Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

317

It would take a large amount of room to completely summarize the evolutionary argument for religious belief. If you're interested to know what the theory consists of, I would highly recommend reading the following paper. It does an excellent job of fully explaining the contemporary understanding of the evolution of religious belief. (If you're a person that denies evolution altogether, forget it for a moment; we'll be granting that it's true for argument's sake.)

https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/BIOT_a_00018.pdf

If you're like me, you'll find the argument made there extremely compelling. I mean...it's good. There doesn't appear to be a single stone unturned. A rational person, who'd been inclined toward belief prior to reading this paper, could very easily walk away convinced against the proposition that God is real, or that anything in Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) points to something real.

There is, however, a glaring contradiction in this theory's logic. I am not interested here to pick apart the paper in terms of its specific points. If you'd care to do that after reading the paper, we can do that in the comments. I want to attack a specific assumption made by the paper which is given barely any attention, but which is crucial for its thesis to go through.

Essentially, the argument goes that belief in the supernatural, namely God (and all of the associated social effects of this), were the cause of - not just society's survival - but for the evolution of our society's complexity, and even the sophistication of our cultural practices and institutions, including the development of science (by implication). The paper is concerned with showing the combination of factors that caused religious belief to evolve.

But inserted at the tail end of the paper, after a summary of the combination of factors that causes religion to evolve, is the sneaky phrase:

None of these evolved for religion per se.

This is quite literally the only sentence in the paper which even alludes to the underlying assumption on which the whole theory rests.

What this statement truly says, is that: "None of the factors which contributed to the evolution of religious belief did so because religious belief is true. They each represent independent forces, and religion is basically an accident that emerged from them, which just so happened to be super beneficial." In other words, it's not possible that the object of religious belief, God, is true - instead, all of the factors that came together that made you believe in God are themselves what do all of the work of helping you survive reality.

In the highly critical words of Winnie the Pooh: Oh, bother.

Think about this for a moment. The same combination of factors that caused you to believe in God, is also the same set of factors that caused your society to transcend its primitive state and to begin to discover the truth of the universe via the scientific institution. The former is a counterintuitive belief, according to these two researchers, and the latter is not.

One thing the paper stresses is that our 'supernatural beliefs' are counterintuitive, which is to say that belief in God runs contrary to our regular intuitions about the world. Let's be charitable. Let's grant them that.

Yet, what are we to contrast these counterintuitive God beliefs with? Well, the scientist writing the paper implicitly assumes that the beliefs we can trust about the universe would be our scientific ones. Hmm. Situate this in the evolutionary paradigm, in which everything is attempting to balance tradeoffs and costs of new adaptations for survival against an environment that kills us for getting it wrong, regularly.

So our counter-intuitive beliefs in God were the result of a combination of factors that caused society to evolve massive complexity and intelligence, including the ability to finally gain a scientific (apparently intuitive) grasp of the universe, but this same combination of factors didn't evolve because God was true. God was the counterintuitive part, and science was the intuitive (and true) result, and we should think science tells us true things about reality, but the very belief in God that led us there was an irrational accident.

The combination of factors that evolved to produce belief in God didn't "evolve for religious [truth], per se", but they did evolve to lead us to scientific truth, per se?

Based on what? The paper stipulates that belief in the supernatural (God, heaven, hell, etc.) is counterintuitive, but that our regular intuitive ontologies and observations of the world are supposedly something we ought to put actual stock in.

I wonder how well this holds up in 2021. How intuitive is current cosmology? How intuitive is the Big Bang? How intuitive is quantum mechanics? How intuitive is the mathematical concept of infinity? We are told in this paper that the factors which promoted the evolution of belief in God did not do so because God is true, but that they contributed to the increase in intelligence in mankind that did lead us to so-called true knowledge in the sciences.

I'm emphasizing the evolutionary context because the only thing that matters in this context is survival. There are either adaptations which confer greater survivability, or there are spandrels. But the theory is clear that the belief in God was a causal force in the advancement that led to greater knowledge of the universe, and higher survivability. Is this really a case for God being a spandrel? A spandrel is an accident. A spandrel does not build a church - which leads us to question whether the belief in God is rationally counterintuitive if this very belief opened mankind up to expanding into the real universe in ways it would not have otherwise. Talk about shooting the horse you rode in on.

What do you think? Was God a spandrel?

It would take a large amount of room to completely summarize the evolutionary argument for religious belief. If you're interested to know what the theory consists of, I would highly recommend reading the following paper. It does an excellent job of fully explaining the contemporary understanding of the evolution of religious belief. (If you're a person that denies evolution altogether, forget it for a moment; we'll be granting that it's true for argument's sake.) https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/BIOT_a_00018.pdf If you're like me, you'll find the argument made there extremely *compelling*. I mean...it's *good*. There doesn't appear to be a single stone unturned. A rational person, who'd been inclined toward belief prior to reading this paper, could very easily walk away convinced against the proposition that God is real, or that anything in Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) points to something real. There is, however, a glaring contradiction in this theory's logic. I am not interested here to pick apart the paper in terms of its specific points. If you'd care to do that after reading the paper, we can do that in the comments. I want to attack a specific assumption made by the paper which is given barely any attention, but which is crucial for its thesis to go through. Essentially, the argument goes that belief in the supernatural, namely God (and all of the associated social effects of this), were the cause of - not just society's survival - but for the evolution of our society's complexity, and even the sophistication of our cultural practices and institutions, including the development of science (by implication). The paper is concerned with showing the *combination of factors* that caused religious belief to evolve. But inserted at the tail end of the paper, after a summary of the combination of factors that causes religion to evolve, is the sneaky phrase: >None of these evolved for religion per se. This is quite literally the only sentence in the paper which even alludes to the underlying assumption on which the whole theory rests. What this statement truly says, is that: "None of the factors which contributed to the evolution of religious belief did so because religious belief is true. They each represent independent forces, and religion is basically an accident that emerged from them, which just so happened to be super beneficial." In other words, it's not possible that the object of religious belief, God, is *true* - instead, all of the factors that came together that made you believe in God are *themselves* what do all of the work of helping you survive reality. In the highly critical words of Winnie the Pooh: Oh, bother. Think about this for a moment. The same combination of factors that caused you to believe in God, is also the same set of factors that caused your society to transcend its primitive state and to begin to discover the *truth* of the universe via the scientific institution. The former is a counterintuitive belief, according to these two researchers, and the latter is not. One thing the paper stresses is that our 'supernatural beliefs' are **counterintuitive**, which is to say that belief in God runs contrary to our regular intuitions about the world. Let's be charitable. Let's grant them that. Yet, what are we to contrast these counterintuitive God beliefs with? Well, the scientist writing the paper implicitly assumes that the beliefs we *can trust* about the universe would be our scientific ones. Hmm. Situate this in the evolutionary paradigm, in which everything is attempting to balance tradeoffs and costs of new adaptations for survival against an environment that kills us for getting it wrong, regularly. So our counter-intuitive beliefs in God were the result of a combination of factors that caused society to evolve massive complexity and intelligence, including the ability to finally gain a scientific (apparently *intuitive*) grasp of the universe, but this same combination of factors didn't evolve because God was true. God was the counterintuitive part, and science was the intuitive (and true) result, and we should think science tells us true things about reality, but the very belief in God that led us there was an irrational accident. The combination of factors that evolved to produce belief in God didn't "evolve for religious [truth], per se", but they did evolve to lead us to scientific truth, per se? Based on what? The paper stipulates that belief in the supernatural (God, heaven, hell, etc.) is *counterintuitive*, but that our regular intuitive ontologies and observations of the world are supposedly something we ought to put actual stock in. I wonder how well this holds up in 2021. How intuitive is current cosmology? How intuitive is the Big Bang? How intuitive is quantum mechanics? How intuitive is the mathematical concept of infinity? We are told in this paper that the factors which promoted the evolution of belief in God did not do so because God is true, but that they contributed to the increase in intelligence in mankind that *did lead* us to so-called true knowledge in the sciences. I'm emphasizing the evolutionary context because the only thing that matters in this context is survival. There are either adaptations which confer greater survivability, or there are [spandrels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)#:~:text=In%20evolutionary%20biology%2C%20a%20spandrel,direct%20product%20of%20adaptive%20selection.&text=Gould%20and%20Lewontin%20sought%20to,more%20structuralist%20view%20of%20evolution.). But the theory is clear that the belief in God *was a causal force* in the advancement that led to greater knowledge of the universe, and higher survivability. Is this really a case for God being a spandrel? A spandrel is an accident. A spandrel does not build a church - which leads us to question whether the belief in God is rationally counterintuitive if this very belief opened mankind up to expanding into the real universe in ways it would not have otherwise. Talk about shooting the horse you rode in on. What do you think? Was God a spandrel?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (47).
[–] • 0 pt

Damn, she's logic-ing us, Peace! That means we'll actually have to go to work. Smart people are awful.

@PS

Helena, I'm working on a response to your comment from above. I need to work through some ideas to clear up those paragraphs you said were confusing. Will post tonight or tomorrow.

(Also, Poal was being screwy about posting this comment. It showed it twice, so I deleted one of them. Then they were both gone. So you might have gotten pinged twice for a similar comment.)

[–] • 0 pt

Let me clarify. I think there are several non sequiturs in a couple of your paragraphs

...if survival is all that counts, then the beliefs that promote survival ought to be truer.

Well we are dealing with a lot of legacy architecture from when we were monkeys or amphibians or earthworms, so there may be some behaviors that conferred survival in our predecessors. Humans werent built from scratch. But you are somewhat correct although I would not say truer, but more important.

Fire is hot. Ice is cold. If I try to murder my rival, he will try to murder me! Men have penises, and girls have vaginas.

What? I dont see how this follows. Fire is not hot in an absolute sense. It is much colder than the sun. It is hot relative to us. Ice is up to 273 degrees above absolute zero. Lots of stuff colder than an ice cube. But if I grant you all this, I still dont know the point you are making.

We tend to believe things which are true. We think that these things would be true in any possible world like our own, that is, that fire would burn us (or any sufficiently hot thing would burn us).

Fire will burn us != Fire is hot

It becomes senseless to call this a relative truth,

I agree it is a highly inefficient way to deal with fire if you are a human, nevertheless “fire is hot” is not an absolute truth

If the fact that fire burns us isn't true, then you've at least established one truth - that relativism is true.

Wut

Yet if relativism is true, you've also established that belief in it would hurt survival - therefore a true belief would hurt us. This is a contradiction. It makes no sense

Wut

Consider these statements

mugs are useful

fucking little kids is bad

These are both statements many people would agree are true

Is the truth value the same for these statements? I could drink my coffee out of a paper cup or even a shoe and no one is going to lynch me.

How do I process the idea of mugs being useful. What algorithms are running in my brain.

What about the second statement. Is the same circuitry being used when I think about the badness of fucking kids?

If you asked people which of those statements was more true, I bet they would say the second. Its not really more true. But its more important to most people.

[–] • 0 pt

I'm still working on a theory about the evolution of true belief in God. I actually think it is coming together. It has become something of a personal project for me because I've been so prone to the kind of thinking in the paper from the OP. I desire an intellectual basis for understanding belief in God in an evolutionary context that doesn't automatically lead us to false belief. So I've actually taken this paper personally haha. It's coming!

@PS

[–] • 0 pt

I'm frustrating myself! I keep defeating my own argument, so naturally I can't come at you with it. The second that I think I've got it, I find a way to kill it. It's something I'm going to have to continue to think about. You can take the W for now, Helena. Just don't get too comfy with it, k? It might be the case that this just isn't ever going to be an angle of attack, even if I want it to be.

@PS

[–] • 0 pt

Im not really here for the win, although maybe my competitive mode kicks in when people hint that Im wrong. :(

We’ve talked ourselves in circles a bit. The question was did the concept of god evolve as a survival strategy, or something like that, which is what I believe. To re-cap, I believe that god and religion and other supernatural notions like good and evil evolved with an underlying neurological architecture because they are useful ways to process reality. Processing reality as an accurate reproduction is perhaps inefficient and unneccessary at least in some situations, e.g. human interactions. Perhaps there is a creator that has designed us this way to understand another aspect of reality that is not otherwise detectable to us? That is possible. But there is no evidence of that IMO. And then of course you have to deal with another question, i.e. where does the creator come from?

The problem with most atheists however is that they mistakenly believe that they are oh so clever because they’ve consciously abandoned the notion of god and the supernatural but they cant change their neurology. America/Europe worked well in many ways because people feared judgement and hell. Its not the same if we just all casually agree to be “ good.” Furthermore they begin to create their own irrational godless relgions with equally supernatural beliefs like “it’s not a person if its still inside the uterus.” etc.

@ps

[–] • 0 pt

Damn if this didn't feel like an ARM response. Well done. I'm hoping my reply will be able to deal with these objections more aptly than my last one. Like you said, it was 1 a.m. There was nothing in that comment that was very well-formed, particularly the examples of atomic statements I used. I'm going to try to package it a little better.

I will say here that I'm not too concerned yet with getting to beliefs/propositions as complex as morals. I hope to get my point across without getting nearly that deep. Morality is tremendously hard. Statements of value, generally, like the mug one are also hard. I want to try to deal with propositions that we take to be atomic facts, even where the language we use to state them might seem less than precise. The point will be that true facts underlie the utterances.

@PS

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Her logic was describing a strawman, not what I argued. But I'm sure that wasn't her intention, and you're right, this should be addressed.

I was not saying that evidence of certain Christian claims proves the religion. That would be like using evidence of the subversive effects of homosexuality as proof that Jesus is Lord, which is ridiculous.

Rather, I am saying that there is evidence that the Christian faith itself is true, and that this evidence itself serves as evidence for Christian doctrines such as hell.

I was just saying that a lack of direct evidence for something specific like hell would not constitute a lack of evidence entirely. Prove the cause, and the effect is proven also (given that the cause is what it is).

I was suggesting that there is in fact evidence for the cause (Christianity itself). Namely, public miraculous validation of a Divinity claim, the witness of the Church founders, and the historicity of both.

@BurnInHelena