We live in a world where it’s possible to question the very existence of God, even the supernatural altogether. Our world also contains many religions that, more often than not, tend to break out along ethnic and cultural boundaries. Most of these religions claim to be the one true way to win the “game” of life — whether that’s through reaching enlightenment, receiving salvation, etc.
So for the sake of argument, let’s say that there really is a God, and he’s given us one of these religions that we’re supposed to follow. As most of these religions teach, picking the wrong belief system will result in horrible punishment that is likely to last an eternity. I already see lots of problems with this scenario, but let’s ignore those for the moment.
How are we supposed to know which religion is the true one?
We’re not born with the luxury of knowing about all these religions from a young age. Instead, each of us is raised to believe that one of the options (or none of them) is the truth, so it’s not until we’re adults that we really begin to learn more about the wider world. And at that point, we have a lot of preconceived notions to overcome. But luckily, these religions usually teach that God is a benevolent being that wants every single one of us to find the path to him, so we can reasonably expect that he’ll help us find a way to him.
The most direct way to communicate something to someone is to speak to them directly. So God could choose that method to let us know what he expects of us. If you’re into video games, this is similar to the tutorial dialogs that pop up in your game to let you know the rules. It’s a helpful tool. You can still press whatever buttons you like, but at least you’ll know what’s expected.
Of course, God doesn’t do that for us. Fair enough — what’s another method he could use? Ah, he could send us some kind of “cosmic email” — writing in the sky, or something like that. You know, something that would be nigh impossible for another person to fake. The message would be accompanied by the kind of sign that would give us assurance we’re dealing with the divine. The burning bush, Gideon’s fleece, Paul’s episode on the road to Damascus, etc.
But if God does this kind of thing today, he’s not ubiquitous with it. I’ve never received a sign like that, nor have most people that I’ve ever known. I guess that’s his prerogative, but it does make one question the Bible’s passages that say God is impartial. But I’m starting to digress…
So maybe God could send us some trusted messenger. It would need to be someone that I know well, so I could really trust what they’re saying. But again, I’ve never gotten such a message, and I also know that even well meaning people can sometimes be delusional. I’m not sure I want to risk my soul on such a message delivery system.
So God could send a messenger imbued with divine powers, someone that could work miracles that could only come from God. I would listen to an individual who could do the kinds of miracles that the Bible describes, but I’ve never seen anyone do them.
However, the Bible is a religious text that claims God did use this method a long time ago. Isn’t that just as good as witnessing the miracles for myself? Not for me. Thomas Paine said that once you tell a divine revelation to someone else, it ceases to be revelation and becomes mere hearsay. I have to agree. For me to accept the word of a religious text, the text would have to be incredibly amazing. The writers would have to demonstrate knowledge of things that they couldn’t possibly have known about ahead of time. When events are recounted in multiple places within the text, they must be without error or contradiction. When science is recounted, it must be without error — not simply a regurgitation of what was already known at the time. Its morals must be without reproach. If it gives prophecies, they must be without error.
If those standards seem too high, then maybe you aren’t truly considering what’s at stake. The soul of everyone who has ever lived hinges on the judgments of this God. Each and every soul should be just as precious to him as the souls of your own children are to you. Would you leave the fate of their souls up to chance, or would you do everything within your power to save them from eternal torture (or punishment, or annihilation — whatever your particular flavor teaches)? If you saw a windowless van pull up to your child and watched the driver coax them to come closer, would you stand back to see how your child reacts, or would you run to them as fast as you could, calling them back all the while? You don’t have to answer, because I know what you would do — you’d do what any decent human would do. Why doesn’t God do the same for us? If I’m currently bound for Hell, and I’m influencing my innocent children to eventually follow in my footsteps, why doesn’t God intervene to help us?
And before you say he does just that through scripture, the Bible fails every one of the criteria I listed out. In fact, I’m not aware of any religious text that comes close to meeting those standards. If we accept that God is loving, merciful, and just, then it does not follow that he would be the author of the Bible. I’d be happy to cite specific examples of the Bible’s failings, but I’ve written way too much already. Luckily, I have links to those examples on my home page.
It’s God’s overwhelming hiddenness that sounds the death knell on religion for me. As Delos McKown has said:
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
Finding Truth 
Eric,
Your answer about neuroscience and psychology went into directions that we’ve discussed many times before and we know well our disagreements, so I’ll just leave it alone. To your questions…
1. Interestingly, this is where tildeb’s semantic quibbles become relevant. As far as I can tell, the findings do point toward some positive effects from religion in the broad sense but it isn’t clear to me that they show positive effects from religion when it is controlled for as independent of religiously motivated attitudes and behaviors (which I wager is a very difficult task).
I have encountered quite a few other studies over the years that show correlations between religion and various factors but I’m not in a position right now try and present anything. Newberg is really just the tip of the iceberg.
2. I think your latest article does a decent job but I could not help but laugh at the introductory paragraph. I still think it’s poor form to use that quote without the “faith” definition in its immediate context but I appreciate that you at least recognize that it is provocative to do so and that you clarify later on in the article. Gotta’ have a hook, right?
LikeLike
tildeb,
Lest you think your ranting has had some effect, note that any progress “we’ve” made here is in my opinion due to you finally starting to understand what I’ve been saying all along.
Oops. Nevermind. I guess you still don’t understand my position. If you go back and read my earlier interactions with Eric, and my most recent comment to him, you’ll see that this is precisely the notion that I’ve challenged – whether any research identifies a benefit to religion when taken independent of religiously motivated attitudes and behaviors.
LikeLike
Travis, you said, “From a naturalistic perspective, religion is a ubiquitous byproduct of the evolution of the human psyche. As such, it might be surprising if it wasn’t in some sense advantageous. The unwillingness to grant anything positive to religion conflicts to some degree with the view that religion has naturalistic origins.”
Religion is not a ubiquitous byproduct of evolution in action.
You also claim that because religion has this ‘naturalistic origins’ it must therefore have some positive – read evolutionary, which means having some fitness, meaning reproductive advantage – benefit.
No, this is not a reasonable conclusion even if your original claim were true (which it is not). As strange as it sounds, some ability or behaviour of evolutionary benefit may not be positive for the individual at all, but that’s another discussion.
So you’re diversion away from these very specific criticisms of your claim – that it my semantic misunderstanding of everything that constitutes the OED’s definition of ‘religion’ is the problem, that it is my combative tone that is the problem, that it is my zealotry that is the problem, that it is my understanding of your claim – isn’t a problem at all, you think.
Well, I disagree. I think you’re offering some measure of support to religion it does not deserve – that it is ubiquitous because it has an evolutionary and naturalistic basis. Your presenting these claims as if they derive from a naturalistic and scientific perspective. The problem I see is that they don’t. This support derives from your misunderstanding of what evolutionary benefit is as well as assuming that an evolutionary explanation somehow explains the supposed ubiquity. Both of these claims I think are factually wrong and in need of challenge: religion is neither a byproduct of evolution nor ubiquitous. How dare I explain in detail why.
LikeLike
Hi Tildeb,
It’s tempting to ignore your comments about me and Andrew Newberg, because I dislike confrontation and argument, but I suppose I have to. But I will try, like Travis did, to avoid making any personal comments and stick to facts. And I have numbered and bolded my questions to you to make it easier for you to respond.
Let’s start with this dismissal of Dr Andrew Newberg’s work. These are very strong, almost libellous, claims, so they would need some pretty strong evidence.
In science, as in other academic disciplines, reputation and credibility are earned and good science established via qualifications, good research, publications, and peer review and acceptance. Dr Newberg meets all these requirements.
He has a MD degree from the University of Pennsylvania. He is the director of research at the Jefferson Myrna Brind Center of Integrative Medicine and a physician at Jefferson University Hospital. His website lists 64 journal articles he has published over the past 23 years. He has also written 8 books, most in collaboration with Mark Waldman.
So the questions seem obvious. (1) What are your qualifications? What publications have you written on this topic? Why should people believe you rather than his peer-reviewed conclusions?
(2) Secondly, what evidence you have that Newberg is an apologist? And what do you think Newberg is an apologist for?
It is indeed, but presumably you have done that? (3) So what do you think Newberg “actually” says? Can you quote some of his specific conclusions, and show where they are wrong by referencing other peer-reviewed publications?
