How your brain creates God

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html

February 4, 2009
Born Believers
How your brain creates God
by Michael Brooks

What would you say if a group of scientists attempted to explain to you why humans enjoy music, art, and literature? You might concede that they could shed some light on the issue, but that any purely scientific explanation is going to be woefully paltry because the question extends far, far beyond science’s proper purview.

That’s the same attitude we should take towards this article which, as New Scientist triumphantly proclaims, tells us “How your brain creates God” (How’s that for a shot across the bow?)

The article proposes to explain, through evolutionary psychology, why humans have a propensity towards belief in the supernatural.

The scientists quoted propose that the human mind’s ability to abstractly conceive of other minds that work like ours is an evolutionary advantage, because it allows you to do things such as plan ahead, form complex social groups, and avoid unseen enemies. A byproduct of this, they think, is the tendency to “create” these abstract minds everywhere, from imaginary friends on up to God himself. They conclude that belief in the supernatural is a built-in aspect of human nature because of its presence in even very young children in all cultures, to the disappointment of some atheists who want religion to be a mere social construct which can be defeated in time. It is a two-edged sword, though: atheists think that some bits of evidence on the material side explain the supernatural away, while believers are wary (rightfully) of attempts to reduce belief to mere materially determined events.

The major flaw in this explanation, though, is that like the art example it’s only a very narrow part of the picture. In wandering from explanations of the natural world into explanations of the mind, science leaves its proper territory behind, unless one holds the philosophical (non-scientific) opinion that there is no non-natural aspect to the human mind — no soul. If that’s what the scientists think, fine, but they should admit that they are bring prior philosophical assumptions into their scientific work.

In addition to the mind’s ability to create images of other minds, another aspect of the belief in God, the scientists state, is the human mind’s tendency to look for cause-and-effect relationships. It is in investigating this aspect that we find the most glaring example of intruding scientific thought where it does not belong:

When Deborah Kelemen of the University of Arizona in Tucson asked 7 and 8-year-old children questions about inanimate objects and animals, she found that most believed they were created for a specific purpose. Pointy rocks are there for animals to scratch themselves on. Birds exist “to make nice music”, while rivers exist so boats have something to float on. “It was extraordinary to hear children saying that things like mountains and clouds were ‘for’ a purpose and appearing highly resistant to any counter-suggestion,” says Kelemen.

The authors think that this shows the human mind has a natural tendency to look for design where, they pointedly state, there is none. But once again, Keleman and her associates have brought in their unscientific assumptions into the situation. Keleman is only surprised because she somehow expected the children to think scientifically, which the children weren’t. Scientific thought is not the only method of knowing, but scientists get so used to it that they sometimes can’t think otherwise. Who’s to say that the clouds and the mountains aren’t for a purpose? Sure, there is no scientific purpose, but did Keleman tell the children they were only allowed to use scientific thought when answering the question? To conclude that the children imagine design where there is none is a flawed conclusion from this study; it just means they can find design where Keleman can’t.

People find purpose in many aspects of creation, even in simple beauty. It’s not scientific purpose, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. (As an aside, I’ve often wondered what evolutionary psychologists make of the human tendency to find the most sublime beauty in the most hostile of environments — barren mountains, stormy oceans, plunging waterfalls, etc. I’m sure there’s some “reasonable” evolutionary explanation, most likely something about attraction to novelty. That must be it.)

The New Scientist piece concludes with an example of the tired suggestion that atheists are smarter and more courageous than believers:

Religious belief is the “path of least resistance”, says Boyer, while disbelief requires effort.

Got that? Thomas Aquinas wrote the Summa because he didn’t want to expend any effort. Now you know.