Why Would Anyone Believe in God? (Cognitive Science of Religion)

I would recommend Barrett's book to anyone, academic or no, who has an interest in getting a concise and accessible cognitive explanation for religious belief. Throughout his book, Barrett manages to integrate a variety of current cognitive approaches, some of which were originally intended specifically for explanation of religious belief and some of which have been adapted (in ways that I do not think would be objectionable to their original authors) to this field. In particular, those familiar with the cognitive sciences will recognize elements of Cosmides and Tooby's theory of mental modularity, Pascal Boyer's theories on the signifiance of counter-intuitive agents and agency detection, and Harvey Whitehouse's concept of imagistic and doctrinal modes in religious ritual. But those of you who are unfamiliar with these theorizers, have no fear-- everything you need to understand this book is within the book itself.Barrett's basic thesis is that belief in God (or gods) is a natural byproduct stemming from two particular capacities of the human mind which have served us well in a variety of contexts throughout the evolution of the species. These capacities he calls Hyper Active Agency Detection, or HADD, and Theory of Mind, or ToM. Chapter by chapter, he explains how these capacities work in formulating beliefs generally, in what contexts (or people) they may be strengthened or weakened, and even how people in which they both function quite normally may still end up not believing in deities for one reason or another. Barrett argues that the mental equipment we as homo sapiens have evolved for myriad purposes ranging from detecting predators to romantic relationships to finding food actually end up working together in a fashion that causes us to find the existence of supernatural agents entirely plausible-- and not just plausible, but necessary.Of course, one's immediate response may be, "Well, that is all very good...but if that is the case, how do some of us end up not believing in gods?" And Barrett expects this objection. His penultimate chapter is entitled "Why Would Anyone Not Believe in God?" and in it he explains why even though religious belief may be natural, it is not inevitable in all of us. Personally, I feel that the book lets us down a bit at this point-- Barrett's answer is basically that atheists are generally people who have frequent occasion to challenge their own perceptions, specifically the ones that cause us to suspect that there are agents present when we can't be sure, or to attribute agency where there may actually be none. He surmises that this is most likely to occur in academic circles and/or in western, affluent societies, specifically urban areas, where the common understanding is that the environment is designed by humans, not supernatural entities, and intentionality may very well be ascribed not to deity but to more abstract entities such as the government, the market, or society. He describes atheism as seeming natural to some who "enjoy an environment especially designed to short-circuit intuitive judgments tied to natural day-to-day demands and experiences." (118) This is fair enough, but deserves quite a bit more analysis, and in my assessment does not warrent Barrett's conclusion that atheism is therefore "unnatural." Abnormal? Certainly. But it is quite possible to make an effective argument for the naturalness of a belief without maintaining that those who do not have it fall into the category of "unnatural." My suspicion is that Barrett overstates his position a bit in defiance of academics he describes as stating unabashedly that theistic belief is absurd and unworthy of rational-thinking people. But this does not detract from the very worthy points made throughout the book up to this point.By and large, the book could have been written by theist or non-theist-- its goal is emphatically not to make an argument for or against the existence of God. Rather, it is to explain how each of us enter the world pre-equipped with minds containing a legacy of engineering which has served us in the goal of surviving through the ages, and how this equipment has made belief in the supernatural an entirely natural part of that world...for better or for worse.

This book is a great introduction to the topic of considering religious belief from a point of cognitive science. I recommend it as a warm-up before tackling authors like Boyer and Smith

Understanding the human mind is the underpinning of this book. I’ve always wondered why humans believe in something that cannot be proved this book gives me the explanation

