Evidence of Biological Basis for Religion in Human Evolution

[cbayer]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140117153635.htm

Jan. 17, 2014 — An Auburn University researcher teamed up with the National Institutes of Health to study how brain networks shape an individual's religious belief, finding that brain interactions were different between religious and non-religious subjects.

Gopikrishna Deshpande, an assistant professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering in Auburn's Samuel Ginn College of Engineering, and the NIH researchers recently published their results in the journal, "Brain Connectivity."

The group found differences in brain interactions that involved the theory of mind, or ToM, brain network, which underlies the ability to relate between one's personal beliefs, intents and desires with those of others. Individuals with stronger ToM activity were found to be more religious. Deshpande says this supports the hypothesis that development of ToM abilities in humans during evolution may have given rise to religion in human societies.

"Religious belief is a unique human attribute observed across different cultures in the world, even in those cultures which evolved independently, such as Mayans in Central America and aboriginals in Australia," said Deshpande, who is also a researcher at Auburn's Magnetic Resonance Imaging Research Center. "This has led scientists to speculate that there must be a biological basis for the evolution of religion in human societies."

more at link

[mike_c]

1. exactly as my sig line suggests....

Religious belief has less to do with the reality of deities, and more to do with brain chemistry and wiring. Just like many other forms of mental illness.

[cbayer]

2. No, that is not what your sig line suggests at all.

The article does not address the reality, just the propensity to develop religion or not based on brain functioning.

It says nothing about mental illness.

In fact it speaks to a possible evolutionary advantage, something psychiatric illnesses does not generally confer.

What you know about psychiatry disorders could be fit on the head of a pin. And that is what your sig line more than suggests.

[mike_c]

3. the point is that religious belief is delusional and arises from within the human brain....

I call that religious insanity. Others call it devotion. I'm not sure where you fall on that continuum, but we're talking about the same phenomenon, just from different perspectives. The ToM postulates regarding evolution of religiosity have been around for a while, and now empirical evidence is mounting that is consistent with the idea that religion is a byproduct of the evolution of human consciousness, an artifact of our wet ware. You and I choose to call that artifact different things, but I'm betting in the end that we're talking about exactly the same phenomenon, and god doesn't have anything to do with it.

[cbayer]

4. As I have discussed with you previously, religious belief is not delusional.

And this article lends actual evidence that the bigoted notion that it is delusional is bunk. You can call it whatever you want, but it's only a statement of your own highly prejudiced position.

Here is a link to the abstract. If you don't understand it, you may have a friend who can explain to you what this means:

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/brain.2013.0172

When brain pathways are discovered that are common to major groups of people, that does not constitute pathology. In fact, the argument could be made that it represents normalcy and the minority that do not have these pathways are the ones with possible pathology.

Mind you, I'm not making that argument, but it could be made.

I am going to quote here another DUer who says something very important and that I think you should read:

I think there is a danger in treating a belief system, with which one disagrees, as mental illness

I am not religious; but treating religious (or other different) beliefs as an illness can easily be misused. I assume that you are speaking somewhat metaphorically here; but let us remember that the Soviet Union confined many dissidents to mental institutions; that in early 20th-century Britain - and probably elsewhere - a young woman who had a baby out of wedlock could sometimes end up confined to an institution for the rest of her life; and that many governments and private organizations would like to take any opportunity to treat social nonconformists as 'sick'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=107013

What you are doing here says much more about you than it does about the religious.

[mike_c]

5. why turn this into a personal mud flinging...?

I don't believe I've ever insulted you personally, cbayer. I'm sorry you feel the need to make this about me, rather than about our differing perspectives and ideas.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Get used to it.

[cbayer]

11. Why turn it into personal mudslinging?

Do you not think your sig line and absurd position on this topic is not mudslinging at the large number of religious believers who are members of this site and good people?

This isn't about differing perspectives and ideas. It's about overt attacks on people that have different perspectives and ideas than you do.

You insult all believers personally when you call them psychiatrically ill. What about that don't you get?

I'm sure you are a perfectly nice person and probably don't even realize how offensive your position is.

I apologize for making this personal. I should not do that. But your position and your sig line, to which you love to draw attention, are really horrible.

[skepticscott]

16. Your argument presumes, foolishly

that beliefs cannot be delusional as long as they are shared by enough people, and that religious beliefs are entitled to some sort of special privilege and deference in that respect. Neither are even remotely true.

Suppose that a group of people in this country believed that extraterrestrials were on their way to earth in a giant spaceship, and that when they arrived, all of their devotees would be taken up into the spaceship and carried off to a better world. And suppose that they gathered by the hundreds and thousands every week to sing songs to the aliens (convinced they can hear across the vastness of space) and celebrate that glorious day to come. And suppose this went on for hundreds of years, in every city and town. Delusional, weirdos, nuts and crackpots would probably be some of the kinder terms (whether spoken out loud or not) that would be applied to them, by just about everyone.

But call those people Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, and the space aliens “God” and “Jesus”, and all of a sudden, the same behavior is supposed to be regarded (on DU and everywhere else) not merely as sane and sensible, but wonderful, as something to be praised and immune from criticism. Mainly because of the deferential attitude and special status that organized religion has convinced most people it is entitled to.

If you want your position to be taken seriously, then provide a coherent reason why the two scenarios I presented are different in any important way. I'm betting you can't.

[trotsky]

53. Because, YET AGAIN, I will point out to you, cbayer...

(someone who SHOULD know better), that a delusion is simply a false belief. It doesn't equal mental illness. It just simply doesn't.

But you doggedly persist in equating the two, and in doing so, are using that as a weapon to attack others.

STOP DOING IT.

[mike_c]

76. in fairness, she's referring at least partly to statements I've made...

...equating religious faith and mental illness. I'm not an expert on either, so take that with a grain of salt.

But my general thinking is that if someone believes that the Earth is flat, that's a delusion, a false belief. Something directly contradicted by evidence. However, if someone kills their neighbor because they contend that the Earth is actually spherical, or promotes a social order in which round-Earthers cannot participate in public democracy, or send their children to school, or are relegated to the margins of society, even though the evidence of a round planet is all around them-- is that simply delusional? Or is it pathological?

It's one thing to believe something in the face of objective evidence otherwise, but quite another to attach that belief to emotional responses like rage and hatred toward others who do not share the delusion. THAT is where I think religious faith turns toward pathology. Social pathology certainly. Individual pathology? I don't know, but I don't have any way to rule that out beyond the protestations of those who share the delusion.

[skepticscott]

80. Delusions CAN be religious in nature

But not ALL religious beliefs are delusions, and not all delusions are religious in nature.

[Starboard Tack]

83. Excellent post. I couldn't agree more.

Congratulations!

[trotsky]

101. In fairness, she uses the same false equivalence no matter who she's yelling at.

She can't even use the word correctly, and worse, uses it to attack, demonize, and divide.

[on point]

102. Religious magical thinking is delusional and a mental illness

That it hasn't been listed yet in medical literature has more to with history and current lingering power of religion to ruin people, and less about the fact that it is a sickness

[cbayer]

103. Says who? You?

Do you have any data to back that up or is it just a belief you have?

If it's just a belief you have, and there is lots of data that would prove you wrong, your belief is much more likely to meet the criteria of delusional thinking than religion.

