"We've evolved to be creationists"

[coberst]

“We’ve evolved to be creationists”

 

“We’ve evolved to be creationists” is a quote from the “The Atlantic Monthly” article “Is God an Accident?”—December 2005 issue.

 

Paul Bloom, author of the article, informs us that “human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena…this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry”.

 

Paul Bloom informs us that nearly everyone on earth believes in miracles, afterlife, and the creation of the earth by some supernatural power. While doing research into infant behavior, psychologists have recently discovered that humans are born with a predisposition to believe in some supernatural actuality. These scientists conclude that this predisposition is a random happenstance of cognitive functioning gone awry. These conclusions led to the question “Is God an Accident?”--the title of the article.

 

I have just found the answer to a question that has baffled me for years. Why do non-believers love to talk religion? Perhaps talking about religion is much like ‘whistling past the cemetery’.

 

Everyone loves to talk religion because we are all born with the “gut feeling” that there is a body/mind duality. Because we “feel” that mind is a “spiritual” entity we easily accommodate heaven, soul, god etc.

 

Science says that this gut feeling is a result of “cognitive functioning gone awry” and religion tells us that this is a matter of faith. What do you think?

[Boerseun]

Paul Bloom, author of the article, informs us that “human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena…this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry”.

I'd say rather that our supposed predisposition towards the belief in supernatural entities is based purely on our innate inquisitiveness - a handy trait that's been increasing our range ever since the first homo erectus decided to stand on two legs. We enquire about phenomena that cannot be answered at the time, and demand explanations for such cool things as stars and fire. And seeing as we can't explain it, we invent gods. Scientific pursuits serve much the same purpose, but with much more concrete results.

While doing research into infant behavior, psychologists have recently discovered that humans are born with a predisposition to believe in some supernatural actuality.

How did they come to that conclusion, using infants as the test subjects? Infants are notoriously bad, not to mention unproductive witnesses, battling slightly to verbalise their intentions or thoughts.

These scientists conclude that this predisposition is a random happenstance of cognitive functioning gone awry.

Whilst interesting, I thing 'awry' is a bit strong. I believe its simply an expression of our inquisitiveness lacking answers.

I have just found the answer to a question that has baffled me for years. Why do non-believers love to talk religion? Perhaps talking about religion is much like ‘whistling past the cemetery’.

Nah, not really. Non-believers don't 'love to talk religion'. Non-believers do try to explain their stance to believers, because to a large extent, those pesky believers simply don't want to leave us alone, and comes barging in to these forums on a regular basis preaching their faith blindly to those not so inclined. If you put 100 atheists on a desert island, with no self-procaimed prophets in the vicinity, I doubt if religion ever will come up as a conversation topic, unless maybe in the form of a joke.

Everyone loves to talk religion because we are all born with the “gut feeling” that there is a body/mind duality. Because we “feel” that mind is a “spiritual” entity we easily accommodate heaven, soul, god etc.

I think you're talking about your 'inner dialogue' being somehow divorced from your physical body, making you think that there's an actual division between them. But have you ever listened to how much crap your inner dialogue can talk when you're inebriated? Your inner dialogue, your flow of consciousness, all of that depend on the chemical make-up of your body at the time. There is no division, regardless of what you're told. We might experience it as two seperate entities, but education (and a few drinks) soon takes care of that.

Science says that this gut feeling is a result of “cognitive functioning gone awry” and religion tells us that this is a matter of faith. What do you think?

I think these guys have got the cat by the tail, so to speak.

[coberst]

It is notoriously difficult to study babies. “But recently investigators have used the technique of showing them different events and recording how long they look at them, exploiting the fact that babies, like the rest of us, tend to look longer at something they find unusual or bizarre.”

[Michaelangelica]

“We’ve evolved to be creationists”

Paul Bloom informs us that nearly everyone on earth believes in miracles, afterlife, and the creation of the earth by some supernatural power.

No not me.

I must be on a different branch:tree:

[coberst]

When written history began five thousand years ago humans had already developed a great deal of knowledge. Much of that knowledge was of a very practical nature such as how to use animal skins for clothing, how to weave wool, how to hunt and fish etc. A large part of human knowledge was directed toward how to kill and torture fellow humans. I guess things never really change all that much.

