• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why is belief in gods so much more common in humans than non-belief?

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Imagine that you are a small hominid on the plains of Africa some 3 ½ million years ago, let’s say an Australopithecine. Now, suppose one day, while you're foraging in the open near to the trees, that you hear a rustle in the grass close to you. Suddenly you need to know, “is it just the wind, or is it a dangerous predator?”

Let’s suppose that you make a snap decision that it is a dangerous predator, and you quickly scamper to the nearest tree for safety. If it was just the wind, then you’ve made what’s called a Type I error in cognition, or a “false positive.” You thought the rustle was connected to something, and it wasn’t. You were wrong, but this type of error is relatively harmless, in that mostly, you’ll go a bit hungry at worst, for want of something to eat because you’re afraid to come out of your tree and forage.

But what if you think that the rustle was just wind, and it’s really a dangerous predator, and you stick around – you’re lunch. Now you’ve made a Type II error in cognition, a false negative, and you’ve just taken yourself out of the gene pool before you’ve reproduced. Why can’t we just stick around long enough to collect enough data to get the answer right? Well, the answer is that predators don’t hang around waiting for prey to collect more data – that’s why the stalk.

We are the descendants of, we evolved from, those who most consistently made Type I errors, and went on to reproduce, rather than Type II errors and got eaten.

But here’s where it goes wrong: although that snap decision based on a False Positive is relatively safe, it is also not based on reality. It makes an association between A and B (that A is somehow connected to B) that is not true. That’s the basis of superstition, and magical thinking. And that’s what we’ve evolved to do. And it’s the basis of the sort of thinking that leads to animism, superstition, and belief in gods. Because the difference between the wind and a predator is "intention," which is something that we unconsciously attach to the object of our false positive.

And that's why more humans believe in gods, spirits, ghosts and a host of other not demonstrably true things than do not. And that's why I think that people who opt for true rational thinking can escape that trap.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Or maybe you have had experiences and you're just recognizing them. Animism, for instance, is just the recognition of the personhood of non-human entities and organic matter and formations, at base. I find these "theories" that anti-theists come up with to try to explain the origins of religion to be insulting and elitist more than anything else. It's always some sort of cognitive malfunction in the view of your ilk, and the elitism comes in because you think the small number of people in the group you're a part of have somehow managed to escape this "trap". (Sounds pretty religious to me. Like an atheist Neo). If it was such a negative thing to our survival, natural selection would've selected against it long ago. No species exists where the majority of its members has a cognitive malfunction.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
That’s the basis of superstition, and magical thinking. And that’s what we’ve evolved to do. And it’s the basis of the sort of thinking that leads to animism, superstition, and belief in gods.
Why is belief in gods so much more common in humans than non-belief?

Jesus said according to the Bible "The way is narrow, only few will ...".
Would that not be a Divine Joke "You have to let go of God to see the narrow way"
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Or maybe you have had experiences and you're just recognizing them. Animism, for instance, is just the recognition of the personhood of non-human entities and organic matter and formations, at base. I find these "theories" that anti-theists come up with to try to explain the origins of religion to be insulting and elitist more than anything else. It's always some sort of cognitive malfunction in the view of your ilk, and the elitism comes in because you think the small number of people in the group you're a part of have somehow managed to escape this "trap". (Sounds pretty religious to me. Like an atheist Neo). If it was such a negative thing to our survival, natural selection would've selected against it long ago. No species exists where the majority of its members has a cognitive malfunction.
I don't recognize the "personhood" of stones, transistor radios and trees. I am somewhat more ambivalent about the personhood of animals -- like most people my age in the west, I am not a vegetarian, though I do have some sympathy that animals have to be killed in order to feed me. I admit to that much hypocrisy, at least, but that's pretty hard to change, for me.

And I wouldn't be surprised, actually, now that we are possessed of the means for destroying most life on this planet, if we did find ourselves being "selected against." After all, we've only possessed those means for an eye-blink, in terms of the time we've been here.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
And that's why more humans believe in gods, spirits, ghosts and a host of other not demonstrably true things than do not. And that's why I think that people who opt for true rational thinking can escape that trap.