[cbayer]

105. This article doesn't support that premise in the slightest.

If anything, it would support that the pathways found in the religious are more widespread and may confer some evolutionary advantages.

But maybe we should institutionalize all the people that see things differently than you do, force treatment on them and then "eliminate" them so they don't pass it on.

Yeah, that's the ticket. It's been such a raging success when done in the past.

Your post makes me queasy.

[Brettongarcia]

111. The belief that we can pray, and make bread appear out of thin air, seems like magic

Say the ritual words, and bread appears out of thin air; say the magical words, and the magician makes a rabbit appear out of thin air, in an empty hat. It's called "conjuring."

For that matter? Even the Bible itself, warned that ideas from false priests, "magicians," "sorcerers," "enchanterers," "witches," "conjurers" - with their "illusions," "delusions," "false dreams," and "enchantments" - often infect religion. Even religion in Israel and Christianity.

Out of this and more, there have long been allusions in psychology, anthropology etc. that there may indeed be "magical" beliefs, "magical thinking," imbedded deep in our religion.

[cbayer]

113. Who believes that?

While some may believe that Jesus did it, are there really people out there that believe they can do it? If so, you might actually be talking about someone with a delusion.

And, like you say, it's one of the reasons religion is such fertile ground for hucksters and thieves.

It might be important to distinguish between magic and miracles. Would you say they are considered to be different things by the religious?


"Magical thinking" is another term that has a clear meaning in the realm of psychiatry/psychology but is tossed around with less clear definition when it is used to describe religion.

So, as you have advised, I will ask you to elaborate on what you mean when you use that phrase.

[Brettongarcia]

118. There are televangelists who promise miracle cures; Benny Hinn has been exposed at this

In the past, many pastors claim to follow the Bible; and quote particularly John 14.13 ff; where we are promised that "whosoever" "asks," will do "all the works" or wonders that Jesus did; and "greater things than these." Historically, many foolish, childish Christians, televangelists, were taken in by these promises. And as they constantly said, they "believ"ed and "had faith" in the promises that were made out of this kind of biblical passage; even as they had to ignore one contrary bit of evidence, after another. Perhaps deeper down they did not believe; but they constantly CLAIMED to.

Some believers have tried to differentiate their belief in "miracles" from belief in magic. However, structurally they are quite similar. Much of Anthropology therefore says hints that even more modern religion, descended from ancient belief in magic, conjuring, sorcerers, and so forth. There is a great deal of structural similarity between praying for bread to appear in empty baskets, and saying the right words, and making a rabbit appear in an empty hat.

Elements of Christianity that seem very tied to belief in Magicians, would be: 1) belief in conjuring; bread out of thin air. 2) Belief in necromancy: thoroughly dead and rotting persons coming to life. 3) Belief in magical powers; the ability to say a few words, and get fire to descend from heaven. Probably also 4) the belief that we have an invisible "spirit"; one that 5) can "go to heaven." Belief in "spirits" being a mainstay of ancient magic. Also the belief that 6) we can touch a sacred object (or fetish) - a cross; holy water - and be healed of disease. Etc.

All common beliefs, in what has historically been called Christianity. All with obvious parallels to belief in magic, as found in countless other cultures.

[cbayer]

120. Televangelists are problematic in many ways and

I think they are hucksters more often than not.

What you describe seems to be on the edges of the bell curve. I don't think most people pray for bread to appear in a basket, but they pray for the good of other individuals, strength, guidance, etc

To me, that is a huge difference.

And when you take scripture and read it literally, I would agree that it becomes harder to differentiate.

But if you see much of it as allegory and metaphor, it becomes easier.

Elements of sports "worship" shares many of the things you describe, btw.

Spiritual belief is also not unique to religion. A growing number of people describe themselves as spiritual but not religious. They believe there is something non-biological (for lack of a better word) that is part of every person.

I think it's a mistake to describe religion in generally pejorative terms that are used to dismiss or marginalize.

What's the point of doing that?

[Brettongarcia]

131. Looking honestly at some unsavory origins to religion, should make spiritual Christians more humble

Promises of "miracles" and so forth, are the roots of Christianity. If they are wrong? Then even our most spiritual persons should be far, far more humble and questioning about their own religion; and know their original historical foundation is on shifting sand. It is hoped that they gain the spiritual gift of humility, from that.

A standard text - not too readable, but standard - alluding to the origins in magic, of even modern high spirituality, would be say "From Primitives to Zen: A Thematic Sourcebook on the History of Religions," by Mircea Eliade, 1967. Especially Ch. 5: "From Medicine-Man to Mystics and Founders of Religion."

We need Christians to learn to think critically about their religion; in order to spot and fix destructive things in it.

[cbayer]

133. If what you are saying here is that christians would benefit from more education

about the religion they embrace, I certainly agree.

It would be great to see more opportunities for something other than the didactic teaching that generally goes on. I think both the individuals and the church as a whole would benefit from things like that.

[Brettongarcia]

134. We seem to agree on this

[hrmjustin]

7. That is not what it suggests at all. It implies we are deluded.

[rug]

20. He also wrote this in ZenATAOMM:

“If someone's ungrateful and you tell him he's ungrateful, okay, you've called him a name. You haven't solved anything.”

[madrchsod]

77. mental illness? really?

so you are saying i have a form of mental illness? interesting.

[mike_c]

78. see #76 for a bit more explanation....

I'm interested in your thoughts, although I should warn you that I'm in the office on Sunday afternoon and about to leave, so I might not see your response until tomorrow.

[Jim__]

6. Can the ToM brain network be influenced by religious belief?

The abstract may contain the answer to that question, but I don't know enough about brain development to extract that information.

What I'm actually asking is: Could it be religious belief that leads to the perceived differences in the ToM network?

[cbayer]

12. Good question. You can't get the whole article without

paying, but I would wonder if this weren't a part of their controls.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. They say that the results are "in line with theories attributing religion to the evolution of ToM"

but the abstract doesn't explain how they arrive at that.

To test these hypotheses, we performed a multivariate Granger causality-based directional connectivity analysis of fMRI data to demonstrate the causal flow within religious belief-related networks. Our results supported both hypotheses.
...
Insights gained by Granger connectivity analysis inform us about the causal binding of individual regions activated during religious belief processing.

From what I understand of the tests, the subjects were monitored for their thoughts about the involvement of Supernatural Agents given some material to consider; and religious people found this easier to do. It seems quite likely to me that this could be from the brain being influenced by long-standing religious belief and practice.

[Jim__]

89. Thanks for that. I did find some criticism of their previous work.

This is a criticism of something they published in PNAS. I'm not sure who the critic is, but I believe he has a conflicting theory. An excerpt from the criticism:

Are religious beliefs fundamentally different, or are they simply the result of cognitive systems built for interactions with other human beings projected onto a supposed supernatural agent? A recent report by Dimitrios Kapogiannis Aron K. Barbey Michael Su, Giovanna Zamboni, Frank Krueger, and Jordan Grafman; entitled "Cognitive and Neural Foundations of Religious Belief," explored brain activation patterns when participants indicated their level of agreement with a series of statements reflecting supposed basic psychologic dimensions of religious belief. The authors found brain activation patterns for these dimensions of belief that matched those of previously known networks linked to social cognition and not uniquely religious networks. In short, the study suggests that there is no religious network in the brain as such, and that religion lives by borrowing the structures responsible for social cognition.

