Don't forget about the movie rights to Lifetime Channel.
Katie Holmes got tired of Scientology?
- Thread starter Gil T.Azell
- Start date
This has been a really interesting conversation to read, with valid points on both sides of the debate, and I find myself agreeing with bits of most everyone's arguments; I think there is a difference between cults like Scientology and religions, though other religions aren't necessarily less crazy. It really isn't any less insane to believe we are inhabited by the discontented spirits of ancient aliens than it is to believe that there are winged humans that talk to a magical man in the sky -- it's just less common. Religions tend to begin as cults, as someone already pointed out about Christianity, and then mellow out over time, with their practices becoming less insane, their followers becoming more moderate, and their beliefs less extreme. A more current example is Mormonism, which has mainstreamed considerably since its inception. There is a huge difference between religions and cults, even if it is only in the level of extremism.
I do disagree with whoever said that religion is not a psychological phenomenon, though. There is plenty of evidence that it is exactly that and nothing more.
I do disagree with whoever said that religion is not a psychological phenomenon, though. There is plenty of evidence that it is exactly that and nothing more.
I think I saw something not too long ago, either some scientific news article or maybe it was on Discovery channel or something - that the human brain is specifically "wired" to believe in a Supreme Being. Not entirely sure what that means and I'm real fuzzy on the details. Is it because we just happened to accidentally evolve that way, or were we made by said Supreme Being to specifically engage in worship? The statement only seemed to create more questions than answer. If it was a product of evolution that we be made to believe in God, what physical stimulus would have forced us to adapt that particular change? Or maybe this thread is on a collision course with the Ancient Aliens thread...
It has been suggested that the difference is that "cults" are small groups where the members are intensely exploited while religions are large groups whose members are lightly exploited. In many respects it seems plausible. It's a pretty blurry line of course. But is it really true? Katie is in effect taking Suri from a man who seems to have been a good enough father that his other children prefer him to their mother Nicole. And the general thinking is that she did this to take Suri into the church that helped drive Mel Gibson around the bend!
Holmes always knew Cruise was a Scientologist. She's taking millions of dollars and a child, so we should not automatically assume she is a disinterested party. Religion is a social institution, a complex one involving both medicine and political control. Medicine man=religious leader in some cultures. State churches and imperial cults. Whatever is offered as evidence that religion is purely psychological depends on excluding whole categories of anthropological and historical data.
The simple fact is, most people merely keep the religion they were born with. Or, historically, they change it to what is politically dictated (are forced to, by actual violence, the threat of violence, the fear of violence) or are enticed by material rewards/costs. Psychologocial factors are obviously highly important in the individual's conversion to another religion, but this is distinctly a secondary phenomenon.
No, loss of faith does not count as religious conversion. But this is relatively common even though it also refutes the notion that religion is a psychological phenomonenon. Unbeleievers have the same kind of minds as believers, after all.
ETA: Yes, religion is a social and political institution, but one founded on a psychological phenomenon. Also...it did a weird double post thing when I first tried to edit this...so if it says I deleted a post, that's why.
Most things in the realm of neuroscience are fuzzy and lead to new questions simply because neuroscience as a field is so new! The evidence that religion is a psychological phenomenon is pretty good, though, and is mounting. It also just makes a lot more sense than do the actual religions. Religious experiences have been recreated by stimulating the brain both electrically and pharmacologically, which is pretty strong evidence in itself that religious experiences are caused by brain function. There are certain forms of epilepsy for which hyper-religiosity is actually a diagnostic criteria, and sufferers have religious experiences during their seizures. Other experiences people interpret as religious or spiritual can also be explained with deeper knowledge and understanding of brain function. For example, part of your brain's job in constructing the reality you experience is to determine where you ends and everything else begins -- it's your sense of self in space, and your sense of "self" and "other." Imagine what would happen if that part of the brain were temporarily incapacitated. The wall between self and other breaks down and you feel one with "The Universe" or "God" or whatever your cultural lens dictates you should feel one with. This happens a lot with hallucinogens, and it fallows that many religions use such drugs to heighten their religious experiences.
