Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day

Were we born to believe?

Posted in News by Skepdude on April 9, 2010

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT THE TELEGRAPH

Rationalists such as Philip Pullman underestimate mankind’s built-in hunger for the sacred, argues Matthew Taylor

Philip Pullman’s new novel The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ is opening another chapter in the often acrimonious debate between religious believers and atheists. This is not, of course, a new argument, but it is one that was given new life by the religious justifications offered by the September 11 terrorists, and there is little sign of it abating.

Although Pullman’s attack is more on organised Christianity than faith, the aim of other strident atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or Daniel Dennett, is to use the hammer of science and rationality to break the chains of religious superstition. Indeed, since the Ancient World, intellectuals have predicted that faith would wither away in the face of expanding human knowledge. But the prediction was wrong. Demographic trends suggest that the proportion of the world’s population who follow a major religion will rise to about 80 per cent over the coming decades. Even in countries with low religious observance – such as Britain – there has been no decline in the number who say they believe in God.

The resilience of religion has been a spur to scientists interested in understanding the evolutionary, developmental and neurological basis of faith. Among evolutionists, the big debate is between those who argue that religious belief has helped human beings prosper as a species, and those who see faith merely as a by-product of other aspects of our development.

The evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson is perhaps the most prominent advocate of the adaptationist view, arguing that religious belief helped make groups of early humans comparatively more cohesive, more co-operative and more fraternal, and thus better able to fight off less organised foes. And as human needs changed, so did the content of religious belief. In close-knit tribal cultures, there are many gods residing in nature, but in modern mass societies, where it is harder to enforce social norms, a single all-seeing God helps keep us on the straight and narrow.

Adaptationist accounts are far from universally accepted. Richard Dawkins describes the group selection theory that underlies Sloan Wilson’s account as “sheer, wanton, head-in-bag perversity”. But whatever is happening at the group level, there is something about the way individual human beings develop that makes us susceptible to religious belief.

Clues to this lie in the study of child development. It appears, for example, that at a particular age – usually around 10 – children become fascinated by big questions about life, death and the origins of the universe. At earlier ages, as children begin to apply language to the world around them, they seem to ask questions for which religion has answers.

We appear, for example, to be natural creationists. A child’s account of nature relies on what developmental psychologists call “immature teleology”. This is the idea that something exists because of the function it provides for the child: the river is there so I can swim in it, the tree so I can climb it. If something has a purpose, it must have been created for that reason.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT THE TELEGRAPH

Advertisements
Tagged with: , , ,

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Fujaro said, on April 11, 2010 at 2:42 AM

    So where does this lead us? Acknowledging the fact that througout history man has sought…no demanded is more like it really, immediate answers to big questions is one thing. But this is not disputed by atheists new or old. It merely underlines the fall down the pit man has made in all kind of exotic religious antropocentric delusion. That is hardly an argument for the intrinsic quality of religious belief. Moreover it is not an argument for christianity or any specific religious belief but a case for therapeutic treatment of the massess Dawkins and others are offering.

    • Skepdude said, on April 11, 2010 at 7:13 AM

      No, definitely not an argument for; but it may indicate a need for a bit of a different approach, for certain people. The better we understand it, the quicker we can grow out of it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: