Being human
Lucy Odling-Smee
Friday, 17 October 2008 14:46 UTC
What can science tell us about why we behave in the way that we do? And what are the consequences of that knowledge for society?
A series of Essays in Nature asks exactly these questions. Experts explore the potential impact on society, now and in the future, of discoveries in psychology, anthropology, genetics, neuroscience, game theory and network engineering.
All eight essays in this series have now been published. Take a look at the collection and tell us what you think.
Updated 12 February 2009 18:04 UTC
-
Replies
This topic has been locked by the forum moderators.
Jump to resultsResults
-
I was struck by the article’s suggestion that having more than one active personality within a mind is a common, and evolutionarily adaptive, phenomenon.
That suggests that the modern concept of an atomistic self is fundamentally flawed.
Digital worlds – from Habbo Hotel to Second Life to World of Warcraft – are enabling people to rediscover a multiplicity of selves, to experiment with a diversified, fragmented identity.
Maybe we’re seeing the origin of a concept of human personhood that looks something like corporate personhood: a legal and social construct, always subject to creation, dissolution, merger.
To be networked with others, present and not, corporeal and not, seems to be our nature. Is that nature just coming into its own in online spaces?
-
A few nerves have been touched here!
Omar: The Islam article, and Nature editorial policy, is off-topic for this particular conversation, which is about the “being human” essay series. Please can you not use this conversation as an excuse to vent in this way, but stick to the topic.
My comment about “political correctness” refers to politics, not science. The phrase “political correctness” does not apply to creationism, that is plain wrong, politics does not come into it!
Nicholas: An essay is an “opinion” piece (as stated in the journal), so to the extent that the writer offers personal opinions, you could use the word “bias” I suppose, but “opinion” would do just as well. Is there evidence for the belief examples you provide?
-
I appreciate the idea of Being Human. However I think that the first article misses the point. It is a list of sentences that could have been written one century ago, coloured by evolution and psycopathology sauce. In this way the essays will be unuseful, since modern religion believers will not find themselves described in this article. Modern religions are well developed phylosophical systems which have gone a long way beyond the attitudes described here. The article does not tackle the real relevant aspects of deep religious reasoning, whose origin is likely to be completely cultural, not gene-linked.
-
I have always been fascinated by the nature of religion. I am am atheist, and always have been, but it is clear that the vast majority of people, throughout history, have been religious. I have also observed a large number of my personal friends, who are also professional scientists, who claim to “have faith” – but cannot answer my most basic questions, such as “if your god loves us all, why does he permit wars? Why did he tell Moses that the world was created in 7 days when we now know that was a lie?” and many, many more.
In my opinion – and I have zero evidence to back this up – religion evolved alongside humanity and human society. The essay points out how complex out social structures are. We all know how absolute religion is in applying rules. As humans became civilized in Mesopotamia, religions began to emerge, with Gilgamesh (aka Noah) being “sent by god” to survive the real world trials and tribulations – and teaching leassons to the otherwise ignorant society. We humans are great at teaching our young our experiences – as well as the experiences of others which we ourselves have never had. This teaching in Ur, of how to survive a flooding, was very useful, as the Euprates and Tigris used to flood regularly. So you can say that our society and culture managed to survive to modernity because of religion, as well as that religion survived to modernity because of our culture. The problem we now face is – how do we drop a DNA and culture hard wired religion which we have now out-evolved? In my opinion, we never will, as there will always be people who find it easier and better to live deluded by religion than by actual facts.
-
This piece was interesting in its explanation of how scientists are attempting to study religious beliefs, but I find these attempts ultimately dissatisfying. They seem to skirt the basic issue, focusing on details at the expense of the bigger picture. These details are interesting (e.g., the tendency to anthropomorphize god, the possible connection between obsessive-compulsive behaviors and religious rituals) but the bigger picture can only be addressed by something wider than science: philosophy.
Since survival requires action over time, people need a means to guide their actions if they are to survive. Throughout history, religion has offered such a guide, whether it be in the form of a Christian commandment not to steal or an Islamic commandment that infidels must be made to submit to Allah. The function is the same: provide people with guidance on how to live their lives.
But just because religion has held a near-monopoly on providing moral guidance, doesn’t mean that a secular morality is impossible. Unfortunately, atheism per se isn’t a secular morality. Atheism says only ‘I don’t believe in god.’ I certainly am an atheist, but I’m also an a-gremlinist and an a-bogeymanist since I don’t believe in gremlins or bogeymen. But listing what one is against is not the same as listing what one is for, and that’s why atheism will never satisfy people’s need for moral guidance. For that, one needs to turn to a secular moral philosophy such as the rational egoism defined by Ayn Rand. As long as people think that religion has a monopoly on morality, and can’t imagine a morality without gods and commandments, they will be drawn to the moral guidance that religion promises.
-
I wrote a longish response to this essay on Forvm. Perhaps some of you may find it of interest, it’s a bit long for a single post here.
-
A provocative article to say the least; most certainly too many interesting points raised to expound upon at any length in this format. However, I would like to speak to one, ok maybe two claims made by Pascal which are ultimately a “linchpin” for the entire arguement;ie that evolutionary science has refuted two central claims of most established religions.
But first, let me start with the empirical evidence for the presence of an innate conserved mechanism of the human mind, which is not subject to cultural influence, to desire and experience an interaction with a non-physical agent(s). What exactly this evidence illuminates is unclear to me. Although it appears as though convincing evidence exists that these fundamental processes of the human mind may exist to improve social interactions and thus survival it does not supply legitimate explanations as to why these mechanism(s) would be hijacked to develop the belief in God or even elevate any being above ourselves to which we would need to subject ourselves to the direction of until the point of death, superstimuli is rather vague and untested at this point I believe, but please correct me if I am wrong. Another issue, but one I will not attempt to articulate a response to in this post as it has been done many times prior in many venues, raised within this context is the invoking of a non-physical agent(s) with similar moral concerns; how or better yet why this would happen in an evolutionary framework is not demonstrated within this article and likely is not possible without some apprecitiation of an absolute moral law.
But to the point, at least from a Christian perspective, in supplying an arguement against the notion that Christainity differs from all other faiths exists only in the object of its faith, namely Christ. A difference is not suggested or even proclaimed at the cognitive level, as what I believe is suggested by Pascal, as throughout the Christian bible it is clearly stated for what purpose we were all made and called for and within such a framework it would be anticipated that we would indeed all share similar tacit cognitive assumptions and dispositions to believing in a non-physical agent. In regards to the so-termed second tenet of established religions, I again fail to see how such a grandiose claim can be made; for example, provided the complexity of human cognition can we really draw such a bold conclusion from what we know? As we proceed forward with enthusiasm we will undoubtedly change our opinions on numerous aspects on the development of human cognition which I may dare say is truly in its infancy with applicable tools to study the multi-faceted nature of the mind really only becoming available in recent years. This lies in stark contrast to rigorous experimentation of areas of molecular biology such as transciptional control which at my last glance has seen some major “paradigm shifts” (I really dislike this term) only recently and therefore I caution all to not put the cart before the horse Rather pursuit of rational conclusions which are firmly supported by the data and do not play to the philosophical/political bent of an era but as scientist I propose we seek the truth, and in so doing I believe we truly will be set free.
-
While I appreciate the author’s appeal to neuroscience this article is a promotion of evolutionary psychology. The denials make my case, “It does not try to identify the gene or genes for religious thinking. Nor does it simply dream up evolutionary scenarios that might have led to religion as we know it. It does much better than that.” Then there is the admission, “Finally, studies of social and evolutionary psychology demonstrate…” Evolutionary psychology IS as easy to sell as religion. The stories in evo psych are as simplistic and literary as religious stories and as easy to sell to those who see science not as a crude tool but as a ‘way of knowing’ superior to religion.
In coming to terms with ‘being human’ as a physiological process we may find the literary questions to be of limited guiding value rather quickly. Please don’t limit discussion of our possible behavior to a conservative literary story. The physiology of neural plasticity (learning) may allow us to socially achieve things we cannot predict or imagine especially if we don’t dismiss the physiology of the brains with whom we disagree. Human societies have benefited greatly by learning to avoiding mixing sewage with drinking and cleansing water. Perhaps learning to avoid mixing language of contempt for other humans in our social dialogue will be equally beneficial? Please allow physiology to guide the discussion of our limits to cooperate not literary science. Perhaps appealing to ‘emergent properties’ like cognitive traits and capacities is as damaging to science as appealing to non-material entities and other traditional literary categories. Please take an interest in the physiology of the brain in particular and chemistry in general. Once we understand the chemical interactions of the atoms it often solves the problem of the many handed social scientist or political leader who take themselves too seriously or have contempt for our ignorance of their expertise. Your attention may help promote a healthy life style and an optimistic secular humanism. We have much to learn and your efforts will be greatly appreciated. Question the obvious as often as you can.
-
Once you discover how something works, the next step is usually to try and fix what you think is inperfect about it.
The consequences of such a breakthrough would be the persuit of perfection; in society we all have influences and every human knows something that’s wrong with the way they are. -
Preface: although I am aware of the distinction between faith (an individual pursuit) and religion (the exercise of faith in or between groups), I will use faith throughout, because the individual is the unit of selection in most evolutionary arguments.
I liked this article because it’s the first thinking I’ve seen on the subject that refers to the proverbial elephant in the room: that perhaps faith is a consequence of evolutionary biology, but not because it experienced direct positive selection.
Most graduate students in evolutionary biology are required to read Gould and Lewontin’s 1979 paper, ‘The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique Of The Adaptationist Programme,’ Proceedings Of The Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 205, No. 1161 (1979), Pp. 581-598, available on the web here.
Gould and Lewontin argue, as I recall, that not all features of an organism are necessarily the product of an adaptive evolutionary process. Instead, they propose that some traits are ‘carried along’ as a consequence of the architecture of organisms, much like the spandrels in Gothic cathedral architecture. Yet discussions of the evolution of faith, up to an including Dawkins’ arguments in The God Delusion, focus only on the possibility that religion might have been adaptive in the not-too-distant past. This seems Panglossian to me.
Why do we continue to dismiss the argument that perhaps, just perhaps, the evolution of faith might be a spandrel — an unselected architectural consequence of the complex, subtle evolution of other neural structures or processes? I suggest that even here, there is a very faint bias at work: even the best-skilled investigators are (unconsciously?) unwilling to entertain the idea that faith is not adaptive. If we can get past this proposed bias, we can bring ourselves to think more clearly about the adaptive value(s), or the lack of same, for a predisposition to religion. We can investigate the occurrence of faith in various human socities the same way we might examine variations in any phenotypic trait across populations.
Kudos to Nature for being bold enough to consider a faith-as-spandrel hypothesis.
Results
-
