- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I hardly take religion seriously, and there is a reason for it. I understand how humans evolved. We are pattern seeking creatures and some of our cognitive biases are encoded in our genes as a result of how we evolved.
Let me try to explain it in statistical terms. There are two types of statistical errors, a Type I error and a Type II error. Type I errors are known as false positives and Type II errors are known as false negatives. Through natural selection, humans have become far more likely to commit Type I errors.
To illustrate, think of it in terms of our ancient ancestors. A hunter is walking through the jungle and he hears a rustle in the grass, is it a tiger or the wind? Well let us consider the two types of errors he could make.
Type I error: He believes there is a tiger in the grass even though there isn't.
Type II error: He believes there is no tiger in the grass even though there is.
Hunters who commit Type I errors in this scenario face considerably less costly consequences than hunters who commit Type II errors. In other words, the humans who commit Type II errors are more likely to get eaten, to get weeded out, and thus to have fewer offspring. The people who commit more Type I errors are likely to persist.
So how does this relate to religion and God?
It is safer to believe in something that does not exist than it is to not believe in something that does.
That bit of reasoning is also known as Pascal's wager and is the basis of all superstition. To put it in terms of statistical errors...
Type I: False Positive: You believe there is a God there even though there isn’t.
Type II: False Negative: You believe there is no God even though there is.
If you commit a Type II error, then the consequence is usually eternal damnation. It makes logical sense to "play it safe" and choose to believe in something that may not exist and, as already explained, our biology is already predisposed to do so.
I don't claim ownership of this idea. Michael Shermer is one of the originators of this hypothesis.
However, the fact that superstition persists means it has served an evolutionary purpose, but as we progress as a species we are beginning to outgrow it. We begin to see tigers where there are no tigers, such as in aliens, government conspiracies, etc.
Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World: Scientific American
But if there is no God, then what is the meaning of life? Will we not all act like immoral beasts and descend into anarchy? Even if there is no God, doesn't man need this Type I error to keep him moral?
Of course, the answers to these questions are found in natural selection as well. As the environmental forces that constrained our species decreased due to our adaptation, humans became their own chief hostile force in nature. As a result, we began to develop social intelligence that allowed us to emphasize, understand, and cooperate with one another. This is evidenced in the massive changes in our brains, in particular the development of a frontal cortex which allowed us to learn and develop language, reasoning, and other fine capabilities we often take for granted. We formed tribes that competed against other tribes. That is why we are limited even today to remembering up to 150 people and forming such passionate bonds with people who share our values and beliefs. The tribal mentality is a very large part of what makes us human and our increasing social intelligence has allowed us to move from direct competition to reciprocity. It is the ability to negotiate the terms of that reciprocity that is the basis for government, trade, social contracts, and our understanding of human rights.
Of course, once again, this is not solely my hypothesis...
http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/Flinnetal2005.pdf
So then what of our purpose as a species if there is no inherent meaning to our existence as decided by some omnipotent supernatural deity?
Well existentialists and humanists have been working on that question for a long time and I'm particularly fond of Carl Sagan's perspective...
If that is not good enough for you, then the absurdist philosopher Albert Camus explained the options all men have quite nicely.
1. Commit suicide (no sense wasting resources if life isn't worth living).
2. Commit philosophical suicide (by committing a Type I error and buying into some supernatural deity or superstition).
3. Accept that there may not be inherent meaning to life and enjoy the fact that you exist and have the power to make your own meaning out of your experiences.
I leave the choice up to you.
Let me try to explain it in statistical terms. There are two types of statistical errors, a Type I error and a Type II error. Type I errors are known as false positives and Type II errors are known as false negatives. Through natural selection, humans have become far more likely to commit Type I errors.
To illustrate, think of it in terms of our ancient ancestors. A hunter is walking through the jungle and he hears a rustle in the grass, is it a tiger or the wind? Well let us consider the two types of errors he could make.
Type I error: He believes there is a tiger in the grass even though there isn't.
Type II error: He believes there is no tiger in the grass even though there is.
Hunters who commit Type I errors in this scenario face considerably less costly consequences than hunters who commit Type II errors. In other words, the humans who commit Type II errors are more likely to get eaten, to get weeded out, and thus to have fewer offspring. The people who commit more Type I errors are likely to persist.
So how does this relate to religion and God?
It is safer to believe in something that does not exist than it is to not believe in something that does.
That bit of reasoning is also known as Pascal's wager and is the basis of all superstition. To put it in terms of statistical errors...
Type I: False Positive: You believe there is a God there even though there isn’t.
Type II: False Negative: You believe there is no God even though there is.
If you commit a Type II error, then the consequence is usually eternal damnation. It makes logical sense to "play it safe" and choose to believe in something that may not exist and, as already explained, our biology is already predisposed to do so.
I don't claim ownership of this idea. Michael Shermer is one of the originators of this hypothesis.
However, the fact that superstition persists means it has served an evolutionary purpose, but as we progress as a species we are beginning to outgrow it. We begin to see tigers where there are no tigers, such as in aliens, government conspiracies, etc.
Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World: Scientific American
But if there is no God, then what is the meaning of life? Will we not all act like immoral beasts and descend into anarchy? Even if there is no God, doesn't man need this Type I error to keep him moral?
Of course, the answers to these questions are found in natural selection as well. As the environmental forces that constrained our species decreased due to our adaptation, humans became their own chief hostile force in nature. As a result, we began to develop social intelligence that allowed us to emphasize, understand, and cooperate with one another. This is evidenced in the massive changes in our brains, in particular the development of a frontal cortex which allowed us to learn and develop language, reasoning, and other fine capabilities we often take for granted. We formed tribes that competed against other tribes. That is why we are limited even today to remembering up to 150 people and forming such passionate bonds with people who share our values and beliefs. The tribal mentality is a very large part of what makes us human and our increasing social intelligence has allowed us to move from direct competition to reciprocity. It is the ability to negotiate the terms of that reciprocity that is the basis for government, trade, social contracts, and our understanding of human rights.
Of course, once again, this is not solely my hypothesis...
http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/Flinnetal2005.pdf
So then what of our purpose as a species if there is no inherent meaning to our existence as decided by some omnipotent supernatural deity?
Well existentialists and humanists have been working on that question for a long time and I'm particularly fond of Carl Sagan's perspective...
If that is not good enough for you, then the absurdist philosopher Albert Camus explained the options all men have quite nicely.
1. Commit suicide (no sense wasting resources if life isn't worth living).
2. Commit philosophical suicide (by committing a Type I error and buying into some supernatural deity or superstition).
3. Accept that there may not be inherent meaning to life and enjoy the fact that you exist and have the power to make your own meaning out of your experiences.
I leave the choice up to you.
Last edited: