Jesse Bering
Image:
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Last week I described some recent cognitive research on the (rather unfortunate) naturalness of creationist reasoning. Another important body of work in the “cognitive science of religion” concerns how religious ideas are transmitted between generations. And the name Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist from Washington University of Saint Louis, is rightfully synonymous with this well-known research.
Boyer’s detailed model provides something of a more nuanced version of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins’s view of religion being an ideological parasite that worms into the minds of unwitting hosts (i.e., gullible children) and inoculates them against all forms of secular reason. In Boyer's book Religion Explained, he lays out a very elegant scientific model that shows how the evolved human mind is especially vulnerable to religious concepts because they exploit our everyday, mundane, run-of-the-mill thought processes. What makes a particular concept “religious” or supernatural, says Boyer, is its counterintuitiveness—the extent to which it violates our innate assumptions about basic aspects of the natural world.
Take the spirit of Elijah, for example, who one evening every Spring between 1978 to 1983 sprinted invisibly through my house in Virginia and downed a glass of Manischewitz wine. That’s what I was led to believe by my parents anyway, who theatrically acted out this popular Passover ritual in which—once everyone at the Seder has dipped their hardboiled eggs in the Israelite’s tears and stuffed themselves sufficiently with Matzo ball soup and Gefilte fish—the youngest child at the table is instructed to go to the front door and invite Elijah inside. While the child’s standing there with the door open, his mouth agape and the hair on the back of his neck bristling, the spirit of Elijah sweeps through the house, tosses back a glass of wine at the Seder table, and then whisks away to the next Jewish home. (In reality, the father traditionally drinks the wine while the child is standing at the door and the empty glass is exhibited as evidence of Elijah’s passing through.)
As the youngest child in my own family, I had no idea who this Elijah character was and I doubt my secularised parents did either. It wasn’t until long after I started shaving that I discovered Elijah was actually a prophet mentioned in the Old Testament that some Jews believed would appear before the coming of the Messiah. Somehow over the centuries Elijah happened to get cast as an alcoholic ghost in this Passover ritual and now makes regular appearances in the American suburbs, crying wolf on the Messiah each new year and getting baited with Manischewitz just as Saint Nicholas is baited with Toll House Cookies. I can assure you, however, that I fell for it every time and that he scared the hell out of me.
Boyer would say that much of the reason I was so affected by the Elijah ritual is that the concept of a spirit who slips through walls and drinks from a glass with invisible lips violated my intuitive understanding of what a human being is and what a human being does. These counterintuitive aspects of Elijah, then, get us latter-born Jews to really perk up our ears when our parents tell us about this mysterious character.
Boyer sometimes uses the term ‘sticky’ to describe religious concepts. They’re especially hard to shake, he says, because they’re continually grabbing our attention by virtue of the fact that they challenge our innate understanding of the humdrum world. In Elijah’s case, it’s being a person and therefore having a mind that works like any person’s mind. That is to say, you didn’t have to be told that Elijah has a mind basically like ours; you just inferred that he’s got human thoughts, interests, and desires rather than, say, those of a red squirrel. Yet, then again, he’s not exactly like us after all because he’s also an invisible person. And that grabs our attention and makes him especially memorable.
With Boyer’s catalogue of supernatural ideas, just about any religious concept you can conjure up has this same basic formula: take a run-of-the-mill bit of the everyday and add a flash of color in the form of a contradiction in terms. It’s the reason my six-year-old Catholic nephew (it’s a long story) very passionately described for me recently—while whistling inadvertently through the gap that used to be his two front teeth—how Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Yet when I asked him who Jesus was, he couldn’t exactly say. Blowing off your own biological death isn’t exactly doable, and thus the Christian concept of resurrection is fabulous fodder for enticing over to the good Lord those little ones who’ve only just grasped the fact that death is irreversible.
The beauty of Boyer’s model is that it can account for otherwise mind-boggling cross-cultural variation in religious concepts. His counterintuitiveness formula explains why thousands of people flocked recently to a home in Bangalore city to witness what many hailed as a miracle. It seems a small marble statue of the 19th century Indian saint Shirdi Sai Baba fluttered its lashes during a routine cleaning and decided to spring open its left eye to have a peak at the world. Boyer’s model can also explain the Lord Ganesha phenomenon that occurred a few months prior to the blinking Baba case, just a stone’s throw away on the map in Mumbai. Statues of this elephant-headed deity, who happens to be the Hindu patron of sciences among other things, started slurping milk from spoons offered by religious devotees. What possessed the very first person to raise a tablespoon of milk to a piece of stone carved into the shape of an elephant’s trunk we may never know, but like the one-eyed Sai Baba these thirsty Lord Ganesha statues really got people talking.
The reason such religious statues garner our attention, argues Boyer, is that we have an inborn concept of what makes an inanimate object an inanimate object. Moving on its own accord, seeing, and having biological functions just aren’t on that list. So when word gets out that a lifeless artifact has breached natural law—bleeding paintings, crying figurines, blinking statues—the news spreads like wildfire, propagating myths, sparking debate, and renewing faith.