...

Overall, the authors argue that the findings support the view that religiosity is integrated into cognitive processes and brain networks used in social cognition, rather than being sui generis.

Nevertheless, this claim is not supported by the data. The authors did not test for brain activation networks involved in religious cognition per se as they had no appropriate control condition. For example, if the authors had asked their participants to evaluate both religious statements (involving God’s actions and emotions etc) and similar statements involving a non-supernatural agent, such as a significant other. If they had, we would have gotten a picture of what brain regions are engaged in religious cognition as such.

[Humanist_Activist]

8. I have an issue with this statement: "Religious belief is a unique human attribute..."

I would say its far too early to determine this, particularly since we have observed behaviors in other animals, such as Elephants and Magpies, and others that seem to support the idea of ritual, recognition(and possibly respect) of the dead, etc. these animals may have a rudimentary form of superstitious belief, perhaps even a belief in an afterlife.

Not saying they do, necessarily, however the evidence points to the line being rather blurry, rather than being clear cut. Not to mention these animals are highly social, so an ability to have a Theory of Mind would be naturally selected for in these species.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. If it is an evolved brain function there is

Going to be some other similar function in other species.

[cbayer]

13. Also a good point. I think that as we understand and practice it, it may

be uniquely human.

But I would agree that we really don't know that definitively.

However, I don't see how that would change the findings here. And it would be difficult to do animal studies without having a clear definition of what constituted religious belief and how we measure it in non-humans.

[Humanist_Activist]

14. True, that's why I avoided using religion in the main part of my post...

talking instead about ritual, we can also include certain types of social gatherings, etc.

Religion, as a word, is too inexact when talking about these things, it is, after all, just a combination of belief in the supernatural and ritual. We can observe ritual in other animals, whether they have any associated supernatural beliefs, or superstition, is far more difficult to observe and determine without being able to communicate with them. Also, given the variety of human religion, it makes things even more difficult.

[cbayer]

15. I like the definition of belief in the supernatural

(though that's not the word I would choose, as you know) and ritual. As you point out, we could probably observe the ritual, but the belief part is going to be harder.

By the way, I enjoyed our conversation the other day.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. Yeah, that description of religion is VERY general, but overall accurate...

Its not the anthropological definition, I don't think, but it definitely encompasses most of the major and minor practices we label as religions in the world today. From Animism and Shamanism to extremely ritualized and formal religion.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, I did too, I don't know if we see eye to eye on empiricism, or the need for it, but we've had worse disagreements.

[Brettongarcia]

31. "Supernatural" means beyond natural understanding. But?

George Santayana makes this point in a famous essay, on the discovery of the Natural: that learning to see nature and its laws is a late development in human culture.

In ancient tribes, who had no science, EVERYTHING is supernatural. Or rather, having no science, they cannot make a distinction between "nature" and its laws, and anything beyond that. Having no concept say, of the freezing point of water, the states of matter, water freezing is supernatural. Fertility, supernatural. They had no sense of natural explanations for things; all they could say was "the gods did it." It was only later that we got a better explanation, from developing science.

But if what Santayana says is true, then feeling that something is "supernatural," is just to say you have not yet learned to see it correctly. To see lots of things as "supernatural," is just to say that you don't know enough yet; to see how it is a function of natural laws.

[cbayer]

34. I had this discussion with someone just the other day.

What is now seen as "supernatural" may one day be seen as totally natural.

I think he is correct, but, unfortunately, the term is used by some to dismiss believers as cranks of some kind. But one could just see them as those who have left the door open and continue to seek.

[Brettongarcia]

40. I agree that's 1) the positive side to this:things we thought were supernatural turn out verifiable

But 2) the negative side of it? Is that when you see things as "super"natural, that often just means you don't quite adequately understand them more fully, as natural phenomena, that are better and more fully explained by science.

In this way, seeing too many things as supernatural ... would be just a function of ignorance.

Example? If I look at ice and say for example, "The gods turned the water to stone," this would be a sort of failure. Particularly in our own age, when a fuller scientific/natural explanation is available.

And as it turns out, many things in religion have natural explanations; but many people are not quite seeing them readily.

Cf. my recent defense on DU, of a materialistic/scientific explanation for "love"; which many have thought was supernatural, magical; creation ex nihilo, as it were.

[cbayer]

42. If you mean rejecting the science in order to hold on to the earlier belief, I

would agree with you. I think science trumps.

But allowing for "supernatural" explanations when the science is not there could be a very positive thing in general. It may be in part what leads to new discoveries or accounts for things like inspiration, art, awe, ecstasy or even love.

I don't think I saw your "love" explanation and would appreciate a link.

[Brettongarcia]

44. "Love" as a natural instinct - for preservation of species, etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=107719

For many centuries there have been many valuable things in human experience, that have until today, been beyond scientific explanation. And therefore we could only see and accept them, by way of intuition, "faith." In particular, the things of religion; like say "love." However, in the last century the Social sciences have advanced very, very considerably. And are now capable of explaining such seemingly supernatural things, in rather objective, scientific terms.

For example, regarding love? Many animals mothers see to feel strong protective instincts, feelings, toward their children; and will even risk their lives for them. This might correspond to human maternal love. And both contribute to the survival of the species.

In this example, one major element of religion, now seems to have a natural, material, functional explanation.

These days, I'm investigating the possibility that ALL things in religion, can be better, more fully seen, in light of scientific explanation. Though in some people have opposed earlier versions of this as reductionistic, I am defending more recent, more complete explanations, even in biblical terms; as "heaven" coming down to "earth," say.

[cbayer]

46. But I might argue that there is a differentiation between

humans from other animals when it comes to love.

In most species a parent will neglect or abandon a baby that is grossly defective. This makes good evolutionary sense, doesn't it?

But humans do not. It seems that their love over-powers their other instincts. In doing so, they may put their other offspring at risk or the tribe in jeopardy.

I don't disagree that religion, like love, may provide a very basic evolutionary advantage that has perpetuated it and allowed it survive.

When you say you are investigating these things, are you talking about some formal work you are doing or more about where your personal quest for knowledge is leading?

[Brettongarcia]

50. I'm semi-professionally involved in developing the "Science of God"; an aspect of rational theology

As in the writings of Woodbridge Goodman, on this subject.

The thesis is that nearly ALL the elements of religion can now be scientifically described. This does not "debunk" them though; it verifies them.

Even human love for example.

Regarding your objection: the Science of Anthropology, and History, now tell us that many human societies DID reject deformed persons. Greeks often left deformed children in the wilderness, to starve or be devoured (cf. the story of say, Oedipus; whose name means "cub foot"?). This was often done with the idea of conforming to the rules of the gods. Even the Jewish people put restrictions against deformed people entering the temple, etc..

So? Science can now begin to more accurately describe/confirm things that were once only vaguely understood.

[cbayer]

55. Fascinating. I'm not familiar with Woodridge Goodman, but this

is a topic I am interested in.

While it is true that some societies do and did reject deformed person, today most forward thinking people would reject that notion completely. Why? Then, on the other side of the coin, we see otherwise rational people killing their female offspring. That seems to have a distance evolutionary disadvantage.

