Chapter 5

More Why

 

            Evolutionary psychology, EP, is a field of study that combines the social sciences with the biological sciences to explain the development of the human brain.  EP attempts to explain why our brains evolved to do stuff like religion.  The idea is that psychological things like cognition, emotion, and creativity evolved in a way that is similar to the way that our physiology evolved. 

            That is to say, "Our psychological faculties have also changed and adapted due to natural selection."

            I think that the reality is, "Yes and no and maybe.  And it's really hard to tell."

            It's really hard to know because you can't just look at a 5,000 year old brain and figure out how it was thinking.  You can't even look at a fresh brain and tell how it is, or was, thinking.  You can look at a living brain with functional imaging (PET, fMRI or SPECT) and conclude something about it's over all function but IQ cannot be determined.  An autopsy brain tells you even less about IQ.

3-d functional brain image

            The Egyptians thought the brain was excess fat.  Look at the image above and I ask, "Can you blame them?"

            They thought the heart was the seat of intellect and failed to preserve the brain in any mummy tombs.  They had no idea how truly correct they were ... he ... he ...  Even if they had, it would only tell us a little about sulchi and gyri development.  And only going back 5,300 years. 

            We do have skulls that date much further into the past but all they can give us is a hint about gross anatomy.  They can say nothing about function.  They can't tell us how a brain was thinking.

            Written language can give us some idea about how brains were thinking but, again, only back about 5,000 years in Samaria and 4,500 years in Egypt.  These periods of time are very brief by evolutionary standards.

            Certainly, there are underlying cognitive abilities that our neurons do that most likely evolved at least in one way or another such as language, calculating ability, visual-spatial skills, memory, and abstract thinking.  There are also underlying emotional states that most likely evolved such as fear, joy, sadness, and laughter. 

            Then, there is the abstract stuff.  This stuff may be even less clear.  If we can't know much about the evolution of language ability then how are we going to figure out anything about the evolution of abstract thinking. 

            Basically, we have to guess.  The way I figure it is that if the experts are guessing, then why the hell can't I?

            Here is my explanation:

            It seems to me that improved communication might be selected for in a herd-type animal such as Homo sapiens.  Especially one that must organize in small groups in order to fight other small groups of the same species.  Not a common thing for a species to have to do in nature.  And if you have Payton Manning drawing up plays you should have a better chance of winning the Super bowl, don't you think?

            It also seems to me that feelings such as love for your children and fear of snakes could have had selective value. 

            But ... "How does the ability to paint the Mona Lisa confer any selective advantage at all?"

            Perhaps, the idea to dress her in purple underwear could have selective value ... You think?

            Here comes some more anthropology stuff.   You see, as we emerged from the last ice age selective pressures began to favor lighter fleet footed hominids.  Also, we began to use projectiles.  This changed how we hunted for food.  It became more of a team sport.  Eventually, we were able to communicate and plan so well that we figured out how to settle down and grow our own food.  No more running around and chasing it down.

            Do you think that laziness has selective value?  Boy, I sure hope so.

            In order for our brains to do increasingly complex language and planning, the frontal lobes had to increase in size.  As our frontal lobes got larger we started being able to think more abstractly and speak more complexly.  Initially, these abilities had great utility and were selected for.  They evolved together and both spurred the others evolution ... Or so it would seem to me?

            But then, the ability to think abstractly and the ability to do complex language did something kind of odd.  They evolved way beyond what our species needed.  They evolved way beyond anything that could possibly have been selected for.  It is not controversial that this happened but the how and why are mostly conjecture.

            Perhaps, we are like a weird science fiction movie.  Maybe our brains evolved and developed a life of their own.  They originally developed to get food and care for offspring and have combat with the Longhorns over in Austin but they then developed way past that.  Well, they may not have developed like this over in Austin but, you know. 

            Eventually, our advanced brains took over the world?  Sort of seems to me like it could have happened this way, doesn't it?

            Well, this is kind of true but there are limits.  Our brains did develop the ability for some of us to do critical thinking but there are still lines between which our brains must operate.  We can create some original things but are still bound by our programming.  If you believe in a God that created our brains but still wants to control us, in as much as he can cause us to always walk between the lines, you will favor this explanation.

            I guess that God sort of let Einstein and Kaczynski slip through the cracks, huh?

            You can't say that the idea of Jesus was selected for but you can say that the numerous cognitive functions needed to create him were.  But some of them more than others.  Some functions had direct advantage and some a little less and some a middle amount and some things had no advantage at all but were merely random off-shoots.  That's what I mean when I say, "Yes and no and maybe."

            There is one caveat that I will expand on further in the next chapter.  You see, everything is still guided by thought processes that come from basic human brain programs.  That is to say, even though the Mona Lisa is a monument to abstract and creative genius it was still made using the same basic programs that the manufacturer installed into the human brain.

            Except, of course, if the programs are malfunctioning because the computer is broken and free association becomes loose association.  Van Gogh, for example.

