code.

dbackdad said...

"...do you think that a sense of morality and the ability to determine right from wrong is hardwired in our minds too?" -- Honestly, I do not know for sure. I can see how cooperative behavior and some kind of shared moral code could have worked beneficially for the survival of humans in the past. Evolution-wise that trait could have been passed on and, in effect, hardwired.

Sadie Lou said...

I just think the whole idea of morality being hardwired is ridiculous. It obviously doesn't matter if human beings are hardwired with any kind of moral standard because it's violated every, single passing second about a thousand times.
No, morality does not come from the evolution of mankind--if it did, we would have evolved some sort of accountability mechanism that helps us live up to the moral standard instead of simply just being aware of it. What's the point of having an evolved moral standard if there's no evolved requirement to obey it?

dbackdad said...

"I just think the whole idea of morality being hardwired is ridiculous." -- There have been studies that have shown there is no difference in morality between atheists and religious people or between civilized people or those on isolated islands.

There are very obvious and demonstratable instances in nature of Darwinian reasons for altruism or "morality". Morality seems to predate religion.

From Dawkins' book, "As Einstein said, 'If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.' Michaal Shermer ... calls it a debate stopper. If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would 'commit, robbery, rape, and murder', you reveal yourself as an immoral person ...'"

Contending that religion is the source of morality is specious. Whether the evidence indicates that morality is hardwired or not, I'm not qualified to say. But society would not have survived this long if it's source of morality was religion.

Scott said...

Organized religion is certainly not the author of morality. In fact, quite to the contrary, it is often the very cause of confusion on what is and isn't moral. Government's also play a role in the confusion by calling theft (taxes) and murder (war) moral ventures when clearly they are not.

I do believe in "hardwired morality" as it has been named here. I wrote about it, as well as the Catholic Church's notion of sinful nature a while back on my blog. I think also the idea that we are created to believe in God is obvious.

CyberKitten said...

Scott said: I do believe in "hardwired morality" as it has been named here.

But if morality is 'hardwired' how come we disagree so much about it?

Scott said: I think also the idea that we are created to believe in God is obvious.

If that's the case how do you explain the *many* variations of God belief as well as Buddhists & atheists amongst others?

Sadie Lou said...

dback said...
Contending that religion is the source of morality is specious. Whether the evidence indicates that morality is hardwired or not, I'm not qualified to say. But society would not have survived this long if it's source of morality was religion.

No, no, no. We have to speak the same language here. I never intended for you to assume I meant religion is the source for morality. Religion is a man made, falliable institution.
God is the source.
And I don't believe it's hardwired into our beings. I believe God convicts us with a small, still voice when we are doing something wrong and that is how we have that inner voice telling us it's wrong but more times than not--we ignore the small voice in favor of doing the wrong thing that is bringing us pleasure or joy. We've all heard it. People call it a "conscience". In high school, I was very good at turning a deaf ear to my conscience and very crafty and justifying my actions by blaming my parents or my peers for my wrong doing.
If anything, we are "hardwired" to serve our sinful nature because we live under the ideology that we are the creators of our destiny and we control our happiness so we serve our flesh and chase down whatever flighting thing brings us gratification, pleasure, a quick fix. We make demi-gods that we idolize and worship. Money, sex, drugs, fitness--whatever your poison may be.
If morality was hardwired, it wouldn't be so simple to fight it off.

dbackdad said...

Scott -- I'll have to track down the post you mentioned. I'd definitely be interested in reading it.

Sadie said, "I never intended for you to assume I meant religion is the source for morality" -- I apologize for misinterpreting you. Obviously, I still disagree with the assessment that God is the source, but, as you say, we are on the same page as far as understanding each other.

