adaptation of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling by Tom Blackwell

J. Anderson Thomson is a psychiatrist at the University of Virginia. In a recent LA Times opinion post he expounds on the biological reasons we humans created the idea of God in the first place, and what role that belief serves psychologically.

I find these reasons for faith fascinating, and I see how they have been present in my own life.

Like our physiological DNA, the psychological mechanisms behind faith evolved over the eons through natural selection. They helped our ancestors work effectively in small groups and survive and reproduce, traits developed long before recorded history, from foundations deep in our mammalian, primate and African hunter-gatherer past.

For example, we are born with a powerful need for attachment, identified as long ago as the 1940s by psychiatrist John Bowlby and expanded on by psychologist Mary Ainsworth. Individual survival was enhanced by protectors, beginning with our mothers. Attachment is reinforced physiologically through brain chemistry, and we evolved and retain neural networks completely dedicated to it. We easily expand that inborn need for protectors to authority figures of any sort, including religious leaders and, more saliently, gods. God becomes a super parent, able to protect us and care for us even when our more corporeal support systems disappear, through death or distance.

Among the psychological adaptations related to religion are our need for reciprocity, our tendency to attribute unknown events to human agency, our capacity for romantic love, our fierce “out-group” hatreds and just as fierce loyalties to the in groups of kin and allies. Religion hijacks these traits.

In addition to these adaptations, humans have developed the remarkable ability to think about what goes on in other people’s minds and create and rehearse complex interactions with an unseen other. In our minds we can de-couple cognition from time, place and circumstance. We consider what someone else might do in our place; we project future scenarios; we replay past events. It’s an easy jump to say, conversing with the dead or to conjuring gods and praying to them.

I know (quite acutely, in fact) that I have a great need for attachment and a sense of another authority; I also possess a tendency to be intuitive or over-analytical about what someone else is thinking and feeling. I have certainly assigned motives and reasons to events that have no human agent.

All of these factors only encompass what I know consciously about myself and how faith has played a role in my life in the past. The chemistry of my brain and the more subtle evolutionary reasons for belief–well, those cannot be controlled. I can only use my reasoning and understanding to choose a different reaction when confronted with the concepts of a great “Other” or supernatural events.

“God”  and faith are crafted to fulfill some of our needs and natural inclinations. They are presented to us as a catch-all solution to these inborn “problems.” Do you need love and someone to care for you? God will do it! Do you have a tendency to cling to a group and fear the “others?” Religion is perfect for you!  Do you get that tingly feeling that someone is in the room with you when you meditate? That’s a god!

This, of course, doesn’t mean gods are real, but it does illustrate that we have a desire to answer questions and fulfill needs that come naturally to us. When we supply imaginary beings as the answer to the human condition, we’re doing ourselves and our descendants a disservice. It’s much more difficult to see the world objectively and accept the fact that we’re on our own, but it’s empowering and spurs on positive change in society. Why take personal responsibility when it’s much more comforting to know someone else is in charge of the rules who wants us to succeed? Because we will be a better, more altruistic society if we take charge of our actions and how they affect others.

We can be better as a species if we recognize religion as a man-made construct. We owe it to ourselves to at least consider the real roots of religious belief, so we can deal with life as it is, taking advantage of perhaps our mind’s greatest adaptation: our ability to use reason.

I agree!

graphic by James Ellis

I follow the hashtag #atheism on twitter in order to keep abreast on what people are saying about religion and other controversial subjects. Often the content contains thoughtful discussion or bits of news that interests me, but much of it resembles typical “zinger” one-liner material: pithy 140-character messages that resemble confrontational bumper stickers instead of well-balanced arguments against religion. Yeah, I’ve done it too. I admit it! Twitter is the safe-haven of the verbal jab.

I spotted one such “zinger” today:

FlyingFree333

(Flying Free)

Without faith there could be no genocide, no racism, no bigotry; faith breeds evil. #christian #jesus #bible #god #atheism #islam #muslim

On 29-4-2011 13:30:22 from Twaitter

I’ve certainly heard this hyperbolic argument before, and as an atheist I do not agree. I realize you cannot easily present a reasoned argument for an enormous claim like this on twitter, but even if there were paragraphs of explanation behind it I’m not sure I would ever be convinced that the sole reason for racism, bigotry, and genocide is faith. To avoid an argument about vocabulary; “faith,” could easily be replaced by “religion.”

I am far from being an expert, but I think there are sociological, psychological, and economic causes unrelated to religion that cause these problems in the world. Religion is certainly used to justify many horrible actions such as genocide (e.g. Deuteronomy 20:16-18) and slavery (e.g. the Curse of Ham). However, I do not think all religions or faiths bring about these results, nor do I think ruling out other causes for the evil in the world is wise.

I’d really like to have a discussion about this claim. Is faith the cause of genocide, racism, and bigotry?

And as a side question: What do you think about these kinds of pithy statements on twitter? Do you think they help anything or perhaps give atheists a bad name?