While the idea that there is a "god center" to the brain is inherently flawed (the brain isn't actually that compartmentalized), it makes perfect sense that religion is a product of the brain.
As for evolutionary reasons for religion, we can theorize, and there are a lot of theories as to why religiosity would be selected for, but evolutionary psychology is a somewhat shaky field, not because those working in the field are invalid or because their theories are bad, but because they're not really testable: with evolutionary psychology we see the end result and can guess as to why things turned out the way they did, we can even make really good and clever guesses, but that's about it. In his book The God Delusion Dawkins discusses some of the evolutionary benefits of religiosity. Though I didn't find Dawkins' arguments ultimately convincing, and don't share all of his opinions, it is a really interesting read and relevant.
I think I saw something not too long ago, either some scientific news article or maybe it was on Discovery channel or something - that the human brain is specifically "wired" to believe in a Supreme Being. Not entirely sure what that means and I'm real fuzzy on the details. Is it because we just happened to accidentally evolve that way, or were we made by said Supreme Being to specifically engage in worship? The statement only seemed to create more questions than answer. If it was a product of evolution that we be made to believe in God, what physical stimulus would have forced us to adapt that particular change? Or maybe this thread is on a collision course with the Ancient Aliens thread...
Most things in the realm of neuroscience are fuzzy and lead to new questions simply because neuroscience as a field is so new! The evidence that religion is a psychological phenomenon is pretty good, though, and is mounting. It also just makes a lot more sense than do the actual religions. Religious experiences have been recreated by stimulating the brain both electrically and pharmacologically, which is pretty strong evidence in itself that religious experiences are caused by brain function. There are certain forms of epilepsy for which hyper-religiosity is actually a diagnostic criteria, and sufferers have religious experiences during their seizures. Other experiences people interpret as religious or spiritual can also be explained with deeper knowledge and understanding of brain function. For example, part of your brain's job in constructing the reality you experience is to determine where you ends and everything else begins -- it's your sense of self in space, and your sense of "self" and "other." Imagine what would happen if that part of the brain were temporarily incapacitated. The wall between self and other breaks down and you feel one with "The Universe" or "God" or whatever your cultural lens dictates you should feel one with. This happens a lot with hallucinogens, and it fallows that many religions use such drugs to heighten their religious experiences.
While the idea that there is a "god center" to the brain is inherently flawed (the brain isn't actually that compartmentalized), it makes perfect sense that religion is a product of the brain.
As for evolutionary reasons for religion, we can theorize, and there are a lot of theories as to why religiosity would be selected for, but evolutionary psychology is a somewhat shaky field, not because those working in the field are invalid or because their theories are bad, but because they're not really testable: with evolutionary psychology we see the end result and can guess as to why things turned out the way they did, we can even make really good and clever guesses, but that's about it. In his book The God Delusion Dawkins discusses some of the evolutionary benefits of religiosity. Though I didn't find Dawkins' arguments ultimately convincing, and don't share all of his opinions, it is a really interesting read and relevant.
stj, how can you know that unbelievers have the same kinds of minds as believers? The evidence is mounting that they don't.
^^^Because the overwhelming number of unbelievers were raised as believers, yet these brains can no longer sustain belief. Their brains didn't suddenly mutate. Also, the number of unbelievers is much, much larger than it was in previous eras. But there hasn't been an upsurge in mutant brains permitting more unbelief. It's because the importance of religion as an institution for political and social control has declined, allowing more people to opt out of it.
I'm not quite sure how you manage to turn medicine into a psychological phenomenon. Scientology, Christian Science, the health food aspects of Seventh Day Adventism, Christian counseling, the heath/medicine aspects of religion are still quite important. None of that involves genetically different brains.
I'm not quite sure how you manage to turn medicine into a psychological phenomenon. Scientology, Christian Science, the health food aspects of Seventh Day Adventism, Christian counseling, the heath/medicine aspects of religion are still quite important. None of that involves genetically different brains.
