|
|
Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God
- Cicero
This long dead Roman orator knew nothing about evolution or genetics, yet could there be some truth in the above quote? If so, it would go a long way towards explaining why religion persists in today's modern world with its scientific focus. Cicero was not the only one to conclude that something in our natures predisposes us towards religion.
It is probably not the idea of God though, that Nature has imprinted on our minds. After all, if there is something in our DNA inclining us toward religion, it would likely date back to the very dawn of humanity, and the brain of primordial man wasn't capable of even framing the concept of a god, or gods.
The idea of God depends upon a much more basic thing: a belief in the supernatural, or things which lie outside the normal laws of nature. This is the realm of Spirituality and includes such things as magic, spirits, ghosts and the human soul. If evolution has passed on anything genetically then, it would most probably be an instinctive belief in spirits.
Instinctive or not, spirituality is likely as old as the human race. That would mean it stretches back over two million years, and predates religion by a huge span of time. It is the keystone of all religions. Without this belief in spirits, and the concept of a human soul which is so fundamental to any religious viewpoint, a belief in a Great Spirit, or God, would seem impossible. Religion would be a non-starter. Not until human reasoning abilities had developed enough would an attempt to put this spirit world into some sort of heirarchy see spirituality culturally morph into religion.
Does the human genome include a spirituality gene, or set of genes? Geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, has written a book on the subject (see Book Reviews: The God Gene). Based on a combination of behavioral, genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies, the God gene hypothesis proposes that human beings inherit a set of genes that predisposes them to belief in a higher power. Hamer announced that the gene known as VMAT2 appeared to influence spirituality. But he pointed out that the function of about 1/3 of our genes remains a mystery, so science can't tell us yet if spirituality is an inherited trait. Hamer went as far down this path as a scientist is currently able to go.
He was criticised for even setting his foot on the path. Among several other unflattering comments, Carl Zimmer, writing in Scientific American, questions why "Hamer rushed into print with this book before publishing his results in a credible scientific journal." Predictably, organised religion didn't like the idea either. Anglican priest John Polkinghorne stated "The idea of a God gene goes against all my personal theological convictions. You can't cut faith down to the lowest common denominator of genetic survival."
When you reach the end of the science road, you enter the field of philosophy. Let me be absolutely clear about this: from a scientific perspective, the idea that spirituality is instinctive remains an hypothesis at best (as does the idea of God). Just bear this caveat in mind wherever the term spirituality instinct is used here.
However, if you are prepared to look at the concept with an open mind, it goes a long way towards explaining otherwise puzzling human behaviour. Mainstream atheist organisations either ignore the possibility of a spiritual instinct, or are downright antagonistic to the idea, as are religious groups. It is easy to see why organised religions would have this attitude, but I can only speculate as to why the concept draws so much flak from atheist organisations (see: "About Us").
Maybe they fear damage to their credibility. Perhaps it is because dyed in the wool atheists tend to worship at the altar of science, and will not accept anything that can't be proven in the laboratory (religious types have no such qualms). The confirmed atheist may also be loath to admit any need for spirituality in their lives, even if it is imposed genetically.
All I can offer to these sceptics is a simple test: try walking through a graveyard at midnight, or visit a reputedly haunted house on a dark and stormy night. Any faint stirrings in the dark corners of your mind? No? Then perhaps the spirituality gene missed your branch of the family tree.
Most atheists are happy to embrace Darwinian evolutionary theory and realise that our bodies have evolved from ape-like ancestors. Why then is it so difficult to admit that our brains have evolved as well? We are animals. All animals have instincts. Ours may have been pushed into the background by civilisation, but the older parts of our brain are still there. Is it unreasonable to think that we retain some vestigial behaviour traces from our bestial past?
Given this opposition from both sides of the religious spectrum, why do I persist in maintaining this website, at some cost to myself? Because I feel strongly that somebody has to do it. Science can't (no proof) and atheist groups spend all their time battering at the gates of religion with logical arguments, totally ignoring any need for spirituality.
To me, the issue of whether God exists or not is insoluble and unimportant. It only becomes important when you start to ascribe certain characteristics to this hypothetical creator. Then it starts to affect your daily life and happiness. Life is all about making decisions. Organised religion locks people into negative (obedience to God) ethic structures, which act to inhibit any logical decision making process.
