TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why do we believe in God? £2m study prays for answer

Why do we believe in God? £2m study prays for answer

It's everywhere in the news, and I thought it would be nice to share this with you guys

quote:

Why do we believe in God? £2m study prays for answer Researchers at the University of Oxford will spend £1.9 million investigating why people believe in God. Academics have been given a grant to try to find out whether belief in a deity is a matter of nature or nurture. They will not attempt to solve the question of whether God exists but they will examine evidence to try to prove whether belief in God conferred an evolutionary advantage to mankind. They will also consider the possibility that faith developed as a byproduct of other human characteristics, such as sociability. Researchers at the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion and the Centre for Anthropology and Mind in Oxford will use the cognitive science disciplines to develop “a scientific approach to why we believe in God and other issues around the nature and origin of religious belief”. The cognitive sciences, or the science of mind and intelligence, combine disciplines such as evolutionary biology, neuroscience, linguistics and computer sciences to examine human behaviour. Justin Barrett, a psychologist who has been quoted in support of arguments by both the atheist Richard Dawkins and his critic, Alister Mc-Grath, a Christian theologian, said: “We are interested in exploring exactly in what sense belief in God is natural. We think there is more on the nature side than a lot of people suppose.” He compared believers to three-year-olds who “assume that other people know almost everything there is to be known”. Dr Barrett, who is a Christian, is the editor of the Journal of Cognition and Cultureand author of the book Why Would Anyone Believe in God? He said that the childish tendency to believe in the omniscience of others was pared down by experience as people grew up. But this tendency, necessary to allow human beings to socialise and cooperate with each other in a productive way, continued when it came to belief in God. “It usually does continue into adult life,” he said. “It is easy, it is intuitive, it is natural. It fits our default assumptions about things.” The research will feed into other areas, such as whether the conflicts associated with religion are a product of human nature. The project will also examine whether belief in the afterlife is something that needs to be taught or is a product of natural selection. Dr Barrett said: “The next step therefore is to look at some of the detailed questions � which religious beliefs are most common and most natural for the human mind to grasp?” The most exciting questions were in areas such as the different responses to polytheism and monotheism, for example, and relationships between religion and evolutionary biology. He and his colleague Roger Trigg will be investigating whether religion is a part of the selection process that has helped humans survive or merely a byproduct of evolution. The three-year study is being funded by a £1.9 million grant to the Ian Ramsey Centre from the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research into religion, science and spirituality. There will be seminars and workshops, while £800,000 will go towards a small grant competition, with 41 grants for different projects. Professor Trigg, a senior research Fellow at Oxford and author of Religion in Public Life: Must Faith be Privatised?, said: “Religion has played an important role in public life over the past few years and the debate about the origin of religion, and how it fits into the human mind, has intensified. This study will not prove or disprove any aspect of religion.”

Times On-Line: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co...icle3393198.ece
Google News: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&n...&ncl=1134141226

Ever heard of the 'God Gene' or VMAT2? Or DMT (Dimethyltryptamine)? Your brain naturally produces levels of DMT (that wouldn't normally cause anywhere near the same effects as taking large external doses). Just some food for thought .

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Ever heard of the 'God Gene' or VMAT2? Or DMT (Dimethyltryptamine)? Your brain naturally produces levels of DMT (that wouldn't normally cause anywhere near the same effects as taking large external doses). Just some food for thought .

no, could you elaborate?

but before you do, in response to the quote, i would struggle to believe that belief is anything but nurture. there, can i have my $4M?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no, could you elaborate? but before you do, in response to the quote, i would struggle to believe that belief is anything but nurture. there, can i have my $4M?

Sure, but since you got the $4M now, could you pay of my student loans in exchange .

I just edited my post with some links, have to get up for class soon, it's almost 4 am and i haven't even slept yet lol . Lemme know if you have any questions after you check out those links. I'll check this thread in the morning... errr.. later today .

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Sure, but since you got the $4M now, could you pay of my student loans in exchange . I just edited my post with some links, have to get up for class soon, it's almost 4 am and i haven't even slept yet lol . Lemme know if you have any questions after you check out those links. I'll check this thread in the morning... errr.. later today .

wicked, cheers for the links and if i had 4 million of course i will pay off your loans!

quote:

Dr. Hamer narrowed his search for the suspected spirituality gene to nine specific genes known to play major roles in the production of monoamines. These chemicals include serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine, which regulate functions such as mood and motor control

so, all we need is to get the world to abuse ecstasy and the belief in god will disappear?

quote:

A variation in a gene known as vesicular monoamine transporter, or vmat2, seemed to be directly related to how volunteers for Dr. Hamer's experiment scored on his self-transcendence test.

i find the research terribly problematic. for instance, what (if any) other "spiritual" or "superstitious" contexts might be influenced by this particular gene? is it merely a gene that perpetuates some kind of suspension of disbelief? (no im not trying to offend anyone, its an honest question). did they test this gene in relation to, say, the JFK conspiracy theories? astrology?

in other words, does this gene really have an influence over a belief in god, or is does it merely make the person more inclined to accept the intangible? the latter i could be convinced of, but im not so sure about the former. to me, the concept of "god" is far too specific and, if we're talking about biological evolution, rather irrelevant in terms of adding to a species' possibility of survival (indeed, in modern times the exact opposite could be argued )

i honestly dont understand a gene that would give a human being a pre-disposition to believe in something that does not, in and of itself, aid in its biological evolution. i think religion, like marxism or favouring the greenbay packers, is purely a result of socialisation and choice.

quote:

but before you do, in response to the quote, i would struggle to believe that belief is anything but nurture.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/blo...om07_index.html

There's definitely more at work than simply brainwashing of each generation by the previous here. I suspect that the intuitive beliefs that children are apparently born with do in fact offer an evolutionary advantage (that is, compared with simply being born without them.) Even to the extent that it leads to false inferences (e.g. flat earth, "promiscuous teleology," et cetera) there may be some advantage because it helps allow individuals to predict many of the very simple phenomena they are likely to encounter with at least a reasonable degree of accuracy.

I don't think that they account for religious belief generally, but I do think that there's substantial evidence that they can help facilitate it.

Of course, this doesn't answer the question entirely. Most people come to realize that the Earth is not, in fact, flat. However, there doesn't seem to be the same sort of realization regarding mind/brain dualism, magical thinking, and other mistaken ideas that are related to religious belief despite the fact that these notions are very nearly as demonstrably false. I think that's where nurture comes in -- it inhibits the ability of people to overcome their intuition and see the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i would struggle to believe that belief is anything but nurture.

If that were the case, then it would be difficult to explain why basically all cultures in history have developed "religions" with common elements: the belief in unseen (or "minimally counterintuitive") beings, a sense of the "sacred" and "profane", participation in eleborate rituals, the use of prayer and sacrifice and so on. It would be hard to explain the ubiquity of this behaviour without presuming that at least part of the phenomenon is neurological in origin.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN in other words, does this gene really have an influence over a belief in god, or is does it merely make the person more inclined to accept the intangible? the latter i could be convinced of, but im not so sure about the former.

The study shaolin just linked to makes reference to spirituality, not belief in god specifically.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a direct link between certain genes and predisposition towards spirituality. I have no problem believing that belief in god is determined by brain states, that brain states are determined by the architecture of the brain and that the architecture is brain is determined by genes. If the development of a part of the brain integral to the formation of religious beliefs (lymbic system, frontal lobes etc.) can be altered by a defective gene, then it makes sense (although it is something of an oversimplification) to talk of a genetic basis for religious belief.

quote:

to me, the concept of "god" is far too specific and, if we're talking about biological evolution, rather irrelevant in terms of adding to a species' possibility of survival (indeed, in modern times the exact opposite could be argued ) i honestly dont understand a gene that would give a human being a pre-disposition to believe in something that does not, in and of itself, aid in its biological evolution.

I doubt that the predisposition towards belief in God in itself has any direct evolutionary benefit, but the sort of neurological functions that predicate religious belief certainly do.

It is more useful, for instance, to have a "promiscuous teleology" of the sort that is mentioned in the article that Arbiter just posted ("That rustling in the leaves was caused by something that is out to get me! Run away!"), than a more prudent teleology ("That rustling in the leaves doubtless has a rational explanation. Let me go up for a closer... ARGH! My Face!"). It is useful, in terms of our ability to learn, understand and remember, to attribute agency to innanimate objects ("Water always wants to reach the low ground. Let's look for some there.") and to believe that there is always someone watching us... even if they don't have bodies and we can't see them (which discourages behaviour that may damage our standing in a group). There are other examples, but religion is bascially just the byproduct of cognitive functions that, in themselves, do have a clear evolutionary benefit even if religious belief itself does not.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, all we need is to get the world to abuse ecstasy and the belief in god will disappear?

