Why we believe, origins of religion

growler

Very interesting series of articles in New Scientist on the origins of religion and the benefits of "belief", all from a scientific standpoint as you'd expect. Unfortunately this article is only available to subscribers at http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18925361.100 (or buy the paper version).

There are some interesting points raised in this that may be of interest to reader of this forum.

History
From an archaeology viewpoint the advent of religion can be tied in with the placing of offerings / gifts in burials, this practice can only be traced back 25000 years


Social Glue:
the idea that religion works as a social glue, when societies grew beyond small family / tribal units, some form of common denominator that all should belong too. Interestingly the article refers to the release of endorphins that can be triggered by ritual participation, prayer, meditation etc. which make the "devotee" feel better by creating a mild high, and a sense of group bonding. Endorphins also help tune the immune system in humans which can lead to better health!

And as advocated by Marx, “the endorphin based group bonding effects of rituals only work if everyone does them together. Which is where theology comes in- it provides the stick and the carrot that make us all turn up regularly. But to create a theology our ancestors needed to evolve cognitive abilities that far exceeded those found in any other animal species. It is these psychological mechanisms that have been exploited down the ages by political elites in various attempts to subjugate the rest of the community".


In another article in the series the author suggests that those who are believers in "paranormal" phenomena may well be more evolved than those of us who do not, the theory being that things like ESP may be accessing their subconscious faster than those who are more sceptical. Psychological tests showed two distinct types, right / left brain, some were prone to jumping to conclusions or seeing tenuous connections as being important, by being a sceptic and not seeing relationships that may exist.. .erring on the side of logic we may be missing out on important information, it may be safer (from an evolutionary view) to err on the side of gullibility, the example given being: If you miss the tiger hidden in the grass, you are dead. If you are always seeing tigers, you're always running away, but you're not dead!”

Anyway, a good read with some interesting theories for those that are interested.

Zillah

growler wrote:

In another article in the series the author suggests that those who are believers in "paranormal" phenomena may well be more evolved than those of us who do not, the theory being that things like ESP may be accessing their subconscious faster than those who are more sceptical. Psychological tests showed two distinct types, right / left brain, some were prone to jumping to conclusions or seeing tenuous connections as being important, by being a sceptic and not seeing relationships that may exist.. .erring on the side of logic we may be missing out on important information, it may be safer (from an evolutionary view) to err on the side of gullibility, the example given being: If you miss the tiger hidden in the grass, you are dead. If you are always seeing tigers, you're always running away, but you're not dead!”

I was with you until that paragraph. What do you mean "accessing their subconcious faster"?

Skadi

Interesting. There are many examples of mythologies changing through time, and many of them can be traced back to areas of history where the ruling wanted to change a law, or a way of doing things. Such as the first woman pharoah.

Zillah

Skadi wrote:

Interesting. There are many examples of mythologies changing through time, and many of them can be traced back to areas of history where the ruling wanted to change a law, or a way of doing things. Such as the first woman pharoah.

I thought she had to pretend to be a man, and for years they thought it was two pharoh's, because one was a man and another was referred to as a woman.

Dades

Interesting take on stuff.

growler wrote:

If you miss the tiger hidden in the grass, you are dead. If you are always seeing tigers, you're always running away, but you're not dead!”

I like this tiger analogy. I'd be dead methinks.
In any case, I prefer this wildlife philosophy:

When you hear hooves... don't think of zebras.

growler

Zillah wrote:

I was with you until that paragraph. What do you mean "accessing their subconcious faster"?

not an easy concept for me to explain without typing the whole article , but an example cited was : two people are walking down the street one turns to the other and says "have heard from bob recently?" the other says "thats weird I was just going to ask you the same thing" , now the theory is that rather than thi being some paranormal communication / telepathy , what has happened is that the subconcious of both has been given a clue about bob, they may have walked past someone who looked like Bob, wore a shirt like Bob used to wear etc. , that their subconcious minds used / processed this information than someone who's brain is skeptically inclined. All right brain / left brain stuff.

edit: the reason I included this above,is that I would make little distinction between those who believe in paranormal and those who believe in God, though I imagine most christians would say that belief in their God is very different to belief in say Telepathy, ESP etc.

growler

The Atheist wrote:

Interesting take on stuff.

I like this tiger analogy. I'd be dead methinks.
In any case, I prefer this wildlife philosophy:

When you hear hooves... don't think of zebras.

I found this to be a very interesting idea, from an evolutionary stand it makes sense to run away if there is any doubt, but in modern western human society fear of tigers is less of a worry for us. To me this would suggest that those of us who do not believe may be at an evolutionary advantage now.

Dades

growler wrote:

two people are walking down the street one turns to the other and says "have heard from bob recently?" the other says "thats weird I was just going to ask you the same thing" , now the theory is that rather than thi being some paranormal communication / telepathy , what has happened is that the subconcious of both has been given a clue about bob, they may have walked past someone who looked like Bob, wore a shirt like Bob used to wear etc. , that their subconcious minds used / processed this information than someone who's brain is skeptically inclined. All right brain / left brain stuff.

