The Faith Instinct argues that a propensity for religious behavior is innate, meaning that such an inclination is present through heredity in the neural circuits of the mind. Does this seem a reasonable view, or have some readers never been aware of any such feeling?
Nicholas Wade
The Faith Instinct, Before the Dawn
I happen to agree with that argument, based on the ideas of Claude Levi-Strauss. Joseph Campbell’s extensive work on Jungian archetypes would seem to agree. The fact that we see similar themes in mythologies around the world suggests that this is “hard-wired” in our brains.
i do not understand why Betty equates religious behaviour and the references she names.
nor do i see religious behaviour as being “hard-wired”. such behaviour is not an attribute of religion or its neural circuits.
It’s not “hard-wired” that you believe in a certain deity – it’s in us to SEEK one. Just as children who pile up snow to build a “fort,” actually it’s a shelter, – this is also hard wired in our behavior as it’s been essential for eons – but now we do it for fun.
Religionists call our seeking a “god-shaped vacuum.”
I have always felt that this is a reasonable view, and if true of the highest significance. While I personally find the view attractive, I have no feeling as to whether evidence supports it.
This is a reasonable view.The seat of god is in the neural networks.
I believe that the key may be found in Emil Durkheim’s understanding of religion–Religion is the institutional form that provides ongoing validation of the unprovable moral assumptions upon which a society is built. Since these assumptions are by definition unprovable, they must be maintained as the society’s moral consensus by constant affirmation by the society’s moral-spiritual leaders, followed up by reward (and punishment for breaches) by the more coercive institutions of society such as the police, the courts, and general public opinion.
But keep in mind that many societies believe in atheistic forms of religion– such as Marxism, Freudianism, Buddhism, and, most numerous of all, the prevailing nationalism of one’s society.
“I swear there ain’t no heaven but I pray there ain’t no hell”—wasn’t that the line? That “innate feeling,” though proving nothing, sure seems universal. I’m a card carrying apostate ex-Catholic; but the day I’m running for my life pursued by fiends you bet I’ll be praying. And if not genetic, why so very very few examples until so recently of non-religious societies? It seems a stretch to ascribe religion’s universality and persistence to convergent cultural evolution alone.
The value of religion in establishing settled and trade-based societies in the first place seems apparent—and I thank Mr. Wade for introducing the notion to me. But thereafter? Once such societies were firmly established, wouldn’t the selective advantage of religion be quickly degraded? Does history provide ANY examples of the rise of empirical thinking which was NOT accompanied by a host of cultural advantages relative to more “superstitious” neighbors? And if empiricism does convey real advantage and yet religion persists nonetheless, then the basis of the predisposition to religion must be pretty rugged and deep—genetic, or mostly so. Making Enlightenment Europe seem almost—excuse my choice of word—miraculous. Absent a genetic basis, the “miracle” would instead be that it took 10,000 years of settled human society to get from storing your grandfather’s head in the pantry to reading this blog.
A ‘faith’ or moral instinct with a biological origin sounds plausible only in the absence of, or means of knowing the reality and function of a soul. If such a thing exists? The fact that this instinct is rather ambiguous suggests a limitation that neither science nor religion have either resolved or discovered a way to clarify or ‘transcend to the benefit of human progress. But if new material circulating on the web turns out to be authentic, that ‘ignorance’ of the soul may very soon be coming to an end. http://www.energon.org.uk
I’m afraid I haven’t had the opportunity yet to read the book – only excerpts and reviews, but there seems to be no mention of the role of one essential human characteristic that I think relates strongly to the formation of religion – hope, for lack of a better word.
A large component of religion is surely institutionalized, organized, formalized, ritualized hope; the optimism, belief or faith that things can change or be changed for the better, both for the individual and for a wider society. Hope or belief in the possibility of change (coupled, of course, with the ability to imagine such changes) is surely one of the driving, defining forces of mankind, that has taken us from cave to penthouse.
Hope must be an innate characteristic of humanity; life without hope is, I think, unimaginable. Thus the lack of hope in a person, depression, is so debilitating, and considered so detrimental to functioning successfully as a human.
