Human beliefs in God as evolutionary adaptation and survival mechanism

Religion and the Human Condition: Are Humans Hardwired to Believe in God? Introduction
Why do people believe in God? Many philosophers and researchers have attempted to answer this question throughout history. It is an important question overall because religion plays such a big part in the lives of people. 84 percent of the world's population follows a major religion, or believes in a supernatural higher power (Hamer, 2004). Yet the modern world is much different from the old world, when empiricism was less pronounced in society. Why do the majority of human beings believe in something we cannot witness physically? Does faith rest upon reason, as some have argued? Is the belief in God taught and passed down culturally? Or have humans simply evolved to believe in the existence of God? As the University of Oxford (2011) has pointed out, scientists have found that belief in God is not something that disappears with age the same way belief in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny does. Belief in God is strongly related to the sense or belief that one’s mind or soul will live on even after death. In other words, belief in God is linked to the belief that individuals have in the idea of living forever. By believing in the afterlife, which God rules over, humans have an opportunity to overcome death, which is the ultimate stumbling block. At least that is one theory. This paper will argue that human beings have evolved to believe in God, or a supernatural power, through natural selection. Survival and reproduction predisposed Homo sapiens to religious beliefs. First Prerequisite for Religion People have always had or else have developed patterns of behavior that help them to achieve the goals they have themselves. For example, a modern man will take the same route to work every day: he learns the traffic patterns and is able to time his departure so that he is arriving at work at the right time. In earlier times, hunters and gatherers learned the patterns of nature, which helped them to survive: they watched the animals and gathered the fruits and nuts necessary to sustain life. Humans demonstrated and continue to demonstrate to this day a pattern seeking behavior. Pattern seeking has obvious benefits for finding food, avoiding predators, predicting weather, and so on. People around the world have constantly observed the world, trying to derive cause-and-effect relationships so as to improve their lives. This may be said to be the reason why some people have looked for a cause and effect explanation for the world in which they live. They felt that their intellectual survival depended upon it. Natural selection of those with the right intellectual answers propelled these teachers to the top, and they led the way for society.
The First Cause principle is one such idea that has allowed people to understand the causation of the world. The First Cause, which posits that an Eternal Being had to create the world for it to exist, is one that philosophers have pointed to for an explanation of the world for over thousands of years. They look at the nature of the world, the patterns of nature and the laws of nature. They see these as signs that the world has a cause somewhere in history and the First Cause principle is the only non-contradictory explanation that they can arrive at. The argument is that if there is no God, then nothing could exist because something cannot come from nothing. Thus, be seeking out and acting in patterns of behavior, human beings arrived at an understanding of the world from a First Cause principle. The First Cause pointed them to belief in God. Since the world existed, there must be a God Who created it. This was essentially the first example of faith based on reason. People looked at the way the world worked and reasoned that the hand of God must be behind it. However, some people said they had direct contact or communication with God (i.e., the Hebrews), and their approach to life was based upon this contact. Their religious ideas developed out of this contact and religion was a natural extension of it. Religion was their attempt to reconnect with God or to do the things that they believed God wanted them to do in their lives.
However, as Delio (2013) points out, there is a biological component to such belief, since God is “known” by way of neural pathways in the brain: “there is something about the physical structure of the human person that orients us to God” (p. 31). The structures of the brain are what allow one to formulate their beliefs, use what they call reason, and develop ideas. The argument that Delio (2013) makes is that biology has as much to do with why people believe in God as patterns of behavior in mankind throughout history. Joseph (2001) shows that limbic region stimulation in the brain is associated with religious visions, hallucinations, out of body experiences, near death experiences and other supernatural events. Limbic system hyperactivity is viewed by Joseph (2001) as an explanation for how most religious leaders, from Abraham to Mohammad, have come to exalted feelings or insights about God.This argument is what allowed for the Theory of Mind to develop as a way of explaining how human beings have been hardwired to believe in God by the very nature of the way in which their brains function according to their biological neurological structures. Second Prerequisite for Religion The Theory of Mind posits that people who lack development tend to project their own beliefs onto others in an attempt to understand certain actions. For example, a person might see a shopper in a grocery store who is wearing a silly costume. The person would see this behavior as abnormal and would begin trying to imagine what must be going through the person’s head without even knowing the person at all. The projection is based entirely on the person’s own beliefs—not on what the individual in the costume believes. The Theory of Mind impacts the understanding that others have of beliefs, desires and goals, and how this all influences their actions. Theory of Mind is comprehensive and holistic because it incorporates everything from philosophical view to psychological makeup, semiotics, and one’s learning. The more developed one’s Theory of Mind is, the more one is able to see that others can have different beliefs than oneself. The Theory of Mind applies to the issue of religion because it posits that as humankind developed, it began projecting its own ideas onto God but it also began having a sense of God in a different way. God could be pictured as having His own views, demands, and desires. The various religious experiences show the different ways in which societies approached God. From the Egyptians to the Greeks to the Chinese to the Jews, depictions of God have differed significantly. Some, such as the Egyptians, used the idea of God to support the authority of their own rulers. The Pharaohs were believed to be divine, and the subjects of Egypt had to worship him. The Jews had a different understanding of God, which connects to their own sense of exile from their own land. They understood God as being separate from themselves but ultimately as being a loving God that wanted them to be restored as a nation.