Then how do you dismiss the evidence that it is a psychological phenomenon? Like all the evidence I mentioned in my previous post? I could give more, too. Like case studies of people who have suffered brain trauma resulting in both increased and decreased religiosity...like magnetic fields affecting morality (to a minimal but interesting and statistically significant degree), etc.
To me it seems you're oversimplifying things and also creating a false dichotomy; just because religion is perpetuated by social and political pressures doesn't mean it has no biological foundation. Our personalities are a complex mix of nature and nurture...I don't want to create a strawman, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but is seems to me that for your hypothesis that religion is entirely a social/political institution to be true, one would have to accept a tabla rasa theory of human mind, and that idea has been proved patently untrue. Also, the phenomenon you noted of people "opting out" fits perfectly with religion being a psychological phenomenon. There are people out there (I am one), who never believed, despite being raised in religious cultures by believers. There is also the fact that while religious belief is on the decline in many cultures, belief in the supernatural is on the rise. People may be turning away from Catholicism to hone their chi.
Think of it like a language: every person has the innate and instinctual capability to develop language, and we all learn different languages from our parents. Some people have a greater talent for it though, and some have deficiencies. Religion is the same: people have an innate, evolved ability to be religious (some see it simply as paradolia gone wild). If a person is raised religious, then that part of his or her brain is reinforced and develops more strongly. Some people are deficient in their religion abilities. Some, like me, are so deficient that they never believe, others more easily convert to non-belief. To state that religion has no basis in psychology completely contradicts all the research ever done into the question.
ETA: How do you know there hasn't been "an upsurge in mutant brains"? It's perfectly plausible that we're evolving away from religiosity. There was an interesting TED talk in which the scientist (I think he was an evolutionary biologist), suggests that the human brain is going through a rapid evolution, and that Autism is a product of this. Interestingly, there is also a strong correlation between Asperger's Syndrome and high-functioning autism and atheism. This could be evidence of people evolving away from religiosity.
Last edited:
That sounds interesting, and I may have to go look for it. Normally evolution wouldn't be expected to happen on such a timescale, but I've also seen some discussion about how instead of marrying inside a small community where very few men and no women were employed professionally (where people take pot-luck about the mental capacities of their mates), increased specialization has grouped doctors with doctors, scientists with scientists, engineers with engineers, actors with actors, politicians with whores, etc., and perhaps double-recessives are showing up much more frequently.
^Here's the link to the TED talk I mentioned:
http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriq...es.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
...and he does mention that theory. I first heard the theory myself in some brain science or genetics class my freshman year at NYU in 2001; basically that the reason the incidence of autism was so high in silicon valley was that all the nerds were drawn to the computer industry, meeting, and breeding.
As for whether evolution can happen on such a small timescale, I believe that's one of the biggest debates in evolutionary science. Some feel that Darwin's idea of gradualism is correct, and others think evolution can also happen in fits and starts. The are a pair of sci fi books based on the idea of rapid evolution called Darwin's Radio and Darwin's Children. They're really fascinating (if not all that well written narratively). Well, at least the first one is. I haven't finished reading the second yet.
http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriq...es.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
...and he does mention that theory. I first heard the theory myself in some brain science or genetics class my freshman year at NYU in 2001; basically that the reason the incidence of autism was so high in silicon valley was that all the nerds were drawn to the computer industry, meeting, and breeding.
As for whether evolution can happen on such a small timescale, I believe that's one of the biggest debates in evolutionary science. Some feel that Darwin's idea of gradualism is correct, and others think evolution can also happen in fits and starts. The are a pair of sci fi books based on the idea of rapid evolution called Darwin's Radio and Darwin's Children. They're really fascinating (if not all that well written narratively). Well, at least the first one is. I haven't finished reading the second yet.