That could explain the Godlessness on TA and PDD don't you think ?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Ever heard of the 'God Gene' or VMAT2? Or DMT (Dimethyltryptamine)? Your brain naturally produces levels of DMT (that wouldn't normally cause anywhere near the same effects as taking large external doses). Just some food for thought .

I read a book once that suggested that since the pinneal gland, the seat of our conscious expression and filtration, seems to be purposed around the production and regulation of DMT, that perhaps individuals who were able to see the world beyond what it was in order to elevate the rest of us to new planes of information were in fact genetically different in that their pinneal gland overproduced DMT.

Jesus was one potential example.

I'm not sure if I buy it, but I can see it, since from personal experience, DMT as a spiritual tool is definitely one of the most intense experiences one can have in regards to discovering just where their ego lies in the collective, and just how expansive this life and universe really can be.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I read a book once that suggested that since the pinneal gland, the seat of our conscious expression and filtration, seems to be purposed around the production and regulation of DMT, that perhaps individuals who were able to see the world beyond what it was in order to elevate the rest of us to new planes of information were in fact genetically different in that their pinneal gland overproduced DMT. Jesus was one potential example. I'm not sure if I buy it, but I can see it, since from personal experience, DMT as a spiritual tool is definitely one of the most intense experiences one can have in regards to discovering just where their ego lies in the collective, and just how expansive this life and universe really can be.

Would that book happen to be DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences by Rick Strassman MD?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Would that book happen to be DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences by Rick Strassman MD?

A book by Cliff Pickover which is basically his theoretical observations on the physical sciences, chemistry, psychology, technology, life, and DMT. His books are fun and intriguing at the same time, with sources to boot, and definitely worth a read if you're interested in that kind of stuff. I gave my copy to a friend, which I kind of regret; c'est la vie.

I have not read the Strassman literature yet but have heard it mentioned several times and take it as no coincidence.

whilst i hesitate to take on both arbiter AND renegade, here goes!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/blo...om07_index.html

excellent article, cheers. so what its basically saying is that americans are children?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I don't think that they account for religious belief generally, but I do think that there's substantial evidence that they can help facilitate it. Of course, this doesn't answer the question entirely. Most people come to realize that the Earth is not, in fact, flat. However, there doesn't seem to be the same sort of realization regarding mind/brain dualism, magical thinking, and other mistaken ideas that are related to religious belief despite the fact that these notions are very nearly as demonstrably false. I think that's where nurture comes in -- it inhibits the ability of people to overcome their intuition and see the truth.

yes, which is why i still maintain that nurture is the deciding factor; we're not children forever so for adults to maintain this "childlike" understanding of the world there must be something else. i dont think we can extrapolate child psychology that far:

quote:

For instance, if the existence of supernatural entities like gods, karma, and ancestor spirits is never questioned by adults in the community, the existence of such entities will be unquestioningly accepted by children.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade If that were the case, then it would be difficult to explain why basically all cultures in history have developed "religions" with common elements: the belief in unseen (or "minimally counterintuitive") beings, a sense of the "sacred" and "profane", participation in eleborate rituals, the use of prayer and sacrifice and so on. It would be hard to explain the ubiquity of this behaviour without presuming that at least part of the phenomenon is neurological in origin.

because superstition has been a staple to fill in the void of actual knowledge for as long as man has walked around? wouldnt the belief in something "unseen" be kind of moot, considering that obviously god's havent been roaming the earth? what about cultures that names god's for the things actually seen, such as the sun, moon or the weather? i think superstitious belief was more an early quasi-science than some kind of inherent tool, building upon as it was, the fear of that's making those leaves rustle.

