science, psychology, origin-of-religionIf religion is spontaneously occurs, i.e. people will spontaneously produce religious or supernatural explanations even when not indoctrinated into these beliefs, does this undermine the validity of some atheist positions?
Or more generally, does the developmental origin of religion matter for some arguments for atheism but not others?
For example, one might imagine that an argument that stated the state of religion was “unnatural” and only occurred because of a cultural quirk, discovering that religion was “natural” in the sense that children even of atheist parents will give explanations for the origin of the world that ring very similar to creationism (with an intentional being creating the world)[1].
More weakly, suppose the children in question did overhear these arguments in addition to their own parents’ physical explanations and preferred the supernatural ones. Would this weaker quality of “naturalness” (which could explain the prevalence of religion [2]), undermine atheist arguments and which type would it argue against.
Many authors have suggested that religious belief arises easily in children, arguing, usually, that we have a tendency for essentialism, that is, to think about unseen essences of things when trying to understand how the world works(i.e. the causal relations within the world)[3][4]. When we reason about other agents, e.g. human beings, it would be near impossible to predict their actions without a good understanding of the unseen forces of their minds[5]. If from this we posit the existence of a second ontological kind, the soul, it may be that religion just begins to fall out[4].
For further reading: I don’t want to make this question too broad by adding another argument, but for the inspired reader, there are additional subtly different arguments put forth in Bruce Hood’s Supersense (2007) and The Science of Superstition (2010)(which I have not yet read so I cannot vouch speak to, but it seems relevant).
—–Edit—–
My motivations for posting this were derived from seeing the idea of religious indoctrination and “unnaturalness” appear again and again on these forums, and it would seem that such arguments do rest on potentially false premises, namely the “unnaturalness” of religion.
I don’t like arguments from “naturalness” and I even more dislike arguments that run contrary to decently supported scientific fact, thus I was wondering what sorts of arguments for atheism stem from these assumptions, such that they can be seen in reduced levels when we engage in discourse.
[1] Harris, P. & Koenig, M. (2006). Trust in testimony: How children learn about science and religion. Child Development, 6, 505-524.
[2] Boyer, P. (2001). Religion Explained. New York, NY: Basic Books. Pages 1-33.
[3] Gelman, S. (2005) The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. Oxford University Press
[4] Bloom, P. (2004) Descartes’ Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human. Basic Books
[5] Gopnik, A. (2009) Philosophical Baby: The Philosophical Baby: What Children’s Minds Tell Us About Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life. Farrar, Straus and Giroux
There are very good reasons why religion exists. Explaining natural phenomena by attributing intelligent agency is selected for. Michael Shermer describes this well with an example of rustling in the bushes: if you believe the rustle was caused by a lion and you avoid it, you're not at a loss if it was the wind. But if you believe it was the wind and it's actually a lion, you've just won a Darwin Award. Combine this with a human's Confimation Bias and it's easy to see how any human without an education in the scientific method will naturally come to supernatural explanations for natural events.
This doesn't weaken the atheists' position at all though. The entire scientific method is built in such a way to overcome these natural biases. Using the method people have come to explain natural phenomena using natural explanations reducing the need for deities, gods, or other agencies to describe the natural world. The opposite has never been true, we have never come to a supernatural explanation through observation and study.
To your original question: should the 'natural' belief in the supernatural matter to atheists. No, with one footnote: if a supernatural belief is used to hinder the progress of science and education, then we should absolutely care. But thats a problem with the application of belief, not with the belief itself.
The origin of religion is a very interesting subject, and it is an evolutionary by-product (see King Isaac’s answer 1st paragraph). So there is a “good” reason for religion to arise, but nevertheless, it is completely irrelevant for atheistic claims against it.
The fact that religion is “natural” in humans, does not make it true in the claims it makes. Religion is the earliest attempt of humans to explain the world, without having much scientific knowledge or methodology.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.