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).

  • 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

Ramadan Pearls 05 - objective
As for the men of knowledge of the hereafter, what they mean by the correctness of fasting is its acceptability; and the acceptability of the fast is whether or not it has enabled one to reach one's objective. They understand the objective of ...

posted 7:26:32am Jul. 05, 2015 | read full post »

The Fourth and the First
This evening, just prior to sunrise, members of my mosque in Los Angeles gathered round to raise the flag of the United States of America. Due to fortuitous timing, just as the flag was unfurled, a squadron of planes flew overhead in formation, ...

posted 12:38:00am Jul. 05, 2015 | read full post »

Ramadan Pearls 04 - angels
He who has fasted for Allah, the Glorious and Mighty, and is in the discomfort of heat and struck by thirst, will have his face wiped and be given the good news by a thousand angels whom Allah has entrusted to him until he breaks his fast; at ...

posted 8:16:29am Jul. 03, 2015 | read full post »

ibadat in Ramadan - process as piety
There are a lot of articles written during Ramadan about what Ramadan means, about what we as Muslims should be "getting out" of Ramadan, what the benefits of Ramadan should be. But I think that these sorts of articles miss the point of ibadat. ...

posted 10:20:36am Jul. 02, 2015 | read full post »

Ramadan Pearls 03 - mystery
Know that the goal in fasting is for the veil of appetite and anger to be lifted from the heart's eye so that the heart may see the mystery of the dominion of heaven and earth. (The Easy Roads of Sayf al-Din, as translated by William Chittick ...

posted 8:57:01am Jul. 01, 2015 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

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

All reported content is logged for investigation.