If you believe in evidence as you say you do, perhaps you could give us the evidence, with references, as I have done on this thread, and in greater detail in Our brains and God.
(4) I also invite you to point out anywhere that I have misquoted or misrepresented Newberg.
You make a number of statements about the effects of religion on health, then you say:
Well I HAVE Googled these matters, and have read many papers and a few books on them, and I found exactly the opposite to what you say. I have reported my findings here: Faith and wellbeing, Studies of medicine and religion, and Do religious believers have better health and wellbeing, like, really?
So (5) Could you please list maybe half a dozen of these studies you are referencing?
I think if you answered those questions and provided references, you would help everyone see the merit of what you say, or otherwise. Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Travis,
“I still think it’s poor form to use that quote without the “faith” definition in its immediate context but I appreciate that you at least recognize that it is provocative to do so and that you clarify later on in the article. Gotta’ have a hook, right?”
Yeah, hooks are good, but I had a more serious reason. I’m still think people misunderstand when I reference Newberg’s stuff. I am still working this out, but I think I’m getting closer.
If I quote cases of apparently miraculous healings, I’m suggesting a possible supernatural intervention by God. But I have not suggested this about Newberg, though I wonder if some have thought I was. So I think it worth exploring the implications of Newberg’s findings a little more.
1. Newberg is reporting natural, measurable effects – changes in brain structure, release of stress, strengthening of cognitive and emotional processes, etc. Even if these results can be achieved by secular meditation, we can still say that religious contemplation has achieved a good result. This cannot be denied unless Newberg and the rest of them are frauds. Yet some people seem to want to deny it.
2. Newberg also suggests (and I haven’t yet determined the full background to this statement) that when religious practices (which can be done secularly) are combined with religious belief (which is more difficult to do secularly), an even better result is obtained. Here’s the quote, from Why your brain needs God.
Now I’m not sure, I think maybe he thinks even this synergistic effect can be achieved in a totally secular way, but it isn’t clear. So perhaps religion can do it better than the secular alternatives.
3. Whatever the truth of that, religion in fact does at the present moment do it better. He reports that highly beneficial meditation/contemplation requires discipline, and it seems the religious people are more motivated to accept this self-discipline.
So at the very least, the situation is complex. Those who want to dismiss religion as harmful are quite wrong when it comes to Newberg’s research. It is certainly helpful. And there is a possibility that it is a better approach than secular ones.
So, where do we go with this? I have not gone very far yet, for I am still reading and thinking. But I think your previous question to me helped. Dawkins, Harris & Hitchens, among others, expected religion to be harmful to our minds. They were wrong. So this must surely point to Newberg’s results, while not “supernatural” in any way, being a little less likely if naturalism was true.
That’s as far as I have got so far, and I think it has mostly come about because of the discussion and challenges here. Thanks again.
LikeLike
UnkleE, the fact that you’ve selected Newberg in this thread is a dead giveaway that the paper you reference is going to support your beliefs. This is the way you work. You have absolutely no intention of addressing all the contrary datum. That’s why I included the aggregate to demonstrate quickly and easily why Newberg’s thesis is apologetic nonsense that fails to address faith-based belief in action and substitutes stress-by-association: low stress = ‘faith’, high stress = lack of faith. This is so patently contrived that even a modicum of critical thinking reveals the goal: religious faith good, lack of religious faith not so good. This simply doesn’t translate into aggregate population statistics. We therefore know something is badly out of alignment here. That’s why I already said to go back and look at the false synonyms by which Newberg transcribes stress into his faith thesis. He’s not demonstrating faith of the religious kind is good for the brain yet that is the message you’re going to take away from it because it serves your confirmation bias.
Is Newberg a respectable neuroscientist? He most certainly is… when dealing with his stress studies. But he’s not when it comes to promoting faith-based belief to be a virtue for the brain. How can we know?
Look at mission statement for the The Myrna Brind Center of Integrative Medicine at Jefferson.
“Our physicians are guided by the science of medicine and are experts in the art of incorporating complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies into the healing approach.”
Thar she blows! Apologetics for profit!
