"We've evolved to be creationists"

“We’ve evolved to be creationists”

“We’ve evolved to be creationists” is a quote from the “The Atlantic Monthly” article “Is God an Accident?”—December 2005 issue.

Paul Bloom, author of the article, informs us that “human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena…this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry”.

Paul Bloom informs us that nearly everyone on earth believes in miracles, afterlife, and the creation of the earth by some supernatural power. While doing research into infant behavior, psychologists have recently discovered that humans are born with a predisposition to believe in some supernatural actuality. These scientists conclude that this predisposition is a random happenstance of cognitive functioning gone awry. These conclusions led to the question “Is God an Accident?”–the title of the article.

I have just found the answer to a question that has baffled me for years. Why do non-believers love to talk religion? Perhaps talking about religion is much like ‘whistling past the cemetery’.

Everyone loves to talk religion because we are all born with the “gut feeling” that there is a body/mind duality. Because we “feel” that mind is a “spiritual” entity we easily accommodate heaven, soul, god etc.

Science says that this gut feeling is a result of “cognitive functioning gone awry” and religion tells us that this is a matter of faith. What do you think?

I fail to see how a natural predisposition towards religion equates to creationism.

It seems reasonable that as humans have developed to consider a world wider than the immediate habitat necessary for survival, encountered other peoples and such, they have also developed mechanisms to explain it away, even when it is unknowable (or temporarily beyond understanding). Perhaps just as nature abhors a vacuum, the mind isn’t keen on on the inconceivable, and fleshes out the known with fantasy.

Humans are the only animals that know they are going to die, and the only animals that drink alcohol*.

And those two things are connected.

*excepting Siberian yaks that get high after eating fermented nuts and similar effluvia.

I don’t have a propensity to believe in the supernatural.

I believe in gravity, not dowsing.
I believe in the Internet, not perpetual-motion machines.
I beleive in medicine, not prayer.

Good point, but I think the ‘Creationist’ part is just for a catchy title quote.

The central question is whether we are hard-wired genetically toward an inclination to believe in the supernatural.

This would be a difficult hypothesis to test, but in a sense I think we are.

I believe that it is in our survival interest to function within a social order. Such an order requires a hierarchy under which subservient organisms engage in productive behaviour. I think of queen bees, for instance.

As human cognition evolved, it would become obvious that a human Queen Iwannabetheleader was just another individual of the same species. But the the notion of yet another level of hierarchy–a supernatural power channeled through the queen–would support the social hierarchy and prevent anarchy. So belief in the supernatural is an enabler for social order, and a predisposition for social order is a survival benefit.

I have often thought the widespread affection for the monarchy of England is an echo of our genes. Believing in the special position of a Queen or the special position of a supernatural being are not so different in terms of an underlying predisposition to hand over autonomy to another. What the supernatural brings to the table in terms of satisfying this atavistic urge is a non-deniability of authority. That is to say, if the a priori requirement of a religion is to believe in the supreme being, the tenets which are attributed to that supreme being are also unquestioned.

Creationists believe in creationism because their genes believe in the queen bee.

I disagree that we have a propensity to believe in religion.

It is just that the human brain has evolved to consider a variety of explanations for things, and up until the last few hundred years, some sort of supernatural explanations were the best we could come up with.

The idea that the human mind reflects the computing behavior of an enormous number of extremely tiny neurons is something utterly beyond the ability of people to figure out until very recent times. Thus it was natural to assume that thinking was caused by some entity unto itself (a soul), thus opening up the whole idea of gods and the supernatural.

Even today few people have an appreciation for what the brain involves and organized religions have developed such a web of persuasive beliefs and traditions that the momentum of religious belief will no doubt keep it going for some time into the future.

Incidentally, CS Lewis, in Mere Christianity put forth the argument that humans have an innate sense not only of the supernatural, but of Right and Wrong, and this sense of absolute Right and Wrong points toward a Creator. Certainly most successful religions seem to be able to harness something that is in our nature and not just our nurture.

I think we are hard wired to look for cause and effect. Where we don’t see a cause, we make one up. Hence, religion (or the supernatural). Creationism certainly seemed like the most logical answer to the question of how we got here up until a few hundred years ago. Make of that what you will. Did we “evolve to be creationists”? Not really. Evolution shaped us into a creature that was capable of understanding the world around us, and it just so happened that creationism was the explanation we used until we knew better. One might as well say that we evolved to be evolutionists.

[hijack]Elephants will drink alchohol; I recall reading about an incident in South Africa ( I think ) where a herd barged into a village, knowed down a wall to get at some moonshine, and then staggered drunkenly through the village breaking stuff.