An impaired theory of mind limits one’s ability to understand or appreciate that not everyone thinks the same. So for some societies it was more difficult for them to accept the beliefs of others. Asian societies were particularly reluctant to allow new ideas about God into their lands, as the persecution of Christian missionaries shows. Ancient Romans, on the other hand, tended to be relativistic in their approach to God, and accepted most other approaches to God—except for the Christian view because the Christians had an absolutist perspective.
The more developed one’s Theory of Mind, the better able one is to influence others by having an understanding of where they are coming from and developing a sense of empathy. The Theory of Mind helps one to see imaginatively what is not necessarily really there. It is a way of placing oneself in a universe that makes sense to one and gives one security and peace. It is part and parcel with the God gene, described by Hamer (2004), the biological condition of man that makes him need to believe in God. Kluger (2004) asks, however, whether Hamer’s (2004) thesis is fair or truly representative of the human condition: “Could claims for a so-called God gene be merely the thin end of a secular wedge, one that risks prying spirituality away from God altogether?” (p. 63). Kluger’s (2004) conclusion is that the circuit board for faith in the mind of man has never been discovered and is unlikely to be discovered. Kluger (2004) questions whether it is even a valid pursuit and implies that perhaps God is not just a fabrication of the mind but rather a reality that spiritual people understand. Understanding how people believe and how faith can influence actions may explain how spirituality is imbued in human activity. Perhaps from this standpoint Theory of Mind is merely humankind getting to a place of understanding with respect to its relation to a divinity. If so, it raises the question of evolution and how the cosmology of evolution plays into the matter. If a Creator exists, the theory of evolution has less explanatory power than the cosmological narrative of religion. Third Prerequisite for Religion The way in which humans learn is important to the discussion of whether man is hardwired to believe in God. It reveals much about how information is passed down, and how vital culture is to society, to understanding, and to belief systems. Human beings learn skills and behaviors from parents and other people, rather than from trial and error. The success of the human species relies on the passing down of information, since every generation cannot figure out everything needed to further evolve. Cultural knowledge, accumulated over generations can assist in the accomplishment of social and cultural goals; the collective becomes more important than the individual. One’s personal beliefs and views are often overlooked for the good of the whole.
The ability of people to learn from the older generations is important in traditional societies and explains how religious belief is passed down. In the modern society of today older generations and traditional knowledge or wisdom are not deemed as vital. Society is more liberal and this may be one reason belief in God does not seem quite as important in social terms as it did in the Old World. This does not mean, however, that belief in God has necessarily waned. As Hamer (2004) shows, belief in God is still quite popular in the US. God is thus not something that has disappeared from the modern consciousness in spite of progress in technology, cultural changes, and family depictions. God is still relevant.
One of the reasons God is still relevant is that humankind has seemingly passed on a notion from one generation to the next the value of belief, even if that belief is ill-defined and subconsciously received. People learn from seeing and they absorb the cultural lessons that others suggest are important for them to consider. They may not understand the lessons or accept them word for word; but because of the ways in which people learn, there is a passing along of belief just like important nutrients are passed to the baby through the mother’s milk.