I look forward to further actual scientific study on religion. I mostly reject the soft science studies - too many variables and too much conjecture.

But studies like the one described here and what you are doing, I think are very valuable.

[Brettongarcia]

57. Thanks! Different cultures attempt different variations on evolutionary advantage.

In some societies, higher mortality rate on males - needed for warfare, hunting, etc. - meant more sons were desirable than females. That this persists in some cultures today? May be be simply an irrational or anachronistic holdover. Or for that matter? HOlding on to an outdated religious belief?

I agree social sciences are not quite as exact as the hard sciences. Still? Things are firming up, bit by bit. Today the social-scientific understanding of religion is quite a bit more advanced than the average pastor knows. And provide many hypotheses for future investigation.

[cbayer]

58. Interestingly, the main driver for the killing of female children appears to be

distinctly areligious. In China, it is driven by the government rules and economic realities.

Glad to hear that things are firming up in some of the softer sciences. I am hopeful that some of these areas will move from open-ended conjecture to actual reliable data. It has come a long way in the areas of psychiatry and psychology.

[Brettongarcia]

60. "Religious" motivations often turn out to be economic, under deeper analysis.

These hypotheses might be better than you seem to imply.

Often "deformed" imperfect persons and animals were kept out of religious assemblies, first 1) by religious prohibition. In Greece, it was the "gods" and therefore religion, that told Greeks to leave crippled persons like Oedipus on a hillside, to die. But? 2) On deeper analysis, these religious ideas turn out to be at least semi-functional in their local economies. Crippled persons were not such good hunters, always.

Things that were once religiously and economically dysfunctional however, are less so today; today, cubfoot would no longer be regarded as hopelessly dysfunctional. As even religion has evolved somewhat.

Though much of religion even today, even Christian Fundamentalism, continues to condemn many apparent deviations from accepted social/biological norms; like homosexuality and so forth. Or as the Catholic Church continues to condemn contraception; even in seemingly overpopulated places.

"Secular" Chinese preference for males stems from an ancient religious/Confuscian tradition, that valued males more than females; behind that was economics. They were perceived as bigger, better warriors, hunters, etc..

[cbayer]

63. Absolutely agree.

But what about the case for people born with markedly low levels of intelligence. And particularly those who have a know genetic cause who are at very high risk of passing this on.

I think we keep them and take care of them for some reason more noble than just evolutionary advantage.

It seems hard to know where to draw the line at times. I think the Catholic churches prohibitions on birth control and rules about celibacy were primarily economically driven, then backed up by "teachings". OTOH, I think the fundamentalists are primarily driven by how they read the bible. FWIW, I think they were completely co-opted by the neocons and used, so the economic drivers weighed in secondarily.

I don't have the data handy, but while the killing of infant females in China has been around a long time, when the government imposed a one child law, it went up considerably, IIRC. The step up in that practice does not appear to have a religious basis at all.

[Brettongarcia]

66. Confuscianism was a semi-religious, semi-rational/beaurocratic belief system; it favored #1 son.

Communism was quite rational; but there are still residual ancient religious/secular beliefs in China. That favored males.

As for the step-up? It might simply be that the new technology - ultrasound - made possible acting on old beliefs in a much more direct way. In much of the developing world unfortunately, a very advanced technology is made to serve still rather backward beliefs.

Wonder how the Iranians are doing with their A-bomb? Hopefully they will soon realize how economically/materially destructive nuclear warfare is.

Is religion backward and dangerous? Examples like this to be sure, suggest that some religious beliefs at least, ARE backward. Or not as materially functional as they once were. The fact that their economic side was not seen, that their aims were thought to be entirely spirituality and not practical, reflected a certain inadequacy/superstition in their lack of self-awareness, some would say.

[cbayer]

68. Excellent points about China and technology.

I have never argued that some parts of religion are backward or potentially dangerous. Clearly that is the case.

But there are other parts that are very forward thinking and progressive, specifically the parts that promote civil rights and social justice. While clearly these causes can be driven quite effectively by non-religious groups and individuals, religion can also play a critical role.

So, It's important, imo, to be able to distinguish those things and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Brettongarcia]

69. Some though, might say that by now, we are rational enough to skip religion, & potential confusions;

... and go straight to the real stuff. Whatever rational things can be found under religion; or found more directly by simple reason itself.

What remains of religion that is not firmed up, mystical, many suppose, remains unreliable. Just as old religious ideas often were. And it should therefore not any longer be asserted with any strong dogmatism, as "certain" or "sacred" or "perfect."

It might be allowed some might say; but only without its former proud, vain pretentions of perfection.

[pinto]

61. I'd personally be interested in hearing & reading more about this.

I'm seen as a generally logical person and that's my take as well. Considered going into physics at one time. Yet I also have a strong sense of the spiritual, for lack of a better word. Always have. Not overtly religious, but a sense that there is a spiritual aspect to our experience. On face value one would think that's a disconnect. I don't see it that way. Don't feel any conflict between the two.

I'd be interested in following up along this line. Thanks for the post.

[Brettongarcia]

64. Lots of scattered academic literature on this; can anyone recommend a good intro text?

[trotsky]

54. There are also other behaviors that have been common throughout human history.

Behaviors that gave an individual, or a group, a selective advantage over others. Things like rape, murder, or genocide. Yet no one would argue that because those urges may have an evolutionary origin, or because they have been so common in human experience, that they are good and should be encouraged.

You've presented one half of an argument. What's the other half, cbayer?

[Starboard Tack]

82. "Things like rape, murder, or genocide."

Nice one Trottles. There's nothing like engaging in honest discussion, is there?

[skepticscott]

86. That's not even half an argument

Though I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

And is "Trottles" your latest manifestation of civility and "tolerance"? Would you prefer we refer to you as Tacky? It seems far more apt, the way you've been behaving lately.

[trotsky]

100. Those things are common in human history, are they not?

They gave an evolutionary advantage to an individual or group, did they not?

I'm not comparing religious belief to any of those things. I'm saying that you can't just declare something an innate part of our being to make it sacrosanct and worthwhile. All things must be evaluated.

Yes, I'm trying to have an honest, respectful discussion. Will you join me?

[Starboard Tack]

106. Will I join you? No, sorry.

Firstly, I rarely discuss religion. Not a subject that interests me very much, but when I do, it happens with open minded people.
Secondly, I have zero interest in discussing anything with you. You blew that opportunity a long time ago.
I'm sure you'll find someone who wants to have an "honest and respectful discussion with you".

[trotsky]

108. I'm sorry that you can't just decline,

but instead need to fling more insults and attacks as you run away. I wish you the best.

[Starboard Tack]

115. No insults, just a polite, but firm explanation.

[trotsky]

116. I'm sorry, but there is indeed an insult in that post.

Please don't play this silly game. I'm asking you honestly and sincerely.

[rug]

18. That suugests nonbelief is also the result of genetics.

So much for reason.

[cbayer]

19. Interesting idea, isn't it.

I have sometimes postulated that belief or lack of belief may be inherent, like sexual orientation.

I am not convinced that it's a choice, or at least not always a choice. I base this on both my own personal experience and the people I have knows.

If that is the case, then we are really talking about civil rights for both groups. It's not like choosing to be a Republican, but an actual inborn piece of what a person is.

[rug]

21. It's repellent when science is used to promote an ideological agenda.

[cbayer]

22. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here?

[rug]

23. There is nothing in this report to indicate that religion is a delusion or a pathology.

Yet, the choruses from the peanut gallery are quick to claim this report proves what they have been saying all along.

Bad science, worse argument, worst propaganda.

[cbayer]

24. Oh, exactly.

It's such an ugly, ugly claim.

And the fact that some people don't even recognize how ugly it is, let alone that it is a smear against both religious people and those with serious psychiatric disorders, is really a disheartening thing to see on DU.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Is it your claim that if religion is an evolved brain function it cannot be a delusion?

[eomer]

26. It would be helpful if we recognize there are two different definitions of "delusion":

: a belief that is not true : a false idea

: a false idea or belief that is caused by mental illness

When I say that certain beliefs are delusions I mean the first definition - that they are beliefs that are not true. But it seems that mike_c meant the second definition when (he?) introduced the term in post #3.

So maybe it would help the conversation if you clarify whether you're saying religion is merely a belief that is not true or saying it is a false belief caused by a mental illness. I personally think the latter is a stretch and that it's more like religion is an unfortunate byproduct of a feature of the brain that is probably helpful in other ways and that that feature is normal in a healthy brain. So religion is not a false belief caused by mental illness but rather a false belief in a normal brain caused by various things, in my opinion.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. 1. When I mean 2 I use psychosis.

Delusions may be a symptom of mental illness but are not in themselves a mental illness. We all have delusional thoughts.

[cbayer]

37. That's not the accepted medical definition at all.

For something to be delusional it has to be firmly held despite there being evidence to the contrary.

This is a really important distinction. If there is no evidence to the contrary, one can not say whether it is true or not. And I'm not going to entertain any ridiculous arguments about pink unicorns. I think that fits about 4 logical fallacy points and is a really, really tired argument.

However, I agree with and support much of what you say here.

[eomer]

43. Right, didn't say it was. One of the two definitions is not a medical definition.

And it's that non-medical one that I mean when I say I think religion is a delusion. I mean the first definition in my quote from merriam-webster.com, which is the one that has nothing to do with medicine or mental illness. I seems to me that mike_c meant the other one, the medical one. So you may have a beef with him (I think I do if that's what he meant), but if you take issue with what I'm saying it would need to be based on what I actually say, which isn't that religion is (typically) caused by mental illness.

I do however think that my SIL's religious beliefs are possibly caused by psychosis. She was posting everyday on Facebook about the Comet ISON actually being Jesus accompanied by two angels. Shortly after ISON passed she started posting about some other events of astronomy being associated with major events for Israel (I forget the details). And she does suffer from psychosis based on other (non-religious) things in her behavior (diagnosed by doctors who prescribed meds that she doesn't take). But this would be the exception, not the general rule.

[cbayer]

47. I think we should be careful when using a medical term in a non-medical context.

It's like saying someone is a "retard".

First, it's not technically true. Second, it is highly offensive to those that actually suffer with mental retardation.

And much more often than not, delusion is used in this group to describe religious leaders as having some kind of psychiatric problem.

But even if we just stick with the first definition, the rather arrogant position is that one knows what is true and not true, so can, therefore say with some authority that religious people hold beliefs in something that is untrue. That's just a false premise and I would object to the word being used in that way either.

There is no doubt that people with serious psychiatric disorders often develop religious delusions or hallucinations. A very brave member recently posted a wonderfully honest account of his own experiences while psychotic right here in this group.

But I think that happens because when people are psychotic, they may try very hard to find a reason for what is happening to them. Religion lends itself to this. This happens in patients that were religious prior to their psychosis and those who were not.

And as the member above talked of, these religious beliefs may disappear completely when the psychosis clears.

I am sorry about your sister-in-law. These are really tough illnesses and we, as a society, are very intolerant and unsupportive. I hope that she finds someone she can work with and gets some relief.

[eomer]

52. merriam-webster puts the non-medical definition as number 1.

I think we just need to clarify for each other when we use words that have varied meanings and I think this is a very important thing for not just this word but for many. I think there are many cases in this forum when disagreement occurs because people actually are talking about two different things. I don't think you'll ever solve that by enforcing which definition is allowed (especially if you want definition number 2. to be the only one allowed). I think the solution is to clarify whenever there might be a misunderstanding. Interestingly, "ask for clarification" is often part of a meeting covenant or committee covenant at our UU congregation. I would recommend it over "have a rule about which definitions are permissible", especially if your goal is a discourse with civility.

[cbayer]

56. I understand that and I think context is important when trying to

determine how someone might be using the word.

And societies have often allowed for offensive terminology until those offended made some noise about it.

I'm not in a position of enforcing anything, and don't want to be. But I will challenge those that use the word as a slur to attack those that hold beliefs. Again, it implies that there is a truth which is known. There isn't, imo.

Asking for clarification is a concept which could be widely used to advantage here and I will accept your suggestion and try to use it more frequently. Internet communication is particularly rife with misunderstanding due to lack of other cues.

Because of my training and experience, I'm going to have a hard time accepting a "soft" definition of delusion.

I used to use the word "gyp" freely… until it was pointed out to me by a DU member that this was a slur and offensive.

Merriam-Webster doesn't really mention that part.

[eomer]

72. Yes, I agree there are words like that and I appreciate DUers pointing them out.

Regarding delusion, the way it's used in a sentence can often indicate one definition or the other. Here are the examples that merriam-webster.com gives for it:

• He has delusions about how much money he can make at that job.
  
• He is living under the delusion that he is incapable of making mistakes.
  
• She is under the delusion that we will finish on time.
  
• As the illness progressed, his delusions took over and he had violent outbursts.

Clearly the first three sentences are not talking about mental illness; the last one is.

I think the discussion in this thread is probably the exception, where the meaning isn't clear without asking.

[cbayer]

73. I will concede the point and understand that I may over-react to it

because it is frequently used in this group as a weapon and sometimes it is crystal clear that what is intended is the second definition.

But I will try to ask for clarification.

Please note that this discussion began when I did ask a member for clarification, and he confirmed in not uncertain terms that he felt religious people were psychiatrically ill.

[eomer]

74. Yes, understood, I did note that.

And wanted to make clear that when I've used it I meant it the other way. On the same page I think. Thanks.

[cbayer]

75. It's been fun and informative to talk with you today, eomer.

I hope we will have the opportunity to do it in the future.

Have a great evening.

[eomer]

79. Same here.

You have a great night too.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. in the context of this discussion it actually doesn't matter.

Last edited Sun Jan 19, 2014, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Neither the mental pathology definition or the false belief definition are important. The issue is does the fact that religion is an evolved brain function contradict the claim that religion is a delusion?

The implication upthread is it does. I want to know if that is the explicit claim being made, and if so on what basis.

[eomer]

70. It mattered in the subthread, however off topic it was.

But I agree with the way you put the larger issue.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. the other discussion is just boring. Somebody has been informed repeatedly that "delusion" is not

being used to mean mental illness, but somebody continues to insist that that usage is the only usage allowed.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Lack of evidence is a form of evidence all its own.