Admittedly, although I'm a fairly well-entrenched believer, I have always found some version of the notion which you proposed plausible enough to be accepted by some folks. Indeed, I've occasionally even wondered why it didn't take hold and spread faster and farther much sooner in the course of human evolution. Have believers of all sorts always been such bullies, connivers, and resource owners and/or controllers? sufficiently so that they could herd non-believers according to whim, fancy, and/or strategy?

At the risk of being accused of trying to hi-jack your thread, I, for one, would be intrigued to see what kind of responses non-believers (i.e. atheists and agnostics) give to the question: Would the world today be (a) better off, (b) worse off, or (c) neither, if "absence of belief" had had the upper hand and believers had always been few and far between or rare and quickly mocked or stifled into silence?

Whadd'ya think?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I don't recognize the "personhood" of stones, transistor radios and trees. I am somewhat more ambivalent about the personhood of animals -- like most people my age in the west, I am not a vegetarian, though I do have some sympathy that animals have to be killed in order to feed me. I admit to that much hypocrisy, at least, but that's pretty hard to change, for me.

And I wouldn't be surprised, actually, now that we are possessed of the means for destroying most life on this planet, if we did find ourselves being "selected against." After all, we've only possessed those means for an eye-blink, in terms of the time we've been here.
Regardless, animism is a way of perceiving and living in the world by recognizing the interconnectedness of all that exists and the life in all things. If you don't believe in it, that's your business. But I'm not going to come up with pseudo-scientific ideas that are insulting to try to explain your disbelief.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Wouldn't that lead to the notion that atheists are abnormal, poorly wired, or, in politically correct terms: "belief-challenged"? o_O

No, not at all. I take it as just a predisposition to having those beliefs, just another genetic variation. Having or not having doesn't make it a judgment.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
For what its worth i am quite happy to believe parental indoctrination and peer pressure are the reason god belief is so prevalent.

As for evolving the need to believe in gods, probably the need is there to be triggered, but if takes action to trigger it
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Wouldn't that lead to the notion that atheists are abnormal, poorly wired, or, in politically correct terms: "belief-challenged"? o_O

It seems we are all those things and more. I am glad to say, the alternative must be a very restricted way of life
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Why is belief in gods so much more common in humans than non-belief?

Is it an admission on the part of the non-believers that "belief in G-d" naturally existed in humans from millions of years or from inception?
So, however, the non-
believers try, unless they give a positive proof/evidence or argument, this will remain in the humans being as a natural asset.
Their made-up suppositions are of no avail.
Right, please?

Regards
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
No, not at all. I take it as just a predisposition to having those beliefs, just another genetic variation. Having or not having doesn't make it a judgment.

I understand your position. Just sayin': one person's genetic variation is another person's defect. Judgements regarding the variation are like fungi, ... they'll appear, take hold, and spread almost anywhere.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
"Is it an admission on the part of the non-believers that "belief in G-d" naturally existed in humans from millions of years or from inception?
So, however, the non-believers try, unless they give a positive proof/evidence or argument, this will remain in the humans being as a natural asset.
Their made-up suppositions are of no avail."

paarsurrey said that, not me.

Right, please?

:D
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I understand your position. Just sayin': one person's genetic variation is another person's defect. Judgements regarding the variation are like fungi, ... they'll appear, take hold, and spread almost anywhere.

Defect if it causes some impairment, danger or risk to the organism. Otherwise it's probably benign. I have the "warrior gene" (yes it is a real thing) that could put me at risk for risky behaviors. Monoamine oxidase A - Wikipedia I also have the alleles for the gene that prevents a person from learning from their mistakes... I make the same mistakes over and over, and do not learn from them. Those are the sorts of things that could have cut my life short. Especially if I didn't have religious beliefs. My beliefs sort of put the brakes on my temperament.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
At the risk of being accused of trying to hi-jack your thread, I, for one, would be intrigued to see what kind of responses non-believers (i.e. atheists and agnostics) give to the question: Would the world today be (a) better off, (b) worse off, or (c) neither, if "absence of belief" had had the upper hand and believers had always been few and far between or rare and quickly mocked or stifled into silence?

