| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Why Men and Women Don't Want Sex | Main | Worldmapper Maps Health »

January 31, 2007

What Non-Human Primates Tell Us About Religion

In Salon, an interview with Barbara J. King, author of Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion (via Political Theory Daily Review):

Every human culture has believed in spirits, gods or some other divine being. That's why human beings have often been called Homo religioso. Some people take this long history of belief in the otherworldly as evidence for God; doesn't it explain why religion continues to be so pervasive? But many scientists are coming up with their own, decidedly secular, theories about the origins of faith. In fact, over the last few years, a small cottage industry made up of scientists and philosophers has devoted itself to demystifying the divine.

Take Daniel Dennett, the philosopher who has proposed that religion is a meme -- an idea that evolved like a virus -- that infected our ancestors and continued to spread throughout cultures. By contrast, anthropologist Pascal Boyer argues that religious belief is a quirky byproduct of a brain that evolved to detect predators and other survival needs. In this view, the brain developed a hair-trigger detection system to believe the world is full of "agents" that affect our lives. And British biologist Lewis Wolpert, with yet another theory, posits that religion developed once hominids understood cause and effect, which allowed them to make complex tools. Once they started to make causal connections, they felt compelled to explain life's mysteries. Their brains, in essence, turned into "belief engines."

Of course, these thinkers are either religious skeptics or outright atheists who mean to imply that we've been duped by evolution to believe in supernatural beings when none, in fact, exist. That's what makes Barbara J. King, an anthropologist at the College of William and Mary, so unique. She has no desire to undermine religion. In fact, she's been deeply influenced by the religious writers Karen Armstrong and Martin Buber. But her main insights about the origins of religion come not from researching humans' deep history, but from observing very much alive non-human primates.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 10:46 AM | Permalink

Comments

OK, so she tells us that she disagrees with Dennet and Wolpert and offers no evidence of that other then they are secular or atheists and therefore biased?

Gee, what a convincing argument. Of course SHE is not biased right? Funny how the religious viewpoint is considered the "normal" view, while the atheist viewpoint is the "deviant" one.

Posted by: sduford | Jan 31, 2007 2:02:52 PM

I have no lidead whatsoever from this interview what it is that she means by religion, and I can but note that if all humans have shown a sense of that which we can call "religious," then it clearly is also somehow connected with consciousness, a subject much under discussion these days but also not yet very much understood.

Posted by: fred lapides | Jan 31, 2007 3:37:13 PM

sduford, I don't understand the basis for your comment, in the interview I didn't see her dismissing Dennett or Wolpert because they are "biased", or treating the religious viewpoint as "normal" and the atheist one as "deviant". She has her own ideas on the evolutionary origin of "spirituality"--not religious beliefs per se, it looks like it's more just about the origin of the sense of being connected with others and the world in some kind of larger meaningful pattern--and since her ideas differ from those of Dennett and others, naturally she's going to disagree with them, but not on the basis of ad hominem arguments.