Barrett's account and defense of theistic belief is an important contribution to the perennial debate over the existence of God. As an Oxford researcher at The Centre for Anthropology and Mind and The Institute for Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, he is eminently positioned to offer a theory of theism from the burgeoning field of evolutionary cognitive psychology.Barrett's claim is that belief in the supernatural is a natural and predictable product of human development. We 'naturally' impute supernatural agency to account for inexplicable phenomena. Barrett fleshes out this basic theory with several cognitive tools. Thus, in not so simple terms the development of 'ToM' (theory of mind)allows for the perception of 'agency' (intentional actions) using 'HADD' (Hyperactive Agency Detection Devices), which naturally select 'MCIs' (Minimally Counterintuitive Agents), which include God. Easy!So far, non-theists may be nodding their heads in agreement ... until Chapter 8, 'Why Would Anyone Not Believe in God?'. Here, things get interesting and apologetic as Barrett weaves a Plantinga-like Calvinism into the narrative to interpret his natural account of theism. His basic thesis: "The naturalness of religion may be discouraged by the artificial (meaning human-made) pursuit of knowledge" begs the question of what is 'natural' and what is not. Arguably, this is a giant but fascinating leap from an account of theism to a defence of the correspondent truth of theism. In my humble opinion this leap is taken prematurely, and unsuspecting readers may not notice the pervasive influence of Alvin Plantinga's presuppositional apologetics popular amoung modern Reform theologians.The core question Barrett approaches is whether a natural account of the development of God concepts leads 'naturally' to theism or atheism? Barrett comes down clearly in favour of theism, using the analogy in another text, "Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me -- should I then stop believing that she does?" But, is this a relevant analogy? Perhaps, but what of another: suppose science develops a convincing account of why a man thinks he's God - should we then stop believing he is? Or, "suppose science provides a convincing account for why two different men think that they are God - should we then stop believing that either are? I'm not sure Barrett (at least in this short book) gives a good account of why and how we answer these questions in the way we do. Exactly what is it cognitively that draws so many people to and from Christian theism upon deep reflection? If Barrett has provided a natural account of atheism should we stop beliving that the atheists are right? What is it that makes it so 'natural' for once-theists to be disillusioned by the 'supernatural' accounts offered within their religious culture? How can anything (including atheism) be 'unnatural' if it's a predictable response to growing out of a first theistic naivity? Barrett's answer, inasmuchas it relies on a presuppositional apologetic, seems as 'unnatural' as the atheism it attacks.

Great book

In my opinion, this is a far better book than those on the same subject by Pascal Boyer and Scott Atran. Barrett says in 120 pages more than the others say in 400. His presentation is extremely clear, precise, evidence-based cognitive psychology.As a bonus, he reveals at the end that he himself holds religious beliefs. There's no way you would have guessed this from his text. He conveys no partisan `anti - atheism', and is quite happy to acknowledge the mental mechanisms which he feels contribute to religious belief.His messages are expertly clear. The endemic nature of religion suggests that our minds are structured in a way which favours 'religious belief'. (That is, the existence of agents which have a limited set of superhuman powers.) Such beliefs, he notes, are especially easy for children to develop.What is known? That we have subconcious mental `modules'. That we have a tendency to very readily interpret events as representing some agency at work. (adaptive in the context of e.g. the need to be highly alert to predators.) That we have a `ferocious desire' to explain and find meaning and meanings.These are the key mental mechanisms or modules to which Barrett ascribes the near-universal human readiness to `believe in God'.Why do some then not believe? He sees true atheism (or, for some people, `scientism') as a relatively recent phenomenon in human history, characteristic of highly urban, educated, privileged, late 20th century Western folk, especially if safe from danger (he reminds us of the phrase `there are no atheists in foxholes'). Atheism is difficult, he proclaims: other ways must be found to deal with bewildering issues, such as morality, death, and meaninglessness.Overall this is a crisp, authentic, level account of a potentially emotive topic.

This is one of the best of the recent crop of books looking at religion through the lens of evolution. The title is apt and the approach in the book is clear and insightful. If a reader finds the question in the title interesting, they will find the answers in the book informative. The gist is that as we evolved we developed certain abilities to help us survive in our environment and that a certain amount of overspecification, combined with putting abilities together in new ways makes belief in the supernatural and God an obvious conclusion. In other words religious beliefs are simply a side effect of our evolution.This will be more or less satisfying as an answer depending on the starting point of the reader, but those who are believers might take comfort from the confession that Barrett makes towards the end of the book that he is a believer. Ironically having rendered the processes of belief visible, he is not persuaded that belief is therefore invalidated.