Whadd'ya think?

I don't think things would be much different. It has always been a convenient means to control people through their beliefs. Without a God to believe in, I suspect man would have created something else to believe in.

Conservatism/liberalism just another way of controlling what folks believe for example.
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
"Is it an admission on the part of the non-believers that "belief in G-d" naturally existed in humans from millions of years or from inception?
So, however, the non-believers try, unless they give a positive proof/evidence or argument, this will remain in the humans being as a natural asset.
Their made-up suppositions are of no avail."

paarsurrey said that, not me.

Right, please?

:D

I think creating a human like, or in this case superhuman like agency behind phenomenon we couldn't understand is kind of inherent in our creative nature. Humans are inquisitive and storytellers. We like to think we know how things work. Where we don't know we will create an explanation to satisfy our curiosity.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
I think that is accurate according to the Bible. I think that humans can find no real fulfillment apart from a relationship with their Creator, since that is the purpose for which we were created.

Man is a unique creation. God has set a sense of eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11), and that sense of timeless destiny can only find its fulfillment in God Himself.
Can man live without God? | GotQuestions.org
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Imagine that you are a small hominid on the plains of Africa some 3 ½ million years ago, let’s say an Australopithecine. Now, suppose one day, while you're foraging in the open near to the trees, that you hear a rustle in the grass close to you. Suddenly you need to know, “is it just the wind, or is it a dangerous predator?”

Let’s suppose that you make a snap decision that it is a dangerous predator, and you quickly scamper to the nearest tree for safety. If it was just the wind, then you’ve made what’s called a Type I error in cognition, or a “false positive.” You thought the rustle was connected to something, and it wasn’t. You were wrong, but this type of error is relatively harmless, in that mostly, you’ll go a bit hungry at worst, for want of something to eat because you’re afraid to come out of your tree and forage.

But what if you think that the rustle was just wind, and it’s really a dangerous predator, and you stick around – you’re lunch. Now you’ve made a Type II error in cognition, a false negative, and you’ve just taken yourself out of the gene pool before you’ve reproduced. Why can’t we just stick around long enough to collect enough data to get the answer right? Well, the answer is that predators don’t hang around waiting for prey to collect more data – that’s why the stalk.

We are the descendants of, we evolved from, those who most consistently made Type I errors, and went on to reproduce, rather than Type II errors and got eaten.

But here’s where it goes wrong: although that snap decision based on a False Positive is relatively safe, it is also not based on reality. It makes an association between A and B (that A is somehow connected to B) that is not true. That’s the basis of superstition, and magical thinking. And that’s what we’ve evolved to do. And it’s the basis of the sort of thinking that leads to animism, superstition, and belief in gods. Because the difference between the wind and a predator is "intention," which is something that we unconsciously attach to the object of our false positive.

And that's why more humans believe in gods, spirits, ghosts and a host of other not demonstrably true things than do not. And that's why I think that people who opt for true rational thinking can escape that trap.
Its an idea, but it may not be the way things happened right? Also we're talking about mammals, and the first mammals are small and tend to make type I errors.

Apes actually started to develop into predators, and so their thinking must have changed, somehow. They must have retained the potential to think in more ways than one.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Admittedly, although I'm a fairly well-entrenched believer, I have always found some version of the notion which you proposed plausible enough to be accepted by some folks. Indeed, I've occasionally even wondered why it didn't take hold and spread faster and farther much sooner in the course of human evolution. Have believers of all sorts always been such bullies, connivers, and resource owners and/or controllers? sufficiently so that they could herd non-believers according to whim, fancy, and/or strategy?

At the risk of being accused of trying to hi-jack your thread, I, for one, would be intrigued to see what kind of responses non-believers (i.e. atheists and agnostics) give to the question: Would the world today be (a) better off, (b) worse off, or (c) neither, if "absence of belief" had had the upper hand and believers had always been few and far between or rare and quickly mocked or stifled into silence?

Whadd'ya think?
I promise you a reply, though it will take me a bit to work through my thoughts on the matter...
 
Top