Do humans have a faith instinct?
 

It seems as though history always describes a faith of some sort in ancient and not so ancient peoples. Anthropoligists often make the same observations of the peoples they study. So is faith somehow on one of our genes?

The biologist Edmund O. Wilson considers us an altruistic species. As Franklin said, we must all hang together or we shall all hang seperately. If early groups of hunter/gatherers stuck together to fight wolves or big cats or human enemies from another tribe, they stood a much better chance of survival. This was altruism in action. Religion helped codify these altrustic acts.

So, do we have a "religous" gene whether we chose to admit it or not?

Great post. You are a good thinker sam. I'll give it some thought.

I think faith is /was a response to our once happy little monkey brains becoming self-aware creating a real fracture between the monkey and his environment. Faith tries to patch that up. This doesn't preclude the existence of a deity, but alters our mental construction of one in ways which may not be helpful in a more scientific age.

Excellent question, more thinkin' later.

We are probably hardwired for religion. As a social species, it's something that unites our tribe against the neighboring one. It makes us more successful, and more likely to pass our genes down, ensuring the trait is passed on. Natural selection. Sure.

Faith tries to combat the fear of the unknown. Some are more fearful than others... I think it's learned, not genetic.

Yep - it's been shown in a dozen different ways that those with faith are happier and live longer. It's a survival mechanism, no question.

Where it really gets interesting is when you start comparing the survival merits of different religions. For example, Catholicism's "no birth control" policy would seem to be a strong one, but some aspects of the faith may be too harsh to allow your average person to maintain the rules, so you risk losing followers. On the other hand, an "easygoing" and more palatable religion is also more likely to be pacifistic, and thus a target for being wiped out by an aggressive convert-or-die kind of religion.

I think it's the other way around: conquering your fears is the learned behavior. The newborn is instinctively fearful of certain things; the parents are there to assure them that everything will be okay.

I'll think about it some more, but my first though is that parents spend a lot more time saying 'no', warning of dangers, and explaining or inventing consequences than they do reassuring.

first, I think "faith" is different from religion, so no, I don't think faith is hardwired. What I do think is hardwired is curiosity. Humans are curious about the world around us and what makes it tick, and religion is one attempt to explain the unexplainable.

Hmm. That's definitely true once the kid reaches a certain age. Maybe that's a sign that the parent has already successfully instilled a sense of security? Do severely neglected/abused kids go through that same phase?

What Jinx and Cloud said. Curiosity: discomfort over the unexplained.

Good question Sam. My thoughts are that we believe or have faith in some God or other simply because we're so narcisitic as a species that we can't imagine only having one life like everything else. We can't accept we're just an organic construct, so we must be special where everything else isn't, so in order to waylay these fears somewhat, we've created higher powers.

Also, not too many people have ever found a good way of explaining death of loved ones to children without including all those lovely fairy stories about heaven and angels.

People, from the beginning up until relatively recently, lived with nature. In doing so they realized how weak and insignificant humans are, compared to many other animals and certainly to the natural forces of nature. I've said before, the only reason humans survived at all, is because nature usually moves pretty slowly. Anyway, knowing how vulnerable we are, would naturally lead to looking for help from any quarter, natural or supernatural.

More recently, humans have gotten pretty uppity, blowing mankind's importance all out of proportion to reality. Central heat/AC, we control our environment, and some claim the worlds environment. Food comes in an endless supply of pretty packages at the supermarket, making our pets think we're the greatest hunters, evah. All the work we do is comparatively easy, assisted by electricity or dead dinosaurs. Yes sir, top of the food chain, masters of the universe... gods? we are gods.

Notice the polls show the most religious people in the US are in rural areas. People that who at least observe nature (other than on the weather channel), and many actually interact with nature. These people know how delicate, how puny, how insignificant, humans really are. These people know, they can use help from any quarter... except the government.;)

A couple of more thoughts. Every living being fears its own death. If we weren't afraid to die practically no animals would populate the earth, so I wouldn't call faith in God narcissism on our part. It is more of a survival extinct. And even those who believe in God are not thrilled by dying, but I do think they get some comfort from the thought of heaven.

The lessons we teach our children are more about fitting into society and being successful. Although, I can remember my Mom teaching me that animals feel as much pain as humans do. I'll never forget how she tugged my ear the same way I was pulling on my puppy's ear (I was 4 at the time).

