Is belief in God a natural instinct ?

[Annik]

I'm hesitant to enter this conversation, because I sort of know the answer, but it's not simple. The human brain has a lot of biological quirks that make it easy to invent/believe in a god (both at once). The short answer is "yes", but calling it an instinct isn't really the proper word. It's more of a combination of how we think of things as children and then a slew of evolutionary left-overs than make our brains leap to certain conclusions. Social cues are a factor as well.


EDIT: I also want to point out that critical thinking can defeat these "left-overs". Our ancestors didn't have the tools of explanation that we do now.

[mr.atheist]

I'm hesitant to enter this conversation, because I sort of know the answer, but it's not simple. The human brain has a lot of biological quirks that make it easy to invent/believe in a god (both at once). The short answer is "yes", but calling it an instinct isn't really the proper word. It's more of a combination of how we think of things as children and then a slew of evolutionary left-overs than make our brains leap to certain conclusions. Social cues are a factor as well.


EDIT: I also want to point out that critical thinking can defeat these "left-overs". Our ancestors didn't have the tools of explanation that we do now.

Yeah that's along the lines of what I was thinking.

[Angrboda]

Here's a reference which parallels the type of stuff that Thompson presents live and in his book, and apparently the reference to children spontaneously inventing the God concept is Petrovich, 2009, but this article doesn't drill down into what Petrovich is basing that statement upon. I may or may not search further in the context of this thread. (I've got a book to read by Tuesday which I haven't started, so no promises.)

Born believers: How Your Brain Creates God (from New Scientist) (I haven't fully read this yet, but as noted, I have other irons that need to be in the fire.)

[John V]

We are pattern seeking as a species. That is the natural part. However it is also natural for us to fill gaps and fool ourselves. We've dreamed up all sorts of superstions that most dont belive in now.

Always amazes me that atheists can see this tendency in application to religion, but never consider whether it's applicable to evolution.

[festive1]

We are pattern seeking as a species. That is the natural part. However it is also natural for us to fill gaps and fool ourselves. We've dreamed up all sorts of superstions that most dont belive in now.

Always amazes me that atheists can see this tendency in application to religion, but never consider whether it's applicable to evolution.

Of course it's applicable to evolution. A shared culture (including religion) helps people to form a cohesive society, which allows larger, biologically sustainable groups to form. Want a modern-day reference? Look at the Amish. They are a relatively small group that only marries and therefore mates within itself. Because of this, they have become susceptible to genetic mutations. In this group, it's having more than 10 fingers. Compared to the general public, the Amish have this trait in greater percentages.

[The Grand Nudger]

Always amazes me that atheists can see this tendency in application to religion, but never consider whether it's applicable to evolution.

Do you need someone to explain what evolution is again John?

[Faith No More]

That'd be a bit like explaining to a dog why it shouldn't shit on the carpet. It's better to just swat it in the ass and rub its nose in it.

[mr.atheist]

Here's a reference which parallels the type of stuff that Thompson presents live and in his book, and apparently the reference to children spontaneously inventing the God concept is Petrovich, 2009, but this article doesn't drill down into what Petrovich is basing that statement upon. I may or may not search further in the context of this thread. (I've got a book to read by Tuesday which I haven't started, so no promises.)

Born believers: How Your Brain Creates God (from New Scientist) (I haven't fully read this yet, but as noted, I have other irons that need to be in the fire.)

Thanks for the link ,much appreciated.It was an interesting read and it helped to better understand the subject.

[John V]

Always amazes me that atheists can see this tendency in application to religion, but never consider whether it's applicable to evolution.

Of course it's applicable to evolution. A shared culture (including religion) helps people to form a cohesive society, which allows larger, biologically sustainable groups to form. Want a modern-day reference? Look at the Amish. They are a relatively small group that only marries and therefore mates within itself. Because of this, they have become susceptible to genetic mutations. In this group, it's having more than 10 fingers. Compared to the general public, the Amish have this trait in greater percentages.

Huh? This has nothing to do with my point. To clarify, I'm pointing out that fitting data into patterns is a big part of the study of evolution.

---

Do you need someone to explain what evolution is again John?

If you're denying that the study of evolution involves fitting data to patterns, uh, yes, I need that explained.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Fitting" data into a pattern can be the first -and most minor- step in forming a theory, that would be the hypothesis ( and the less "fitting" that has to be done by the person proposing it the better..btw). Whether or not we fit data into a pattern is meaningless unless we can demonstrate the accuracy of the data and the existence of the pattern exterior to our own proposition. This is where the heavy lifting (and overwhelming majority of scientific endeavor) occurs. To be completely blunt, the scientific method is what it is precisely to insulate us from this pattern seeking bullshit that leads some of us to conclude wizards in the absence of wizardry. What you seem intent on ignoring, in your ill-thought out comparison, is that the only similarity between the two is that "human beings do stuff"..........

None of this applies to evolution itself, of course...because it requires no hypothesis. It is an observation. "Studying evolution" in it's broadest sense, since you have been so broad, is a simple act of gathering specimens. Whether or not a pattern exists or the observed change -that we call evolution- is random, or whether the data fits either scenario is another thing entirely. That would be the "by" header in "Evolution by Natural Selection", for example.

So no, John, it isn't a big part of either studying evolution....or proposing it's various mechanisms. But I love how your statement went from "a big part" to "involves" in one post. Which one of these two would you like to explore more thoroughly? I think I've explained why it's not a big part...and how little involvement it has (if any, it depends on the specifics) as a consequence of doing so. If I haven't, feel free to dig deeper.