In most religions, change for the better is aimed at through moral obedience, as well as, by definition, through intercession with a higher power. As Larry mentions, perhaps a mysterious, omnipotent, unknowable god is not actually essential to this (although an unknowable god can’t fail our hopes in quite the same way as Marx can…) and the question might be, ‘Why channel our hopes through an higher power?’ Is the intensity of hoping (and fearing), with both it’s unlimited possibilities and crushing disappointments, too much for us mortals, unless we share our beliefs, spreading the load and ultimately delegating final responsibility to an unanswerable god.
This point was very well argued in the book. The near universal attraction to religious practice is clearly innate in brain structure and explains why religious practice is so widely practiced, even by scientists.
Neanderthals, archeological evidence suggests, were not “wired” for religious belief and that probably figured in their demise.
I do agree.Previously I used to wonder what made the billions of us indians be controlled by religion so much that they some would even give their lives for it.But now I know why they are so bound to it even though most don’t even know the meaning of many of their practices.They are indeed controlled by a part of their brains that they cannot have access.
I have almost completed the book but do not think Hinduism is mentioned anywhere.This is probably because it is impossible to trace its ancient origin.But the antique religion is still deeply present in most parts and its study, I believe, is an ideal proof .
Don’t you recognize that it is the best time to get the http://www.lowest-rate-loans.com, which will make you dreams real.
What I wouldnt give to have a chat with you about this. You just blurt so many things that come from out of nowhere that Im pretty certain Id have a fair shot. Your site is great visually, I mean people wont be uninterested. But others who can see past the videos and the layout will not be so impressed with your generic understanding of this subject.
Mencken and Pascal Boyer argue convincingly the genesis of religion was a tawdry thing, based on (evolutionarily-psychology-significant) overactive human social psychology applying itself to personaless surroundings, attributing causality and will. People intuitively bought the cosmology and hoped to enter into exchange-relationships with these mysterious personas apparently active behind the scenes. Everything evolved from there. I believe this is more sound (and boring, and human-insulting, and hard to believe, and hence probably more likely true), than a group-selectionist argument about cohesion and tribal cultism. Did religion, from its pitiful origins, then link up with human tribal intuitions, moral psychology? Yep. Was it “adaptive”? I suppose so.
Really like this post, thanks for writing.
It would also seem that being the interpreter of a religion for a group might result in the ability to influence sexual selection. If adherence to religious norms was enforced with force or the threat of expulsion, this would be a way of selecting only those who believed or were willing to conform as a mechanism for reinforcement of the tendency.
Dear Mr. Wade:
You have done a fantastic job by explicitly arguing that faith is a human instinct. Your hypothesized faith instinct is not only socially provocative but it is very likely to be scientific reality as well based on the best evidence currently available. Although you develop your argument largely from psychological and anthropological perspectives, more decisive evidence from biology (especially genetics and evolution of human behavior) has begun to emerge in recent years. (I have just started collecting papers about this topic.) For instance, classical heritability studies have repeatedly shown that there is a genetic component in our penchant for spiritual beliefs. Chimps have been reported to show behaviors apparently akin to religious rituals (e.g., the rain dancing observed by primatologists). It’s reasonable to assume that many ritualized displays in other animal species, especially social mammals, may also be interpreted along the same line. So the evolutionary history of the faith instinct appears to be deeply entrenched in our DNA and be traced well beyond the human lineage. A more stringent (and now practical) test on the faith instinct hypothesis may be whole-genome correlation analysis, which is a prelude for pinpointing the genes (probably multiple genes) involved in such instinct. The anticipated genetic discoveries will certainly open a floodgate for higher level, holistic integrations from cellular, neurobiological, and cognitive psychological perspectives.
The repercussion of the faith instinct hypothesis is immensely positive. Humans are often agonizingly torn apart, politically, socially, and culturally, by different faiths (such as Protestantism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, Atheism, etc.) within and between societies. If humans are born with an innocent inclination for some sort of spiritual resort, which has been increasingly shown the case from the scientific point of view, it makes little sense to either glorify or demonize a certain religion. Philosophically, the pursuit of a personal faith as human instinct ascends to be a dimension of human happiness and a component of human rights. Therefore, the faith instinct hypothesis, while adding a new element to the liberal democratic approach to the U.S. Constitution (the First Amendment), can serve as a new platform for understanding religious differences, building religious tolerance, and resolving religious conflicts. Hence, I see the faith instinct hypothesis a transformational landmark in our pursuit of religious issues from both scientific and social fronts. I am so glad that you have explicitly proposed and elaborated such a wonderful idea. I hope you can work on a sequel that can substantiate the social consequences of your faith hypothesis to foster a new, constructive societal dialogue to spiritual issues. (I am eager to exchange some more ideas with you.)
