Customer comments on this selection.
 Religion explained by evolutionary psychology
"Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer is a hard read, and probably off limits for the general reader. The book often sounds like a rambling college lecture in which the author covers pretty much everything between Heaven and Earth, constantly jumping back and forth between the subjects. Still, the book is ultimately rewarding. At least if you're an advanced student of anthropology, comparative religion or psychology!
Many scholars of comparative religion have pretty much given up trying to explain religion. When I studied comparative religion I was told at the very first lecture that "methodological agnosticism" is the official line, and that religion ultimately cannot be explained, if only because archaeological artefacts or written sources are absent from most of human prehistory. I suspect this position is a counter-reaction to the self-assertive theories of the past, from Tylor and Spencer to Marx, Freud and Eliade. Ultimately, all these theories proved to be wanting, one way or another (I mean, Freud?!). Boyer, who is a French-American professor of anthropology with field experience from Cameroon is daring enough to propose another self-assertive theory!
Boyer rejects the standard sociological and psychological explanations of religion. He doesn't deny that religion have social or psychological aspects, indeed, one of the reasons why religion is so pervasive is precisely that it fits right into our social relations. However, Boyer believes that we must dig deeper. For instance, why aren't all our social relations completely secularized? After all, *some* of them are, showing that religion isn't absolutely necessary. So why is it so widespread? Boyer also wants to know why some supernatural concepts are more common than others. Why are religious beliefs about gods and spirits, rather than singing islands or talking cats? All these concepts are equally counter-intuitive.
Boyer's answer is a complex one, and only the barest out-line is possible here. In fact, he even makes a point out of its complexity: there isn't a simple solution to the problem "why religion". Boyer believes that religion is rooted in the way our brains work, in our cognitive processes. Many different cognitive processes are interacting to create religious concepts. Religion seems to be caused by the normal functioning of the human mind, with its decoupling, inference systems, and instincts. It may even be connected with obsessive-compulsive behaviour to relieve anxiety, not to mention the fact that counter-intuitive information is more attention-grabbing and easier to recall than normal information! Human fear of corpses is another important factor, and this fear in turn is created by the collision of several cognitive processes. If the religious concepts created by our minds are seen as socially relevant, they will tend to spread and become dominant, which explains why most religious beliefs are centred on gods and spirits, creatures that resemble humans in some ways, but seem to have access to a lot of socially relevant information. This presumably also explains why worship of ancestral spirits is one of the most common forms of religious behaviour.
But why do our minds work in this manner? The social interaction among chimpanzees is highly complex, yet they aren't religious. Why did natural selection favour the evolution of a religious-prone mind? Boyer's response is that it actually didn't. Rather, religious ideas are parasitical upon our cognitive processes. Natural selection favoured, say, our ability to decouple or our moral instincts, and religion emerged as an inevitable but unintended by-product. (If you pardon my teleological language!) Thus, religious ideas aren't really necessary for survival. However, they are more or less impossible to get rid of, being rooted in our very brains. In a sense, the atheist Boyer thus draws a pessimistic conclusion concerning the future of religion. It will always be around! He also admits that there is no good explanation for why some people, like himself, become atheists. It's some kind of natural variation, and that's all we can say.
I'm sure the conclusions of Boyer's book can be debated and problematized in various ways, but it's still a cogent case for an explanation of religion based on evolutionary psychology.
 Accomplishes the claim of the title
I've often wondered why some people believe in religious claptrap that is patently absurd, including why I used to believe such. Now I know, as this book clearly explains the psychology behind religion in a manner I did not expect, by explaining how the mind works (which I now plan to read further on) as per recent theories of mind.
 Mediocre
This book also continues the dubious tradition of ripping off compelling titles from more successful works & trying to bask in the reflected glory- i.e.- this book's title, & obsession with the brain- are direct descendents of philosopher Daniel C. Dennett's 1991 magnum opus Consciousness Explained. The difference is that that book's argument, & writing style, were far more successful than PB's. In fact, in this review I am not only going to dissect some of PB's arguments, but also his prose stylings. Aren't you tired of reading book reviews of non-fiction that NEVER address the writing? I mean, historicity is important in a history book, & a valid theory is needed for a science book to work, but how the author conveys that message is just as crucial to the book's success or failure. I will contend that PB's dull & overwrought prose, its excessive length, & the muddle of his ideas, lead to his book's- & argument's- failure on all counts.
The book runs to 330 pages, but should (& could easily) be under 100. I will go chronologically through the book & address failures in style & substance as we go. The book is divided in to 9 chapters. The 1st is called What Is The Origin? Here PB lays out some of the (what he believes) fallacious arguments for why religion is at all. Several graphs accompany these arguments. 4 of his larger Original views (with lesser subviews) are that Religion provides 1) explanations, 2) comfort, 3) social order, & 4) cognitive illusion. Later, he gives the subviews. For the Intellectual Explanations he details that religion explains odd natural phenomena (disasters, the motion of the heavens), odd mental phenomena (dreams & intuition), the origins of things (the 1st Cause conundrum), & evil & suffering. PB's alternative is a 4 bullet box called Progress Box 1: Religion As Explanation. Here is his rebuttal: The urge to explain the universe is not the origin of religion. OK, so far, this is the set up. The need to explain particular occurrences seems to lead to strangely baroque constructions. Hmmm....well, let's see where this posit leads. You cannot explain religious concepts if you do not describe how they are used by individual minds. Why? Religion seems to be the granddaddy of all weird thought, or mass delusion. We know that rational explanations fail to explain the `mob mindset', so why is religion exempt from this? See, how in just 2 steps PB has veered from the 1st posit's point. Whether this is purposeful rhetoric or unintended sloppiness of thought is beside the point. The point is that before #4 we've already gone awry- indeed, almost unconsciously evoking his own 2nd point. Let's look at point 4: A different angle: Religious concepts are probably influenced by the way the brain's inference systems produce explanations without our being aware of it. Now he's done it! PB has both recapitulated point 1 & denied it in point 4! Inference is a form of explaining, therefore point 4 is telling you that religion is a product of the human need to explain, even if unconscious. Point 1 is then false, by his own reasoning. Yet, point 4 also eradicates point 3! In 3 he states you need to know how individual minds work, yet point 4 is all about collectivizing ideas on the minds of many. In just 1 little `dialogue box' PB has laid a muddled template that haunts him throughout the whole book. In fact, PB offers no alternative explanation- just a muddled restatement that contradicts his own initial statement. No alternative view is truly offered, & this pattern ossifies the whole book in to silly reductivisms like `religion is complex', etc....Unfortunately, the book is a mess- PB lacks a central idea, & the conviction to prove it. At least he's not dogmatic, unlike my pal Joe- who was so disappointed that I saw through the book's flaws that he left unreturned a phone message of mine due to his disappointment in my open-mindedness. Yet, at the bottom of it all, there are probably 2 major reasons why the book fails dialectically (there's nothing I can do about the poor literary stylings): 1) the book claims a scientific basis for its approach, yet falls so predictably back upon the subjective- even as it unconsciously abjures it. No matter how tempting it is to conflate science with religion, in order for an explanation of something as mondo bizarro as religion to succeed it MUST be free of any hints of subjectivity- in content, approach, & style. 2) The book assumes all religion is about beliefs & rituals- yet many animistic cults & even a known quantity like Zen Buddhism- specifically reject this definition of religion. That I, as an outsider, seem to know far more about these- & other points- than an `expert' is disconcerting. Then again, a little Vision can outweigh a whole career full of Function. God wot!
Religion inadequately Explained
This book is nicely presented but poorly written (or edited).
Boyer's persistent ability to come to suspect conclusions made me put down this book before the second chapter. For example, on pages 20-21, he brushes off religion's capacity to provide comfort ("So much for religion as comfort") by citing American New Age mysticism, whose adherents "are not faced with war, famine mortality, incurable endemic diseases and arbitrary oppression to the same extent as Middle Age Europeans or present-day Third World peasants." The fact that Americans are better off than other people does not prevent them from seeking solace; just take a look at the proliferation of self-help books and gurus on TV.
Another argument I did not find at all convincing is on "the urge to explain the universe..." He relates how the Zande people explain certain accidents by witchcraft, and goes on to say that people are more interested in explaining particular events rather than "the origin of things in general". He then questions the religion account for these particular occurrences, finding them "more puzzling than illuminating. Consider the explanation of thunderstorms as the booming voice of ancestors venting their anger at some human misdemeanor." He asks where the superhuman agents come from, why they cannot be seen, by what mechanism do their voices produce thunder, etc. But what makes him think that the faithful are interested in these questions? What matters is that they ascribe agency; something or somebody did it. Phenomenon satisfactorily explained; no need to poke further. ("Turtles all the way down".)
I preferred Scott Atran's "In God's We Trust" but it's even more turgid than this tome.
 Close... but Computational
Book thesis: Religious concepts, notions, beliefs are the byproducts of useful evolutionary, cognitive systems.
I missed a graduate class on "God" that featured this book, and after hearing all the buzz about how cool the seminar was I decided to buy it on my own. I have to say I was disappointed. Firstly, the book is printed missing pages. Pages 24-57 are missing from my copy, though a better printing probably exists. Secondly, Boyer (though I don't know he would say this) comes across as a computationalist, believing all human action can be explained as the decision reached by cognitive processes running like programs or computations. Never giving legitimacy to affect, Boyer makes even fear nothing more than the result of innate intuitions built into a predation inference system. Now, he does put these systems deep in the unconscious mind (close to the body overall?), but he carefully couches all phenomena as cognitive "systems" running in the computer-like mind. I don't dig that, but I could use it. Thirdly, Boyer builds his argument for explaining religious phenomena on our innate intuition of ontological essences. We are innately aware that all tigers are tigers and behave the same way. I have problems with this. Boyer references Chomsky on page 2 so I had a heads up, but I was still disappointed an educated man would teach our taxonomic system as ontologically real. Finally, on page 113, after building his argument, he admits that differentiating species is a "skill" we are always learning, rearranging our conceptions based on lived experience. For me, this is the exact opposite of the argument that got him that far. His entire book to this point is now suspect. If we don't have "innate intuitions" about all these predatory species, all his explanations thus far are dubious at best. The rest of the book is a fun read, but it remains completely unfalsifiable and borders on anecdotal.
Oh, another thing: Boyer treats all religion as animism. He explicitly throws out Western religions, Hinduism and Buddhism as too refined or institutional to be considered. He makes his argument that these forms of religion, although popular with Western audiences, make up the vast minority of religious experience. I'm sorry, but Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism account for 2 billion people AT LEAST. It is ridiculous to throw them out because they are not primitive [sic] enough. His only recourse is animism, which does seem to fit his theories closely. How fortunate for him. What this amounts to is Boyer's case that early religious notions or concepts can be described as byproducts of our evolutionary systems make sense, but then all the actually interesting questions about religion are put aside.
What the book did teach me: Boyer does a great job showing human evolution as the evolution of communicating animals. We communicate with each other better than ants do. He talks about inferring the reliability of others based on gossip, which is awesome: an anthropology of gossip. All of his arguments for building up humans as communicating agents were great and interesting. Secondly, I found his book influencing my own latent belief in religion as an ontological reality. Hearing him discuss animism over and over at the expense of all other "religions" made me realize that "religion" is a useless category. Christianity functions in America in a very different way than Buddhism functions in, say, India. How would an anthropologist not see this? They are both called "religions," but they are entirely different social structures. Studying them in tandem seems pointless. They are institutions, maybe founded on animist religious notions, but institutions that trigger a wide range of religious, political, personal, and visceral reactions. Talking about "religion" in general seems the largest flaw of the book and many a career, yet it took this book to convince me of that.
|
