Neurotheology & Non-Belief

[Storm]

As many of you know, I'm fascinated by neurotheology, the fledgling science which seeks to understand why we believe in God.

The findings thus far seem to imply we're hard-wired for such belief, or at least the seeds of it.

So, assuming for the sake of discussion that this is true, the question becomes, why doesn't everyone believe?

Your thoughts? (Will post my own later.)

 

[sandandfoam]

=
So, assuming for the sake of discussion that this is true, the question becomes, why doesn't everyone believe?

Because everything about us is a result of genes interacting with environment and it all comes down to individual differences?

 

[themadhair]

IIRC Dawkins doesn't have a 'god spot'. Does that count.

 

[BucephalusBB]

The findings thus far seem to imply we're hard-wired for such belief, or at least the seeds of it.

Curious, since when? And I don't mean when we discovered that but since when in the line of evolution? If possible to know at all..

 

[Storm]

IIRC Dawkins doesn't have a 'god spot'. Does that count.

Yep.

Curious, since when? And I don't mean when we discovered that but since when in the line of evolution? If possible to know at all..

That, I don't know, sorry.

 

[BucephalusBB]

That, I don't know, sorry.

If belief is settled in the genes, evolution could have had it's impact.
And if certain beliefs made groups in the past... Groups survive better.

Just rambling thoughts here btw..

 

[Storm]

Because everything about us is a result of genes interacting with environment and it all comes down to individual differences?

Maybe epigenetics is involved, somehow?

This is more or less in line with my own thoughts, which are that the hard-wiring predisposes us to interpret certain experiences as supernatural, but
1) doesn't kick in without those experiences. No matter how predisposed we are to a given interpretation, if one lacks the experience, they have no reason to believe.
2) doesn't override reason. Even if one has such experience, the instinctive interpretation might not satisfy them intellectually. They would regard it as anomalous.

 

[Storm]

If belief is settled in the genes, evolution could have had it's impact.
And if certain beliefs made groups in the past... Groups survive better.

Just rambling thoughts here btw..

Well, if neurotheology's findings have any validity at all, evolution definitely selected for religious belief. Which raises the interesting question of how it's advantageous.

I would say that strengtheining tribal bonds is an obvious candidate, but I think there's more to it than that. Of course, as a believer, I'm biased.

 

[Dunemeister]

A Christian analysis might say that neuroscience only views human beings from a perspective after the fall (the event which saw humankind's relationship with God decisively ruptured). Thus we see multiple religions because humankind, although designed to know God, are somehow separated from him. Somehow, the fall has damaged our noetic faculties so that our beliefs about God are muddled.

 

[themadhair]

Which raises the interesting question of how it's advantageous.

Some of the solutions to real world problems require imagination. Maybe religiosity was a by-product of the selection rather than what was selected for?

 

[Storm]

A Christian analysis might say that neuroscience only views human beings from a perspective after the fall (the event which saw humankind's relationship with God decisively ruptured). Thus we see multiple religions because humankind, although designed to know God, are somehow separated from him. Somehow, the fall has damaged our noetic faculties so that our beliefs about God are muddled.

I think I see where you're going with this, but I don't want to assume. Could you elaborate a bit?

Some of the solutions to real world problems require imagination. Maybe religiosity was a by-product of the selection rather than what was selected for?

Maybe. I would say theism proper is a by-product, as described by the spandrel hyposthesis. However, that strikes me an inadequate answer to the question of God-belief as a whole, and it's near-universality.

 

[CarlinKnew]

The findings thus far seem to imply we're hard-wired for such belief, or at least the seeds of it.

That's the key point. We're hardwired with the capacity for religious belief. We're also hardwired with the capacity for all other superstitions. I don't believe in God for the same reasons that I don't believe that rabbits feet bring me good luck, doing a special dance will make it rain, and so on.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Curious, since when? And I don't mean when we discovered that but since when in the line of evolution? If possible to know at all..

Again,

Humans are cognitively susceptible to invoke supernatural agents whenever emotionally eruptive events arise that have superficial characteristics of telic event structures with no apparent CONTROLLING FORCE.

- In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary landscape of Religion

The book is well worth reading.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, that strikes me an inadequate answer to the question of God-belief as a whole, and it's near-universality.

What of the past "near-universality" of superstition?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe. I would say theism proper is a by-product, as described by the spandrel hyposthesis. However, that strikes me an inadequate answer to the question of God-belief as a whole, and it's near-universality.

Assuming agency behind things can be incredibly useful.

For example, if you assume that there's an intelligence behind the rustling of a nearby bush, you can avoid being eaten by the tiger hiding in it. This assumption is still advantageous even if the wind is really causing it nine times out of ten.

Assume agency behind the wind as well, and suddenly you have theism.

 

[Storm]

That's the key point. We're hardwired with the capacity for religious belief. We're also hardwired with the capacity for all other superstitions. I don't believe in God for the same reasons that I don't believe that rabbits feet bring me good luck, doing a special dance will make it rain, and so on.

This also seems inadequate. To my mind, if it were simply a question of capacity, somewhere, sometime, there would have been a culture that didn't go that route. But, to my knowledge, there was not.

Now, I don't mean to appeal to numbers, and I'm certainly not saying it proves God's existence. But the lack of any Godless culture in history indicates to me that belief goes deeper than what you suppose.

 

[linwood]

So, assuming for the sake of discussion that this is true, the question becomes, why doesn't everyone believe?

Your thoughts? (Will post my own later.)

The conclusion that we are "wired" for god is either false or some of us have evolved differently than others.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now, I don't mean to appeal to numbers, and I'm certainly not saying it proves God's existence. But the lack of any Godless culture in history indicates to me that belief goes deeper than what you suppose.

Where there's smoke, there's smoke ...

 

[Storm]

Assuming agency behind things can be incredibly useful.

For example, if you assume that there's an intelligence behind the rustling of a nearby bush, you can avoid being eaten by the tiger hiding in it. This assumption is still advantageous even if the wind is really causing it nine times out of ten.

Assume agency behind the wind as well, and suddenly you have theism.

Granted, but as we've discussed before, the spandrel does not exist in a vacuum, even if true.

 

[Storm]

The conclusion that we are "wired" for god is either false or some of us have evolved differently than others.

Which do you favor?