I go to the Methodist Church, although I can't give a reason for this. At least they are non-fundies and don't preach fire and brimstone. I don't believe Jesus died for my sins, although I believe he did exist as a historical figure. But I do like the help they give our community at large. Sometimes I think I go to church because my father used to take me as a small child. He has sinced passed, but I feel his presence in still Church.

Given my druthers, I'd be Buddhist, but our town is too small to have a Buddhist group.

Joseph Campbell said a religous experience prevents you from having a spiritual one. I think that's true. Many people are browbeat into a certain religous doctrine as children. I think that makes it very hard to determine if we have a "faith gene" or just want a bunch of virgins in paradise. ;)

You answered you're own question... group. It's a social thing that's natural for humans, gathering with people you are basically comfortable with. In the beginning that comfort comes from having something in common. Later you're even more comfortable because you get to know the other people.

That's also why people keep going back to the same bars. :haha:

It seems all the self described "recovering Roman Catholics" I talk to, relate the same tale of fear and loathing in their church/youth relationship. It makes it easier for me to understand their not only leaving the church, but rabid anti-religion attitude. It's a shame they didn't have a better experience in their formative years.

I remember my 2nd wife railing, many years later, how on a high school English test she said, "John loves Mary" was a proper sentence. The Nun marked it wrong because, "John can only love God."

That should have tipped me off that the bitch held grudges forever. :rolleyes:

I heard a piece on radio ages ago, about chimpanzees. Apparently, when there's a big storm the male chimps act out some kind of 'dance'. It's very specific and only occurs when there's a big storm, but it involves them grabbing the branches and shaking them and dancing up and down, facing towards the storm front. Then they just sit and watch it happen.

It's been suggested by some that this is a kind of proto religious experience. Not thought out like our 'faith' but a sign that they recognise the storm front as something bigger than them and something that exists as a 'thing' rather than just a series of processes.

^what she said^

That was very interesting, Dana. Thanks for an informative post! :)

Dana, it sounds to me like they know the storm is coming and are trying to relay that information as best they can. Where religion comes into that? I've no idea.

Its extremely difficult to differentiate between genetic and environmental (learned) behavior but I learned something recently that really changed how I view this question.

Most of us find "truth" through the scientific method where truth is supported by evidence. An 8 year old with solid evidence will be have more validity than an 80 year old with no evidence. I recently learned that this mindset is in fact quite recent and most of past human civilization has viewed "truth" differently.

One mindset which is still part of our society is truth from authority. An authority figure (king, priest, The Bible) dictates what is true or not.

Another, and more interesting IMO, is a "truth" that is not necessary supported by concrete evidence, but from what the mainstream dictates is true. For example, if I tell someone something and then that person passes away, then I tell everyone else that I said something different, the latter becomes a "truth". So, getting back to faith, if everyone believes that we have a supernatural being watching over us, it really doesn't matter what is actually true (yes I am biased), since either way cannot be proven, then that supernatural being becomes "truth". In a basic civilization or hunter gatherer society, different mindsets on what "truth" is probably were more efficient and adaptable with the type of society. I can't image a hunter gatherer society really being successful with the entire group dedicated to the scientific method.

So, a possible theory is that it may not be a "faith gene" but, along with other reasons mentioned in this thread, that historically humans have viewed the world with a different mindset on what truth is, allowing supernatural beings to be much more accepted. Or, this "faith gene" tends to naturally form a mindset where faith is determined as truth and we have recently overcame this "faith gene" with strong social conditioning.


Also, I do not view this mindset as black and ours as white. I see them as different shades of gray where recently the majority has shifted from a lighter shade to a darker.

Before 150 years ago there was no scientific method, and until after WWII, it wasn't that widespread, now it's supposed to be infallible.
How did you hear about the last scientific discovery, you learned? Probably somebody told you, as I really don't think you know all that many breakthrough, award winning, scientists. I've met, I think two, but haven't known any. Anyway when that person told you about it, did you check on the scientist? Look at the original data?, Read the synopsis of the research? No, you believed them. Everyone does, unless it's something that they're sure would have a big impact on their life.

So you see, we still operate on faith. What we hear still becomes the truth, because we assume the people that should know, do know. Nothing's changed.;)

Touche.

To me FAITH is the acceptance of something unseen. In a way, having Faith gives us as humans the opportunity to 'pass the buck' of responsibility on to a higher power. Instead of worrying about a problem, I just have 'faith' that my higher power will handle the situation and it will all work out in the end.

