Why evolution makes it difficult for people to believe in evolution

Recently I've been blogging about Sam Harris' new book, "Waking Up," whose central thesis is that our sense of being a Self or Soul separate and distinct from the brain/body is an illusion. 

Harris doesn't talk much, if at all, about how this sense came to be. It must have been an evolutionary advantage to early humans. Perhaps it is an add-on, so to speak, to our species' extraordinary ability to be not only aware, but self-aware.

Aware of our awareness in a way that other animals aren't, the brain seems to look upon itself as if from the outside, fostering a sense that someone is inside my head observing my experience.

As Harris notes, there is no sign of this someone, no "ghost in the machine," no non-physical blob of consciousness floating around inside the human cranium. Yet it feels like there is. And that feeling is a product of evolution. 

Natural selection only "cares" (speaking loosely) about certain sorts of abilities to know the truth about reality.

Obviously having an accurate understanding of predators, threats, dangers, food sources, the physical environment, intentions of other humans, and such is a survival must. Early Homo sapiens' who were unaware of crucial facts didn't survive long enough to reproduce and pass on their genetic heritage.

But having an illusory sense of self not only didn't hurt one's chances of survival; almost certainly it aided it. "Oh, crap, if this happens, I could die! Must make sure it doesn't happen!" That's a positive sort of thought, even if there actually is no enduring "I" separate from the brain's goings-on.

Thus just because a trait exists in modern humans doesn't mean it points to a factual truth. It could be an illusion that has an evolutionary advantage.

Chris Mooney writes on the Mother Jones web site about how disbelief in evolution itself is a product of evolution in "7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution." Interesting stuff. Give his piece a read. 

Here's excerpts that provide a summary of Mooney's seven reasons.

(1) Biological Essentialism. First, we seem to have a deep tendency to think about biology in a way that is "essentialist"—in other words, assuming that each separate kind of animal species has a fundamental, unique nature that unites all members of that species, and that is inviolate. Fish have gills, birds have wings, fish make more fish, birds make more birds, and that's how it all works.

(2) Teleological Thinking. Essentialism is just one basic cognitive trait, observed in young children, that seems to hinder evolutionary thinking. Another is "teleology," or the tendency to ascribe purposes to things and objects so as to assume they exist to serve some goal. Recent research suggests that 4 and 5 year old children are highly teleological in their thinking, tending to opine, for instance, that clouds are "for raining" and that the purpose of lions is "to go in the zoo."

(3) Overactive Agency Detection. Another trait, closely related to teleological thinking, is our tendency to treat any number of inanimate objects as if they have minds and intentions. Examples of faulty agency detection, explains University of British Columbia origins of religion scholar Ara Norenzayan, range from seeing "faces in the clouds" to "getting really angry at your computer when it starts to malfunction."

(4) Dualism. Yet another apparent feature of our cognitive architecture is the tendency to think that minds (or the "self" and the "soul") are somehow separate from brains. Once again, this inclination has been found in young children, suggesting that it emerges early in human development....Dualism is pretty clearly implicated in resistance to the idea that human beings could have developed from purely natural processes—for if they did, how could there ever be a soul or self beyond the body, to say nothing of an afterlife?

(5) Inability to Comprehend Vast Time Scales. According to Norenzayan, there's one more basic cognitive factor that prevents us from easily understanding evolution. Evolution occurred due to the accumulation of many small changes over vast time periods—which means that it is unlike anything we've experienced. So even thinking about it isn't very easy.

(6) Group Morality and Tribalism. All of these cognitive factors seem to make evolution hard to grasp, even as they render religion (or creationist ideas) simpler and more natural to us. But beyond these cognitive factors, there are also emotional reasons why a lot of people don't want to believe in evolution. When we see resistance to its teaching, after all, it is usually because a religious community fears that this body of science will undermine a belief system—in the US, usually fundamentalist Christianity—deemed to serve as the foundation for shared values and understanding. In other words, evolution is resisted because it is perceived as a threat to the group.

(7) Fear and the Need for Certainty. Finally, there appears to be something about fear and doubt that impels religiosity and dispels acceptance of evolution. "People seem to take more comfort from a stance that says, someone designed the world with good intentions, instead of that the world is just an intention-less, random place," says Norenzayan. "This is especially true when we feel a sense of threat, or a feeling of not being in control."

Comments

[observer]

Brian, have you really forgotten...

Q&A - Huzur Maharaj Charan Singh ji: Who Am I?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWqPVuFHR_I

[Azizananda]

for me, the potency of these seven reasons are in reverse order to their numeric order. The last few echo louder in my ears...much louder; and #7 can always lurk!

[cc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWqPVuFHR_I

This is comedy. Guy poses reasonable questions to a turbaned robot who foils his every attempt to get an interesting or plausible answer.

[tucson]

The "turbaned robot" was my guru for a couple of decades+. These days, on the outside looking in, I agree that his answers are implausible from the standpoint of any generally accepted standard of reason.

What the guru did (does) via talks and books is put forth a belief system that a person either buys into or not. It really is that type of thing in most cases. You won't sit on the fence for long. Maybe a few months or year or two. Then you are either in, hook-line-and sinker, or out.

If you buy into it then you accept the guru's explanations because you believe he is God in human form and knows WTF he is talking about.

This is how the guru keeps his followers...they have a problem, death and salvation, and they believe the Guru has the answer even if none is apparent or tangible. They love him because they believe he has the power to provide it and, in fact, is it.

I can hear the frustration and exasperation in the questioner earnestly trying to get a grasp of what the guru is saying, just a little intellectual satisfaction, and never quite getting what he seeks. Devotees in the audience will just sit there robotically accepting what is, to an impartial visitor, a bunch of horse feathers.

[observer]

"I can hear the frustration and exasperation in the questioner earnestly trying to get a grasp of what the guru is saying, just a little intellectual satisfaction, and never quite getting what he seeks".

We all give meaning to our lives, in our own way. We all hear what makes sense to us. What I hear is clear and simple.

If looking for "intellectual satisfaction" whilst being told that we are totally controlled by "mind" there will be frustration. The intellectual game playing is the trap.

[cc]

If looking for "intellectual satisfaction" whilst being told that we are totally controlled by "mind" there will be frustration.

Only if you believe what you're told.

Is there a "we" separate and apart from the mind that is allegedly controlling it? Why assume there is Something other than the mind, be it "soul", spirit, or godknowswhat?

[tucson]

If the guru would provide experience rather than words it would be better, then he wouldn't have to talk so much.

I know, Observer, that you maintain the faith. It has not been my intention to denigrate you personally in any criticisms of RS I have made on this blog. Nor do I wish to weaken your resolve. After all, I don't know much and could be wrong. I just say it the way I see it at the moment probably more for myself than anyone else.

[observer]

tucson, I think I'm also just saying things as I see them at the moment. Also in a way observing myself when reviewing comments by others, kinda cool to get feedback on my reflections. I enjoy Brian's blog and also your comments tucson, my potential friend :)

cc, maybe I need to believe in something else other than the mind. If I deny myself this belief I feel very lost and empty. To each their own.

[cc]

maybe I need to believe in something else other than the mind. If I deny myself this belief I feel very lost and empty. To each their own.

It's good of you to be honest about how your belief is driven by emotion and not guided by reason, and we should all be kind and gentle and understanding with folks like you, but I feel that religious nonsense should be skewered, regardless of who's expressing it. As you say, "to each his own".

As for your feeling "lost and empty" without your religious belief, gurus go on endlessly about selflessness, emptiness, uncertainty, the void, etc., so why not explore that territory and find out how stifling and stultifying it is to be full of baloney?

[observer]

"religious nonsense should be skewered"

There can be wisdom and knowledge which comes from discrimination (vivek) and this has nothing to do with 'religious' nonsense.

There can also be an understanding or feeling and sometimes an experience of something else which exists beyond our mental capacities and this also is not 'religious'.

I do explore "selflessness, emptiness, uncertainty, the void, etc" and don't find it to be "stifling and stultifying". This may be your experience but I find it to be invigorating and inspiring.

[cc]

There can also be an understanding or feeling and sometimes an experience of something else which exists beyond our mental capacities and this also is not 'religious'.

Whatever "exists beyond our mental capacities", only religious people pretend to know something about.

I do explore "selflessness, emptiness, uncertainty, the void, etc" and don't find it to be "stifling and stultifying".

You read as badly as you reason. What I said was that being full of baloney is stifling and stultifying.

[observer]

Hi cc,

Just read my comment which Brian has just posted and now have a feeling that I should have given some appreciation to the fact that you said this in your previous comment... "we should all be kind and gentle and understanding with folks like you".

This is probably the nicest thing you have said to anyone on this blog and it gives a little glimpse that you do have an understanding which comes from the heart and you do not operate entirely from reason and logic alone! Yes, I am sentimental and yes, we are on different wavelengths, but like I say Sant Mat is a path of love and to understand the need to be kind and gentle and understanding is cool. Thanks!

[cc]

I was being facetious...but you're welcome.

[observer]

Its ok cc, I don't really expect kindness from anyone now. This is how cold and heartless people are becoming...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am6KKMdTSEk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZewm1dVRzI

I don't know much about cognitive architecture but it looks to me like our species is devolving.

[observer]

Thanks Brian, I'm always surprised when you post my comments! I find it interesting that my only conversations now are mainly with ex-satsangis on this blog.

tucson, you said in a previous comment "I know, Observer, that you maintain the faith" also "nor do I wish to weaken your resolve".

I don't know about faith as such, I think it is more hope that I feel, in that eventually there will be more concrete evidence within. I suppose my resolve is to just keep on going. The problem I have is how resourceful my mind is in keeping me entangled in this world, especially in a negative way, not good!

Thanks 777, your comments always give me hope.

[cc]

This is how cold and heartless people are becoming...

Cruelty and indifference is nothing new, but propaganda has become more sophisticated than ever, as your uncritical acceptance of Alex Jones' fearmongering attests.

[tucson]

Observer,
Humanity is disgusting and appalling, but many people are great. Don't worry about your mind being entangled in this world. We are in this world. We ARE this world. When tension arises take some deep breaths and remind yourself this is just a passing show. And keep the faith. We all believe in something whether we want to admit it or not. Without faith we couldn't step out the door.

[cc]

this is just a passing show. And keep the faith. We all believe in something whether we want to admit it or not. Without faith we couldn't step out the door

...of objective reality and into the closet of wishful, delusional thinking.

The "passing show" is the parade of nuts, con-artists, and psychos who preach escape and denial to those desperate and credulous enough to believe them.

[777]

"Ex"-rssb satsangis who dropped the practise
some time ago
feeling bitter,
They don't need to re-engage suddenly , … trying to win the price

Just when sad, cry a little and suddenly you might have
an unscheduled practise, . . never thought possible

The Path is of Love, really ….. not of vows !

Kindly Loving 777