I think blinking spirit answered it nicely, but I'll add another angle: I think we are wired to answer questions. Or put another way, I think we are uncomfortable with open unknowns. In fact I think there can even be competitive advantages in being able to just fill the gap with a belief (even a false one) and move on mentally, especially when that belief is in something so relatively intangible (like a god) that it is unlikely to hurt you. The villager who worried about why it rained probably wasn't as successful as the one who just assumed a god did it and moved on. Who do you think did better with the ladies? Aristotle or Genghis Khan? Einstein or Wilt Chamberlain? Having those great thinkers helped us as a species, but being a thinker (vs an actor) isn't necessarily helpful for the promotion of the individual.
In my personal experience discussions with religious people have really made this gap apparent to me. When discussing things like the beginning of the universe I am happy to just leave it at "I don't know". But they aren't, they feel the need to have some cause there, even if it means essentially filling a gap with God, something most of them are against. I think this principal being at work is at least somewhat evident in the shrinking space for God in our lives as our scientific knowledge expands. Look back in time and you will see much "bigger" Gods who had a hand in virtually every aspect of life. Now you only see that influence very abstractly, with most serious evocations of God occurring in the few major unknowns (creation of life and death).
Ultimately I think that innate NEED for answers, combined with what blinking spirit described, has given rise to all of the various forms of God we have seen arise throughout human history.
Blinking Spirit covered it very well, in my opinion. I just wanted to add something, as someone whose done some reading on evolutionary psychology and who aspires to be a researcher in evolutionary psychology some day.
Most evolutionary psychologists believe in the existence of a universal human nature that is the sum of all the cognitive "programs", "software", or "architecture" hardwired into the typical human brain (most also believe these differ somewhat along gender lines, which is irrelevant to this discussion, but I wanted to include it for the record). In the same way that human beings share the same archetypal anatomy (two arms, two legs, two kidneys, one liver, etc.), human beings also share the same archetypal psychology (we all feel the same emotions, we all use the same heuristics when faced with certain kinds of problems, we all care more about our family members than we do about strangers, etc.). This of course does not mean that we're psychologically identical any more than it means that we're physically identical, only that there are limits to the range encompassing the human anatomical phenotype, and so it is too with our individual personalities and skill sets - and the variant cultures that manifest from our universal human nature.
Take language, for example. While there is a significant amount of between-group variation between cultures with respect to the languages they speak, there are in fact some aspects universal to each of them. For one, all languages have nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc. (I'm not familiar enough with the scientific literature on the subject to be sure if they all have pronouns, adverbs, etc., but I do know that they all share some of these features). For another, in order for a sentence to be grammatically correct in any language, it must contain at least one verb ("This sentence no verb"). It's also true that in any language, one can write something absurd that nevertheless "feels" right so long as it follows the proper grammatical rules (e.g., "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"). These are just three of many examples of language universals, and evolutionary psychologists offer it up as evidence of a universal human nature.
Now, I could stop right here and say what many other people in this thread have essentially said already - that there must be something in our human nature that leads people all over the world to believe in sentient supernatural entities - but evolutionary psychology offers at least some insight into why these religions vary, as well. As with language, there exists some variation between individuals and groups with regard to their religious beliefs (despite some universal similarities). Using the example of language again, despite the similarities I mentioned earlier, different languages nonetheless have different words for the same things. The reason for this, according to evolutionary psychology, is that words themselves are not hardwired into our brains. Rather, it is our capacity to acquire words (or, more broadly, language) that is inherent in human psychology. So, should any given group of human beings become so distantly separated from the rest of humanity by whatever obstacle (e.g., geographical distance), it may develop new or different words for particular things that the group it previously belonged to already had words for and thereby create a language of its own that is passed on from generation to generation in that group. In the same vein, an isolated group of human beings could falsely detect an agent behind a natural disaster or any other unexplained phenomenon (the detection of which would be a psychological trait belonging to our universal human nature), and come up with its own unique explanation of and back story for the hypothesized entity that ultimately develops into a full-blown religion distinct from all the others.
All that said, evolutionary psychology tends to focus on how we're all the same, while the likes of behavioral genetics focuses on how we're different.
So, I have a question for those who do not believe in god; Why is it that countless cultures, ones that have not had contact with each other, all have the same concept of gods and spirits and an afterlife? In fact, the majority of cultures all seem to have the same concept of "higher beings" on another plane of existence.
First you are wrong. Countless cultures do not have the same concept of gods, spirits, and afterlife.
Zeus isn't the same concept as the Abrahamic god, Krishna isn't the same concept as Raijin, and Zeus and Raijin, while both are gods of thunder/lightning are not same concept.
Even the concept of the after life is different from culture to culture with varying degrees. For example, Valhala isn't the same concept as Heaven or hell.
Try giving a universal definition of what qualities a god has that everyone can agree on. You'll find that quite difficult, because the term is ambiguous.
