Humans 'Predisposed' to Believe in Gods and the Afterlife

[buffalo]

Once again science catches up with Catholicism but, you can pick up a Catechism for 20 bucks.

Duh…
Humans ‘Predisposed’ to Believe in Gods and the Afterlife

ScienceDaily (July 14, 2011) — A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.

more…

---

The Catechism:

CHAPTER ONE
MAN’S CAPACITY FOR GOD
I. THE DESIRE FOR GOD
27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.1

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Once again science catches up with Catholicism but, you can pick up a Catechism for 20 bucks.

Hahahahaah! excellent point!!

 

[kimmielittle]

I loved this!!! Thank you

 

[MarcusAndreas]

The wheel. It has been reinvented.

 

[FaithBuild18]

I’m curious as to how the atheist camp is going to respond to this. I also consequently hope there was legitimacy behind this study and that those doing the study were credible. Not for my own assurance but simply to take away any fire that will be spat out of the mouths of nay-sayers.

 

[Arkadin]

‘Just because we find it easier to think in a particular way does not mean that it is true in fact. If we look at why religious beliefs and practices persist in societies across the world, we conclude that individuals bound by religious ties might be more likely to cooperate as societies. Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network.’

That’s an interesting and, to me, the most powerful point. Religion used as a means to bond people in social support, but when people have thrive due to a different “strong social support network”, religion plays a very minor role. Some people try to remedy this with fear or indoctrination, sadly.

This is just a consequence of a advanced and conscious mind. We are simply trying to figure out what is going on. People equated thunder to be the voice or anger of a much more powerful being and we establish gods like Thor. Religion, and almost all things humanly created like corporations, are like a species of its own trying to survive. The means to survive is to procreate and have a bigger species. This means stronger protection, bonding and, ultimately, survival.

Tribes of various religions battled against one another (evident in the Old Testament) and the tribe that won, the religion survived. Captives of the defeated tribe (especially women) were assimilated into the winning tribe, often by force. You even see this in the book of Numbers in the Bible.

15Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live? 16Behold, these, on Balaam’s advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. 17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:15-18).

Today when things like this happen, we would consider this a war-crime or genocide.

It’s interesting and as we advance as a species due to science, I wonder what more we will learn.

 

[exnihilo]

The researchers point out that the project was not setting out to prove the existence of god or otherwise, but sought to find out whether concepts such as gods and an afterlife appear to be entirely taught or basic expressions of human nature.

How could it be entirely taught under naturalism? With naturalism if you go back far enough you’d eventually come to a person who thought it up. So at its very root it could never be taught. It would have to have been an idea someone apprehended.

If we look at why religious beliefs and practices persist in societies across the world, we conclude that individuals bound by religious ties might be more likely to cooperate as societies. Interestingly, we found that religion is less likely to thrive in populations living in cities in developed nations where there is already a strong social support network.

The first statement is made in a Christian world. Do most ancient religions encourage cooperation?

As for the cities I think the disconnect from the natural world, and the rejection of culture and tradition that tend to dominate cities lead folks to make themselves the deity. This is shown in the vast number of laws cities have where the people rule over their neighbor. The general condition in rural areas is live and let live.

I’d be interested to know how they figure city dwellers have a stronger social support network

To be sure, city dwellers live with more air pollution and violent crime. They also have higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases and low-birth-weight babies and are more likely to drink excessively.

It’s long been observed that city dwellers have a higher rate of mental health problems than rural residents—39 percent more mood disorders and 21 percent more anxiety disorders, according to an analysis from 20 developed countries last year.

source

 

[DPMartin]

That’s an interesting and, to me, the most powerful point. Religion used as a means to bond people in social support, but when people have thrive due to a different “strong social support network”, religion plays a very minor role. Some people try to remedy this with fear or indoctrination, sadly.

This is just a consequence of a advanced and conscious mind. We are simply trying to figure out what is going on. People equated thunder to be the voice or anger of a much more powerful being and we establish gods like Thor. Religion, and almost all things humanly created like corporations, are like a species of its own trying to survive. The means to survive is to procreate and have a bigger species. This means stronger protection, bonding and, ultimately, survival.

Tribes of various religions battled against one another (evident in the Old Testament) and the tribe that won, the religion survived. Captives of the defeated tribe (especially women) were assimilated into the winning tribe, often by force. You even see this in the book of Numbers in the Bible.

15Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live? 16Behold, these, on Balaam’s advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. 17Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:15-18).

Today when things like this happen, we would consider this a war-crime or genocide.

It’s interesting and as we advance as a species due to science, I wonder what more we will learn.

Arkadin

It is illogical that man be separated from his Maker. It is also illogical for man to make up his maker. If man doesn’t know his Maker, and man knowing he didn’t make himself, then how is man to know who his Maker is?

Life doesn’t come from that which doesn’t have Life, nor does order come from chaos. Inanimate objects don’t seem to express want, but yet they do gravitate to fit in a order that makes them bigger then themselves alone.

Do opposites attract? Or is one in lack of the other? Does one have what the other lacks, in order for the relationship of both, can come to rest, one with the other?

But man is never at rest, for his want. If a man wants not, then the man is at rest. If a man doesn’t want God then he sees himself at rest with his want, unless the man becomes aware of the Presence of God in the world, which then would be dreaded by the man, for the man knows that God requires what God wants, just as the man thinks to have right to require what the man wants. So the man decides to avoid the Presence of God by a deliberate attempt to offend, that maybe the Presence of God in the world of would go away. That the man may have what the man wants, and make false gods out of what ever is within his reach, to appease the need to not be separate from the Living God. This way his made up god can be what ever he wants his god to be, or even whatever he thinks at the time what his god ought to be. And even argue for his view of his made up god, in the what his god ought to be. Heck his god could even be himself, since hey, he can make what his god ought to be, in accordance to his own will and wants in the world. Hence his own logic is, make his god look better then the True Living God, and justify it, with want. But this would and could only be in his own view. For he seeks the right to reject, what doesn’t meet his approval, in what he wants. Hence he is master of his own god, and what his god ought to be.

The man knows what he wants, therefore he is correct about what he wants, hence fooling himself that what he wants is right or correct, even if it’s only for himself. And it is only for himself in his view, that needs to be satisfied anyways. However, the reality is, that God knows what He wants and is right or correct about what he wants, and what He wants is right and or correct, for all that He has made.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m curious as to how the atheist camp is going to respond to this. I also consequently hope there was legitimacy behind this study and that those doing the study were credible. Not for my own assurance but simply to take away any fire that will be spat out of the mouths of nay-sayers.

I would expect different people to have different reactions. For some the information won’t be new. From reading the summary in the article it sounds like the study may have some information that aligns with what was published in “Why God Won’t Go Away (Published March 26, 2002).” There are other books that have published different aspects of this theory too.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The first statement is made in a Christian world. Do most ancient religions encourage cooperation?

Not necessarily, but there’s a tendency in human behaviour for people to treat their in group better than their out group. In group / out group lines are some times drawn based on family relationship, ethnicity, culture, and religion, political party, so on. When ever a land was taken over forcing the people in that land to convert to the same religion redefined their in group / out group lines and made them easy to control.

 

[exnihilo]

Not necessarily, but there’s a tendency in human behaviour for people to treat their in group better than their out group. In group / out group lines are some times drawn based on family relationship, ethnicity, culture, and religion, political party, so on. When ever a land was taken over forcing the people in that land to convert to the same religion redefined their in group / out group lines and made them easy to control.

I agree with the general idea.

Because, as you point out, there are many ways people organize, religion by itself might not be sufficient to make an in group. In fact there are conquered peoples who refused to convert, the Jews being the best example. Conversely there have been false conversions as well where the people claim to convert but secretly maintain their identity.

Many seemingly unified people have later broken apart along ancient lines that seemed to have disappeared. There seems to be some impetus in humans to conform and merge into one group. But there is also the impetus to divide. Both of these are always active and in the same group of people.

In the case of religion it was not the religion itself that caused people to cooperate but human nature which seems to make us want to treat our own better than outsiders. Each person and each authority in human organizations determines what exactly constitutes being in the group or outside. Religion would just be a natural thing by which we determine if someone is part of our group. So religion in general wouldn’t serve the purpose of encouraging people to work together. It would encourage people to work together in the same way ethnicity does which is not a human invention. This would seem to undermine the scientist’s point.

 

[kimmielittle]

Arkadin

It is illogical that man be separated from his Maker. It is also illogical for man to make up his maker. If man doesn’t know his Maker, and man knowing he didn’t make himself, then how is man to know who his Maker is?

Life doesn’t come from that which doesn’t have Life, nor does order come from chaos. Inanimate objects don’t seem to express want, but yet they do gravitate to fit in a order that makes them bigger then themselves alone.