            Obviously, we are stuck with the basic programs that were installed by our  manufacturer.  Wow, if I say the word manufacturer one more time I might be able to use it as a way to refer to God in the new religion that I am creating.  I will call God "The Manufacturer."  How cool does that sound?

            In any case, it is very difficult for us to shed our innate programming and do something truly creative.  We are stuck with the brains we were born with.

            Here is another example:

            Our brains use bias to categorize input and simplify the decision making process.  (This is one of those manufacturer installed programs that I was talking about.)  So, I see a small bright-green snake and a large red and yellow snake and a skinny white snake.  I quickly decide that all snakes are evil so I run away.  Then, my programming, enhanced by my ability to think abstractly, causes me to begin imagining things.  Before you know it I am scared of all brightly colored animals, not just snakes.  Then, I begin to see power in those skinny little fanged creatures.  I start to use them as symbols of my own strength.  I want to be like them.  I begin to slither around.  I start showing off my big long dick.  Wow!  I bet you didn't see that coming. 

            As a psychiatrist I see everything in terms of sex.  Especially if we are talking about snakes!

            Do you see how one thing leads to another when you can communicate with complex language and do abstract thinking? 

            You could say that we evolved to do religion but it is only one of many sociological items that we do.  Biological programs like the need to understand causality seem to have had survival advantage.  Can you understand how it would be important for us to at least think that there is a fundamental rule in the universe that says all actions were caused by something that is knowable. 

            The funny thing is that the thing that is knowable can be real or it can be fantasy.  Our brains can't detect which.

            Wow! What was that loud noise and ... Whoa!! What is that bolt of white light that just came out of the sky and hit that guy?

            That must have been caused by a big muscly guy who lives above the clouds.  Most likely he is powerful and can hurt us or help us depending on how we behave.

            Or, maybe, it was caused by Frank who is a big muscly guy that works for Excel.  He probably won't hurt you unless he is drunk and you root for the Aggies.

            Interestingly, this is one of the most common features of all religions everywhere.  That they provide a fictitious actor who "causes" events that we would otherwise be unable to explain such as a lightning bolt hitting a tree.  

            The cognitive brain function of thinking there is a causal agent to explain all events seems to have morphed into 5000 different religions that all believe in fanciful explanations of causality.  You know, like ... "It is raining because my dead son in heaven is crying."  Actually, that is a pretty good one and I would totally believe it.

            Interestingly, if the input is in the correct format our brains are not equipped to make reality determinations.  Reality or fantasy, it just doesn't matter.  Like watching that roller coaster IMAX.  If the sensory input is in the right format, then our brain tells us it is real.

            I wonder if these fanciful explanations have any real utility in today's world?

            The point is that the further away you get from the innate thing that is obviously biological, the less likely you are dealing with an adaptation to selective pressures.  But maybe not.

            I created this Funky Chicken image above with my Word program.  This image did not evolve but the Word program that I used to create it did.  Similarly, Jesus has not evolved (My orthodox priest will like that I at least got that one right.) but the underlying brain program that created him evolved to the point that it was able to create him. (Back to pissing off my priest.)

            The thing about thinking abstractly is that abstract thinking leads to off-shoots on top of off-shoots on top of off-shoots.  Abstractions begin to pile up on top of one another like a house of cards. 

            In summary, the science of evolutionary psychology is about bridging the gap between what is hard biology and what is soft social science.  And we have a long way to go.

·

            Here is how I would apply this thinking to the concept of religion:

            The Christ story is as soft and abstract and far away from the effects of biology and evolution as it is possible to be.  However, we have biological needs that include the need to understand causality, the need to live without fear, and the need to have group unity.  These needs seem to be aspects of human psychology that are closely linked to the evolution of our species.  These things are affected by natural selection, I would guess.  Then, our brains have programs that synthesize all these things in an abstract way and build up multiple layers of associations so that seemingly new and unique things are produced. 

            Sort of like this:

Causality explained-

"I exist because God created me."

 

Fear avoidance-

"I won't die because I will go to heaven."

 

Collective thinking-

"I (We) believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

 

            In the end there is a complex collective belief in Jesus or Moses or Mohammad.  Thus, the programs that are installed in our biology plus abstract thinking create these fictitious beings.  Christianity, Judaism and Islam are easy for a human brain to process because these religions are made with the correct programming language.  If you input information in the correct format then reality doesn't matter to a human.

            If you don't believe me then you should visit The Holy Land Experience in Orlando, Florida.

 

http://www.holylandexperience.com/

 

            Actually, I just included this because it is funny as hell.

            Anyways...

            The new term that I created, Complex Collective Thinking or CCT, includes all end ideas such as the Christ story.  Complex Collective Thinking is the biological adaptation of several cognitive abilities on top of which humans have creatively added numerous abstract realities.  Therefore, I would say that there is no specific religious idea that was passed down to us in our DNA but the need to do Complex Collective Thinking was. 

            Christianity is only one form of CCT.  Other forms include participation on a sports team, fighting in an army, belonging to a theatre group, belonging to a political movement, or any number of other things.  I would suggest to my colleagues who are writing a bunch of books and articles about the neuroscience of religion, "You should all be talking and writing about the neuroscience of CCT."

