Customer Reviews

In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (Evolution and Cognition)

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

A surge of interest in the evolutionary basis for religion has resulted in some fine works. Few, however, approach the careful analysis and depth of insight offered by Atran's excellent book. Asking the question, "Why do humans put so many resources into a counterintuitive supernatural world?", he responds that the answers fall easily into an evolutionary framework. He goes on to explain, in ten easy steps[!] how this circumstance has come about. The core of the presentation is what practices we follow are derived from normal, everyday behaviour traits. These traits are human cognitive ones, which makes their biological roots distant but traceable. The human mind, derived from the sudden expansion of cognitive abilities about fifty thousand years ago, put us in a unique position in the animal kingdom. Religion is the price we pay for being "special".

The "ten easy steps" are not. The astute reader may jump to the Conclusion for an outline of Atran's thesis. There he explains that religion is not an "entity", even though we publicly commit resources to it. Since it's not an entity, religion itself cannot be an evolutionary adaptation. However, it does fit into an "evolutionary landscape". That landscape he describes in a metaphor of hills and valleys, with certain behaviours following the path of least resistance. The supernatural, Atran contends, arises from a "cultural manipulation" of habits derived from the Pleistocene - fear of predators, death and the quest for nourishment. Since humans live in groups, the interactions of individuals within the group reinforces these habits. When natural phenomena are transformed into the supernatural conformity results. Once completing the outline, readers will find enlightening and reasoned arguments supporting the thesis that the foundations for religious behaviour have well-established roots.

Atran discusses the distinction between pathological and mystical mental states. While these are useful, his analysis of the sociobiological and "group selection" theses make truly compelling reading. Sociobiology has sought the roots of many human behaviour traits in the actions of other creatures. While that works for some behaviours, Atran sees no justification for applying it to religion. Religion is too human specific, he argues. Nor, he contends, does the notion that "group selection" - which claims religion is a "superorganism" - has any basis. He further dismisses the notion that "memes" - a form of replicable and transmitted idea, cannot account for the persistence of religious ideas. Memes, he finds, require a fidelity of transmission that isn't reflected in reality. Religion, being highly variable across many environments, isn't supportive of such rigid definition.

As a final topic, Atran addresses the dichotomy between religion and science. The underlying distinction between these two social forces is that science recognises that humans are incidental elements in the universe, while religion places them at the centre. Religion fares poorly in knowledge, while science lacks a strong moral element. It's a fitting conclusion to a book closely examining how science has addressed the phenomenon of human belief in the supernatural.

Although Atran's prose style is a bit stiff, the information he conveys is too significant and well thought out to make that objection important. His command of the sources is indicated in the bibliography and carefully shown as presented in the text. He acknowledges in his first note that Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained" was published as this book was going to press. Any student of causes for human religion will need to carefully study both books. They are a major contributions in understanding why humans engage in such seemingly bizarre practices as religion. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

There have been a slew of recent books by scientists on religion which fall basically into two camps. The first, exemplified by Sam Harris' "The End of Faith," are essentially attacks on the logical plausibility of the major religious belief systems. For those who have already realized that these sorts of beliefs are absurd, such works are entertaining but are a bit like preaching to the choir, if you'll excuse the metaphor. The second camp, exemplified by Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained," are attempts at explaining WHY people believe in such absurdities, from the perspectives of cognitive neuropsychology and anthropology. Atran's book is in the latter camp, and in fact overlaps to some extent with Boyer's book, published at about the same time, although each author has unique insights. I especially liked Atran's analysis of the origin of beliefs in the supernatural as stemming from a cognitive module predisposed to interpret environmental stimuli as coming from a potential predator, and I also found his analysis of "meme theory" to be enlightening (he strongly discounts it). Atran's book is the harder to read of the two and is largely missing the dry sense of humor in Boyer's book, which is why I docked it one star. I also disagree with the pessimism in Atran's last chapter about why religions are likely to endure indefinitely; I believe the secular trends present especially since Darwin must ultimately prevail. But his book is certainly a valuable contribution to the discussion of the origins of religious thought and behavior, which is of paramount importance in understanding today's world of religious fanaticism.

NOT FOR THE THEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE!

Atran describes religion as

(1) a community's costly and hard-to-fake commitment (2) to a counterfactual and counterintuitive world of supernatural agents (3) who master people's existential anxieties, such as death and deception.

Later in the book he adds that 1, 2, & 3: (4) demand ritualistic & rhythmic co-ordination of 1, 2, & 3 such as "communion."

He later describes religion (paraphrased by me) as a thought process which involves exaggerated use of everyday cognitive processes to produce unreal worlds that easily attract attention, are readily memorable, and are subject to cultural transmission, selection and survival.

