Why Has Religion Come To Dominate The Planet?

 The issue of why it's essentially impossible for an atheist in the U.S. to become a presidential candidate is tied to the nation's  hyper religiosity.    As I noted in my book, Atheism: A Beginner's Handbook,  a 2006 Univ. of Minnesota study ('Atheists Identified as America's Most Distrusted Minority')by Penny Edgell and associates found: "atheists now occupy the lowest rung of social respect for minorities in American society, lower than communists and Muslims."   Adding:

"A significant number of respondents associated atheism with an array of moral misbehavior ....and seemed to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good."

This in turn  relates to how the religious meme itself has come to dominate nation after nation.  Why then has religious behavior occurred throughout time, in societies at nearly every stage of development and in every region of the world?  Even given religions are seldom concerned with the "common good" and more about how they can gain converts,  advance their own agendas and even leverage political power, e.g.

• The Sad and Sorry Spectacle Of Evangelicals All T...

I suspect there are two possible answers to this question which may or may not be mutually exclusive with one another:

1) Religion is a basic manifestation of a mind virus or meme which has flourished in human brains

2) Religion is a behavior favored by natural selection, and so has come to dominate the human cultural landscape because it confers some survival benefit or advantage.

Let's consider (1) to start. This is based on the meme concept (with the meme acting as an ideational mind virus) first articulated by biochemist Jacque Monod in his Chance and Necessity. On page 155 Monod writes:

"The human group upon which a given idea confers greater cohesiveness, greater ambition and greate self-confidence thereby receives from it an added power to expand which will ensure the promotion of the idea itself. Its promotion value' bears no relation to the amount of objective truth the idea may contain."

He goes on to note (ibid.):

"The might of the powerful armament provided by a religious ideology for a society does not lie in its structure, but in the fact this structure is accepted, that it gains command".

One may inquire here what religious ideology has been most successful worldwide over the past twenty years. Careful inspection will disclose that it's none other than Christian Evangelism or Fundamentalism. It has not only gained ground over Roman Catholicism in places like Central and South America, but in Africa as well. Its ideational benefits are huge, given its simplicity, and its recipe for (eternal) reward: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior" is intoxicating.

Indeed the only religious ideology that rivals it in converts is Islam, with its promise of eternal rest and succor provided one wages war against the "infidels" (which, coincidentally, include the Christian Fundamentalists)

Not surprisingly then, the most powerful and insidious memes (ideas-beliefs) are those dedicated to the spread of religious beliefs. If we seek to ask why one set is more successful than a rival set, then we need to look at what Monod, for example, calls their "infectious power". This power can be set forth in terms of three main attributes:

1) Performance value: What change does the meme or meme complex bring about in behaviors for the person who adopts it? (For Christian Fundamentlists, the most major change is that they are intent on spreading their "message" to others, pagans, unbelievers, in the conviction that must "save their souls". They believe that Christ enjoined them to do this and not to do so is to ignore his edict to "go forth")

2) Propagation value: How far and wide is the meme spread, and what means are employed to achieve this? (E.g. Islam in the past has invoked beheadings locally, and more generally "holy wars" or Jihads to force belief onto uncooperative populations. Christian Fundamentalists make more use of the threat of "Hell" to any indigenous groups that are reluctant to accept their "personal Savior")

3) Infectious value: How easy is it to infect other brains? What attribute of the meme facilitates the infection?

In the last case, say for the faith meme in general, part of its structure inheres in automatically warding off too close rational scrutiny. Thus, reason and rationality are either: a) demonized (as byproducts of "Satan") or, b) marginalized as inferior to faith.

Example: from a 1990 CNN program featuring Skeptic Paul Kurtz, the topic "Does Satan Exist?"

Phone caller (to Kurtz): "Of course you will say that Satan doesn't exist! But that's exactly what Satan wants! He doesn't want anyone to believe in him!"

And we see here, the Satan belief component of the meme is perfectly designed to limit and minimize any damage from Kurtz's skepticism. After all, if one doesn't believe in Satan, he has to be under the spell of Satan...in causing disbelief!

No one can say that these religious mind viruses don't possess a certain innate beauty!

While the theory of mass infection of human brains is very compelling, and indeed was revisited in the book, Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads Through Society, by Aaron Lynch, it leaves open why a small subset of humans (atheists, other nonbelievers) aren't affected...or should I say, infected?