Backstory

Hebrew patriarch Jacob gets tricked into marrying his cousin, Leah, when he actually wanted to marry her sister Rachel. The girls become the original “sister wives.” Jacob also marries two of their servants so he can spawn more babies. Out of this, he gains 12 sons (the tribes of Israel) and a daughter named Dinah.

WTF? Genesis 34

TL;DR Dinah gets raped. Dicks are trimmed, men murdered, and families are enslaved.

This is fucked up, and the cat knows it.

Dinah is taking a tip to visit her girlfriends. The local ruler’s son Shechem thinks she’s smokin’ hot so he—of course—rapes her. I guess he had a good time, because he falls in love with her. The writer doesn’t give a damn about Dinah from here on out.

Shechem’s father Hamor asks Dinah’s  father Jacob to let Shechem marry the girl he assaulted (remember, rape is okay in the Bible as long as you marry the girl after! See Deuteronomy 22:28-29). During the meeting, Dinah’s brothers come back from the fields and go apeshit about their little sister’s  rape. Shechem says “Oops, my bad” and tells them he’ll do absolutely anything to marry this chick.

Hamor and Shechem offer to trade their own women to Jacob’s family for intermarriage as bargaining chips. They just have to purchase Dinah. Women are property. This girl must have some skills.

Dinah’s brothers are—understandably—really fucking angry about their sister’s rape. For revenge, they screw around with Hamor, demanding that every man in his town gets the tip of his penis cut off. You heard right—foreskins for a chick. For some demented reason, Hamor and Shechem agree to the deal and go order everyone to get circumcised. Poor blokes.

Three days later while all those penises are still sore (I love that this fact is included in the text, by the way), Jacob’s sons attack the town and murder every single male! KABLAMMO! They loot the place, snatching the herds and capturing all the women and children (who I’m sure were so thrilled that their family members were just murdered right in front of them!).

Jacob gets pissed because his sons make his social life more difficult.

THE END

Who is more fucked up in this story? Everyone except Dinah seems like a complete brutish arse. Read this to your kids at night and see what kinds of dreams they have.

A print ad promoting peace in India

In my past life, the only causes worth dying for were one’s faith and one’s country. I remember attending a youth conference where a provocative speaker spent an hour telling heart-wrenching stories about Christian persecution around the world and how many believers go to their deaths because they refuse to give in to those who do not give them religious freedom. These stories had a great impact on me at the time. I once considered going on a bible smuggling mission trip to China so I could help people who had to be underground and hidden in order to practice Christianity.

Martyrdom is revered in Christianity very highly, and it’s not hard to find a believer who will say they would gladly die for the cause of Christ. Willingness to die for one’s beliefs is considered an honorable act by most every religion I can think of. Even secular causes (especially in times of political upheaval) can bring about this drastic act of devotion.

I do not think martyrdom—whether modern or throughout history—proves anything about the claims these people made or the beliefs they held. More death does not equal more truth. I do not think that the more one suffers for those claims, the more glorious and righteous one is.

I still feel angry and sad when I hear stories of persecution and the fight for freedom around the world. I pity those who have governments or religions that would drive people to give up their lives to prove a point.

I wish these sacrifices did not have to be made.  To be honest, I’m not sure they always need to be. I’m not trying to disrespect those who have died for the freedoms I now enjoy, but in some cases (especially religious ones), I just feel pity for those who would die for gods and myths that don’t exist. But how can they know any better? They believe, and belief is a powerful force of influence. I wish lives could be saved by religion disappearing from this earth.

Discussion:

Is voluntarily dying for one’s cause the utmost sign of devotion? Wouldn’t more be accomplished if one was alive to continue the fight? What do you think about people who commit suicide to spread a message?

Are there any causes you would die for (religious or secular)?

Do you think military personel killed in the line of duty are considered martyrs? If so, how does your view of military martyrdom differ from your view of religious martyrdom?

Is martyrdom a realistic option in this modern world? Will there always be martyrs?

Check out more history and examination on this topic here.

(Image via The Inspiration Room)

photo by Trois Têtes

Frans DeWaal of the New York Times has written a thoughtful piece on the origins of morality, altruism, and whether God has anything to do with it. It’s definitely worth the read, so check it out.

What does science say about morality?

While I do consider religious institutions and their representatives — popes, bishops, mega-preachers, ayatollahs, and rabbis — fair game for criticism, what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in religion? And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch.

Many people in the comments suggest Sam Harris’ new book The Moral Landscape to help explain what science can offer in terms of moral answers for humanity. I haven’t read it yet, but it’s high on my list! Have any of you read The Moral Landscape? What do you think?

Imagine no religion

DeWaal seems to think any ordered guidelines for moral living—even if formed completely without God—would be indistinguishable from the religion-based guidelines we have today.

… [T]he building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and that we do not need God to explain how we got where we are today. On the other hand, what would happen if we were able to excise religion from society? I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good. Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own devoted followers, so that it will soon look like any old religion.

Atheists tend to daydream about a world without religion (a la John Lennon). It seems as if DeWaal is afraid of what might happen if such a radical change came to pass. Personally, I don’t see this happening. Do you think we will evolve ourselves out of religion? Will we become a secular  world society one day or simply destroy ourselves first?

