PDA

View Full Version : Are humans hard wired for religion?


Candyvan Stan
09-04-2006, 12:51 PM
Are we hard-wired for religion? (http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/living/religion/15254298.htm?source=rss&channel=macon_religion)

========================
Sight unseen: Are we hard-wired for religion?
By Jeffrey Weiss
The Dallas Morning News

Almost every faith centers on a Supernatural Enforcer. An invisible power - a god, ancestral spirits or karma - rewards those who follow the rules and punishes those who don't.

Why do most religions have that in common? It's not inevitable, after all. A faith with a god who is indifferent toward people is simple to imagine. But it's much harder to find.

Believers will say their religion reflects divine will: that's the way God (or something) planned it.

But a less theological explanation finds support from an experiment conducted at a British college psychology department: Maybe that common element of modern religions was the product of Darwinian evolution.

Refreshments are sold on the honor system in the break room at the University of Newcastle - people who get a cup of coffee or tea are supposed to leave money. Researchers found that when they added a picture of eyes above the payment box, more than twice as much money was deposited, compared with weeks when the eyes were replaced by a picture of flowers.

People were subconsciously triggered into acting more honestly, as if they were actually being watched, even though they knew the eyeballs were mere paper and ink.

Those results, published last month in the journal Biology Letters, support a controversial theory that connects prehistoric humans to modern faiths.

The theory says that so many of today's religions feature Supernatural Enforcers because of survival of the fittest. That sort of religion was most successful at prodding people into greater cooperation and honesty, which in turn helped their culture thrive, say the theory's supporters.

If that is true, successful early religions may have developed as they did because of how prehistoric human brains had previously evolved. Our ancestors may have been hard-wired in ways that inclined them to accept the notion of a powerful God (or something) who enforces rules of right and wrong.

Whether this theory gains mainstream acceptance - and it's a long way from that - it represents an increasingly common science strategy. Evolution started as a theory about biology. It's now used in anthropology, psychology, economics and political science to explain how people behave - even how and why they pray.

For this particular theory about religion, scientists started with a hard question: Why are people as honest and cooperative as they are?

In general, people are nicer than they need to be, experiments show. That's not to say some individuals aren't liars or cheats. But many of us show a bit of Good Samaritan, even when we don't know whom we're helping and seem to gain no benefit.

But that seems to contradict evolution theory, because successful individual cheaters should gain a Darwinian advantage. A prehistoric thief who swiped the equivalent of a cup of coffee would have been better off than the honest fellow who "paid" for it. And the thief, by gaining an advantage that improved his odds of survival, would have been more likely to pass on those "selfish" genes.

Relatively successful cultures, on the other hand, seem to be made up of relatively coperative and generous people. Charles Darwin suggested as much in 1871, in "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex:"

"A tribe including many members who ... were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection."

If that's so, evolution raced in opposite directions, pushing our ancestors toward both selfishness and cooperation. Cooperation may have won by a nose - but why?

A rabbi or priest might say it's because we're created in God's image. But some scientists find a more naturalistic answer in the power of religion, specifically the power of a perceived Supernatural Enforcer to nudge people toward cooperation.

That leads to more hard questions: How did the first Supernatural Enforcer religion appear? Is there something about the way people are put together that made that concept more acceptable?

Maybe so.

Scientists agree that human brains pay special attention to faces. And all kinds of critters - from tropical fish to jungle monkeys to mall shoppers - act more honestly if they think they're being observed, said David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary biologist at Binghamton University in New York.

Call it the Santa Claus Effect: "He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake."

Rear Admiral Grapefruit
09-04-2006, 02:38 PM
I believe that religion works by manipulating peoples vulnerabilities which are naturaly there, by giving hope to people and some level of explanation for that which they do not know. This article mentions the santa claus effect, and that essentialy is what religion is to me, and with that, it is a strong method of controlling a large number of people, who may otherwise act chaoticly. It's like an early form of government and law, except instead of following the laws of a country, it's following the "laws" of a god, a powerful character whome people would be willing to obey, for fear of punishment or for the greater reward (which is contradictory in some way, selfish greedy etc sins blah blah blah).

For this particular theory about religion, scientists started with a hard question: Why are people as honest and cooperative as they are?

In general, people are nicer than they need to be, experiments show. That's not to say some individuals aren't liars or cheats. But many of us show a bit of Good Samaritan, even when we don't know whom we're helping and seem to gain no benefit.