There are a few important caveats, however. First, in order for a concept to function properly as a religious concept, and thus to migrate successfully between minds, it must be “minimally” counterintuitive. That is to say, it can’t be so effortful that we can’t wrap our heads around it, such as an invisible tree that changes colors sometimes on Wednesdays, always Fridays and never Tuesdays, except every other week. These concepts are so cognitively taxing that they flicker out while we’re still scratching our heads over them, failing to ever register in the community mindset. For real staying power, a religious concept has to be comprehensible at the very least. It’s not that a thirsty chunk of ivory makes particularly good sense or is logical, but we can easily understand what a religious devotee means when they tell us about one.
Another caveat to Boyer’s formula is that not all minimally counterintuitive concepts are religious or supernatural. Rather, most such concepts, such as the idea of a skateboarding rodent named Stuart who dresses in cardigan sweaters, or a high school senior with spinnerets embedded in his wrists for expelling spider web silk, are clearly in the realm of fantasy. Unlike gods and spirits, these things are not generally believed by people to really and truly exist. Most studies in this area suggest that, when pressed, even young children can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentThank you for your excellent article. What an interesting concept. It definitely helps to explain some of the pretty strange things people are convinced are real and true, such as the idea that scientists are all agents of Satan trying to steal souls by convincing them of such things as evolution. Food for thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what religion would Boyer ascribe the counterintuitive concepts of quantum mechanics to?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisquantum mechanics is just a mathematical representation of counter intuitive phenomena that we observe. when explained in words it becomes even more counter intuitive. but it's still a fluid best fit model applied to observation and begs people to challenge it on scientific grounds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisreligion on the other hand begs the opposite; and has no observable phenomena to back up counter intuitive claims. (i.e. what hell and heaven is (like), what a "soul" is and when do humans acquire one, whether or not prayer can magically alter one's odds of survival in life threatening situations, whether or not 'adam and steve' is more detrimental to the cosmic order of the universe than crashing into a building, etc...).
we would come to the conclusion of scientific facts (even if counter intuitive) no matter what country we were born in. religion on the other hand matters mostly on who got to you first.
quantum mechanics is just a mathematical representation of counter intuitive phenomena that we observe. when explained in words it becomes even more counter intuitive. but it's still a fluid best fit model applied to observation and begs people to challenge it on scientific grounds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisreligion on the other hand begs the opposite; and has no observable phenomena to back up counter intuitive claims. (i.e. what hell and heaven is (like), what a "soul" is and when do humans acquire one, whether or not prayer can magically alter one's odds of survival in life threatening situations, whether or not 'adam and steve' is more detrimental to the cosmic order of the universe than crashing into a building, etc...).
we would come to the conclusion of scientific facts (even if counter intuitive) no matter what country we were born in. religion on the other hand matters mostly on who got to you first.
Methinks fequalsma42 doth protest too much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuinness, yummmm!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArticle doesnot seems much of scintific content. Rather its just studies very few incident which are just baed on very emotional beleive and faith. In India, there are so many pseudo and boggus religion exist, which are actually not religion. Religion starts with the inquiry or strong desires to know the ultimate truth which is the objective of human life as described in authentic indian scripture. So when a study of religion is attempted it is very important to understand that Religion deals with the obejct of Ultimate truth. And as far as multireligion like Christianity, Hinduism, Budhhism, Islam and many others is concerned it should not be misunderstood that each of the religion are complete in all respect. Rather it should be examined properly that which religion gives how much of imformation about the ultimate truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was a time when only religion was able to influence men's minds on a widespread scale. But religions failed to evolve, which society did, and religion is no longer but a historical insight into human progress. Science has conquered the most intelligent half of humanity through reason. Religion still lingers on, but mainly among the least educated people who are unable to grasp the complex logic of reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat arrogance
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry to be so late in commenting, I'm catching up on reading after a busy time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn think Bering is quite wide of the mark in explaining the stickiness of religious ideas. For example, his comment about the 6 year-old nephew who whistled about Jesus' resurrection: It's not likely the boy found the idea interesting because it was counterintuitive. At that age, children in our society do not have an intuitive concept of death. In fact cognitive studies suggest that young children have difficulty understanding what the concept of death means. So, it's more likely that the nephew was defending an intuitive idea that human beings don't die. I think he was defending an intuitive concept that life is forever against new information he had been learning, as he grew older, that death is a reality for all of us.
And that brings me to my main disagreement with Bering. I suspect religious notions are sticky for the opposite reason than that they are counterintuitive. Rather, they express intuitive ideas that we have UNlearned as we grow older and learn empirically about material reality. Religion says to us that some of those innate concepts are nevertheless true
I am a religious person--in terms of organized religion, I'm a UU. I believe that there is such a thing as a non-material form of existence. By "non-material," I mean a form of existence that does not take the form of matter-energy (e.g., particles and fields).
What draws me to that belief is the intuitive experience of my mind, an entity which includes ideas, sensations, and emotions. Those "things" (ideas, etc.) are non-material. Although they have obervable correlates in the material world of matter-energy (e.g., patterns of neuron activity), those "things" and their "qualia" (philospher's term) are not themselves a form of matter-energy.
The idea of mind and consciousness is very close to the religious idea of a spirit. Our intuitions of our own minds precedes our knowledge of the material world, and in that sense they is primary, and empirical knowledge is derivative. I think religious ideas are sticky because they attempt to validate this primary knowledge, asserting its validity over empirical knowledge.
Children get religion because authority figures bugger it into them... In some cases literally!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnothing worse than reading a discourse about religion by someone who has no knowledge of the subject, and who presents their opinions in a somewhat smarmy manner (i.e. "blinking baba."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou asked for it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this