Yehbut...we've seen your higher power!

sorry Dana. didn't mean to insult ya. I sure didn't mean to get into a pissing contest over my thoughts and experiences. I hope there is no harm done. :o

Dana was joking, Juju. Get your mind in the gutter. ;)

*grins* Clod's right. Join me in the gutter. Join us....join us

Brit = filthy

Great thread. Good thoughts and much to think about.

Fixed it for ya Merc.

After reading the previous two posts I thought I saw 'muck' instead of 'much' so I thought I'd go with it. :blush:

In regards to the original post I think these two answers answer it for me pretty closely except for the hard wired part. I'd say tradition and culture pressed upon and passed down.

Do all people who live in rural areas think spiritually when they view awe inspiring nature? or feel feeble then grasp out? or are more inclined to follow a small societies religious groups because being an outsider is harder to do in rural areas rather than in large cities?

We must not be too hardwired for it if when leaving a geographic location or group we can just as easily leave our faith.

My family was not religious when I was a kid but I always thought the world was a beautiful thing. I still think the world is beautiful but it doesn't marry well with religiosity which should not be confused with spirituality.

I see that as being mutually beneficial. Altruism is doing something that doesn't benefit you.

Exactly! There is little that we can't explain nowadays, mainly what we were before we were born, and what happens to us after we die.

I think the bible was also an excellent guide for the survival of the species. Most of the rules in the old testament are helpful in keeping you alive, and making more humans.

Browbeat? How about indoctrinated, brainwashed, habituated?

So many deep explanations. I think it's much simpler... just different schools of thought. What's new is in the third generation of a highly mobile society, we have been moving to be with people who think like us. We have been segregating ourselves according to beliefs. It used to happen at the neighborhood level, now it happens at the urban vs rural or even state vs state level.

That is a very true statement. Even in my own family we learned early on as children not to bring up religion at family reunions since we had Baptist, Methodist, Jehovah Witnesses, Pentecostals, and even some open minded free thinkers all sitting around the same dinner table.

By the way...thanks for inviting me to the gutter, dana and clod! I'm putting on my gutter boots now! :p

Boots? Boots?

Okay, but only if they have spike heels.

Could it be that the religion you are thinking of is just tribalism? It is much easier to live the tribal us vs. them life in rural areas with people who look, think, and act just like us. I'm reading something right now by a guy trying to sift out from the mysticism a bare-bones no nonsense message about who Jesus was. He seems to be coming to the conclusion that the end of tribalism was his goal, which is pretty ironic as Christianity has played out.

That is pretty smart and interesting but don't more people move to find work than a better belief fit?

As I was driving today,I was wondering how people bring themselves out of a funk if it isn't faith in some positive outcome or by finding something beautiful? ( as I am inclined to do )

Don't we have a natural instinct to have faith in positive outcomes and striving always to reach the next level whether it is spiritually, physically,financially?

(edit) tailpost

That is pretty ironic Griff. What is the name of the book if you don't mind?

No, because my experience living in rural areas, was there was more than one flavor of religious people, and many more that never went to church but had their own relationship with God. I think people who only experience nature on TV, and live in secure (sub)urban cocoons, are more likely to feel smug in their superiority over the universe.

Jesus for the Non-Religious by a one time Episcopalian bishop whose name escapes me.

We have three flavors of Christianity here. ;) You make a good point about urban vs rural as far as realism about the natural world goes, but not so much as a proof of God's existence. Atheists experience wonder as well. I'll think on it more while I haul water to the goats and listen to the wind drifting snow into my driveway.

No, not proof of God's existence by a long shot. It's just a reminder that "you" are not the be-all, end-all. I'm not trying to justify these people's faith, that's not for me to judge. Just saying, putting "yourself" in perspective compared to the world around you, could heighten the desire to search for a higher power, which would explain more faith in rural areas.

Huh?

The Abrahamaic religions put humans (made in God's image), pretty much at the top of the heap with just one being (and possibly angels) superior. Humanity is the acme of Creation.

A nonreligious viewpoint can only say we're cleverer than anything else we've met, and we're unlikely to meet anything else, due to the staggering size of the universe. Smarter than anything else on this speck of dust is hardly superiority over the universe.

Heh, he said acme... beep beep zip bang!