Wouldn't a sense of the "sacred" relate more to early notions of morality? If we are to accept that peoples all over the world were more or less the same, similar evolutions in ethical morality should be expected? Such beliefs being made religious in nature lends itself more to that "childlike" understanding of the world, but I don’t understand why it should persist into adulthood asides from ignorance and cultural norms.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The study shaolin just linked to makes reference to spirituality, not belief in god specifically.

but what IS "spirituality"? a tendency to believe in the intangible? It might be fine to have an unnatural fear of what's making those leaves rustle, but it is an altogether different mental process to go from that to inventing spirits. I think that's far more likely to be related to early (and subsequent inheritance) of ignorance and myth than it is some kind of gene, unless like i said, its building upon that irrational "fear".

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a direct link between certain genes and predisposition towards spirituality. I have no problem believing that belief in god is determined by brain states, that brain states are determined by the architecture of the brain and that the architecture is brain is determined by genes. If the development of a part of the brain integral to the formation of religious beliefs (lymbic system, frontal lobes etc.) can be altered by a defective gene, then it makes sense (although it is something of an oversimplification) to talk of a genetic basis for religious belief.

but how has something SO external (ie magical or unbelievable) managed to worm its way into our genetic makeup in such a (relatively) short time? why then is the nature of religious belief/adherence SO very cultural in nature? could this gene, if it is is even responsible, just make one susceptible to the intangible (not dissimilar from arbiter's article of children's early false assumptions)? wouldn't spirituality be entirely external and far too specific to be natural?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade It is more useful, for instance, to have a "promiscuous teleology" of the sort that is mentioned in the article that Arbiter just posted ("That rustling in the leaves was caused by something that is out to get me! Run away!"), than a more prudent teleology ("That rustling in the leaves doubtless has a rational explanation. Let me go up for a closer... ARGH! My Face!").

firstly, fucken hahahahahahaha!

How does that relate to the intangible though? "ooh I must'nt be naughty or I will punished after im dead?" there's no real, actual stimuli to promote such a response. I agree that a gene might give a predisposition to intangible belief, but I still think there's a pretty gap between that and spirituality, without including the (very particular and specific) influence of social norms. And these social norms are merely inherited ideology from a time where superstition made up for scientific enquiry (imo), so I still don’t see a gene (if it exists) as impetus enough for religious belief.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade There are other examples, but religion is bascially just the byproduct of cognitive functions that, in themselves, do have a clear evolutionary benefit even if religious belief itself does not.

yes, see this i could accept.

btw, is that book you linked

quote:

From pages 132-133 of this book, which I think I've referenced on these forums about 100 times

easy reading? looks interesting

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN whilst i hesitate to take on both arbiter AND renegade, here goes! excellent article, cheers. so what its basically saying is that americans are children? yes, which is why i still maintain that nurture is the deciding factor; we're not children forever so for adults to maintain this "childlike" understanding of the world there must be something else. i dont think we can extrapolate child psychology that far: because superstition has been a staple to fill in the void of actual knowledge for as long as man has walked around? wouldnt the belief in something "unseen" be kind of moot, considering that obviously god's havent been roaming the earth? what about cultures that names god's for the things actually seen, such as the sun, moon or the weather? i think superstitious belief was more an early quasi-science than some kind of inherent tool, building upon as it was, the fear of that's making those leaves rustle. Wouldn't a sense of the "sacred" relate more to early notions of morality? If we are to accept that peoples all over the world were more or less the same, similar evolutions in ethical morality should be expected? Such beliefs being made religious in nature lends itself more to that "childlike" understanding of the world, but I don’t understand why it should persist into adulthood asides from ignorance and cultural norms. but what IS "spirituality"? a tendency to believe in the intangible? It might be fine to have an unnatural fear of what's making those leaves rustle, but it is an altogether different mental process to go from that to inventing spirits. I think that's far more likely to be related to early (and subsequent inheritance) of ignorance and myth than it is some kind of gene, unless like i said, its building upon that irrational "fear". but how has something SO external (ie magical or unbelievable) managed to worm its way into our genetic makeup in such a (relatively) short time? why then is the nature of religious belief/adherence SO very cultural in nature? could this gene, if it is is even responsible, just make one susceptible to the intangible (not dissimilar from arbiter's article of children's early false assumptions)? wouldn't spirituality be entirely external and far too specific to be natural? firstly, fucken hahahahahahaha! How does that relate to the intangible though? "ooh I must'nt be naughty or I will punished after im dead?" there's no real, actual stimuli to promote such a response. I agree that a gene might give a predisposition to intangible belief, but I still think there's a pretty gap between that and spirituality, without including the (very particular and specific) influence of social norms. And these social norms are merely inherited ideology from a time where superstition made up for scientific enquiry (imo), so I still don’t see a gene (if it exists) as impetus enough for religious belief. yes, see this i could accept. btw, is that book you linked easy reading? looks interesting

Yeah, I mean, you're right. You need look no farther than modern "science" in order to see exactly where and why religion exists.