Lixing Sun
The most important drive all living animals and plants on this planet have in common is the urge to take care that the own species does not die out. Every species has their own strategy: mammals have sex and giving protection and providing shelter to next generations, who then continue the good work etc. Biirds, insects, fishes have their own strategies. This is the only goal and purpose in the lifes of all members belonging to such species, be it animal or otherwise. Humans, like other animals, have been successful in doing so (more than others hence there are so may of us nowadays) because they have been provided by evolution with the tools to become so dominant in the animal world (brains, speech, the ability to make tools and many others).
I have read your book The Faith Instinct in the Dutch translation and agree fully with you, that faith is another such tool in the evolution of man and has played a major role in this process.Thank you for pointing this out to me in your enlightening book. I am surprised to read that the Templeton Foundation has subsidised it. They are very orthodox creationist I always have been informed. And do not believe in evolution at all.
Religion and faith are not subjects of interest to me. I do think that we are religious because, as our intellects developed from the mutation of the FoxP2 Forkhead, we became aware of death in a more intellectual sense and, in so doing became caught up in the idea of surviving death in some way. The became an opportunity for those who saw our condition to persuade us that they could deliver us from death if we would do as they told us to do.
Unless you believe the traditional Martin Luther concept that faith in God is ‘imposed on people from the outside, the divine source’the basis for religious belief is simple. Human beings developed the basis for abstract language, and abstract thought, early on- maybe 100,000 years ago. It was necessary for small bands of weak, ill armed humans to deal with predators and track down foraging and game. For thousands of years hunter gathers had enormous amount of time on their hands. The truth about ‘hunting/gathering’ is that it does not take a lot out of your day. What do people do with a lot of time on their hands? They talk. No one likes to be board so they make up things. The more fascinating the story the more attnetion they get. Humans are prone to seek out the fascinating story (like readers of the Inquirer). They are also inclined to believe what they are told- like pre-adolescents being told not to eat particular plants because they are poisonous. 100,000 years later you get the Catechism. This is all laid out in books like The Evolution of God and the God Delusion. Not much you will find on this in the human genome.
Dear Dr. Wade,
You raise a profound question: do we come wired for religion?
29 years of age, at the height of his creative powers, Darwin wrestled mightily with this problem. The received scientific wisdom of his day insisted thatDear Dr. Wade,the Deity had inscribed a moral sense in all of us, separating us from the lower animals. If true, this would introduce an ontologic discontinuity in the evolution of man, smashing to smithereens Darwin’s theory.
From a lifetime of listening to folks as a country doc, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, the evidence suggests the Moral Sense comes innate, probably evolved over the last million years as a consequence of group life, whereas the religious experience is a latter-day version of the care we require as infants. The Moral Sense is the chief contaminant of the religious experience, pitting the group against the individual.
Frederick Kurth, M.D.
You raise a profound question: do we come wired for religion?
29 years of age, at the height of his creative powers, Darwin wrestled mightily with this problem. The received scientific wisdom of his day insisted that
Dear Dr. Wade,
You raise a profound question: do we come wired for religion?
29 years of age, at the height of his creative powers, Darwin wrestled mightily with this problem. The received scientific wisdom of his day insisted that the Deity had inscribed a moral sense in all of us, separating us from the lower animals. If true, this would introduce an ontologic discontinuity in the evolution of man, smashing to smithereens Darwin’s theory.
From a lifetime of listening to folks as a country doc, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, the evidence suggests the Moral Sense comes innate, probably evolved over the last million years as a consequence of group life, whereas the religious experience is a latter-day version of the care we require as infants. The Moral Sense is the chief contaminant of the religious experience, pitting the group against the individual.
Frederick Kurth, M.D.
Hi Nick
Do you answer these comments?
