I WONDER ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
I'VE SOUGHT IT; I'VE HAD IT;
I'VE QUESTIONED IT;
I'VE REJECTED IT;
I'VE STUDIED IT.
AND I'M STILL PUZZLED BY IT.
ALL-THE-WHILE I WONDER
WHAT CAUSES BELIEF IN GOD.
ONE ANSWER, OBVIOUSLY, IS
THAT GOD EXISTS AND BECAUSE GOD
INTENDS OUR BELIEF,
GOD ENABLES OUR BELIEF.
ANOTHER ANSWER IS THAT THERE
IS SOMETHING ABOUT OUR BRAINS,
OUR MINDS, OUR EVOLUTIONARY
HISTORY, OUR SOCIAL SETTINGS -
THAT BUILDS BELIEF IN RELIGION.
BUT BECAUSE I HOPE THE FIRST
ANSWER IS CORRECT - THAT GOD
EXISTS - I MUST FOCUS ON THE
SECOND ANSWER - THAT RELIGIOUS
BELIEF IS AN
ENTIRELY NATURAL PROCESS.
WHAT CAUSES RELIGIOUS BELIEF?
I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY
TO FIND OUT.
MOST HUMAN BEINGS
BELONG TO RELIGIOUS GROUPS.
MANY DEVOTE THEIR LIVES - SOME
EVEN SACRIFICE THEIR LIVES -
FOR VISIONS OF THINGS
THAT THEY CANNOT SEE.
I WONDER ABOUT MY OWN RELIGIOUS
BELIEF, UNSETTLED AS IT MAY BE.
WHY DO I FEEL THE NEED?
MOST HUMAN BEINGS FEEL
THE NEED SEEKING SOMETHING
BEYOND THE PHYSICAL.
FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES OFFER
THEIR IDEAS - AND THEIR ADVICE.
COLIN BLAKEMORE IS A
BRAIN SCIENTIST IN ENGLAND.
OKAY, SO WHAT'S RELIGION ABOUT?
AT ITS BASEST IT SEEMS TO
HAVE TO DO WITH A DESIRE FOR
EXPLANATION I THINK.
KIND OF CURIOSITY FOR
HOW THE WORLD WORKS.
IN THOSE TERMS, THERE'S A LOT OF
SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE DRIVERS
FOR SCIENCE AND THE
DRIVERS TOWARDS RELIGION.
I MEAN THEY'RE BOTH EXPRESSIONS
OF THE CURIOSITY OF HUMAN BEINGS
WANTING TO KNOW
HOW THINGS HAPPEN.
AN ANIMAL THAT KNOWS HOW THE
WORLD WORKS IS GONNA BE MORE
SUCCESSFUL IN THAT WORLD THAN
AN ANIMAL THAT DOESN'T KNOW
HOW IT WORKS.
BUT THERE ARE NEUROLOGICAL
FACTORS, IS IT GENETIC, HAS IT
BEEN SELECTED THROUGH
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY?
THERE ARE KIND OF
SOCIO-BIOLOGICAL,
SOCIO-EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES
FOR THE EMERGENCE OF RELIGION.
THAT IT BECOMES A KIND OF
BINDING FORCE THAT ENABLES
PEOPLE TO IDENTIFY
THEIR COLLEAGUES,
THEIR NEIGHBORS,
THEIR SUPPORTERS.
THE QUESTION OF HOW IT EMERGES,
WHETHER THE ADAPTIVE VALUE OF
RELIGION IS SO STRONG THAT IT
ACTUALLY HAS BEEN SELECTED
FOR - IN OTHER WORDS
THERE MIGHT BE GENES THAT TEND
TO MAKE BRAINS THAT
CONSTRUCT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.
IF THERE WERE, IT DOESN'T IN ANY
SENSE MEAN THAT RELIGION IS AS
IT WERE CORRECT,
BECAUSE THERE ARE GENES
THAT MAKE THAT DISPOSITION.
SOME WOULD ARGUE THAT
PROVES THAT IT'S NOT CORRECT.
THAT IT EVOLVED
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
YEAH EXACTLY.
SO YOU CAN PLAY
THAT BOTH WAYS...
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY HARD
TO PULL APART BEHAVIORS, HOWEVER
DEEPLY EMBEDDED THEY SEEM TO BE
IN HUMANITY, EMERGING IN EVERY
GROUP AND SO ON; VERY HARD
TO PULL APART THOSE WHICH ARE
DERIVED ESSENTIALLY
CULTURALLY, WHICH ARE LEARNED BY
TRANSMISSION FROM ONE GENERATION
TO ANOTHER, AND THOSE WHICH ARE
IMPLANTED IN HUMAN BEINGS
BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE OF
THEIR BRAIN,
DETERMINED GENETICALLY.
