Biological Atheism?

[Pyper]

I decided the board needed a serious topic tonight.

Okay, so we've all heard the arguments of nature vs. nuture. Did Johnny grow up to be a serial killer because he was born that way, or because his mommy didn't love him enough? It's become almost a cliche in our society. There's even been a backlash with people accusing others of trying blame all our faults on genetics, instead of taking personal responsibility.

Awhile ago I heard a theory about religion actually being hardwired into our brain. The theory went that religion is a cultural universal because it is an adaptive function of the human brain. Humans, in their evolution, became so smart that they acquired a self-awareness beyond any animal that existed before. They realized that one day, each of them was going to die.

Obviously, this realization was devastating. The knowledge of their own inevitable death was terrifying, to the point many were unable to go on. Thus, over time, a religious mind evolved: one that embraced the idea of an afterlife and a deity that created humans for a specific purpose.

An extension of this theory is that some atheists (not all, mind you) are actually missing this component of the mind that encourages humans to create and accept religion. I found this to be quite an intriguing idea, because I was raised Roman Catholic and later became an atheist at the age of thirteen, around the time when my brain had fully matured. For years I've been scratching my head as to why I became an atheist, whereas millions upon billions of other people who were raised as devoutly religious as myself, do not.

So what do you guys think? I realize this theory can be construed as objectionable to both the religious and the atheistic, so flame away! I don't necessarily agree with either side, but I would find it interesting to hear opinions on this idea.

 

[scylis]

it's total BS. i mean, what about the very devout christian (or follower of some other benevolent, omnipotent god) who forsakes his faith following the tragic death of a loved one? were they just lying to themselves without knowing it all those years they believed in their god w/o a doubt?

 

[Pyper]

Well, that would fall under the category of atheists who do not qualify for the biological theory.

The devout Christian who becomes an atheist in the face of a personal tragedy, I think, would fall under the category of people who find irreparable holes in their religion, and thus leave it. This hypothetical Christian, for instance, feels that if God loved us all, God wouldn't cause us so much pain, and therefore the dogma he has been taught is incorrect. The conclusion is either "God is really mean" or "God doesn't exist" and many people choose the latter.

Whew, it's hard writing a politically correct post.

 

[scylis]

*claps*
you did a lot beter than i could have!

 

[Pyper]

Thanks!

Now if only I could get other people to join the discussion.

*squints into the shadows of the thread*

I know you're reading this conversation, you voyeurs!

 

[Darowyn]

Sorry Sweetiepyper, but the argument shoots itself in the foot.
If religion is an adaptive response of the brain, it is no more subject to rational discussion than your knee-jerk reflex, so nobody can possibly have anything to say about it that will make any difference.
So nobody has anything to say, not even me!
Bye!
Dave

 

[shadowsource]

The Papist Persuasion

Pyper:

I was raised Roman Catholic and later became an atheist at the age of thirteen, around the time when my brain had fully matured. For years I've been scratching my head as to why I became an atheist, whereas millions upon billions of other people who were raised as devoutly religious as myself, do not.

The Catholic thing is just different, Pyper. It kindles a kind of angry animosity among its former adherents. Not quite as much as Scientology does, but way more than Judaism or most Protestant faiths. You will recall how intense and demanding Catholicism is for kids. American culture is enriched by the thoughts, impulses, and contradictions of many fallen Catholics, those sinners, those vaguely gothic motherfuckers. An agnostic is a former Protestant; an atheist is a former Catholic.

 

[p_p_man]

Being someone who cannot...

accept an afterlife, a hereafter, heaven, hell or anything else which I consider myths built up over time for the very purpose Pyper is stating. They are all crutches for those who cannot accept the inevitable.

But believing, as I do, that nothing is actually destroyed completely, it just changes composition, eventually returning to the original source of life from which it came. Be it an atom, a smidgeon of gas or something as yet undiscovered until eventually over time it re-forms into something else.

Does that make me an athiest?

I know I have no fear of dying or death but that's nothing to do with religious teachings.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Obviously, this realization was devastating. The knowledge of their own inevitable death was terrifying, to the point many were unable to go on. Thus, over time, a religious mind evolved: one that embraced the idea of an afterlife and a deity that created humans for a specific purpose.

I think this point is accurate enough, that religion was "invented" as a reaction to fear of death, etc., but I don't accept that it became hardwired into the brain. It's nurture. It's cultural.

You were raised as a Catholic, but as you matured, you began thinking for yourself, and realized maybe that the things you were being taught didn't make a whole lot of sense to you.

My family is Catholic, but completely non-practicing Catholic, with the result that I've had next to zero religious influence in my life. Thus, I'm not a religious person. Some people in my situation may eventually decide to explore religion, because it's (I suppose) a cultural norm to have some kind of religious affiliation.

(A less-than-impressive contribution to the conversation, but I tried, Pyper.)