THEN, HE ASKS, "HOW IN PRINCIPLE, DOES THIS VIEW DISTINGUISH
MICKEY MOUSE OR FANTASY FROM BELIEFS ONE IS WILLING TO DIE FOR?"

While sprinkled with interesting and provocative comments, Atran tries to show that cognitive modules exist, thanks to natural selection. The tendency to invent supernatural agency is an evolutionary by-product, trip-wired by predator-detection schema...people interactively manipulate the universal cognitive susceptibility. Add a few hopeful solutions to the problems involving the tragedies of life and death, and you get religion.

Alternate theories of religion's ability to sprout and fluorish wherever humans have lived for any length of time are discussed and rejected. These include "memes" for religion, "group selection" for religion, cultural entrees, and others.

While myriad types of gods have been invented, Atran maintains they all end up as described in the 1st few lines of this review. He offers an analogy of mountain ridges and their many precipitation routes, ending in always the same few major waterways. In the middle of the book is a photo section of various religious relics, including a photo of the "Nunbun." This cinnamon bun became famous, and really does look like Mother Theresa!

He ends with the thought (and I concur) that religion will always be with us because there is no other system that gives humanity solace from the tragedies that beset daily life...with some brands even promising the bonus of an afterlife - only, of course, if you follow the prescribed tenets.

This is the first book I have ever read that espoused such openly irreligious ideas. I thoroughly enjoyed reading someone else's formulated ideas, which were so close my own unformed thoughts. I LOVED THIS BOOK!!!

Disadvantage: As excellent as this book is, I would have enjoyed it more had Atran made an effort to make it more readable and less technical. It reads as if parts may have been intended for his learned peers rather than the general public.

Overall, this academic treatise on the evolutionary, anthropological, and psychological roots of religion is excellent. Atran's knowledge is encyclopedic; it deepened my understanding of some of the new frameworks inhabiting evolutionary theories of biological development. But the book has its strengths and weaknesses, as would any that attempts to tackle such a broad topic as religion.

For the purposes of this review, I would like to expand upon the commentaries made by others by discussing Atran's detailed deconstruction of meme theory, a notion that is largely promulgated by Dawkins, Dennett, and Blackmore. In brief, memes are like genes, but instead of passing on genetic instructions that shape biological evolution, memes are ideas that spread themselves from person to person via commmunication. Atran strongly disagrees with this theory, and takes the reader through a brilliant comparison with genetic reproduction, demonstrating that ideas and concepts like religion (which Dawkins compares to a virus) do not replicate themselves with any degree of accuracy. Atran even conducted some simple experiments showing that even the most basic idea will be interpreted differenty by the majority of people. His argument lends more credence to the observation that religious ideas, like any other philosophy, are in a constant state of reformulation to fit the needs of the individual and society.

Oddly, Atran doesn't point out the most obvious error that meme theorists make: ideas are not biological entities like a gene is; they are, in essence a syntactic construction of the language processes of the brain. (Such discussions, by the way, will give you a taste of the scholarly levels of discussion this book is comprised of.)

Finally, I'd like to point out a common weakness found in even the most astute writing. Atran spent five pages criticising Newberg's neuroscientific studies of people engaged in prayer and meditation (see his books WHY WE BELIEVE WHAT WE BELIEVE and WHY GOD WON'T GO AWAY for an intriguing biological explanation why spiritual experiences feel real) by saying that there was no evidence supporting his general claims concerning how the brain processes cognitive information, but I have found numerous neurobiological texts that argue otherwise, supporting Newberg's theories. Today, no matter how much expertise one has in one field, it is still very easy to misunderstand other scholars in different fields.

So my advice to potential readers of this book--and to all readers of any book, for that matter--is to realize that all studies have their flaws. The solution? Read some more. As much as you can. But it probably won't help, because most people cling to the beliefs they like best and ignore any information that contradicts them. But as Atran points out, that too is the nature of human beings, which is why we are likely to see religious ideas proliferate. But, if you have an open mind about religion, this book should be read, or at least skimmed. But beware: the more you read, the LESS you're likely to know!

The topic of Atran's book has recently received a lot of attention, primarily because of the publication of Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" and Richard Dawkins' bestselling "The God Delusion".
I have just finished teaching a graduate course on evolutionary perspectives on religion, and have fewer doubts than ever that Atran has written by far the best book on the topic. In terms of explanatory structure his theory is more detailed and precise than any of the competitors.
While Atran says openly that he is an atheist, he tries to keep his discussion neutral, and his book is devoid of the polemical tone of Dawkins and Dennett. Yet, paradoxically, his approach has interesting implications for dealing with religious fundamentalism on a political level.
Even though "In Gods we Trust" is an unabashedly scientific book, it is well written and accessible to informed lay-people. I also recommend viewing the interchanges of Atran and Sam Harris ("The End of Faith")during the recent "Beyond Belief" conference either on youtube or (written) on the "Edge" website.

In Gods We Trust, by Scott Atran

A fair amount of what I'm noting here relates to PTSD studies and how its effects on the brain have either a direct or inverse relationship to spiritual experience or religious belief levels.

162-177. Atran draws a number of parallels between brain changes in PTSD sufferers and changes in brain function in religious and spiritual experiences. None of this is to imply that religion is a form of PTSD, any more than people like Dostoyevsky having spiritual experiences right before temporal lobe epilepsy seizures, and with similar areas of the brain affected, implies religion is a form of epilepsy.
But I do think this shows one promising pathway for further exploration of the evolutionary development of religious belief.

178-79. Exposure to a death-priming experience, like a story or video about death, results in readers/viewers having a higher belief in God and supernaturalism afterward. Atran then argues that religion does serve as a relief valve for emotional distress.
BUT... persons given an adrenaline blocker, such as propanolol, after the death/high emotional prime situation, have no better recall of the priming story than of a control uneventful story, whereas placebo-treated subjects have higher recall.
AND ... Similar results have been seen with people suffering from amygdala damage, and PTSD has been shown to chronically, perhaps permanently, affect the amygdala.
I think this, too, points the way for further research on diagnosed PTSD sufferers and their level of religiosity. Especially with adult, chronic PTSD sufferers such as war veterans, before-and-after the event(s) comparisons of religious belief, as well as the exact nature of change in belief, would surely be fertile neuroscience territory.

181.Whirling dance, deep-breathing meditation, and other things can cause "altered states of consciousness." So, too, apparently, can high altitudes. That would be from the thin air, Atran says, or more specifically and technically, hypoxia. Remember that experimentally controlled and induced hypoxia can also induce an NDE.
In meditative states, though only one is fully active at one time, BOTH the sympathetic AND the parasympathetic nervous systems are heightened.

182ff. Eugene D'Aquili and Andrew Newberg are all wet on their attempt to associate specific and relatively small cortex areas with specific functions that may tie in with, or be antagonists to, religiosity. Atran says that they throw a lot against the wall from sociology, Gestalt and more, just to see what might stick. I would further find fault, arguing that, to the degree the brain is modular, their research is arguing for a reverse-diachronic reverse selection, i.e., that alleged future psychogolical need for religion reached back in time to evolutionarily select for a "religion module."

Plus, the latest in cognitive science has largely rejected such fine-tuned, narrowly-directed modules in general.

212ff Contra group selection of David Sloan Wilson (check his book review I wrote up) and Dan Sperber, Atran says "norms" are not units of cultural evolution.

228. Wilson also faulted for leaning heavily on work of Kevin MacDonald, a simpatico of Holocaust denier David Irving who actually testified in his defense in Irving's libel suit. Not sure how much this is a legit critique and how much an ad hominen; I've not read MacDonald.

232. Research on Judaism as allegedly showing tightly cohesive religion as reflecting group selection has many problems in methodology, not actually listed by Atran. They include confusing Judaism the religion with Judaism the culture, confusing both with Jewishness the ethnicity, not noting nonreligious counterexamples of similar "tightness," such as ironsmiths in many sub-Saharan African tribes, etc. Also faulted for relying in IQ as measuring "intelligence."

248ff. Mimetics also fails to explain religion due to the general shortcomings of meme theory... transmission, fidelity, etc. He does fault Dennett and Dawkins, above all, for the anti-religious and over-intellectual bias they bring to propositions about memes.

In conclusion, Atran asks whether religion and science can coexist in the modern Western world, or whether they are part of a zero-sum game. However, he doesn't really answer this. I think it is answerable and that they are, contra Steve Gould, a zero-sum game.

Nor, beyond what I mentioned above, does Atran offer a paradigm for future research. These would be the only drawbacks in a book that corrects a fair amount of wrong speculation on this subject.

This book might be the closest thing to a "grand unifying theory" of religion that I have read. Atran's scholarship and intellect shine as he explains the cognitive, emotional, evolutionary, and cultural basis of religion in human beings.

This is the second book that I have read on this topic (the other being Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained") and I am surprised that while notable intellectuals such as Steven Pinker and E. O. Wilson blurbed that book, such plugging is absent from Atran's work. Atran's is clearly the superior of the two. While Boyer's book is definitely worth reading, "In Gods We Trust" surpasses it by orders of magnitude in explanatory power and depth.

Consistently while reading this book, I felt like Atran was lifting up religion's skirt to show us its naked psychological underpinnings.

These things being said, I have one medium and one small complaint about this book. First, the style is extremely formal. It is not like reading something from Dawkins or Sagan. Secondly, (and this is really very minor) the charts and graphs in the book look they were drawn using MS-Dos running early 90's computer. It doesn't however, hurt their information conveyance. I hope the publisher corrects this in later editions.

After reading In Gods We Trust, Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell, and Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained (in that order), I have to recommend my favorite on this topic, Religion Explained. Boyer covers a lot of the same territory as Atran, but Boyer's explanations are easier to understand, more compelling, and overall I'd say that book was a more enjoyable read. If you are only going to read one book on the topic I'd recommend Religion Explained. That's not to say, however, that In Gods We Trust is not a worthwhile read.

In Gods We Trust is a highly technical and thoroughly scientific book whose aim is to explain how humans have evolved to invent and practice religions. With nearly 1,000 references, Atran has encyclopedic knowledge of the literature on his subject and supports every argument with studies and experiments. In Gods We Trust is exemplary of the rigid objective scrutiny of the scientific method.

This is by no means an introductory book, nor is it easily accessible to the general reader. The language is technical and the vocabulary obscure; I was constantly consulting a dictionary for definitions of words like autochthonous, epiphenomenon, nomological, internecine, tendentious, profligacy, endogenous, fecundity, and pedagogic, to name a few. But those willing to make the effort will find a sophisticated objective analysis and striking insights into religious origins and behaviors.

Humans' religiosity presents an evolutionary riddle: all human cultures practice religions and religious practice is materially costly and always includes sacrifice on the part of believers. But natural selection tends to stamp out waste and produce highly efficient organisms, so how did the human race evolve to habitually form and practice religions? Atran rejects various previously proposed explanations for religion, while also denying that it is naturally selected as an adaptation with benefits which outweigh its costs. Instead, he suggests that some aspects are byproducts of adaptations while other aspects are plausibly adaptive; "both adaptations and by-products, in turn, have been culturally co opted...by religion to new functions."

The evolutionary byproduct I thought was most striking and explanatory is that of hyperactive agency detection. An agent is an entity that "instigates and controls its own actions," such as a person or an animal. Atran explains that humans have evolved generally advantageous abilities to recognize that other people and animals are agents as opposed to inanimate objects, which helps us to predict what they will do (IE a predator might attack us, prey will run away when attacked, a person could be a friend or foe). It makes sense that we would evolve this trait, since if you hear a rustle in a bush and you think there is an animal there but it turns out to just be the wind, then no harm done. But if there is a predator in the bush and you think nothing of the noise, you may not survive. Thus, there is little penalty for over-detecting agency but sometimes severe penalties for under-detecting agency, which leads to a "hair-trigger" on our agency detection abilities.

Uncertain and "emotionally eruptive" events such as earthquakes, floods, disease, and death prompt humans to search for a reason or purpose behind them. But since these important events have no apparent controlling force, they are quickly associated with supernatural agents. "In all cultures, supernatural agents are readily conjured up because natural selection has trip-wired cognitive schema for agency detection in the face of uncertainty." There is much, much more to religion than hyperactive agency detection, and Atran gives compelling explanations for a wide variety of other aspects as well.

If you are someone with an overwhelming need to understand so-called 'religious' beliefs and associated behaviour, whether one's own or that of others, then Scott Atran's book is for you.
A very readable and entertaining text, it is nevertheless based on solid academic research, and few claims are made without substantial supporting evidence. While sometimes densely packed with content, his writing style includes numerous summaries and overviews which, for the non-anthropologist, maintain the overall contextual setting and mitigate against becoming bogged down in the detail. He offers plausible conclusions as to why we continue, individually or collectively, to "share hope beyond reason", despite the loss and gain persisting therein.
It is reassuring to understand how we have arrived at this point. On the other hand, it is sobering to realise that the evolutionary porcesses so involved continue to operate and that, in Atran's view, 'religion' is here to stay. We can but congratulate him and others for providing a reasoned analysis of its place in our lives, information which may just have the potential to lessen the influence of claims made in its name to become the basis for decisions with universal ramifications.

This book has all the information a layperson can ask for, but the wording is unnecessarily complex. I felt like I was reading an extended scientific paper, replete with discussions on the various evolutionary theories in the literature. Perhaps not the best book to use as a primer on the subject (if that is what you seek).