(From the Daily Telegraph, London, by Richard Alleyne, 7 September 2009)

Humans may have evolved to believe in god and superstitions because it helps them to co-ordinate group action better, scientists claimed.
Religion became a survival instinct, according to researchers who studied the way brains develop from childhood and behave during spiritual experiences.

Groups of humans with religious tendencies benefitted from their beliefs, perhaps because they co-operated and had a greater chance of survival.
They thrived compared to their atheist relatives and, after many years, the instinct was passed on in their genes.

The findings challenge campaigners against organised religion, such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. He has argued that religious beliefs result from poor education and childhood “indoctrination.”

Prof. Bruce Hood, a psychologist at Bristol University, has suggested that religion is similar to children’s belief in imaginary friends. He said: “Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works. As they grow up, they overlay these beliefs with more rational approaches but the tendency to illogical supernatural beliefs remains as religion.”

Prof. Hood, who will present his findings at the British Association’s annual meeting this week, sees organised religion as just one of many supernatural beliefs. In one study, he found that even atheists balked at the idea of accepting an organ transplant from a murderer, because of a superstitious belief that an individual’s personality could be stored in their genes. “This shows how superstition is hard-wired into our brains”, he said.

Views: 728

Replies to This Discussion

US EDUCATION

The video fails to identify the real problem. Instead it comes up with the reasons that the average American thinks are responsible for failure of US schools. These are almost entirely mythical. While people continue to try to address the wrong things education will not improve in the US.

There are many industrialized countries whose educational system outranks that of the US who have good State-run schools and a zoning system which restricts students to the school in their area. Lack of competition is not the problem.

The percentage of students who do well on external measures is not an indication of how good the teaching is at the school. It depends far more on the intellectual ability of the student population. The real measure is how the students perform relative to their tested intellectual ability. If gifted students perform at or slightly above the national norm then the teaching at the school is bad. If intellectually impaired kids perform at average to slighly below average levels then the teaching at the school is good. Comparing the average scores for both schools would lead the naive reader to the opposite conclusion.

There are several real problems.

1. There is no national curriculum and external educational standards which all schools and students have to conform to. US lobby groups are strongly against such things on the grounds that “teachers would only teach to the test”. So? That’s how it is done in countries that consistently out-perform the US on educational achievement measures.

2. Elementary teaching relies heavily on the input of parents as co-teachers. When students fail the teachers blame the fact that the parents don’t help the students with their homework or their reading. In better performing countries teaching is restricted to those with formal qualifications in the area.

3. School performance is ordered according to the average performance level of its students. This is a highly unreliable indicator of the school’s actual performance in relation to its students. The easiest way for a school to appear excellent under this type of measure is for the school to restrict its student population to those with high IQs and families with high socio-economic standing. The surest way for a school to appear to be bad on this measure is to accept a majority of students with low IQs and specific and general learning disabilities, especially if these are accompanied by membership of families with poor socio-economic standing.

A realistic indice would be the extent to which its students perform on national norms (or better still, international norms) in relation to their tested intellectual ability at the commencement of that year.

4. School performance is measured on the basis of values which are not a reflection of student’s performances compared with others of their age and level on a national or global basis. Class rank and grade-point average, for example, depend on both the standard and level of other children in the class and on the grading practices of the teacher. A bright student in a class of gifted children may rank very low in that class. High grade-point averages are often a reflection of parental pressure on teachers to give their student good grades or be fired by the school for being “poor teachers”. The only reliable indication of how a student actually performs is his or her performance on nationally or internationally normed tests concerned with actual subject content, not just general achievement-type content. The best indicators are performance on internationally graded tests (because they cannot be influenced by local authorities with vested interests) such as the International Bacchelaueate Diploma examinations. The next best are US College Board Subject (not general) SAT examinations, followed by AP examinations. Compared with the international alternatives, these are not as comprehensively advanced (more restricted syllabuses, too much emphasis on fact regurgitation) or as reliable (they are periodically re-written and dumbed down to allow for the nation’s declining scholastic performance) but at least they have the advantage of being nationally normed and externally examined.

