The publisher of Matthew Alper’s The God Part of the Brain, sent me a copy to review. The premise of the book is that spiritual consciousness (and therefore belief in God), is an evolved trait. Alper argues that our self-conscious awareness, and with it the awareness of our own eventual death, meant that humans would have lived in a state of constant dread unless there was something that could relieve us of the painful effects of that awareness. He suggests that spirituality – and the belief that we continue to live after death – is the palliative mechanism without which our species might not have survived.
It’s an interesting idea, and one that sounds right to me. Not every atheist would necessarily agree. As I recall, Michael Shermer had a slightly different take – I believe he suggested that religion was a way of “enforcing” acceptable rules of conduct necessary for group living. (I could be wrong – it is a while since I was at that talk.) Also I know that PZ Myers really doubts that religion is an adaptive trait. Still, I like the idea. Which is why I was so disappointed that this book doesn’t really make the case.
I was pretty much turned off the book from chapter 3 – “A Very Brief History of Time – which is a description of how we got here, from the big bang, through the formation of stars and planets, the possible way life may have started, and the subsequent evolution to the life we see today. It was a good idea to lay it all out like this, and it would be a useful read for someone not familiar with all the steps. It was let down by the numerous factual errors it contained.
My first “What?” moment occurred only four paragraphs in (page 26), where Alper explains Einstein’s E=mc2 equation:
What this essentially means is that if mass (matter) is accelerated to a high speed, it will become energy. Inversely, should energy be slowed down, it will settle into matter.
Which is of course nonsense. I can only assume that Alper thinks that since the equation includes the speed of light (“c”), this means matter has to be accelerated to a high speed (presumably close to light speed), to be converted to energy. But that is not what it means at all – “c” is just the ratio of conversion from matter to energy. You convert matter to energy by (for example) splitting an atom, not by speeding it up. (Also, how do you slow energy down? What does that even mean?) That had me shaking my head for a bit.
More serious, considering the premise of the book is to explain spirituality through evolution, was his rather startling errors in describing aspects of evolutionary theory. The explanations of natural selection were pretty good. But he goes off the rails on page 41 when he writes about punctuated equilibria:
Other times, a beneficial mutation emerges that is so dramatically different from its peers that a species can be transformed within a few generations…
He seems to be suggesting Saltation. But Stephen Jay Gould was very clear that he never linked punctuations to microevolutionary saltationism. The idea that massive evolutionary changes could come about in a few generations is clearly absurd, and is contra to just about everything else the theory of evolution tells us about small beneficial random mutations. All punctuated equilibria states is that there can be long periods with no evolution, followed by periods of relatively rapid change. But note “relatively” (perhaps fewer than 100,000 years for significant change) - not “a few generations”.
Then on the next page Alper describes genetic drift. Strangely he seems to think it occurs when members of a species migrate to a new area and are isolated from the rest of the species. While small populations are more prone to it, I’m pretty sure genetic drift occurs in all populations, and isolation from the herd is not necessary. But the major and I mean MAJOR error he makes here is in the example he gives for genetic drift – Darwin’s finches. But Darwin’s finches are an example of natural selection, not genetic drift. I actually read this section about five or six times to be sure this was what he was saying, it was so wrong. The errors in this section are so serious and basic that they really need to be cleaned up in any future editions. More to the point, it caused me to doubt the statements of facts and interpretations of data elsewhere in the book, when he was describing things I was less familiar with.
Most of the rest of the book is given over to numerous detailed logical arguments for why all traits must be evolved traits (all planarians turn to the light, all bees build hexagonal hives, all cats meow, etc). He makes a reasonable case although I found the writing style ponderous and repetitive. Unfortunately, although he makes a perfectly logical case to explain how God-belief could have evolved, he offers no actual evidence to support it. In fact you get to page 130 before he even promises that:
In the remaining chapters, I will provide … the most recent neurophysiological and genetic research that supports [the book’s] hypothesis.
But the rest of the book is mostly more of the same logical (and repetitive) arguments (planarians again, honey bees again), with virtually no actual experimental evidence. The most interesting part of the book, in my view, was the short section from page 136 where he describes the work of scientists (such as VS Ramachandran), that reveal an individual’s behavior can change in specific ways following the alteration of specific parts of the brain. In my view this section should have been longer, and with more references to the actual research. This brief section did actually seem to support the idea that “God” resides in a specific part of the physical brain and is not a product of any outside agency. (Paging Michael Egnor. Michael Egnor to the house phone.) Unfortunately it was too short and didn’t touch on the specific reasons Alper claims for the evolution of God-belief.
I really wanted to like this book, and I do think its main premise – that God belief evolved as a way of coping – may be true. But this book offers zero experimental evidence to support the case. The book might be useful to explain the widespread belief in God without proposing that God actually exists. But the factual errors in describing evolution need to be corrected before I could recommend it.
