PDA

View Full Version : Darwin's God


Daniel
03-05-2007, 01:29 AM
This article is from the NYTimes magazine (3/5/07) and I simply thought others might find it of interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

By ROBIN MARANTZ HENIG
Published: March 4, 2007
God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. When he was 10 years old, he scrawled a plaintive message on the wall of his bedroom in Baltimore. “God exists,” he wrote in black and orange paint, “or if he doesn’t, we’re in trouble.” Atran has been struggling with questions about religion ever since — why he himself no longer believes in God and why so many other people, everywhere in the world, apparently do.

Call it God; call it superstition; call it, as Atran does, “belief in hope beyond reason” — whatever you call it, there seems an inherent human drive to believe in something transcendent, unfathomable and otherworldly, something beyond the reach or understanding of science. “Why do we cross our fingers during turbulence, even the most atheistic among us?” asked Atran when we spoke at his Upper West Side pied-à-terre in January. Atran, who is 55, is an anthropologist at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, with joint appointments at the University of Michigan and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. His research interests include cognitive science and evolutionary biology, and sometimes he presents students with a wooden box that he pretends is an African relic. “If you have negative sentiments toward religion,” he tells them, “the box will destroy whatever you put inside it.” Many of his students say they doubt the existence of God, but in this demonstration they act as if they believe in something. Put your pencil into the magic box, he tells them, and the nonbelievers do so blithely. Put in your driver’s license, he says, and most do, but only after significant hesitation. And when he tells them to put in their hands, few will.

If they don’t believe in God, what exactly are they afraid of?

Atran first conducted the magic-box demonstration in the 1980s, when he was at Cambridge University studying the nature of religious belief. He had received a doctorate in anthropology from Columbia University and, in the course of his fieldwork, saw evidence of religion everywhere he looked — at archaeological digs in Israel, among the Mayans in Guatemala, in artifact drawers at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Atran is Darwinian in his approach, which means he tries to explain behavior by how it might once have solved problems of survival and reproduction for our early ancestors. But it was not clear to him what evolutionary problems might have been solved by religious belief. Religion seemed to use up physical and mental resources without an obvious benefit for survival. Why, he wondered, was religion so pervasive, when it was something that seemed so costly from an evolutionary point of view?

The magic-box demonstration helped set Atran on a career studying why humans might have evolved to be religious, something few people were doing back in the ’80s. Today, the effort has gained momentum, as scientists search for an evolutionary explanation for why belief in God exists — not whether God exists, which is a matter for philosophers and theologians, but why the belief does.

Which is the better biological explanation for a belief in God — evolutionary adaptation or neurological accident? Is there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us receptive to belief in a supernatural deity? And if scientists are able to explain God, what then? Is explaining religion the same thing as explaining it away? Are the nonbelievers right, and is religion at its core an empty undertaking, a misdirection, a vestigial artifact of a primitive mind? Or are the believers right, and does the fact that we have the mental capacities for discerning God suggest that it was God who put them there?

In short, are we hard-wired to believe in God? And if we are, how and why did that happen?

superhippy7890
03-06-2007, 06:03 PM
very intresting. I think thta we aren't hard wierd to belive in G-d, what it is is that we all have an urge to find what lies beyomnnd ourselves. This leads to many paths and many belifs.

J.D.
03-08-2007, 07:41 PM
So close, and yet so far seemingly...

Taking this from another perspective, many famous philosophers have looked to our desire to worship God (or a god) as proof towards the case of a creator. The very existence of this ability/desire shows that we aren't created just for procreation and survival.
The theory of evolution has no explanation for the supernatural, or the human soul quality. If life's purpose (well, evolution would have there be none firstoff, but work with me...) is only for survival, then why would we have the ability to think and philosophically contemplate the existence of God? Why would we be driven to search the stars for a cretor, or the need to worship him? There is no reason.
Think on it from that perspective, perhaps.

-JD

Daniel
03-09-2007, 02:36 AM
JD- I hear what you are saying, but what about the significant segment of the human race that doesn't have a conception of God? What then? And I'm not talking about atheists.

Buddhism's understanding is that there is no independent being- or entity- called God.

Now, I'm not taking sides here, but your statement strikes this reader as being circular in it's reasoning, which is what the article was about actually.

u-dog
03-09-2007, 09:29 AM
The theory of evolution has no explanation for the supernatural, or the human soul quality. If life's purpose (well, evolution would have there be none firstoff, but work with me...) is only for survival, then why would we have the ability to think and philosophically contemplate the existence of God? Why would we be driven to search the stars for a cretor, or the need to worship him? There is no reason.
Think on it from that perspective, perhaps.


JD,

I'm a Christian and believe that God has a purpose for the creation and each of us in it, however, I don't think your argument holds up. The theory of evolution suggests that (seemingly) random mutations happen and if they help the organism to survive more effectively than its competitors then the mutation becomes an inheritable trait. So if this desire or capacity to search for meaning and connection selected for survival it would be incorporated into the whole species whether or not there was ACTUALLY an object of that search.

But just for the record? I believe that we have that capacity in order that we might connect with the God of the universe.

J.D.
03-09-2007, 09:30 AM
JD- I hear what you are saying, but what about the significant segment of the human race that doesn't have a conception of God? What then?

First off, nearly every people group/culture/tribe has a form of something it follows, worships, or believes in. I was not specifically referencing the Christian God as much as I was playing to the notice of a spiritual hole that everyone looks to fill (even in an atheists case, unbelief).

Let's say that there is some people group out there that believes in nothing...not even worshiping their leader, the land or the air, or something generic of the sort. My premise would be that theoretically generations beforehand had believed in something, but moved on from that religion.

The point remains: philosophy has no direct connection to survival. Interestingly, our planet is sitting in an exact spot in the Milky way where we can see the solar system all around us...in fact most scientists have viewed our position as the ideal spot for viewing the galaxy. Big deal, right? If we were positioned only slightly differently, a cosmic cloud would cover any long distance view of the universe. How is it that we are so precariously positioned that we are set in the perfect spot of viewing a magnificent universe?

In my mind, these sort of things point to a creative creator that desigined us to fellowship and worship him, much like the Genesis account.

-JD

nmwolfboy
03-09-2007, 12:31 PM
JD - thanks for sharing your theses. i tend, however, to agree with Daniel that your statements seems circular in their logic.

Here's another viewpoint that i've run across: as self-awareness dawned in the evolving human mind, this led to a recognition of mortality and the desolation of selfhood. (ie, "everyone is separate from everyone else, therefore alone and insignificant in the face of all existence"). This was psychologically traumatic, a conflict that sought resolution in the responsive projection of an external force which exists outside of us and which transcends our awareness of our mortality, alienation & insufficientness. For example one form of this projection is/was an animistic understanding of our environment as a 'spirit world' in which all things were alive (trees, animals, the sun, the moon, etc.) and with which it was possible to interact in a mystical, interconnected way. Another example was/is a belief in a theistic 'other' or 'others' who protected, or punished; who required placating sacrifices. worship, etc. These understandings likely arose out of a gestalt, not out of some linear & rational thought process.

This premise suggests that our ability to think and philosophically contemplate the existence of God was a capacity required by our evolving consciouness. Otherwise our ancestors would have likely killed each other and themselves out of despair at their insignificance in the face of the huge sky and infinite variety of the world around them. That is, when they weren't busy procreating! The overall inclination of humans throughout history to explain life's mysteries through theology or philosophy is a survival mechanism, and does not lie outside Evolutionary Theory.

At least that's one other explanation that's out there!

i feel compelled to point out that this alternate explanation does not preclude the existence of God. It only illustrates that our inherent capacity to seek God (or any non-theistic meaning outside of ourselves) cannot be relied upon as proof of God's existence.

Pax,
scott :dove:

J.D.
03-09-2007, 03:47 PM
as self-awareness dawned in the evolving human mind...

Hold on right there...why did self-awareness dawn in the evolving of the human mind? I don't see how that is important to self-survival.

this led to a recognition of mortality and the desolation of selfhood. (ie, "everyone is separate from everyone else, therefore alone and insignificant in the face of all existence")....Otherwise our ancestors would have likely killed each other and themselves out of despair at their insignificance in the face of the huge sky and infinite variety of the world around them.

Interestingly enough, I know of no animals or species that have become self aware of there existence, therefore feeling alone in this world. I don't see species killing each other out of a pyschological distress that they have no meaning in life.

My point is that if we evolved from animals, and were at the cross of animal and human (ludicrous in and of itself) then why would we ever need to understand why we exist? There is no purpose for it, and according to evolution our minds would have no survival instinct to evolve a process of understanding.


This premise suggests that our ability to think and philosophically contemplate the existence of God was a capacity required by our evolving consciouness.

You say that we have always philosiphied on our existence, and my point would be that we were created that way. You call it an inclination...but evolution has no reason behind reason for inclinations, especially towards philosophy. It has no direct connection to survival.

You make an interesting hypothesis...however it has no basis in the evolutionary theory.

nmwolfboy
03-09-2007, 05:46 PM
Whoa there, JD. i never said i buy into the theory i presented. i only offered it as one of many theories that i've come across that give some evolutionary background to the development of consciousness. The underlying theme of my post was that there is more than one point of view regarding our desire to philosophize & know God.

Regarding the theory i presented - you'll find its basis in some of Freud's work and even in the work of some theologians. If you dig around a bit, i'm sure you'll be able to find many other points of view.

Pax,

scott

matthewspeed
03-10-2007, 12:47 PM
I strongly agree with JD. I just thought I would voice my opinion. I could have not said it better than how JD explained his position.

scott snedeker
03-10-2007, 01:29 PM
It's all a point of view.

I have a good friend, Linda, who is very christian.

She sees my spiritual metaphysics like explaining how the tail is actually wagging the dog. [I]feels [/B]best then practice it]

She reads scripture as truth and reconciles to make her feelings fit it by believing the feelings come from God through his words.
[which, of course, I see as explaning the wagging action as an effect of the tail on the dog also]

Neither of us is anywhere close to explaining the order of the universe so we both laugh out loud at ourselves and each other.