Posted by Helen on: 03.27.2008 /
This week’s Economist includes an article Where angels no longer fear to tread about a significant new study, Explaining Religion
“Explaining Religion”, as the project is known, is the largest-ever scientific study of the subject. It began last September, will run for three years, and involves scholars from 14 universities and a range of disciplines from psychology to economics. And it is merely the latest manifestation of a growing tendency for science to poke its nose into the God business.
Religion cries out for a biological explanation. It is a ubiquitous phenomenon—arguably one of the species markers of Homo sapiens—but a puzzling one. It has none of the obvious benefits of that other marker of humanity, language. Nevertheless, it consumes huge amounts of resources. Moreover, unlike language, it is the subject of violent disagreements. Science has, however, made significant progress in understanding the biology of language, from where it is processed in the brain to exactly how it communicates meaning. Time, therefore, to put religion under the microscope as well.
The experiments [this study] will sponsor are designed to look at the mental mechanisms needed to represent an omniscient deity, whether (and how) belief in such a “surveillance-camera” God might improve reproductive success to an individual’s Darwinian advantage, and whether religion enhances a person’s reputation—for instance, do people think that those who believe in God are more trustworthy than those who do not? The researchers will also seek to establish whether different religions foster different levels of co-operation, for what reasons, and whether such co-operation brings collective benefits, both to the religious community and to those outside it.
Comment by: steve lewis
1Interesting article. It raises a ton of questions in multiple directions. Does the fact that the majority of scientists who study this stuff are atheists alter the findings of the studies? Does it assume a biological explanation that leaves out potential spiritual explanations? If so, isn’t the belief in a biological explanation somewhat similar to religious belief? And what if the bit about self-sacrifice being good for the community, which defies classic Darwinian thought?
It will be interesting to track this series of studies as they unfold.
Comment by: karen
2Sounds really interesting! Thanks for bringing this here, Helen.
Comment by: Helen
3Good questions, Steve. It seems to me that the studies about which parts of the brain are involved in religious experiences don’t rule out supernatural involvement. The article indicates that so far the results of these studies aren’t what was expected.
The line of thinking about self-sacrifice being good for the community is an attempt to explain how altruism could have evolved. Although Darwin didn’t cover it he could have - it’s an extension of his theory rather than conflicting with it, so it seems to me. And it makes sense to me that behavior which benefits a group - such as altruism - will confer an evolutionary advantage to the group.
Karen, I’m glad you found it interesting too. Even though it’s about a project which is just getting underway, I liked all the detail about what’s been discovered so far and the current thinking about these issues.
Comment by: Pseudonym
4For some background, check out this essay by David Sloan Wilson. Not being a biologist, I couldn’t follow all of it, but it’s a fascinating overview.
Comment by: David H
5The old chicken and the egg thing: Do the biological apparatus cause the G(g)od(s) experience or allow it? Have they evolved simply because there is a Darwinian benefit for them or were they created by a supernatural being who wants people to seek him?
I also found it interesting that the entire question of faith/religious experience may be somewhat outside the control of a person. The experiment with dopamine suggests that a change in one brain chemical can make a difference between belief and unbelief.
Comment by: Helen
6Thanks Pseudonym. I think David Sloan Wilson is saying he thinks religion is a group adaptation which gives the group an advantage, which explains why religion has persisted from an evolutionary viewpoint.
David, yes, the research about brain chemicals and belief is interesting. We still know very little about the brain, it seems - I would be skeptical of anyone who claims to have proved anything conclusive about belief and brain chemistry anytime soon.
Comment by: Ted Goas
7I am very interested in research projects very interesting. What happens when science tries to study religion and faith?
Oxford University is conducting a similar study (actually linked from the Economist article, if anyone missed it). We wrote wrote a short reaction to the initial announcement.
I’m interested in the results of each study. Are you going to post anything else on this topic?