In order to make a row of arches, you must make a row of spandrels. The spandrels are a sort of unintended side effect of making a row of arches. In much the same way that you must make a row of spandrels when making a row of arches, some people — notably Scott Atran — have argued the notion of god is an evolutionary spandrel.
Accordingly, the reason we humans tend to think there is a god or gods is because we have evolved certain traits — such as a predisposition to see agency in nature — which are of use to us in surviving, but which also have the much less useful side effect of predisposing us to belief in deity. In other words, the perception of agency is the “arch” while the belief in deity is the “spandrel”.
So, what do you make of Atran’s views? Do you think belief in deity could be an evolutionary spandrel? Are the gods accidents of human evolution?
See also:
Shir ha Shirim has continued the conversation here.
My StumbleUpon Page
7 responses so far ↓
usha // April 17, 2008 at 7:25 am
Paul, I am amazed. You just got backa few days ago and already so many posts for me to catch up on. Will need to read, mull and digest over the weekend.
Good to have you back.
Dale // April 17, 2008 at 8:26 am
Paul, yes, I do think belief in god is a spandrel. I think it’s a byproduct — rather, an example — of the human tendency to find agency in the observable world: if a comet comes crashing through the roof of your settlement, you will tend to ask the same questions and make the same assumptions as if a spear comes through the roof of your settlement — you’ll wonder who threw it and why. If you lack the proclivity that forms these assumptions and questions, you won’t last long in a world in which there really are people who throw spears and rocks.
We have a deeply ingrained mental habit to associate causation with a person — or something else that’s close enough, an animal with an agenda. In fact, it takes some discipline to work this tendency out of one’s system and to understand, for example, that atoms or televisions or the tides or the weather do what they do without there being a “little person” causing it and willing it.
The god beyond and behind the stars that caused everything (and who throws the comets and the lightning bolts) is a construction of and the ultimate example of this mental habit.
I don’t even think this mental habit is unique to humans — how long would your average predator last without some notion that other predators are on the prowl? And how well would prey do if they didn’t have a tendency to pay special attention when the bush shakes in a peculiar way? They have rudimentary forms of this — less ornate spandrels.
Let us praise and fear the spandrels!
Webs // April 17, 2008 at 10:09 am
I think religion is evolutionary in some ways, especially when one looks at the things religion provides people. For example, people in general need to be part of some collective group no matter what that group is. Religion is attempting to fill this need.
Amit // April 17, 2008 at 6:03 pm
This discussion is incomplete without an explanation of what “God” means to different people, and what their conception is of that term. Also, not all religions believe in the existence of god, and the conceptualization of god in Abrahamic religions differs vastly from that of Dhammic religions.
Paul // April 18, 2008 at 2:25 am
@ Usha: Thank you for the warm welcome back!
@ Dale: That is a beautiful summary of the theory! Thank you so much for posting that!
@ Webs: David Sloan Wilson has gone far to develop that thought in his book, “Darwin’s Cathedral”.
@ Amit: Welcome to the blog!
If I can put myself in his shoes, I think Scott Atran might respond that in folk religion, the notion of god has many of the same attributes from one culture to another — despite the obvious differences the notion has to the well informed of each religion. For instance, regardless of where you go, the gods to most people are supernatural agents. It is that which interests Atran, and not the finer theologies.
Faisal // April 20, 2008 at 12:49 am
Simply, i don’t imagine that human beings are smart enough to build robots, and they still fail to see that there must be someone out there who built “created” them, who must be smarter than them all for sure.
Paul // April 20, 2008 at 3:06 am
Hi Faisal! Logically, whether or not our belief in gods is an accident of human evolution has nothing to do with whether or not there are gods or a god. That’s because our belief in a god could be an accident of human evolution, yet there could still be a god.
Leave a Comment