Homo Religious. It’s a short post by Dr. Michael Shermer on the reasons why man is inclined to believe in God and/or practice religion. The essay begins by asking, “Did humans evolve to be religious and believe in God?” Then it answers: “In the most general sense, yes we did.” Then Shermer informs us that he’s gonna let us know how it all went down- “Here’s what happened.” (Homo Religious)
He continues on, summarizing the basic ideas he will present. Shermer says, “Humans evolved to find meaningful causal patterns in nature to make sense of the world, and infuse many of those patterns with intentional agency, some of which became animistic spirits and powerful gods”. Then he says that because we’re a social species of primate, we evolved social organizations to ‘promote group cohesiveness’ and, of course, ‘to enforce social rules’.
Now this, my dearies, is the problem with pop science. It utilizes enough facts to make it true, but these facts are inevitably rearranged into a kind of propaganda. In Shermer’s theory, it’s true that animistic beliefs and religions have their root in the same human inclination. But his theory makes a leap of logic; a non-sequitor (does not follow). IF we accept that seeking to make sense of the natural world was the reason for inventing animistic spirits, it STILL doesn’t explain why those spirits have anything to do with morality. What prompted early man to connect the two? Why choose this way to promote group cohesiveness? Aren’t there many groups that promote group cohesiveness? Unions. Political parties. Clubs. Special interest group. Clans. Families. Countries. Counties.
Every individual, at any given time, will most likely identify with several groups. What unique need does religion fill that has caused it to persist so universally? Well, Shermer says, to explain the natural world! But if religion were merely a mechanism to explain connections between point A and point B, then wouldn’t religion have gone the way of the dinosaurs when science came along? After all, there are much better explanations for the connections from point A to point B.
Then, Shermer states his thesis: “People believe in God because we are pattern-seeking primates.” If people believe in God because they see patterns that only the existence of a ‘God’ would explain, then what do atheists see? I think it could be assumed with reasonable certainty that atheists see patterns as well. If atheists attribute the patterns they observe to ‘logical causes;, does that make everyone who believes in God some sort of twit? That would be a drastic, statistically improbable statement. What of agnostics? Maybe they saw a pattern, but weren’t sure.
The best is yet to come. According to Shermer, sometimes the human species has errors in it’s thinking (like religion?) and creates a false pattern. He gives a rather ingenuous example. If our primitive ancestors heard as rustle in the grass, they would have to decide whether it was the wind or a dangerous predator. If one of our ancestors decided it was the wind, and it wasn’t, then he or she would be in for a world of hurt and most likely removed from the gene pool. Hence, natural selection would favor those primitive alarmists who assumed everything was a predator. (Can somebody get one of those primitive alarmists? I need one to explain to me how assuming a breeze on the African plain is a lion and assuming that it’s raining because it’s god are equally valuable survival tools. I need a monkey… STAT!) He called this phenomenon patternicity. (No, I’m not kidding. “Patternicity“, tell your friends. It’s the other, other, other white meat…)
The ‘patternicity’ explanation (a word which, when employed in a written from yields many red squiggly lines) would be completely brilliant IF…and this is a big if… if it didn’t absolutely every other animal on the planet. Every animal on this planet would, at some point in its life, have to decide if a given stimuli constituted a threat or a more innocuous occurrence. A rabbit who heard a rustle in the grass would have to decide if that rustle was a dog or a refreshing summers’ breeze. Hence, the same selective pressures would favor rabbits who responded the same way as our primitive ancestors. That same principle applies across the board.
A more likely explanation for the origins of a belief in God stem not from the observance of natural patterns, but from the understanding that all effects need a cause. It’s far more reasonable to picture our ancestors accidentally overturning a water jug and realizing that his action (cause) led to the jug turning over (effect). It is a possibility that the logic would extend to natural phenomenon. If it’s raining then something had to cause it. If a volcano erupts, there must be a reason. There weren’t any seismologists or vulcanologists in Africa at the dawn of man, so one could assume that they worked with what they had.
Even this alone cannot account for the existence of religion, nor explain why people believe in God. Why did our ancestors choose the explanations that they did? There had to have been more than one idea.
And beliefs in animistic spirits and more impersonal supernatural forces, all though they precede religion, are not the same as a religion. It’s the equivalent of saying that rocks and heat-seeking missiles are the same thing (they’re both weapons, right?). It would be a true statement, but not necessarily accurate. A religion is a vastly more complicated belief system.
Shermer was right about two things. Religions do promote cohesiveness and reinforce societal rules, but that’s not all religions do. In fact, as I pointed out, there are numerous groups that ‘promote cohesiveness’ or enforce ‘rules’. Religion is the only one that provides comfort. People are afraid to die. Believing that there’s some deity that waits for you one the other side relieves some of that anxiety. Shermer’s theory discounts how desperate people are to avoid coping with their own mortality. So desperate in fact, that many times, they’ll believe in ideas that contradict common sense and well-established cause-and-effect relationships.
This explains much of how religions actually are. In order to really, truly believe in a religion nowadays you to discount most of what science teaches. There are those who would argue, but ultimately the core of science is that the only thing that’s real is the thing, which can be proven. Nothing else counts in science, except what you can prove. Since a religion can’t be proven, you would have to throw out the principle of believing only in proven things in order to believe in something beyond proof. If you really believed Jesus died, and then got better, you would have to believe that in the face of well-known facts. The same can be said of parting the Red Sea (which science, history, and common sense tell us didn’t happen). Noah’s Ark. Riding on a comet. None of these fit neatly into the idea of ‘patternicity’. (Precisely what kind of natural phenomenon led the Hebrews to create a story about Moses parting the Red Sea?)
This kind of thinking creates problems. It reduces an entire segment of the population to mindless dupes who are indoctrinated into a system they haven’t bothered to evaluate. In the eyes of Shermer and his ilk, people who believe in religion are befuddled morons stumbling blindly through life, with a nary a care in the world, never bothering to ask themselves if their beliefs make sense.
In my experience, people aren’t that simple. Some religious individuals I’ve met are blind followers, but not because of religion. These individuals tend to be conformists in general, and it would be unreasonable to religion made them that. I’ve met many people who have evaluated their religious beliefs and arrived a tenuous peace between what their religion teaches and what science can prove. Reducing them to the rank of muddled-monkey is a disservice.
I myself detest religion personally, but I accept that there are other valid viewpoints. Accepting Shermer’s views would mean discounting personal experience as a factor in developing one’s personal beliefs.
There are many factors that contribute to a human beings predilection for religious conviction. And sorry, but Shermer didn’t crack the code in his blog. Some pieces of information are correct, but as a whole, the theory is so grossly oversimplified that it ceases to have value. And, none of these ideas are new. Shermer didn’t invent or discover these concepts. These basic ideas have been known academically for quite some time. In fact, an introductory anthropology textbook cites the need to understand the natural world, reversion to childhood feelings, anxiety and uncertainty, and need for community as the most likely factors that led to a belief in God. (Anthropology) None of those are simply “People believe in God because we are pattern-seeking primates.”
Works Cited
Homo Religious. Michael Shermer. 18 Aug. 2009. http://skepticblog.org/2009/08/18/homo-religious
Ember, Carol R. Ember, Melvin. Peregrine, Peter. Anthropology. “Religion and Magic”. Prentice Hall. Jan. 2007. Pg. 462, 463
Showing posts with label Anthropology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anthropology. Show all posts
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Refuting Type 1 Civilization Theory
Recently I read and commented on Michael Shermer’s entry about a Type 1 civilization. The core problem with the theory, as I see it, is that it presents the evolution of culture as a linear progression from simple to complex. The evolution of culture climaxes in the development of a type 1 civilization. The characteristics of a Type 1 civilization, as Shermer defined it, is as follows:
“Globalism that includes worldwide wireless internet access, all knowledge digitized and available to everyone anywhere any time, a global economy with complete open economic borders and free markets where anyone can trade with anyone else without interference from states or governments, and where all states are democracies in which everyone on the planet has the franchise.” (Type 1)
Of course, this Type 1 utopia only exists after society has progressed through all the stages. In Shermer’s model of civilization that means the progression of society from lower Paleolithic cultures, to hunter-gather societies, followed by the formation of tribes, then chiefdoms, states, and so on. The chronicle of actualized societies ends with a .9 society, (the theoretical stage that us Americans happen to be at) which Shermer defines as “Democratic-Capitalism, now spreading across the globe through democratic movements and free trade agreements.” (Type 1)
The first and most glaring problem with this theory is the astounding, mind-boggling, ethnocentric arrogance required to make such a generalization. The idea of a Type 1 civilization assumes that somehow the natural progression of human events culminates in a Western society, with Western values, that bares a rather strong resemblance to American ideas and values. Hence, any society that does not have these characteristics is somehow “less advanced” and ranking far lower on the evolutionary scale.