Posted by: Jesse M. | Jan 31, 2007 4:01:51 PM

"When I think about religion, what comes to mind are personal relationships with the supernatural, with God or with spirits, and compassionate action. [...] So if I'm going to think about religion as compassionate action..."
Religion as compassionate action is dealt with entirely by gene-loyalty and self-preservation, a mechanical inevitability. Religion as the language of contact with the unknown and the unknowable - two separate things - is another kettle of fish.
What the debate's really about, on the rationalist side, is autonomy. Autonomous ethical behavior. We're alone, so we can do anything we want. There is no higher authority than mutual self-interest. Accent on "self".
We get the car and the house, and we don't have to go to bed until we feel like it. Religious morons with their rules are hampering the lightning advance of human progress!
Or...no one has a working definition of "religion" that isn't polluted by contemporary iterations with their proprietary scams and chauvinisms, and the cynical backwash of the partially-sighted.
Also time. Our inability to understand what time is, and how we exist within or through it. Most religious dogma has a Supreme Being also moving down the timeline along with us, even while they describe him her or it as being eternal. This does not scan.
The same trope runs through the various reincarnation scenarios. As though time was ultimately beyond all of it, a constant not even the divine is immune to.
Those two things - the motive-toward-the-all-permissible aloneness of the human context, and the conundrum of temporality - handicap the debate completely.
Pointing to the dim beginnings of primate religious awe or the outgrowth of evolving-brain connectivity toward the imaginary, or whatever that is, doesn't refute or repudiate anything, anymore than the optic nerve and its reliance on light for seeing refutes the pre-existence of the sun.
Too much of this argument is against delusional nitwits, straw-men and their little conceits. Like those media-generated "hippies" of the 60's who were walking caricatures, and were used to condemn something a lot more complex and threatening.
There are parallels here and there in the present day as well.
"We don't think of some kind of interspecies war in which Homo sapiens literally clubbed them [Neanderthals] to death. But rather, there was some slight competitive edge that our species, Homo sapiens, had."
Specious frippery. There's just as much reason to suppose, given what we know of human behavior, that the Neanderthals were parasitized, enslaved, genocided, hounded into oblivion. The "slight, competitive edge" of the Hutus over the Tutsis in Rwanda, or any of countless examples. The story of the Neanderthals likely has a lot more in common with Cain and Abel than King's narrative proposes.
"it's a private question, but even more than that, it's a question that doesn't really reflect the depths of what we are as a species"
"the camp of people who thinks it's perfectly possible to see religion and science as compatible areas of thought and inquiry"
Yes, and yes. Science is about gathering knowledge, religion is about corresponding with the unknown. They don't get contradictory until dogma gets broken away from its task and becomes prionic - the same selfishness is motive on both sides of the polarity.

Posted by: Roy Belmont | Jan 31, 2007 5:56:46 PM

Religion as compassionate action is dealt with entirely by gene-loyalty and self-preservation, a mechanical inevitability.

It's not quite so simple as "gene-loyalty", both people and other primates are capable of being compassionate towards others who are not closely related to them, or indeed towards other species entirely. Of course this tendency to have empathetic feelings for unrelated individuals was likely selected for because of the need for "self-preservation" in a wider sense, specifically the fact that social groups give primates an advantage in protection, finding food, etc. But then, I don't see where Barbara King was arguing against the idea that the kind of "religious compassion" she sees emerging in other primates could be given a traditional darwinian explanation in the interview, although I'd have to read the book to get a better sense of her views.

Specious frippery. There's just as much reason to suppose, given what we know of human behavior, that the Neanderthals were parasitized, enslaved, genocided, hounded into oblivion. The "slight, competitive edge" of the Hutus over the Tutsis in Rwanda, or any of countless examples. The story of the Neanderthals likely has a lot more in common with Cain and Abel than King's narrative proposes.

I'm not so sure--wouldn't this sort of outright warfare be likely to have left evidence in terms of skeletal wounds and so forth? From what I've read, most scientists nowadays lean towards the view that it was mainly the cro-magnon edge in competing for scarce resources that did in the neanderthals. I hope you would review the archaeological evidence carefully before dismissing a mainstream theory as "specious frippery", I'm sure the reasons for preferring one theory or another go beyond just idle speculation and whether one's personal view of human nature is more sunny or more cynical.

Posted by: Jesse M. | Jan 31, 2007 6:37:27 PM

sduford, I think you may have missed something in the interview before commenting--you seem to miss the point of what she's saying (and imagine something she's not).
Thanks for the link--It's a compelling topic.

Posted by: Sarah P. | Jan 31, 2007 7:01:48 PM

This is a thoughtful and well reasoned interview. The religion-science debate is too often presented as a battle to the death between two archaic points of view--Enlightenment rationality and dogmatic Christianity. We have enough historical experience to understand that both these positions are potentially destructive. If we can try to engage with religion as something less definable and more complex than a simple intellectual assent to apparently absurd propositions then maybe we can have a more meaningful public conversation about religion and science and their role in our society.