Secondly, just because all of these cultures believe in supernatural things doesn't mean they are true. The other thing all of these concepts have in common is a severe lack of evidence.
I'm not saying they are true, I'm asking why the concept exists in the first place, even if there are variations.
EDIT: If you want me to be more specific, why does the concept of a great evil one exist in so many cultures? Even if the names are changed, the idea of a devil and hell are pretty commonplace across religions, even Buddhism.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but everything you say screams to me, "Here is a guy who's just picked up Stephen Pinker and had his mind blown." And yeah, a lot of it really is mind-blowing stuff. But you have to do some broader reading to place it in context. For instance, from the way you so proudly remind us every third sentence that your ideas come from the school of "evolutionary psychology!", I'm guessing you may not be aware that evo psych is actually an extremely divisive subject in academia - about half of your audience are going to dismiss anything you say as hogwash as soon as they hear the term. They shouldn't, of course: every idea deserves to be weighed by its own merits, regardless of its label. But nonetheless, as a matter of rhetoric, I can tell you that your enthusiastic emphasis on the term will not have the authoritative effect you're probably hoping for.
Evo psych is a cluster of related theories in the field of psychology. I think some of them are persuasive - obviously, since my own explanation of religion on this thread took a fundamentally evo-psych approach - and, again, they definitely don't get the hearing they deserve from every scholar. But they're not a revelation, or a revolution. I guess what I'm saying is this: don't aspire to be an evolutionary psychologist; just aspire to be a good psychologist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but everything you say screams to me, "Here is a guy who's just picked up Stephen Pinker and had his mind blown." And yeah, a lot of it really is mind-blowing stuff. But you have to do some broader reading to place it in context. For instance, from the way you so proudly remind us every third sentence that your ideas come from the school of "evolutionary psychology!", I'm guessing you may not be aware that evo psych is actually an extremely divisive subject in academia - about half of your audience are going to dismiss anything you say as hogwash as soon as they hear the term. They shouldn't, of course: every idea deserves to be weighed by its own merits, regardless of its label. But nonetheless, as a matter of rhetoric, I can tell you that your enthusiastic emphasis on the term will not have the authoritative effect you're probably hoping for.
I'm aware of the stigma associated with evolutionary psychology, and I wasn't aiming for an authoritative effect, just trying to frame what I was saying in the context of evo psych. The OP wanted to hear some counter-arguments to a theistic argument, and I thought - still think - that evo psych offers an interesting and compelling rebuttal.
My interest in evolutionary psychology did start with Pinker, but I have read more than just some of his books (and a few articles) on the subject. I've also read books and/or articles by David Buss, Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby (I'm currently reading "The Adapted Mind") and, for what it's worth, I've also read works by Richard Dawkins, Robert Trivers, and other evolutionary biologists who's work has been applied to evo psych. I've read a number of criticisms of the ideas behind evo psych too, though I admit that they were primarily philosophical criticisms rather than scientific or empirical criticisms (whether or not they came from scientists). But that said, it's honestly difficult to find non-philosophical criticisms of evo psych that aren't either politically motivated straw-mans or based on some misunderstanding of evo psych ideas. I'd like to read some that are more appropriate. Needless to say, based on my own evaluation of evolutionary psychology ideas/theories and its criticisms, I'm on the side of evolutionary psychology. Do you have any readings to suggest that might change my mind?
Evo psych is a cluster of related theories in the field of psychology. I think some of them are persuasive - obviously, since my own explanation of religion on this thread took a fundamentally evo-psych approach - and, again, they definitely don't get the hearing they deserve from every scholar. But they're not a revelation, or a revolution. I guess what I'm saying is this: don't aspire to be an evolutionary psychologist; just aspire to be a good psychologist.
I'm aware that there's a difference between evolutionary psychology and the field of psychology as a whole, but can I not be a good psychologist who focuses a large part of his work on evolutionary psychology (like some do)? If I instead wanted to be a social psychologist, would you have given me the same advice? Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, though. What do you mean when you write "Evo psych is a cluster of related theories in the field of psychology"? Or "[Evo psych ideas are] not a revelation, or a revolution"? I don't recall saying anything that was anything like or opposed to those statements.
Also, I'm curious why you're so informed on the subject. Is it related to your work? Is it personal interest? Something else?
In my personal experience discussions with religious people have really made this gap apparent to me. When discussing things like the beginning of the universe I am happy to just leave it at "I don't know". But they aren't, they feel the need to have some cause there, even if it means essentially filling a gap with God, something most of them are against. I think this principal being at work is at least somewhat evident in the shrinking space for God in our lives as our scientific knowledge expands. Look back in time and you will see much "bigger" Gods who had a hand in virtually every aspect of life. Now you only see that influence very abstractly, with most serious evocations of God occurring in the few major unknowns (creation of life and death).
Ultimately I think that innate NEED for answers, combined with what blinking spirit described, has given rise to all of the various forms of God we have seen arise throughout human history.