 

[tmuyo]

Re: Re: Biological Atheism?

I think this point is accurate enough, that religion was "invented" as a reaction to fear of death

religion seems to pop up in the world when hope is needed. at the moment, the world is overpopulated with religion and that is fine. people can do what they wish.

the reason i say religion pops up or appears when hope is needed, is because many different groups were in need of something to identify with while being persecuted by those they didn't relate to.

to me, atheist beliefs come from disbelieving in false hopes or the realization that they are just that, false hopes. i was a curious child of the methodist (protestant) persusasion and asked questions my pastor could not answer. he became infuriated and asked me one question: "do you believe in the miracles jesus christ performed?" my answer was less than what he expected (imagine a little 8 year old saying this); "i'm sure jesus christ existed and was probably a very nice man, but i don't think he had any powers to cure the blind and wake the dead."

my pastor then told me to leave and called me an infidel. he told me not to come back until i believed in the miracles jesus christ performed.

i figured what the hell, i've been missig sunday morning cartoons to come here this crap anyway, onto roadrunner and wile e. coyote cartoons!!!

never missed it since. roadrunner cartoons still rock!

 

[Closet Desire]

Interesting thread...

...just an observation or two.

I see in this discussion about hard wired religion that Christianity is the only one being discussed. The curious thing is that the evolution of Christianity as practiced in Europe and the US has little or nothing to do with a fear of death. It was, in fact, a means of centralising power and removing it from local villages where the dominant influences were pagan. Pagan holidays became Christian holidays so that over time generations would associate the festivals and market days with Christianity rather than pagan ritual. Easter had nothing to do with Christ's resurrection, but with fertility rites and so forth. It could, if you look at the writings of the times and particularly the art, religion that put the notion of fear into death. This reached its height in England during the early 19th century. The "happy" little song "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" isn't a happy song at all but one of many from a horrid little book about death and dying in children.

According to Georges Battaille the awareness of death also coincided with the awareness of eroticism and a link between the two (DH Lawrence also wrote on this). However, in these early peoples which included both the Neanderthals and Homosapien, it doesn't seem that a fear of death was prevalent, only a mystery. This has been backed following Battaille's death with the discovery of Neanderthal and Homosapien graves in the same valley in Israel (Neandethals having come from the north in Germany an Homosapien from the south in Africa).

I don't know enough to say the theory is rubbish, but I would say that religion came about because we are NOT hardwired to believe any particular thing and in the masses this is disconcerting. Religion has a calming effect and Marx was right when he called it "the opiate of the people."

 

[Doulton]

I agree with...well, several people who have posted here I don't think religion was the answer to the fear and hopelessness of death alone, although I could be pursuaded that it was and is the main reason. For those who are raised to believe in after life athiesm must certainly be very difficult to accept for that reason alone. But it was also there as an explanation of the wonders that we saw around us. Why did the sun rise and set, why were we the only animals that seemed self aware and capable of conscious thought, why were we here etc. A god was a very easy and satisfying answer to all these questions.
In recent times I think that relates to something a bit different. This is a very narrow view of the culture around me personally, in New Zealand, a first world consumer-orientated country. I think a function here, particularly for young people, is to remove the burden of thought and analysis. We have the knowledge and the means now to explain things without resorting to faith, but to do that you need to make an effort and learn the skills. You also have to accept that others know the situation better than you do and that there will be things you won't be able to fully comprehend. With religion it's much easier. You can put yourselves beyong those who seek answers with tools of science in one easy step by worshipping a deity. There is a strong attitude of not wanting to think for yourself that is in New Zealand, but I suspect in places like England, Australia and America too. Probably Europe, although I have heard it is less of a problem in some contries there. But I'm getting into very big generalisations of course
As always when discussing religion I have to stop myself. I could spend all day preaching the evils of religion, so I'll try and spread it around various threads Basically my point is I think religion satisfies a number of needs, not just calming the fear of death.

As for athiests missing that part of the brain, I think I would hae to go with the "absolute arse" response. I think many people who are athiests now would probably be as religious as the next guy had they been born in 15th century England, for example. As much as I'd like to believe I'm an athiest because I objectively examined the facts and with impecible and infallible logic and came to the conclusion that god does not exist from the evidence, it's simply not true I do believe athiesm is a lot more grounded in logic and truth than religion, but anyone who thinks they do not believe what they believe due to their desires, to some degree, is just plain deluded as far as I'm concerned To different people different beliefs represent different things. I don't want to believe in god. Having been raised in a safe, warm, middle class environment with loving, supportive parents and access to good education and all sorts of other opportunities it was attractive to me to believe that I was the master of my own destiny. That I could and would achieve what I set my mind to and no one else would have a part in my success or failure. I didn't need or want a god in my life to judge me and to whom I would have to give scrutiny over my actions.
To someone born into poverty and disease and very little realistic chance of getting out of that, the attractions of religion and god are obvious and many.
I'm not saying I don't think I'm right in my belief that god does not exist (if I was unsure of that I would call myself agnostic or something ) I'm just saying I think every profound philosphical belief has a strong element of desire in it. So as situations and circumstances change, people's beliefs change with them. That's why the widowed christian turns athiest, that's why people in prison find god. One of the factors at least.
Geez, and I said all that even after saying I would dole out my opinions in bite sized portions I would apologise for rambling, but it would be a waste of time I'm sure as you all stopeed reading long ago. TitsbumpussycocklickPINNumber6787fuckshit

 

[rambling man]

I read the article in Newsweek that talked about that Pyper, and it gave food for thoughts..


It could be that God exists and that is why the brain is structured in that way.

I do not believe that atheism is linked to the structure of the brain. I think it has cultural origins. The main origin is rationality. Newton, an intensely religious man, described a universe with no need for God (inadvertently) the resulting trend towards rational thought (like the proverbial Missourian's demand to "Show me") undermined the belief system of Christianity and also changed its belief structures permanently.

Another, more minor, origin is hedonistic. If you do not believe that a figure who holds your post life future in the palm of His hand exists, then you can do any damned thing you want within the constraints of whatever human legal system exists for you. No consequences.

On the other hand, many children of athiests have developed into extremely religious people, seeking out a spirituality they missed out on growing up. This and the lapsed Catholic idea may indicate as much the child rebelling against their parents as anything, trying to establish a separate identity from their parents....this is a natural part of growing up but it shapes the rest of a person's life


Just a few thoughts, take them or leave them

 

[Closet Desire]

Then again...

...many of the atheists I have known have a better developed sense of morality AND follow it more closely than most Christians I have known. What's more they did so in an understated way and without an attitude of "look at me--I'm such a good Chrisitan."

 

[rambling man]

Sunday Christians, weekday Machiavellians are the biggest hypocrites out there. They do more to hurt the churches and the good people in them than a billion athiests could ever do.

My stepgrandmother was the ideal Christian, worked with charities, would give anyone anythign if they were in need, the strongest word she had for anyone was "monkey's uncle" From her that was worse than any epithet from an ordinary person. She didn't just do right because God said so, she did right because she was a truly saintly person.
My grandfather (blood, not step)also was ideal. He fought for his country in WWII as an officer in the army air force, served his town as a dentist and worked with Covenant House and Habitat for Humanity as well as being a pillar of his church.

What do they have in common besides their lifelong efforts to be good Christians and good human beings? Both are suffering in third stage Alzheimer's. God can be cruel to His best followers, but it doesn't mean He is not there or does not work for good in the big picture...

This is my opinion and please do not take it as a counterpoint argument against atheism...

 

[KillerMuffin]

Firstly, catholicism and others aren't two separate denominations of the same religion, they're arguably two different religions. One worships God and the Virgin Mary through saints and papal intervention. The other just worships God. That's why there was a lot of blood shed over the issue.

Secondly, I don't think it that the premise of religion being hardwired into the brain is a reasonable one. The analogy of serial killers is rather simple. Once you're a serial killer, you don't ever stop being a serial killer. You may have the mental aptitude for the serial killing thing and never actually do it, but once you start being a serial killer, you only stop when you're caught or you die. This comes from John Douglas et al., the foremost serial killer experts in the world. Once you start being a catholic, you can stop and become an atheist. You may not know why, but you can be. This comes from Pyper. People can, and have changed religions and then gone to no religion and remained that way. This argues choice, not hardwiring.

 

[Closet Desire]

I don't mind...

...if a person is Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, atheist, Buddist, Hindu, Moslem, or whatever. If they are a good person who cares about their fellows...then I'm impressed.

 

[rambling man]

right...if a person is good towards his fellow man, he goes to heaven period, no matter what he believes

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

The projection of a race or individual with preternatural powers over life, death and judgement is absolutely hard-wired into our nature. God is as old as the first proto-human who wondered what the hell the moon was and could it help him find food.

And there's no chance that an atheist doesn't possess the same biological need for prayer, reflection and petition. I'm an atheist. I experience the need for God as much as anyone else.

The compulsion for ethereal is not contained in a gene that can be cut out of an individual's chemical composition; it's much, much deeper than that. It's as deep as the need for water.

As Joseph Campbell once said, everyone on earth is looking for the same thing, the experience of being alive. And nothing brings us closer to the absolute metaphysical awareness of breathing in and out than a profound connection to the Father Creator.

 

[Pyper]

Wow, Dixon comes out of left-field with an opposing opinion.

Great discussion, you guys, but I'm still leaning toward the biological religion theory. My anthropological background lets me view it with some additional information.

One: If religion is completely cultural, why is it a cultural universal? A cultural universal is an anthropological term to describe a cultural practice that exists in every society in the world. Marriage is another example. The idea about cultural universals is that they go beyond just mental states, and are, if I may use the term again, hard-wired into our biology. Someone (sorry, can't remember who) proposed that religion only pops up when people need hope, or are having bad times. That isn't true. Every single culture in the world has religion, no matter how prosperous or how poor. There are a few individuals who don't go along with the religion, which brings us back to why they don't, and we've come full circle.

Two: I don't truly believe that religion is a "choice". I didn't "choose" to stop believing in God at the age of thirteen any more that I chose to stop believing in Santa Claus at the age of six. It was more like, "Hey! Wait a minute...there is no God!" No, the Catholic religion did not cause me to become embittered, as someone suggested. My experiences with Catholicism were all good (if a bit boring), and when people asked me later if Catholicism tried to make me feel guilty, I was like, "What the hell are you talking about?" I even still go to church once in a while, I suppose to fulfil that need for ritual.

No one has yet given me a satisfactory answer as to why someone like myself, raised devoutly (but not zealously) religious, would become an atheist, yet most other people in the exact same situation would not. I refuse to believe that the religious are somehow less intelligent. I have known many people as intelligent as myself, and many people far more intelligent, who are very religious. I came across an article once that proposed that atheists had a superior ability for rational thought, which could be true, but I find that this also gets into the dangerous territory of atheist elitism.

Right now I'm still more inclined to buy the biological theory than anything else.

 

[rambling man]

I still say that a child seeks ways to establish its identity from its parents and many use religion or the lack thereof to do it. Separating your identity from your parent's is a biological imperative (whether you keep mooching off of them or not) Of course some kids will use other means besides religion to separate their identity from their parents.

There is an easier way to explain religion as a cultural universal without a "religion circuit" in the brain, but that explanation is not going to appeal to you....

Great topic and great discussion!

 

[Weird Harold]

I even still go to church once in a while, I suppose to fulfil that need for ritual.

No one has yet given me a satisfactory answer as to why someone like myself, raised devoutly (but not zealously) religious, would become an atheist, yet most other people in the exact same situation would not. I refuse to believe that the religious are somehow less intelligent.

You mention your "need for ritual" is not fulfilld by being and Atheist. Could it be that you rejected Catholocism because the rituals and beliefs just didn't fit your needs -- ie more ritual than you need?

Just as every person has different needs for adventure, art, sex, etc, in their life, some people need more ritual than others. I suppose that there is a biological explantion for those differences if you dig deep enough. Every person is a unique combination of biological factors, which are shaped and trained by the nurturing they receive in their formative years. Your nurturing include Catholicism, but your nature doesn't need the detailed ritual of that particular religion. Until you find some religion that fits the amount of ritual that suits your needs, you're an "atheist." You may someday find that Budhism, Zen, or some other religion fits both your nature and your nurturing.

As an an example, I was raised as a Methodist, but now consider myself a "pantheistic agnostic." I found that I don't need much ritual at all in my life. While every religion has some aspect that I agree with, none fits my needs perfectly -- so I've formed my own personal religion of one that doesn't require any organization or intercession by others. I do feel a need to believe in something greater than I, but I don't feel a need to share my vision with (or force it on,) others.


In summary, I think there is a biological predispostion to believe in some religion, but it is so varied in direction and depth that is is of no more consequence than hair or eye color is in directing a person' life.

 

[Doulton]

To Pyper

I don't quite see your confusion over religion being a cultrual universal. I was thinking I would bring up the example of marriage before you did it yourself All humans have some things in common, so it is inevitable that some of the behaviours that stem from those characteristics will be universal. We all have feet and bipedal spines (or something, don't ask me about the specifics of the biology ) so we all learn to walk. Asking why religion forms in two seperate cultures that are totally isolated is the same as asking why the two societies both develop the ability to walk, rather than one of them being content to crawl about or lounge in bed all day. Just as we would all prefer to walk upright, we all want answers, we all want meaning, so we all develop religion.
Why did you escape the catholic faith when many others in your situation didn't? Well as Harold said, we are all unique. There could be any number of reasons in your specific case. I too know people who are very intelligent and religious, but even though there is not a direct co-relation between intelligence and atheism, doesn't necessarily mean it's not a factor. I'm not saying it's the explanation full stop, but I do think that what you read about atheists having a better ability to reason on average is probably true. Although to a large extent that is probably a result of their belief as much as a cause. And as much as I don't like to repeast myself, I think it is also to do with what needs religion satisfies for you (someone else also said something like this a post or two back, Harold or Rambling man?) Their example about an overdose of ritual I think is certainly a possibility. I think there is too much room for flexibilty in people for something like religion or atheism to be a result of a missing or present part of the brain.

Oh, and one more thing. You say "My anthropological background". What is that refering to? Just curious