Posted by: James | Feb 1, 2007 12:55:40 AM

Jesse M-
Thanks for the most dignified rebuttal I've ever encountered online. I should say that I was impressed with King's interview overall, and heartened by her ecumenicism.
That sense of "we know from these few bones" is what I find objectionable. Like with the latest dig at Durrington Walls the popular hit's
"Two of the houses ... may have been the dwellings of community leaders or perhaps were cult houses used for religious rituals"
Or they may have had uses we're not privileged to know.
It's just that there's too much that won't make the fossil record, too profound a ratio between lost and found, between what was and what we discover as remnant and sign.
There's a need to sound certain, for career's sake, for funding's sake, when dating and extrapolating from the evidence. Then a new discovery and the dates get pushed back, or brought forward.
The public announcement of uncertainty isn't popular and won't aid in getting grants and tenure.
How many Neanderthal skeletons would we need to be relatively sure what happened?
It seems the timeline's pretty vague already, and then the relative mass of found evidence is still meagre. Isn't it?
Maybe not.
As far as I know the current theories on the Neanderthal extinction are coming off that cluster of most recent finds in southern Spain, which is I'm guessing what underlies what you mean by"the cro-magnon edge in competing for scarce resources". Yes, maybe those particular Neanderthal guys, okay. Though I'm sticking with "hounded into oblivion" until proven otherwise, and I don't think I will be.
"Specious frippery" was an indulgence and I'd gladly edit it out if I could.
Thanks again for your tone, which is furthering and encouraging, and admirably clear.

Posted by: Roy Belmont | Feb 1, 2007 5:24:35 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed

Help 3 Quarks Daily

Bookmark This Page

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

3QD ADVERTISING



Compare prices

  • Canada (French)
  • Australia
  • New Zealand
  • South Africa
  • Brazil
  • Please Visit Wikio

  • Wikio
  • Wikio Shopping
  • LCD Monitor
  • LCD TV
  • Recent Comments

    Abbas Raza on David Byrne and Brian Eno make music

    mr.ed on Bhutto Widower With Clouded Past Is Set to Lead

    syed nzaman md on A Brief Remembrance of Ahmad Faraz

    Steven Augustine on David Byrne and Brian Eno make music

    jean-paul on About Death, Just Like Us or Pretty Much Unaware?

    San Antonio Lawyer on Magic and Guilt, the Correspondences of Ingeborg Bachmann and Paul Celan

    San Antonio Lawyer on The Power and Powerlessness of European Social Democracy

    San Antonio Lawyer on David Byrne and Brian Eno make music

    San Antonio Lawyer on A Bit of Punctuation

    San Antonio Lawyer on A Bit of Punctuation

    San Antonio Lawyer on Cancer complexity slows quest for cure

    San Antonio Lawyers on Friday Poem

    joseph duemer on David Byrne and Brian Eno make music

    Chris Schoen on Why Men Cheat

    Cyrus Hall on Why Men Cheat

    BobbyV on Friday Poem

    Music on David Byrne and Brian Eno make music

    Chris Schoen on Why Men Cheat

    Chris Schoen on Why Men Cheat

    JonJ on Obama, Palin, and the Chess Game

    Cyrus Hall on Why Men Cheat

    Cyrus Hall on Why Men Cheat

    San Antonio Lawyer on Why Men Cheat

    San Antonio Lawyer on whale shit and other important matters

    San Antonio Lawyer on About Death, Just Like Us or Pretty Much Unaware?

    Acclaim For 3QD


    Best Non-European Weblog Winner


    Best Group Blog and Blog Most Deserving of Wider Attention Finalist


    Wikio - Top Blogs

    "I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

    "I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

    "Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

    Subscribe to this blog's feed