Advertisement

City of Brass

City of Brass

supersocial versus supernatural beliefs and human agency

At his Gene Expression blog, Razib writes about what atheism and autism have in common. Something he said struck me:

humans live in a universe of other actors, agents, which we preoccupy over greatly. Additionally, we can conceive of agents which aren’t present before us. In other words, the plausibility of supernatural narratives derives from our orientation toward populating the universe with social beings and agency.

This seems to be important to me. Avowed Rationalists and atheists will postulate that there is *no* agency beyond Human Will, and thus often perceive themselves to be in fundamental conflict with Believers and deists because of the latter’s insistence that there are other “super” natural agencies beyond the self. An honest Rationalist will acknowledge that there are chemical and genetic agencies which inform our behavior, of course, but ultimately it boils down to whether you think free will truly exists or it doesn’t. Those atheists who don’t believe in free will are just as alien to Rationalists who do as we Believers are, I suspect.

However, genetics, physics and chemistry, even geography, etc are inanimate forces that modulate our agency, but there are also “natural” (as opposed to supernatural) forces that have agency. The psychology of groups and mobs, the network effect, Dunbar’s Number, the stock market, social networks, and more are all layered above our individual selves and act at a level higher than our single minds do, but in the end these are emergent from the action of individual minds as well.

I guess my point is that I am skeptical of a claim that Rationalism manages to cut away false supernatural agencies and looks dispassionately at human interaction. Even Rationalists and atheists will concede the very real agency of these, shall we call them, supersocial? forces, even as they deny the existence of supernatural ones. And yet the argument against supernatural agency has not yet been rigorously applied to supersocial agencies. It would be interesting to see what dynamics emerge if cognitive scientists were to investigate the origins of supersocial beliefs with as much zeal as they do supernatural beliefs.

As an aside, Razib has often written about studies that explore spiritual belief from a cognitive science perspective. What I find curious about most of these studies is how they inevitably relate spiritual belief to non-rational thought, like intuition, or to “wiring” in the brain that predates civilized society, or (as above) non-mainstream cognition like autism. In other words, cognitive science on spiritual belief places Belief firmly within the realm of “primitive” or “abnormal”. I can’t help but wonder if the experimental design of these studies reflects the authors’ own pro-Rationalist biases (few of whom are Believers).

It’s a long-running argument of mine that Reason is a fundamentally flawed process that pretends to access Objective Truth but is in fact just as captivated by error as belief is. I’ve never really had an opportunity to explore these ideas in a dialogue but it would be a lot of fun. A Believer vs a Rationalist, not just a deist vs an atheist (because the latter pair are really emergent properties of the former).

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp razib

    . In other words, cognitive science on spiritual belief places Belief firmly within the realm of “primitive” or “abnormal”

    well, it studies the primitive aspect of religion. in other words, what is the lowest common denominator between the tribal religion of the bushmen and the christianity of st. augustine. cognitive science can’t say much at this point about whether a thomistic, or non-thomistic, form of catholic philosophy is more psychologically congenial. the “higher religions” have cultural/psychological layers which make them distinct, but that’s a separate issue.

    oh, and re: free will. this is a complicated topic, but i’m a little confused as to what that has to do with religion or irreligion. a substantial minority of christians (calvinists), notionally the majority of muslims (most sunnis), and depending on how you interpret it many in the dharmic religions (karma) are also skeptical or reject free will.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Dennis

    One can not prove a negative, i.e.,that something not observable does not exist. Science can not prove that there are no unicorns in the universe, or gods, or angels, life after death,reincarnation,past lives,or non-contingent “free” will, etc.In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.The lack of proof is not itself proof.Your issues are about what is required for proof, if anything.What defines science are its strict requirements for evidence. Appeals to authority are not proof.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment shams

    linking that JAFI still?
    i know im an anecdote, but ima muslimah with aspergers, that used to be an atheist.
    Like the Muhyiddin says.
    “Beware of confining yourself to a particular belief and denying all else, for much good would elude you—indeed, the knowledge of reality would elude you. Be in yourself a matter for all forms of belief, for God is too vast and tremendous to be restricted to one belief rather than another.”

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment shams

    any human is simply what they have the substrate to be,
    if the Real intended you to be something else, it would appear in your path.

    How does razib the JAFI deal with Dr. Stu Hamerhoff and his “platonic substrate”?

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment shams

    and if we can manipulate matter at the atomic level (nanotech), will that make us gods?

    razib is a “conservative” scientist, one of the 6% of scientists that vote rebulican. thus he is subject to red/blue genetics, conservative backfire effect and RWA tendency.
    why link him?

Previous Posts

Bomb blast in Karachi targets Dawoodi Bohra community
This happens almost every day in Pakistan - fanatic hirabists commit arrogant blasphemy and murder fellow Muslims in cold blood. This time, the target wa

posted 8:22:26am Mar. 20, 2015 | read full post »

Proof denies faith
On Reddit, someone posted the following question: "What convinces you that the Quran is the literal Word of God?" I think this is precisely the wrong question. The book/movie Life of Pi directly

posted 9:33:46am Mar. 13, 2015 | read full post »

Proud to be American, proud to be Muslim
This is a guest post by Safiya Dahodwala. Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin TUS graced the land of America for the first time as the 53rd Dai (spiritual leader) of the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community. It has been nearly a decade since his predecessor, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin bestowed his bountiful bl

posted 12:58:00pm Mar. 05, 2015 | read full post »

is ISIS Islamic? Wrong question.
There is an excellent longform essay on ISIS published in The Atlantic, "What does ISIS Really Want?" that lays out an excellent case fore ISIS being genuinely different in ideology, motivation and ethos than Al Qaeda. The real question boils down to, is ISIS "Islamic" or not - and makes an excellen

posted 11:34:08pm Feb. 17, 2015 | read full post »

The Price of Extremism
This is a guest post by Durriya Badani. The execution style murder of three young North Carolina students, two of whom were hijab wearing Muslim women, raises questions regarding the rise of Islamaphobia in the United States in the form of hate crimes. Some will argue that the motive for the inc

posted 11:26:53am Feb. 12, 2015 | read full post »

Advertisement


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.