But that seems to contradict evolution theory, because successful individual cheaters should gain a Darwinian advantage. A prehistoric thief who swiped the equivalent of a cup of coffee would have been better off than the honest fellow who "paid" for it. And the thief, by gaining an advantage that improved his odds of survival, would have been more likely to pass on those "selfish" genes.

I don't agree with this here, i think it's fairly obvious that nobody wants some cretin stealing from them, and if someone does steal from you, you obviously wanna break their legs, so the next time you see this person, you beat the crap out of them, a long time ago, with much smaller towns and such, being a thief will make you an outcast, you're more likely to know who they are etc. Plus the added effect of teamwork and cooperation, if a group of people can not work together, then it's pretty damn obvious that another group of people who can work together will be far more successful, any military force that can not work as a team will not be good military force at all unless up against a force similar to their own. So, my point here, is that being a thief is not an advantage and that the whole notion of every man for himself, that comes with it, does not in the slightest bit help when it comes to survival of a society.

That leads to more hard questions: How did the first Supernatural Enforcer religion appear? Is there something about the way people are put together that made that concept more acceptable?

This comes back to my origional thought, that it plays on vulnerabilities in character, one of which *could* be stupidity, essentially if you walk up to any dumb person, with a reasonable level of determination and a logical idea, you could convince them of pretty much anything, i'm sure most people have seen it, particularly when you're a kid, like the notion of "girls have cooties" or kissing get you pregnant etc. It's that sort of idea, back when the scientific field was in it's earliest stages and the world was still flat, it'd be pretty easy to convince people of something of the sort of religion, even today, cults exist working on the same basis that early religion did, the difference being that now established religions exist and these new religions are deemed cults and wont really go very far in a society that doesn't want to tolerate them. Without a valid alternative as explanation at the times of religion being founded, it was much easier to establish the whole idea, and then, you just have to conquer your enemy and impose your beliefs onto them and the beliefs are spread.

Some parts of this i consider to be fairly obvious, saying someone is more likely to be honest when they're being watched, i mean, it's pretty hard to convince a police officer chasing you for speeding that you were driving within the speed limit after going through a red light, causing a truck to jackhammer and smashing through a farmers barn.

anyway i'm done. just my oppinion, i may be wrong, whatever.

Plekto
09-04-2006, 04:34 PM
No, they are hard-wired to create systems to control others and impose their collective will on them. Ie - create societies and religions and laws and anything else they can that means conformity and obedience.

Religion is part hubris, part ego, and some self-serving rules thrown in for good measure. God or whatever cosmic force you want to apply to it has virutally nothing to do with modern religions.

PiccoloNamek
09-04-2006, 10:40 PM
Yes, I have always believed that some people are hard-wired for religiosity. Luckily, I am not. At one point, I really tried to be a Good Little Christian, but I simply couldn't manage it. My rational side is just too strong. The rest of my family is deeply religious, however.

mawande
09-04-2006, 10:57 PM
Mother is God in the hearts of children.

Except the one who is the Devil.

Ichisan
09-05-2006, 01:31 PM
Seems to me the most interesting applications for research like this are for people in marketing and/or propaganda. Put the right picture over your product in the store and presto people buy it.

Hmm, then again the marketing boffs are probably way ahead of me on this one already.

Nannou
09-05-2006, 01:40 PM
http://www.venganza.org/
All praise His noodly appendages

If I was ever to take up a religion, I'd take this one... just to piss people off.

Plus you can't debate the facts about Global Temperature vs No. of Pirates

Plekto
09-05-2006, 04:46 PM
Oh that's beautiful. Added to my favorites. :)

Scott
09-05-2006, 06:25 PM
Are OP9ers hard-wired for copying news articles for entertainment?

Fred
09-05-2006, 06:38 PM
I think it is possible that the desire to cooperate has a genetic basis, particularly to the extent that cooperation increases the likely survival of the gene pool. However, it could just as easily reflect adaptive behavior. Even if it is correct that there is a genetic component to the desire to cooperate, I do not think that means we are “hard-wired” for religion. Rather, religion is more like a tool for harnessing that desire.

In terms of my own relationship to organized religion, it holds no appeal for me. I do not have the belief that God needs to be worshiped in a church or that there is one correct way to worship God. I do not look to interpretations of “God’s word” or religion to justify or define my beliefs about right and wrong.