People believe in the things science procures today without a second though, and it was the same exact thing in every stage of human existence and perhaps beyond, for whatever their "science" may have been.

I guarantee in 100 years everything we believe will have relegated to the backburner of foolishness and mythology. It's always happened, and always will.

This is why I can't help but think that the universe itself is a maleable organism, patrolling the energies we release as much as we patrol it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, all we need is to get the world to abuse ecstasy and the belief in god will disappear?

I think I'm pretty good evidence that this would not work.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN because superstition has been a staple to fill in the void of actual knowledge for as long as man has walked around? wouldnt the belief in something "unseen" be kind of moot, considering that obviously god's havent been roaming the earth?

Yeah, but you're still left with the problem of why these "superstitions" have such universal and predictable properties. You can go to any culture in the world and find that the people there believe in invisible, conscious agents that respond to things like prayer, ritual and sacrifice. It is difficult to explain this ubiquity without presuming that there is either good evidence for the existence of such agents that cultures around the world have all been able to stumble upon, or that the belief in such agents is merely an artifact of the way our minds work.

quote:

what about cultures that names god's for the things actually seen, such as the sun, moon or the weather?

These are still "invisible, conscious agents that respond to things like prayer, ritual and sacrifice", they just happen to exist inside celestial bodies. The sun for ancient pagans wasn't just an inert object that travelled across the sky, it was an object with an unseen agency that could be entreated for favours and blessings (good weather for crops etc.).

quote:

Wouldn't a sense of the "sacred" relate more to early notions of morality?

When I mentioned sacredness I was referring more to the idea that an object (a piece of land, a geological feature, or some manmade object, say) can be held in an esteem that completely transcends the value of its immediate utility. As an example, look at the sort of esteem that the black rock at Mecca is held in by Muslims. Any way you look at it, it's just a rock in a wall that doesn't actually do anything, but the value of that rock to Muslims everywhere is almost unquantifiable: millions around the world would lay down their lives just to prevent that rock from being chipped. Looked at objectively, it really doesn't make any sense.

Like all other aspects of religion, the notion of the "sacred" is completely counter-intuitive, completely counter-adaptive and completely peculiar to humans. Given its ubiquity in all human cultures, it is again a phenomenon that would is difficult to explain without some recourse to neurology.

quote:

If we are to accept that peoples all over the world were more or less the same, similar evolutions in ethical morality should be expected?

Well we all have a sense of morality and justice, though the content of our morals may differ. I'm fairly sure that foundational aspects of morality - a sense of fairness, a sense of empathy, intuitive understanding of "Tit for Tat" reciprocity etc. - will be present in any culture you care to name.

quote:

Such beliefs being made religious in nature lends itself more to that "childlike" understanding of the world, but I don’t understand why it should persist into adulthood asides from ignorance and cultural norms.

I agree, but unfortunately beliefs that are integral to one's view of the world usually die hard, regardless of how in conflict with reality they may be. There's a good article explaining this phenomenon here:

http://csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html

Okay, I'll finish this tomorrow. I think I'm slowly losing the ability to make marathon posts after midnight...

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Okay, I'll finish this tomorrow. I think I'm slowly losing the ability to make marathon posts after midnight...

Quit being such a slacker and dispell the suspense man .

Basically, humans have a (natural) fear of death, like all living creatures on the planet.

We've chosen a way that deals with that fear by believing that somehow, despite common sense and all of the evidence available, we're going to live on after our time here on earth expires.

To that end, we've created "god" and "heaven". It makes it easier for most people to cope with their mortality.

It's childish and irresponsible to believe in magical powers to "resurrect", etc...but that's the power of a natural instinct for you (fear of death).

If we could get past it and start dealing with each other on the planet here and now, where it counts, as opposed to selfishly living primarily for some imagined "after-life", the world might be a LOT better place.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.