More people are open about it, certainly, but I don't think you can really know how many non-believers existed in the past. Also, there's a spectrum of religiosity, and many are nonreligious but still have a desire to identify with a particular religious group due to familial connections.
Most of that evidence you refer to is about unusual psychological states. The importance of such states, such as visions and so forth, to the foundation of new religions, to the claims of a swami, sufi, rebbe, charismatic clergyman or whatever, establishing himself or herself at the head of a new sect or cult is obviously very large. But again, the largest part of religious life is spent in a perfectly ordinary state of consciousness. Even in a charismatic church most of the believers merely watch the others. If such experiences were truly the driving force propelling religion, these states or experiences would be more common.
The key aspect, however, is that in addition, the people experiencing these states never has the same content to their states and experiences as others. The content always derives from their personal experience, largely recapitulating the religous teachings they were taught. If such religious experiences were indeed driven by genetic factors in the personality, then there would be such a common content and/or sequence, whatever the overlay of learned material.
Plus, of course, people do have odd psychological states and experiences yet do not recognize them as religious states or experiences. If religion is indeed supposed to be some sort of natural human emotion, this is an absurdity. If religion is supposed to be some sort of preprogrammed thinking, as in the hypothesis that religion develops from a genetic disposition to impute agency to objects in the environment for instance, then I can only note all such proposed mechanisms (that I know of) are observable primarily in children, but children do not have religion.
You can trace the effects of an emotional drive, sexuality, which is genuinely founded in human biology in different cultures. Unlike religion, we do see commonalities across culture, along with culturally specific traits. This is indeed a complex mixture of nature and nurture. Religion has none such. It is much more like arithmetic. Presumably if religion has a defining emotion, it must be belief. Belief however is quite obviously not a genetically determined universal.
What precisely it is that was supposed to be written by nature about religion, so that the supposedly nonsensical tabula rasa is not rasa? As it turns out, the evolutionary psychologists continually equivocate about what religion is. Is it the belief in a providential God? You could ask a thousand question. There is no trait about "religion" common to all cultures, yet if it was founded in biology, there must be something. The evolutionary psychologists reduce all religious phenomena to something undefined, declare all cultures have "it," conclude that it must be biological, that since it's biological it must be evolutionarily beneficial.
People in social institutions necessarily have individual feelings and thoughts about those institutions. People in families, as childrens, have emotional needs. Despite the complex variations in cultures, there are certain commonalities, especially in the simple existence of those childrens' emotional needs. There are no such emotional needs in childrens' experience of religion. There are no commonalities in their emotional experience of their religious development, as in the development of their emotional capacities for empathy etc. It is the emotional indifference that permits such disbelief that shows emotion is not rooted in human nature. There are no children indifferent to their parents, but all children are indifferent to God, until taught.
No, neither individuals nor races have differing capacities for language. Some unfortunate individuals have developmental disorders. A rare few were not exposed to language when the critical period for the development of this skill took place (wolf boys, for example) and never developed proper language skills.
There are no definable religious skills, and there are no parts of the brain that develop these undefinable skills. Mental faculties like pareidolia are not the foundation for religion, even if they are involved in the origin of religious ideas. Religious ideas no more determine social institutions than any other ideas which are not generalizations from social practice. You cannot trace the families which have the genes for this supposed skill and distinguish them from those that do not.
The question of whether an individual person believes or not obviously has to do with their individual psychology. It's not human nature to "believe," especially when one cannot specifiy what they are to "believe." Nor is there an hereditary component to such "belief," or we could write pedigrees for the trait. Every indication is that personal belief then rests upon personal experiences, not genetics. Further, there is no reason to think there is any greater association between belief in religion and bravery in an army, i.e., not much more than a connection between handsomeness and religion, or eye color and an army.
We'll find out from genetic studies. I know which way I'm betting. As to the notion of people evolving instead of cultures changing, I find the science behind this kind of evolutionary psychology to be horribly weak. Given the human tendency for old ideas like racism to survive in our thinking, except in new forms, there is no reason to give any credence to the evolutionary psychologists. It is true that they dominate the popular science venues. But the retrogression of society would favor the return of racism, in a new, supposedly more scientific guise, wouldn't it?
