"What I'm interested in is the other story — what all religions have in common," he said. "These universals of religion come from aspects of peoples' brains that everybody shared and that emerged early in development."
From documenting our propensity to believe in teleological (purpose-based) explanations for natural phenomena to the widely held belief that humans possess a soul, a myriad of psychological studies — conducted both here at Yale and at peer universities — now suggest that our brains may be hard-wired to believe in religion.
"The universal themes of religion are not learned," Bloom said. "They emerge as accidental by-products of our mental systems."
There has long been a scholastic preoccupation with the demythologizing of religion. Modernity sought for a quantitative method, a measurable cause to the irreducible religious compulsion within man across all cultural, ethnic, geographical, and a host of other boundaries. One refreshing thing about Paul Bloom's approach to answer the why question is that he begins with the universal nature of religious phenomenon as a given rather than something needing to be proved. It is this fact that seems to propel Bloom's inquiry into a psychology of religion.
In this article there is an admission that religious impulses are a part of man's unique constitution; a primordial element to his being. The argument, however, emerges when we see these impulses as merely physical or biological in origin. That is, our minds evolved with these inclinations due to environmental stimulants that were consistent across the board. This is not the first time I have heard of the idea that man's propensity to believe in teleological answers is hardwired into our brains; a biological product developed as a result of our natural evolution in response to the world wherein we developed. While this certainly stands in line with an approach that denies anything greater than the observable world, at least as it relates to any ontological ideal, for those who hold belief in something outside the mundane, however, the argument is lacking.
Many of the answers proffered by Bloom, Kellerman, and others, do not negate belief in a divine. It really is a matter of perspective, as well as the age old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. Did our brains develop with these capabilities and inclinations simply in response to a concrete world that man could not explain, or did these impulses develop to enable the creature to perceive and interact with that which lies outside the quotidian facets of our lives? It really depends upon which presupposition one begins with. If your inclined to believe in a creator/god etc, then you are more likely to begin with the idea that God came first and man was created and evolved with the characteristics necessary to perceive God and relate to him. The physical processes that can be measured and cataloged are simply the organs through this relationship is possible. It certainly does not negate the question of God in any way; that is, unless you want it too. Conversely, you can begin with the idea that God exist only within the intellect of man and this existence is nothing more than the mechanistic features of our brain's development. This is the divide that has long stood between those who believe and those who do not.
The psychology of religion is a very interesting field with so much potential for discovery--discovery and exploration into the wonder of our physical being. Perhaps we can better understand how we think and how our minds are developed to interact with an unseen world. While Bloom's work is fascinating, given its starting presupposition, it is of limited value to religious inquiry. However, there are others, most notably the father of the psychology of religion himself, William James. His book The Varities of Religious Experience is still a classic in this field and it is as relevant today as its was in the day the lectures were delivered.
What do you think? Make a comment and join me at disqus to continue this fascinating discussion!
