Can psychology explain “away” religion?

1. Can psychology explain “away” religion? • Chong Ho Yu, Ph.D, D. Phil. • Azusa Pacific University

2. 1. Explaining religion • For the last several centuries numerous academic endeavors have been made in an attempt to explain (or explain away) religion. • These approaches could be summarized into three camps: • naturalistic explanations, • cultural or environmental explanations, • and a fusion of both

3. 2. Internal (Natural) vs. external • Built upon existing naturalistic theories of religion, such as teleological reasoning, common-sense dualism, and the theory of mind. • The majority of people turn to religion because of subjective negative experiences, not objective events in the hostile environment.

4. 3. Teleological reasoning • Even if events in the universe are random, we tend to find a pattern or a purpose in these events. This tendency was developed among our ancestors throughout the history of evolution. • Many people are helpless while facing unfortunate events, and one adaptive or coping mechanism people use is to optimize negative outcomes that are out of their control, such as putting their faith on an external agency (e.g. God).

5. 4. Theory of Mind • How can I know you have a mind? • Humans have a natural tendency to perceive that cognitive systems continue to function after death, and this disposition might be the psychological foundation of religion. The underlying mechanism of this inclination is called the “theory of mind.”

6. 5. Hard-wired dispositions • The human cognitive structure carries certain hard-wired dispositions that lead us to embrace supernatural beliefs. • Because our ancestors who lived in a dangerous world had to be highly alert all the time, they might mis-perceive many usual things as a signal of threat. Nevertheless, it is better to make a Type I error (false alarm) than a Type II error (miss a real threat).

7. 6. Hyperactive agency detection device • It is better for a hunter to mistake a rock for a tiger than the opposite. This psychological inclination. • Hyperactive agency detection device makes us receptive to imagined and invisible agents. • If a flood destroys a village, it is better to assume that the river spirit is angry and do something, such as offering sacrifices to the river spirit. • That's why we tend to find “something” out of “nothing” (e.g. seeing patterns out of randomness)

8. 7. Survival advantages • Barrett (2004) suggested that religious concepts and practices, which emerged from communities, strengthened moral and social order, and also equipped religious people with survival advantages over non-religious people.

9. 8. Commonsense dualist • Bloom (2004): humans are prone to be dualists because mind-body dualism is compatible with our common sense. • While children accept that the brain is responsible for some aspects of mental life, such as solving math problems, at the same time they also deny that the brain has something to do with loving one’s brother. It is natural for human to postulate that there is some entity beyond the body, and therefore we are receptive to supernatural beliefs.

10. 9. God in anthropomorphic terms • Boyer (2001) asserted that our minds are well-prepared for religion due to natural selection. Religious people perceive their god in anthropomorphic terms. • In other words, humans tend to conceptualize a god that is in many aspects like us; but this deity is much more powerful than a human. We have intuitions about what gods should look like and which religious concepts are good, and we project our images onto the supernatural world.

11. 10. Cultural approach • The cultural and sociological approach could be traced back to Freud (1929/1962) and Marx (1844/1977). • According to Freud, religion is a mass neurosis resulting from our interaction with the stressful environment. In order to alleviate our anxiety, we project the father figure into the image of God. • In Marx’s view, religion is a response to social and economic oppression, and the ruling class uses religion to justify the status quo.

12. 11. Different assumptions • Although both the naturalistic and cultural camps are similar to each other in the sense that religion is said to result from human-environment interaction, the assumptions of the two camps are different. • In the naturalistic perspective, religion could be subscribed by any people in any culture because the tendency is internally driven. • In the Freudian and Marxist views when the psychological, social, and cultural conditions that make us vulnerable to superstition are no longer present, people would not see a need for religion.

13. 12. God virus • Some modern authors went even further to claim that religion is a form of cultural virus spreading from mind to mind and from culture to culture (e.g. Craig, 2010; Dawkins, 1990, 2008; Dennett, 2007; Ray, 2009). • In a similar vein to Freud and Marx, these authors believe that when our culture is improved by scientific reasoning and citizens are endowed with better education, religion would be debunked and lose its attractiveness.

14. 13. History of God • While the preceding approaches emphasized the cultural conditions that breed religious ideas, other cultural approaches focus on the dynamic or evolutionary aspect of religion. • Armstrong (1994) illustrated how the concept of God, as a reflection of cultural traits, changed in history. According to Armstrong, each generation comes up with a different set of ideas of God, based upon the need, fear, vision, and emotion of the culture.

15. 14. Evolution of God • Wright (2009) argued that the idea of God evolved over time due to the necessity of cultural contexts. • Nelson and Kroliczak (1984) found a decline in Americans’ belief in a punishing God, and this coincides with a decline of parenting by using the “God will punish you” approach.

16. 15. Compensation model • Empirical studies also found that people who lack a firm attachment with their parents tend to believe in a loving god. This explanation is known as the compensation model (Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2009). • In other words, our perception of God, to some degree, depends on parenting and other cultural factors.

17. 16. Co-evolution • In recent years the naturalistic and cultural approaches have merged together by some researchers. For example, the Cultural Evolution of Religion Consortium (Centre for Human Evolution, Cognition, and Culture, 2013) adopted the gene-cultural co-evolution as the theoretical starting point. • Their research endeavors are devoted to research questions surrounding whether religious beliefs derived from an over-projection of theory of mind, as well as how religion and pro-social behaviors, such as honesty and fairness, are related.

18. 17. Explain or explain away • Teleological reasoning • Certain naturalistic approach starts with the presupposition that life events are indeed random, but humans have a natural tendency of imposing purpose, structure, purpose, and meaning on non-random events. • If so, religion is nothing more than a wishful thinking, and psychology can explain it “away.”

19. 18. Questionable assertions • First, are life events really totally random? (Some evidence shows the otherwise: Central limit theorem, Pascal triangle, Mandelbrot fractals...etc). • Second, is seeking for structure, order, and purpose a natural tendency that is universal across all or almost all cultures? There is evidence to show the otherwise.

20. 18. Questionable assertions • First, are life events really totally random? (This author is working on another article to address this issue: Central limit theorem, Pascal triangle, Mandelbrot fractals...etc). • Second, is seeking for structure, order, and purpose a natural tendency that is universal across all or almost all cultures? There is evidence to show the otherwise.

21. 19. Self-defeating • The notion that believing in God emerges from natural mechanisms is self-defeating. • If belief in God is misguided by many natural tendencies, including teleological reasoning, mind-body dualism, perception of active dead agents, and so on, how could those psychologists overcome these overwhelmingly natural dispositions? • Did they have another set of natural tendency that makes them immune against this type of psychological illusion?

22. 20. Self-defeating • How could the New Atheism movement gain popularity in the UK? • How could Europe. once a Christian continent, turn into secular states and lose most of the church members within a few decades? • Did the cognitive structures of the British people suddenly transform within half a century?

23. Social construct is unreal? • The cultural approach illustrates that the concept of God varies from culture to culture, from era to era. • This implies that there is no top-down divine revelation. Humans project their concept of God to the image of God.

24. Any cultural-invariant truth? • It unfairly assumes that truths, especially religious truths, must be invariant across cultures. • Even if some idea or object is socially constructed or carries cultural elements, it does not logically imply that the construct is not real or true.

25. Everything is culturally-dependent • Scientific ideas also vary from place to place and from time to time. e.g. Fisherian statistics and Pearsonian statistics. But it doesn't mean that it is totally man-made and has no corresponding to reality. • “It is cultural” becomes an abused trump card. It implies that the arguer is superimposing his or her cultural bias on the subject matter. • But, can you find any concept, theory, or model that is NOT cultural?