Are we hard-wired to be religious?

[Sunstone]

There is a quote which I once read whch says:

'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.'
What are your views on this, do you agree?

I used to think that was too cynical. But after watching the rise of the Religious Right in America, along with some other things, I've come to believe Gibbons was pulling his punches with that one. He could have been a lot more cynical than that and still spot on.

Do you agree with the pieces of evidence which suggests human beings are hard wired to be part of a group rather than on our own?

According to some scientists, such as Alison Jolly, the rarest human lifestyle is that of a genuine hermit. I think it is absolutely obvious that we are a social animal. Where can you go on this planet to find a place where most people are not part of a community? Anywhere?

I also think it is only a wee bit less obvious that our being social animals is most likely hardwired into us.

In reference to Stephen's point, we usually arrive at our most reliable facts through communal activities, such as through science. Lone prophets tend to be wrong at least as often as they are right -- and usually more often wrong than right.

Hinting at the possiblility that individuals choose to follow a religion simply because their instincts are telling them that if we are part of a large organisation/group, we have more chance of survival as we have more people looking after us than we do on our own. As we know religions can have followings of millions or billions.

The notion that religions arose because they were advantageous to survival is fraught with problems. For one thing, it -- and almost all evolutionary psychology -- is highly speculative. For another it ignores the evidence from places like New Guinea where at least some native religions do not seem especially conducive to group cohesion. And for another thing, it seems to rely too heavily on projecting the socio-ethical religious models of the Middle East onto all religions. Last, it seems that religions are as often divisive as they are cohesive. e.g. People fight wars over relatively minor differences in religious beliefs.

As for whether humans have hardwired into them a predilection for religious beliefs, there seems to be increasing evidence that they do. However, that evidence is now pointing away from the notion that group survival had anything to do with the rise of religious beliefs.

 

[Erebus]

There is a quote which I once read whch says:

'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.'

1. What are your views on this, do you agree?

2. Do you think religion is a useful tool for the power in the world and if used cleverly, (like King Henry VIII) can aid them in controlling their people?

3. Do you agree with the pieces of evidence which suggests human beings are hard wired to be part of a group rather than on our own? Hinting at the possiblility that individuals choose to follow a religion simply because their instincts are telling them that if we are part of a large organisation/group, we have more chance of survival as we have more people looking after us than we do on our own. As we know religions can have followings of millions or billions.All thoughts welcome

Numbered the post and responses for ease

1. I think it's an overly broad statement, but realise that's kind of the point.

2. I think that religion is a useful tool for anybody with the wit to use it properly. Whether it's used to improve your own life/self or to influence others really comes down to individual desire.

3. I do firmly believe we are social animals and thus have evolved particular social customs. I think the tribal mentality that religion can sometimes fall into is most likely one of these evolved traits. I also believe that we are hard-wired to look for patterns in things which can lead to both superstition and spirituality.

 

[pwfaith]

To be religious, imo, no but to know God and have a relationship with Him, yes. I believe people are born with an inner sense and desire to know God but for a variety of reasons that sense no longer exists in some people, or gets distorted.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I wouldn't say hard-wired to be religious, but we are definitely predisposed towards spirituality. Human pattern recognition (and especially facial recognition) in order to become as effective at its job of ensuring our survival in the ancestral environment had to utilize some "short cuts." Faces in in the sand and animals in the clouds are the byproducts of our brains being hard-wired to search for living influences and looking for explanations that relate to our world even if they don't.


Despite the fact that humans have never interacted with triton or europa we cannot help the fact that our brains are still trying to act as though humans live there and need to find any signs of danger from rival bands (or primates even). That jungle cat might pounce if you don't recognize its shape in outline within the trees, so obviously those rock outcroppings arranged just so had to be the product of extra-terrestrial intelligence "why else would it be designed to look like a jungle cat to us?"


And we do have a social instinct. Humans need other humans to remain sane. But its probably closer to pack instincts (we build families); communities are more of a recent invention and humans are not naturally inclined to build groups of hundreds of thousands or more. The fact that so many failings occur in groups that large is a sure fire sign of that.