The main premise of my book is that because religion has evolved from spirituality, it harbours a lot of evolutionary mental baggage capable of causing serious harm in today's modern world. That's why everyone who has ever questioned the role of religion in their lives should read The Spirituality Instinct, whatever their current religious beliefs!
All material on this website and in the book has been carefully researched, and I hope visitors will find the material entertaining as well as informative. This website will be updated whenever new information or interesting news items become available. Even if you've viewed this site before, click on the "Latest Updates" link below to check for additions.
The Spirituality Instinct
The controversial part of this book is the idea that Spirituality may be passed on genetically. To form any objective opinion about that requires a lot of information from several different areas, all of them from conventional sources. The first part of the book (Gods, Creation and Evolution) deals with the Big Picture. Despite obvious limitations, science can tell us a lot about the creation of the universe and the evolution of early humanoids. Not everyone has the time or inclination to delve into cosmology or anthropology. To anyone who has ever tried to struggle through Hawking's A Brief History of Time, I can only say this is a much lighter and more basic treatment!
The second part deals with a history of religion, a necessary evil in order to understand the far reaching grasp of organised religion. Never mind, there's some funny bits here.
Then we come to the third part, which may be considered a self-help section. After all, if you're trying to tear down the pillars of organised religion, you'd better be prepared to replace it with something better. That's what this section offers: something better.
A bibliography has been added for those readers who want to pursue certain topics in more depth. The focus has also been altered to target a broader audience, because there is a lot of information here that will be useful to everyone, wherever they may be on the religious spectrum. See an independent book review of the earlier version, God Replacement Therapy at: Oz Atheist's Weblog Click on the Free Download link below to download a 12 page extract (includes the bibliography) from this latest version of The Spirituality Instinct.
As many atheists, agnostics, rationalists, humanists, free thought advocates and other concerned groups have found out, it is difficult to get anywhere by attacking irrational beliefs with logical arguments. International best selling books such as Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great do a fine job of demolishing religion on an intellectual basis. Yet these high profile authors seem to regard religion as some sort of faulty thinking pattern, which can be corrected once they explain its errors.
I would suggest that the problem of religion can only be fully addressed by understanding how spirituality evolved, and why it eventually led to religion. Then, it is necessary to see how religion has been shaped by history. Only then may an antidote be formulated. Mainstream atheist books and websites don't address this critical distinction between spirituality and religion. Consequently, they do not see how religion has hijacked the immensely older spirituality instinct. This failure to differentiate between spirituality and religion leads to the usual atheist stance that religion survives by being passed on through a culture and from father to son. This seems a totally inadequate way to explain why religion persists in today's modern world.
I would argue that Spirituality was being passed on genetically before any father even had the ability to speak! See All about instincts for more detail. It is entirely natural to have spiritual feelings. Indeed, it is not natural to be an atheist. To be an informed atheist is a modern intellectual decision and is not an easy thing. It involves a battle with the spiritual side of our natures, and some will find this harder than others. It is also not enough to simply abandon religion without consideration of the various human needs it is perceived to fill. Damaging religious credos must be replaced by a superior moral code, and ideally, a belief set that is more in tune with the spiritual side of our natures, but without any erroneous baggage. Atheists would do well to spend more time on this, and less time simply attacking the idea of God. There is another problem. Quite apart from reluctance to accept spirituality as an instinct, many people do not credit the extent to which instincts in general govern their lives. Yet anytime you do something rash, or feel impelled toward some action that is not entirely rational, you may be sure that instincts have had an impact on that decision. Finally, it is not the idea of God that does so much damage: it is the type of God being peddled by organised religions. Modern religions have diverged from spirituality to the point where many otherwise spiritual people are casting about for alternatives. They know they crave something spiritual, but they don't know why, or what to turn to. We tend to think of religion as a relatively modern phenomena, but there have been literally thousands of gods throughout history. Moderns have mostly settled on the idea of one God, but has monotheism (see link- The case against religion) been a big leap forward? The evidence would suggest otherwise- it seems to breed divisions and hatred. In the days of polytheism, people were more tolerant towards other religious beliefs. The devout these days might believe in one God, but they certainly don't agree on His (Her, Its?) characteristics. You can't even get agreement within a specific religion. Radical Muslims picture a God who encourages mass slaughter, in contrast to the vision of God held by moderate Muslims.
Tell A Friend About This Website!
|