Suffering leads to belief in god
It seems misery loves supernatural explanations…
Excerpt from “Bering in Mind”’s God’s in Mississippi, where the gettin’ is good:
…. In an article soon to be published in Personality and Social Psychology Review , Harvard psychologists Kurt Gray and Daniel Wegner argue that human suffering and God go hand-in-hand because our evolved cognitive systems are inherently unsatisfied with “sh*t happens” types of explanations (that is to say, reality). The main gist of their argument is that, since we’re such a deeply social species, when bad things happen to us we immediately launch a search for the responsible human party. In being morally vigilant this way–in seeking to identify the culpable party–we can effectively punish blameworthy, antisocial people, thus preserving our group’s functional cohesion and preserving each individual’s genetic interests. That’s all fine and dandy, say Gray and Wegner, when someone punches us in the face, steals from us or sleeps with our girlfriend; but when our misfortune is more “abstract” (think cancer or a tsunami) and there’s no obvious single human agent to blame, we see the hand of God.
Your brain on religion
Religion can be very useful: reduced stress, lower anxiety, improved cognitive abilities. But nothing comes without a price: religion hinders the ability to fix your mistakes.
From The Globe and Mail, March 5, 2009:
This is your brain on religion
Believers record lower levels of anxiety, which can boost performance but also hinder the ability to fix mistakes, study finds
Politics drives religion
Decoding God’s Changing Moods
Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World
Humans have a tendency to see patterns in everything, even when there is none (“patternicity”); there is also the tendency to assume there is an agent causing actions (“agenticity”), explained in the article below. I am thinking that the “agenticity” could be an extension of our “patternicity” — since we see the pattern of cause-effect so often, when we do not see the cause, we make it up (the invisible agents). What do you think?
From Scientific American Magazine - May 19, 2009
Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World
A Skeptic’s take on souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens and other invisible powers that be
By Michael Shermer
Superstition, Ritual And Conspiracies
I believe religion (and superstition etc.) arose to help humans feel more in control in situations where they had none (Why Religion?). This research by Jennifer A. Whitson and Adam D. Galinsky found that lack of control indeed increases our brains’ ability to see patterns, even when there aren’t any. So it is all about control (or lack thereof) after all…
The original research article (Lacking Control Increases Illusionary Pattern Perception) abstract:
The science of religion
The science of religion
From The Economist print edition
Science and religion have often been at loggerheads. Now the former has decided to resolve the problem by trying to explain the existence of the latter
Read more »
In search of Truth
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality. — Albert Einstein
Humans have a strong urge to find the “truth”. I think that’s an evolutionary trait helpful in gaining control — the “truth” allows for better predictions hence you have more control over your situation and have a better chance of survival/reproductive success. But due to our limited knowledge and limited perceptions there is no way we can find the ultimate, actual truth about anything. What we do is form a model that fits within our limited knowledge, and use it as the ultimate truth. A better approach would be to use the model as a predictor, and watch for a superior predictor to replace it, knowing that neither is likely to be the real truth. Einstein’s quote above puts this idea succinctly.
It sounds like scientists would all have this approach, but human nature intervenes — most believe their models (theories) are the truth and will argue vigourously to defend it as such. I’d much rather they’d argue to defend their theories as being the best predictors they know of. The difference in approach should give one an open mind to improvements.
Those whose beliefs of “truth” comes from a book (such as creationists) would benefit the most from this approach, as models in such books are not useful for prediction. Their vigourous arguments to defend their truth rests solely on discrediting other models. By not being able to predict properly with their useless models, they give up control over their lives.
What your brain looks like on faith
Study examining how the brain processes belief.
“…within the brain pan, at least, the distinction between objective and subjective is not so clear-cut. Although more complex assertions may get analyzed in so-called “higher” areas of the brain, all seem to get their final stamp of “belief” or disbelief in “primitive” locales traditionally associated with emotions or taste and odor…”
Why religion?
I always wondered about how religion started. I am currently of the opinion that the most important factor was the human tendency for having as much control as possible (evolutionarily a very positive behaviour), and where impossible, invent a semblance of control (as in praying to a god). It’s obvious that religion provides numerous other benefits too. This article postulates that religion promotes cooperation, which would certainly provide a huge evolutionary benefit. Maybe there is a gene for faith? If there is, I certainly do not have it…
Here is the article:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070723/full/070723-6.html
The creationists’ Ark
A few days ago I was reading Robert Cringely’s comment on the opening of the Creation Museum. The first reader response is by a fervent creationist who included a reference to “a global flood that destroyed and buried most land-dwelling creatures on the earth.”
Which got me thinking.
About
Although it started out as a means of practising expressing myself, this blog is turning out to be more of a compendium of interesting information I come across. One of these days I’ll have to actually write something as opposed to cut and paste. 
