fayfreethinkers.com

Born Believers? UA Researcher Examines
Biological Bases for Religious Belief

Jesse Bering, a cognitive psychologist in the J. William Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Arkansas, has created one of the first experimental programs in the world that brings together three previously unconnected areas: cognitive science, evolutionary theory and existential psychology.

His most recent research will soon be published in the American Psychology Association's flagship journal, Developmental Psychology.
Another more general article on Bering's work, "The Cognitive Psychology of Belief in the Supernatural," has just been published in the March-April issue of American Scientist. Numerous media have cited Bering's research, including The London Times and Science & Theology News.

In fall 2005, he served as an international fellow of the newly formed Institute of Cognition and Culture at Queen's University, Belfast, Ireland, a research center with a strong focus on cognition and religion.

In his research, Bering is studying the natural psychological bases for religious belief. He examines the fundamental question "Is God all in your head?" from an evolutionary perspective.

In 1996, Bering was a student on an anthropology fellowship. He spent the summer studying a 450-pound silverback gorilla named King, who had been trained to entertain audiences by climbing atop a 20-gallon drum three times a day and belly dancing for a head of lettuce.

To read the full release, please go to http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/8079.htm

Betsy wrote:He spent the summer studying a 450-pound silverback gorilla named King, who had been trained to entertain audiences by climbing atop a 20-gallon drum three times a day and belly dancing for a head of lettuce.

DOUG
You should see what you can get for some cheap beads during mardi gras!

I think the concept of "rational irrationality" explains a lot. Cf: Bryan Caplan's papers on the subject: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economic ... /econ.html


Rational Ignorance vs. Rational Irrationality

Published in Kyklos 54(1), 2001, pp.3-26.

Abstract:

Beliefs about politics and religion often have three puzzling properties: systematic bias, high certainty, and little informational basis. The theory of rational ignorance (Downs 1957) explains only the low level of information. The current paper presents a general model of "rational irrationality," which explains all three stylized facts. According to the theory of rational irrationality, being irrational - in the sense of deviating from rational expectations - is a good like any other; the lower the private cost, the more agents buy. A peculiar feature of beliefs about politics, religion, etc. is that the private repercussions of error are virtually nonexistent, setting the private cost of irrationality at zero; it is therefore in these areas that irrational views are most apparent. The consumption of irrationality can be optimal, but it will usually not be when the private and the social cost of irrationality differ - for example, in elections.

Can you translate that to layman's terms, please?

Okay, Betsy, I'll give it a shot.

rational ignorance - when the cost of additional information exceeds the expected gain from that information.

Example: You want to buy a new car. You read books, consumer magazines, automotive repair guides, before you buy. At some point in time, you know "enough." Sure, you could read another book, but you would learn very little that you don't already know. So you buy a car instead of reading yet another book. This is rational ignorance, since you gauged that reading the book was not worth the extra knowledge.

Another (the classic) example: Voting behavior. A vote in a US national election has perhaps about 1 in 100 million chance of making a difference in the outcome (breaking or causing a tie.) Rationally, it is not worth the effort of going to the polls, let alone educating yourself about issues and candidates, if your reason for voting is to effect the outcome. (If your reason is to feel good and patriotic, or is based on some mystical faith in State, resulting in some psychic satisfaction, that's a different matter.)

rational irrationality - when the cost of an irrational belief is negligable, but the gains are significant, people tend to hang on to the irrational belief.

Example: Mr. McCoy believes in leprechauns (UFO's, astrology, gods, ...). He hangs out with leprechaun-watchers, and enjoys talking about leprechaun sightings, and goes to a leprechaun lovers club meeting every week. His girl friend and most of his friends are ardent leprechaun believers. As a result, his belief in leprechauns results in much positive reinforcement and happiness. Therefore, no matter how logically and rationally we freethinkers argue against the existence of leprechauns, he will almost certainly continue to believe in them. His error costs him nothing and gains him a lot.

Now of course, these are macro phenomena. Sure, an exceedingly wise and objective person with immense integrity may "buck" these two irrational errors, but generally, looking at large samples of people, they seem to hold.

Suppose that one has a natural temperamental inclination towards optimism, and for the most part one thinks that 'things will turn out right in the end.'
Is this rational, irrational, or something else?
In other words, how much are our beliefs rationalized from our moods and basic temperament?