Maybe universe was a poor choice of words, but people talking about colonizing other specks of dust, impress me as feeling we are the masters of everything.

You seem to think that everyone that becomes a member of a particular sect, subscribes automatically to all the statements of the leaders of that sect. My experience is most people have a much more casual relationship with the church. Sure, there are rabid followers that expound chapter & verse, and wackos like Fred Phelps who are completely out of left field, but the majority are just doing their own thing.

Where did that come from?

From here;

I spent a long time in the RC Church not taking a lot of it very seriously, but not leaving because of the need to feel connected to the community. The local bishop started pushing his weight around on a number of issues while ignoring some serious problems. I came to realize that he was mouth-piece for a Church with a lot of fundamental problems which if I stayed associated with I was tacitly endorsing. People do stay though some believe, some submit, and reportedly some work for change. The change I've seen in the Church is the conservatives making it more tribal, fearful, and angry. I recognize that people don't necessarily need to believe what their church says they believe but it became a problem for me and mine.

RCs are organized a little different than the Protestants, who hire and fire their preachers, and own their church.

If someone didn't subscribe to all the statements of the leaders of a sect (at least in terms of defining the sect), wouldn't it, by definition, make them a non-member of that sect? Like a Christian not believing that JC is the son of god?

Not when the Church is the town's social center, remember I was talking about rural. Strict adherences to all the teachings is optional for anyone, you can pick and chose what you accept as "gospel".

Sounds like there are multiple aspects to "religion" or "church". One is the social aspect, which requires no faith and only the outward appearance of "belief", like participating in rites. To me, that has nothing to do with faith.

What you said certainly didn't come from what I said. "Abrahamaic religions" is hardly a "particular sect".

Few religions fail to put humanity in a central place in the universe. The idea that Jesus was God who incarnated and died for the benefit of humanity is more than something a leader of a sect said, it's fundamental to most of Christianity (which covers most of the rural Americans being discussed).

You don't need faith to believe in something greater than oneself. Most things are greater than oneself in one way or another. Humanity only stands out when it comes to cleverness. You don't need failth to think there are probably things out there more clever than the smartest human. You only need faith when you start assigning particular attributes to them, like "created the universe", or "cares what I do or think", or "is aware of my existence".

True, attending church functions is no guaranty of faith, especially in more isolated areas with limited social options.

If you believe that thing exists but can't prove it, aren't you taking it on ...faith? Aren't you making the assumption that everyone that believes there is a God, assigns him/her those same attributes that are taught by the church hierarchy? That's what I was taking about, people doing their own thing.

No, I can see many of them. All I have to do is decide what I mean by "greater" at the moment. The Sun is the source of almost all our life-sustaining energy, and the Earth is the source of almost all of the rest, as well as the setting of the vast majority of everything we know. And any number of countless stars could have it all again, but different.
No, that's why I mentioned some pretty basic attributes that have nothing to do with the church hierarchy. And even then, I said "like". If you believe in God, but assign no attributes to it whatsoever, that seems indistinguishable from not believing in God.

From the original post, we would have to assume that faith is necessary to altruism. Is this really the case?

OK, I get it. You simply accept what you observe without taking the next step. That's cool.You gave a laundry list of attributes. What I'm saying is people are free to pick and choose from that list, or come up with their own. What they have faith in, exactly, is seldom discussed except in theology classes/forums/discussions. I've never seen anybody give their neighbors the third degree on Sunday morning, as church is more of a social gathering in rural America.

I doubt it, and in some many cases the opposite is true. Assholes like Fred Phelps, for example.

The short answer to the OP title is, "Yes. Because man is a social animal."

Try sometime imagining a capital-G God for an asocial animal. Say, leopards.

Who can limn the leopards' God?

I think it would be more accurate to say that we are wired with pattern-making brains that see the world as cause-effect. For early humans, many of the things that mattered to them (weather, season, crop yield, reproduction) were the result of non-observable forces. In that scenario, they created a narrative that fit the pattern, a cause for the observed effect.

Here's something I heard almost every Sunday from my pastor brother....it takes more FAITH to believe there is no faith, than to just just have FAITH in the first place...

I never did fully understand that...maybe someone here can enlighten me.

It sounds like the old: better believe it IN CASE it's true. Which is not really faith or belief at all. I mean, if there IS a god, he's probably onto that ploy, and has Great Disdain for lip service. ;)