…maybe…
I’ll come out and say it. I’m an atheist. Those who have been reading this blog for quite some time probably won’t be surprised by this, but I’ve avoided bringing it up before for one simple reason.
The word atheism is riddled with implications.
Perhaps the strongest implication is that an atheist has to believe something is fundamentally wrong with religion. I do have my criticisms, particularly when faith goes so far that it actually causes people to dismiss evidence.
That said, I think that belief in things without evidence is a fundamentally human trait, and one that likely won’t go anywhere any time soon. There’s a case to be made that faith of this kind is important, maybe even necessary.
About a month ago, I decided I wanted to know what the latest scientific literature had to say about the subject. Here is what I found.
Is Religion Adaptive?
The idea that religion is an evolutionary byproduct is a popular one among scholars of cognitive science. Most reject the notion that religion has been selected for by evolution, instead arguing that it is the result of structural constraints. But the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science recently released an article critiquing this model.
In a survival setting, believing that something isn’t true when it actually is can prove fatal. But believing something is true, even if it isn’t, is nowhere near as dangerous.
One of the most commonly cited explanations is the bias toward false positives. In a survival setting, believing that something isn’t true when it actually is can prove fatal. But believing something is true, even if it isn’t, is nowhere near as dangerous. In fact, believing in something without strong evidence could save your life or lead you to something beneficial.
While the bias toward false positives is a real and measurable aspect of human behavior, the article points out a very real problem with how this relates to religion. I think the following snippet is very revealing:
To establish that the HADD [Hypersensitive Agency Detection Device] causes belief in supernatural agents, we need an explanation of how and why we come to attribute supernatural rather than natural agency. We also need an explanation of how and why people continue to believe in the existence of supernatural agents. The HADD hypothesis may explain why we tend to infer agency when we hear rustling in the grass, but it does not account for belief in the ongoing existence of the agents that we (mis)attribute. In cases of ordinary agency, we are able to correct our initial attributions: we hear rustling in the grass and turn around expecting to be met by an agent, but when we fail to see an agent and instead observe wind moving the grass around, we typically correct our initial overattribution (Barrett [2004], pp. 40–2). In contrast, it seems that attributions of supernatural agents are highly resilient and rarely corrected for. This is not a knockdown case against a HADD-based explanation of religion, as its proponents may be able to fill in the explanatory gaps that we have identified. But advocates of byproduct explanations need to do the work required to demonstrate a credible causal connection between a module and its putative byproduct.
In other words, we usually correct false positives pretty easily. But when the false positive involves something supernatural, most of us hang onto it pretty tightly. Why we do this isn’t something that is explained by the current model. The fact that we don’t “correct” for beliefs in supernatural causes suggests that these beliefs are actually adaptive, or at least were to our ancestors.
The fact that we don’t “correct” for beliefs in supernatural causes suggests that these beliefs are actually adaptive, or at least were to our ancestors.
The article then goes on to point out how religion has been linked with improved reproductive fitness in various contexts. Religious groups tend to last longer than non-religious ones. They produce more offspring, are more internally cooperative, and encourage prosocial behavior.
None of this should be taken as evidence that religion is inherently good. Adaptiveness shouldn’t be equated with correctness, since even rape and murder can be adaptive in various contexts. It does mean, however, there is growing evidence to suggest that religion is not a “mistake” of evolution.
Religion and Self-Esteem
A strong link has been established between religion and self-esteem. Bad science takes this association at face value, and jumps to the conclusion that religion causes high self-esteem. Of course, studying the causal relationships in human behavior is difficult. You can’t just take two otherwise identical human beings and control every aspect of their environment in order to reach a conclusion about what is causing what.
Thankfully, in early February, Psychological Science released a study that probed this relationship on a large scale. The study involved information from 187,957 people from eleven different European countries.
Their theory was that individuals had higher self-esteem not because of something inherent about religion, but because religiosity was highly respected by the people around them.
The huge sample size caught my attention, but it was the cultural examination that I found very interesting. Their theory was that individuals had higher self-esteem not because of something inherent about religion, but because religiosity was highly respected by the people around them.
The study found, unsurprisingly, that there was a moderate correlation between religiosity and self-esteem, both on a personal and social level. But when they regressed social self-esteem on personal religiosity, country-level religiosity, and their cross-level intersection, they discovered that country level-religiosity mattered a great deal. The more religious the country, the more helpful it was for a person’s self-esteem if they were religious. These results were replicated for personal self-esteem.
But the most surprising results came from non-religious Sweden. In that country, religion had absolutely no influence on self-esteem.
But the most surprising results came from non-religious Sweden. In that country, religion had absolutely no influence on self-esteem.
These results suggest that, if religion has indeed been selected for by evolution, it may have had more to do with our interpersonal relationships than our personal sense of satisfaction. Based on these results, there appears to be something intrinsically cultural about religion.
Religion and Health
The link between religiosity and improved health is well established, but the reasons why are less established. In January of 2012, the Social and Personality Psychology Compass summarized the state of research on the subject, and came to an interesting conclusion.
They found that the overall result of most studies was that religiosity is associated with a 25 percent improvement in health. They suspect that this may be a conservative estimate, since most of the studies weren’t designed to measure the effects of religiosity specifically.
The central question of the article was why disadvantaged groups seem to benefit more from religiosity than the well-off do.
The central question of the article was why disadvantaged groups seem to benefit more from religiosity than the well-off do. Their perspective centered on the theoretical assumptions.
Most of the research assumed what is called a “hedonic” perspective. This was the assumption that religion increased pleasure and reduced pain. It made people happier and less likely to feel sad. There was just one problem with this.
The people who benefited the most from religion, the socially and economically disadvantaged groups, were the least happy.
The people who benefited the most from religion, the socially and economically disadvantaged groups, were the least happy.
The conclusion of the article was that religion doesn’t offer its health benefits through increased happiness. Instead, its benefits can only be understood from what is called a “eudaimonic” perspective. This is the perspective that religion gives people a sense of empowerment.
…religion doesn’t make people feel happier, it makes them feel in control of their lives.
In other words, religion doesn’t make people feel happier, it makes them feel in control of their lives. This helps improve their sense of self-control, which in turn gives them more control over their health choices.
From this perspective, it makes sense that disadvantaged groups benefit more from religion than those who are already doing quite well. Those who aren’t in a disadvantaged group already have a sense of control over their own lives.
Unanswered Questions
The science of religion may be even more murky than the science of the brain. As an emotionally charged subject, it’s difficult to approach it objectively, regardless of the religious beliefs of the researchers.
The questions of where religion came from, how it helps us, and how it can hurt us, are far from answered. Sorting out cause and effect is an incredibly difficult process, and conclusions at this point should never be taken at face value.
While evidence is growing that religion does not exist by accident, the exact reasons why it exists are still a subject of fierce debate.
While evidence is growing that religion does not exist by accident, the exact reasons why it exists are still a subject of fierce debate. Is it a parasitic institution that has evolved strictly for its own benefit, or is it a tool that helps the disadvantaged cope with the lack of control that they feel over their lives? Is it built into the structure of our brains, or is it a cultural construction? Can humanity persist without some form of spirituality? These questions don’t yet have answers, but they are important questions to ask.