O Instinto do Acreditar

by Jesse Bering

Neste livro espirituoso e magnificamente construído, Jesse Bering revela o motivo psicológico pelo qual acreditamos. Combinando relatos claros de estudos surpreendentes com incursões pela literatura, pela filosofia e até mesmo pela cultura popular, aprese

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Spirituality, Sociology

284 pages, Paperback

First published September 8, 2011

About the author

Jesse Bering is an experimental psychologist and a leading scholar in the cognitive science of religion. He is also an essayist and science writer specializing in evolution and human behavior. His first book, The Belief Instinct (W. W. Norton, 2011), was included in the American Library Association’s Top 25 Books of the Year and voted one of the “11 Best Psychology Books of 2011” by The Atlantic. This was followed by a collection of his Webby-award nominated essays, Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That? (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2012), and Perv (2013, Farrar, Straus, and Giroux), a taboo-breaking work that received widespread critical acclaim and was named as a New York Times Editor’s Choice. His most recent book was A Very Human Ending (Doubleday, 2018).

Bering’s writings have been translated into many different languages and reviewed in The New York Times, The Guardian, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and many other outlets. He has also been featured in numerous documentaries and radio programs, including Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, Conan, Chelsea Lately, Q&A (Australia), and NPR’s All Things Considered.

Bering is Director of the Centre for Science Communication at the University of Otago. He lives in Dunedin, New Zealand with his partner, Juan, and their two cheeky border terriers, Hanno and Kora.

Reviews

[CanadianReader · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jesse Bering begins his fascinating exploration of the psychological underpinnings of the human tendency to believe in God with a couple of anecdotes. As a little kid, he accidentally broke a neighbour’s ersatz Fabergé egg. He did not confess; rather, he placed the shattered ornament back on the shelf, hoping its condition would go unnoticed. It did not. When the neighbour deduced that Bering was the culprit, he—the child of a secular Jew and a shoulder-shrugging Lutheran, a boy who had received no religious education whatsoever and whose home didn’t even contain a Bible—“swore to God” that he didn’t do it. A little later, a nasty sliver in Bering’s finger would be interpreted by him as evidence of God’s wrath over the lie. Years later, when Bering was a teenage nonbeliever, he framed his mother’s cancer diagnosis in like terms: it was a judgement from above, a punishment from God. In my own life, I’ve seen similar responses, especially to terminal illness. People I’ve known who showed essentially no religious inclination throughout their lives have feared that their disease was some sort of divine judgement on their moral lapses or bad behaviour. “Sin” suddenly became relevant. The human tendency to attribute power to a divine being appears to be our psychological default. Bering calls it “the belief instinct” and goes on to theorize about why we have it. He examines it through the lenses of evolutionary, developmental, and social psychology, and many of his conclusions are based on recent findings from cognitive science.

First off, my “review” is not so much an evaluation of the book as a summary of points I found compelling. I really don’t know enough about the subject to assess how comprehensive or accurate Bering’s discussion is, as it’s the first work of its kind that I’ve read. What you read below is only a smattering of the book’s contents. Having been filtered through my mind, they may not be strictly accurate. Really, this is a text that a person should read more than once—something I did not do. What I can say is that the work is a psychological inquiry, written with the assumption that “God” is a human construct, not an actual being. Believers probably won’t like that. Having said that, I will add that this is not a strident book. The tone is one of curiosity not disrespectful dismissal.

Bering, like other scholars on the subject, sees religion as an “accidental by-product of our mental evolution”. Although it may have “no particular adaptive biological function in itself,” it appears to have served an important social function. Our ancestors’ belief that they were known by an omniscient, omnipotent being who could punish or reward them brought order to social groups, “stomp[ing] out the frequency and intensity of . . . immorality” that could fracture communities.

Evolution has endowed humans with theory of mind, a system of inferences by which we make predictions about the behaviour of others. This system allows us to understand, interact with, and protect ourselves from other people. The system goes into overdrive when others behave in ways that we perceive to be abnormal or unexpected. It’s a kind of accident of evolution that humans also apply theory of mind to things that lack brains. We see intentions, desires, and psychological states in (“willfully”) malfunctioning computers and cars that (“stubbornly”) won’t start or even in forlorn-looking teddy bears. Our belief in God is a similarly grounded psychological illusion, says Bering. “It may feel as if there is something out there . . . watching, knowing, caring. Perhaps even judging, “ he writes. “But, in fact, that’s just your overactive theory of mind.”

