In Gods We Trust Quotes
In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
by
Scott Atran320 ratings, 3.94 average rating, 36 reviews
Open Preview
In Gods We Trust Quotes
Showing 1-22 of 22
“A closer look reveals that God may never have been wholly pleased with His most preferred creations in granting them the parts they have. Why did He invert the retina and give humans (but not the octopus) a blind spot? Why, in making us upright, did He render us so liable to back problems? Why did He give us just one head, heart, and liver instead of two? After all, having two lungs and kidneys is surely better than having one of each: if you have only one and it fails, you die; if you have two and only one fails, you live.”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“The individuals in a cooperative social group cannot afford to tolerate repeated defections by selfish “free riders,” such as those who hoard food or shirk responsibility for the common defense. Any group too tolerant of defectors would be subsidizing them at its own expense, which would amount eventually to collective suicide. Organisms that temporarily forsake immediate personal advantage in the expectation of equivalent near-term reciprocation from nonkin (“reciprocal altruism”; Trivers 1971) or deferred and roundabout forms of longterm reciprocation through third parties (“indirect reciprocity”; Alexander 1987) must therefore evolve ways of reliably discriminating between a cooperator and a defector.”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“Cultures and religions exist, and are explained, to the extent that they reliably express stucturally enduring relationships among mental states and behaviors and where these material relationships enable a given population of individuals to maintain itself in repeated social interaction within a range of ecological contexts. Cultures and religions are not ontologically distinct “superorganisms” or “independent variables” with precise contents or boundaries. They are no more things in and of themselves, or “natural kinds” with their own special laws, than are cloud or sand patterns. Although”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“If people literally applied counterfactual religious principles and prescriptions to factual navigation of everyday environments they would likely be either dead or in the afterlife in very short order—probably in too short an order for individuals to reproduce and the species to survive. Imagine that you could suspend the known physical and biological laws of the universe with a prayer (or, for those who are less institutionalized, by crossing your fingers). The trick is in knowing how and when to suspend factual belief without countermanding the facts and compromising survival. But why take the risk of neglecting the facts at all, even in exceptional circumstances? As”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“Everybody, whether they are religious or not, implicitly knows that religion is costly, counterfactual, and even counterintuitive. The more one accepts what is materially false to be really true, and the more one spends material resources in displays of such acceptance, the more others consider one’s faith deep and one’s commitment sincere. For the moral philosopher and Christian votary Søren Kierkegaard, true faith could be motivated only by “a gigantic passion” to commit to the “absurd.”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“In sum, the great apes arguably man1 ifest at least some aspects of teleomechanical agency and mentalistic agency (Suddendorf and Whiten 2001); however, there is no convincing evidence that any animals other than humans possess metarepresentational agency (Heyes 1998; C. Wynne 2001).”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“Around the start of the fourth year, the child begins to elaborate an understanding of metarepresentational agency: the child attributes intentional attitudes, such as belief and pretense, to people’s representations of the world. Only then can children examine whether their and other people’s thoughts about the world are true or fictive, likely or incredible, exaggerated or imprecise, worth changing one’s mind for or forgetting.”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“During the first year of life, a child acquires the concept of teleomechanical agency: the child is able to perceive an object’s physical movement as goal-directed. In the second year, the child develops comprehension of mentalistic agency: the child attributes internal, mental states, such as perception and desire, to actors in predicting or explaining their actions.”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“Vengefulness signals that a breach in contract will not be tolerated at any cost, even at the price of the avenging individual’s own life or fortune. In each case, the emotion was presumably selected in response to a statistical range of specific ancestral problems that required abeyance of short-term calculations of selfinterest. Such emotions would have to be “eruptive” to be believed and to convince others, that is, sincerely out of control, hard to fake, and unsuited to apparent self-interest.”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“There are several types of comparative analysis for garnering evidence for an evolutionary adaptation: structural or behavioral resemblance in different phyletic lines owing to ecologically driven functional convergence (analogy), functional transformations from the same ancestral character (homology), functional tradeoffs between traits in the same phyletic line, intrageneric or intrafamilial species comparisons, and ontogenetic development. Analogy (homoplasy) reveals adaptation in similar traits that solve similar environmental problems in phylogenetically unrelated species, for example, the wings of bats and birds and flying insects, the eyes of humans and the octopus, and bipedality in therapods (carnivorous dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus) and humans. Homologies”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“In theocratic societies, adherence to fundamentalism may enhance the fitness of fundamentalists, as opposed to nonfundamentalists, because fundamentalists are more likely to obtain productive resources and have successful offspring, whereas nonfundamentalists are less likely to have access to productive resources and more likely to be punished or killed. It is not likely, however, that natural selection has had the time to cause the difference. Conversely,”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“Hamilton puzzled over the apparently altruistic self-sacrifice of worker bees in forsaking the opportunity to breed in favor of caring for the queen’s young. He realized that the hive’s peculiar genetic structure resulted in workers being so closely related to one another that, in slaving for the queen, they were promoting their own gene pool. It follows that the genetic disposition of a human parent to forgo personal advantage for the sake of his or her child is just a special case of genes selfishly looking out for their own best interests, as is their disposing of the individual who carries them to selfsacrifice (ceteris paribus) for the sake of two siblings, four cousins, or eight secondcousins. There”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“Because religious beliefs and experiences cannot be reliably validated through logical deduction or observational induction, validation occurs only by satisfying the emotions that motivate religion in the first place. Religious”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“Religious ritual invariably offers a sacrificial display of commitment to supernatural agents that is materially costly and emotionally convincing. Such ritual conveys willingness to cooperate with a community of believers by signaling an open-ended promise to help others whenever there is true need. These expensive and sincere displays underscore belief that the gods are always vigilant and will never allow society to suffer those who cheat on their promises. Such a deep devotion to the in-group habitually generates intolerance toward out-groups.”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“Religious ritual invariably offers a sacrificial display of commitment to supernatural agents that is materially costly and emotionally convincing. Such ritual conveys willingness to cooperate with a community of believers by signaling an open-ended promise to help others whenever there is true need. These expensive and sincere displays underscore belief that the gods are always vigilant and will never allow society to suffer those who cheat on their promises. Such a deep devotion to the in-group habitually generates intolerance toward out-groups. This,”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“All religions have core beliefs that confound these innate expectations about the world, such as faith in physically powerful but essentially bodiless deities. These beliefs grab attention, activate intuition, and mobilize inference in ways that facilitate their social transmission, cultural selection, and historical persistence. New experiments suggest that such beliefs, in small doses, are optimal for memory. This greatly favors their cultural survival. Mature”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“In the course of life, all such systems (i.e., the different evolutionary ridges) are somewhat functionally interdependent, as are components within each system (i.e., the different programs, schema, modules). Nevertheless, each system and system component has a somewhat distinct evolutionary history and time line. There is no single origin of religion, nor any necessary and sufficient set of functions that religion serves. Rather, there is a family of evolutionary-compatible functions that all societies more or less realize but that no one society need realize in full. Religions”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“Then there are the secondary, mostly “social” emotions, such as anxiety, grief, guilt, pride, vengeance, and love. These may be unique to humans—hence, at the lower level in our evolutionary mountain landscape—and somewhat more liable to cultural manipulation and variation than the primary, “Darwinian” emotions. Thus, only humans seek revenge or redemption across lifetimes and generations, whatever the cost, although the nature of the deeds that trigger insult or remorse may vary considerably across societies, and the means to counter them may range even wider. Another”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“One such evolutionary system, or ridge, encompasses panhuman emotional faculties, or affective “programs.” These include the basic, or primary, emotions that Darwin first identified: surprise, fear, anger, joy, sadness, disgust, and perhaps contempt. Certain reactions characteristic of the neurophysiology of surprise and fear are already evident in reptiles, and the other primary emotions are at least apparent in monkeys and apes.”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“All religions, I claim, involve counterintuitive beliefs in supernatural beings. Moreover, such beliefs are systematically counterintuitive in the same basic ways. As we shall see, these basic ways of entertaining supernatural beliefs are more or less predictable from a fairly limited set of species-specific cognitive structures. These”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“For my purposes, the differences among animistic, pantheistic, and monotheistic religions can be ascribed to differences in the content of beliefs in the supernatural, not to differences in the cognitive structure of those beliefs.”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
“In religious thought, a person may ride a horse into the sky (Mohammed), ascend to heaven in a chariot of fire (Elijah), rise to the stars in a carriage drawn by six dragons (Huang Ti, the founder of the Chinese empire), or gain knowledge and afterlife in passing through the digestive tract of a feathered serpent (Maya kings). In”
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
― In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