5. School and college credit is based on the amount of time a student spends learning a subject area, not on the level of achievement which they can demonstrate at its completion. Measures like “two years of High School Spanish”, “100 contact hours of mathematics” and “three semesters of psychology” is a very poor measure of a student’s actual knowledge base.

The school and college industries like these measurements because they equate a student’s academic level with the amount of money required to get there. Where there are “test out” options these are also expensive. While US schools and colleges are run primarily as businesses none of them are going to support measures which improve the quality of US schools to international standards, especially if they are required by law to admit students at the level at which they have actually reached. Most colleges cap their allowable credit at one year. This is a strong discouragement for any US student to complete an International Bacchelaureate Diploma. High scores on a science-orientated IB Diploma will get a US student into international professional schools of medicine, dentistry, veterinary science and the like. Many of these qualifications (Britian, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, etc.) are issued as Bachelor named degrees. Other students must have completed, or nearly completed, a US College level Bachelor degree ot commence such international level Professional Bachelor degrees. For commercial reasons, no US professional school will currently recognize this difference in educational level.
Jacqueline, I agree that one of the largest problems concerning education (and health care, etc.) has a lot to do with U.S. classism and elitism. I have come to the conclusion that it is a crime to be poor and without influence in the US. It is also a crime to be black or Latino. It is also a crime to be here on an H1 visa or be a family member of someone who is. There is so much prejudice here, either barely under the surface or horrifically blatant.

As is true in any society, the less education a person has, the more prejudice they display. Fortunately, the converse is true.
The problem is he concludes that religion is a beneficial trait we inherit from our genes.

That does seem ridiculously Lamarckian. No one has ever proven that acquired traits become a part of our inheritable DNA; quite the opposite. Rupert Sheldrake's theories of Morphic Resonance make far more sense to me.

And generalizing that irrational devotion to some imaginary "god" figure (OR some despotic political leader) is automatically beneficial is demonstrable nonsense. Hitchens' book: "God is Not Great" is replete with examples of the hideous aftermath of blind allegiance to some "faith". Political history is the same.

I recently heard it said that humans murder their own species en masse far more than any other species on the planet. I can't help but associate this behavior with mob allegiance to some real or imaginary leader... (i.e. religion) ... and is it passed on in our DNA that when some megalomaniacal human being becomes intoxicated with his own power, he usually ends up claiming that he is either actually a "god" or at least partially descended from him/them? Caligula comes to mind. So do the pharaohs of Egypt.

When arguing with theists, one of my favorite sarcasms is to suggest that perhaps religiously motivated warfare is "Gawd's plan for population control". Har har har.

Meanwhile, Hitchens informs us that Catholic missionaries in Africa teach the faithful never to use condoms. Hence, the spread of AIDS. Now theres a benefit (not...).

Are those happy claimants that religion is somehow a social benefit ignorant of all this bloody history? Or do they think that the fact we have STILL managed to overpopulate the Earth in spite of murdering each other on behalf of a plethora of secular and/or divine leaders somehow proves that religion has insured human survival? What an ironic joke. They have no idea how ridiculous they are... at least to the disillusioned and cynical "intelligencia" among us. Har har har.

OMHO, only lust insures human survival.

I know no one who watched their parents doing anything sexual. If we didn't watch farm animals or cats and dogs, we watched movies and read D. H. Laurence and fumbled around until we figured it out.

When I was 9, a boy in the back of the school bus gently invited me to put my hand down his trousers and fondle him. It was fun, and very interesting. It is always intriguing to pleasure someone... and more so when it seems forbidden, and makes one tingle in certain places. THAT is what is passed on in our DNA. And THAT has been all that is really necessary, lol.

No matter how many soldiers have been blown away on the battlefields of the ages, people still manage to fuck enough more of them into existence to fill the ranks of the next army.

Some religions attempt to stifle sexuality, and other religions exhort their ranks to go forth and multiply. But no matter what the god de jour supposedly says, people still figure out how do it, whether they saw their parents doing it or not. Religion, it seems to me, makes no difference at all in the long run.
Exactly. I think other posters missed this.
I can relate to these findings, people then used faith give things a place, it was some kind of soothing for the mind if you will, nowadays I would call that the placebo effect, but in times when knowledge wasn’t accessible for the commoners faith came the nearest for explaining how and why.. Strangely is that children can rid themselves of their believes in Santa clause or the Easter bunny because common sense kicks in, not for believers though, they still keep claiming that their view of things is just because generations of generation upon claimed it was so. We (in 2009) have the luxurious position to enrich ourselves with knowledge and have a great understanding of all things around us, and if we don’t know something for sure we have the means of investigating it and come to an conclusion. Or even easier we can trust on scientists to give us the answers. Anyways my point is in old times religion may have helped people overcome some difficult answers that they might have had then , but nowadays that isn’t necessary because we have learned so much since then and we can do fine without religious explanation for everything. If the bible or the Koran (or any holy scripture) was truly inspired by divine dictations then the authors sure as hell could have put some basic facts in it about the working of our world and the way that we as a species look to it.. Example: they could have mentioned that the Earth was round in stead of flat. The could have given a simple explanation of the theory of relativity to define matter light… Or give mention of the fact that bacteria make you sick and proper hygiene prevent you getting sick.. (that could have prevented the black plague which killed millions of believers) all these thing weren’t mentioned in fact the holy books are more full of stories about men and woman who lived their lives, and you might say the holy books dictate a way of living. That’s why people accepted them easier I think.
then all religious dogma is effectively reduced to purely human attempts to understand the natural world they inhabit.

Nate, don't forget the social and political aspects of religion. In the 15- and 1600s, religion was central to government and a means to power. Religion is a lot more than an explanation of life.
Yes, Richard. I understand all of that. I'm not by any means romanticizing or glorifying religion. My point is that I don't believe that Prof. Hood is either. The 16th and 17th century religion you refer to was the product of an attempt to centralize religious thought, making it more useful to government. I enjoyed Jonathan Kirsch's God Against the Gods that explains nicely the shift from pagan polytheism that was in many cases celebratory of life towards the much more controlling state-approved monotheism.
Doesn't the idea that "humans may have evolved to believe in god and superstitions because it helps them to co-ordinate group action better" smack of Lamarckism? How can ideas and behaviors we pick up during our lifetimes (that seem to require heavy-handed indoctrination) get folded back into our DNA? Religion may be a result of cultural evolution, but it's clearly not caused in any meaningful sense by genetic evolution.

I know I'm going out on a limb, here, but I agree with Dawkins. Religion is a by-product of the human capacity for pattern-matching as a survival tool, coupled with the fact that false positives are generally not as dangerous to the individual as failing to notice a pattern at all. Mistakenly ascribing thunder to a supernatural agency is easy to do on one's own. Religion requires culture. Theory of mind completely explains animism, and it seems likely to me that animals with big brains extrapolate from their inner experience to think that similar animals are similarly endowed with thought and agency. I'm pretty sure my dog is an animist, given the suspicion with which he regards objects that appear to move on their own, even after they've stopped.
Doesn't the idea that "humans may have evolved to believe in god and superstitions because it helps them to co-ordinate group action better" smack of Lamarckism?

Lamarck's Revenge
Hmmm. Interesting. I have heard that some other changes may end up in germ cells, also. Intriguing.
I don't think so. I mean, do lions believe in a god? What about dolphins and orcas? If we have naturalistic explanations for group behavior in other social mammals why do we need to resort to a different explanation for humans?

Besides, to say that "superstition" is hardwired into our brains is a pretty heavy statement. Superstition is a concept, a condition that causes a person to believe something is true in the absence of evidence to the contrary (such as believing in rain gods when one doesn't have a scientific explanation for where rain comes from) or sometimes in spite of it (civilized city dwellers believing in crystal magic). It would be more accurate to say that our brains are hardwired to find explanations for phenomena we don't understand. It would also be accurate to say that humans evolved to tell stories. During the transition from ape to man social language (aka "conversation") replaced mutual grooming as the dominant form of social interaction. Put the two together and it's easy to see why so many cultures have religious beliefs.
It would be more accurate to say that our brains are hardwired to find explanations for phenomena we don't understand.

Nicely stated.

This is, in my opinion, what Prof. Hood is saying. Nothing about his comments suggests that we should cling to the delusions of the past. They're simply an explanation of the prevalence of religious belief over the ages. As knowledge increases, incorrect assumptions and superstitions are discarded.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service