A vast literature exists attempting to explain humanity's continuing obsession with religion. See, for example, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought by anthropologist Pascal Boyer, and In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion by anthropologist Scott Altran.
If I were to distill a basic if somewhat simplified (some will say oversimplified) conclusion from the sampling I have read, it is that we inherited from our animal ancestors a brain module that tends to ascribe animate agency to natural phenomena.
As philosopher Daniel Dennett explains in Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon:
A system or organization within the brain . . . has evolved in much the same way our immune system or respiratory system has evolved. Like many other natural wonders, the human mind is something of a bag of tricks, cobbled together over the eons by the forsightless process of evolution by natural selection. Driven by the demands of a dangerous world. It is deeply biased in favor of noticing the things that mattered most to the reproductive success of our ancestors.
Boyer calls this bag of tricks "gadgets" and Dennett notes that some of the patterns look like religion.
As Dennett points out, even the simplest animals have what psychologist Justin Barrett in an article in Trends of Cognitive Science 4 (2000):29-34, "Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion," calls a hyperactive agent detection device, or HADD. For example, a clam will retreat its foot into its shell whenever any vibration or bump is sensed. Most are harmless, but the clam's motto is better safe than sorry.
More mobile animals have developed the ability to detect unusual motions that might be a predator but often is not. This tendency toward imagining invisible causes of events leads them to engage in ritual behavior that serves no necessary purpose. In a famous experiment conducted in 1948, psychologist B.F. Skinner showed that pigeons exhibit what he called "superstitious behavior" in which they engage in repeated, stereotyped patterns of conduct to get food even when those patterns are not required.
Humans have inherited the hyperactive detection device. The bulk of human evolution occurred during the Pleistocene Age, from 260,000 to 12,000 years before the present. This means that our brains today still retain the HADD system that once was necessary for our survival but no longer is needed. In his fascinating book Caveman Logic: The Persistence of Primitive Thinking in a Modern World, psychologist Hank Davis posits the following scenario:
One of your ancestors is walking through the forest and sees something on the path ahead. It might be a predator. Then again, it might be a random array of shapes and textures that amounts to nothing. If he believes it to be dangerous, he takes appropriate defensive steps. Perhaps he freezes or arms himself or flees. What's the best that can happen? He survives a lethal encounter and gets to live and function another day. What's the worst? A false positive. He finds himself with heart pounding, pulse racing, hiding behind a tree with a spear drawn for no good reason. It was only a pile of twigs on the path. He's wasted some effort and experiences a baseless fear. But he gets to go home, eat dinner, and snuggle with his mate.
Davis adds, "Perceptual accuracy was not an agenda of natural selection. Survival and reproduction were."
Since our brains have hardly evolved physically and biologically since caveman days, they retain this agency module that does us more harm than good in the modern age. We no longer have to be excessively alert when taking a walk in the woods, although a city street is another matter. In the meantime, we assign invisible agency and causality to phenomena that have no agents or causes. This leads to behaviors that are a waste of time. To make matters worse, these behaviors are reinforced by widespread social support -- by churches in particular. And, not only religious believers but scientists as well are burdened by this anachronistic brain module as they also look for causes that are not there.
Davis has this amusing but cogent summary of the situation:
There is a popular bumper sticker that addresses the problem directly. It says SHIT HAPPENS. These two words are all but incomprehensible to the majority of people. The sticker does not say I CAUSED SHIT TO HAPPEN. It does not say SHIT WAS DONE TO ME BY A VENGEFUL GOD. It simply says that . . . SHIT does happen from time to time.
This is not just an account of human reactions to everyday experiences. It also applies on the cosmic scale where great philosophers, scientists, and theologians -- as well as the typical churchgoer -- find it difficult to grasp how the universe could exist without cause. Well, modern physics and cosmology tells us that it does. The universe is an accident. SHIT HAPPENED.
Gustav Niebuhr: Congress Considers "In God We Trust"... But Who Is This God?
Martin Marty: Trust: The Heart of Religion
I think that if I *had* ever expected such a tail-wags-the-dog attempt at scientific speculation, I would have expected it from someone out of Oral Roberts University.
Why didn't perception just keep getting worse and worse? Or why did it ever evolve in the first place, if insight into the nature of nearby beings and structures has negative evolutionary value?
You still haven't. He didn't say that.
