Promiscuous Teological Intuitions

[edhopper]

Could also be called a bias towards seeing purpose and intentionality inherent in humans.

A possible explanation for the ubiquitous nature of religion.

more:

http://www.rosiekingston.com/blog/research/promiscuous-teleology/

One of the main concepts explored in this work is the way that young children seem to have a bias towards purpose-based explanations for natural phenomena, when a purpose-based explanation isn’t valid. For instance, when 10-year-olds were asked questions like “why do you think rocks are pointy?”, they were more likely to endorse “so that animals wouldn’t sit on them”, rather than “because bits of stuff piled up over time”.1 Kelemen calls this “promiscuous teleology”: the notion that intuition seems to guide us towards seeing purpose, intention and agency, even when this is unwarranted.

Even more interestingly, it doesn’t seem to be something that people grow out of – in a study with undergraduate students, statements such as “the sun radiates heat because warmth nurtures life” were endorsed as being “good” (i.e., correct) when participants were made to respond quickly.2 Thus, it seems like this bias for explaining natural phenomena with reference to a purpose may never really go away. Kelemen suggests that it may be an “explanatory default” which can be temporarily surpressed by the acquisition of scientific knowledge, but that comes back whenever inhibitory control is jeopardised (e.g., as a result of being made to answer a question quickly, or as a result of having a neurodegenerative disease like Alzheimer’s3).

[cbayer]

1. As is pointed out, it could also explain why some people make persistent errors about

scientific theories, like evolution, even after extensive education.

I am often surprised how some evolution endorsers, including some of this site, don't understand evolution at all.

It probably plays a role in lots of things.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. Links?

[edhopper]

3. Could you give examples?

I am not sure what errors you mean.

It would explain those that think evolution is Divinely guided though.

[cbayer]

6. No, it's not about a theological explanation for evolution, it's about

the tendency to turn to teological explanations. From the article:

she identifies persistent errors in reasoning about natural selection that occur even after extensive instruction on the topic, with the errors being teleological in nature (i.e., “organisms possess particular traits because those traits aid survival”)

As I said, I am sometimes surprised by the lack of understanding of evolution by those who endorse it. This may help explain why that is likely to happen.

[edhopper]

8. My reply was two parts

the first was asking you examples because I don't know the type of errors you were referring to, so example would help make it clear.

The second was just an opinion by me, not meant to imply what you were saying.

[cbayer]

9. Your question was answered by the author, who gives an example

specific to natural selection. In that example, the "guided evolution" issue is not what the author is referring to.

Do you want other examples of what I have encountered in discussions here? The biggest mistake I have seen is that some people believe that individual beings evolve during their lifetimes. This shows a total lack of understanding of evolution

The point is, her theory is not just about religious belief, it also impacts scientific "belief". Does that disappoint you?

[edhopper]

11. no

I haven't seen what you are saying. But I will take your word for it.

But what the theory does do is give a evolutionary explanation for religion. That fact that it is applicable to other areas just reinforces the inherited nature of it.

[cbayer]

12. Making my point about evolution?

It offers a theory about the way the human brain works which might explain religious belief. It really isn't an evolutionary explanation for religion.

But, as I said, it also offers a theory about why some scientific facts are persistently misstated or misunderstood.

Now, as to the evolutionary basis for religion, I think there is much more to be found in the adaptive advantage of having those that value community, a shared set of beliefs, leadership and even possibly things like hope. I don't know if there is data to back that up.

I don't understand how it being applicable to many areas reinforces that it is inherited, though.

[edhopper]

13. When I said religion

I meant religious beliefs, not organized religion. They are different, as you state.

I think I need a clearer example about these scientific misstatements, it sounds like you are talking about something specific, and I am not sure this theory is germane without examples.

The more universal a behavior is and the more it is shown to be innate, the more we can postulate it is genetic.
The proclivity to see purpose where there is none fits with this.

BTW I am posted this because I found it interesting, not because I am saying it is definitely correct.

[cbayer]

14. Well, I got this directly from your article and didn't come up with it on my own.

I have already given you the example in the article, and, in fact, it is pretty much the same mistake that you just made.

Here is the mistake:
“organisms possess particular traits because those traits aid survival”

That is not what natural selection is but the tendency to find a teleological explanation leads people to conclude that, even if they have received extensive instruction in evolution.

There is an article cited about this, if you are really interested in other examples or in understanding it better:

Kelemen, D. (2011). Teleological minds: How natural intuitions about agency and purpose influence learning about evolution. To appear in K. Rosengren, and E. M. Evans (Eds.) Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


You final statement is not factual. Behaviors can have both genetic and environmental underpinnings. The universality of a behavior does not necessarily correlate with it being genetic, though there may be a link. The nature vs. nurture factor is often difficult to discern and whether something is innate or learned is not always clear.

Seeing purpose where there is none has been repeatedly shown to be an adaptive quality in humans. What is more interesting is how that warps some people's understanding of science, not that it might underlie religion.

At least, I think it's more interesting.

[eomer]

15. She's pretty sloppy in how she states the mistake.

She does italicize the word "because" in her version of it, which sort of helps understand what she's getting at, but it's still sloppy.

Her example is:

“organisms possess particular traits because those traits aid survival”

but those words may be someone trying to say the following:

"organisms possess particular traits as a result of those traits having aided reproductive success of their ancestors"

A better example would show the speaker unambiguously asserting purpose.

[Jim__]

16. Kelemen is explicit in her paper.

In Kelemen's paper she explicitly refers to a teleological belief.

Excerpted:

...

Stated in the rudimentary, non-specialist terms adopted throughout this chapter,natural selection occurs because random variations in the
heritable characteristics exhibited by members of biological populations means that certain individuals have a greater
likelihood of survival than others (e.g., because of greater access to finite resources such as food). Because advantaged
organisms are more likely to survive and produce offspring who inherit their beneficial traits, cumulatively, over multiple cycles and
generations ofdifferential reproductive success, those successful traits become dominant in the animal population.

This is the straightforward, elegant mechanism that Darwin identified as underlying biological adaptation. However, in the multitude
of studies exploring older students’ and adults’ reasoning about natural selection, specific persistent misconceptions
about the mechanism recurrently occur even after instruction (e.g., Bishop & Anderson,1990; Brumby, 1979, 1984; Clough & Wood
-Robinson, 1985; Evans, 2005; Greene, 1990;Nehm, Kim & Sheppard, 2009; Nehm & Reilly, 2007; Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007). At the
core of many of these misunderstandings is a teleological belief that organisms have the traits that they currently possess because those traits perform functions that aid survival (e.g., Deadman & Kelly, 1978; Jensen & Finley, 1995, 1996; Jungwirth, 1977; Pedersen &
Hallden, 1992; Tamir & Zohar, 1991).

...

[eomer]

19. No, it's sloppy there.

At the core of many of these misunderstandings is a teleological belief that organisms have the traits that they currently possess because those traits perform functions that aid survival

That's stated too sloppily - the words are ambiguous.

Consider this statement:

Organisms do have the traits that they have as a result of earlier organisms with those traits succeeding at reproduction.

This statement is true and is also a possible meaning of the words "organisms have the traits that they currently possess because those traits perform functions that aid survival".

It's only if those words meant something different than my statement that there is the mistaken teleological belief.

[cbayer]

17. Ok, let me give it a try.

Organisms do not possess particular traits because those traits aid survival.

That statement is not what natural selection is at all.

Your second statement is just confusing and also not really true, but I think a good example of what she is saying happens. You are trying to put a purpose on a a trait and that is not what natural selection is about.

Certain traits appear randomly and by accident due to mutations. If such a trait give an organism an advantage in reproducing, the trait may be selected for naturally.

Those traits do not aid survival and animals do not possess them for that reason.

If you still don't see it, then I suggest you look at her paper.

I think you are having a really difficult time seeing that this applies to science as well as religion, but that is a big part of her entire thesis.

[eomer]

18. No, sorry, let's parse this more carefully.

Those traits do not aid survival and animals do not possess them for that reason.

So let's take a smaller step first. Can we agree that some traits do result in greater rates of survival? And that greater rates of survival do sometimes result in greater rates of reproduction? Hopefully we can agree on these, they are clearly true.

So the mistake is not in saying that a trait resulted in greater survival - that's true, not a mistake.

How about the word "aided"? I say that the meaning of that is ambiguous. If the person saying "aided" means "was for the purpose of" then there's the mistake. But if the person means "resulted in" then there's no mistake - that's a true statement.

So, no, I'm not having any trouble understanding this - I've got it. You're having trouble being careful reading my words. (Or maybe you don't fully understand what's part of the mistake and what isn't.)

[cbayer]

20. I think I see your distinction, but it apparently is the lack of distinction

that she found in her study to be the problem.

Random mutations result in variations. There is no purpose to them. They are random. They don't necessarily result in a trait. They are more likely to be problematic than otherwise.

If a random mutation results in some increased ability to reproduce, it will naturally be selected for. That is, there are more likely to be offspring carrying the same mutation.

The problem, as she describes it, is that people want to see the "trait" as having a purpose. It doesn't do anything, though it may result in something happening. On that I think we agree.

And, to be very honest, I thought I was continuing the conversation with edhopper and did not recognize that you had stepped in. So please read in the context of that error. That is where my statement about having trouble accepting that this can be applied to science as well as religion. He didn't post it to make that point, lol.

[eomer]

21. Yes, I think you've made a clear and correct statement of what the mistake is.

She should have said something more like what you just said. Unfortunately she used an example that may have been said by a person making the mistake but could also have been said by someone who isn't and who knows quite clearly that purpose isn't involved.

And thanks for that clarification, sorry if my jumping in caused confusion.

[cbayer]

22. I tried but could not open the entire paper on this particular topic, but

I would be interested in other examples. In this paper, she also talks about how incorrect explanations are offered when one is stressed in some way. The wish to see purpose trumps the scientific facts at times.

At any rate, it is interesting stuff.

Thanks for understanding my mistake.

[eomer]

23. To be fair (to both the author and edhopper), she is clear when I look at the full paper.

When I see it in context, with the paragraphs immediately following the excerpt that edhopper gave, I no longer say she was sloppy. She explains it well.

... At the core of many of these misunderstandings is a teleological belief that organisms have the
traits that they currently possess because those traits perform functions that aid survival Kelemen 3
(e.g., Deadman & Kelly, 1978; Jensen & Finley, 1995, 1996; Jungwirth, 1977; Pedersen &
Hallden, 1992; Tamir & Zohar, 1991).

Importantly, the belief in function as a primary engine in adaptation is not
necessarily, in itself, a major issue unless it reflects one of two underlying problems. The
first, more mildly egregious one is an inaccurate “naïve adaptationist” conviction that
function is the only explanation of why traits evolve. The concern here is that, aside from
making people vulnerable to spurious “just so” accounts of all traits (e.g., women evolved
two breasts as optimal flotation devices; see Pinker & Bloom, 1990), such a view is also
false because traits can emerge for other reasons, for example, as byproducts of other
traits (Gould & Lewontin, 1979).

Concerns about naïve adaptationism pale, however, in contrast to the second
problem: students’ attraction to functional explanations of traits usually reflects confused
or significantly mistaken underlying causal assumptions about how natural selection
works. ...

And I agree it's interesting stuff, the tendency to see purpose. Thanks for an interesting exchange.

[cbayer]

24. Thanks for that excerpt. That explains it exceptionally well.

I will try and download the whole paper when I have better access.

[edhopper]

26. I completely agree with what you said about evolution

Though I agree people (especially myself) can be sloppy with the language, especially when looking at the reason an random mutation might have helped an individual or population survive and reproduce. I don't ever think there was a purpose behind it. Thinking that genes mutate in order to achieve adaptive trait.