"The God part of the brain is the pineal gland" - Yacub 7 Ali
the pineal gland in whites is calcified (hardened, dead) http://www.google.com/search?q=white+people+%22calcified+pineal+gland%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS217US217
the pineal gland in blacks (and people of color) is functional (fluid) and contains eumelanin, http://www.indmedica.com/journals.php?journalid=8&issueid=32&articleid=379&action=article
eumelanin absorbs ultraviolet light
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS217US217&q=%22+eumelanin+absorbs%22&btnG=Search
philosophers (descartes, plato, socrates): pineal gland is seat of God in the human body http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/
pineal gland is the 'mythological' 3rd eye, http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=ytff1-msgff&p=pineal%20gland%20%22third%20eye%22&ei=UTF-8
the 3rd eye is accessed at the point where the vision of eyes of the beings who have eumelanin cross
"it is the camel passing through the eye of the needle," Yacub 7 Ali. the camel is the sun, the eye of the needle is point at which the vision crosses. "it opens the doorway to the Kingdom of Heaven," Yacub 7 Ali.
eumelanin is abundant in the hair, skin and eyes of people of color
http://www.google.com/search?q=eumelanin+is+abundant+%22hair%2C+skin%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS217US217
eumelanin can be aggressively absorbed and intentionally directed through the 3rd eye
the divine light can not reside in the mind of the retarded and will no longer tolerate its perversion. the Holy Light of the Sun of God has no home in the mind of the creature whose pineal gland is calcified. where will God sit down?
all you have to do is cross your eyes
Posted by: yardhooper | August 06, 2007 at 02:53 AM
And...Scene!
*applause*
Posted by: Akusai | August 06, 2007 at 03:43 AM
My take on the development of gods within human culture is based on the premise that humans are only good at dealing with other humans. A large portion of human activity is queing social actions from other humans, which is something that can't be done to non-human objects. Thus, we tend to anthropomorphize objects so we can enter into social releations with them. This habit comes naturally to anyone who has everplayed super mario bros. This is how I essentially see religion, woo, and gods; the anthropomophization of reality so one can que social actions and expect reciprocity from the universe.
Caveat-This is of course a hypothesis with no experimental evidence to back it up
Posted by: Wikinite | August 06, 2007 at 06:22 AM
I tend to think, somewhere between Dawkins and Shermer (though I've yet to finish both The God Delusion and How We Believe, so I could be misrepresenting conclusions), that religion is a side-effect of more useful adaptations, coupled with the sorts of conditions that early humans were likely to face. Dawkins discusses the (likely biological) human tendency to unquestioningly believe authority, and to be dualistic, perceiving the mind and body as separate entities. Shermer talks about how people both in the modern world and primitive tribes tend to be more superstitious as their lives get to be more dangerous and unpredictable (the fishers on the shore tend to be pretty rational and levelheaded, but the ones out in the deeper waters in boats tend to attribute more to luck and divine whim).
What I haven't seen either one talk about yet is the human tendency toward finding patterns even where they don't exist. We often find this trait misused in the name of religion, finding Virgin Mary in sandwiches or images in the random assortment of stars.
And, like Wikinite said, we tend to ascribe human characteristics in a similar fashion. There's an adaptive benefit in the ability to recognize other humans' faces, and to understand what their expressions mean. It's just that our facial recognition software doesn't turn off, and so we see faces in power outlets and the fronts of cars and in houses with their windows and doors arranged in specific fashion. And it's part of why so many people see faces, and not, say, whole figures, in grilled cheese sandwiches and overpass runoff.
We tend also to assume that most people are like ourselves in certain ways. Again, it's not a software that's easy to circumvent, so we ascribe blame to inanimate objects and malice to natural disasters.
And then there's the human desire to explain things and tendency toward narrative fiction.
I think, once you get all these imperfect-but-useful psychological traits and shortcuts together, cram them into a lifestyle that's generally pretty unpredictable and fraught with the unknown, you end up with a perfect recipe for early religion.
Posted by: Tom Foss | August 06, 2007 at 08:36 AM
Shermer put it best in Why People Believe Wierd Things - Credo Consolans - I believe because it make me feel better.
Posted by: Citizen Deux | August 06, 2007 at 08:59 AM
Nice review. I share your opinion regarding this book - the author's main thesis is almost entirely an armchair argument from analogy, lacking support in empirical data.
In addition to his errors regarding evolution, Alper also made some basic mistakes regarding religion: for example, his claim that every culture has believed in an eternal spiritual reality superior to the world of matter. This is not true of, to name just one example, Buddhism. Really, it's this preponderance of just basic mistakes that leaves me skeptical of his main argument.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | August 07, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Thanks for that link, Ebonmuse – I hadn’t seen your review. You picked up on some additional things I didn’t cover, and got into the weaknesses of his actual arguments more than I did. I don’t feel so bad now.
