the science of belief

[rone]

I've been meaning to share this with you for months now, but i kept forgetting.  Something whipartist posted reminded me about it.

Despite the vast number of religions, nearly everyone in the world believes in the same things: the existence of a soul, an afterlife, miracles, and the divine creation of the universe.  Recently psychologists doing research on the minds of infants have discovered two related facts that may account for this phenomenon.  One: human beings come into the world with a predisposition to believe in supernatural phenomena.  And two: this predisposition is an incidental by-product of cognitive functioning gone awry.

The companion interview to this article, "Wired for Creationism?", should also be read.

Comments

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

They are either pre-disposed to desire an explanation of cause and therefore find their answers in Biblical creation, or they are content to relish their causeless existence and are accepting of whatever the universe may throw at them, and therefore become atheists.

I think that you're clumsily polarizing the issue. There are plenty of theists who are well acquainted with science.

Science has hardly explained away creation myths; they're still myths that function just fine as metaphors. In a way, one could say that science explains how God created us. But that doesn't make the stories less valid, unless you're a literalist idiot.

Is it possible that mankind has evolved to the point where he no longer needs a god?

It's plain that mankind has not (and i definitely think you're wrong about a "huge up-swing in modern atheism", unless you're talking about the doubling of a tiny percentage). Have we taken the first steps towards that? Perhaps. As i see it, though, the important thing is not to abandon God, but to embrace Man.

[filthy-habit.livejournal.com]

Indeed, I do have Xtian friends who embrace science as valid within the context of their interpretation of Biblical creation, thereby relegating god to a mere "metaphor" for creation. Such churches do exist and are almost always benign (as in not very politically active, unlike the fundamentalist fringe, those literalist idiots). What god does for these people is basically what I've said: It gives them a cause and a purpose, and through that, some form of comfort that they apparently feel that they need. Raw science, of course, is unable to provide those types of comforts, yet despite this, they embrace the validity of scientific method and work it into the fabric of their religion. All of this supports the notion that these people may be hardwired for some form of religion.

I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Personally, I cannot understand the need for the comfort of religion, but I am sympathetic to others who feel they are more centered because of it. I even believe such people are capable of working in the sciences, since their religious belief does not trump their ability to function rationally when confronted with a reality that might conflict with their religious dogma. I'm okay with all of this.

As I've often said, what one "believes" about creation (and other things) has little consequence in anyone's day-to-day life other than how they perceive the world themselves. If they think the sky is pink, then so be it. And so it is as it should be, even when they tend to be wrong. These are inconsequential beliefs, and the consequences of being right or wrong are minimal, if there are any consequences at all. It is only when they become dogmatic about it and become a malignant force that I feel the need to put my foot down and say enough is enough.