I've read Darwin's Radio, but another good non-fiction book is Darwin's Finches, in which researches measured his finches throughout the year for a decade or more. Their conclusion is that Darwin didn't look closely enough. The finches "evolve" constantly (they can breed many times a year), with features such as average beak sizes changing year to year and throughout the season. They don't even behave as species, interbreeding frequently to produce hybrid offspring.
What keeps them from genetically drifting too far is that the environment keeps returning to its average conditions. During dry seasons the finch population starts shifting toward one type of beak, then when a wet season returns the population drifts back. During some periods the hybrids out-compete their parent species, then normal conditions return and their numbers diminish.
Other studies find that hybrid birds are normal and common (virtually all waterfowl can freely interbreed), and many of the species we list are actually just stable hybrids of two species where the ranges overlap, or where a particularly good food source is better utilized by the hybrids than the parent species. And of course the average traits of both parent species will be varying to track the food.
By looking closely enough, they found that evolution is something that happens in real time, tracking the environment with the success or failure of each brood.
Getting back to human evolution, breeding smart people with smart people because of the cultural and business environment almost certainly produced some of the unique traits of the Ashkenazi Jews, including genetic defects, and did it very rapidly.
http://youngmanhattanite.com/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf
We are almost certainly re-running those conditions on a much larger scale, although without the very large family size differences between the highly successful couples versus average couples.
To those who are overly concerned about the potential genetic problems with this new social phenomena, I would suggest randomizing genetic outcomes by banging lots of Hooter's chicks.
stj said:
On the other hand, if you remove the quotes from "believe", it should certainly be human nature to believe almost anything an older person tells you, because the store of survival knowledge of a tribe is contained in the adults, and the children need to absorb it rapidly. It would be tricky for evolution to filter ideas and concepts by type or category, so we're probably as disposed to believe in rituals to appease Apollo, just because an old man explains it to us, as we are to believe him about the best way to track and ambush an antelope.
This is a first...I wrote too much to fit into one post. Dear lord, I think this is indicative of something bad!!! I won't be offended if no one reads this, but I'm interested in the subject and already wrote it, so I might as well post it. 1 of 2
As to the question of common experiences, religions do have a lot in common. They all project human nature onto nature, they all promote the idea of something greater or more than mankind, they all promote ritual -- and mind you, I'm talking about all aspects of spirituality, not just religious faith. Human brains are wired to find patterns where there are none and attribute intelligence where there is none. Such pareidolia makes sense evolutionarily; it is much safer to see a lion in the shadows of the bush where there is none than to not see the lion when it is actually there. Religiosity could very easily be a byproduct of this phenomenon. Combined with other factors, such as the benefit of faith in one's elders that was already mentioned, it's not difficult to see how religiosity might have evolved. Granted, all we can do is theorize as to how it evolved, but that doesn't mean that it didn't evolve. I think another fine bit of evidence for the brain-based nature of religion is the drug produced from the iboga root. The drug is taken as a rite of passage by a tribe in Africa and always produces the same profound experience in each individual who takes it: a three-step ordeal that involves experiencing all one's misdeeds from the perspective of those you have wronged. (The BBC made a documentary, Tribe, in which the host took the drug and details much of his ordeal, I'd highly recommend it). This drug has been used in the past ten years as treatment for heroin addicts in the West, and interestingly, they experience the same kind of hallucinations as the tribe taking it ritually in Africa. A brain, shaped both by genetics and by experience, will of course interpret experiences through the cultural lens it developed through interaction with its society, but that doesn't mean the experience itself isn't brain-based.