IN A WAY IT
DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
CURIOSITY AND
NEED FOR EXPLANATION.
WHAT IT IS ABOUT THESE
MENTAL MOTIVATORS THAT
LEAD TO RELIGION?
THALIA WHEATLEY IS A
SOCIAL NEUROSCIENTIST.
WE KNOW TWO THINGS
ABOUT THE BRAIN.
ONE IS THAT IT LIKES TO FIND
PATTERNS EVEN IN RANDOMNESS SO
WE KNOW THAT THAT HELPS
THE BRAIN TRY TO FIND MEANING,
TRY TO FIND RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN THINGS.
MAYBE EVEN WHEN THERE
AREN'T RELATIONSHIPS.
SO THAT SUPPORTS THE
CREATION OF A BELIEF SYSTEM.
THERE IS ALSO THE SENSE
THAT I WANT TO FEEL CONNECTED.
I WANT TO FEEL LIKE I'M
PART OF SOMETHING BIGGER.
AND THAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN
SOMEWHAT LOCALIZED TO A BRAIN
REGION STRANGELY ENOUGH THAT IF
YOU STIMULATE THE TEMPORAL LOBE
IN SOME PEOPLE THAT YOU WILL
GET THIS SENSATION THAT THEY ARE
PART OF SOMETHING BIGGER.
THAT THERE IS THAT THERE IS
MAYBE A PRESENCE IN THE ROOM,
THAT THERE IS A BIGGER PLAN.
IT HAS TO BE BASED
IN THE BRAIN, I BELIEVE.
YEAH, BUT PEOPLE WHO ARE
BELIEVERS SAY THAT EVEN IF
THERE, THEY BELIEVE IN GOD,
THEY BELIEVE IN A NON PHYSICAL
EXISTENCE IN A METAPHYSICAL
SENSE BUT THEY SAY THAT THE FACT
THAT YOU'VE SHOWN ME ALL THESE
BELIEF SYSTEMS OR BRAIN AREAS
HAS NO IMPACT ON MY BELIEF.
THAT'S RIGHT.
WELL, WE CAN'T DISPROVE GOD,
THAT'S THE CLASSIC, AND IT COULD
BE THAT THE FACT THAT I CAN
MANIPULATE MY TEMPORAL LOBE AND
BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A PRESENCE
AROUND ME BUT METAPHYSICAL JUST
COULD BE A REALLY NICE THING
THAT GOD IMPLANTED IN ORDER FOR
ME TO, YOU KNOW, BE WITH HIM.
SO YOU CAN NEVER GET
OUT OF THAT CONUNDRUM.
SCIENCE CAN NEVER DISPROVE GOD.
IT'S JUST NOT A
FALSIFIABLE QUESTION.
RELIGIOUS BELIEF AS 'A NEED TO
CREATE MEANING' - A 'SEARCH FOR
MEANING' - MAKES SENSE.
BUT WHAT KINDS OF MEANING
IMPEL RELIGIOUS BELIEF?
AND WHAT ARE THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL PATHWAYS?
JUSTIN BARRETT IS A
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST,
A PIONEER IN THE
COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION.
SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN ABOUT IS
TRYING TO FIND OUT JUST WHAT
ASPECTS OF THE WAY THE
HUMAN MIND WORKS SEEM TO MAKE
RELIGIOUS IDEAS SO
ATTRACTIVE TO OUR MINDS.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
ATTENTION IN PARTICULAR ON THE
SYSTEM THAT YOU MIGHT CALL
THE THEORY OF MIND SYSTEM.
THE THEORY OF MIND SYSTEM
IS THAT SYSTEM THAT WE USE TO
UNDERSTAND OTHER PEOPLE'S MINDS.
TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY
HAVE BELIEFS AND DESIRES THAT
MOTIVATE THEIR ACTIONS.
WELL, OF COURSE ONE OF THE MOST
COMMON FEATURES OF RELIGIOUS
SYSTEMS ARE GODS OF ONE SORT OR
ANOTHER, WHETHER THEY'RE SPIRITS
OR ANCESTORS OR COSMIC DEITIES,
AND THOSE TOO ARE MINDS; THEY
MAY NOT HAVE BODIES THAT WE
NORMALLY HAVE BODIES BUT THEY'RE
MINDS TOO AND IT SURE LOOKS LIKE
IT'S THAT THEORY OF MIND SYSTEM
THAT DEALS WITH PERSON-TO-PERSON
INTERACTION THAT GETS USED IN
PERSON-TO-GOD INTERACTION.