Very sciency sounding, n’est pas? Clearly, belief in CAM and its magical additional efficacy through homeopathy and reiki and chiropracty and therapeutic touch must therefore be ‘good science established via qualifications, good research, publications, and peer review and acceptance.’ Oh… and a pinch of rhino horn for good boners and bear gallbladders for hair growth. We can’t forget the Chinese contribution to woo, can we?.
Except… it’s not good science. Well, to be fair we’re to believe it is an art after all… with some ‘experts’ helping us make sense of it all… but added to the sciencey bits for that wholesome integrative wingnuttery delivered in lab coats.
Newberg has no problems with CAM, does he? It’s a rich vein to tap into… regardless of the paucity of efficacy and all the harm done its name. One could be forgiven if one saw this as more faith-based belief in action, an area where his artistry apparently exceeds his grasp on what constitutes evidence-based medicine: trivial concerns, really, like linking effects he claims to the cause he suggests…. without hiding behind placebo, woo, mysticism, spirituality, religion,… you know, the hard sciences. He and Deepak and Doctor Oz have a great deal in common: belief in woo and selling via therapies and institutes and books and products to a gullible population that mistakes it for insight backed by the method of science.
Newton spent more time on the magic of alchemy than he ever did on all the rest of his real contributions combined. That he believed so strongly in alchemy is not advanced when one links to his other contributions any more than Newberg’s stress studies advance his faith-based claims.
Sure, he has done interesting scans and has quite a few published papers on these. But let’s not forget that neuroscience is still in its infancy and our lack of knowledge about the brain has lots of room for the insertion for this kind of woo-laden belief… as well as a moneyed and credulous clientele ready, willing, and able to enrich those who provide it.
LikeLike
So Tildeb, no answers to the questions, no references, just smearing of a respected peer-reviewed scientist. I guess I don’t have to say any more do I?
LikeLike
You may have read my comments, Travis, but you don’t comprehend them. In effect, you’re claiming the ubiquity of religion – meaning belief in external divine causal agency – is a product of evolution. I have disagreed and explained why. I have stated that the evolutionary component is the ability to project agency similar to ourselves into the world and all it contains in order to experience a first person account of a third person encounter. This does not make the OBJECT of that belief a product of evolution, nor does it accurately define what these projections look like. Those are steps too far and yet I find repeated all the time. The problem is, it’s not true. Evolution doesn’t produce all these tens if not hundreds of thousands of religious variants. Nor does it produce religion pers e. All evolution has done (but it’s a lot) is increase the fitness of those who project agency no matter what form it takes. Evolution is not responsible for you yelling at your car when it doesn’t function properly; that falls on you using the ability to personify inanimate objects… one of a myriad of ways we assign agency once endowed with the ability.
That’s why I said – and keep on saying – the order is so important to understand: that religion in all its forms is a projection of each of us who projects it and not a PRODUCT of evolution. You see the difference? The ability itself no more creates a divine interactive creative agency as ‘natural’ byproduct than does claiming cars are a ‘natural byproduct’ of evolution because of our ability to transport ourselves. These byproducts are not ‘natural’ extensions of evolution; they are fully the product of human intervention, human ingenuity, human creations for human solutions to human problems and not expressions of a biological ability.
Why does this understanding that religion is fully a human creation and not an evolutionary byproduct matter?
Consider Taylor’s commentary (emphasis mine):
“…the validity of the entire Abrahamic enterprise rests on God’s factual existence, if for no other reason than He had to exist to issue the “revelations” providing the sole basis for regarding the Tanakh, the Bible, and the Quran as anything more than oversize compendia of lurid, often cruel fairy tales, and not the inerrant, irrevocable Word of God. Absent divine authorship, these tomes would merit no more respect than The Epic of Gilgamesh (from which the Flood legend surely derives) and certainly less esteem than, say, Homer’s magnificent, far more imaginative oeuvre.”
When we grasp that our projections of agency are simply one expression of an ability to project – and not a reliable guide to describing reality as it really is independent of us nor endowed with anything more than our superstitious urge to personify everything (ironically, considering the use of Newberg in this thread, when our stress levels are elevated)- we can then better understand how so many contrasting and even conflicting religious beliefs have come about and why we are as so incredibly foolish importing confidence in any of their their independent existence. Blaming evolution for our willingness to believe in ghosts and spooks and other ‘things’ that go bump in the night is a diversion from where responsibility truly lies: with anyone who confuses a projection with a product.