It is tempting to place oneself as the ego, and define ones’ own culture as the pinnacle of evolution, but are there facts to prove that Western societies are the best? Ultimately, cross-cultural study and analysis suggests that all societies (including tribal ones that would be considered primitive in Shermer’s classification scheme) are equally effective at meeting the particular needs of their members. All societies possess areas where they frequently struggle to meet the individual needs of their members, and areas where they excel at meeting a given need. One of the primary assumptions of anthropology is that culture is generally adaptive (Anthropology). This means that it is relatively safe to assume that cultures currently in existence possess adaptive traits particular to their circumstance- after all, if their culture were maladaptive, it would be extinct.
It is quite possible that many cultures might benefit from being more Western, but might is hardly a statement of fact. We don’t know how they would fair- and we cannot make a definitive statement in absence of evidence. Presuming an idea is true merely because we don’t know that it’s not is hasty at best. In fact, I can think of several examples where introduction of Western values and culture have been detrimental to other societies: the Aborigines of Australia whose acculturation left numerous in desperate poverty and with their own cultural heritage in tatters, the Samoans whose familiarity with Westerners introduced them to obesity and hypertension (Anthropology), and the American Indians whose unsolicited contact with Europeans left them a marginalized subgroup, ravaged by disease, and often living in poverty.
Is globalizing the world, and hence making everyone into a Westerner, really win-win? Unavoidably, someone must lose, just as many indigenous cultures already have. That is simply the obvious reality of that plan, and how Shermer could have overlooked it is beyond me.
Furthermore, Shermer frequently (and sometimes dubiously) asserts that science is on his side. This time he is simply wrong. The idea of a linear progression of society from simple to more complex was the popular notion of anthropologists in the early history of the discipline. Early Evolutionism, whose major proponents included Lewis Henry Morgan and Edward B. Tylor, proposed that all societies pass through the same basic stages of development. It was thought that simpler peoples had somehow failed to reach higher stages of development- but ultimately that all societies would end up with essentially the same form. However, their theories didn’t account for why some societies skipped stages, others regressed to simpler stages, and some simply failed to evolve at all or became extinct. (Anthropology)
In fact, another anthropologist known as Leslie A. White (often times referred to as a Neoevolutionist) even suggested that the amount of energy a culture could harness governed the evolution of culture, but ultimately it succumbed to the same basic failures as early Evolutionism. It could not account for why some cultures advanced, others did not, some regressed, and others went extinct. (Anthropology)
The bigger lesson here, outside of all the obvious, is that no one is immune to his or her own ego- not even Michael Shermer. It’s ironic that, as a champion of skepticism and destroyer of those who make unverified claims of the extraordinary, he would turn around and do precisely the same thing. Shermer should realize have access to information makes no difference if the information is simply bad (as is the case with many information source online). Written sources are only as useful as the person who writes them. Even access to good information is no guarantee that anyone will necessarily access the information. After all, how many non-fiction books have been written? When was the last time you heard of a rush on the library to get the latest taxonomy supplement? The internet has existed for quite sometime now, and the only thing people seem interested in accessing on it is porn. Why do we have a reason to believe that in some vague time in the not-too-distant-future people will be miraculously more enlightened?
It just goes to show that even on the internet (golly gaspy jeepers!) you can’t believe everything you read… so you might as well surf for pron!
Works Cited
Type 1 Civilization. Michael Shermer. http://skepticblog.org/2009/07/21/toward-a-type-i-civilization/
Ember, Carol R. Ember, Melvin. Peregrine, Peter. Anthropology. “Theoretical Approaches in Cultural Anthropology”. “Culture Change and Globalization”. Prentice Hall. Jan. 2007. pgs. 232, 236, 237, 504
“Globalism that includes worldwide wireless internet access, all knowledge digitized and available to everyone anywhere any time, a global economy with complete open economic borders and free markets where anyone can trade with anyone else without interference from states or governments, and where all states are democracies in which everyone on the planet has the franchise.” (Type 1)
Of course, this Type 1 utopia only exists after society has progressed through all the stages. In Shermer’s model of civilization that means the progression of society from lower Paleolithic cultures, to hunter-gather societies, followed by the formation of tribes, then chiefdoms, states, and so on. The chronicle of actualized societies ends with a .9 society, (the theoretical stage that us Americans happen to be at) which Shermer defines as “Democratic-Capitalism, now spreading across the globe through democratic movements and free trade agreements.” (Type 1)
The first and most glaring problem with this theory is the astounding, mind-boggling, ethnocentric arrogance required to make such a generalization. The idea of a Type 1 civilization assumes that somehow the natural progression of human events culminates in a Western society, with Western values, that bares a rather strong resemblance to American ideas and values. Hence, any society that does not have these characteristics is somehow “less advanced” and ranking far lower on the evolutionary scale.