I think that is where seeing purpose goes astray.

[cbayer]

28. She also brings up an example of the sun radiating heat.

It is particularly interesting that she finds people are more likely to choose a false answer based on "purpose" when they are stressed in some way.

At any rate, while this describes a human trait that may be involved in religious belief, it does nothing to either prove nor disprove those beliefs. There is nothing in the theory that would support religious beliefs as being false.

That's why the part about science is much more interesting, imo.

[edhopper]

30. Actually it does

But I realize you would not agree that it does.

And using the phrase, prove religious beliefs false is a very sloppy statement.

[cbayer]

32. You are saying it does do something to prove or disprove religious beliefs,

then calling that phrase "sloppy"? Putting the put down aside, what to you think it does in this area?

Have you had a long day? I hope you are having a wonderful christmas eve.

[edhopper]

34. I said it would help give

A prosaic explanation to religious beliefs.

If that proves them false to you, I am good with that.


Quiet Xmas eve, but I am fine with it.

[cbayer]

36. Prosaic may be an apt word, because this would be way too simplistic an explanation.

If anyone divests themselves of their religious beliefs because they discover that human have a tendency to look for reason, they are really not very reasoned. This will not prove anything to anyone….

except possibly that people distort science to fit their personal desire for purpose.

[edhopper]

38. Now we are getting into the origins of belief

A subject too big for me to deal with right now.

Maybe it would make a good thread later on sometime.

[edhopper]

25. I don't know what mistake you think i made

but I didn't say what you think I did.

I was talking about this particular trait, according to the author . Not all behavior, I don't know why you think I did.

[cbayer]

27. You may want to look at the subthread for a more thorough answer.

You brought up an article that you thought showed how there was a human predilection to see meaning where there wasn't meaning and the proposal that this might explain religious beliefs.

I pointed out that the author also proposes that this same predilection explains why people may not really understand natural selection. She applies it to other scientific theories as well. This is completely separate from the religious beliefs issue.

This particular trait is more interesting in terms of the impact it has on learning science than it is in terms of religion, imo. I found it particularly interesting because I have encountered very "rational" people on this site who really don't understand evolution. That is a bigger problem than this trait leading to religious beliefs.

[edhopper]

29. Well

What we find interesting about this is different.

[cbayer]

31. Well

tell me what you find interesting about this.

And what do you think about how it impacts learning about science?

[edhopper]

33. Post it in the Science Forum and I will.

Just kidding.

I should say what I find more interesting about this is the implication about the formation of religious beliefs. An inborn mindset that things are there for a purpose certainly explains the search for a religous understanding, whether one exists or not.

You find the implications about teaching science more so.

I think that much of what you are saying is more about sloppy language than actual scientific understanding among scientists.

Except in cases like God driven evolution or the Goldilocks theory of cosmology.

I guess it means that science education should be very clear that there is no purpose to the Universe.

[cbayer]

35. The search for purpose and meaning drives science, religion and so many other things.

We totally agree, it explains the search for, well, just about anything.

Unfortunately, it can also cause people to disregard data in favor of a desire for discovering purpose. Since there really isn't data attached to beliefs and faith, this won't be much of a problem. But when it comes to science, this is a big problem.

Again with the sloppy language? Why don't you be specific about what you are referring to. If you are simply restating eomers initial response, read on, because he backtracks from that after reading it in context. Perhaps sloppy reading is what is the problem, because I'm thinking that this article doesn't say what you initially thought it did.

If it were a fact that there is no purpose in the universe, I would fully agree that it should be taught in science.

But it's not a fact and to teach it as one would be teaching a belief based on faith….. and we wouldn't want that, would we?

[edhopper]

37. The article is about this

"Kelemen calls this “promiscuous teleology”: the notion that intuition seems to guide us towards seeing purpose, intention and agency, even when this is unwarranted."

What do you think it's about?

The last line about the Universe was meant as a joke. Should have used a smiley.

[cbayer]

39. I understand quite well what it is about.

I think you only saw the religious connection though, and are not wanting to see the connection with science.