IT'S AS IF WE SEE CERTAIN KINDS
OF PATTERNS AND WE THEORIZE THAT
THERE'S A MIND BEHIND IT.
IDENTIFYING SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
AND INTENTIONAL BEINGS IN OUR
ENVIRONMENT IS SO IMPORTANT
THAT OUR SYSTEM FIRES EVEN
WHEN THE INFORMATION
MIGHT BE INCONCLUSIVE IN
SOME CASES, OKAY?
SO, THE UNFORTUNATE NAME I'VE
PUT ON THIS SORT OF ASPECT OF
THIS SYSTEM IS A HYPERSENSITIVE
AGENCY DETECTION DEVICE.
IT'S HYPERSENSITIVE ARGUABLY,
IN THE SENSE THAT IN SOME CASES
IT TELLS US
THERE'S SOMEONE THERE.
NOT SOMETHING THERE,
BUT SOMEONE THERE.
SO YOU'RE AT HOME AT NIGHT IN
YOUR HOUSE AND THE WINDS ARE
BLOWING AND IT'S SORT OF A
SPOOKY NIGHT AND YOU HEAR
CREAKING ON THE STAIRS,
YOUR MIND MIGHT IMMEDIATELY GO
TO "WHO'S THERE?"
INSTEAD OF, "WELL, THE
FOUNDATION SEEMS TO BE SETTLING
CAUSING BOARDS TO RUB
AGAINST EACH OTHER,
THAT KIND OF
MECHANISTIC EXPLANATION.
BUT YOU SORT OF UN-RETHINKING
IT CAN SAY "NO, NO THAT AGENCY
DETECTION WAS MISTAKEN, IT WAS
A LITTLE TOO SENSITIVE IN THAT
SITUATION, MAYBE BECAUSE I
WAS, YOU KNOW, ALONE AND THE
ENVIRONMENT WAS RIGHT,"
SO IN THAT SENSE IT MIGHT
BE HYPER-SENSITIVE.
SO HOW DO YOU GENERALIZE
FROM THE HYPERSENSITIVE AGENCY
DETECTION DEVICE THAT WOULD
APPLY TO THE WIND ON THE STAIRS,
TO THE WIDESPREAD
BELIEF IN GODS?
UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE
ARE GOING TO BE CERTAIN UNUSUAL
EVENTS THAT HAPPEN THAT TRIGGER
MY AGENCY DETECTION SYSTEM THAT
SAYS, "WHOA; SOMEONE'S THERE."
AND MAYBE THOSE EVENTS,
ESPECIALLY IF THEY HAPPEN
REPEATEDLY, ARE ENOUGH TO LEAD
TO POSITING THAT THERE'S SOMEONE
OUT THERE, WHO REALLY IS ACTING.
BUT BECAUSE, UPON FURTHER
INVESTIGATION I DON'T SEE
BODIES, OR THEY ACT IN STRANGE
WAYS, THEY MUST HAVE SOME
SPECIAL KINDS OF
PROPERTIES AS WELL.
WE MIGHT CALL IT GHOSTS
OR SPIRITS OR ANCESTORS,
OR WHAT YOU WILL.
AND SO, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT
THESE EVENTS THEN MOTIVATE THE
POSTULATION OF THERE BEING GODS
OR IT MIGHT WORK THE OTHER WAY
AROUND AND IN SOME CASES PEOPLE
HAVE OTHER INDEPENDENT REASONS
FOR THINKING THERE MIGHT BE
GHOSTS OR SPIRITS OR GODS, AND
THEN THEY HAVE THESE,
WHAT I CALL "HAD" EXPERIENCES,
HYPER-SENSITIVE AGENCY DETECTION
DEVICE EXPERIENCES THAT THEN
ENCOURAGE AND REINFORCE
THOSE KINDS OF BELIEFS.
AFTER ALL IF WE DIDN'T EVER
DETECT THE GODS ACTING, IT SEEMS
UNLIKELY WE WOULD
PERSIST IN BELIEVING IN THEM.
A 'HYPERSENSITIVE AGENCY
DETECTION DEVICE', JUSTIN SAYS.
IS THIS THE DEEP
GENERATOR OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF?
COULD HYPERSENSITIVITY
ENABLE SUPERSTITION?
BRUCE HOOD IS A
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGIST
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THOUGHT THAT
RELIGION IS ENTIRELY CULTURAL
AND THAT WE ARE
INDOCTRINATING CHILDREN.
AND I THINK THERE IS SOME TRUTH
TO THE IDEA THAT YOU KNOW NO
CHILD IS BORN TO BE JEWISH OR
BORN TO BE CHRISTIAN OR WHATEVER
RELIGION THEY ADOPT.
YOU KNOW IT'S WHAT
ENVIRONMENT THEY'RE RAISED IN.
BUT I THINK IT CAN'T BE
ENTIRELY INDOCTRINATION.
I THINK THERE MUST BE ANOTHER
COMPONENT WHICH IS HAVING
A RECEPTIVE MIND.
I STUDIED THE MECHANISM OF THE
WAY THAT CHILDREN THINK AND I
THINK THAT SUPERSTITIONS ARE A
BYPRODUCT OF WHAT OUR NATURAL
WAYS OF SEEING THE WORLD.
SO CHILDREN THINK ABOUT THE
WORLD, CONCEPTUALIZE WORLD,
TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT AND
COME UP WITH CAUSAL MODELS OF
WHY THINGS HAPPEN.
AND GENERALLY THOSE MODELS ARE
PRETTY ACCURATE BUT THEY DO LEAD
TO MISCONCEPTIONS AND IT'S THOSE
MISCONCEPTIONS, I THINK WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THEM CAN FORM THE
BASIS OF SUPERNATURAL BELIEFS.
WHAT'S AN EXAMPLE?
WELL, CAUSAL DETERMINISM
IS ASSUMING THAT IF
ONE EVENT FOLLOWS ANOTHER,
THERE IS A CAUSAL
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM.
TELL ME AN EXPERIMENT.
WELL, WE LOOK AT CHILDREN'S
UNDERSTANDING AS OBJECTS GO
THROUGH OCCLUSION SO IF YOU,
FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE A RAIL TRACK,
YOU HAVE ONE OBJECT GO DOWN
AND PASS BEHIND A BARRIER AND A
SECOND OBJECT COME OUT.
IF YOU GET THE TIMING JUST
PERFECT THE CHILD ASSUMES THAT
THE OBJECT HAS BEEN TRANSFORMED
INTO THE OTHER OBJECT.
SO YOU PUT A CARROT DOWN
ONE END AND OUT COMES A LIME,
AND THE CHILDREN JUST
ASSUME THAT THE CARROT HAS
TRANSFORMED INTO A LIME.
NOW THAT'S SIMPLE PERCEPTUAL
CAUSALITY BECAUSE THE
TIMING IS PERFECT.
IN THE SAME WAY AN ADULT WHO
EXPERIENCES AN EVENT FOLLOWED BY
AN UNUSUAL OUTCOME
WILL TEND TO AUTOMATICALLY
LINK THESE TOGETHER.
THIS IS WHAT DAVID HUME POINTED
OUT MANY YEARS AGO THAT WE HAVE
A MIND WHICH IS
PREDISPOSED TO SEEING CAUSALITY.
WHEN CHILDREN TRY TO DISCERN
WHY THINGS HAPPEN, THEY DEVISE
'CAUSAL MODELS', BRUCE SAYS,
WAYS OF EXPLAINING HOW
THE WORLD WORKS.
BUT SOMETIMES THEY GET
THESE 'CAUSAL MODELS' WRONG,
MISLEADING THEM,
INDUCING SUPERSTITIONS,
SUPERSTITIONS LIKE GOD.
HOW COMMON ARE FALSE IDEAS
THAT ARE BELIEVED TO BE TRUE?
I MEET A PIONEER IN THE
STUDY OF MISINFORMATION
AND FALSE MEMORIES,
PSYCHOLOGIST ELIZABETH LOFTUS.
IN OUR RESEARCH WE HAVE
PLANTED WHOLE MEMORIES INTO THE
MINDS OF PEOPLE.
WE CAN DO THAT IN A SHORT PERIOD
OF TIME, WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE
WE ARE BRINGING A SEEMINGLY
CREDIBLE SOURCE TO BEAR
ON THE SUBJECT.
BUT OUT THERE IN THE WORLD OF
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, WHERE YOU ARE
SOAKED IN A REPETITION OF THOSE
BELIEFS, YOU'RE HEARING THEM
FROM LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE,
PEOPLE ALL AROUND YOU ARE
BELIEVING THEM, IT'S NO WONDER
THAT YOU CAN INDOCTRINATE PEOPLE
WITH THESE BELIEFS EVEN IF
THEY DON'T MAKE VERY MUCH SENSE.