Do opposites attract? Or is one in lack of the other? Does one have what the other lacks, in order for the relationship of both, can come to rest, one with the other?

But man is never at rest, for his want. If a man wants not, then the man is at rest. If a man doesn’t want God then he sees himself at rest with his want, unless the man becomes aware of the Presence of God in the world, which then would be dreaded by the man, for the man knows that God requires what God wants, just as the man thinks to have right to require what the man wants. So the man decides to avoid the Presence of God by a deliberate attempt to offend, that maybe the Presence of God in the world of would go away. That the man may have what the man wants, and make false gods out of what ever is within his reach, to appease the need to not be separate from the Living God. This way his made up god can be what ever he wants his god to be, or even whatever he thinks at the time what his god ought to be. And even argue for his view of his made up god, in the what his god ought to be. Heck his god could even be himself, since hey, he can make what his god ought to be, in accordance to his own will and wants in the world. Hence his own logic is, make his god look better then the True Living God, and justify it, with want. But this would and could only be in his own view. For he seeks the right to reject, what doesn’t meet his approval, in what he wants. Hence he is master of his own god, and what his god ought to be.

The man knows what he wants, therefore he is correct about what he wants, hence fooling himself that what he wants is right or correct, even if it’s only for himself. And it is only for himself in his view, that needs to be satisfied anyways. However, the reality is, that God knows what He wants and is right or correct about what he wants, and what He wants is right and or correct, for all that He has made.

Well said!

 

[Planty_Business]

I don’t see how this finding confirms Catholicism. Wouldn’t a natural predisposition to belief in the supernatural be evidence against the existence of the supernatural? It shows that no supernatural element - divine revelation or inspiration, for instance - is required for religious beliefs to arise in society, which is exactly what a materialist worldview would predict. If anything, I would be more impressed if scientists found no neurological basis for belief in God. That would imply either some supernatural element or a rational deduction on the part of early humans that led to their religious beliefs.

I wonder if such a neurological basis - or simplified versions of it - existed in the brains of hominids, however. If not, that wouldn’t necessarily confirm Catholicism, but it would be a curious finding, one that I would not expect as a materialist.

 

[bmonk]

I’m curious as to how the atheist camp is going to respond to this. I also consequently hope there was legitimacy behind this study and that those doing the study were credible. Not for my own assurance but simply to take away any fire that will be spat out of the mouths of nay-sayers.

I’d say that atheists will tend to say, “See? There is a predisposition to believe in God, and so we can’t trust any such belief, since it’s [strike]most likely[/strike] a fallout of our tendencies, an artifact of the brain.”

Like Freud, who said that religious faith is little more than psychological projection. We want or need a protector, and so we create one for ourselves.

One can reverse that argument, of course: the capacity to imagine a God indicates, on some level, that such a being actually can exist. And in that case the refusal to admit or investigate this faith becomes a choice, even a belief in itself, not in the existence of God, but in the non-existence of God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t see how this finding confirms Catholicism. Wouldn’t a natural predisposition to belief in the supernatural be evidence against the existence of the supernatural?

As far as I can tell evidence for a predisposition to a behaviour in certain conditions explains why that behaviour may be expected to be frequently found under those conditions. Based on the summary in the article it doesn’t sound sufficient by itself to imply that there are no deities, that there are many deities, or that there is a single deity that aligns with the concept of god described in a different religion. If such evidence were found I could see the results of this research forming part of the body of evidence though.

It shows that no supernatural element - divine revelation or inspiration, for instance - is required for religious beliefs to arise in society

It has been observed happening before, especially within the Cargo Cults of the South Pacific. Pre-industrial societies saw American soldiers speaking into magic boxes (radios) asking for things, and those things were delivered without the soldiers needing to do anything else. The natives built a religion trying to imitate what the soldiers did, making radios and landing stripe from bamboo trying to diving planes of precious cargo. Some of the resultant religions from these cargo cults still exists today.

If anything, I would be more impressed if scientists found no neurological basis for belief in God. That would imply either some supernatural element or a rational deduction on the part of early humans that led to their religious beliefs.

I think these researchers study cognitive psychology, so their research was cognitive. If you want to see neurological evidence you’ll need to check a publication by some one that works in neurology. The book I mentioned above (“Why God Won’t Go Away”) presents a biological explanation based on research brain imaging techniques. You can read the first chapter here to evaluate if it has what you are looking for. It’s been almost a decade since I read it and there may have been other books published since it was published.

 

[cerad2]

I’m curious as to how the atheist camp is going to respond to this. I also consequently hope there was legitimacy behind this study and that those doing the study were credible. Not for my own assurance but simply to take away any fire that will be spat out of the mouths of nay-sayers.

Why should there be nay-sayers? The article and the study makes it perfectly clear that the subject involved beliefs about gods and the afterlife. Nothing in it really talks about the actual existence of either. Few would deny that most people think there is some sort of afterlife though, sadly, the details of such an existence very widely and tend to be a bit ambiguous.

An infant needs a protector in order to survive. It’s no real surprise to find out that evolution predisposes us to act as though we continue to have a protector as we mature. Even if happens to be an invisible one.

 

[wanstronian]

Why should there be nay-sayers? The article and the study makes it perfectly clear that the subject involved beliefs about gods and the afterlife. Nothing in it really talks about the actual existence of either. Few would deny that most people think there is some sort of afterlife though, sadly, the details of such an existence very widely and tend to be a bit ambiguous.

An infant needs a protector in order to survive. It’s no real surprise to find out that evolution predisposes us to act as though we continue to have a protector as we mature. Even if happens to be an invisible one.

Exactly. I’m not sure what the OP has to gloat about really - the article in question explains why there is an evolutionary predisposition for belief in agency (which is hardly news - this has been known about for years; this is just one more confirmatory study). The quoted catechism, on the other hand, is just unenlightened rhetoric which seemingly attempts to equate the existence of the phenomenon withexistence of God.

This is hardly “science catching up with Catholicism” - in fact, far from it. It’s science riding roughshod over this particular catechism and showing it to be false - or at least, unsafe - doctrine.

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t see how this finding confirms Catholicism. Wouldn’t a natural predisposition to belief in the supernatural be evidence against the existence of the supernatural? It shows that no supernatural element - divine revelation or inspiration, for instance - is required for religious beliefs to arise in society, which is exactly what a materialist worldview would predict. If anything, I would be more impressed if scientists found no neurological basis for belief in God. That would imply either some supernatural element or a rational deduction on the part of early humans that led to their religious beliefs.

The problem with meaning is that humans can construct arguments from facts to come to whatever conclusion they want. This is why the skeptic wont believe no matter what the evidence is. He could see a vision but would dismiss it as a hallucination of the brain.

The problem I see with what you are saying is that you are then claiming that the brain is disposed to falsehoods.

Also with your reasoning you have to be careful that you dont prohibit the truth of something or make the only condition under which it could be true ridiculous. We could do the same thing regarding altruism. We could say that altruism is receiving no reward for your actions. We could then say that even anonymous acts of kindness are not altruistic because you could argue that the person doing the act receives personal satisfaction from the act. Thus altruism does not exist. But while showing in this way that altruism does not exist you have made it so that altruism could only be true if actors were indifferent internally to morality. This would be a rather nonsensical argument.

 

[exnihilo]

An infant needs a protector in order to survive. It’s no real surprise to find out that evolution predisposes us to act as though we continue to have a protector as we mature. Even if happens to be an invisible one.

I think, like many evolutionary arguments, this would be quite a stretch. Cockroaches are excellent survivors and yet I doubt they have a sense of God.

 

[exnihilo]

Exactly. I’m not sure what the OP has to gloat about really - the article in question explains why there is an evolutionary predisposition for belief in agency (which is hardly news - this has been known about for years; this is just one more confirmatory study). The quoted catechism, on the other hand, is just unenlightened rhetoric which seemingly attempts to equate the existence of the phenomenon withexistence of God.

This is hardly “science catching up with Catholicism” - in fact, far from it. It’s science riding roughshod over this particular catechism and showing it to be false - or at least, unsafe - doctrine.

The Catechism actually says man has a desire for God written in his heart. The science shows the same thing. So your denigration is not warranted by your own acceptance of the science.

Heart is used here because that is what makes the most sense since we are talking about desire. Science can not explain how human desire interacts with the mind in such a way that humans can chose to satisfy or not satisfy a desire or choose between which desires to satisfy at any one time. Science has yet to declare that men are compelled to follow their desire for the obvious reason that those who advocate such a notion would destroy utterly the culpability of man and scientists, despite their academic proclamations, still want to be able to at least punish those who they feel harmed them.