I'm still wondering what we're comparing with.

Do you mean that the less sceptical person believes there is extra sensory link, and that the sceptic believes it to be either a coincidence, or the result of a subliminal reminder of Bob? Is this an analogy of how a sceptic might explain something away when there may be more to it?

I'm quite open to the notion of ESP, though I've never experienced it. I draw the line at ghosts or visions of the future though.

Dades

growler wrote:

I found this to be a very interesting idea, from an evolutionary stand it makes sense to run away if there is any doubt

Shades of Pascal's Wager in that perhaps.

growler

The Atheist wrote:

I'm still wondering what we're comparing with.

Do you mean that the less sceptical person believes there is extra sensory link, and that the sceptic believes it to be either a coincidence, or the result of a subliminal reminder of Bob? Is this an analogy of how a sceptic might explain something away when there may be more to it?

I'm quite open to the notion of ESP, though I've never experienced it. I draw the line at ghosts or visions of the future though.

the subliminal works on the less sceptical mind, not just because they believe that such paranormal events can occur, but because the make up of their brain is better / faster at analysing and interpreting *information* by accessing their subconcious. You and I for example would be more likely to miss the information that might bring "Bob" or the lurking Tiger to mind because we have either been born with or have trained our minds to look only at the rational. The sceptic would say it was a coincidence in the first place because there is no scientific evidence of * ESP* .

ESP then isn't ESP at all it is simply the ability of some peoples' brains to use the subconcious to pick up and interpret clues ( of a purely sensory nature) in a way that the more rational mind cannot do and cannot fathom.

robindch

> their subconcious minds used / processed this information than someone
> who's brain is skeptically inclined.

Well, it's certainly an interesting idea and I'd be the first to put my hand up and agree that a lot of people are easily suggestible, or "leadable". As a skeptic, I'm certainly happy to take part in any double-blinded, randomized, controlled, repeated trial which attempts to demonstrate what this guy's claiming.

WRT religion, Daniel Dennet is coming out with a book in a couple of days time which explains the natural origins of religion:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003472X

...in terms, I believe, of memetic theory. Can't wait to see what our creationist colleagues would make of it, assuming that they'd read it.

Akrasia

Religion was born for one simple reason and enhanced by another. Mankind is inquisitive and we saw many natural phenomena that we had no way to explain so we invented gods. Then drugs came into it. Halucinegenic drugs which can be found in one form or another pretty much everywhere in the world expanded the mind and gave us an enhanced sense of mysticism.

growler

robindch wrote:

> their subconcious minds used / processed this information than someone
> who's brain is skeptically inclined.

Well, it's certainly an interesting idea and I'd be the first to put my hand up and agree that a lot of people are easily suggestible, or "leadable". As a skeptic, I'm certainly happy to take part in any double-blinded, randomized, controlled, repeated trial which attempts to demonstrate what this guy's claiming.

.

there was an expirement cited, the "guess what symbol is on the back f this card" type one, all the subjects were shown subliminal hints , the sceptics failed to pick up the "clue" the believers did. Whether that provides an advantage or not I don't know.

Asiaprod

growler wrote:

ESP then isn't ESP at all it is simply the ability of some peoples' brains to use the subconcious to pick up and interpret clues ( of a purely sensory nature) in a way that the more rational mind cannot do and cannot fathom.

<Enter one Lurking Tiger:rolleyes: >
I am a firm believer in some type of ESP. I have experienced weird stuff too many times to doubt it exists. My personal belief is that there are many latent/yet-to-be-discovered abilities locked within the human mind. However, my experience has been related to very close friends or family. For example, knowing my sister has had an accident before it happened, knowing the moment my other sister passed away from cancer before I was told, reaching for the phone because my mum is going to ring me from Ireland before the phone rings, and others. The only issue I have is, is this really ESP or is it something else that depends on a family link (genetic or somthing).

Dades

growler wrote:

there was an expirement cited, the "guess what symbol is on the back f this card" type one, all the subjects were shown subliminal hints , the sceptics failed to pick up the "clue" the believers did. Whether that provides an advantage or not I don't know.

I see what you're getting at. It suggests to me is that sceptics are tougher to manipulate. But I can see where they get the notion that a less sceptical mind may be more receptive to signals that are not just coincidence etc.

Asiaprod wrote:

My personal belief is that there are many latent/yet-to-be-discovered abilities locked within the human mind.

That'd be my thinking too. Nothing "supernatural", but abilites that may exist in the large part of brain we never use.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

That'd be my thinking too. Nothing "supernatural", but abilites that may exist in the large part of brain we never use.

Well from an evolutionary/biology aspect that is unlikely.

The idea that there are large parts of our brain that we don't yet use is a myth. There are parts of our brain that we don't yet understand, but there is no evidence that any part of the brain produces any form of radiation that could produce extra-sensory communication (AFAIK)

growler

Did anyone see the BBC2 programme on Alternative Medicines lasst night ?

in essence it concluded that alterrnative medicines, as well as many non-alernative medicines work because the patient believes that the treatment will work, their brains produce the chemicals necessary to deal with the symptoms of their pain and presto the patient feels better. It showed that a placebo can work just as well as the real treatment.