NOW, ARE WE FAIR
TO COMPARE THE TWO?
BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND,
YOU ARE IMPLANTING MEMORIES
OF THE PAST.
IN BELIEF SYSTEMS, WHAT IS BEING
IMPLANTED IS A BELIEF ABOUT
SOMETHING THAT MAYBE I
HAVEN'T SEEN, BUT I NOW BELIEVE
TO BE TRUE.
SO THOSE ARE
DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS.
FRANKLY, I THINK THOSE BELIEFS
ABOUT THE WORLD ARE PROBABLY
EASIER TO CHANGE.
IF I CAN DO THIS AND AFFECT
ONE INDIVIDUAL MIND AND MAKE YOU
BELIEVE YOU ACTUALLY HAD THE
EXPERIENCE, IT'S GOING TO BE
MORE OF A PIECE OF CAKE
TO CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDES.
"PLANTING WHOLE FALSE MEMORIES
INTO THE MINDS OF PEOPLE."
COULD THIS BE A MENTAL
OPEN DOOR THROUGH WHICH
RELIGION CAN RUSH?
BUT THERE IS MORE TO RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS THAN MEMORIES OR IDEAS.
FOR MANY, RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCE IS ESSENTIAL.
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE BRAIN
DURING RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE?
WARREN BROWN IS A
PHYSIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGIST
AND A BELIEVER IN GOD.
NOW THE NEUROSCIENCE OF RELIGION
HAS A LOT OF PROMINENCE.
WHAT IS REALLY SORT OF
ACCELERATED THE FIELD OVER THE
LAST 10 OR 15 YEARS, IS THE
ABILITY TO DO VARIOUS KINDS
OF BRAIN SCANS.
WHILE A PERSON IS ENGAGED
IN SOME RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY,
OR HAVING SOME KIND OF
A RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.
WHAT AREAS OF THE BRAIN ARE MORE
ACTIVE THAN OTHER AREAS AND IN
THIS CASE THEY HAD BUDDHIST
MONKS MEDITATING AND A CATHOLIC
NUNS MEDITATING AND AT A POINT
IN TIME THEY REACHED A STATE OF
ONENESS OR DEPTH OF MEDITATION
THEY WOULD PRESS A LITTLE BUTTON
AND THEY HAD AN IV IN AND THEY
WOULD SHOOT A TRACER INTO THAT
VEINS AND THEN RUN THE PERSON
THROUGH A SCANNER AND THEY WOULD
FIND IN THIS SITUATION THE
FRONTAL LOBES WOULD BE HIGHLY
ACTIVE AND THE RIGHT PARIETAL
LOBE FOR EXAMPLE WOULD BE
NOT VERY ACTIVE.
IT WOULD BE RATHER QUIESCENT.
SO YOU HAD THIS PATTERN
OF ACTIVITY, THE SEEM TO BE
ASSOCIATED WITH
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES.
WELL THERE ARE A LOT OF KINDS OF
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES SO IF YOU
DO SAME KINDS OF RESEARCH WITH
OTHER SORTS OF EXPERIENCES OR
OTHER PERSONS YOU
GET DIFFERENT PATTERNS.
WELL, THAT'S SORT OF NATURAL
BECAUSE WHATEVER YOUR EXPERIENCE
IS IT'S JUST A NORMAL HUMAN
EXPERIENCE AND HUMAN EXPERIENCES
ARE EXPRESSED IN THE BRAIN SO
YOU KNOW ONE CAN ARGUE THAT THIS
IS MUCH TO DO ABOUT NOTHING.
YEAH, WELL, BUT THERE WAS KIND
OF THIS ASSUMPTION I THINK EARLY
ON IN THE FIELD THAT RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCES WERE OF ONE TYPE.
ONE THING WAS A RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCE AND THEREFORE
IF YOU CAN DO A STUDY
ON A RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE,
EVERY OTHER RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE THAT.
IN FACT THEY DON'T.
THEY ARE VERY VARIED,
DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT AND THE
EXPERIENCE THAT THE
PERSON AT THE TIME.
SO, WHAT IS YOUR FEELING ABOUT
THE WHOLE PROJECT IN TERMS OF
ALLOWING US TO UNDERSTAND
RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS
BELIEF SYSTEMS BETTER?
I DON'T THINK THEY ARE
TELLING US ANYTHING NECESSARILY
UNIQUE ABOUT RELIGIOUSNESS.
