Et l'homme créa les dieux

by Pascal Boyer

Là où il y a des hommes, il y a des dieux, des ancêtres, des esprits, des sorciers et des démons. Pourquoi ?Dans cet ouvrage novateur, Pascal Boyer résout l'énigme en l'abordant sous trois angles différents. D'abord, les résultats de l'ethnographie moderne démontrent l'étonnante diversité des religions humaines mais aussi l'existence, sous ce foisonnement, de thèmes récurrents, de caractéristiques universelles. Ensuite, les sciences du cerveau, qui ont connu une véritable révolution au cours des trois dernières décennies, permettent de comprendre comment se forment les croyances religieuses. Enfin, le renouvellement de la réflexion darwinienne appliquée au cerveau permet d'inscrire le phénomène religieux dans l'histoire de notre espèce.Cette approche croisée permet non seulement de comprendre enfin pourquoi la religion existe, mais aussi pourquoi elle entretient un rapport particulier avec la mort et la morale, pourquoi il y a des rituels, pourquoi il existe des institutions et des doctrines, et pourquoi la force de ces croyances est telle qu'elles peuvent pousser les hommes au don de soi - mais aussi à l'intolérance et au fanatisme.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Psychology, Science, Anthropology, Philosophy, History

Paperback

First published January 1, 2001

About the author

Pascal Robert Boyer is an American anthropologist of French origin, mostly known for his work in the cognitive science of religion. He taught at the University of Cambridge for eight years, before taking up the position of Henry Luce Professor of Individual and Collective Memory at Washington University in St. Louis, where he teaches classes on psychology and anthropology. He was a Guggenheim Fellow and a visiting professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara and the University of Lyon, France. He studied philosophy and anthropology at University of Paris and Cambridge, with Jack Goody, working on memory constraints on the transmission of oral literature

Reviews

[John David · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Explaining” religion has been a cottage industry within the field of anthropology at least since its academic institutionalization in the United States about a century ago. Pascal Boyer, the Henry Luce Professor of Individual and Collective Memory at Washington University in St. Louis, rejects almost all of these traditional explanations out of hand in the first chapter of his book, and not without reason. He says that all attempts to explain religious thought – the urge to explain the origin of the universe, the need to provide comfort or reassurance, a deliverance from mortality, the need to keep society together, or to provide an objective basis for morality – all fail in some important way. Unfortunately, what he offers in its place are convoluted, disorganized arguments, and the occasional ad hoc rationalization.

Boyer is an anthropologist himself, but is mostly dissatisfied with the reasons that classical anthropology has offered for the persistence of religious belief, as noted above. In “Beyond Belief,” he attempts to fuse the precepts of cognitive psychology with evolutionary theory, perhaps with a bit of sociobiology thrown in. His approach is one that is wholly rationalist and structuralist. In a sense these two terms are interrelated. “Rationalism” (and I use the word in the sense that philosophers word – that is, in opposition to empiricism) suggests that the human mind is built in such a way, of more elementary structures, which facilitate learning. This is not to say that we don’t learn from the world around us, as empiricists suggest; instead, it is an approach which assumes that the structure of the mind itself enables the acquisition of certain cognitive skills (language, belief, et cetera). Structuralism suggests that elements in a given domain – in this instance, religious belief – are impossible to understand without placing them in a larger, overarching system or structure (or “structuration,” as Roland Barthes and Claude Levi-Strauss were fond of saying.)

Boyer begins by discussing what supernatural concepts are like. He suggests that mental ideas are like templates. For example, we have the template of “animal” in our head, which might contain mini-ideas like “needs to eat,” “reproduces,” and “produces waste.” The thing about these templates is that they’re remarkably adaptable; we use these Big Idea templates to explain all living phenomena that we see. Boyer suggests that this template works because it’s structurally so close to the way religious (or supernatural) ideas, which change the template in one important way: they have one, and only one, idea in them that intuitively goes against everything else in the template. For example, the template “women” might include a lot of things, but “can have a child without having sex” isn’t one of them; similarly for the template of “man” and “rise from the dead” (both found in Christian theology). Psychological experiments have shown that stories with pedestrian details are difficult for people to retain, while the very rare fantastical element makes a story much more prominent in the memory, and this might have something to do with the persistence of certain supernatural beliefs. Or, as Boyer puts it, “the religious concept preserves all the relevant default inferences except the ones that are explicitly barred by the counterintuitive element,” and thus “a combination of one violation with preserved expectations is probably a cognitive optimum, a concept that is both attention-grabbing and that allows rich inferences” (p. 73 and p. 86, respectively).

Furthermore, the minds that create this series of rich inferences is the rule, not the exception. Boyer gives other kinds of intuitive understanding, like the physics of solid objects (which Boyer calls “intuitive physics”), physical causation, goal-directed motion, and an ability to link structure to function (p. 96-97). This takes us up through approximately the first third of the book.

Unfortunately much of the book is an utter mess as far as trying to present a cogent, coherent argument is concerned. From here on out, we get answers to chapter headings like “Why Ritual?”, “Why Gods and Spirits?”, and “Why is Religion About Death?” that do in fact provide answers, but seem to have no direct relevance to the questions raised in the first third of the book. Here and there, he will pick up the idea of the template, which he spent so long developing, but mostly ignores it in the formulation of arguments, if you can even grace the remainder of the book with so formal a name.

A saving grace of the book are what Boyer calls the progress boxes that are distributed throughout the book, which sum up the arguments in case you’ve lost the thread of his thought somewhere – a not unlikely prospect. The progress boxes are used liberally in the first part of the book, and appear nowhere in approximately the last two thirds except for pages 326-328, which constitute one big progress box that recapitulates the logic of Boyer’s entire approach. For someone interested in Boyer’s approach who doesn’t care to read the entire book, reading only the progress boxes probably isn’t a bad idea. They’ll leave you with the big ideas, and several of the more important details.

I appreciate this book for offering a fairly in vogue approach to a divisive, controversial topic. There are wonderful ideas here, like that of the template and how religious memes need to violate one intuitive idea on a template to be evolutionarily successful enough to be transmitted. I just wish Boyer would have been able to better follow the lines of his own logic, or tie the loose threads together into something more cohesive. He does provide a chapter-by-chapter section for further reading. Perhaps in one of these, a better exposition of these ideas can be found.

[Andrés Astudillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cognitive science of religion FTW

This book actually delivers what the title sells "religion explained". There's no way im gonna resume the contents of the book because its long, and there's a lot of psychological jargon which we gotta learn. However, there are certain aspects that I can mention, that really caught my attention:

- Religion is not based on morality. Religion helps to create cohesions in societies, thus what we call -morality- are rules for each and every one of these groups.

- Why is it that we have science yet still people believe? Science is a cultural thing. It has specialized people, themes and language that goes along with it. Religion has been here way before and reacts to many parts of the cognition of our brains, that's why its difficult to take it out.

- Rituals are still celebrated in the modern world. Maybe, rituals came before -religion- because as a social species we had to let the rest of our group know or acknowledge that a young couple had started a life together, or that a kid was no longer one and started life as an adult. There are many examples from evolutionary psychology that fill this gap. However, making sense of every religious ritual, does not always have an explanation.
Rituals are explained by Mark J. Rossano and Xylagatas. Both of their books cover the "ritual" mindset. Turns out, only human beings are capable of performing them. Rituals may have come from what Michael Tomasello called "shared intentionality", as a means to create social bonding, and the foundations of what we now call morality.


- Fundamentalism is explained in the terms ef evolutionary psychology and cohesion. A group does not comply to modern life, and they need to obtain fidelity of every member of the group. Treason is paid with death, and they must give their lives for the sake of the group. They do not lust for power or paradise, they do what they do for social cohesion.

- Human minds are complex. There are many parts of the brain that react to -religious concepts-. Religion is based on ontological violations and inference systems (both contain psychological and physical intuition). Ontological violations are quite an amazing concept because it shows how vulnerable our minds are.

- Cognitive biases. Yes. There is a lot of cognition going on here. There are many biases that lead a mind to believe in -social rules- and religious or anti-natural concepts "biological violations". There are common biases such a cognitive dissonance, ingroup-outgroup bias, counterintuitive inferences that are based upon ancestral biases "social integration and predatory bias".

- Violence results from coalitionary proactive aggression, as correctly explained by Richard Wrangham.

The book is awesome. Im an atheist, and I have never mocked any particular religion. There are of course really really stupid people such as televangelists that act stupid to stupid people, I not only mock them, I hate them. However, I try to understand why people believe, is it not just about being "stuck" and saying "haha god ist tot" or "jezus doesnt exist" or "the virgin mary is the mother of a bird". Those are 13 year-old arguments that not only show lack of comprehension but lack of respect. We must understand why does religion happen, and the book really explains it. Totally recommended.

[Book Shark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer

Religion Explained is about providing scientific explanations for why people believe. The author combines multiple scientific disciplines such as: evolutionary biology, cognitive science, cultural anthropology, archaeology and psychology to show how humans in general believe in the supernatural. It's a very frustrating book on many levels. In general, I agreed with many of the assertions that the author makes but the overall approach of the book left a lot to be desired. The book is composed of the following nine chapters: What is the Origin? What Supernatural Concepts are Like, The Kind of Mind it Takes, Why Gods and Spirits? Why is Religion about Death?, Why Rituals, Why Doctrines, Exclusions and Violence? And Why Belief?

Positives:
1. Great interesting topic!
2. The author's use of evolution to explain religion. Science is the best way to discover the truths about our world and Mr. Boyer does precisely that. The use of multiple scientific disciplines to explain religion is justified.
3. Goes beyond human "common sense" to explain religion. Goes in great detail on how our minds work. On how we develop inferences to make sense of what is around us. Thorough explanation of inference systems and human nature.
4. Asks many pertinent questions? Questions that need to be asked.
5. Debunks the common notion that a young mind is a simple mind.
6. There is a lot of very good information in this book...more about that in the negatives.
7. Two key topics about humans are discussed: the need for information about the world and cooperation.
8. The strongest parts of this book, is the discussion on intuitive psychology. The use of such devices helps the author explain why religion "appears" natural to humans.
9. A lot of very good concepts are introduced and explained.
10. I like how he uses progress reports (boxes) to highlight concepts and main points captured in the given chapter.
11. Interesting thoughts about morality. "Religion does not really support morality, it is people's moral intuitions that make religion plausible". Some of the most interesting comments are made in this chapter.
12. The book does reward those who are patient with it. It's thought provoking but you need to put in some work to truly enjoy this book.

Negatives:
1. Not a book written for the masses.
2. The inability to communicate ideas clearly! I can't emphasize this enough!
3. I struggled at times to read this book. The author's inability to "sell" his ideas in a straightforward manner was in fact frustrating.
4. Very dry book. Not enjoyable to read at all. It was just too tedious and pain staking to get through at times.
5. The use of poor examples to explain concepts. IMHO, one of the biggest mistakes about this book was to make use of unfamiliar religious tribes to try to explain new concepts. The author constantly made the mistake of referring to these unfamiliar religious groups (Fang people, Kwaio, to name a few) to make his points.
6. I felt like I was taking the scenic route to get to Mr. Boyer's points. The author needs to get to the point.
7. By not being succinct, the author misses the opportunity to convey what would otherwise have been cogent points! It's like watching a great commercial and then wondering what was the commercial trying to sell.
8. Repetitive.
9. So much good and important information in this book but makes the reader work too hard for it.
10. It's not a quotable book.


Overall this book was a real disappointment for me, for what it could have been. This book should have been great but it was executed so poorly. The use of unfamiliar religious groups to explain religious concepts was in fact a big mistake. It's too dry and at times exhausting to read. A little more passion, wit, humor and focus would have done this book wonders! All that being said, the book is still worthy of being read for the valuable contributions it makes regarding human nature and why we believe.

[cerebus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whilst I agree with some other reviewers that this tends towards the 'dry', I would still highly recommend it for anyone interested in the subject of why we have religion. It is a book that requires attention, it's not one to read when you have half a mind on something else. Taking in areas such as evolution, neuroscience, cognitive science and anthropology, the author presents a very convincing case for why humans have religion, and in a way that initially seems counter to most of the commonly argued ideas. If the ideas presented initially seem counter intuitive, the author is able to explain them in a way which soon makes them seem perfectly intuitive....
I would particularly recommend this book to believers, as the ideas are presented in a way which does not take a position on the existence of deities or otherwise.

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you can get past the writing style, there are some very intriguing ideas presented in this book. Sadly, that is a big IF. It was sheer determination and stubbornness that allowed me to get through the book in its entirety. I found the information worthwhile, but the presentation to be seriously lacking.

[Dennis Littrell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Misses the point

Boyer sees religion as a by-product of the way our minds have evolved. His "explanation"--laboriously presented in a most excruciatingly detailed manner--left this reader exhausted and a little annoyed. Much would have been gained had the text been reduced by perhaps two thirds. Although Boyer writes in a clear manner, the tedious qualifications and the needless repetitions make the book exasperating to read.

But that's just the minor problem. The major problem is that after all these words, Boyer does not really explain much at all. Clearly religion of one form or another is found in virtually all human societies. Consequently it doesn't take a very sophisticated deduction to conclude that we believe the things we believe because our minds work that way. Religion is part of human nature, hard-wired to some very real extent in our brains similar to the way grammar is. What needs explaining is how religion is adaptive. If it didn't somehow increase our ability to survive and reproduce--that is, make us more fit--it would not be universal.

This is the key that Boyer marches around, hovers over, and, alas, misses. As famed biologist Edward O. Wilson wrote, "When the gods are served, the Darwinian fitness of the members of the tribe is the ultimate if unrecognized beneficiary." (On Human Nature (1978) p. 184)

But just how does religion increase the fitness of the members of the tribe? By making them accept their lot on earth because they will get their reward in the hereafter? As Boyer points out, this can't be the answer--at least not the entire answer--since some religions don't have a hereafter. How about increasing the coalition among members of the tribe thereby increasing cooperation and mutual trust? I think this is on the right track. If the tribe works together toward a common goal, the tribe will be more effective in dealing with the environment, and the tribe will increase. But what is the most important and demanding aspect of the human tribal environment? Other tribes!

This brings us to what I think Boyer missed entirely: the war system. Religion, because it persuades people to believe in things greater than themselves, facilitates the kind of fearlessness that is most effective in killing members of the other tribe. A tribe that has a ferocious leader who is followed as one might follow a god, or one of god's representatives, is a more effective fighting unit than a tribe that doesn't have that kind of cohesiveness. If a belief system can get the young males of the tribe to lay down their lives for the good of the tribe, that tribe will take over the rich valley, the land of milk and honey, and the less fit tribe will go into the mountains or perish.

If the leader of the tribe can get the tribe to see that a victory over the enemy is God's will or that God or the spirits or the angels are on the side of the chosen tribe, so much the better. To make this work people have to be able to believe in things not seen or understood, things that go bump in the night, things mysterious, frightening, things brought forth by the shaman amid smoke and ritual.

But as Boyer points out, no single explanation for religion is adequate. In religion we also find the beginnings--paradoxically--of science. When the rains didn't come and the grain grasses didn't grow and the animals became few, the people asked why and wanted to know what they could do. Religion supplied the answer. Throw the sheep bones and know which way to go. By happenstance the tribe wandered in the right direction and this was remembered. Sacrifice an animal to the gods and the gods will cause the rains to return. (And if the rains don't return, you did it wrong.)