So, following on from the Social Glue and Opium for the masses ideas for the origin of religion, got me thinking: God is a Placebo.

Those who believe in God, who pray and take part in the rituals of their religion, who allow their minds to be susceptible to the religious ideas passed on by their clergy... will in fact experience beneficial effects (in their own endophin releases) may see a supernatural influence where sceptics see only coincidence (reinforcing the original belief), feel a greater sense of community due to the shared ritual experience ( though I don't know how one would quantify this). By believing in God as much as many people do, perhaps the subconcious creates an image of the God one believes in ( along with all the other supenatural paraphenalia of your religion). If one believes in a guardian angel, perhaps you are prone to spotting more tigers than your atheist / sceptic friends.

I would imagine that this power of belief must be understood at some level, either conciously or sub-, certainly by the likes of cult leaders and nazis who used mass ritual, noise, repititive chanting, lights and spectacle to whip large groups into frenzied beliefs. But I wonder do the mullahs and the popes of this planet know that their brand of fairytale may well be filling a basic human need , and that the pill ( God) is a placebo, the effects are verry real....or are they even more fervent in their beliefs than their flocks?

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

Well from an evolutionary/biology aspect that is unlikely.

The idea that there are large parts of our brain that we don't yet use is a myth. There are parts of our brain that we don't yet understand, but there is no evidence that any part of the brain produces any form of radiation that could produce extra-sensory communication (AFAIK)

Hummm, then if we take out evolution and biology, what are we left with. I can't put it down to say a particular religion. There could be a supernatural side of the coin, but I am not sure how Atheists view the spiritual, I would imagine some Agnostics would not have an issue. IMHO.
Any takers?

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

Well from an evolutionary/biology aspect that is unlikely.

The idea that there are large parts of our brain that we don't yet use is a myth. There are parts of our brain that we don't yet understand, but there is no evidence that any part of the brain produces any form of radiation that could produce extra-sensory communication (AFAIK)

I'm not that tigers are after us, I'm just open to the idea.
Like I say, I've never experienced it like Asiaprod has.

Asiaprod wrote:

Hummm, then if we take out evolution and biology, what are we left with. I can't put it down to say a particular religion. There could be a supernatural side of the coin, but I am not sure how Atheists view the spiritual, I would imagine some Agnostics would not have an issue. IMHO.
Any takers?

Supernatural in this case, means what? Something that isn't a product of a physical or chemical reation in the brain maybe?

If we accepted ESP existed but could not explain it, I would still be more open to the idea that there is something in the brain that we have not discovered causing it - rather than a 'supernatural' force. Simply because so much we thought to be supernatural throughout time has turned out to be something scientific we did not at the time understand.

growler wrote:

God is a Placebo.

It's a simplistic view but describes the role of god for a lot of people. Whatever works for them. It's only when your forced to take the pill yourself that issues arise for me.

Zillah

To be honest I don't really see how there can be much discussion on this. Surely religion being an incredibly potent social glue is a perfectly reasonable socio-evolutionary answer?


Wicknight is quite correct in his points about the brain. The "we only use 10% of our brain" thing was completely made up by some guy in the fifties and has no basis in fact. We use every bit of our brains, its just that its the most unfathomably complex device we've ever encountered and we have yet to fully decipher its functioning.


If we do have the potential for psychic powers, its almost certainly an accidental (as are all evolutionary changes...) byproduct of the fact that the brain is an electro chemical device. It does produce a very weak electrical field, and hypothetically this could be a conduit for "communication", be it between brains or from other sources.

Either that or some explanation beyond our current understanding. Which is somewhat unlikely, because as complex as the brain is, its still just a bowl of jelly with a current going through it.

EDIT: And as for the "run from tiger" analogy, it is a very good point. However, such "presume it is a tiger" thinking will only be an advantage in terms of basic survival. A sparrow is purely of the variety "presume its a tiger". What distinguishes humanity is that a man can look at the bushes and say "Oh wait, theres no tiger, its just the light hitting that long grass." When you apply this to the way water flows, the way the weather works, to magnets and mathematics etc, suddenly you've got a new and interesting thing: A dominant intelligent species. For every man that got eaten by a tiger, a hundred housand survived because of anti biotics.

lostexpectation

it may be an interesting to discuss why Ireland is mostly Catholic, im sure there is a very simple reason for this and also a very complicated one.

John Doe

I don't know. I wish I did though. I wish I knew everything.

the real ramon

lostexpectation wrote:

it may be an interesting to discuss why Ireland is mostly Catholic, im sure there is a very simple reason for this and also a very complicated one.

I've always wondered wheteher Irish and Mediterranean people are lazy coz they're Catholic or Catholic coz they're lazy...

PS
It's true about the endorphins and placebo effect, whenever I think of the Goddess and God that are real in my mind (But not in reality i expect) I start to feel a bit happier and more relaxed.

As long as there's no manipulation I see a great benefit to religion, but how do you ensure there's no manipulation, or somebody reinforces the idea of a punishing God?