[cbayer]

88. No it's not.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. Sure it is.

It's not an argument from ignorance, for instance, when someone claims something, and I say 'your evidence doesn't support that' and dismiss it, especially when things like an entire nation's archaeological program has been devoted for decades, looking for the 'title deeds' of their faith, and can't even find a freakin' mountain.

Claims have been made, have not been substantiated, and that is evidence all its own, WRT the initial proposition.

[cbayer]

91. But claims have been made that support religion

for which no one has offered any counter evidence.

Are those equally valid?

What is the nation who's entire archaeological program has been devoted to looking for "title deeds" of their faith? I'm not familiar with this.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. Unsupported claims do not require counter-evidence.

&quot X) is true, here's my evidence: (Blarg)"

If (Blarg) is garbage, wrong, or so incomplete it is useless, then you have done nothing to support (X). (X) can then be fairly dismissed as a range of possibilities, from 'nonsense' to 'maybe come back with that idea when you have some evidence'.


Israel.
You might have to register to see the term used plainly in this Haaretz article, but it's not a new term.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/archaeology-in-the-service-of-the-right.premium-1.516392

[cbayer]

93. But who gets to determine what is garbage, wrong or incomplete?

Unless you have some evidence that it is those things, you have nothing.

You can dismiss it as an individual, but that does mean it is not true.

I am listening to NPR right now. Someone was just talking about all the theories about the brain that were held in the past.

There was no evidence for these things, nor was there any counter-evidence.

Some of them ended up being true enough to lead to discovery. Others were shown to be completely false.

If scientists or others had just walked away from them because there was no evidence, many opportunities for discovery would have been lost.

So, unless and until there is some evidence that religious beliefs are false, I would argue for leaving those doors open. You can shut them, but you might miss something.

I can't get to the article you link, but what I can read doesn't support your statement about Israel's archaeology program.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. You have to register to read the article.

If you've already registered, then perhaps grab a fake username/pw off bugmenot.com or something.

Sometimes the keywords will pull up viciously anti-Semitic sites, so be careful, but it should find plenty of analysis like this, in general press.

"The scribal lamps have now been supplemented by searing banks of incandescents and halogens, as archaeologists and historians have unearthed endless collections of artifacts and data from the lands of Canaan. Since Israel’s reclamation of their lands in 1948, and particularly the Six Day War with Syria in 1967, Israeli and American archaeologists have finally had unmitigated access to the ancestral lands of Canaan [17]. At the confluence of three tributary streams, a forceful current of investigation coalesced; geographic availability was coupled with political blessing and modern investigational capabilities. A great project was undertaken by preeminent Israeli archaeologists to find Israel’s “title deeds” to their ancient lands – and to refute other contemporary claimants [22]. The searing investigator’s lamp is now held by Israeli hands. But they found instead something for which they had not been looking."



As for the 'who determines', well, such archaeologists for one. Other forms of science have shown, from that article I just excerpted:

◾Creation accounts: natural history poses significant problems for their historical claims, whether cosmological or anthropological [2, 21, 24].
◾Flood accounts: again, natural history indicates that such an event simply has not happened [*].
◾Patriarchal narratives: archaeology demonstrates substantial anachronisms, and the accounts reflect a view of the world that does not fit the patriarchal period [17].
◾Captivity: archaeology and Egyptian records indicate that Israel was actually never enslaved in Egypt to begin with; Israel appears to have possibly adopted a similar regional memory that actually pertained to another people group altogether [11, 17].
◾Exodus: comprehensive silence reigns regarding any supporting evidences for the Exodus event; all evidence collected through archaeology and textual records excludes the possibility that a large people group ever migrated out of Egypt during the period [11, 17, 51].
◾Conquest of Canaan: the ruins of many ‘conquered’ cities in Canaan do exist, yet appear to have been the conquests of other nations; the population of the region was very small and indicates that no great influx of immigrant conquerors ever took place [17].
◾Origins of Israel: Israel does not appear to have immigrated to Canaan from anywhere. They appear to simply have been a home-grown people group, gradually emerging as from the native Canaanite population in an organic process [11, 17, 51].

Or, to more succinctly respond to your 'who determines' question, who determined Norse Mythology was mythos and not fact?
The answer is the same to both questions.

[cbayer]

95. I think we are in total agreement about discarding religious beliefs when there is scientific

evidence that shows them to be untrue.

And that, imo, is why Norse mythology is mythos and not fact. Pretty much everything it was used to explain was shown to have another explanation over time.

OTOH, I don't think that is true for the Abrahamic religions. And the larger question of whether there is a god or gods remains wide open, with neither evidence to support it nor disprove it.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. I am unable to hold an idea as requiring disproval, if there isn't evidence to support it to start

with.

It remains an interesting question for some people, perhaps, but not an idea that requires refutation.

I think modern society is doing a good job chipping away the 'literal fact' supposition some hold about the new and old testaments. If it ends up just one sack full of nothing but metaphor, I predict it will, by default, become re-labeled as 'mythos'.

That will be a long time coming though.

[cbayer]

97. Scientists often hold ideas that require disproval.

And it is one of the hallmarks of the practice of medicine, where one might proceed with a treatment despite there being no concrete evidence and while waiting for something that shows the presumptive diagnosis to be untrue.

But I digress.

I do certainly agree that the literal reading of much of the bible makes little sense. It is, at best, contradictory. But that doesn't mean that it's just a sack of empty metaphor.

That is just your experience.

I doubt very much that christianity will be re-labeled as mythos, but I suspect neither of us will ever know.

And if it is, I suspect it will be replaced by something else which is also "religion".

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Religions evolve. I agree there will be a replacement.

Not perhaps in my lifetime, but I can seriously see a merging of major Abrahamic traditions into possibly one meta-religion.

Already, in the last 100 years we have seen splinter hostile Christian sects come together under the banner 'Christian' for political and social purposes, where they used to insist on separate identification. (Or go back another hundred years, and they exercised deliberate legal discrimination or outright physical violence against each other)

I think it's theoretically possible, given the average number of hours my body has remaining to it, that I might see it in my lifetime, but I won't hold my breath.

[cbayer]

99. No doubt there will be an evolution, but hard to predict how it will go.

My ideal would be for believers of all stripes and non-believers of all stripes see that there are things that can be learned from each other and that belief is a purely personal position that should be respected the same way race or sexuality should be.

[rug]

109. Is it your claim that evolution rewards pathology?

[Warren Stupidity]

112. delusions: yes it does.

Our brains are evolved to find patterns, even where patterns don't exist. It is likely that pattern matching was highly beneficial, even with the false positives, the delusional thinking, that went along with it.

There is no particular reason why evolution wouldn't "reward" an actual pathology, if that pathology provided advantages. Psychotic behavior is another evolved brain function, they all are, and it doesn't appear to be vanishing from the species. Are you under the impression that evolution only moves in one direction and only "rewards" qualities you find to be "good"?

[rug]

117. To accept that, you must also accept that delusions have an evolutionary benefit.

So, tell me. What are they?

[Warren Stupidity]

121. Not necessarily true, delusions could be a by-product of something else that has an evolutionary

benefit.

In addition, we evolve with imperfections, there is no omnipotent being guiding the process that guarantees that all of our evolved traits are beneficial.

