City of Brass

City of Brass

supersocial versus supernatural beliefs and human agency

posted by Aziz Poonawalla

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

Video: (muslim) Mehdi Hasan interviews (atheist) Richard Dawkins at the Oxford Union
This is an excellent debate between the most emphatic atheist of our time, Richard Dawkins, and political journalist Mehdi Hasan. Hasan is brilliantly prepared for the debate and treats Dawkins with utmost respect, but methodically defends belief and religion as a force for good.

posted 11:46:28am Apr. 08, 2014 | read full post »

Two Bohras come to aid of Frenchwoman attacked in Mumbai
In the past two months I've traveled to India three times, to attend the funeral and other events after the passing of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (ra). This quite shocking story happened in the Fort area of Mumbai, which is quite close to where I spent much of my time and is considered one of the b

posted 6:20:59pm Mar. 18, 2014 | read full post »

Amidst the grief, solace in the succession of Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin
This is a guest post by Durriya Badani The forty day period of mourning has now elapsed, but the profound sadness at the loss of the beloved head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, a spiritual mo

posted 9:48:33am Mar. 16, 2014 | read full post »

NYPD's illegal spying on Muslims was legal, says legal system
This is profoundly disappointing but not entirely unexpected: In a decision filed Thursday in federal court in Newark, U.S. District Judge William Martini dismisse

posted 12:44:10pm Feb. 21, 2014 | read full post »

Valentine's Day and Islam - the virtues of mohabbat (love)
Happy Valentine's Day! I am biased towards appreciating Valentine's Day not just for it's Gujarati origins but also because it's my birthday. However, not all Muslims share my appreciation. Here's a typical example: In its official Friday sermon text distributed to mosques in the Muslim-major

posted 6:04:27am Feb. 14, 2014 | 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.