"If anything, we are "hardwired" to serve our sinful nature because we live under the ideology that we are the creators of our destiny and we control our happiness so we serve our flesh and chase down whatever flighting thing brings us gratification, pleasure, a quick fix." -- I guess my problem with this is that "hardwiring" and idealogy are two different things. Idealogy requires conscious thought, whereas hardwiring does not. I don't believe that our hardwiring pertains to individual gratification. It more pertains to those aspects of early human development that allowed us to survive and perpetuate. Again, from Dawkins (it's a bit long, but telling):

"The 'mistake' or 'by-product' idea, which I am espousing, works like this. Natural selection, in ancestral times when we lived in small and stable bands like baboons, programmed into our brains altruistic urges, alongside sexual urges, hunger urges, xenophobic urges and so on. An intelligent couple can read their Darwin and know that the ultimate reason for their sexual urges is procreation. They know that the woman cannot conceive because she is on the pill. Yet they find that their sexual desire is in no way diminished by the knowledge. Sexual desire is sexual desire and its force, in an individual's psychology, is independent of the ultimate Darwinian pressure that drove it. It is a strong urge which exists independently of its ultimate rationale. I am suggesting that the same is true of the urge to kindness - to altruism, to generosity, to empathy, to pity. In ancestral times, we had the opportunity to be altruistic only towards close kin and potential reciprocators. Nowadays that restriction is no longer there, but the rule of thumb persists. Why would it not? It is just like sexual desire. We can no more help ourselves feeling pity when we see a weeping unfortunate (who is unrelated and unable to reciprocate) than we can help ourselves feeling lust for a member of the opposite sex (who may be infertile or otherwise unable to reproduce). Both are misfirings, Darwinian mistakes: blessed, precious mistakes."

Part of the disagreement about morality is that there are drastically different versions of what constitutes it. Morality in the general sense is altruism towards others. And that is universal. It's when we get into different societies and religions that it gets sticky.

greatwhitebear said...

a brief synopsis of my view of religion.

Ever since our ancestors added that last layer of brain that differentiates us from all other creatures, we have been tortured with the questions "Where did we come from" and "where do we go from here". The finite mine trying to make sense of infinity. Our ancestors made up stories about Gods and afterlives as a means of trying to make sense of these questions. Having supernatural authorites lording over you also proved to be an easy means of getting society to follow prescribed social mores.

As individual cultures became more sophisticated, so, by neccessity did their theologies.

Modern science pretty much makes all of these stories pretty much just that, old stories. But that doesn't make them irrelevent. there is a wisdom gleanded from a thousand of generations in many of these stories.

Knowing that the God stories are just that, stories, should free us to find the truths that all of these ancestors have passed on. And allow us to pass on new insights to future generations,

Sadie Lou said...

"The 'mistake' or 'by-product' idea, which I am espousing, works like this. Natural selection, in ancestral times when we lived in small and stable bands like baboons, programmed into our brains altruistic urges, alongside sexual urges, hunger urges, xenophobic urges and so on. An intelligent couple can read their Darwin and know that the ultimate reason for their sexual urges is procreation.
So Darwin is making a leap of faith in saying that primal man didn't have sexual urges beyond procreation? Primal man didn't lust after a member of the opposite sex purly out of the urge to have sex with him or her?
Sex has always felt good--we can safetly assume--so was primal man too stupid to catch on to the fact that sex can be, simply, about enjoyment? Pleasure?
You'd have a hard time convincing me of that.

dbackdad said...

So Darwin is making a leap of faith in saying that primal man didn't have sexual urges beyond procreation? -- "Leaps of faith" are for the faithful. Darwin, Dawkins, nor I intimated that primal man didn't have sexual urges beyond procreation. I think a refresher on what natural selection means is in order:

Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. -- From Wikipedia

The initial reason for a sexual urge was a genetic mutation. But it was a mutation that resulted in that group of humans being better at procreating.

Early humans that were better at procreating were more likely to survive and that favorable trait would thus become more and more prevalent.

But all this is neither here nor there if you don't believe in evolution. I doubt that I could change your mind in that regard.