Did belief in God evolve so your tribe could survive? The argument sounds good, but is there a glaring contradiction?

127

• (edited )

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?

[–] • 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

(post is archived)