Hyperactive Agency Detection Device explains God?

[YosefYosep]

It is believed that humans evolved a strategy to help them survive known as the hyperactive agency detection device (HADD) . What it does is ascribe agency to the unknown. For instance, the rustling in the bushes might immediately be ascribed to a tiger or bear in order to warn primitive man. It is theorized that modern man still has this agency detection and that is what our idea of God has evolved from. So what is a good argument against this?

 

[Viki63]

There are a lot of good arguments for the existence of God.
This is a really good book.

If God didn’t create the universe, where did it come from? Nothing can come out of nothingness by itself.

.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

It is believed that humans evolved a strategy to help them survive known as the hyperactive agency detection device (HADD) . What it does is ascribe agency to the unknown. For instance, the rustling in the bushes might immediately be ascribed to a tiger or bear in order to warn primitive man. It is theorized that modern man still has this agency detection and that is what our idea of God has evolved from. So what is a good argument against this?

For starters, it’s nothing more than a theory posited by people looking for an excuse for their atheistic beliefs. There’s no need for for this function to exist for a human to function and flourish, and started with the assumption that man created God, rather than the assumption that this sort of ‘device’ was necessary.

Beyond that, it can in no way explain the reality of existence, the nature of good, the development of life, or the development of intellect apart from instinct.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

It is believed that humans evolved a strategy to help them survive known as the hyperactive agency detection device (HADD) . What it does is ascribe agency to the unknown. For instance, the rustling in the bushes might immediately be ascribed to a tiger or bear in order to warn primitive man. It is theorized that modern man still has this agency detection and that is what our idea of God has evolved from. So what is a good argument against this?

So, does this HADD mean that there is *no *tiger or bear rustling in the bush? Indeed, there might be, and it was logical of the brain (for survival) to surmise that it just might be… and thus, if this HADD has something to do with an 'idea of God", then perhaps it might be just as logical to think what its thinking also.

I want to share something here- its about instinct- I have chickens. Sometimes I use an incubator to hatch eggs. They have no mother hen to tell them anything, to communicate with them 'the ways of being a chicken". When I take those incubator raised chicks outside and they spot a hawk just flying (non-threatening) above, they all scream and run for cover. ** Nothing **taught them that the hawk is a danger (and it is), it is completely instinctual. (I find this to be fascinating) This notion exists in their minds without having been taught the knowledge that hawk is a danger to them. They just “know”.

So why can’t humans have instincts about God too? It is known that every tribe nation and peoples on this planet all (at least at one time before modern times) believed in some form of deity. Do they think people made up stories and got the rest of the tribe to believe them or forced them to believe it? Or was it that all peoples have this instinct about God and thus could understand one another in their communicating the notion of ‘god’. No doubt there is religious abuse going on in all belief forms for centuries, but in order for people to follow/obey any group there has to be a shared notion of God there first.

Anyway, that’s my not-so-intellectual response to your question.

 

[JimG]

Well, that rustling of the leaves in the bushes doesn’t happen all by itself. It may be caused by the wind, or by a lurking tiger, but it does have a cause. So human beings have long recognized the principle of causality. This is surprising?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

It is believed that humans evolved a strategy to help them survive known as the hyperactive agency detection device (HADD) . What it does is ascribe agency to the unknown. For instance, the rustling in the bushes might immediately be ascribed to a tiger or bear in order to warn primitive man. It is theorized that modern man still has this agency detection and that is what our idea of God has evolved from. So what is a good argument against this?

A good argument against it is that modern man doesn’t even hear the rustling of bushes or see the moon at night or go out into nature in the darkness alone. How could he possible know God?

 

[claymcdermott]

The history of religion maybe doesn’t work so well there.

Early Man may have ascribed agency to wind, and the sun, and trees, and a number of other things.

But gods that look like the gods we talk about seem to come about because people become dissatisfied with agency in virtually everything.

Then, monotheism (at least in ancient Greece) crops up when people see inherent problems in polytheism, and resolve it by supposing one god.

So, it doesn’t seem that what happened was that people supposed agency in everything, and then went, “Cool, so there’s a God.” It seems more like, maybe people saw agency in everything and then went, “Nah. There’s a God.”

Besides, I kinda doubt that what they evolved to see was agency in everything, more than it was seeing the possibility they might be attacked in everything (especially since the example you give is assuming its animals) - and we usually don’t ascribe agency to animals in postmodernity, so we can see that the two thoughts are distinguishable. Then, assuming the rustling in the bushes is an earthquake or a coming tornado might be just as helpful.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I don’t have an argument against it. Just laughter because it is quite ridiculous. :ehh:

When will they stop trying to explain away God?

 

[inocente]

A good argument against it is that modern man doesn’t even hear the rustling of bushes or see the moon at night or go out into nature in the darkness alone. How could he possible know God?

I looked up HADD, and it was originally based on experiments where people tend to ascribe intentional agency to moving dots on computer displays. We also tend to think that our computer has something against us when it loses our work. That a hammer is malicious when it hits our thumb. That ghosts are responsible when things go bump in the night. That it’s a miracle when one person walks away from a road traffic accident when others die.

When we can’t explain an event, we tend to ascribe it to an invisible conscious agency. Everyone tends to do this, and there must be some explanation for why all humans throughout history share this behavior. HADD is an attempt, possibly wrong, to explain this.

anthro.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/images/staff/justin_barrett/Barrett%20%26%20Johnson%202003.pdf