 

In several parts of the world civilizations developed wherein people learned to create laws and to rule vast numbers of people. Some measure of peace and stability developed but there was yet no means for securing the people from their rulers. I guess things never really change all that much

 

Almost everywhere priests joined rulers in attempts to control the population. Despite these continual wars both of external and internal nature the human population managed to flourish. Egypt was probably one of the first long lasting and stable civilizations to grow up along the large rivers. Egypt survived almost unchanged for three thousand years. This success is attributed to its geographical location that gave it freedom from competition and fertile lands that were constantly replenished by the river overflowing its banks and thus depositing new fertile soil for farming.

 

Western philosophy emerged in the sixth century BC along the Ionian coast. A small group of scientist-philosophers began writing about their attempts to develop “rational” accounts regarding human experience. These early Pre-Socratic thinkers thought that they were dealing with fundamental elements of nature.

 

It is natural for humans to seek knowledge. In the “Metaphysics” Aristotle wrote “All men by nature desire to know”.

 

The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. Cognitive science identifies several ideas that seem to come naturally to us and labels such ideas as “Folk Theories”.

 

The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World

The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it.

 

The Folk Theory of General Kinds

Every particular thing is a kind of thing.

 

The Folk Theory of Essences

Every entity has an “essence” or “nature,” that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.

 

The consequences of the two theories of kinds and essences is:

 

The Foundational Assumption of Metaphysics

Kinds exist and are defined by essences.

 

We may not want our friends to know this fact but we are all metaphysicians. We, in fact, assume that things have a nature thereby we are led by the metaphysical impulse to seek knowledge at various levels of reality.

 

Cognitive science has uncovered these ideas they have labeled as Folk Theories. Such theories when compared to sophisticated philosophical theories are like comparing mountain music with classical music. Such theories seem to come naturally to human consciousness.

 

The information comes primarily from “Philosophy in the Flesh” and Folk Theories and Metaphors in Early Greek Philosophy

[rodeosweden]

A theory which resonates with me: humans are separated from the rest of the animals in many ways one of these ways is that we know we exist and we know we are going to die and we are afraid of death and the uncertainty which it brings. Religion is a way of taking the fear away from it and explaining it and making it more acceptable. Logic isn’t it. Saying that I’m agnostic and am sitting on the fence.

[Tormod]

It is natural for humans to seek knowledge.

 

That may well be so, but it does not mean that the knowledge people seek is relevant to the topic of this thread. IMHO resorting to religion for a source of "knowledge" is misguided. Religion is not something that will teach you anything about anything *except* how things should be understood when viewed through the lens of that religion. Some religions are more lenient than others in this regard.

 

Above it has been stated that non-believers like to discuss religion. First of all it is simply not true - some non-believers like to discuss religion, some don't (I belong in between).

 

Stating that "humans have evolved to be creationists" is pointless. It's just as impressive to say "humans evolved to go shopping in malls" or "humans evolved to chew bubble gum". Perhaps "humans evolved to participate at Hypography".

 

Why get hung up in self-evident claims when there are trees,

T

[coberst]

A theory which resonates with me: humans are separated from the rest of the animals in many ways one of these ways is that we know we exist and we know we are going to die and we are afraid of death and the uncertainty which it brings. Religion is a way of taking the fear away from it and explaining it and making it more acceptable. Logic isn’t it. Saying that I’m agnostic and am sitting on the fence.

 

I have in the last 12 months been studying psychology and psychoanalysis. I am a retired engineer and these are new domains of knowledge for me.

 

One thing that I have learned is that an unconscious longing for some form of immortality appears to be part of human nature. This fundamental drive for immortality influences us to do many of the things we do.

 

I have been trying to understand why humans do the things we do and if there is something that we can learn that will change the logic of our existence. These two domains of knowledge have much to say about such matters.

[coberst]

That may well be so, but it does not mean that the knowledge people seek is relevant to the topic of this thread. IMHO resorting to religion for a source of "knowledge" is misguided. Religion is not something that will teach you anything about anything *except* how things should be understood when viewed through the lens of that religion. Some religions are more lenient than others in this regard.

 

Above it has been stated that non-believers like to discuss religion. First of all it is simply not true - some non-believers like to discuss religion, some don't (I belong in between).

 

Stating that "humans have evolved to be creationists" is pointless. It's just as impressive to say "humans evolved to go shopping in malls" or "humans evolved to chew bubble gum". Perhaps "humans evolved to participate at Hypography".

 

Why get hung up in self-evident claims when there are trees,

T

 

Goodness, someone appears to have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

[Tormod]

Goodness, someone appears to have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

 

My bed only has one side. :D

[Buffy]

My bed only has one side. :eplane:

 

Oh my! A Mobius bed! Where do I get one of those?

 

Makes arguments much easier,

Buffy

[Turtle]

“We’ve evolved to be creationists”

 

“We’ve evolved to be creationists” is a quote from the “The Atlantic Monthly” article “Is God an Accident?”—December 2005 issue.

 

Paul Bloom, author of the article, informs us that “human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena…this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry”.

 

I agree to a point. I don't think the predisposition is incidental however, and offer this thread/author in support.

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/9410-biotheology.html

In brief, Matthew Alper posits that the predisposition to 'nether-worldly' and 'spirit' beliefs is an evolutionary adaptation that ameleiorates the fear concomitant with the evolution in humans of self-realization. Leaves us peeps with the ability to ignore the danger and get to chopping wood. (insert carpenter smilie here___) :eplane:

 

The GOD Part Of The Brain - Matthew Alper

[TheBigDog]

Upon further reflection, I do not think that we have a genetic predisposition for creation and spirits and such, but we do have very clever minds capable of inventing solutions to problems that are imaginary. This is related to our (seemingly) unique ability to invent things. sometimes our inventions are tools, and sometimes they are spirits and boogie men. We are also highly influenced by one another, and lore. When our brain is handed a peice of information it automatically includes that in future calculations. So once the seed of lore is planted in a mind it will recur in an unconscious fashion in the thinking of those individuals so exposed. Religion is more of a social skills adaptation to existing beliefs than a specific trait of the evolved human species.

 

Bill

[Turtle]

Upon further reflection, I do not think that we have a genetic predisposition for creation and spirits and such, but we do have very clever minds capable of inventing solutions to problems that are imaginary. ...

Bill

 

The thing is, the real-time brain imaging studies referenced by Alper show that 'out of body' experiences, meeting spirits, etcetera do have their root 'cause' in brain structure. It is only in the last decade or so that the technology to do these studies has emerged. Science is always amendable. B) ;)

 

PS I do not contest clever minds, rather promote clever evolution. I haven't found good links for Alper yet. I heard him interviewed on radio.:eplane:

[Turtle]

My own recent investigations finds the Möbious band suitably complex for such an apparently simple system. Given one side to the bed to exit, one may often crawl out (off?) an end. Nothing is not connected. - RTG

 

Here's an interview with Matthew Alper. >> The God Module and humanity - Interview with Matthew Alper

 

Q:{Francois Tremblay} What is the extent of the "god module"? Does it explain all manifestations of spirituality or only religion?

 

A:{Matthew Alper} Though what is referred to as a "God module" is really a nexus of several interactive mechanisms in the brain, religiosity does seem to be focused in the temporal lobe, whereas spiritual experience is derived from a combination of the amygdala, the parietal lobes and the right frontal cortex.

[coberst]

My limited knowledge of psychology and psychoanalysis informs me that humans have an unconscious striving for immortality; religion is one form in which this striving displays itself.

 

Humans are the only animal species that recognizes self existence and with this recognition comes the recognition of mortality. We cannot accept this sense of mortality and many of our actions are motivated by this anxiety. Ergo, there is a God and a heaven. Also many other of our actions manifest this anxiety.

[Buffy]

...humans have an unconscious striving for immortality...

Like the original proposition here, this is a more hyperventilated way of saying "we don't like to die." Which would seem to be a Darwinian imperative, rather broadly practiced across both the animal and plant kingdoms. Thus the argument that:

Humans are the only animal species that recognizes self existence and with this recognition comes the recognition of mortality. We cannot accept this sense of mortality and many of our actions are motivated by this anxiety.

would require some argument that somehow this more basic instinct for survival was somehow lost by ancestors *after* the most recent branch from other extant primate species to justify.

 

I think you will find it somewhat difficult to do this.

 

Overstatement is a great way to sell magazines,

Buffy