MTF

 

[Matthew78]

There is a quote which I once read whch says:

'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.'
What are your views on this, do you agree?

It would be helpful for me if I knew who said this and what religion was being referred to in this context.

Do you think religion is a useful tool for the power in the world and if used cleverly, (like King Henry VIII) can aid them in controlling their people?

Of course. But then so is propaganda a useful tool for similar, if not the same, ends.

Do you agree with the pieces of evidence which suggests human beings are hard wired to be part of a group rather than on our own?

What pieces of evidence are you referring to? I suspect that in the earliest human communities, human beings were hard-wired for group cooperation and group cohesion for survival purposes. Are you suggesting that religion evolved as means for such group cohesion?

Hinting at the possiblility that individuals choose to follow a religion simply because their instincts are telling them that if we are part of a large organisation/group, we have more chance of survival as we have more people looking after us than we do on our own. As we know religions can have followings of millions or billions.

Definitely possible but I am poorly read on the latest consensus of expert opinion among anthropologists so I couldn't say.

Let me give you my own take. I am coming more and more to believe that the brain may, indeed, be hard-wired for religiosity. Not necessary a belief in a divine being but more like the need to be part of a movement, a group, or some kind of identity that is greater than oneself. This can take the form of a religious community, the form of a political movement, or a quest for meaning and purpose in one's life. I think this explains why some people are Christians, some people are Marxists, some people are Libertarians, why some people will devote their lives to a cause that they're passionate about, and why some people seek a group or community to find an identity for themselves or a purpose for their lives.

 

[Penumbra]

There is a quote which I once read whch says:

'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.'
What are your views on this, do you agree?
Do you think religion is a useful tool for the power in the world and if used cleverly, (like King Henry VIII) can aid them in controlling their people?
Do you agree with the pieces of evidence which suggests human beings are hard wired to be part of a group rather than on our own? Hinting at the possiblility that individuals choose to follow a religion simply because their instincts are telling them that if we are part of a large organisation/group, we have more chance of survival as we have more people looking after us than we do on our own. As we know religions can have followings of millions or billions.
All thoughts welcome.

p.s. Typed this up in a bit of a rush, so if you cant make sense of it, please ask further questions.

I think if "Religion" were replaced by "Dogma" in the quote, it would be more accurate.

 

[Katzpur]

There is a quote which I once read whch says:

'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.'
What are your views on this, do you agree?
Do you think religion is a useful tool for the power in the world and if used cleverly, (like King Henry VIII) can aid them in controlling their people?
Do you agree with the pieces of evidence which suggests human beings are hard wired to be part of a group rather than on our own? Hinting at the possiblility that individuals choose to follow a religion simply because their instincts are telling them that if we are part of a large organisation/group, we have more chance of survival as we have more people looking after us than we do on our own. As we know religions can have followings of millions or billions.
All thoughts welcome.

p.s. Typed this up in a bit of a rush, so if you cant make sense of it, please ask further questions.

I don't know about being "hard-wired" to be religious, but I really, really do believe that we all have either an inborn tendency to be spiritual or non-spiritual. I think there are many atheists who could not believe in God no matter how hard they tried, but there are also many theists who could not force themselves to believe He doesn't exist. I don't know if you want to call it "the God gene" or what, but I really believe it's there in some form.

 

[Oneatatime]

There is a quote which I once read whch says:

'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.'
What are your views on this, do you agree?
Do you think religion is a useful tool for the power in the world and if used cleverly, (like King Henry VIII) can aid them in controlling their people?
Do you agree with the pieces of evidence which suggests human beings are hard wired to be part of a group rather than on our own? Hinting at the possiblility that individuals choose to follow a religion simply because their instincts are telling them that if we are part of a large organisation/group, we have more chance of survival as we have more people looking after us than we do on our own. As we know religions can have followings of millions or billions.
All thoughts welcome.

p.s. Typed this up in a bit of a rush, so if you cant make sense of it, please ask further questions.