I suspect the likely reason is that their (mostly) scientific training provides an inoculation against the effort to infect their brains...by those trying to meet their convert quota. Because we have studied hard science for so many years we can easily recognize humbug when we see it. So, it washes off our ideational backs like a flu bug might for someone whose had the H1N1 vaccine.

Now, what about the second notion? This has recently been made popular in a number of venues, not least have been the claims for a "God gene" or - less dogmatically -that religious belief confers health and other benefits, against which I'd not necessarily complain. I just have problems accepting that religion necessarily "evolved" because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. (I do think that ethics likely evolved and developed along lines favored by natural selection).

More plausible is that religious belief evolved along with blind optimist tendencies - as well as the ability to "see things that aren't there" (see the excellent book, Faces in the Clouds).   This ability is presumed to exist in one single brain complex, probably centered in the temporal lobes. We know, for example - as Monod points out in his book (p. 50, by reference to functional coherence in associated molecular cybernetic systems) that it is often very important that humans remain "dumb and happy" in the evolutionary scheme of the brain.

 The survival basis here is to reduce existential anxiety and probably a host of physical indicators (e.g. blood pressure) as well. But this is not to say anything real is doing it. Rather it is the believer's own beliefs manifesting as a kind of intangible opiate or narcotic. Not surprisingly, reckless uninformed optimism (as when people leap into the stock market because others are, believing they will succeed) and religious faith clearly emerge as symptoms of the same general brain defect that abhors reality.

This dynamic is widespread because this brain wiring defect is also widespread. A small percentage of humans (atheists ) lack it, but then they often lack the benefits as well. I wouldn't be surprised- given this, if atheists are found to have more depression, higher blood pressure, more general bad health indicators (poor lipid profiles, high c-reactive protein, etc). They might naturally show these because they suffer no delusions, and are fully cognizant of being orphans in a purposeless cosmos. To compensate for this painful existential awareness they might self-medicate in ways that the medical cognoscenti might not approve.  

An alternate theory has that a specific neuro-complex literally enables God as well as other proposed supernatural entities to abide in the brain.  This neural complex goes by the name of "orientation association area" or OAA, as defined by Andrew Newberg and Eugene d'Aquili in their book, 'Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief''.

Neurological measurements, i.e. from PET and SPECT scans, consistently showed electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system and hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and measurements revealed the activation of both the left and right association regions as their subjects focused on a religious artifact or object, say an image of Jesus. As assorted cortical thresholds were crossed, a maximal stimulation (given by spikes in the SPECT scans) produced a neural “flood” that generated feedback to the attention association area.

To make a long story short, the visual attention area of the OAA began to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance)  of all neural input not originating with the contemplation of the religious or devotional object. In order to compensate, and thereby preserve the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) the right orientation area had to default to the attention area focusing on the object.

In the words of the authors,  the religious object “is perceived by the mind as the whole depth and breadth of reality.”   This is a profound insight, and fully explains why it is essentially impossible to wean believers away from their objects of worship or devotion based on logic and reason alone. What has happened, in other words, is the subject’s whole existence and identity has become bound up with the focus of his brain’s OAA-  or more specifically – the right attention area’s focus which channels nearly all neural inputs to that region.  


Given this dynamic, the brain governed by the OAA will be singly directed to craft its own version of rationality to support its supernatural ideations.  This implies we simply cannot trust the rational expressions  of believers to be faithful accounts of reality.  

This is one reason the atheist philosopher A.J. Ayer - in Language, Truth and Logic-  insisted  on empirical support for any claims made.   As he writes (p. 158):


"The fact people have religious experiences is interesting from the psychological point of view, but it does not in any way imply there is such a thing as religious knowledge.   The theist - like the moralist- may believe his experiences are cognitive experiences, but unless he can formulate his knowledge in propositions that are empirically verifiable, we may be sure he is deceiving himself."

• 
  

Why aren't atheists' brains subject to OAA stimulation and domination?  A number of hypotheses have been advanced including that we have lack the "God gene" which makes the OAA effective.  Another proposal is that we are too trained already in critical thinking (and logic)  to be mesmerized by the OAA's  subversive appeals.   The converse is that most humans are unable - for whatever reason- to resist such brain influence, hence explaining the dominance of religious memes across the planet.

Brain Studies Show Religious Absolutism Can't Be Defended

In the image shown, from 'A History Of Torture Through The Ages',  designated torturers from the Holy Inquisition are fervently applying assorted torments to a witch (far left), a generic "non-believer" (center) and a heretic. Their reasoning is simple:

They are so emphatically certain of their own religious truths, that they cannot abide any expression of anything contrary.  Hence, the witch who professes belief in Magic must be disembowelled, the unbeliever must have molten silver poured over his body, and the heretic - professing "untruths" - must have his ears, tongue cut out.  Now, by comparison, we examine below the words of a modern Fundamentalist Christian, from his blog - who saw my earlier blog on my niece who has cancer and how her spiritual  support system is Eckanckar.

"Eckankar is just another Satan-led religion to lead many well-meaning, albeit 'blind' souls to hell. The main reason that people cling to these false religions is mainly due to the fact that they seldom - if ever - talk and teach their followers about hell. They'll call us true Christians "hateful," "intolerant," "insensitive," and worse. Why? Because we tell them the truth...GOD'S TRUTH! ("Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" - Gal 4:16). However, what they miss is its because we love them as God's creations that we tell them and speak of hell. We would be remiss in our obligations as Christians if we did not!"

What is the commonality between the examples? Obviously,  the primary difference is that in the case of the devout Inquisitors - who fervently wish to save the trio they're working on from Hell's fires via physical torment (to get them to change before they die)-  their victims perish. In the case of the fundie's target, she merely gets dispatched to Hell, no pain in the current life. (Fortunately, Hell is a myth, but such overt oral-written consignment typically wreaks mental havoc on the less secure.)

The commonality, however, is the sense of absolutism : the conviction or firm belief that what the attacker upholds as "truth" is the final, absolute truth and there can be NO alternative. Nor can any remote difference be accepted. Thus,  the heretic, witch or unbeliever must be taken apart piece by bloody piece, just as the Eckanckar devotee must be consigned to Hell fire. Absolutist belief allows no wiggle room! "God" or whatever the engrained brain embolism is, has spoken! Now, check again the fundie's further words on Eckanckar:

"It is clear from the outset that this (Eckanckar) is a “religion” created by Satan, the father of lies. But it differs from the many other false religions in its dangerous practices of giving an opening to demonic forces. Satan is "your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour"


We also see here the emergence of an adjunct belief, in each case. To the Inquisitors, steadying their firm hands to rip flesh, castrate, scald or disembowel there was the underlying conviction that witches, unbelievers and heretics were each driven or possessed by "Satan". To the fundie, the follower of Eckanckar is opening herself to "demonic forces" and hence can be used by "Satan".

Now, it is possible to coolly analyze each of the examples, based on recent brain research, using actual scans from positron emission tomography (PET) or single photon emission tomography (SPECT) .  The data, results provide a look inside the brains of the believers forcing their agendas and dogmas, pet credos on others. The advantage of PET and SPECT scans is that they show the effects of active, resident beliefs in real time on the brains of firm believers. Not merely a static image. We see where the brain activity lights up as it were, and where it becomes more muted.

Much of the work has been published in the 2002 book Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief,   by neuroscientist Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquili. Their main findings have to do with the OAA (orientation association area)  brain region. The authors note that in normal circumstances:

The OAA helps create a distinct, accurate sense of our physical orientation to the world. To do its job well….depends on a constant stream of nerve impulses from each of the body’s senses. The OAA sorts and processes these impulses virtually simultaneously during every moment of our lives”

However, in abnormal situations, or when abnormally strong beliefs are held, the OAA can be distorted. For example, a fundy given an image of Christ and asked to focus on it has his OAA go into overdrive within minutes.  Neurological measurements, i.e. from PET and SPECT scans, show electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system and hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and measurements actually revealed that as the subjects focused on an image of Christ, both the left and right association regions were activated. As assorted cortical thresholds were crossed, a maximal stimulation (given by spikes in the SPECT scans) produced a neural “flood” that generated feedback to the attention association area.

To make a long story short, the visual attention area of the OAA was seen to begin to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance) of the OAA of all neural input not originating with the contemplation of Jesus. In order to compensate, and thereby preserve the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) the right orientation area had to default to the attention area focusing on “Jesus”. As the authors put it :

“ It has no choice but to create a spatial matrix out of nothing but the attention area’s single-minded contemplation of Jesus”

In other words, belief in Jesus (and by proxy, his offer of "salvation")  became a matter of life or death. Newberg and D’Aquili go on to note that as the process of "re-cerebralization" continues, all irrelevant neural inputs are stripped away until the only reality left is Jesus. That reality (actually a pseudo-reality confected by the right attention area) thereby takes over the entire mind. Or, in the words of the authors, “it is perceived by the mind as the whole depth and breadth of reality.”

