The Puzzle of God

I am not a very religious person, however I have always been curious about it. How different religions relate to one another, how and why religion was formed, and what impact it has had and continues to have on society. In that respect, I found this article very interesting.

The disagreement that Henig identifies in the first section about why we have a tendency to believe in God, whether it is adaptive or an evolutionary byproduct, really got me thinking. I have always been slightly critical of religion and of God existing independent of human creation and thought. Whether God and religion grew out of adaptation or out of a byproduct of evolution, it is clear that Henig argues for a scientific explanation of God.

I feel that the article really took off when Henig introduced the idea of the spandrel. If religion is a spandrel, then it is simply an evolutionary byproduct that occurred over time. But would religion as a spandrel be functional or neutral? I don't know if that is a question that can be answered. Those who are devoted to their religion and feel that it is a strong part of their life and culture would say that it is certainly functional. That is assuming that these people accept that religion is a spandrel at all. However, I would think that people who are less religious or atheist would tend to believe that religion is a neutral spandrel. That we could get along without it, it has no real purpose, it just evolved along with us.

This concept of spandrel helps to answer my remaining question about whether we created God ourselves or did God create us. What also helps is the outline of agent detection, causal reasoning and theory of mind that Henig gives immediately following the introduction of the spandrel idea. In agent detection, I was reminded of our discussion on Monday about the section in our brain reserved for prayer or any other religious activity. The theory of agent detection reveals that our brains are ready for belief in the supernatural. Causal reasoning gives a more explanatory reasoning for supernatural activities. Henig uses the example that thunder was caused by Zeus' thunderbolt. Obviously, as science progresses, such explanations like this will become inadequate because we will learn what really does cause thunder or lightening. Does that then eliminate the belief of there being a God or a supernatural being? It can't. Because even today if we recognize that there is a logical explanation for something, we still maintain the belief in God or a supernatural being. That goes back to the agent detection where we have an innate ability to believe in the supernatural, even if we have to deny what we know as logical.