I don't think people are hard-wired to be religious but yes I think that we're inclined to seek a common indentify with those around us in order to facilitate cooperation. The problem with drawing conclusions from the world as it stands now is that most people in the world are subject to childhood indoctriniation into a relgion so the results are already biased in favour of the claim that people are generally religious in nature.

No doubt if chidren were all indoctrinated into strict adherence to secularism and science and only a few embraced religion many would see this as the default stance of humanity.

 

[work in progress]

There is a quote which I once read whch says:

'Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.'
What are your views on this, do you agree?

Seems spot on, especially that last one!

Do you think religion is a useful tool for the power in the world and if used cleverly, (like King Henry VIII) can aid them in controlling their people?

I guess Tom Rees, who writes the Epiphenomena Blog was anticipating your question:Do the rich use religion to keep the poor in their place?

Do you agree with the pieces of evidence which suggests human beings are hard wired to be part of a group rather than on our own? Hinting at the possiblility that individuals choose to follow a religion simply because their instincts are telling them that if we are part of a large organisation/group, we have more chance of survival as we have more people looking after us than we do on our own. As we know religions can have followings of millions or billions.

Of course we're hardwired to be community-minded! We've spent most of human history in small hunter/gatherer family groups of up to 200 people, that had to cooperate and depend on each other for survival.

But, when I think of "hard-wired to be religious", I'm not thinking of the community aspects of religion....which are carried out by a lot of secular organizations in many social democratic nations (hence the decline in organized religion there). What I'm thinking of is the building blocks that led to religious dogma: teleological thinking - young children begin making sense of the world, using the basic framework that everything has a purpose, and must have a creator. There is even a lot of evidence that essentialist thinking - that living things have essential properties which can be passed on to other people and inanimate objects is hard-wired into us; so we have to use our sober, second thought as adults to realize that an object once owned by a murderer cannot harm us - I'm using developmental psychologist - Bruce Hood's demonstration example of "The Killer's Cardigan" described in part here, as an example of superstitious thinking that is likely based in our basic intuitions.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't know about being "hard-wired" to be religious, but I really, really do believe that we all have either an inborn tendency to be spiritual or non-spiritual. I think there are many atheists who could not believe in God no matter how hard they tried, but there are also many theists who could not force themselves to believe He doesn't exist. I don't know if you want to call it "the God gene" or what, but I really believe it's there in some form.

If this is what you believe, and you believe there's a god, then in your opinion, why would a god include a god-gene in creation which results in some people being more inclined to believe in god, or be spiritual, than others?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are we hard wired to be religious?

Most are.
Some aren't.
Even many non-believers have that hard wiring expressed as secular beliefs to which they cling as though necessary & absolutely true.
Schools of political & economic thought also serve Kool-Aid at their mixers.
It seems that there are few of us who eschew facts, truth & certainty in things unverifiable.

 

[Storm]

I don't see the connection between thread title and op. Two totally different questions...

 

[Katzpur]

If this is what you believe, and you believe there's a god, then in your opinion, why would a god include a god-gene in creation which results in some people being more inclined to believe in god, or be spiritual, than others?

I don't know, but since I don't believe that mortality is our last chance to "get it right" so to speak, I figure things will work out in the long run. Our genes are part of our physical make-up. I suspect that once we're in the Spirit World after we die, the "God gene" (if there is such a thing) will no longer play a part in the way we see things.

 

[Paroxys]

I would argue that rather than a predisposition toward religion, humans have a predisposition to avoiding unpleasantness.

Uncertainty caused by lack of knowledge is certainly an unpleasant state. Hence in order to rectify the unease and fear caused by the unknowable, humans created religion and gods. Why does it thunder? It is because of Zeus or Thor or any number of "lightning gods."