Pattern matching, as I pointed out, is frequently delusional, we see patterns that just aren't there, but the pattern matching function of our brains is quite useful, the by-product of delusional matches is not a big deal. A propensity for religious belief can both be a useful evolutionary function and one that produces delusional thoughts, those simply are not contradictions.

Rob Dunn of the Smithsonian highlights ten human imperfections as evidence that we evolved. “From hiccups to wisdom teeth, the evolution of homo sapiens has left behind some glaring, yet innately human, imperfections.” What human features made the list?
1. The fact that mitochondria became the prey for our cells.
2. Hiccups. The original function? Our ancestors who were fish and early amphibians “pushed water past their gills while simultaneously pushing the glottis down.”
3. Backaches. Learning how to stand up gave us the ability to see farther, and it gave us freedom to make better use of our hands. But the resulting “S” shaped back is not a good design for supporting our considerable weight.
4. Unsupported intestines. Standing up made them hang down “instead of being cradled by our stomach muscles.” this often leads to hernias.
...

http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/11/29/human-imperfections-as-proof-that-we-evolved/

[rug]

124. That is a statement without data, observation or evidence.

Given that religions arise with the growth of civilization, an almost universal phenomenon, one might say that civilization itself is pathology.

Once again, sociobiology is bunk without the entertainment value of woo.

[Warren Stupidity]

125. Ah I see, as usual you have gone straight to insult.

Nobody has said religion is a pathology. The claim in the op is that a propensity for religious belief is an evolved brain function. Your claim, which you have refused to confirm I might add, appears to have been that this contradicts religious thoughts being delusional. As I have repeatedly pointed out, there is nothing about "an evolved brain function" that precludes that function producing delusional thoughts.

Again: is it your claim that "a propensity for religious belief is an evolved brain function" contradicts "religious thoughts can be delusions"?

[rug]

129. If you claim religious belief is a delusion you claim religion is a pathology.

Assuming you do not think delusions are healthy.

And no, that is not my claim. In fact, I make two different claims.

One, delusions are not the product of any coherent thought at all.

Two, if one believes religious belief is the product of evolutionary process, then one must believe the corollary, that nonbelief is also the result of evolutionary processes. Further, this would establish that nonbelief is not the product of a rational process. Unless one also believes there is a reason, daresay, a design, behind evolution.

[eomer]

28. Hmm, but that would at most be a propensity to believe, not the belief itself, wouldn't it?

And even that is clearly not the case for many people. I'm an example of a person who believed when I was younger and now do not believe at all. Obviously there are many people who change their beliefs, including changing in either direction between total non-belief and some form of belief. There are many other people who convert from one belief to another, with significant differences between the two.

It seems to me quite unlikely that anything nearly as strong as you are talking about would be found to be inborn and therefore not subject to change under the right conditions.

[cbayer]

30. How can you make the distinction?

I guess you could say that a GLBT person has the "propensity" to be with a same sex individual, but may choose not to or to stay unattached, just like a straight person might. And how one expresses their religiosity or sexuality will be very unique to the individual.

And there will always be many people in the gray areas, assuming things like this are on a continuum of some kind.

There were years when people took the position that sexuality was a choice and similar arguments to yours were made.

In many ways, I want there to be some truth to this. I don't think people can always choose to believe or not believe…. they just do (or do not). If that were the case, perhaps we would see an improvement in tolerance, understanding and acceptance from both sides.

I would like that very much.

[eomer]

38. I think it's more than whether it's a choice, it's also whether it can be a result of environment.

I think that being gay is neither a choice nor a result of environment; I assume you believe the same.

But from my personal experiences and my observations of others I think that religion is mostly a result of environment with an element of choice. I think that choice is a subtle factor that requires nuance to understand. I don't think that religious belief is inborn but would agree that propensity to believe may be.

[cbayer]

41. I agree that there is a clear distinction there.

I think, but can not be sure, that religiosity is probably much more malleable and affected by environment than sexuality.

My experience, including where I personally find myself, is that environment may not be sufficient. That would explain atheists coming out of religious homes and religious people coming out of atheist homes.

Anyway, I get really sick of either side pointing at the other to say that they are somehow deficient or defective. I would like to see more tolerance and if there is a point to be made that some people are religious and some aren't and it is not always a choice, I would hope that would move us along in that direction.

But, perhaps I hope for too much.

[eomer]

45. I think we agree at some level, but probably differ in some details.

I want to be able to speak my own beliefs, which include that religion (meaning belief in God) is mistaken, a delusion. But I don't say that it is a mental illness. In fact I think it is most often a result of indoctrination.

Regarding others that might say it is a result of mental illness, I think there ought to be a space for discussing things like that, hopefully in a mostly scientific, medical way, but I see that as a pretty limited space and I agree with you that it's out of bounds when it is more just a derogatory label, not a scientific discussion.

[cbayer]

48. I think we agree for the most part as well.

I have explained my objection to using the word "delusion" in this context, but you can take it or leave it.

And I agree that there should be room for discussing on a scientific basis whether religious people as a group have a psychiatric illness. It's a ludicrous position. All the science available show that it is a ludicrous position.

In fact, I'm going to put people that hang on to that belief despite there being overwhelming evidence to the contrary, right there in the same basket with creationists and climate change deniers….

because they are doing exactly the same thing.

[edhopper]

29. Since most people start off accepting the belief of their parents

and unlike sexual orientation, i don't know if i ever heard someone say "I just knew i was an atheist at 4 or 5" and maintain that orientation for their lives, I doubt very much that the degree of belief in inborn.
It's also nice way to discount the rational decision process many atheists went through to arrive at their non-belief.

[cbayer]

32. Ah, c'mon ed. Do you think that many religious people don't go

through an equally challenging process to reach their beliefs?

And while some people travel a difficult road to get to their atheism, for many atheists the "rational decision process" is nothing more than "I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist".

Why do you think the road you took is superior? It's not.

[edhopper]

33. No

you are right and I was being snarky. But that just goes more to argue against your post about innate belief orientation.

[cbayer]

35. Does it?

If your "propensity" is to believe (or not believe) within a culture or family where you are going to be different, it's going to be a tougher road.

Which is why some people stay closeted, I think.

I recognize that I could be totally wrong about this, but I am liking the theory. I don't think people can always choose in this area. I know that I can't.

[edhopper]

36. I just don't see any evidence of what you say

and religious belief seems quite different from sexual orientation. I don't see any binomial predisposition. I am not talking about being closeted. People don't have a fixed orientation that stays with them, closeted or not, it is not at all the same as gay people passing. It is much too mutable.

I think religion is innate, but it is very complicated and involves overlapping areas of human behavior. There are a few theories about it, but not enough data to determine the correct ones.

[cbayer]

39. Although I think there is a chicken/egg question here, the study cited

in the OP would support different wiring.

I don't know what binomial predisposition is. I looked it up and I still don't know what it is, lol.

I will totally agree that it is very complicated and probably much more malleable and subject to social influences than sexuality.

But it certainly seems worth pursuing.

[edhopper]

49. I just meant one way or another

of two. Too florid language for my own good.

[longship]

126. I have been a lifelong unbeliever.

Is that in my genes? I don't know.

I attended church weekly during my youth. But even in early Sunday school classes I thought it was a peculiar thing to believe. When my parents told my sisters and I that they would not be attending church anymore (and that they would gladly drive any of us to church if we wanted to continue), I sighed in relief. That was when I was about 13 years old.

Back to the question, is it a genetic adaptation? Dawkins thinks it might be and I am inclined to defer to his expertise on the matter. However, even he recognizes the problems with evolutionary psychology. Human behavior is so complex that there may not be any way to nail down such a science as evo-psych.

But I, like Dawkins and others, accept that human behavior is very likely based on genetics and therefore subject to evolutionary pressures. The problem is how to study such a thing. Maybe one should just hold such a hypothesis as a suggestion for future research.

The religion is an evolutionary adaptation hypothesis falls into that same category.

[rug]

127. That's a wise course.

Outlandish claims require meticulous evidence.

[longship]

128. In Evo/Psyche, how do you do the experiment?

Or the measurement?

Difficult.

Still, it has its advocates, Steven Pinker comes to mind (although he likely acknowledges the difficulties). I confess that I am not up to snuff on this topic. But it's one that crops up so regularly I am tempted to plunge in. Possibly thankfully, I still remain reluctant to do so.

But I think a biological basis for religious belief is an hypothesis which can and is being studied. Per Dennett.

More power to all who plunge into that pool.

[trotsky]

51. Yep, no doubt religion exists and human minds have a propensity toward it.

However, that's an entirely separate issue than whether or not any religious claims are true.

Too bad some people are very, very confused about that difference.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. it is sort of amusing as religionists are supposed to believe that religion is received wisdom from

divine entities, not an evolved brain function. Im pretty sure just about all atheists are quite comfortable with the claim made in the OP, not quite so sure why our theists seem to be celebrating.

[rug]

110. Not as amusing as religionphobes who fail to recognize the implications to their own worldview.

[pinto]

62. "Religious belief is a unique human attribute observed across different cultures in the world..."

"Religious belief is a unique human attribute observed across different cultures in the world, even in those cultures which evolved independently, such as Mayans in Central America and aboriginals in Australia".

I've wondered about that. There's something there. Will be interesting to see if research leads to some biological connection.

[cbayer]

65. I have also wondered about that.

While there are marked differences, there remain some similarities that seem difficult to explain.

[skepticscott]

81. Uh, there IS a biological connection

We're all human, with essentially the same brains and bodies. Duh.

In any case, things like flight and eyes have evolved independently in many different animal lineages, so the fact that a propensity to religion developed among different human populations does not mean that "there's something there".

Many, many other cultural phenomenon are common to people all over the world as well. Not just religion.

[LeftishBrit]

87. Possible but speculative

Especially as the ToM network involves multiple brain areas, and we may be looking here at some other forms of brain activity besides those being considered.

But it's true that both ToM and religion imply seeking out causes for events, and especially ascribing them to intentions.

It should be noted: religion may be a cross-cultural universal, but monotheism is not. So 'belief in God' in the sense usually used nowadays is not universal; though seeking supernatural explanations for events may be. Many cultures have and have had multiple Gods; have worshipped natural objects such as the sun; or have worshipped human beings, alive (e.g. Emperor Worship) or dead (e.g. Ancestor Worship).

[Brettongarcia]

107. Just superficially, ToM activity seems to reflect intersubjective agreement between some. But?

But here the author seems to be uttering commonsense, and then making too much of it. He seems to say that when two people of the same religion meet, they are on the same page; their sense of agreement (as indicated by ToM activity) is high.

Well, sure. But so what? What remains to be seen, is whether that sense of agreement is always functional and good.

Two Muslim terrorists might meet each other, and feel like brothers, and exude ToM waves to the 9's. But the problem is that high agreement within some groups, means higher conflict with other groups.

For this and other reasons, high agreement between some individuals is not, in itself, necessarily good.

[cbayer]

114. This is why I wish I could get to the whole paper.

I would imagine that they had to consider this when setting up their study. It's such an obvious question.

But how to control for it? I can't think of how one might do that.

Perhaps if you studied people who either became more religious or less religious over time to see if there were changes in the pathways as a result of a change in POV?

[Brettongarcia]

119. I agree we need to see the whole paper; which is not free, unfortunately.

I suspect that the paper itself is going to be flawed though; just from what we've been allowed to see to date.

The (joint?) author that seems to be summarizing things above, by the way, is not directly qualified in many of the areas he is commenting on. He seems to be a electronics engineer, not a psychologist or religious anthropologist.

I'd say that the signs are not good for this paper.

By the way, I've noted herein that much "evolutionary advantage" comes from religious activity very, very different from sympathy or empathy with others; leaving deformed babies on hillsides and so forth.

[cbayer]

122. It's still an interesting area to study, imo.

I posted the actual abstract somewhere earlier in this thread.

It is relatively free of drawing any kinds of conclusions other than there appears to be some significant difference in some neural pathways.

[Act_of_Reparation]

123. Here's the conclusions section:

This study demonstrated how insights gained by Granger connectivity analysis inform us about the causal binding of individual regions activated during religious belief processing. More broadly, this study enriches our understanding of the cognitive processes and networks involved in religious belief. It demonstrated that intent-related ToM for SAs is causally upstream in religious belief processing, perception of SAs engages pathways involved in fear regulation and affective ToM, and both semantic processing and imagery are foundations of religious beliefs. These processes are dynamic and constantly inform each other at multiple levels; this cross feeding of information varies among individuals in association with their religiosity.

KapogiannisDimitrios, DeshpandeGopikrishna, KruegerFrank, ThornburgMatthew P., and GrafmanJordan Henry. Brain Connectivity. -Not available-, ahead of print. doi:10.1089/brain.2013.0172.

The author isn't going to make qualitative assessments of religious belief; he's just looking at what areas of the brain are activated during "religious experience". Because there appear to be certain regions of the brain which are receptive to religious thought, as opposed to non-religious thought, the author concludes there is a biological basis for religious belief.

I'm not sure where I stand on that. I don't put much stock in evolutionary psych because 1) there's no way to test it, and 2) most evo psychologists are simply tying to make post facto justifications for whatever behavior they so choose. Religion seems a bit specialized to have evolved; it would be safer, I think, to assert the fundamental building blocks of religious thought may be biological in origin.

[Brettongarcia]

132. Thanks all for your scrutiny of this article. Flaws in article and in positive view of religion?

The flaw I see in our engineer at least, is that he seems to see or be interested only in the positive, empathetic side of religion; feeling like-mindedness. Empathy. ToM. I think however that he, like many defenders of the faith, fails to see the flip side of all this. They fail to see that the positive, spiritual feeling that one gets from being around persons of the same religion particularly, is just one side of the coin. That all the tremendous feeling of kinship (ToM) that one gets from having a tight religious group ... is however achieved in part by a more thorough REJECTION of all other groups; of "the Other."

There is a positive, spiritual side to much of religion. But defenders either ignore the negative side. Or incorrectly assert that we can simply reject it. I would suggest however, that possibly you can't get one, without the other. You can't get an intense sense of group solidarity ... without another group from which to strongly differentiate yourself (and likely, demonize.).

At least, that's what a Poststructuralist analysis would suggest.

[Gothmog]

130. Interesting concept

I also would like to read the entire article