            If we understand that the need to do CCT is innately human and it is in our DNA as a direct result of millions of years of natural selection, then maybe we will be a bit more tolerant of all the illogical ways that humans do this. 

            For example, there is this guy who thinks that he should forgive me because some imaginary person was supposedly executed by the Romans 2000 years ago.  He is an absolute nut but at least I am forgiven. 

            On the other hand, I think that he is an intelligently illogical human because he does Complex Collective Thinking.  Way to go!

            And you know what, forgiveness is not something humans do.  He is using his inborn human brain programming to do something that is good but is not normal.  How does that happen?

            The group told him to do it and he did it like a good human herd animal.  And forgiveness is a good thing that he would not have done otherwise.  Am I starting to make a rational argument for being a Christian?  I'm really not trying not to.

            If CCT is the thing that evolves and if it is an abstraction that is based on several cognitive activities all of which also evolve, then one must wonder if all this evolving has produced anything worthwhile in this day and age. 

            I think that CCT can certainly be dysfunctional, as was evidenced on 9/11, but without it the Giants don't pull off an upset of the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII.  No, I think that complex collective thinking is still very useful.  In fact, it is probably responsible for most of what is both the best and the worst about our species.

            CCT has produced a society of mostly moronic automatrons but that is actually a good thing.  A bunch of worker bees can get a lot done.  You don't want everyone to be thinking independently.  What is that old saying ... Oh yeah, "There are too many cooks in the kitchen."

            It's easy to observe modern day humans and be critical.  The sheer magnitude of their idiotic beliefs is unimaginable. 

        

            "My kingdom for one man, or woman, who can think for themselves!"

            All four of these Bozos are intelligent but they are not intellectual.  They are not engaged in critical thinking.  They are thinking like humans typically think.  In that regard their behavior is not very surprising or hard to understand.  Guys like Einstein are the weird ones.  And the ones who are truly hard to understand.

            I will point out, however, that I'm communicating all of this on my new Gateway DX4300-15e with AMD Phenom II X4 and Windows 7.  I don't see that piece of machinery existing without thousands of moronic automatrons all working together with a lot of complex collective thinking, "Right Bill?"

            The MAC folks might tell you that you need at least one guy who can do independent thinking. 

            And everyone else needs to bow down and kiss his ass.

He...he...yeah, that's pretty funny.

            In summation, our biology has produced a rich assortment of very wonderful sociological things.  It has also come up with some really goofball antics.  I would suggest that you allow yourself to be a human being and do all this stuff.  Both the good stuff and the idiotic stuff.  Even the silly stuff is a lot of fun.  Just try not to get into too much trouble.         

·

            Back to monotheism:

            I was explaining to a friend the idea that Judaism, Christianity and Islam were all created in essentially the same way.  There was a political need to unify a large group of humans and motivate them to pursue a military campaign.  They found some monotheistic mumbo jumbo that had been written by numerous people and tied it together for this purpose.  The details of the beliefs were totally fictional but things like the virgin birth were easily believed by human brains because it was written in the right format. 

            Then, there was singing and chanting and dancing in unison and they emerged from the tunnel and ran through the paper that had the mascot painted on it and kicked the Longhorn's butts!

            Of course, what ensued was hundreds of years of polishing the religion.  Hordes of smart and educated guys wrote down all the improvements they could think of.  Due to having a written language these improvements were passed down to future generations. 

            Interestingly, the original way that hunters and gatherers did religion was very motivational, like a pre-game ritual, but it was not particularly logical and rational.  The smart guys that lumped all the pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo onto the religions over the years actually added stuff that makes a lot of sense.  They added stuff that fundamentally goes against the grain.  I think that most intellectuals today would agree that forgiveness is a good thing.  But then, we see so few Christians actually forgiving anyone.

            My orthodox wife wants to believe in numerology and not forgive anyone.  That is very human of her but not very Christian.  I argue with her saying, "Look, if we have to do all the difficult stuff like eating fish for six weeks, then why can't we do the good stuff like forgiving our enemies?" 

            I actually think that most of the real modern day Christian doctrines are pretty good.  The problem is that they are not written in a language that the human brain understands.  Therefore, most Christians act like humans and not like Christians. 

            Have you ever wondered why the Christian right is the group that most approves of engagement in foreign wars?  This only makes sense when you consider that they are behaving like humans and not like Christians.

            Also, because these religions were successful at helping to conquer empires they were embraced by millions.

            So, how are these three religions so different from the religion of indigenous peoples or from our hunting and gathering forbearers?

            The real difference is that the official doctrines are thought out and logical but the basic essence is really the same.

            Religion is and always has been basically a pre-game ritual.  It has been a way to unify the group for hunting and for fighting with other groups.  Dogmas such as the Mohammad story or the idea of a bodiless supreme being that can punish or reward behavior are explanations that are formatted to mesh with our programming. 

            And our brains are simply not designed to make reality determinations.

 

Chapter 6

Table of Contents