Now such archaic beliefs persist, largely because of complacency and laziness, again resulting from an inherent desire to avoid unpleasantness. Changing one's fundamental outlook means challenging something one has accepted to be true their entire life, certainly an unpleasant and probably arduous experience. Even in science, change can be slow. How long did it take for people to accept the world wasn't flat? how long did it take for people to accept that Earth wasn't the center of universe?

Edit: Grammar and syntax.

 

[Sunstone]

I would argue that rather than a predisposition toward religion, humans have a predisposition to avoiding unpleasantness.

Uncertainty caused by lack of knowledge is certainly an unpleasant state. Hence in order to rectify the unease and fear caused by the unknowable, humans created religion and gods. Why does it thunder? It is because of Zeus or Thor or any number of "lightning gods."

Now such archaic beliefs persist, largely because of complacency and laziness, again resulting from an inherent desire to avoid unpleasantness. Changing one's fundamental outlook means challenging something one has accepted to be true their entire life, certainly an unpleasant and probably arduous experience. Even in science, change can be slow. How long did it take for people to accept the world wasn't flat? how long did it take for people to accept that Earth wasn't the center of universe?

Edit: Grammar and syntax.

Your ideas trace back to E.B. Tylor, who was born in 1832. As you might imagine, there's been a lot of new developments in the science of religion since he coined his notion the gods were invented to eliminate uncertainty and explain things. What do you make of the relatively recent MRI scans that support the notion we have a predilection to religious thinking?

 

[Paroxys]

Your ideas trace back to E.B. Tylor, who was born in 1832. As you might imagine, there's been a lot of new developments in the science of religion since he coined his notion the gods were invented to eliminate uncertainty and explain things. What do you make of the relatively recent MRI scans that support the notion we have a predilection to religious thinking?

Note that my main thesis isn't that "gods are invented to allay uncertainty" but rather "humans have a predilection toward avoiding unpleasantness." Which is supported by a good deal of both psychological research and empirical evidence. Also note that "predilection toward avoiding unpleasantness" and "predilection to religious thinking" aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, I argue that religion is one method used to avoid unpleasantness. But beyond that...

Neuroscience is still a rather infant field mostly due to the complexity of the human brain, meaning that we should take some of the more outrageous claims with a grain of salt. Though this is not to say I'm discounting such evidence entirely. Based on what I've read so far, we can say conclusively that their are quantifiable differences between a theist and an atheist brain. This however, does not suggest a predilection toward religion. If you have any specific articles that you can cite, I would be more than happy to read them and amend my opinion accordingly.

In fact if you can bring up such an article that makes the overt or even implicit claim that our brains are predisposed to religious thinking, I am rather curious to see how "religiosity" is quantified as a measure.

 

[work in progress]

Neuroscience is still a rather infant field mostly due to the complexity of the human brain, meaning that we should take some of the more outrageous claims with a grain of salt. Though this is not to say I'm discounting such evidence entirely. Based on what I've read so far, we can say conclusively that their are quantifiable differences between a theist and an atheist brain. This however, does not suggest a predilection toward religion. If you have any specific articles that you can cite, I would be more than happy to read them and amend my opinion accordingly.

Yes, I guess some are going to jump to conclusions on these studies of neuro-correlates with conscious activities, but the dualistic theories of mind all depend on the existence of extra forces or properties of matter that have not been proven so far, or have not proven to be necessary to experience consciousness.

From what I've read so far (general, non-technical literature) the model that I feel best explains our differences in thinking and decision-making is that we use intuition and make a lot of choices subconsciously without even bringing them to the level of conscious perception. Our intuitive sense carries a lot of built in assumptions about the world - especially teleology and essentialism, which are the building blocks for supernatural concepts and superstitions.

It's not a big leap to get to religion from this starting point. The reason why some of us are skeptics and inclined to question and abandon previous religious beliefs, is that some people spend more time pondering over these sorts of things than others do. So, the atheist, at least most atheists, will be the ones who are more prone to question and raise objections, than to go with their intuitions or the way they feel about a certain code of beliefs.

