Robin Marantz Henig's article, "Darwin's God," explores one particular intersection between science and religion: "In short, are we hard-wired to believe in God? And if we are, how and why did that happen?"
Some of the scientists in Henig's article suspect (as I do) that the answer to the first question is yes.
With respect to the second question, Henig reports on a split of opinion between scientists who believe that God-belief is or was "adaptive" (a quality that somehow "enhance[d human] survival or reproductive success" either at the individual or group level) and those who believe that God-belief is a "spandrel" (a meaningless byproduct of some other adaptive trait).
I am inclined to think that God-belief is adaptive, but for reasons not discussed in the article. God-belief is essentially an aspirational component of our psychological make-up. It is in some sense an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with our inherent limitations (mortality, physical frailty) and a longing to be somehow connected with something bigger and greater than us that will outlast us. What could be more adaptive than that?
There's obviously more to say to flesh this out.
I will also comment later on the assumptions of some of the atheist scientists mentioned in the article, such as the starting assumption - itself an article of faith - that "many aspects of religious belief involve misattribution and misunderstanding of the real world."
4 comments:
Do you think a person can believe in God without believing in the bible?
Yes. In my view, a non-biblical belief in God is likely to be more inaccurate or incomplete or otherwise distorted -- but I would be astonished if people weren't able to glimpse some glimmers of God's truth in every faith and in every era.
There's another side to this as well (if you don't mind me using your question as a spring-board to launch into a related but totally distinct topic). Although I believe that the Bible is probably closer to the truth than most other writings, I would imagine that human error has crept in from the beginning: in the interpretation and recall of the initial revelations, in the communication of those revelations to others by word of mouth, in the committing to paper of those oral traditions, and in the translations and re-translations of those writings.
I do believe that those involved in constructing the Bible acted in good faith, and with direction from the holy spirit, but inevitably we are all creatures of our times and inherently limited in our ability to understand God's plan.
Of course that includes me and others alive today who may critique the biblical message from a modern "realistic" point of view. It would be foolish to think that any of us are somehow immune from error in pointing out what we believe to be the errors of previous eras.
"It is in some sense an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with our inherent limitations (mortality, physical frailty) and a longing to be somehow connected with something bigger and greater than us that will outlast us." Doesn't an adaptive belief under these circumstances seem to refute the existence of God? I haven't read the article and I might be misunderstanding the term "adaptive belief", but it seems to imply that the belief in God isn't based on the fact that he exists, but on a psychological need for a higher power to exist.
I agree, though, that it's possible to believe in God without believing every element of the Bible. There are 3 major religions that worship Him without sharing a common Bible.
Runner, you comment that if God-belief is adaptive in nature, that fact "seems to imply that the belief in God isn't based on the fact that he exists, but on a psychological need for a higher power to exist."
I disagree. First of all, a belief that is "adaptive" isn't necessarily untrue. In fact, I would expect that most untrue beliefs cannot be "adaptive" in nature. For instance, we know that human beings can't fly by merely flapping their arms. People who have a deep psychological need to believe that they can fly without mechanical assistance (such as an airplane) are likely to die if they act on that belief. This untrue belief does not enhance their likelihood of survival or the likelihood that their genes will be propagated.
Second, it seems to me that a creator God (working in the mysterious evolutionary way that He apparently does) would leave clues to His existence everywhere. I would expect that when we live and work according to His rules or His design, the survival of our species would be enhanced.
In other words, if God exists, what would be more natural than for us to have a longing hard-wired into us that, when combined with our capacity for rational thought, would lead us to our Creator (or as close as we can get as finite beings)?
Post a Comment