SO THE IDEA THAT THERE IS A
NEUROTHEOLOGY OR WE ARE DOING
NEUROTHEOLOGY I JUST DON'T THINK
MAKES ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER.
SURE, WARREN SAYS,
THE BRAIN IS ACTIVE
DURING RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES.
BUT THE BRAIN IS ACTIVE
DURING ALL EXPERIENCES.
HAS THE BRAIN-BELIEF
NEXUS REACHED ITS LIMIT IN
EXPLAINING RELIGIOUS BELIEF?
I LIKE THE PERSONAL OR
INDIVIDUAL MOTIVATORS - SUCH AS
NEED FOR EXPLANATION AND
MEANING, AND THE ROLE OF ERROR,
LIKE SUPERSTITIONS
AND FALSE BELIEFS.
BUT RELIGIOUS
BELIEF IS SO POTENT.
THERE MUST ALSO BE
SOCIAL, GROUP MOTIVATORS.
JARED DIAMOND IS A PHYSIOLOGIST,
ECOLOGIST AND GEOGRAPHER -
THE AUTHOR OF
"GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL."
THERE ARE AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN
POWERS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND
AMONG THOSE HALF DOZEN
SEVERAL OF THOSE ARE POLITICAL.
ONE OF THOSE POLITICAL FUNCTIONS
IS TO JUSTIFY OBEDIENCE TO KINGS
AND PRIESTS AND EMPERORS.
YOU NEED SOMETHING SPECIAL TO
ENABLE A LARGE SOCIETY WHERE YOU
ENCOUNTER STRANGERS TO FUNCTION.
RELIGION PLAYS
AN ESSENTIAL ROLE.
RELIGION OFFERS A CODE OF, A
MORALE CODE, WHICH SAYS HOW
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BEHAVE.
THERE ARE LIKE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
EVERY RELIGION HAS
COMMANDMENTS, WHICH INCLUDES
"THOU SHALT NOT KILL."
THOU SHALT NOT KILL A STRANGER.
BUT, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES, THOU
SHALT KILL IF YOU'VE GONE TO WAR
WITH THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE.
RELIGION SAYS, YES, YOU SHOULD
KILL THOSE JERKS BECAUSE THEY
ARE NON-BELIEVERS, THEY
DON'T HAVE THE TRUE RELIGION.
SO RELIGION IN THE LAST 5,000
YEARS HAS ACQUIRED SOME NEW
SOCIAL POLITICAL FUNCTIONS,
NAMELY OBEY THE KING,
DON'T KILL STRANGERS, BUT
YES, DO KILL STRANGERS IF THEY
BELIEVE IN THE WRONG RELIGION.
SO RELIGIOUS BELIEF ARISES AS
THE PRODUCT OF THE INTERACTION
AMONG SOCIAL-POLITICAL AND
PERSONAL-INDIVIDUAL DRIVES?
YES, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CONCEPT
OF 'RELIGIOUS BELIEF' ITSELF?
JOHN SCHELLENBERG IS A
PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION.
YOU CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN
BELIEVING THAT, WHERE YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT SOME PROPOSITION
LIKE THE PROPOSITION THAT THERE
IS A GOD.
SO, I BELIEVE
THAT THERE IS A GOD.
ALL RIGHT, NOW, I'M A RELIGIOUS
BELIEVER, YOU MIGHT SAY.
BUT THIS IS STILL SOMETHING
THAT IS PRIMARILY COGNITIVE
OR INTELLECTUAL, AND IN FACT YOU
MIGHT HOLD SUCH A BELIEF WITHOUT
BEING A RELIGIOUS PERSON, TO
REALLY UNDERSTAND THE POWER OF
RELIGIOUS BELIEF, YOU NEED
TO INTRODUCE ANOTHER SORT OF
BELIEF, WHICH PHILOSOPHERS
DISTINGUISH AS "BELIEVING IN."
THINK ABOUT BELIEVING IN YOUR
FRIEND, OR BELIEVING IN YOUR
GUIDE DOG, IF YOU'RE A BLIND
PERSON, THIS MEANS MORE THAN
JUST BELIEVING THAT YOUR FRIEND
EXISTS, MEANS HAVING A CERTAIN
AFFECTIVE RELATION TO THEM THAT
IS AN EMOTIONAL, A FEELING BASED
SORT OF AN ATTITUDE TOWARDS
THE THING THAT IS BELIEVED IN.
AND THAT IS TYPICALLY
COMBINED WITH BELIEF THAT,
IN THE RELIGIOUS CASE.
SO, THE THEISTIC RELIGIOUS
PERSON IS SOMEBODY WHO NOT ONLY
BELIEVES THAT THERE IS A GOD,
BUT WHO BELIEVES IN GOD, WHO HAS
CERTAIN VERY, YOU KNOW, POSITIVE
AND WARM DISPOSITIONS, EMOTIONS,
FEELINGS TOWARDS GOD.
AND THESE TWO THINGS TYPICALLY
GO TOGETHER, AND I THINK IT'S
BECAUSE OF THE POWER, THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL POWER OF BELIEF IN
- THAT BELIEF THAT IS SO OFTEN
VERY HARD FOR PEOPLE TO LET GO
OF, EVEN WHEN THERE'RE
GOOD ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT.
BELIEF IN IS ALSO REINFORCED BY
SOCIAL SETTINGS, AND CULTURAL
NORMS AND ORGANIZATIONAL POWERS.
SURE, PARTICIPATION
IN RELIGIOUS LIFE.
YOU GO TO CHURCH AND YOU SING
WITH OTHERS AND, YOU KNOW, THESE
EMOTIONS ARE ACTIVATED AND SO
THE NEXT WEEK YOU'RE, YOU KNOW,
MUCH MORE INCLINED TO
RESPOND TO THINGS IN TERMS NOT
JUST OF BELIEVING
THAT, BUT BELIEVING IN.
IN FACT, THAT'S ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT THE CHURCH SERVICE
IS SUPPOSED TO PRODUCE.
SO, I THINK THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
POWER OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF,
CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BY
DISTINGUISHING, AS PHILOSOPHERS
DO, BETWEEN BELIEF
THAT, AND BELIEF IN.
WHAT THEN THE
FUTURE OF RELIGION?
I CHECK BACK
WITH COLIN BLAKEMORE.
CERTAINLY IN THE WESTERN WORLD
I THINK THAT OUR LIVES ON THE
DAY-TO-DAY BASIS ARE LESS
DOMINATED BY RELIGIOUS VIEWS,
DOGMA PRACTICE, THAN THEY WERE
THREE, FOUR HUNDRED YEARS AGO.
SO TO THAT EXTENT RELIGION IS
LESS IMPORTANT IN SOME CULTURES.
IN TERMS OF GLOBAL POLITICS,
THE ECONOMY, MASS BELIEF, YEAH
RELIGION IS STILL A VERY VERY
POWERFUL FORCE IN THE WORLD.
AND THAT IT REFLECTS SOME DEEP
INBUILT NEED IN HUMAN BEINGS
THAT IS HARD TO
SATISFY IN OTHER WAYS.
BUT THE VERY FACT THAT IT CAN
BE, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO'VE
LIVED GOOD FULL RICH LIVES
WITHOUT RELIGIOUS BELIEF, GIVES
ME REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IN THE
FULLNESS OF TIME, RELIGIONS WILL
DECLINE IN THEIR INFLUENCE, AS
PEOPLE BECOME FRANKLY I THINK
YOU KNOW, BETTER INFORMED
ABOUT ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF
UNDERSTANDING THEMSELVES,
UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD.
OF RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE
EXPLANATIONS FOR THE WORLD THAT
DO NOT REQUIRE THE EXISTENCE
OF INTELLIGENT DEITIES.
THIS IS A VERY BIG
CHALLENGE I THINK CULTURALLY
TO HUMAN BEINGS.
TO CONSTRUCT A DIFFERENT WAY
OF GAINING A SATISFACTION AND A
SENSE OF ADEQUACY OUT OF LIFE
WITHOUT THE PROPS AND THE STRUTS
AND THE SUPPORTS THAT RELIGION
HAS IN THE PAST GIVEN TO US.
CAN HUMAN BEINGS
FIND SATISFACTION IN
LIFE WITHOUT RELIGION?
IS A SENSE OF THE
SACRED REQUIRED?
I ASK THE AUTHOR OF "REINVENTING
THE SACRED," THE ICONOCLASTIC
BIOLOGIST, STUART KAUFFMAN.
WE NEED, I BELIEVE, A
SHARABLE SENSE OF THE SACRED.
NOW, WHY?
A BILLION OF US ARE SECULAR
HUMANISTS, ROUGHLY SPEAKING.
WE DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD AT ALL.
WE'RE IMPOVERISHED.
