ti
How can we believe in religious en tles?
o Agent Detec on
ff
-
ti
Ques ons
o So, religion is popular, and there are many di erent religions with which one can
a liate, and many denomina ons within each religion, each claiming knowledge
of the correct god(s) and what they want for (from) us
o How and why did so many people everywhere become religious and believe in
religious en es (e.g., God)?
▪ For the “how,” we will look at cogni ve mechanisms required for religious
belief
▪ For the “why,” we will look at mo va onal factors underlying religious
belief
ti
-
ti
How common is religion?
o Worldwide, nearly 84% (Pew Research Center, 2012)
o Thousands of religions exist
o In order of number of believers
▪ Chris ans
▪ Muslim
▪ Hindu
▪ Buddhism, “folk religions,” Judaism, etcetera…
o In U.S.A., roughly 90% may be religious (Pew Research Center, 2019)
▪ 65% iden fy as Chris an
ti
-
ti
What is religion?
o How would you de ne religion (not just your religion, if applicable)?
▪ A person’s a empt to explain something that cannot be explain otherwise
in layman’s terms
▪ It di ers from myth because they have concrete convic on.
▪ A set of beliefs that inform your moral code
o Belief in a god?
▪ Not Buddhists
o Belief in a devil?
▪ Not some Chris ans
o Belief in an a erlife?
o Rituals?
▪ Sports teams have rituals
o “Beliefs, prac ce, and rituals having to do with the “Transcendent” or the
‘Divine’” (Koenig et al., 2015).
ti
-
fi
ti
ti
ft
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ffi
Special Topic
Social Psychology & Religion
Es ma ng mental state
Anthropomorphizing
Teleology
Predisposi on toward rituals
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
Lane et al. (2018)
o Children (3-5 years old) shown contents of a container (e.g., a red frog in an unlit
box) and were asked what the following en es would say was in the container
▪ Natural (e.g., mother)
▪ Supernatural (e.g., God)
o Younger (vs. older) children assumed en es had same knowledge as they do
(box contained red frog)
o Older children assumed supernatural (vs. non-supernatural) en es had more
accurate beliefs
ti
-
ti
Es ma ng mental states
o Theory of Mind (ToM):
▪ The ability to infer and predict the mental states of others
o Even chimpanzees appear to have theory of mind
o The way we reason about humans’ minds appears to extend to inferences about
supernatural minds (e.g., gods)
o Tends to develop over the lifespan
ti
-
ti
Agent detec on
o Religious en es (e.g., gods, devils, angels, demons) have minds
o How do we detect them?
o Consider the following:
▪ You are alone in a jungle without any form of defense. Suddenly, you hear
a rustling in the bushes behind you. What do you do?
o Two-ish possibili es for the sound’s source:
▪ Harmful predator
▪ Harmless cause (e.g., the wind)
o Assuming the presence of an agent (e.g., lion) and running increased odds of
survival
o Hence, biased toward assuming agents due to ambiguous s muli
▪ Hyperac ve Agent-Detec on Device (HADD)
o This bias toward false-posi ves extends to other ambiguous situa ons, too
▪ “I sense God is in this church.”
▪ “There’s a demon in him.”
▪ “My grandmother is watching over me.”
o HADD makes it possible to detect agents, such as religious en es or the
deceased
o How do we know what they are thinking (beyond religious texts)?
ti
-
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
o
o
o
o
ti
ti
Is religion a mental illness?
o Side note: Some people suggest that religion is a mental illness (e.g., delusional)
o Delusion:
▪ A belief which persists despite contradictory evidence
▪ Personally/culturally abnormal; out of character
o However, many religious beliefs are unfalsi able and culturally inculcated
o Also, much “evidence” may be collected from feelings, word-of-mouth, etcetera
▪ E.g., observing someone speaking in tongues
o Hence, religion may not qualify as a tongues
ti
-
ti
Psychosis and religiosity
o Some research suggests religiosity and psychosis stem from same cogni ve
systems
▪ Agent Detec on
▪ Theory of Mind
o Func onal = religiosity
o Dysfunc onal = psychosis
tf
-
ti
Es ma ng god’s beliefs
o When es ma ng the minds of others, we o en use our own mind as a point of
reference
o Epley et al. (2009)
▪ We tend to egocentrically es mate God’s beliefs – and more than we
egocentrically es mate others’ beliefs
▪ Abor on
▪ Same-sex marriage
▪ A rma ve ac on
▪ Marijuana legaliza on
▪ Death penalty
▪ War
ft
-
fi
Theory of mind
o What about adults?
o Heiphetz et al. (2016)
▪ Explicit representa ons of God are more though ul and theologically
correct (e.g., boundless, atemporal, omniscient, etcetera)
▪ Implicit measures are akin to children’s percep ons of God (e.g.,
anthropomorphized, constrained by bodily limita ons, etcetera)
ti
-
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ffi
o When ascribing correct beliefs to supernatural en es, young children cited
reality (“I saw a red frog”), but older children cited extraordinary sensory
percep ons/knowledge.
-
Humanizing nonhumans
o Some mes, we ascribe human-like quali es to things
▪ Anthropomorphizing
▪ Present in the previously described studies (e.g., gendering God)
o This may also extend to religious beings
-
Teleology
o Belief that things exist for a purpose
▪ “It rains so plants can get water.”
o Meaning of life?
▪ Why are we here? So we can…
o Divine providence All things are under divine control
▪ Things happen for a reason (i.e., God wanted it this way)
Ritual
o Humans predisposed to learn rituals despite their apparent uselessness
▪ Performed for tradi on or symbolism? Does not speak to its u lity
o May help iden fy ingroup members
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
Big socie es, big gods
o Humans may nd it di cult to surveil everyone and protect against rule
viola ons (i.e., immoral behaviors)
o An omniscient, morality-policing deity is not so limited
o “Big gods” were theore cally instrumental for the development of ever-growing
civiliza ons
ti
-
ti
Trust and civiliza ons
o Trust is essen al for socie es to survive
o Consider life in small socie es
▪ Everyone knows one another, easy to keep all accountable
o Consider large socie es
▪ Impossible to know everyone or keep everyone accountable
o How do we keep everyone trustworthy?
ffi
-
ffi
Why are we religious
o So, we developed the cogni ve-behavioral prerequisites for religions. But
ques ons remain…
o How do we become a liated with a par cular religion?
▪ Culture (e.g., born in U.S., so more likely to be Chris an)
▪ Prolifera on of “Big Gods”
o Why are we religious in the rst place?
▪ Prolifera on of “BIG Gods”
▪ Sexual Theories
▪ Explanatory value of myths become much more
ti
-
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
-
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ff
ff
fl
Reproduc ve-religiosity model
o A core func on of religion is to promote highly commi ed, marital, fer le sexual
strategies (Weeden et al., 2008; Weeden & Kurzban, 2013)
▪ Sexual variables more strongly associated with religiosity than prosocial
variables
o Religion is highly associated with:
▪ Commi ed ma ng strategy (Schmi & Fuller, 2015; Weeden & Kurzban,
2013)
▪ Marital stability (Lehrer & Chiswick, 1993)
▪ Higher fer lity rates (Frejka & Westo , 2008; Međedović, 2020)
tt
-
ti
Moraliza on – especially, sexual
o Hone et al. (2021)
▪ “sex premium in religiously mo vated moral judgments”
▪ Regardless of religiosity, par cipants deemed sexual taboos less jus able
than uncoopera ve taboos
▪ Among most religious par cipants, religious primes resulted in greater
condemna on of sexual rule viola ons but not uncoopera ve behaviors
ti
-
ti
Yes, but important caveats….
o Religious prosociality has been called into ques on (Galen, 2012)
o Religion and selec ve prosociality?
▪ Batson et al. (1999): Religious par cipants less willing to help gay (vs.
heterosexual) peers
o Religion and an social behavior
▪ Bushman et al. (2007): Read Biblical passage depic ng violence and told it
was either (a) from the bible or (b) from an old scroll.
▪ Par cipants behaved more aggressively when violence was ordained by
God
• Suicide bombing is the rst thing that comes to mind
o Also, note that religious prosociality does not preclude prosocial behaviors by
atheists/agnos cs
ti
-
ti
Religious prosociality
o There is a posi ve associa on between religiosity and prosocial (i.e., helping)
behavior
o Shari and Norenzayan (2007)
▪ Religious prosociality appears to be more e ec ve for religious (vs.
nonreligious) persons
ti
-
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ff
ti
o Which god(s) you believe exist is in uenced by where you live
▪ If you grow up in a remote village, you may never learn of the Chris an
God
ti
Takeaway
o Certain cogni ve abili es necessary for religiosity
o Religions may have been instrumental for the development of large-scale
civiliza ons
▪ Some objec ons to this idea, though
o Sexual and reproduc ve strategies may shape religiosity
o Culture may shape what religion one accepts
o Intrinsic and extrinsic mo va ons for religiosity
ti
-
ti
Religious orienta ons
o Di erent mo va ons for prac cing religion (Allport & Ross, 1967)
▪ Intrinsic: Prac ce religion for religion’s own sake (“lives his religion”)
▪ Extrinsic: Prac ce religion for what it can provide (“uses his religion”)
• Social (e.g., access to community)
• Personal (e.g., coping)
ti
-
ti
A bold idea
o Conven onal wisdom holds that people have certain sexual morals due to their
religious beliefs
o Per reproduc ve-religiosity model, this idea is backwards!
o People partly develop religious beliefs as a result of their sexual and reproduc ve
strategies
o Religion can be a useful tool to moralize undesirable behaviors (e.g.,
uncommi ed ma ng) in others (e.g., so your partner does not cheat)
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ff
-