I definitely agree with this, however, much of what is known about the human brain is known specifically by studying people with abnormal psychological states. Ever since the famous case of Phineas Gage, psychologists and neuroscientists have learned from damaged brains. By seeing how damage to an area of the brain affects an individual, we can learn more about how the brain is wired and rewires itself. The fact that there is an area of the brain that can be stimulated electrically (as in seizures) or pharmacologically resulting in religious experiences suggests that there is brain structure responsible for religiosity. For clarification, I'm using "religion" to refer to any supernatural irrational belief. In the individual cases studied that part of the brain is overly stimulated, just like one can overly stimulate regions responsible for muscle control, causing a tic.
Indeed, but I don't see how this contradicts what I'm saying. Firstly, most people aren't having profound life-changing religious experiences all the time. They have a mild to moderate belief that may ebb or flow but likely doesn't reach any sort of extreme all that often. Their religiousness is present, but not overstimulated. However, get your average believer in the right environment and they certainly will become overstimulated. One doesn't even need drugs or electrical impulses to do it, rhythmic chanting, drumming, singing, group-think, incense, touch, and other stimuli can all do the trick. All one has to do is watch footage of a faith-healer or a Southern Baptist Church to see what's happening. There is an interplay, the cultural construct of a particular faith stimulating an innate ability to be faithful.
As to the question of common experiences, religions do have a lot in common. They all project human nature onto nature, they all promote the idea of something greater or more than mankind, they all promote ritual -- and mind you, I'm talking about all aspects of spirituality, not just religious faith. Human brains are wired to find patterns where there are none and attribute intelligence where there is none. Such pareidolia makes sense evolutionarily; it is much safer to see a lion in the shadows of the bush where there is none than to not see the lion when it is actually there. Religiosity could very easily be a byproduct of this phenomenon. Combined with other factors, such as the benefit of faith in one's elders that was already mentioned, it's not difficult to see how religiosity might have evolved. Granted, all we can do is theorize as to how it evolved, but that doesn't mean that it didn't evolve. I think another fine bit of evidence for the brain-based nature of religion is the drug produced from the iboga root. The drug is taken as a rite of passage by a tribe in Africa and always produces the same profound experience in each individual who takes it: a three-step ordeal that involves experiencing all one's misdeeds from the perspective of those you have wronged. (The BBC made a documentary, Tribe, in which the host took the drug and details much of his ordeal, I'd highly recommend it). This drug has been used in the past ten years as treatment for heroin addicts in the West, and interestingly, they experience the same kind of hallucinations as the tribe taking it ritually in Africa. A brain, shaped both by genetics and by experience, will of course interpret experiences through the cultural lens it developed through interaction with its society, but that doesn't mean the experience itself isn't brain-based.
Last edited:
2 of 2
Certainly Jesus or Zeus or Mohammed are not psychological phenomenon, and none of the specific ritual involved in the religions that worship them are either. The tendency towards ritual and belief, however, is. Cargo Cults are a great example of this. They did not need a charismatic leader to develop, and they developed with extreme rapidity simply because people are innately wired to believe. Some more than others, and perhaps some not at all, but most of us are. The Fantasy Prone Personality is a recognized personality type. These people tend to be either very religious, or very spiritual, and very likely to quickly adopt non-scientific beliefs (like chi or homeopathy). These people are simply on the higher end of the spectrum. Every bit of scientific evidence on the subject supports that stance that religion/spirituality is brain-based.
More evidence that language is inherent: Native English speaking adults cannot distinguish between the sound of a Spanish B and P, yet infants of English speaking adults can until the age of 4 months. The same is true of native Japanese speaking adults being unable to distinguish between the L and R sounds. This shows that we have the capability to learn any language as infants, but that our receptivity declines as we age. Our neurons wire to the language we are raised with, excess neurons are pruned, and thus it becomes more difficult to acquire different languages.
And more: There is a specific combination of genes that was recently discovered (I think around 2008) that are present in people with a greater ability to detect tonal variation in speech. It is highly prevalent in people of Chinese and Vietnamese descent, where the native languages are tonal. While it is uncommon in people of other ethnicities, the individuals who possess it are better able to distinguish between tones.