Bears will also eat fermented grain; I recall an incident where a huge spilled load of grain fermented and the local bears got drunk on it. Even after the authorities poured diesel oil on the grain to convince them to stop, they ate the stuff oil and all and got drunk.[/hijack]

I’ve believed we were hardwired as a species for religion for years. I look at how irrational people are about it; I read articles about drugs that induce religion or surgery that induces fundamentalism, and about how religiousity follows the pattern of something genetic. It looks built in to me; probably a defect in the brain, selected for by millenia of selectively killing those who lacked that defect, and raping their women ( behavior straight out of the Bible ).

Just to forestall any inadvertant hijacks, the piece quoted in the OP refers to a belief in the supernatural, not in religion.

Religion would be a human creation to deal with a belief in the supernatural; it would not be part of the brain wiring.

I suspect Daniel Dennett is closer to the truth when he says that humans have evolved a predisposition to attribute agency to novel or unexplained events. eg. the leaves are rustling because a predator is lurking there, RUN!

It seems to me that religion and belief in the supernatural are virtually the same thing, expecially the kinds of supernatural mentioned in the OP:

Organized religion is not necessarily the topic, but I think it is relevant (at least in my comment) because the self-perpetuating properties of organized religion provide an alternative explanation to the OP’s assumption of a natural propensity.

I wrote this back in 2004:

When written history began five thousand years ago humans had already developed a great deal of knowledge. Much of that knowledge was of a very practical nature such as how to use animal skins for clothing, how to weave wool, how to hunt and fish etc. A large part of human knowledge was directed toward how to kill and torture fellow humans. I guess things never really change all that much.

In several parts of the world civilizations developed wherein people learned to create laws and to rule vast numbers of people. Some measure of peace and stability developed but there was yet no means for securing the people from their rulers. I guess things never really change all that much

Almost everywhere priests joined rulers in attempts to control the population. Despite these continual wars both of external and internal nature the human population managed to flourish. Egypt was probably one of the first long lasting and stable civilizations to grow up along the large rivers. Egypt survived almost unchanged for three thousand years. This success is attributed to its geographical location that gave it freedom from competition and fertile lands that were constantly replenished by the river overflowing its banks and thus depositing new fertile soil for farming.

Western philosophy emerged in the sixth century BC along the Ionian coast. A small group of scientist-philosophers began writing about their attempts to develop “rational” accounts regarding human experience. These early Pre-Socratic thinkers thought that they were dealing with fundamental elements of nature.

It is natural for humans to seek knowledge. In the “Metaphysics” Aristotle wrote “All men by nature desire to know”.

The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. Cognitive science identifies several ideas that seem to come naturally to us and labels such ideas as “Folk Theories”.

The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World
The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it.

The Folk Theory of General Kinds
Every particular thing is a kind of thing.

The Folk Theory of Essences
Every entity has an “essence” or “nature,” that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.

The consequences of the two theories of kinds and essences is:

The Foundational Assumption of Metaphysics
Kinds exist and are defined by essences.

We may not want our friends to know this fact but we are all metaphysicians. We, in fact, assume that things have a nature thereby we are led by the metaphysical impulse to seek knowledge at various levels of reality.

Cognitive science has uncovered these ideas they have labeled as Folk Theories. Such theories when compared to sophisticated philosophical theories are like comparing mountain music with classical music. Such theories seem to come naturally to human consciousness.

The information comes primarily from “Philosophy in the Flesh” and Folk Theories and Metaphors in Early Greek Philosophy

This seems to form the basis of the theory. Obviously, it would be helpful to know more about this research. I mean, infants don’t have any experience. To me it follows that they would be just as likely to “believe in” one thing as another.

This makes me go, “huh?” Again, I would need to know more about this research, the observations, and the conclusions. How did they get from A to B?

I would have said something like this, if it hadn’t already been said.

The desire to discover cause is a pretty powerful evolutionary advantage, in my opinion. It leads to supernatural belief in some cases, but it’s the genetic basis for any kind of technological development, too.

As we see more about How Stuff Works, we’ll need fewer supernatural explanations for what we observe.

But isn’t the point of the OP that despite obvious scientifically robust cause-and-effect explanations there is a persistence of belief in the supernatural and a persistence of belief in what are now obviously superstitious explanations such as Creationism (even if they began as cause-and-effect explanations)?

I do think we are wired for higher cognitive thinking, obviously, which includes looking for cause and effect. And yet there seems to be a predilection to subvert that cognition with superstition. That, I think, is the debate being raised.

Is there a hard-wired predilection for superstition?

correct motorcycle.

Not really. For most people, the creationist story is simply the easiest to believe. Scientific theories about the origin and evolution of life just aren’t relevant to most peoples’ day-to-day lives.

Also, you may be focusing too much on Americans. While creationism is widely accepted in this country, most Europeans reject it. Are they hard wired differently than us? I doubt it.