I recommend reading the conversation that continues in the comments of this piece. Many mature insights are shared. Here’s one response to the quote above:

But is religion really “an inspiration for the good” ? If the “building blocks” predate religion, why would we need religion to inspire us to do good ? Just like a child will make something out of the Lego blocks you put in front of him without you telling him to, we could very well just be tempted to use those blocks we have. At best, religion just has a placebo effect: some people think they are good because religion tells them to, while in reality, they would be good anyway.

What do you think?

(HT goodreasonnews)

photo by Photo Giddy

Did a man ever exist whose name was Yeshua son of Yosef and Miriam, whose professions were carpenter/stoneworker and rabbi, and who was put to death by crucifixion? Was he the messiah? Was he made up by his followers? Was he just a normal bloke who taught unconventional ideas who ended up on the wrong side of the law?

What do you think? I’ve embedded the poll here. Share your thoughts in the comments below.

NOTE: This poll was technically flawed when it was first posted, so I decided to start from scratch! Thanks for understanding. –GG, Dec. 4, 2010

Well, at least that’s the plot of the 1929 silent film The Godless Girl, directed by Cecil B. DeMille. When I was searching for a domain name to house my heathen bloggy bits, I stumbled on this movie. After reading the charged plot and, frankly, loving the alliteration of the name, I took the moniker for myself. The film illustrates plainly how atheists have been vilified in society. The introduction reads:

It is not generally known that there are Atheist Societies using the schools of the country as their battleground — attacking, through the Youth of the Nation, the beliefs that are sacred to most of the people. And no fanatics are so bitter as youthful fanatics.

Battleground! Attacking sacred beliefs! Fanatics! Gee, tell me how you really feel. Check out the first 5 minutes of The Godless Girl below:

Photo © Mike Stenhouse

A member of a Christian forum asks:

I know several places in the bible it says have no other gods before YWH[sic], and that he’s the most powerful, but does it ever say he’s the only one?

What do you think about other gods?

I cannot help but offer my own thoughts:

In my understanding, all gods are created by the humans that want them to exist to explain what happens in the world. Gods are a part of our cultures, and they evolve as we do. Gods began as celestial bodies (sun worship) and gods who ruled different natural forces (gods of fertility, volcanoes, the sea). As we grew to know more about how the world worked, our gods grew to be more and more complex, more powerful, and more concerned with the ways of humans. Once we knew that the sun rose and set on its own, there was no need for a deity to carry it across the sky. Once we discovered our orbit and gravity, we could let go of the giant turtle that carried the flat earth on its back.

So yes, other gods did and do exist… but only in the mids of those who worship them. The ancient gods died along with the people who created them (like Ra and Apollo). Some gods linger on (Allah, Shiva) because they thrive in their home cultures.

Yahweh is one of the most advanced gods because he can be defined a bit more than the others and is more personal. We say he is outside of time because we know what time is and what restraints it puts on our universe. We say he speaks through books because we have written languages and the technology to pass it on. God is as advanced and as brilliant as we are, because our amazing minds imagined him and adore him.

This is just the way we are. I’m sure in the future our deities will grow and evolve to fit into the holes that science has not yet closed, into the mysteries that are still unsolved.

It’s kind of confusing, in a way… deities are getting bigger all the time as our minds and imaginations expand… but at the same time they shrink smaller and smaller as we give them less and less credit for the natural things of this universe.

We truly are amazing, thoughtful beings.

* * *

My thoughts are greatly inspired by the documentary Creator of God: A Brain Surgeon’s Story and the Q&A session our audience had with the creator Dr. Vivekanand Palavali at a local film festival. Although it has some weaknesses, I recommend seeing this film if you have the chance–especially if you have an agnostic or believing friend with you. It sparks some lively conversations!

If, as evolutionists claim, all of mankind evolved from the SAME primitive life-source, then how did we end up with 7,000 different languages? The Bible teaches that God created all the different languages at Babel… “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech … Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth” [see Genesis 11:1-9]. It is far more reasonable to accept the Biblical claim that God created all of mankind’s different languages; than it is to believe that some space-dust from a massive chaotic explosion somehow became life, and then took on intelligence, and then from the same evolutionary process ended up with 7,000 different languages. That makes no sense at all.

Oh stop it! You’re making my sides hurt! Please tell me again how reasonable it is that every human being on earth had a powwow in a valley somewhere, decided to build a really tall brick building so they could go up to heaven,  be famous, and to stay neighbors.

Explain to me how sensible it is that a spirit-man in the sky literally visited to check on their work and got really pissed off that they showed some bricklaying skills. He then decided to keep them from being successful and unified, so he used telekinesis to lift them up, plop them down in other parts of the earth, and then magically changed their languages so they wouldn’t be able to understand one another (or themselves, I imagine). Talk about anti-progress, a bitchy boss, and a serious case of “go sit in the corner and be quiet”.

Oh yeah, that makes a whole lot more sense than gradual change over time.

Read more wtf-i-tude at jesus-is-savior.com.