And more: Humans have better hearing in terms of pitch than any other species tested, even those who have more sensitive hearing and better range.
And more: Grammar is innate. This is why children will often make the mistake of pluralizing irregular plurals with the "s" rule, i.e. "mices" or "gooses". Deaf children who speak sign make the same mistakes. If language was simply learned with no innate grammar, children would simply learn irregular pluralizations (and verbs, for that matter) rather than applying their innate grammar to them.
And more: Individuals certainly have different ability levels when it comes to language, even to the extremes. There are disorders which can affect individuals of normal or above normal intelligence that make it difficult for them to acquire language. Likewise, although rarer, there is a syndrome (I can't remember the name though I think it starts with W, and I can look it up if you're interested), in which individuals are mentally retarded, and yet possess above-average languages skills. They speak eloquently and correctly, but eventual you realize that they make little sense and have no understanding of what they are saying.
And more (possibly the most obvious): Damage to the brain can and often does cause speech impairment.
Mind you, it would take way more time than I am willing to commit to explain each of these examples in further and convincing detail, for that, you can do the research yourself, but you are wrong about language. My analogy stands.
I kind of covered this above, but to give another analogy, take a look at sleep-paralysis. The symptoms are always the same: difficulty breathing, the feeling of weight on one's chest, inability to move anything but the eyes, and the sensation of a malevolent presence in the room. In the 19th century west people tended to interpret the experience as a visitation by a ghost, often the Grey Lady, a sort of pop-culture scapegoat figure of evil in that time. Now this experience is often interpreted as alien abduction, a current pop-culture belief.
Certainly Jesus or Zeus or Mohammed are not psychological phenomenon, and none of the specific ritual involved in the religions that worship them are either. The tendency towards ritual and belief, however, is. Cargo Cults are a great example of this. They did not need a charismatic leader to develop, and they developed with extreme rapidity simply because people are innately wired to believe. Some more than others, and perhaps some not at all, but most of us are. The Fantasy Prone Personality is a recognized personality type. These people tend to be either very religious, or very spiritual, and very likely to quickly adopt non-scientific beliefs (like chi or homeopathy). These people are simply on the higher end of the spectrum. Every bit of scientific evidence on the subject supports that stance that religion/spirituality is brain-based.
Again, think of the language analogy. Children are innately programmed to acquire language, but they are not born speaking Mandarin or Dutch. They have the ability, and without guidance can even develop some rudimentary language, but they must be taught if they are to speak. So too with any religion. A child has the wiring that encourages belief or religiosity, and through social interaction the specific beliefs are taught.
But religion does have these commonalities, as I noted above. The specifics aren't what's important, the motivations and experiences are, the ritual, the looking to a higher power, the projecting of intelligence onto nature, these are the commonalities, and the fact that pretty much every culture that has ever lived had some sort of religion is even more evidence that it is based in biology.
Beneficial or incidental; it could easily be a byproduct or a fluke. I agree that evolutionary psychology doesn't warrant a whole lot of faith (if you'll forgive the expression) and I even said just that in an earlier post. That's why I brought up current neurological evidence as well.
Partly addressed above. But... "emotion is not rooted in human nature"? What? Of course emotion is rooted in human nature! Unless you're a dualist or an idealist I cannot comprehend how you could think it's not. Emotion is caused by a complex interaction of brain structure, chemicals, and electrical impulses. We can watch emotion on a PET scan...we can manipulate it with alcohol and drugs. Hell, I'm a type one diabetic and can speak from personal experience as well as empirical evidence in saying that blood sugar levels affect emotion! I'm sorry, but if you don't think that emotion is part of human nature then you have a serious lack of understanding of how the brain works.
Here is where you are very, very wrong. I would recommend reading The Language Instinct, or pretty much any other book by any other linguist or neuroscientist to learn why you are wrong. We do have an innate capacity for language. Language is hard-wired and taught. I'll cite some brief examples of how we know this, but I'd really recommend reading more into it. Also, before I cite these examples I want to make it clear that I'm not talking out of my ass, my degrees are in Special Education (a degree which requires an intense focus in language acquisition), and I just completed my second degree in psychology with a concentration in neurological development, anyway, some examples: The wolf boy case you cited is debatable. There is not a lot of evidence that the boy was actually a wild child, and many believe that he may have simply been a boy with a severe form of autism or other cognitive or developmental impairment who was lost in the woods and later found, ultimately it doesn't really matter as there are some better-documented cases, one of which would be the case of an American girl in the 1970s, who was kept chained to a toilet her entire life and never spoken to. When she was rescued in her early teens she had no language and was severely impaired. Even so, through intensive work with psychologists, she eventually developed some language skills. You are correct that children who are not taught language during a key period will never fully develop it, though. The reason for this is that the brain will atrophy if it is not nurtured. Kittens, for example, that had their eyes covered through their early development were blind as adult cats, not because their eyes couldn't see, but because the brain never developed in that area and so never learned to interpret the signals. Children who are not exposed to language at the critical period can develop a little, but the brain has atrophied in the areas responsible for language, so that ultimately their ability never reaches its potential. People who are raised by atheist parents and taught critical thinking skills from an early age may not develop the religious/spiritual capabilities in their brains, that does not mean they are not present.
More evidence that language is inherent: Native English speaking adults cannot distinguish between the sound of a Spanish B and P, yet infants of English speaking adults can until the age of 4 months. The same is true of native Japanese speaking adults being unable to distinguish between the L and R sounds. This shows that we have the capability to learn any language as infants, but that our receptivity declines as we age. Our neurons wire to the language we are raised with, excess neurons are pruned, and thus it becomes more difficult to acquire different languages.
And more: There is a specific combination of genes that was recently discovered (I think around 2008) that are present in people with a greater ability to detect tonal variation in speech. It is highly prevalent in people of Chinese and Vietnamese descent, where the native languages are tonal. While it is uncommon in people of other ethnicities, the individuals who possess it are better able to distinguish between tones.
And more: Humans have better hearing in terms of pitch than any other species tested, even those who have more sensitive hearing and better range.
And more: Grammar is innate. This is why children will often make the mistake of pluralizing irregular plurals with the "s" rule, i.e. "mices" or "gooses". Deaf children who speak sign make the same mistakes. If language was simply learned with no innate grammar, children would simply learn irregular pluralizations (and verbs, for that matter) rather than applying their innate grammar to them.
And more: Individuals certainly have different ability levels when it comes to language, even to the extremes. There are disorders which can affect individuals of normal or above normal intelligence that make it difficult for them to acquire language. Likewise, although rarer, there is a syndrome (I can't remember the name though I think it starts with W, and I can look it up if you're interested), in which individuals are mentally retarded, and yet possess above-average languages skills. They speak eloquently and correctly, but eventual you realize that they make little sense and have no understanding of what they are saying.
And more (possibly the most obvious): Damage to the brain can and often does cause speech impairment.
Mind you, it would take way more time than I am willing to commit to explain each of these examples in further and convincing detail, for that, you can do the research yourself, but you are wrong about language. My analogy stands.
Sorry, but given the lack of understanding of brain function evidenced by your previous statements, I honestly don't think you have any evidence for your claims.
Ditto my previous sentence.
Again, I also have issues with evolutionary psychology as a field, and again, I noted neuroscientific evidence and psychological evidence. Where I noted evolutionary science theories, I always note them as such and qualify them as possible reasons for an evolutionary foundation to religion, not strict evidence. As for learning from genetic studies, that will take a while. It is a vast oversimplification to say there is a "gene" for this or that. We're more complicated than that. There are things that are linked to certain genes and combinations of genes (for example the combination of genes I cited above that dictates how well a person can distinguish between tones), but just as there is no one area of the brain entirely responsible for a single skill, neither is there any one gene that is likely to be entirely responsible for such a complex psychological phenomenon as religiosity.
Abby Normal?
Similar threads
