Differentiating between the general and the specific when it comes to genetically influenced behavior is a difficult problem. Alper’s argument rests upon the premise that any universal behavior is biologically based, a conclusion he extends to spiritual beliefs:
- “As is true of all traits, if human spirituality didn’t provide some specific function, if it didn’t somehow enhance our species’ survivability, it would never have emerged in us.”
But this conclusion is not obviously true, the reason being that it confuses the specific with the general. For example, it seems universal that all human cultures have applied pigments to surfaces in order to create images — painting, in other words. Does this mean that painting, specifically, is genetically inherited and has some specific function to enhance our survivability? Of course not; but we could say that about our ability to think in abstract terms and as a consequence think creatively. Painting is simply a specific expression of those general traits.
Is it possible to make a similar argument about spiritual beliefs — not just in theory, but in practice? Absolutely — and someone already has.
Stewart Guthrie has argued in this book Faces in the Cloud that our attribution of personality to the universe is a consequence of our inclination to see patterns in the world around us. We evolved as creatures who quickly recognize familiar patters in random shapes and events — this was a positive benefit because seeing a tiger in the bushes when there is none is better than failing to see a tiger when one is there.
Thus, according to Guthrie, we did not evolve the specific instinct to believe in gods or in spiritual beings, but rather the general instinct to believe that there are patterns even when none exist — theism and related beliefs are simply by-products of this. As Guthrie explains it:
- “Theologians and many others find anthropomorphism inevitable in, yet inessential to, religion. They see it as an unfortunate limitation of human thought and peripheral to religious experience. In contrast, I hold that anthropomorphism is the core of religious experience. I claim that anthropomorphism springs from a powerful strategy and pervades human thought and action, and that religion is its most systematic form.”
In contrast to Guthrie, Alper’s specific thesis is that spiritual beliefs arose in response to fear and uncertainty:
- “...spiritual consciousness probably evolved in us in response to the emergence of self-conscious awareness which brought with it, as an unfortunate side-effect, an awareness of our own deaths. As a result of this new type of consciousness, the human animal would have to live in a state of constant mortal peril and dread unless some adaptation could help relieve us of this awarenesses’ painful effects.”
Both Alper and Guthrie agree that such beliefs ultimately have a biological origin, and Alper’s arguments probably would have been improved if he had discussed Guthrie’s ideas. This is part of a general weakness: even though Alper mentions others' research, he doesn’t discuss their theories and conclusions and contrast them with his. Alper’s thesis isn’t obviously wrong, but it isn’t obviously correct, either. That is why a comparison of different ideas would have helped.
Alper’s goal is not just to explore how human religious behavior is linked to our biology, although he does do that in an engaging manner. A footnote reveals a larger purpose: he is dissatisfied with the fact that most atheistic ideologies are “based in mere denial of God’s existence” and hopes this book will provide a logical foundation to atheist movement.
God Part of the Brain: Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality & God
I’m not sure, however, that he does — or that such a book could. Even if we assume that every single conclusion were unquestionably true, how does this create an independent and positive foundation for an atheistic philosophy? Isn’t this just another means to explain away the belief in gods and to “disprove” their literal, actual existence? True, it might be a better means than most, but I still don’t see how it goes much beyond “mere denial of God’s existence.” I think that a really positive atheistic philosophy has to be only incidentally atheistic — that is to say, gods are ultimately irrelevant and unnecessary to it.
Despite such flaws, I don’t want to give the impression that Alper’s book is bad — quite the contrary, it is in fact a very good introduction to the scientific exploration of the naturalistic basis for religion and theism. Alper writes in a very clear and understandable manner, summarizing difficult ideas in a such a way that readers don’t need a technical background in order to grasp the concepts he discusses. So long as you don’t stop with this book, it is a great place to start for anyone interested in these issues.
« Back...