LikeLike
Hi all,
I just read this on Noseybook –
“My life is a constant battle between wanting to refute pseudo-scientific bullshit and wanting to have (in this case,cyber-) friends.
It seemed fitting. 🙂
LikeLike
“Evolution is not responsible for you yelling at your car when it doesn’t function properly; that falls on you using the ability to personify inanimate objects… one of a myriad of ways we assign agency once endowed with the ability.
I’m starting to pick up what you’re puttin down, tildeb. 🙂 It did take a few tries on your part but today the light bulb came on. Thanks for being persistent . 🙂
LikeLike
If only I could write more clearly and use fewer words… someday, maybe…
LikeLike
Well, my wish is that I could sound sensible and write MORE words. . . You do fine. 🙂
LikeLike
tildeb,
You’re right, I don’t comprehend your comments and I’m sure we each think that the other person is at fault for that. As far as I can tell, you say that the projection of agency is a product of evolution, and that religion is a result of that projection, but that religion is not a byproduct of evolution. Our friend the OED says that a byproduct is “an incidental or secondary product made in the manufacture or synthesis of something else”, so this distinction you’re making does not compute for me. Furthermore, I follow Atran, Boyer, et al in suggesting that there are other evolutionarily sourced psychological factors that feed into religion (in the broader sense). The dominant evolutionary views of the origins of religion are summarized by the opening pages of this paper. I have endorsed the proposition that one, or possibly both, of those views are correct. Both views identify religion as a consequence of evolutionary adaptations. If religion, whether directly or indirectly, is building on those adaptations then it would not be surprising if aspects of religion could induce some degree of benefit, regardless of whether religion is on the whole beneficial or harmful.
LikeLike
“My life is a constant battle between wanting to refute pseudo-scientific bullshit and wanting to have (in this case,cyber-) friends.”
Hi Carmen,
What are the chances the pendulum swing might take us back to being friends who disagree?
LikeLike
UnkleE – I thought that’s what we’ve always been? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then you can appreciate why claiming religion is a product of evolution perfectly fits the description of a just so story. This is not a mark in its favour.
LikeLike
Not sure what this is supposed to be saying about my previous comment. Yes, all of evolutionary psychology is speculative. It’s a best guess. Do we withhold judgment until we understand all the genetic correlates of psychology? Or maybe I’ve completely misunderstood your point here?
LikeLike
Thanks Carmen. I guess I must just like reassurance! 🙂
LikeLike
The danger of using evolutionary psychology to support claims about today’s function of some behaviour is to tread on quicksand… like the level of scientific merit of the paper you use.
It’s philosophy, not evolutionary biology. That should raise a red flag about using it as a source for evolutionary claims.
To establish an evolutionary benefit by philosophical argument without first establishing a biological link to specific and well defined behaviours is to in effect wax poetically using words rather than physical evidence and then use the poetry as if that has biological rather than poetic merit. This is what I think these authors have done.
For example, what is the ‘religion’ in our ancestry that is being selected by natural fitness? See the problem? The terminology doesn’t help us because we supply the definition of what it is ‘religion’ means today and not what it may have been 75,000 years ago. That’s why the assumption that because many people are religious, it must be an evolutionary benefit, fits the description of a just so story. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong necessarily but it isn’t the evolutionary biology from neuroscience.
What can be clearly established by neuroscience is the physical brain processes through various scanning technologies demonstrating various brain functions and chemical changes that projecting agency entails. These are the same areas stimulated by religious activities like praying but, interestingly, also areas of higher cognition suppressed. It’s also the same areas activated and related suppressed areas during meditation, the same areas stimulated and related areas suppressed by intentional magnetic fields that produce first person accounts of religious experiences, the same areas that when damaged produces strange and wonderful and bizarre agency attributions, the same areas often stimulated during REM, activities producing the same wave electric wave patterns, and so on. We have to work backwards from what we have… and what we have is brain function and the effects from this. Over-reaching and claiming evolutionary benefit because it’s a function today is a shortcut that is not reliable. That’s why claims of evolutionary psychology keeps instigating so much push-back from evolutionary biologists, and relying on such studies as if they justified evolutionary claims requires a fair bit of elevated skepticism. There is no evidence (as far as I know) that can withstand scientific scrutiny to link religion to be an evolutionary product without veering away from the method of science and entering the warren of philosophy and metaphysics.