This is sympathetic magic, surprisingly not mentioned specifically by Boyer, although he treats superstition at some great length. Sympathetic magic is part of almost all religions in the form of ritual and prayer. It was but a step or two (giants steps of course) from throwing salt over one's left shoulder to broadcasting plant seeds over the ground. Sympathetic magic which is at the heart of religion became, after many a moon, science.

Although Professor Boyer admirably attempts to account for religion from an evolutionary point of view using an anthropologist's eye, I am afraid that he got lost in the thickets and missed the pure essence of his subject matter. I suggest he read some Edward O. Wilson and Marvin Harris (both absent from his bibliography). Harris shows how religious beliefs work to support adaptive behaviors (e.g., not eating cows in India) while Wilson will give the reader a good understanding of human psychology from an evolutionary point of view.

--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”

[Luís Branco · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was hoping that I would be able to write a proper response in my evaluation of the book once I have finished it. However, I was expecting something a bit clever than what I read. The author develops his assumptions on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution of species yet the writer described the human brain and human thoughts capabilities as "designed", what is a quite interesting paradox.
The author says he uses "imaginary" explanation to make his propositions against religion. It could be more specific than imaginary, and it is not because the author finds nothing solid to validate his assumptions. Another mistake is that he chooses to put all religions on the same level with the same degree of credibility. In so doing, anything that is named religion has the same value. It is a nonsense. There are religions with true beliefs that harmonise with reality and logic and there are others that are not. The problem with it is that the Boyer picked the exotic beliefs from different religions to invalidate all other religions system. Boyer's insistence on including humans in the category of animals evoking few similarities and neglecting the differences is simply without reasoning. Humans and animals are unique in relation to their morphologies, physiologies, behaviors, biochemical particularities, what we call phenotype.
In particular chapter Boyer starts with the following proposition: "It is unfortunate, and almost inevitable, that when we talk about religion we quite literally do not know what we are talking about." Here are some problems which the author did not anticipate. "...when we discuss about religion we quite literally do not know what we are talking about." - What do the writer means with this statement? Is it impossible to know about religious belief? No, that is not so. When the author uses the word "literally" he brings all to a literal stage of ignorance. Yes, in that respect is a little ignorance in knowing, but not only religion, but about everything else in life and science.
We never know literally everything about anything, but we know enough about many things including religion. Let's suppose that the author's assumption is applied to physicians. They do not know the cure for all varieties of human disease and yet we don't argue with the doctor when he decides that we must have an appendicitis surgery in order to get well. We could say: "Well, this doctor doesn't know the cure for cancer or HIV, his knowledge is defined, however, when we discuss about medical-care we quite literally do not know exactly what we are talking about. However, such an ignorance about some facts does not invalidate the physician capacity of operating anyone for their appendicitis problem.
As for Boyer's arguments about human, animal, vegetal and material perspectives of things speaks for itself as a non-sense
Another noteworthy aspect of the author proposition regarding the evolution of religion is the way how he reads ancient religion with a postmodern concept. While writing about the relationship between Shiva and her sons, an ancient concept of religion that cannot be understood without taking in account the time, the culture, the language, the meaning and other aspects involving the religious text, the author choose to ignore all these aspects to validate his postmodern mindset. If religion is a result of the evolutionary theory, it is supposed that in religion itself there is an evolutionary process.
I am not trying to discourage anyone to read this book. It is quite an interesting book to read and grasp a bit of the view of the author. As a religious philosopher I just thought that would be nice, at least to me, to point at some misconceptions.

[Munthir Mahir · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book proposes an explanation of religion based on evolutionary biology and cognitive psychology. The proposition is not well formulated, and though it has an appealing aesthetic it is also a bit misleading as the proposition is not really based, or is only fragmentally based on cognitive psychology and evolutionary biology (and evolutionary biology being stuck in there in the title for marketing reasons). The proposition could be qualified as cognitive science (research) however the link between research and cognitive psychology theories is a miss. At several points in the book the author seems to try to stretch the proposition a bit too far to fit all facets of religion.
The reason I gave this book 5 stars is that it provides an account of research that can be a foundation to an evolutionary theory of religion - the inference systems which the book revolves around are a good starting point; however, the inferences drawn from them are widely stretched and hardly proven. Religion which is highly influenced and shaped by culture warrants a close look through an evolutionary lens since evolution is partly an accumulation/adaptation to cultural information - though probably only weakly since evolution is mainly a response to environmental factors.

[Maksim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Отличная книга, медленно и эффективно разжевывающая описаную проблему. Повествование ведется так, что может понять даже ребенок.

[Жанна Пояркова · Rating 5 out of 5]

Прекрасная книга, описывающая религиозные идеи как распространяющиеся культурные мемы, получающие распространение за счет склонности к коалиционному поведению и ряду когнитивных искажений. Не доказательная, но очень славная работа. Особенно мне нравятся части, где рассматривается, как религия узурпирует интуитивный моральный кодекс у людей и паразитирует на нашем устройстве мышления в принципе. В паре с нобелевской книгой Канемана о выборе прямо чудесно идет.

[JCJBergman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Firstly, if I could rate this book 3½ I would. By no means is this book "bad", though on a fundamental level it fails to deliver what it said it would in the opening chapter. Boyer begins by confidently denouncing the average assumptions about religion and its origins are incomplete and in need of innovation - which he claims he plans to do throughout the rest of the book.

However, what we get instead is an unorganised plethora of concepts and ideas which (somewhat?) contribute to his promise at the beginning of the book. Undoubtedly, this piece is more sophisticated than "New Atheism" literature of the 2000's and I would probably (nonetheless) recommend it to those wishing to understand religion from a cognitive perspective - but at the end of the day the book failed to formulate a coherent response and remodelling to the already established arguments for the origins of religion. Indeed, he makes some interesting points (as highlighted in my personal notes below this review) but paradoxically for the most part ends up saying what I've already heard before (which Boyer claimed he wasn't necessarily going to do).

Ultimately, it is a useful book (especially because it focuses on cognitive arguments) which I would generally recommend but misses the mark in its grandiose premise of there being noteworthy alternative perspectives on the issue.


My (unedited, personal) notes whilst reading the book:

Chapter 1: What is the Origin?

Religion is nearly impossible to objectively define because it means something different to everyone, in different countries. Boyer wrote the following:

“The conclusion from all this is straightforward. If people tell you ‘Religion is faith in a doctrine that teaches us how to save our souls by obeying a wise and eternal Creator of the universe,’ these people probably have not travelled or read widely enough. In many cultures people think that the dead come back to haunt the living, but this is not universal. In some places people think that some special individuals can communicate with gods or dead people, but that idea is not found everywhere. In some places people assume that people have a soul that survives after death, but that assumption also is not universal. When we put forward general explanations of religion, we had better make sure that they apply outside our parish.” // Pg.10

Pascal Boyer argues the following:
- The urge to explain the universe is not the origin of religion
- The need to explain occurrences seems to lead to strangely baroque constructions
- You cannot explain religious concepts if you do not describe how they are used by individuals
- Religious concepts are probably influenced by the way the brain’s interference systems produce explanations without our being aware of it

“Religious concepts, if they are solutions to particular emotional needs, are not doing a very good job. A religious world is often every bit as terrifying as a world without supernatural presence, and many religions create not so much reassurance as a thick pall of gloom. The Christian philosopher Kierkegaard wrote books with titles like The Concept of Anguish and Fear and Trembling, which for him described the true psychological tenor of the Christian revelation. Also, consider the widespread beliefs about witches, ghouls, ghosts and evil spirits allegedly responsible for illness and misfortune. For the Fang people with whom I worked in Cameroon the world is full of witches, that is, nasty individuals whose mysterious powers allow them to ‘eat’ other people, which in most cases means depriving them of health or good fortune. Fang people also have concepts of anti-witchcraft powers. Some are said to be good at detecting and counteracting the witches' ploys, and one can take protective measures against witches; all such efforts, however, are pitiful in the face of the witches powers. Most Fang admit that the balance of powers is tipped the wrong way. Indeed, they see evidence of this all the time, in crops that fail, cars that crash and people who die unexpectedly. If religion allays anxiety, it cures only a small part of the disease it creates.” // Pg.20

“Reassuring religion, insofar as it exists, is not found in places where life is significantly dangerous or unpleasant; quite the opposite. One of the few religious systems obviously designed to provide a comforting worldview is New Age mysticism. It says that people, all people, have enormous ‘power,’ that all sorts of intellectual and physical feats are within their reach. It claims that we are all connected to mysterious but basically benevolent forces in the universe. Good health can be secured by inner spiritual strength. Human nature is fundamentally good. Most of us lived very interesting lives before this one. Note that these reassuring, ego-boosting notions appeared and spread in one of the most secure and affluent societies in history. People who hold these beliefs are not faced with war, famine, infant mortality, incurable endemic diseases and arbitrary oppression to the same extent as Middle Age Europeans or present-day Third World peasants.” // Pg.20-1

Pascal Boyer argues the following:
- Religious concepts do not always provide reassurance or comfort.
- Deliverance from mortality is not quite the universal longing we often assume.
- Religious concepts are indeed connected to human emotional systems, which are connected to life-threatening circumstances.
- Our emotional programmes are an aspect of our evolutionary heritage, which may explain how they affect religious concepts.

Pascal Boyer argues the following:
- Religion cannot be explained by the need to keep society together or to preserve morality, because these needs do not create institutions.
- Social interaction and morality are indeed crucial to how we acquire religion and how it influences people’s behaviour.
- The study of the social mind can show us why people have particular expectations about social life and morality and how these expectations are connected to their supernatural concepts.

“The study of the social mind by anthropologists, evolutionary biologists and psychologists gives us a new perspective on the connections between religion and social life. Consider morality. In some places people say that the gods laid down the rules people live by. In other places the gods or ancestors simply watch people and sanction their misdemeanours. In both cases people make a connection between moral understandings (intuitions, feelings and reasoning about what is ethical and what is not) and supernatural agents (gods, ancestors, spirits). It now seems clear that Voltaire's account — a god is convenient: people will fear him and behave got things diametrically wrong. Having concepts of gods and spirits does not really make moral rules more compelling but it sometimes makes them more intelligible. So we do not have gods because that makes society function. We have gods in part because we have the mental equipment that makes society possible but we cannot always understand how society functions.” // Pg.28

“Refutation is more difficult than belief: It takes greater effort to challenge and rethink established notions than just to accept them. Besides, in most domains of culture we just absurd other people’s notions. Religion is no exception. If everyone around you says that there are invisible dead people around, and everyone acts accordingly, it would take a much greater effort to try and verify such claims than it takes to accept them, if only provisionally.” // Pg.29 – Boyer responds to this claim he hypothetically conjured by writing: “I do not think that people have religion because they relax their usually strict criteria for evidence and accept extraordinary claims; I think they are led to relax these criteria because some extraordinary claims have become quite plausible to them.”

Pascal Boyer argues the following:
- The sleep of reason is no explanation for religion as it is. There are many possible unsupported claims and only a few religious themes.
- Belief is not just passive acceptance of what others say. People relax their standards because some thoughts become plausible, not the other way round.
- We should understand what makes human minds so selective in what supernatural claims they find plausible.

Chapter 2: What Supernatural Concepts are Like

- Supernatural concepts often include the insertion of a violation of expectations.

- He argues that supernatural concepts, such as gods and spirits, are typically imagined as having human-like minds – rather than being merely arbitrary and random, with the ability to think, feel, and act, but with more power and knowledge. He also posits that these concepts are often triggered by certain ‘intuitive ontologies’ or mental categories, such as agency (the ability to act and cause events) and animacy (the perception of living beings), which are hardwired into the human mind. Additionally, Boyer suggests that supernatural concepts are often used to explain and make sense of otherwise anomalous or unexpected events, such as natural disasters or disease.

- Overall, he argues that these mental mechanisms explain why supernatural concepts are so pervasive and persistent across human cultures and history.

Chapter 3: The Kind of Mind it Takes

“What makes our minds smart is not really a set of encyclopaedic descriptions of such things as artefacts and animals in general but the fact that very specialised systems are selectively turned on or off when we consider different kinds of objects.” // Pg.101

Pascal Boyer argues “domain specificity”:

- Perception and understanding of surroundings require inferences and guesses about different aspects of objects around us.
- The mind is composed of specialised systems that produce inferences about these different aspects.
- Objects in different “ontological categories” activate different sets of these specialised systems.
- Each inference system is itself composed of even more specialised neural structures.

Pascal Boyer argues “development and specificity:

- Inference systems make us attend to particular cues in environments and produce specific inferences from these cues.
- Skeletal versions of the principle’s direct knowledge acquisition from infancy.
- All concepts develop as skills, which is why discussions of innateness are often meaningless.
- What principles you have depends on what species you are: which is why evolution is relevant to mental architecture.

Pascal Boyer argues “Evolution, psychology, social mind”:

- Specific inference systems were tailored by selection for their contribution to solving particular problems in ancestorial environments.
- To describe them it is useful to combine predictions from the evolutionary background and independent experiments evidence.
- Crucial to our species are mental adaptations for social life, as information (notably that provided by others) is our ecological niche.

Pascal Boyer argues “The Mind it takes (to have religion)”:

- The mind it takes to have religion is the standard architecture that we all have by virtue of being members of the species. (We need no special mentality or mind).
- Because of decoupling and specialisation, human minds are sensitive to a particular range of cultural gadgets.
- Religious concepts too are probably successful to the extent that they activate inference systems.

“Religious concepts constitute salient cognitive artifacts whose successful cultural transmission depends on the fact that they activate our inference systems in particular ways. The reason religion can become much more serious and important than the artifacts described so far is that it activates inference systems that are of vital importance to us: those that govern our most intense emotions, shape our interaction with other people, give us moral feelings, and organize social groups.” // Pg.135

Chapter 4: Why gods and spirits?

- Boyer suggests that humans have an innate tendency to attribute agency (the capacity to act with intention) to objects and events in the world, which leads to the belief in gods and spirits as intentional agents with power to affect the world. He also argues that religious beliefs provide a framework for understanding and coping with the unknown and provide a sense of community and social cohesion.

Chapter 5: Why do gods and spirits matter?

- Boyer explains that gods and spirits matter because they provide answers to important questions and offer ways of understanding and predicting the world. He argues that religious beliefs serve psychological and social functions, such as reducing anxiety, providing a sense of control, and establishing social norms and cooperation. He also states that religious beliefs and practices are memorable and have been passed down through generations, leading to the persistence and pervasiveness of religion in human societies.

Chapter 6: “Why is religion about death?”

- Boyer explains that religion is often concerned with death because it is a major source of anxiety for humans. He argues that religious beliefs and practices provide ways of coping with mortality by offering beliefs in an afterlife and the possibility of reuniting with loved ones. He also suggests that religious beliefs about death serve to reassure individuals that their lives have meaning and that they will be remembered after they die. Additionally, religious rituals surrounding death provide a way for communities to mark and commemorate the passing of individuals, helping to establish social bonds and cultural continuity.

Chapter 7: “Why rituals?”

- Boyer explains that religious rituals serve important psychological and social functions. He argues that rituals provide a way of reinforcing religious beliefs and establishing social norms, while also offering a sense of control and stability in the face of uncertainty. He also states that rituals can be seen as a form of psychological manipulation, as they can evoke strong emotional responses and reinforce beliefs even in the absence of direct evidence. He suggests that the repetitive nature of rituals makes them memorable and contributes to their persistence in cultural traditions. Additionally, he notes that religious rituals often involve communal participation, which strengthens social bonds and reinforces group identity.

Chapter 8: “Why doctrines, exclusion, and violence?”

- Boyer discusses how religious beliefs can lead to exclusion and violence. He argues that religious doctrines, or official beliefs and teachings, can create boundaries between groups and lead to the marginalization or exclusion of those who do not conform. Additionally, he suggests that religious beliefs can serve as a source of motivation for violence, particularly when they are used to justify violence against those who are seen as a threat to the group or to its beliefs. He notes that these exclusionary and violent tendencies are not unique to religion, but rather are a by-product of human cognition and the tendency to divide the world into categories of self and other.

Chapter 9: “Why belief?”

- Boyer explores why people believe in religious concepts despite a lack of evidence. He argues that belief in gods and spirits arises from a human tendency to attribute agency and intention to objects and events in the world. He suggests that this tendency is due to evolved cognitive mechanisms that help people navigate their environment and understand cause and effect. He also explains that beliefs are more likely to persist when they are reinforced by social networks and cultural traditions. Furthermore, he argues that religious beliefs can provide a sense of meaning, comfort, and control in the face of uncertainty and mortality. Thus, religious belief serves both psychological and social functions and has been a persistent feature of human cultures.

[Rita Neves · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super interessante!

[Travis Rebello · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why are concepts of gods, spirits and other supernatural agents shared by so many disparate cultures? Why are religions full of seemingly pointless rituals practiced with incredible seriousness? Why do those rituals so often centre on death and the dead? Why has modernity seen the rise of various kinds of religious fundamentalism? These and other questions are addressed by Boyer in this nuanced and comprehensive attempt to explain the ubiquity of religious cultures and their common features. He offers an anthropology of religion informed by a great diversity of cultures and grounded in a robust psychology.

[Atticus06 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Complesso ma esplicativo saggio sul complicato funzionamento della nostra mente. Un insieme di studi antropologici e psico-cognitivi utili a capire quanto sono determinanti i processi inconsci, le inferenze, la società di appartenenza, etc.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

finding it difficult to read but some good stuff here

[Commander Xell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Не очень научно и, скорее всего, устарело. Книга написана в 2001 году на основе статей и монографий из девяностых. А тогда и о сознании знали меньше, и к антропологическим вопросам относились по-раздолбайски. В первой половине хорошо исследуются дефолтные настройки человеческого сознания - как мы всё категоризируем и оптимизируем, что предполагаем исходя из неполных наблюдений и как действуем в состоянии неизвестности. Но дальше предположения из первой половины откладываются в сторону, идёт большая выборка разных наблюдений и опытов, с сильными отступами в историю, ��ультуру и литературу. А под конец предположения уже считаются доказанными. В принципе, для понимания сути идеи достаточно было осилить первые 20% книги. Для девяностых, когда все поголовно ударилсь в мистицизм, это отличная книга. А сейчас - просто суперконсерва из былых времён. Но рассказчик отличный и опыты интересные.

Основная нестыковка в том, что даже сам автор приводит тезис, что почти все дети перенимают религию своих родителей. Получается проблема курицы и яйца. Настройки по умолчанию порождают в сознании предпосылки к религиозному восприятию мира, а религиозное восприятие форматирует сознание с этими самыми настройки по умолчанию. А советские, китайские и скандинавские исследования, которые могли бы рассмотреть проблему со стороны атеистического общества, в книге не рассматриваются.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 2 out of 5]

Boyer's theme is that humans have been designed by evolution to be group-oriented and they are prone to experience the world in "we" versus "they" terms. Religion is a major vehicle to develop and reinforce a group's identity and, thereby, to clearly mark outsiders as outsiders. We've evolved this way because our group is essential to the individual's survival and religion (right belief systems - morality, worldview, rituals, etc.) reflects and in some form institutionalizes group identity. As part of that institutionalization, enforcement mechanisms are used against insiders and include severe punishments for apostasy as a warning for those who might be tempted to defect and break the unity of the group. The "priestly guild" has power because its rules, etc. reflect group-oriented dispositions already present deep in, as Boyer says, the individual's "mental basement."

Boyer's probe of the evolutionary origins of religion is laudable, as is his account of the role of group dynamics in religious belief systems. His critique of James' view of religious phenomena helps to illustrate this point. Boyer writes that James saw religious beliefs as exceptional mental events, but Boyer allows for no such exception. Boyer says that religion is "parasitic" on the deep-seated moral intuitions that are related to the daily stuff of in-group and out-group dynamics. Religious beliefs are, in other words, very much like everyday judgments.

To get to his thesis, Boyer first critiques all the standard reasons for religious beliefs (to explain one's place in the world, to provide comfort, to promote social order, etc.). He debunks them all but overstates his argument. Despite the book's title, he neither explains religion nor provides for "The" evolutionary origin of religious belief. Rather, his book provides another way to view religious phenomena from an evolutionary perspective that has a good deal of truth. He writes that there are three routes to selfless behavior in evolutionary biology that lead to in-group solidarity (kin selection, rational cost-benefit calculation, and dispositions for cooperative group life). But it is the in-group cooperative disposition that is, in Boyer's view, central, and he sees rational beliefs as a reflection of these underlying value-laden feelings.

Boyer is too cavalier in dismissing the standard reasons given for religious beliefs. He says that salvation is not a central preoccupation for many religions. But living beyond death, as ancestors do, is a form of 'salvation' nevertheless. He writes that many religions are not preoccupied with the general and abstract themes seen in the universal religions, but are focused on practical, daily concerns. Here the author makes a distinction between the concrete (practical) and abstract (doctrinal) mind when there is an underlying common theme to both (fear, love, afterlife, etc). He discounts fear as a motivational force in religion (and in general) because the response to fear is "computational" and involves making choices (flee or fight). That view of fear is heavy on intellectualism (the mind overrides fear or undermines fear as motivational force). It is at odds with the immediate, instinctual responses that is common enough (see Joseph LeDoux's 'The Emotional Brain,' and the role of the amygdala), and does not address the issue that mental expressions commonly express underlying emotions.

Working from the survival premise, it makes a good deal of sense for the individual, who is aware of his or her vulnerability in this life, to need protector and nurturing figures. These fear- and love-based emotions have less to do with group dynamics than individual need. Also, with the capacity for abstraction, it is understandable that individuals would seek meaning and create belief systems that told them of their place in the scheme of things, particularly when contrasted with their evolutionary ancestors where meaning was built into the daily 'struggle for existence.' Knowing that death awaits us despite our deepest impulse for survival, it is not surprising to wonder about some sort of an afterlife, ranging from ancestors wandering around in some non-material realm to to the more formalized survival systems (salvation) seen in Western monotheism. These motivations for religious belief systems have viability outside of Boyer's in-group thesis.

This is a frustrating book in many ways as Boyer buries his theme in too many words and pages. It's a lot of work for the reader to track his argument. Occasionally, Boyer goes off track with comments that would be best left unsaid (e.g., his gratuitous reference to Frazer's "mindless collection," a "sterile compilation" of myths and religious practices; or that people who think "we save our souls by obeying a wise and eternal creator...probably have not traveled or read widely enough"). Here and there, Boyer conflates mental (cognitive) and emotional disposition which suggests that mind, rather than reflecting an underlying motivation, is a source of motivation itself. Boyer also writes about the role of information sharing in religious systems, but it's not clear how this meme-like function relates to his overall thesis. Both of these comments do, however, show Boyer's heavy bias toward cognitive science, at the expense of the underlying motivational drives (in a murkier subconscious realm) that are manifested cognitively. By starting with survival as the primary motivation, and by assuming that the drive to survive does not stop after one reproduces oneself, then religious belief systems can be "explained" in terms such as the need for protection, for nurture, for meaning and for afterlife or, in other words, the explanations that Boyer dismisses at the beginning of his book.

[Andrew Lucas · Rating 4 out of 5]

I finally finished 'Religion Explained'. It is a dense read and almost every sentence is meaningful and asks to be re-read to ensure that it has sunk in. Having got to the end, I feel I should now re-read it to imbue it as a coherent whole. My only reservation is that, whilst the book is pitched to a general audience, it's thesis that this-or-that religious inclination is rooted in 'such-and-such' mental system assumes that those systems exist - assertions that are open to challenge by specialists in the field if this were not so.

Recommended for those seeking an anthropological approach to religion studies.

[L.L. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I człowiek stworzył bogów...

Świetna książka! Autor stara się wyjaśnić, odwołując się do antropologii, historii, psychologii powstanie religii ale także innych wierzeń w byty nadprzyrodzone. Bardzo ciekawa treść i świetnie mi się słuchało, niektórzy komentują że chaos, że coś, ja zupełnie tego nie odczułem. Jedna z najciekawszych książek przeczytanych ostatnio!
Tłumaczy dlaczego w pewne rzeczy ludzie wierzą częściej, a w inne nie, tłumaczy że idee nadprzyrodzone są sprzeczne z jednym z oczekiwań, ale aktywują systemy kojarzeniowe (pdf.str.79) i jak to wszystko dokładnie działa... Autor analizuje te systemy, kiedy jakieś stwierdzenie nie ma sensu, a kiedy jest nielogiczne i jaka jest różnica (i dlaczego to ważne)! Miałem tu pewne cytaty zaznaczone (str.80) ale teraz nie widzę sensu ich wklejania, musiałbym zacytować pół książki ;) to jest dobre, ale tylko w szerszym kontekście - przeczytać warto! Ale coś innego zacytuję:

"Innymi słowy, można uważać, że adalo widzi wszystko, czego nie widzą ludzie, ale przytoczony przykład dotyczy zachowań, które mogą mieć konsekwencje społeczne - ten, kto skala jakieś miejsce, ściąga niebezpieczeństwo na innych i musi dopełnić stosownych obrzędów. To, że ktoś pogwałcił to prawo, jest oczywiście informacją strategiczną. Kiedy ludzie wyobrażają sobie możliwość złamania zakazu, zostają pobudzone ich systemy kojarzeniowe odnoszące się do relacji społecznych. Kwajowie wierzą więc, że właśnie do tego typu informacji mają dostęp adalo. Być może są one niedostępne dla ludzi, ale nie dla istot nadprzyrodzonych.
A oto inny przykład wskazujący na szczególny charakter informacji strategicznej. Batakowie z Malezji mówią, że szaman może przemienić się w tygrysa z ludzką głową, a także stać się niewidzialny. Z pewnością jest to wspaniały przykład cech, które przeczą naszym intuicyjnym oczekiwaniom, ale cech o konsekwencjach strategicznych. Stając się niewidzialny, szaman może latać, gdzie chce, i podsłuchiwać, co mówią ludzie.
Na całym świecie tak właśnie wyobrażani są przodkowie i bogowie. Człowiek znajduje się w określonej sytuacji. Pewne informacje dotyczące tej sytuacji są strategiczne, to znaczy, pobudzają system kojarzeniowy relacji społecznych. Ludzie myślą też, że istoty nadprzyrodzone mają dostęp do wszystkich informacji strategicznych związanych z daną sytuacją, nawet jeśli oni sami nie mogliby ich zdobyć.
(…)
W każdej sytuacji, która niesie informację istotną z punktu widzenia relacji społecznych, ludzie zakładają, że istoty „o nieograniczonym dostępie strategicznym" dysponują tą informacją."
(pdf.str. 95-96)

- a informacje strategiczne są cóż... strategiczne ;) To znaczy ważne z punktu widzenia społecznego: to jest ważne kto z kim co robi (choćby dla rozmnażania ;) ) - naprawdę "człowiek działa" genialnie, nawet jeśli nieświadomie ;)
Ale z informacjami strategicznymi wiąże się coś jeszcze:

"Ze względu na znaczenie nieograniczonego dostępu do informacji strategicznej nie może dziwić, że w bardzo licznych społecznościach ludzie są ogromnie wyczuleni na sposób, w jaki inni postrzegają byty nadprzyrodzone. Świadomość, że otaczają mnie istoty tak doskonale poinformowane, może odmienić moje postępowanie. Jeśli inni myślą tak samo jak ja, ich postępowanie także się zmieni. Dlatego ich wyobrażenia są dla mnie niezwykle ważne. Ten aspekt religii jest niezrozumiały, jeżeli trwamy przy powszechnym przekonaniu, że bogowie i duchy są po prostu potężnymi istotami, zdolnymi przenosić góry, sprowadzać plagi albo obdarzać ludzi swoją przychylnością. Gdyby moc była ich podstawowym atrybutem, rozumielibyśmy, że mogą być bardzo ważne dla osób wierzących, ale nie widzielibyśmy powodu, aby starały się one dowiedzieć, czy te istoty mają równie duże znaczenie dla innych. Ten złożony argument poznawczy można by zapewne ująć prosto, mówiąc: „ludzie zakładają, że bogowie wiedzą, co jest ważne. Jeżeli informacja jest istotna, ludzie myślą, że bogowie ją znają". Ale tak lakoniczne stwierdzenie pomijałoby istotę problemu. Dla ludzi, choćby ze względu na przebieg ewolucji, ważne są okoliczności, które wpływają na relacje społeczne: kto co wie, kto o czym nie wie, kto i z kim co robił, kiedy i dlaczego. Istoty nadprzyrodzone nie są w zasadzie koniecznym elementem wyjaśnienia czegokolwiek, ale znacznie łatwiej stworzyć ich wyobrażenie, a ich „obecność" wzbogaca krąg możliwych skojarzeń, toteż bogowie i duchy bardzo zyskują w procesie przekazu kulturowego."
(pdf.str.100)

- nie wiem czy to tu tak jasno wybrzmiewa ale: jak Kowalski wierzy w takiego samego Boga, to tak jak ja zakłada, że ten Bóg będzie wiedział jeśli mnie oszuka, mogę więc ufać Kowalskiemu bardziej niż Iksińskiemu, który wierzy właściwie nie wiadomo w co - Iksiński jest podejrzany. Oczywiście to wszystko podświadomie, ale jest to niezłe wyjaśnienie czegoś, co zawsze uważałem za absurdalne (no bo czemu kogoś miałoby obchodzić w co wierzą inni? no to już wiem ;) ).

I dalej o znaczeniu ceremonii (a zarazem to co pisałem wyżej):

"Także ceremonie zaślubin są praktycznie uniwersalne, choć wszyscy wiedzą, że nic nie mogłoby przeszkodzić dwojgu dorosłym ludziom we współżyciu seksualnym i prowadzeniu wspólnego gospodarstwa, nawet gdyby nie przypieczętowali tego związku ślubem. I tym razem chodzi bardziej o normy niż o fakty. Skoro jednak tak jest, po co potwierdzać to wydarzenie obrzędem? Klasyczna odpowiedź antropologów - i moim zdaniem zmierzająca we właściwym kierunku - zwracałaby uwagę na fakt, iż takie wydarzenia, choć wydają się „prywatne", pociągają za sobą po ważne konsekwencje dla całej wspólnoty. Zaznaczmy, że większość społeczeństw ludzkich za dziwne uznałaby nazwanie narodzin czy ślubu mianem spraw „prywatnych". Ludzie, którzy mają dzieci, tworzą nową sytuację w zakresie zasobów i wymiany społecznej. Dzieci są największą inwestycją biologicznych rodziców, którzy nie poświęcają tak wiele uwagi żadnemu innemu człowiekowi. Gotowość do karmienia i otaczania opieką własnych, a nie cudzych dzieci, jest powszechną tendencją ludzką z oczywistych przyczyn ewolucyjnych. Naturalnie formy opieki, podobnie jak sposób wychowania potomstwa, mogą być bardzo różne w rozmaitych społecznościach. Mimo to charakter współpracy między ludźmi zmienia się, zależnie od tego, czy mają dzieci, jak liczne, w jakim wieku itp.
(…)
Analogiczny argument antropologiczny wyjaśnia, dlaczego także małżeństwo jest wydarzeniem społecznym. I tu szczegóły ceremonii bywają bardzo różne, w zależności od struktury rodzinnej, statusu mężczyzn i kobiet, niezależności kobiet i swoistych reguł wymiany matrymonialnej. Jednak potrzebę obrzędu odczuwają niemal wszystkie społeczności i niemal wszędzie musi przybierać on jak najokazalszą formę. Najprostszym i najtańszym sposobem jest robienie hałasu. Kiedy są po temu możliwości, o wydarzeniu daje się znać, także urządzając spektakl. Pogląd, że małżeństwo jest „prywatną" umową między dwojgiem ludzi, stanowi wyjątek, nie regułę.
Każde małżeństwo stwarza bowiem układ, który zmienia sytuację reprodukcyjną grupy i eliminuje chore jednostki z grona potencjalnych partnerów, tworząc zarazem wspólnotę, w której seks, zaangażowanie rodzicielskie i współpraca ekonomiczna opierają się na stabilnym przymierzu. Oznacza to, że relacje każdego z małżonków, zarówno w sferze seksu, współpracy ekonomicznej, wymiany społecznej, jak i lojalności muszą zostać „dopasowane" do nowej sytuacji. Stwarza to problemy koordynacyjne. Po pierwsze, przy braku jednoznacznych sygnałów, nie wiadomo, kiedy pozostali członkowie grupy mieliby zmienić relacje z tymi osobami? Bo inni członkowie grupy muszą zmienić swoje postępowanie w tym samym czasie i w ten sam sposób. Jeżeli zaczniemy traktować nową rodzinę jak rodzinę, podczas gdy inni traktują jedno z małżonków jak osobę stanu wolnego, ryzykujemy „zmarnowaniem" okazji do przeżycia przygody seksualnej. Natomiast jeśli niesłusznie sądzimy, że od tej pory siły i dobra danej osoby będą przeznaczone przede wszystkim dla monogamicznego związku, możemy stracić okazję skorzystania z części tych dóbr. Dlatego trzeba wytyczyć ścisłą granicę między „przed" i „po", a także przyjąć konwencję, na mocy której grupa zmodyfikuje swoje zachowania z chwilą zawarcia małżeństwa. Nawet w Europie ludziom nastawionym skrajnie indywidualistycznie intuicja podpowiada, że to właśnie relacje społeczne czynią obrzęd ważnym."
(pdf.str.146-147)

- ma to sens! Nigdy nie patrzyłem na moralność przez pryzmat religii w ten sposób! A to przecież oczywiste jak tak przeanalizować. Zarazem podoba mi się bardzo jak kolejne tematy/aspekty wiary i religii w sposób naturalny następują po sobie, czy nawet się przenikają w tej książce! Ja tu nie widzę chaosu, zagadnienia są po prostu zbyt mocno ze sobą zazębione.


Takie tam jeszcze inne krótkie cytaty:

"Idee religijne są niepodważalne. Znacznie większego wysiłku wymaga ich analiza i odrzucenie niż akceptacja. W większości dziedzin kultury skłonni jesteśmy przejmować idee przekazywane nam przez innych. Religia nie stanowi wyjątku. Skoro wszyscy mówią, że zmarli krążą wśród żywych, i postępują, jakby to była prawda, łatwiej przyjąć tę wizję, choćby z niedowierzaniem, niż osobiście ją zweryfikować."
(pdf.str.24)


"Ludzie są religijni nie dlatego, że każą zamilknąć zdrowemu rozsądkowi oraz krytycyzmowi i akceptują niezwykłe stwierdzenia; każą zamilknąć krytycyzmowi, ponieważ pewne niezwykłe stwierdzenia stały się dla nich oczywiste."
(pdf.str.25)


"Nieszczęście jest jedną z najczęstszych sytuacji, w jakich ludzie odwołują się do bogów i przodków. Uważamy to za naturalne, ponieważ przyjmujemy szeroko rozpowszechnioną koncepcję związku idei religijnych z ważnymi wydarzeniami - bogowie i duchy mają ogromną moc, w tym moc sprowadzania lub powstrzymywania nieszczęść. Dotknięci nimi ludzie chcą za wszelką cenę zrozumieć, odzyskać poczucie bezpieczeństwa, a religia daje im to, czego pragną. I znowu scenariusz jest prosty - wypadki się zdarzają, a ludzie chcą zrozumieć dlaczego; religia daje im taką możliwość."
(pdf.str.101)


"Wyobrażenia bogów lub duchów zyskują zatem na znaczeniu ze względu na strukturę naszego poczucia moralności, które samo przez się nie potrzebuje ani jednych, ani drugich. Kiedy mówię o znaczeniu, mam na myśli fakt, że idee, kiedy już zaistnieją w kontekście moralnym, są zarazem łatwe do wyobrażenia i stanowią źródło licznych skojarzeń. Przykład: większość ludzi ma poczucie winy, gdy prowadzą się w sposób moralnie wątpliwy. Oznacza to, że bez względu na wymówkę, jaką sobie znajdą, intuicja może im podpowiadać, że istota nadprzyrodzona, znająca wszystkie elementy sytuacji, oceni, że postąpili źle. Sformułowanie tej intuicji w formie „to, co przodkowie myślą o moim postępowaniu" lub „jak Bóg osądzi to, co uczyniłem" pozwala na łatwiejsze wyobrażenie sobie czegoś niemal nieuchwytnego. Chociaż większość naszych intuicji moralnych jest oczywista, umyka nam jednak ich źródło, tkwiące w procesach myślowych, do których świadomość nie ma dostępu. Spojrzenie na te intuicje jak na punkt widzenia zewnętrznego obserwatora to najlepszy sposób, żeby zrozumieć, dlaczego je posiadamy. Ale to wymaga wyobrażenia istoty, która ma swobodny dostęp do ogółu informacji strategicznych."
(pdf.str.113)


"[Fundamentalizm] Jest wyrazem woli utrzymania szczególnego typu hierarchii, opartej na psychologii koalicji, dla której zagrożenie stanowi łatwość i bezkarność odstępstwa, a zatem wzrost prawdopodobieństwa, że do takich odstępstw będzie dochodziło. Można iść o zakład, że gdyby sądy wojenne okazywały wyrozumiałość wobec dezerterów i gdyby dowiedzieli się o tym żołnierze walczący na froncie, prześladowania i samosądy nad potencjalnymi dezerterami nasiliłyby się i stały bardziej ostentacyjne. Ta sama skłonność psychiczna tłumaczy zapewne, dlaczego niektórzy z nas posuwają się do skrajnego okrucieństwa w służbie swej koalicji religijnej."
(pdf.str.174)


"Fangowie powiadają, że u czarowników występuje dodatkowy narząd wewnętrzny w kształcie zwierzęcia, który nocą ulatuje, aby niszczyć plony lub zatruwać krew ludzi. Powiadają też, że czarownicy organizują co pewien czas huczne uczty, podczas których pożerają swoje ofiary i obmyślają kolejne ataki. Wielu Fangów potwierdziłoby, że przyjaciel przyjaciela widział na własne oczy, jak czarownicy przelatujący w nocy nad wioską na liściach bananowca rzucają urok na nieszczęśników, których sobie upatrzyli.
Wspomniałem o tych i innych dość szczególnych wierzeniach podczas obiadu w Cambridge. Wówczas jeden z gospodarzy, znany katolicki teolog, zwrócił się do mnie, mówiąc: „To właśnie sprawia, że antropologia jest tak pasjonująca i tak trudna. Powinien pan podjąć próbę wyjaśnienia, jak ludzie mogą wierzyć w podobne niedorzeczności". Oniemiałem, słysząc te słowa, a zanim zdołałem zebrać myśli i odpłacić stosowną repliką, choćby banalnym przypomnieniem, jak łatwo dostrzega się źdźbło w oku bliźniego, nie widząc belki we własnym, rozmowa potoczyła się dalej. Bo chociaż pytanie „jak ludzie mogą wierzyć w coś takiego?" jest niewątpliwie uzasadnione, to odnosi się do wszystkich wierzeń i religii. Fangowie również nie mogli pojąć, że trzy osoby - będące w rzeczywistości jedną - pozostają zarazem trzema osobami lub że wszystkie nieszczęścia spadające na nas na tym padole łez dotykają nas z winy dwojga praprzodków, którzy przechadzając się po ogrodzie, zapragnęli posmakować nieznanego owocu. Każde z tych stwierdzeń można poprzeć wieloma zgodnymi z doktryną wyjaśnieniami, nie sądzę jednak, aby Fangom wydały się one bardziej przekonujące od samych opowieści."
(pdf.str.175)

(czytana/słuchana: 6-8.01.2026)
5/5 [9/10]

[Mark Gowan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer is a thoroughly researched and considerable book on one of the basic questions that most of us have asked: why religion? Boyer does a good job of differentiating the theories in the book from past attempts ranging from the idea that we are physically designed to worship by god to the arguments put forth by James Frazer in the ‘Golden Bough’. The basic premise of the book is simple: “having a normal brain does not imply that you have religion. All it implies is that you can acquire it, which is very different” (4).

Boyer takes and evolutionary look at why human beings choose to be religious given that religious belief is seemingly at odds with the evolutionary drive of eating and procreating. His argument is derived from [among others] archeology, anthropology and [primarily] evolutionary psychology. His conclusion is that we have “inference systems” (17) that work on a sub-conscious level that have helped us survive through the eons by making inferences in the environment in which we live. These inferences are not derived from reason and the use of rational thought, but from the evolutionary drive to survive: those who make more inferences (correct or not) are more likely to survive.

While I think that Boyer’s argument is valid, there are a few issues in the book that found a bit off-putting. First, Boyer presents objections [in full] to his argument (which is good), but seems to write them off completely based upon evolutionary psychological grounds alone (which is not so good). The objections preface his reasoning, which makes the book somewhat disorganized at times. Secondly, there are sections which seem to repeat themselves, making a somewhat dry book more difficult to read. Lastly, I think because Boyer relies heavily upon psychology and less so on neuroscience, that some of the conclusion were hastily come to.

I would conclude by recommending Boyer’s book because I think the argument is valid and is part of an ongoing search to scientifically explain something that is so unscientific. Boyer presents his argument clearly, but not always concisely. I think that Religion Explained is a great introduction to a fascinating area of research. However, as an introduction I think the style of writing could have been more approachable.

[Bexen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my second time reading this book, actually third, as I re-read the most important passages again after finishing it for the second time. The first time I read it it was in French, and it really blew my mind and changed my life, as I felt I found answers to questions that I had for all my life. The second time I was much less impressed and it took me a long time to finish, I did have the impression that the arguments were not that easy to follow and that's why I immediately read it again a third time, trying to keep everything in mind and reconstructing the arguments in my head, as the book lacks a detailed table of contents which would help with this. After this third lecture I'm impressed again and I even find answers to why people is behaving in such strange ways during this pandemic. It's not about science, which the book says it's unnatural, but about belief, which is natural, considering the kind of minds we have. Because it helps me to understand the world we live in, I consider this book as one of the most important books in my life and I will probably come back to it again and again.

[Adam · Rating 2 out of 5]

I cannot help but think of my apartment's kitchen when I read this book. One could cook in it, but you wouldn't want to. The most basic necessities are taken care of. I do the dishes. But the silverware is disorganized and the spice cupboard is likely to have cleaning supplies in it.

Boyer avoids the errors of nearly every other author in this genre in that he does have accurate ethnographic information - something completely alien to the Dawkinesque writers of "evolutionary" behaviorism. Yet Boyer begins with the "meme" theory of culture. Meme transmission is very popular in these sorts of pseudo-academic pop science books. It is a joke in the professional social sciences. If memes are not how culture works then Boyers compartmentalized "modular" cognitive approach is not worth 30o+ pages. Lucky for us the author seems to "intuitively" understand this error. Read the Progress Boxes and skip the book. Unless you like chasing vocabulary with elusive and morphing definitions through repetitive argumentation of broken logic.

[Alec · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you can understand this book then you will find it to be one of the most informative books about what happens in the human mind (and brain) when religion is involved. The operative words there are "If you can understand this book" as it was not written for those who are easily lost. If your someone who is pessimistic about how people act when they are we'll say "under the influence" of religion, then this will offer some objective analysis into the issue and you might be a little more sympathetic. Not to their point of view but to how they can make leaps of logic with a strait face. You might even be able to have a little more respect for religion and anything that encourages you to respect others is a good thing right? (I'm an agnostic BTW so my opinion is not based on any strong bias)

[George · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book gives a convincing explanation on the origins of religious beliefs. However, it misses an important aspect of contemporary religions, which is an unconditional allegiance to a doctrine, usually personified in the figure of a leader, which may be dead or alive, and who is distinguished from all the others in the sense that he/she has a closer relation with the divine. I think this character of modern religion is stronger than the original search for an explanation on the world's mysteries. Most religious people today don't spend time musing about how's and why's - they just accept what their leader or scripture tells them. I'll be looking forward to a book that deals with this aspect of religion.

[Viktoriia Matviieva · Rating 5 out of 5]

Считаю, что книга свою задачу выполняет, ставить нужные вопросы и дает ответы. Очень благодарна автору за его труд. Мой взгляд на вопросы религии во многом дополнился, и где-то кардинально изменился.

[Stephen McQuiggan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Why do so many of us believe in Gods and Spirits? Why is religion all about death, and why do we kill, exclude, and sacrifice in the name of unseen deities? An interesting concept but the book does not live up to the claim of its title. An apologetic side effect of our cognitive processes is its underwhelming conclusion - one, ironically, we are expected to accept, without proof, on faith alone. Boyer's convictions, and his forcibly argued theories, tend to be built on the shaky foundations of nothing more than 'If we suppose' - much like religion itself.

[Sara · Rating 3 out of 5]

as a non expert in anthropology and evolutionary biology i found a lot of jargon which made understanding this book a bit difficult. i believe the concepts and the way the author approached the subject are interesting but i might have derived more value had the language been a bit simpler‚ so that laypeople can benefit as well. i might go back to the book later. however i appreciate that the author provided further reading material for all the chapters he had written.

[Andrea Hallman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Essentially I like this book. His basic premise is we are religious because we are built to be so. This is a central tenant of Christianity. Because it is basically confirming what the Bible already says, it got a little boring for me. I would say it is a good read if you haven't heard all the arguments and science before.

[Robert Finlay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why do all peoples (but not all persons) have religion? Why are there many religions? Boyers says it's because of minds shaped by evolution. Goes way beyond arguments for atheism by showing how irrational beliefs have apparent warrant; a very useful perspective.

[Nina Moore · Rating 2 out of 5]

Great ideas, turgid writing