But it made me wonder: In order to survive and reproduce, wouldn't an organism with the ability to perceive things outside of itself need to accurately perceive whether something else was a threat to its survival or not?
It's not that accuracy isn't valid, just that it's valued only so far as leads to survival.
I mean with primitive man, why the heck would one person listen to the other as a "leader". But give them an unseen leader that can't punish them NOW, but can once they die, well thats a powerful tool to govern people with and we see that today.
Myths are a very powerful tool. We all see the same sun, same sky, but why over the last 100,000 do we all see so many diff gods" so many diff religions?
why are there Christians, Catholic, Hindi, Jews, Muslims, Haitian Voodoo, Buddhism, Taoism, Wiccans, Scientology, and all the hundreds if not THOUSANDS of smaller sects withing those that believe something a little diff from the parent religion? why don't we ALL believe the same thing.
this isn't taking into account the religions that are now considered MYTH. (which is where all religions are going in the next 500 years)
Honestly Scientology, as whacky as it may be, is no more whacky than any other, it's just younger
"This is not just an account of human reactions to everyday experiences. It also applies on the cosmic scale where great philosophers, scientists, and theologians -- as well as the typical churchgoer -- find it difficult to grasp how the universe could exist without cause. Well, modern physics and cosmology tells us that it does. The universe is an accident. SHIT HAPPENED."
I'd argue that the isolation that many people experience in the modern world and the need for a connection to a community and to nature is what has led to the growth of superstitious and abusive institutions like the American mega church, much more so than evolution that took place 12,000 years ago.
Would anyone know who one of them was?
I was him speak a long time ago.
If we eliminate the possibility that you are a computer software program then you are an object.
I consist of the basic elements of the universe but I am responsible for what I say and do because I have free will.
And insofar as we are concerned: the universe does not depend one whit upon our existence. One day all our works will be wiped as if they never happened at all and there will be no evidence that we ever were.
You keep using this word "fact", but I don't think you know what it means.
And who says that there's not beer in hell, eh?
i recommend composting toilets
as a sane man i would get the exclusive distribution rights for composting toilets before recommending [ biolet.com envirolet.com Clivus etc ]
Then perhaps you should leave this topic to those who have made a life of studying it, like Mr. Stenger. There are plenty of things that humans know about the cosmos, things that you probably haven't ever taken time to research. Just because you don't know doesn't mean that nobody knows. That's why physicists and the like publish their findings, so that we can all learn.
So let me put it in simpler terms: when talking about meaning and purpose, I think it much more fruitful to confine ourselves to our planet and our own evolved conciousness, rather than including the entire infinity of existence in such meaningless statements as"The universe has no purpose!" I have met, read, listened to and argued with men and women in all fields of research and study, and I have yet to identify one who has the definitive answer to the age-old human question, 'What is the meaning of life?' Dr. Stenger knows a whole lot more than I ever will about his field(s) of expertise, but when it comes to this question, his guess is as good as mine - or yours. Better?
and lord have mercy it'd be good to say big petroleum bowing low in shame
republicans [ something to do with public yuk] would be on the losing side permanently as the King of Kings descendeth upon them with royal divine fury
democrats would just have to be cured of sex addiction not a biggie
wall st might not care thye can sell derivatives of grace o maria morgenstern marienliedLord its christmass and the bills are arriving what to beleive
christians wouldnt need faith anymore wouldnt need compassion if no suffering exists
chirches wouldnt be needed as intermediaries and channels jews wouldnt feel like the chosen people God is on every side in potential when known to exist God is on evryside
atheists would have to find something else to ridicule maybe th superstitions of proathletes before an dafter stepping into the batters box
agnostics/humanists would hold as press conference and negotiate for dispensation
vatican wouldnt need st paul and condescending aroggant conversion
Moslems would get an update of Prophet mohamed pbuh from god directly
buddhist would have to laugh about thier childishness
and Hindus proof of god would mean they actually have to become vegetarians bye bye mcDonald's bullburger ,instead of just a third of them and India's supreme court would have to accept a higher power and actually become indian instead of faux british aristocrats
and good bye poor people i mean giving up ones identity would be tough
like Adi Shankara said " i am not a brahmin not a kshatriya not a vaishya not a shudra i am THAT [ tattvamasi ; atma brahm ]
80 000 000 american problem drinkers would have to sober up pronto etc etc