WE'VE LOST SPIRITUALITY, MY
OWN HOPES IS NOT FOR A SINGLE
CIVILIZATION WHERE WE ALL SPEAK
ENGLISH AND EAT HAMBURGERS,
BUT LACED TOGETHER, TO INVENT
PERSISTENTLY NEW CULTURAL
FORMS, OR WAYS OF BEING HUMAN,
SO THAT OUR OWN CREATIVITY
IS ENHANCED, WHERE CREATIVITY
BECOMES A CENTRAL GOOD.
IT'S AN INDIGENOUS CREATIVITY.
AND IT'S TIED TO THE FACT
THAT THE BIOSPHERE WITHOUT
SELECTION IS BUILDING ITS
OWN FUTURE POSSIBILITIES OF
BECOMING, WHICH I
FIND JUST STUNNING.
I WANT TO SAY, HOW MUCH
MAGIC DO YOU NEED, OKAY?
SO, IS THAT CREATIVITY IN
THE UNIVERSE, THAT CEASELESS,
RADICAL, INDIGENOUS
CREATIVITY, IS THAT YOUR GOD?
YEAH, THAT'S MY GOD.
AND, I INVITE YOU
TO DO SOMETHING.
GO INTO A FOREST, BY YOURSELF,
WITH SOME ANIMALS AND SOME
PLANTS AND SOME
BACTERIA AND STUFF.
AND LOOK AROUND AND SAY, ALL
THAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT FOR THE
PAST 3.5 BILLION YEARS,
THE SUN'S BEEN SHINING,
THERE'S BEEN A FEW OTHER SOURCES
OF FREE ENERGY, AND ALL THIS
STUFF, CAME TO EXIST
WITH NOBODY IN CHARGE.
THAT'S TRUE.
HOW MUCH DO YOU WANT FOR GOD?
IT'S SO AWESOME,
MYSTERIOUS, GRAND.
THAT'S GOD ENOUGH FOR ME.
IF YOU'RE RELIGIOUS,
YOU SAY, WHO ARE YOU TO
RE-INVENT THE SACRED?
I MEAN, THE SACRED'S IN THE OLD
TESTAMENT, OR THE NEW TESTAMENT.
AND IF YOU'RE A SCIENTIST, YOU
SAY, DON'T YOU REMEMBER GALILEO
IN THE INQUISITION, OFF WITH
YOUR HEAD, I MEAN, I'M SEEN
AS AN APOSTATE.
BUT THE IDEA IS TO BE NEITHER.
NOT TO APPEAL TO THE SECULAR
HUMANISTS, NOT TO APPEAL
TO THE FUNDAMENTALISTS.
IT'S TO SAY, THERE'S SOMETHING
WE CAN SHARE, ALL OF US.
WHAT CAUSES RELIGIOUS BELIEF?
NO DOUBT, THERE ARE
EVOLUTIONARY-SOCIAL GENERATORS.
POLITICAL ONES AS WELL.
I LIKE THE COGNITIVE
SCIENCE OF RELIGION.
THE BRAIN AS A
'MEANING MACHINE.'
AFFECTED BY INDOCTRINATION.
SUSCEPTIBLE TO MANIPULATION.
AS FOR THE NEUROSCIENCE OF
RELIGIOUS BELIEF, SOME FIND DEEP
INSIGHTS ABOUT RELIGION ITSELF.
I DO NOT.
I FIND MORE INSIGHTS ABOUT
THE BRAIN THAN ABOUT RELIGION.
I VALUE STUART KAUFMANN'S
PASSION TO "RE-INVENT THE
SACRED" - BECAUSE HE
RECOGNIZES A REAL NEED.
BUT I REJECT
THE RATIONALIZATION.
FOR ME, THERE IS NO
MIDDLE GROUND, NO COMPROMISE.
EITHER THERE IS A SACRED
REALITY THAT TRANSCENDS
THE PHYSICAL WORLD.
OR I ESCHEW THE SACRED AS A
ARCHAIC NEED TO BE EXTINGUISHED.
SO, CAN RELIGIOUS BELIEF BE
AN ENTIRELY NATURAL PROCESS?
YES.
DOES RELIGIOUS BELIEF
NEED A SUPERNATURAL GOD?
NO.
BUT NEITHER 'PROVES'
THERE IS NO GOD.
I GUESS I'M A "BELIEVE THAT"
KIND OF PERSON, THOUGH I'D LIKE
TO "BELIEVE IN.'
BUT THE MORE I WANT GOD
TO BE REAL, THE MORE I VIEW
RELIGION AS NATURAL.
IS THAT A PARADOX?
GETTING...
CLOSER TO TRUTH.
FOR COMPLETE INTERVIEWS
AND FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,
PLEASE VISIT
WWW.CLOSERTOTRUTH.COM.