At any rate, it prompted one of the better discussions I have had here for awhile.

[edhopper]

40. I saw thst

I just was more interested in the religious aspect.


The science part was about how people don't completely understand the scientific explanations, like the sun example. So that would suggest that this bias be taken into account when teaching.

But this correlates to seeing purpose and design, and that brings us back to religion.

[cbayer]

41. I am making my single concession to the religious aspect of christmas right now.

I am listening to the Messiah, a longstanding and much loved tradition for me.

If seeking purpose and design leads to music such as this, then I'm all for it.

Hope you have a wonderful, peaceful and loving day, edhopper.

[edhopper]

42. We should all seek a purpose for our lives

we just shouldn't think it is prescribe by someone or something else.

As T E Lawrence said, "nothing is written, lest we write it."

[cbayer]

43. Should and shouldn't may be exactly what is prescriptive.

As cbayer said, "Everyone chooses their own path and whether they feel their direction comes from within or without is entirely personal and up to no one else".

[edhopper]

44. Are you quoting yourself

Or was it auto-complete?

[cbayer]

45. My computer can actually read my mind and sometimes transcribes my thoughts!

No, not really. I was quoting myself in response to your quote.

[Sweeney]

46. It is not hard to guess even if impossible to prove

That obvious facts like the breakdown of the bicameral mind as Jaynes was talking about with a consequential internalizing of what we would now consider psychological conditions did not occur with a genetic adaptation. Maybe, at one time in response to common conditions, schizophrenia was more general. From what I know, if certain environmental situations cannot induce Schizophrenia, or homosexuality they can make them more likely in the populations. If these are a sort of sleeper adaptation, people could only guess at the genetic logic behind it. What is the advantage, because in any case, off spring would be less likely from either mutation.

What I am taking as information is from two separate sources I cannot identify, though one I heard of on NPR. It was that children starved during the second trimester after conception more often became schizophrenic. Children whose mothers had suffered the stress of bombing during the second trimester of pregnancy more often gave birth to babies that became in time, homosexual. Starvation of mother in utero, or father in life seems to cause short term genetic changes that are generational and which give a survival advantage down range.

Clearly some of the beliefs we find essential to religion are found instinctual-ly in all children, and where there is no possibility of a counter explanation of reality these beliefs continue past childhood. Furthermore, much religious and magical thinking presents with Neurosis, and neurosis could be a sort of arrested development due to trauma. In any event, consider the power of an intelligent individual whose normal psychological processes are externalized due to schizophrenia, that would allow him to think out loud, or in the form of a dialectic Consider the accounts of people actually hearing their gods, or in the case of Mohamed, an angel. There is some evidence that the family of Jesus thought he was insane. Granted, that Israel hated her prophets, and after the return from captivity actively punished their prophets makes such a fear of madness legitimate. Who but a madman tempts fate?

The more I think of it, this is almost counter to religion. Religion is based upon pre rational or irrational thinking carried into adulthood. If these children and others are grasping for a cause without a rational idea of cause and effect, it seems as though that conclusion may be pre-programed into us and that is a stretch. Even though children are incapable of true logic until they can grasp the notion of conservation, they seem capable of syllogistic logic to a point to be able to identify objects, and define them to a point, at least if I am reading Piaget correctly. I wonder how old these kids are.

[rug]

4. The bias toward seeing patterns, such as faces, served an evolutionary purpose.

The ability to observe a predator's face was useful.

The ability to surmise intent in circumstances is likely more useful than chalking it up to random meaninglessness. It helps the clueless to avoid dangerous situations.

[cbayer]

5. Wrong place. Sorry.

[trotsky]

10. Makes a lot of sense.

Especially when you think about our evolution as a species - we are primates who study and recognize patterns. To ascribe a purpose to a pattern helps enable the understanding of it - WHY is this thing the way it is? Seems a natural development for a tool-making animal. Once you begin to create things yourself, the idea of design and purpose takes center stage.