Posted by: Skeptico | August 07, 2007 at 09:54 PM
There seems to be a lot of speculation (some better than others) on the evolutionary origins of religion lately. Some of these I think have some promise, while others seem less likely to me. The ones I'm familiar with:
Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet think religion is a meme or mind-virus, that develops on its own and can be harmful to its hosts.
Michael Shermer seems to think it proceeds from mental laziness, a lack of critical thinking.
Pascal Boyer sees it as a byproduct of the way our brains work--our brains were fashioned by evolution to think in terms of intentional agency and we over-apply it. Over-applying is safer than under-applying, so natural selection favored it.
Lewis Wolper thinks it evolved along with the evolution of causal reasoning.
Barbara King has hypothesized that religion has its origin in an emotive need for belongingness.
And David Sloan Wilson seems to agree with Alper that religion is adaptive.
All these different theories have their pros and cons, and they can't all be right, though I doubt any of them is either totally right or totally wrong. At this point, all of them are mostly speculative, seeing as this is a pretty new field and there's not enough evidence yet. It's almost like a miniature version of mid to late 19th century biological evolution, when several competing ideas (Darwinism, Lamarkism, Orthogenesis, saltationism, etc) were floating around, and it wasn't entirely clear which one (if any) was going to turn out right. Eventually, as the evidence piled up, and Mendel's genetic theory was rediscovered, Darwinism turned to be the correct theory. But it took a long time for a consensus to form.
Posted by: Wes | August 08, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Oh, and I guess one might add Dean Hamer's so-called "God gene" to my list above, but his work is pretty sloppy and not taken very seriously.
Posted by: Wes | August 08, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Personally, I think it could be a combination of any or even all of the above, Wes.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 08, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Throw a stone at a rabbit, chase a cat, you see it in action everyday.... animals and humans are so pre-programmed to avoid death at all cost that we react to life-threatening situations - cars, objects falling, etc. - with pure instinct, and little to no thought involved. It is raw instinct, hardwired into all of us.
Humans later became sentient, we then realized that all animals and humans die whether we like it or not, and we are suddenly left grappling with an inevitable conclusion that our instinct tells us to avoid at all cost... so we do. We concoct stories along the lines that when we die we don't REALLY die, we continue living somewhere, somehow. We take comfort in imagining that there will be something after death... so how could we possibly imagine nothing at all?
Posted by: EJ | August 08, 2007 at 03:12 PM
But doesn't religion make death potentially more scary, or is that something that is almost exclusive to Christianity?
Also, I've never met anyone who is looking forward to their death, be them religious or not. Maybe that just means that while belief in the afterlife gives some comfort, it is minimal.
Posted by: Joseph | August 10, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Most writings regarding the idea of God and religion being adapted as a necessary process of evolution do not take into account many factors of present day life. Why at this point in our evolutionary cycle are we now questioning what has been believed for so long. Perhaps advances in science have only opened a new pathway or new adaptive process that the human mind requires for the next step in our evolution.
Posted by: Gordon | September 23, 2007 at 06:47 AM
I was just wondering, before we can ask for the evidence of God, had we already worked out where our 'intelligence' resides in the brain. Which part of brain is responsible to make your feel your-very-own-self or ego or identity? If you say, I am what I am, this is the evidence, then I would live to comment that this is not the evidence, but at the same time you are what feel your are. If you say in future science will come to know the answer, the why don't you say, the science will come to know God? It feels that you only print the comments which support you, and delete those who do not. This is not really a skeptico site, rather is it favorito website whose authors feel funny to deny everything, and implying the denial of their intelligence too. Thanks
Posted by: ahSan | January 23, 2008 at 11:39 PM
ahSan,
I don't think it fairly represents this discussion to call it a denial of "everything". I would call it a tentative evaluation of various hypotheses for why people believe in an afterlife. What's your theory of why people believe?
Posted by: debbyo | January 24, 2008 at 03:23 AM
ahSan:
I was just wondering, before we can ask for the evidence of God, had we already worked out where our 'intelligence' resides in the brain.
How does this question even make sense, and what does it have to do with whether or not god exists? Different functions of the mind are associated with different parts of the brain, so it makes no sense to ask where intelligence resides in the brain.
For instance:
If you say in future science will come to know the answer, the why don't you say, the science will come to know God?
If god has a physical effect on the world now, this can be measured by science now.
It feels that you only print the comments which support you, and delete those who do not.
You obviously have not even bothered to read this site with any semblance of impartiality or grasp of reality. Skeptico allows pretty much all comments except the gratuitously offensive or the off topic. For instance, just try reading the threads that involve John Best.
This is not really a skeptico site
Yes it is. Skeptico is the psuedonym of the person who runs the site. Therefore, it really is a Skeptico site.
rather is it favorito website whose authors feel funny to deny everything, and implying the denial of their intelligence too.
Oh, it was humour. Just really shit humour. Please point out where anyone who contributes here and is a skeptic denies everything. If you can't, retract this nonsense and apologise.
Thanks.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | January 24, 2008 at 11:15 AM