This is a profound insight, and fully explains why it is essentially impossible to wean believers away from their objects of worship or devotion (including their "good books")  based on logic and reason alone. What has happened, in other words, is the subject’s whole existence and identity has become bound up with the focus of his brain’s OAA- or more specifically – the right attention area’s focus on his specific belief,  which channels nearly all neural inputs to that region. (As shown by the PET SPECT scans lighting up)

In the mind of the professed believer, focused on Jesus as his “Savior”, there is no possibility of leaving that focus behind because his OAA brain areas are now exclusively dependent on it for him to survive. Take them away, say by surgically removing the right attention areas of the OAA, and the person will die. He’ll either commit suicide, unable to ground himself in any continuous or recognizable reality, or he will go mad.

In other words, on having their brains' OAA regions adversely stimulated to negate their beliefs (or so they thought) both the Inquisitors and the Fundie were constrained to act in order to eject the challenging meme. The Inquisitors did it via tortures, and the Fundie by mentally dispatching his target to "Hell" - a lurid fairytale confected originally by the Mithraists but later plagiarized in Christian scriptures. (Lauran Paine, in his book, ‘The Heirarchy of Hell’ , observes that the Christian copyists did add further refinements in terms of a number of further denizens of Hell, including: wights, imps and demons. Of course, this compounds the nonsense of it all by the fact of wholesale confabulation and addle-pated frivolity.)

A more recent take on this hyper-belief dynamic has been provided by Michael Shermer in his (2011) book, The Believing Brain, wherein he uses an impressive compilation of research - from neuroscience, to biochemistry to evolutionary psychology- to show that belief inevitably trumps reason. Also, that in many ways, the unchecked brains of believers are like those of drug addicts run amuck...say on meth, or crack. As Shermer puts it:

“Our believing brain dictates what we are seeing!"

Thus, if a person doesn't wish to believe any contradictions exist in his bible he won't see them. He will simply explain any or all objections away by whatever rationalizing arguments he can muster. As an extension of this tendency, according to Shermer, the brains of believers actively seek out any and all sources and information which confirm their pre-existing beliefs. Meanwhile, they actively avert their eyes (and brains)from any information or sources that appear to controvert those beliefs. In this way, they protect their self-running program loops, and auto-approving brain dynamic while keeping irritating skeptics at bay.

Thus, sowing countervailing evidence or presenting rational counter arguments to either Fundie or Inquisitor would have no effect, because in order to accept them, each believer would have to get off his respective belief 'crack pipe'. But if they did that, their very existence would be threatened, since their undermined OAA brain regions would then reduce them to vegetables or total zombies. In other words, to preserve their identities via the OAA brain regions, they need to retain those absolutist beliefs.

Of course, since the beliefs are based in brain dynamics, they aren't real, and all end up as relative. The tragedy is neither Inquisitors or Fundies seem aware of how their own brains have played them.  In the end, the heretic's beliefs are no better or worse than the Inquisitors' Catholic ones, nor are the Eckist's beliefs (say in reincarnation)  any worse than the Fundie's. Though I will say they likely are since the Eckist makes no condemnatory word or gesture toward the Fundie, like he does to her. She then understands  - unlike the Fundie- the fragility and relativity of beliefs. Of course, the Fundie will insist he got his truths from the "Bible" but as we know that invention has multiple belief defects of its own, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/05/conversation-about-spirituality-with.html

More to the point, the biblical writers' own OAA brain regions were culprits, or if you prefer, accomplices, in the manufacture of their imaginary confections, like a whale swallowing a man and retaining him alive for 3 days, or Joshua stopping the Sun with his horn. Hence, when the biblical believer alludes to his bible as the fount of truth it's like a leader allowing 2,000 -year old "inmates" to run the asylum--- of his brain!

Will the Fundie accept any of this? Not likely! It would mean having to remap his OAA region of the brain, and that would be impossible without....probably some deep brain surgery and neural rewiring! In her wonderful book, A History of God, Karen Armstrong writes:


"A personalized God can become a mere idol carved in our image. A projection of our limited needs, fears and desires. We just assume then that he loves what we love and hates what we hate, endorsing our prejudices instead of compelling us to transcend them."

It would be well for all the religious, biblical, Deity absolutists in our midst to process this, and learn the degree to which their own brains manufacture their gods as often cruel mirror images of their own  personalities! Listen to them for their "helpful" truth? We'd do better to run as fast and as far as we can!

---