Being Human

In the essay Being human: Religion: Bound to believe?, Pascal Boyer delves into the evolution of religion.

Is religion a product of our evolution? The very question makes many people, religious or otherwise, cringe, although for different reasons. Some people of faith fear that an understanding of the processes underlying belief could undermine it. Others worry that what is shown to be part of our evolutionary heritage will be interpreted as good, true, necessary or inevitable. Still others, many scientists included, simply dismiss the whole issue, seeing religion as childish, dangerous nonsense.

I find some truth here. While I do see religion as nonsense, I also understand how it became what it is. Using religion to explain natural scientific phenomena was pertinent centuries and centuries ago. What I would see as an alternate explanation today, one living thousands of years ago would see as the only. With so many scientific advances, it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that religion should be thrown out of the window alongside respect for the Flat Earth Society. In a rational world, no argument arises. Yet we live in a world full of rational honest doubters and believers (as well as those who want to believe). We live in a world that’s a product (obviously) of yesterday.

No, religion cannot be tossed out of the window abruptly. Perhaps after years and years of irreligious generations, honest doubt will become more pervasive and accepted in general society. Boyer writes, “Religious thought and behaviour can be considered part of the natural human capacities, such as music, political systems, family relations or ethnic coalitions.”

In a sense, so was racism, sexism, and any other ideological fear. When Obama fist spoke about race, pointing out his white grandmother’s initial reactions to some black men, I understood. Though the “typical white woman” seems unjustified, he was approaching something bigger. Many folks in older generations just don’t get it. When one lives through separate drinking fountains, its hard for them to come to terms with that not only being wrong but gravely unjust. Even my grandmother (a wonderfully fun and loving person) said “not in my lifetime”, referring to having a black president. (Hopefully, she will see it come to life — and being a good thing!) While I never thought of her as racist or bigoted prior to this comment, I am now confronted with these big ugly terms. But in the Jewish community, much like that of other older members of any group, there are bigoted terms and jabs that go beyond meaningless jokes. The Yiddish term schwartze comes to mind. If you have not seen this clip from The Daily Show about Jewish voters in Florida, I suggest you do:

Sadly, I know this all too well. Hence Sarah Silverman’s The Great Schlep. Too bad it only works with those willing to listen.

But my digression has a purpose: sometimes the older generation holds irrational views. After a few generations of enlightenment, these views become less and less accepted. This applies to religion. Though I see it as a part of our lives today, with knowledge and communities so easily accessible these days, it’s likely to dwindle.

He goes on:

Religious concepts and activities hijack our cognitive resources, as do music, visual art, cuisine, politics, economic institutions and fashion. This hijacking occurs simply because religion provides some form of what psychologists would call super stimuli. Just as visual art is more symmetrical and its colours more saturated than what is generally found in nature, religious agents are highly simplified versions of absent human agents, and religious rituals are highly stylized versions of precautionary procedures. Hijacking also occurs because religions facilitate the expression of certain behaviours. This is the case for commitment to a group, which is made all the more credible when it is phrased as the acceptance of bizarre or non-obvious beliefs.

Though I concur that “some form of religious thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems”, I don’t quite see how that suggests the opposite. “By contrast, disbelief is generally the result of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions” Non-belief surely goes against many societal norms, but I hardly concede that it that its a stance that deliberately works against our natural cognitive dispositions.

I bet that if we review and replace simple semantics such as “purpose of god’s path” with “purpose in evolution”, our cognitive dispositions will gradually rearrange.

I do understand (unfortunately) how rationalism or atheism is “hardly the easiest ideology to propagate.”