Notice that geneticist - Francis Collins's testimony about why he became a born-again Christian was because of a subjective feeling - he just felt that the trinitarian God he had been taught in his youth must be true, after gazing upon a waterfall that had been frozen in three sections during a winter nature walk. So, it's not a matter of atheists are smart, religious adherents are idiots! It's just that even a top scientist who finds religion does not do it through a scientific process - he or she just makes a leap of faith and goes with their intuitions.

In fact if you can bring up such an article that makes the overt or even implicit claim that our brains are predisposed to religious thinking, I am rather curious to see how "religiosity" is quantified as a measure.

Religiosity is too expansive to be quantified. You can consider the research on intuitive thinking, especially research done by child psychologist - Deborah Kelemen regarding children's preference for teleological explanations, and how they likely underly our thinking throughout our lives and have to be consciously discounted as we get older - Teleological Explanations In Adults The degree which we rely on our intuitive sense of things vs. reasoning will likely determine the degree of religiosity someone will have.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

If this is what you believe, and you believe there's a god, then in your opinion, why would a god include a god-gene in creation which results in some people being more inclined to believe in god, or be spiritual, than others?

Who says it is a god-gene? Humans look for faces in the wind or sand or rubble or anywhere else. Some do so more than others by simple fiat of genetic diversity due to natural selection.

Whether or not there is a being responsible for creation of the universe or reality doesn't have to have anything to do with gene expressions in a cosmic ant on some back-water dirt ball in a remote corner of the milky way.

MTF

 

[Paroxys]

From what I've read so far (general, non-technical literature) the model that I feel best explains our differences in thinking and decision-making is that we use intuition and make a lot of choices subconsciously without even bringing them to the level of conscious perception. Our intuitive sense carries a lot of built in assumptions about the world - especially teleology and essentialism, which are the building blocks for supernatural concepts and superstitions.

It's not a big leap to get to religion from this starting point. The reason why some of us are skeptics and inclined to question and abandon previous religious beliefs, is that some people spend more time pondering over these sorts of things than others do. So, the atheist, at least most atheists, will be the ones who are more prone to question and raise objections, than to go with their intuitions or the way they feel about a certain code of beliefs.

The thing is we can come up with alternative explanations that don't suggest a "predilection toward religion" that are also legitimate with the data at hand. Hence it may not be a big leap to get to predilection to religion, but its not a big leap to get to another conclusion as well. In this case, one equally legitimate theory is that the observed differences are the result of a religious upbringing, as opposed to a predilection to religion. Studies have shown that traumatic events that take place in the developmental years have a marked affect on a child's ultimate development, even if the child was too young to remember said trauma. Through conditioning, you can train people to like/dislike certain objects or activities (a la Brave New World stylie), even if it they aren't explicitly aware of it.

The article you cite is an interesting one certainly. It's main premise (correct me if I'm wrong, as I skimmed through it), is that children are more teleological than adults are. Which at the very least provides a basis for the argument that people are "pre-disposed toward teleological explanation." (another argument can be made as to what "pre-disposed actually is, but I will cede this point). But does the question now is: does this imply that people are pre-disposed to religion? There are a couple of key questions that need to be answered:
1. Can we say that teleological implies religious? Certainly a correlation can be established between the two, but correlation does not mean causation.
2. Even if we concede some form of causal relation between teleological, the OP's thesis specifies a certain direction. Namely that, can we say that predilection toward religiousness manifests itself as a predilection to teleological explanation? This direction has to be specifically this way since if the predilection to teleological explanation manifests as religious, then one could make the argument that religion is only a means of expressing teleological explanation. That if provided another alternative, easier means of teleological manifestation, then that would be the principal form of expression.
3. There are probably more, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head.

In fact, this teleological explanation article you provide actually provides evidence to support my thesis: "that humans are pre-disposed to avoiding unpleasantness."

Edit: Grammar and syntax. And good article. Though I haven't gone over the specific methods/data analysis yet.

 

[Penumbra]

Who says it is a god-gene?

The person my post was addressed to.

The specifics were not important, like whether it's literally a "gene".