It is way too late to separate the innate from the socially acquired, but I see no objection to a polymorphism predisposing towards irrational belief!
I’ve always used the the “rule” that a behavior which has been present in all human societies over space and time is hard wired. That is, if the behavior is present in all human societies everywhere and always, it’s genetic. The expression varies, but within limits.
I am unclear as to what Dr. Kurth means when he writes, “The Moral Sense is the chief contaminant of the religious experience, pitting the group against the individual.” A contaminant makes the original state of something impure. To say that a moral sense of right and wrong, good and evil, constructive and destructive, defiles religion is to say that the soul defiles man. Without ‘moral sense,’ there is no religion. Even atheists’ have beliefs (religion) that are infused with a moral sense of right and wrong: it’s wrong to attribute our acceptance of good and rejection of evil to a god.
I do believe we are hard-wired to search for our Creator. If we accept that we are hard-wired to seek out water when we’re thirsty, why would we not be equally likely to seek out the One who could quench our spiritual thirst?
Thx for another great writing. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a perfect way of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am on the look for such information.
Thank you so much, Mr. Wade, for writing The Faith Instinct–it is the most important book in my life. I have wandered aimlessly in the Bible Belt for more than 40 years (It, too, is a desert of sorts.) looking for answers.
The life-long tormenting question: What could possibly give religion the grip on humankind that it has?
For the last decade I’ve been trying to put a similar fictional journey into a novel. I’ve researched maybe 25 to 30 books touching on the subject: Evolving God, the Evolution of God, Religion Explained, Breaking the Spell, In Gods We Trust and a couple of dozen more relevant books.
Yet none of those books really captures the source of religion. They are all ancillary factors, but with no core cause among them that’s of a sufficient magnitude to explain religion as the phenomenon we see.
As all other explanations fell short, including most of those above, they all paid lip service to the evolution of various and sundry aspects that might be behavioral components shared with other human behaviors, e.g., If love intoxicates us with dopamine, perhaps, religion intoxicates us similarly in a peak spiritual experience–mystical/epiphany. This love buzz could have been co-opted by some newer genes-of-the-neural-net complex and put to use serving the rapturous born again feeling.
You have delivered to me, Mr. Wade, as great an insight (though, yes, I was converging on a spot somewhere in the territory) as Darwin did.
I’m going to that Daniel Dennett/Scientific Study of Religion conference in December. I suppose I’ll be frustrated to hear weak reasons why none of them think religion (religiosity/spiritual drive) was an evolutionary adaptation.
It’s like they’re not paying attention. Every human culture has religion, no exception. A counter argument: Europe is becoming secular. Agreed, religions have life cycles–the waning of any particular religion can and will happen. The drive, the felt need, is going to go on in spite of the death of a religion. New modes of being spiritual will rise. (Can you hear them saying, “I’m spiritual, but not religious.”?
Tenacity. Believers aren’t just hoping for wish fulfillment. They’re highly invested. As mentioned in a post, above, there are many believers who will kill or be killed for their religion.
There are a lot more reasons that show why religion is an evolutionary adaptation and they’re going into my book. For more evidence, though, one only has to look around. The hints are everywhere in the culture that show the strength, stamina, and tenacity of religion. Sacred writings that say “Kill the infidel.” Preachers pinpointing the day of destruction. Those directly inspired: “I saw God by______ (fasting, eating peyote buttons, repetitious rhythmic dancing for hours).”
No other theory/hypothesis has the explanatory power that the Faith Instinct brings to bear.
Of the few people I’ve discussed it with (remember, I’m in Ohio where every third person is an evangelical Christian) I’m getting blank stares.
I haven’t met any “neutral” people who are aware of it. Probably most believers aren’t going to warm up to it; I can’t say for sure. It seems like the atheists don’t want to admit religion might have ever been good for humankind. For me, the truth will eventually have to be faced. At least in science, that eventually happens. There are a few rock star scientists that have an agenda. Looks like you need to “teach the controversy.” I was at the American Atheist Alliance/Texas Freethought Convention in early October. From what I could tell, most were open to it there.
Mr. Wade, you probably didn’t need an editor; I do. Can you recommend one? A nonbeliever would be more comfortable with my work.
secularholyman