It is in this passing along of belief from one generation to the next that the development of the theory of mind can also be understood. The sociocultural theory of mind is critical to understanding an important researcher and philosopher of sociology—the seminal developer of the theory of learning known as the zone of proximal development (ZPD), Vygotsky. Vygotsky’s theory is important because it gets to the heart of one of his most important theories about social learning and cognitive development. ZPD is an example of how knowledge and learning is acquired through immersion: the individual immerses himself in the reality, observing, listening, and not necessarily consciously taking notes but rather memorizing and reflecting on what those around him did to achieve a certain outcome. So whether it is swinging a bat to hit a ball or solving a mathematics problem, it is the immersion—the ZPD—that facilitates the development of the individual. This immersion is a cultural phenomenon: it is not just a formal style of learning. That is why even though religion is not taught in schools, it is still learned from one generation to the next: people learn from others in informal ways. They learn by seeing and by being around others who are religious. If they begin to sense that they are missing something meaningful in their lives, they may seek out religious answers because they are aware that these answers have appealed to others. It is the fact that others are doing it, are believing in God, that acts as a signal for those who may not believe to ask questions, to probe the matter, and to possibly become believers themselves.
For Vygotsky, this immersion was essentially sociocultural because it did not stem from a theory of universals—i.e., doctrines of belief—but rather from a blend of culture, history, and institutions. Vygotsky focused on the social aspect of learning and developed the theory of social constructivism. In this theory, Vygotsky posited that children learn by watching others act. They learn from watching adults go to church, for instance. They learn to believe in God because they see their elders believing in God. However, for the belief to become an important part of the person’s life it has to take root in a deep way. Vygotsky identified a ZPD in which learners enter and observe others who have certain skills the child wants to acquire. This can translate importantly to the notion of religion. People who do not have faith may be attracted to others who have faith because they see the latter as possessing skills or rather virtues that are admirable. Of course, not all believers are exemplars of virtue. Some who believe also have some of the biggest vices. But in general, people tend to associate religious conviction with at least a sense of right and wrong and a desire to do what is right on a daily basis. The person who is new to faith will want to know what the religion offers that can help the person develop the virtues and good habits he seeks to possess. This is a type of personal evolution—evolution on a micro scale that reflects the larger macro evolution of societies and groups. The larger macro evolution of religious groups is more sociological in terms of how the structure of the group and the religious organization intersect to support the engagement of people in that group and without that group. The important concept here is that personal growth is pursued deliberately and in connection with a feeling or reason arrived at in the individual that this religious pursuit is vital to the person’s life. The learner will observe by way of ZPD how to be religious, how to properly pray in an acceptable way, how to become holy in the eyes of God, and so on. This development is seen and then imitated. In this manner, the human species learns the language of religion and how to communicate religious ideals, imitating what others are doing and patterning behavior and what is observed.
Information is passed along in this social blend to the point that religion becomes a most important part of the equation of what it means to have a happy life. Not all people are religious of course, and some think for themselves and go their own way in terms of how they approach the question of the divine. This suggests that religion is not merely a matter of evolution, for if it were, would not all people have evolved to believe? Yet some do not. If people are hardwired to believe in God, should not everyone believe in God the same way that everyone must eat and drink to live because bodies are hardwired to depend upon sustenance? The answer here is that though people are hardwired to believe in God, they are not programmed like robots. They have a will of their own, and if they choose not to believe their hardwiring does not short-circuit. An atheist may be just as psychologically content throughout his life without ever believing in God as one who does believe. This suggests that the hardwiring is there but that people do not use it in the same ways at all times. The house may be wired to support an Internet connection, for example, but if the individual never hooks up the router, he is not going to be able to connect. He may not even want the Internet. This does not mean the hardwiring goes away. However, in later houses it might, especially if the community deems it unimportant. And yet religion continues to be something people believe in even in this modern age. The hardwiring has not gone away, suggesting that it is natural in people to believe. This was even the argument of Socrates thousands of years ago. Conclusion Throughout human civilization, the majority of human beings have seemed to believe that an omnipresent being or spirit oversees our daily lives. This is because human beings have evolved to believe in God, or a supernatural power, through natural selection. Survival and reproduction predisposed Homo sapiens to religious beliefs because without these beliefs, mankind would have lacked important motives for functioning in a productive and meaningful manner.


References Delio, I., O. S. F. (2013). Are We Wired for God?. New Theology Review, 16(1). Hamer D. (2004). The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired Into Our Genes. New York: Doubleday. Joseph, R. (2001). The limbic system and the soul: Evolution and the neuroanatomy of religious experience. Zygon®, 36(1), 105-136. Kluger J. (2004). Is God in our genes? Time, 164, 62-70. University of Oxford. (2011). Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm