Hardwired for Religion?

[Tladatsi]

?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1864748,00.html

[Crow]

?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1864748,00.html

I've read that idea before. A news magazine, I think Time, ran it a few years ago.

"I think it is pointless to think that we can get people to abandon their belief systems because they are operating at such a fundamental level," said Prof Hood. "No amount of rational evidence is going to be taken on board to get people to abandon those ideas."

Obviously there are people who were formerly theists who have become atheists and vice versa. I'm one of the people who has swapped sides. Incidentially, I'm also one of the ones who would take him up on his offer to wear the sweater. Does that mean my "hardware" is working intermittantly or that it's highly selective?

You could take interpret this in a number of ways, from "this is why people accept the idea of a god even though it's not real" to "God created us this way for a purpose."

It's an interesting concept, none the less.

Interesting.

[Yonkth'Plonk]

I think the article - quite unfairly - equates symbolism with irrationality. Nobody I know views someone who treasures a wedding ring as irrational. In fact, the opposite is usually the case. I'd view someone who threw away his wedding ring because it was "just a ring" as a little unbalanced, perhaps repressing emotions that should be expressed. The ring is symbolic of a very real love, just as the cardigan becomes symbolic of an unthinkable act. I wouldn't wear the cardigan, not because I'm afraid of some sort of curse, but because I want nothing to do with murder.

It's true that many of our beliefs are not entirely "rational" if you ignore the emotional/psychological/symbolic causes and motivations behind them, but it's not necessarily rational to do so.

I think Pascal said it better:

"The heart has its reasons of which Reason knows nothing."

[Tladatsi]

That is a really good quote and your points are well taken. I think the article was written in a somewhat inflamatory fashion, more or less equating religion with superstition. However, underneath the eye-catching word smithing is an intriguing concept - is there a special part ( are there special parts) of our brain that listen for God's voice? Is there some part of us that scans what we see, hear, smell, feel, and taste, expecting to find evidence of God (or gods, or spirits, or the some greater meaning beyond ourselves). I am sure that some would see such a cerebrial function cynically, religion is nothing more than peoples enslavement to archaic remements of primitive life. Perhaps it is no different from our ears, adapted to hear something what do not know what but that it is there.


I think the article - quite unfairly - equates symbolism with irrationality. Nobody I know views someone who treasures a wedding ring as irrational. In fact, the opposite is usually the case. I'd view someone who threw away his wedding ring because it was "just a ring" as a little unbalanced, perhaps repressing emotions that should be expressed. The ring is symbolic of a very real love, just as the cardigan becomes symbolic of an unthinkable act. I wouldn't wear the cardigan, not because I'm afraid of some sort of curse, but because I want nothing to do with murder.

It's true that many of our beliefs are not entirely "rational" if you ignore the emotional/psychological/symbolic causes and motivations behind them, but it's not necessarily rational to do so.

I think Pascal said it better:

"The heart has its reasons of which Reason knows nothing."

[Tickle Me Mercury]

?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1864748,00.html

Odd. I wish I had seen the Time magazine article though, probably more expansive. Now, I have long wondered about the "primitive" people explination for theism. It's often the mantra of the cynical to simply write off all religious belief as unenlightened man's attempt to explain the unexplained.

But is that so? Is there any reason to suspect that, given a blank cultural slate, people would natural gravitate towards an irrational conclusion over an attempt at rationality?

[Yonkth'Plonk]

That is a really good quote and your points are well taken. I think the article was written in a somewhat inflamatory fashion, more or less equating religion with superstition. However, underneath the eye-catching word smithing is an intriguing concept - is there a special part ( are there special parts) of our brain that listen for God's voice? Is there some part of us that scans what we see, hear, smell, feel, and taste, expecting to find evidence of God (or gods, or spirits, or the some greater meaning beyond ourselves). I am sure that some would see such a cerebrial function cynically, religion is nothing more than peoples enslavement to archaic remements of primitive life. Perhaps it is no different from our ears, adapted to hear something what do not know what but that it is there.

I remember watching a documentary which referred to a rather interesting experiment. Scientists were stimulating various areas of the human brain (just to see what happens when you poke this bit, y'know) and found that when a specific area (I forget which bit of which cortex) was stimulated, the subject was overcome by an overwhelming sense that God was in the room.

The makers of the documentary saw this as proof that such experiences are the result of an evolved reaction of the brain and not of supernatural phenomena (such as God actually being in the room.) Presumably this brain state somehow selects for human survival, perhaps by rewarding better behaviour with religious ecstasy.

I'm rather inclined to disagree with this conclusion. Proving that a mental state can be falsely induced doesn't mean that it can never be validly induced. An electrode in my brain creating a sensation of intense hunger does not disprove the existance of food. Rather the opposite in fact.

So yes, it seems that there are some portions of the brain that react to God, thus validating our religious experience. Or, on the other hand, there are portions of the brain that are hardwired to fool us into thinking God exists, invalidating it. It all depends on the answer you presuppose when you approach the problem.

[Little Shepherd]

I'd wear the sweater. I mean, 10 pounds is like 23 US dollars. I don't care who wore it first, so long as it's been cleaned(assuming he did any of the messy bits while wearing it).

[Abigail]

I dont see why not wearing the jumper is irrational. Fred West was awful and his crimes heinous so anyone knowing whose jumper it was would continually have their thoughts brought back to him. If they wore the jumper it would be an experience they would probably remember. Who wants the likes of fred West popping into mind more often than is absolutely necessary.

[Questor]

?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1864748,00.html


NEWS FLASH!!! Bruce Hood of Bristol University has discovered that emotions affect people's behaviour!!!! :twitch:


This article simply shows negative (or positive which is not even discussed here) emotions have an affect on our choices. There is nothing here to even remotely state we are "hardwired for religion"..instead he is simply highlighting that beliefs can and often are deeply rooted with (not to) our emotions.