The Evolution of Belief
5 March 2007 by Gil
The previous post generated quite a bit more discussion than I had expected, although the question raised remains, in my opinion, quite a significant one. If we grant that the world is all there is and that we are the way we are because of a long line of evolutionary adaptations, then how do we account for the idea of belief in God (or any other metaphysical ‘truth’)?
In one of the later comments Ryan points to a recent NY Times article that addresses this very question. The author asks: “Are we hard-wired to believe in God? And if we are, how and why did that happen?” Do we believe in God because of some kind of neurological accident (as Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould appear to argue) or because it somehow enabled us to adapt more successfully to our environment? In the latter case the odd idea is posited that even if we can’t see any current adaptive advantage to certain traits (either physical or mental) we can rest assured that there is a perfectly good historical one. Basically, if a trait or capacity looks like it’s there for no obvious adaptive purpose we simply have to trust that at one point that purpose was more obvious. Sounds curiously like an article of faith to me.
So why do we exhibit this trait? Why do many (I would say nearly all) of us believe that our ideas correspond with a real Truth that is out there somewhere? Why do many of us believe in God or some kind of transcendent reality that provides us with an external reference point and sense of purpose? As a Christian I would see these realities as potential points of contact between ourselves and God. The fact that most of us have an intuitive belief in the supernatural could be seen as a problem that needs to be solved (as in the article above) or as a signpost toward our ultimate purpose. I choose to believe that it is the latter. I can’t obviously prove it but I do think it is the most coherent option available.
One of the most interesting comments in the entire article comes near the end. After eleven pages of trying to distinguish between adaptionists (those who believe that we evolved the idea of God for some kind of adaptive reason) and byproduct theorists (those who hold that belief in God is a ’spandrel’, a trait that serves no adaptive purpose but is an unintended byproduct of other evolutionary processes), the author arrives at the common ground that seems to exist between them.
“No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural. The drive to satisfy that yearning, according to both adaptationists and byproduct theorists, might be an inevitable and eternal part of… the tragedy of human cognition.”
Perhaps the word ‘tragedy’ here betrays more assumptions than any other word in this article.
Telling indeed, Gil.
I’m hard pressed to understand why someone would think, or at least infer, that the search for human purpose; the “why” of life, was a tragedy.
Is it fair to say, anthropologicly, that humans were first engaged with primitive forms of metaphysics before, rationalism, emphiric study and later scientific method. If so does not the “hard wired” theory at least have traction?
It would seem to me that it does and is at least worthy of serious study.
On a related matter, does evolution/science offer some kind of explanation for the “hyper acceleration” of human activities?
As a species we lived for a few million years in fairly static patterns of behavior until something happens several thousand years ago and leads to a simply staggering evolution of human behaviors and activities.
Christianity offers me divine revelation. What does science say?
The Haiku of the Abandoned Comment
Alone in the sandbox
Why! Won’t mommy let you play
Come!!! Pour dirt on me
Sorry for the abandonment…I agree the assessment of the search for purpose as ‘tragic’ is a significant statement. It could be interpreted as an opportunity as well. I don’t have enough scientific background to comment on the question of ‘hyper-acceleration’. I continue to argue that the strong distinction between revelation and science may be a bit misleading. Surely there is room to say that reason can function AS revelation (I think Aquinas had a fairly high view of this possibility), especially if we believe that God is the source of what science seeks to understand. Thanks for the haiku.
I would be quite skeptical of anyone trying to use the belief in God as some sort of evidence for the existence of God… just as if someone said that since there are number of people who believe in UFO’s there must be extraterrestrial beings. I have read a Gallup poll that seems to claim that the more educated a person is the less likely they are to believe in God. I am not really sure if there are many polls out there like this and if they all say the same thing. I am sure though you would see the obvious flaw if tried to argue the non-existence of God fromt his data. Not that you really suggested this as a proof for God’s existence. My best guess would be that human’s try and find explanations for things. There are a lot of different gods used to explain events that aren’t explained easily, for some, by natural means.
Paul,
“Christianity offers me divine revelation. What does science say?”
Islam also offers you divine revelation and 72 virgins.
JC,
You’re obviously right in saying that the existence of God cannot be proven because people believe in God. I do find the comparison to people’s belief in extra-terrestrials to be a bit misleading. To compare that sort of belief with something that seems a lot more basic to human nature (the belief in at least a transcendent power) seems to be an apples to oranges comparison to me. This is like Dawkins’ constant comparison of belief in God to belief in a flying spaghetti monster. The argument has the appearance of some kind of rhetorical force but I don’t find it all that convincing.
As to the link between education and belief in God, it’s hard to say. I haven’t seen the poll you’re referring to but it seems fairly plausible. It also seems plausible that as people increase their mastery over various fields of knowledge they become less and less inclined to believe that capacity for knowledge has a source outside of themselves. I don’t think it’s quite as simple as saying “The smarter you are the less likely you are to believe in God.”