LikeLike
tildeb,
I never suggested that a religion in our ancestry was selected for, or that the ubiquity of religion implies that it is beneficial in and of itself. I always directly stated, or implied, that religion is a byproduct or is built upon other structures. I proposed that the benefits are a consequence of religions employment of those structures, not of religion itself. As far as I can tell this is the fundamental misunderstanding underlying our interaction, but perhaps you still disagree even with this.
Second, it seems to me that you want to deny any causal link between evolution and religion while at the same time arguing, as you did in the prior comment, that agency detection is closely linked with the origins of religion. I may sound like a broken record, but I still don’t understand this distinction and I’m thinking I should just give up on that pursuit. Maybe there’s one more clarification you can offer to explain that one.
Finally, while I agree with the importance of agency detection, I’m skeptical that it is the only universally recognized trait for which there is evidence of a link to religion. I don’t have the time and resources to pursue that suspicion in the short term, but perhaps I will take it up separately and invite you to discuss after further review.
LikeLike
Travis, the problem I had with your earlier claim (that religion has naturalistic origins because it is a byproduct of the human psyche) is that it rationalizes and to some degree excuses belief in Oogity Boogity! as if this is natural, as if this is the reasonable result of evolution.
I have tried to point out why this is so problematic, that religion is no more natural a byproduct of the human psyche than cars are. It’s the ‘natural’ part of your claim I’m trying to reveal as the problem because it shifts the the result of the agency projection (or development of mechanized transportation) away from people who created and continue to use them and tries to get ‘nature’ to be the causal factor… because a lot of people do the activity.
I mean, you could make the same claim about tennis or shooting critters from helicopters or searching for ghosts – expand the activity itself to represent a part of the human psyche (like tennis as a ‘natural’ byproduct of play, shooting critters from helicopters as ‘natural’ byproduct of hunting, searching for ghosts as ‘natural’ byproduct of curiosity) in some over-reaching way (religion as a ‘natural’ byproduct of the human psyche) and then pretending they must have some positive benefit because they are repackaged as ‘natural’ and use ‘natural’ structures and therefore are ‘natural’ byproducts from the structures of our evolutionary past.
This is not true. This is another more modernized version of ‘natural law’ theology advanced by faitheists who are trying to pretend that religion is not fully a human projection but a ‘natural’ byproduct of evolution.
As I keep saying, this reasoning about associating a byproduct with its ‘natural’ founding structures gets the order wrong. These activities are simply human activities and responsibility for carrying them out today falls squarely on human and not evolutionary shoulders. It is not ‘religion’ that is ubiquitous, any more than it is tennis, is helicopter shooting, or is ghost hunting; it is agency projection. This is a very important understanding because it cuts off at the knees any pretense that the activity itself is somehow ‘natural’, that the activity itself is a selected byproduct because it lays claim to ‘natural’ origins – and therefore must possess an inherent evolutionary benefit because it has been selected not by the individuals but by evolution – as an excuse or rationalization for the object of the activity.
I know the difference seems to be rather opaque but its understanding is essential for people to take responsibility and full ownership for their actions and beliefs seriously. This is not enabled by philosophical arguments that continue to divest people of their personal responsibility and shift it towards an evolutionary one.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 2 people
Now that made sense.
To add to that idea, I have found the video I’ve been looking for. Andy Thomson’s psychological reasons people have for believing in a god – they’re powerful. (It would address UnkleE’s question #2 – why do so many people believe?)
There might be a few who haven’t seen it (it’s an hour long)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you tildeb. That was helpful. While I don’t fully agree with the depth and breadth of the line in the sand that you’ve drawn (e.g., I would equate religion more with play and Catholicism with tennis), I at least feel like I can now make sense of your previous comments.
LikeLike