Most evolutionary psychologists believe in the existence of a universal human nature that is the sum of all the cognitive "programs", "software", or "architecture" hardwired into the typical human brain (most also believe these differ somewhat along gender lines, which is irrelevant to this discussion, but I wanted to include it for the record). In the same way that human beings share the same archetypal anatomy (two arms, two legs, two kidneys, one liver, etc.), human beings also share the same archetypal psychology (we all feel the same emotions, we all use the same heuristics when faced with certain kinds of problems, we all care more about our family members than we do about strangers, etc.). This of course does not mean that we're psychologically identical any more than it means that we're physically identical, only that there are limits to the range encompassing the human anatomical phenotype, and so it is too with our individual personalities and skill sets - and the variant cultures that manifest from our universal human nature.
Take language, for example. While there is a significant amount of between-group variation between cultures with respect to the languages they speak, there are in fact some aspects universal to each of them. For one, all languages have nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc. (I'm not familiar enough with the scientific literature on the subject to be sure if they all have pronouns, adverbs, etc., but I do know that they all share some of these features). For another, in order for a sentence to be grammatically correct in any language, it must contain at least one verb ("This sentence no verb"). It's also true that in any language, one can write something absurd that nevertheless "feels" right so long as it follows the proper grammatical rules (e.g., "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"). These are just three of many examples of language universals, and evolutionary psychologists offer it up as evidence of a universal human nature.
Now, I could stop right here and say what many other people in this thread have essentially said already - that there must be something in our human nature that leads people all over the world to believe in sentient supernatural entities - but evolutionary psychology offers at least some insight into why these religions vary, as well. As with language, there exists some variation between individuals and groups with regard to their religious beliefs (despite some universal similarities). Using the example of language again, despite the similarities I mentioned earlier, different languages nonetheless have different words for the same things. The reason for this, according to evolutionary psychology, is that words themselves are not hardwired into our brains. Rather, it is our capacity to acquire words (or, more broadly, language) that is inherent in human psychology. So, should any given group of human beings become so distantly separated from the rest of humanity by whatever obstacle (e.g., geographical distance), it may develop new or different words for particular things that the group it previously belonged to already had words for and thereby create a language of its own that is passed on from generation to generation in that group. In the same vein, an isolated group of human beings could falsely detect an agent behind a natural disaster or any other unexplained phenomenon (the detection of which would be a psychological trait belonging to our universal human nature), and come up with its own unique explanation of and back story for the hypothesized entity that ultimately develops into a full-blown religion distinct from all the others.
All that said, evolutionary psychology tends to focus on how we're all the same, while the likes of behavioral genetics focuses on how we're different.
Not in Judaism though.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
Evo psych is a cluster of related theories in the field of psychology. I think some of them are persuasive - obviously, since my own explanation of religion on this thread took a fundamentally evo-psych approach - and, again, they definitely don't get the hearing they deserve from every scholar. But they're not a revelation, or a revolution. I guess what I'm saying is this: don't aspire to be an evolutionary psychologist; just aspire to be a good psychologist.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm aware of the stigma associated with evolutionary psychology, and I wasn't aiming for an authoritative effect, just trying to frame what I was saying in the context of evo psych. The OP wanted to hear some counter-arguments to a theistic argument, and I thought - still think - that evo psych offers an interesting and compelling rebuttal.
My interest in evolutionary psychology did start with Pinker, but I have read more than just some of his books (and a few articles) on the subject. I've also read books and/or articles by David Buss, Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby (I'm currently reading "The Adapted Mind") and, for what it's worth, I've also read works by Richard Dawkins, Robert Trivers, and other evolutionary biologists who's work has been applied to evo psych. I've read a number of criticisms of the ideas behind evo psych too, though I admit that they were primarily philosophical criticisms rather than scientific or empirical criticisms (whether or not they came from scientists). But that said, it's honestly difficult to find non-philosophical criticisms of evo psych that aren't either politically motivated straw-mans or based on some misunderstanding of evo psych ideas. I'd like to read some that are more appropriate. Needless to say, based on my own evaluation of evolutionary psychology ideas/theories and its criticisms, I'm on the side of evolutionary psychology. Do you have any readings to suggest that might change my mind?
I'm aware that there's a difference between evolutionary psychology and the field of psychology as a whole, but can I not be a good psychologist who focuses a large part of his work on evolutionary psychology (like some do)? If I instead wanted to be a social psychologist, would you have given me the same advice? Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, though. What do you mean when you write "Evo psych is a cluster of related theories in the field of psychology"? Or "[Evo psych ideas are] not a revelation, or a revolution"? I don't recall saying anything that was anything like or opposed to those statements.
Also, I'm curious why you're so informed on the subject. Is it related to your work? Is it personal interest? Something else?
B_S is the this particular debate forum's renaissance man as far as I'm concerned.