It is tempting to place oneself as the ego, and define ones’ own culture as the pinnacle of evolution, but are there facts to prove that Western societies are the best? Ultimately, cross-cultural study and analysis suggests that all societies (including tribal ones that would be considered primitive in Shermer’s classification scheme) are equally effective at meeting the particular needs of their members. All societies possess areas where they frequently struggle to meet the individual needs of their members, and areas where they excel at meeting a given need. One of the primary assumptions of anthropology is that culture is generally adaptive (Anthropology). This means that it is relatively safe to assume that cultures currently in existence possess adaptive traits particular to their circumstance- after all, if their culture were maladaptive, it would be extinct.
It is quite possible that many cultures might benefit from being more Western, but might is hardly a statement of fact. We don’t know how they would fair- and we cannot make a definitive statement in absence of evidence. Presuming an idea is true merely because we don’t know that it’s not is hasty at best. In fact, I can think of several examples where introduction of Western values and culture have been detrimental to other societies: the Aborigines of Australia whose acculturation left numerous in desperate poverty and with their own cultural heritage in tatters, the Samoans whose familiarity with Westerners introduced them to obesity and hypertension (Anthropology), and the American Indians whose unsolicited contact with Europeans left them a marginalized subgroup, ravaged by disease, and often living in poverty.
Is globalizing the world, and hence making everyone into a Westerner, really win-win? Unavoidably, someone must lose, just as many indigenous cultures already have. That is simply the obvious reality of that plan, and how Shermer could have overlooked it is beyond me.
Furthermore, Shermer frequently (and sometimes dubiously) asserts that science is on his side. This time he is simply wrong. The idea of a linear progression of society from simple to more complex was the popular notion of anthropologists in the early history of the discipline. Early Evolutionism, whose major proponents included Lewis Henry Morgan and Edward B. Tylor, proposed that all societies pass through the same basic stages of development. It was thought that simpler peoples had somehow failed to reach higher stages of development- but ultimately that all societies would end up with essentially the same form. However, their theories didn’t account for why some societies skipped stages, others regressed to simpler stages, and some simply failed to evolve at all or became extinct. (Anthropology)
In fact, another anthropologist known as Leslie A. White (often times referred to as a Neoevolutionist) even suggested that the amount of energy a culture could harness governed the evolution of culture, but ultimately it succumbed to the same basic failures as early Evolutionism. It could not account for why some cultures advanced, others did not, some regressed, and others went extinct. (Anthropology)
The bigger lesson here, outside of all the obvious, is that no one is immune to his or her own ego- not even Michael Shermer. It’s ironic that, as a champion of skepticism and destroyer of those who make unverified claims of the extraordinary, he would turn around and do precisely the same thing. Shermer should realize have access to information makes no difference if the information is simply bad (as is the case with many information source online). Written sources are only as useful as the person who writes them. Even access to good information is no guarantee that anyone will necessarily access the information. After all, how many non-fiction books have been written? When was the last time you heard of a rush on the library to get the latest taxonomy supplement? The internet has existed for quite sometime now, and the only thing people seem interested in accessing on it is porn. Why do we have a reason to believe that in some vague time in the not-too-distant-future people will be miraculously more enlightened?
It just goes to show that even on the internet (golly gaspy jeepers!) you can’t believe everything you read… so you might as well surf for pron!
Works Cited
Type 1 Civilization. Michael Shermer. http://skepticblog.org/2009/07/21/toward-a-type-i-civilization/
Ember, Carol R. Ember, Melvin. Peregrine, Peter. Anthropology. “Theoretical Approaches in Cultural Anthropology”. “Culture Change and Globalization”. Prentice Hall. Jan. 2007. pgs. 232, 236, 237, 504
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