Bering proposes that belief in God and the sense that everything exists for a purpose isn’t due to a cultural virus that children catch from their parents—as atheistic existential philosophers might have us believe—but something we are born with, a default setting if you will. He explains that our minds are heavily biased towards reasoning that things exist (because a designer intended them to) for pre-conceived purposes. This is known as “teleo-functional reasoning,” and psychologist Deborah Kelemen has seen it in action in study after study of young children. When she’s asked seven and eight-year-olds why mountains or trees exist, kids will say: “to give animals places to climb,” thereby endowing plants and landforms with purpose, rather than providing a mechanistic explanation for their existence. Only when children reach fourth or fifth grade do they abandon their teleo-functional answers for accurate scientific explanations. Interestingly, teleo-functional reasoning has also been found in uneducated Romany adults, as well as in Alzheimer’s patients (whose brains have been damaged by disease).

Given our predisposition to teleo-functional reasoning (our tendency to view things as existing for a purpose) and “the distorting lens of our species’ theory of mind,” it is hard for us humans to get our heads around “the mindless principles of evolution,” including natural selection and random mutations. In fact, University of Michigan psychologist Margaret Evans says that creationist thinking comes much more easily to the human mind than evolutionary theory. In her research with young children, Evans has discovered that, regardless of parents’ beliefs and kids’ attending secular or religious schools, five to seven-year-olds who are asked about where a species comes from will provide either a generalist response—“it got born there”—or a creationist one: “God made it.” By age eight, children from both secular and religious backgrounds reply that “God” or “Nature” (personified) made it. Only in the oldest children of evolutionary-minded parents does the full-blown design stance (in which a being intentionally creates an entity) give way to their developmental experience. Our psychological development—particularly, our theory of mind—favours a “purposeful design”/creationist framework over an evolutionary one.

Because our brains are equipped to look for underlying psychological causes, we see messages in more than each other’s behaviour. Unexpected natural events—such as earthquakes or violent storms—hold messages for us. Once again, our theory of mind goes into overdrive when things unfold in ways that are inconsistent with our expectations. We believe God or Nature is trying to communicate with us. Indeed, notes Bering, without our general cognitive bias towards finding messages in natural events, most religions would never have got off the ground.

As for the human belief in life after death: Bering asks why we should wonder at all where our minds go when our bodies are dead; shouldn’t it be obvious that our minds are dead, too? Well, it’s not. Since none of us have had the experience of being dead, we are incapable of imagining what it’s like not to exist. Some scholars have postulated that beliefs about the afterlife are due to our profound anxiety about not existing, but these theorists have failed to find a correlation between fear of death and belief in an afterlife. In other words: just because you’re terrified of dying, it doesn’t mean you are any more likely to believe in life after death. The research of Bering and others suggests that because humans are incapable of projecting themselves into an afterlife in which they neither think nor experience sensation, they consequently believe that our minds must be immortal.

Bering’s is a fascinating book, which I really do hope to reread one day. I know there’s lots I’ve missed, but hopefully not too much that I’ve misinterpreted.

I’m grateful to my Goodreads friend Caroline for recommending this book to me.

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bering is an evolutionary psychologist, and this book is the sum of his investigations into the psychological traits which encourage us to believe in God. He believes that we are naturally inclined to do this. It is our default position.

I think he writes marvellously. He could write about the life cycle of the horsefly and still have us entranced.

His basic premise is a "Theory of Mind". Unlike animals, we have the ability to be aware of consiousness in other people. We understand that other people are watching us and judging us. That is why, unlike animals, we are inhibited in our behaviours. Countless experiments have shown that the more anonymous we feel, the more uninhibited our behaviour becomes, but that most of the time, we are very aware of what other people think, and we behave accordingly. This understanding spills over to being a sort of fantastic consciousness about the world, and we can all too easily anthropomorphise the behaviour of animals, or even of inanimate objects. The author, a committed atheist, talks about when his mother died. One night, soon afterwards, he heard wind chimes tinkling outside her bedroom window. His first thought was that she was communicating with him that all was well. Life is full of 'signs' for people who are religious, "Without the belief that God cares enough about us as individuals to bother sending us a veiled, personalized 'just thinking of you' message every once in a while, there's really not much reason to pay attention to Him".

But even if you aren't religious, we are so designed that is easy for us to perceive signs. That is why so many people believe in destiny or fate. "Fate is really God stripped of his identity".

Our tendency to analyse other people's thinking goes into overdrive when something is wrong, unexpected or erratic. When people behave normally, we don't usually think about their motives. When they behave strangely, we immediately try and work out what they might be thinking and doing.

In the same way when life is stressful, the religious person can become ultra-sensitive to signs from God.

Our capacity for understanding people's motives and thought processes is the same capacity that allows us to visualise and communicate with God.

The author also mentions our tendency to turn to God when life is difficult. He cites a state-by-state 'suffering index' created by the American psychologists Gray and Wegner. They found a positive correlation between a state's relative misery (compared to the rest of the country) and its population's belief in God. The investigators used data from the 2008 United Health Foundation's comprehensive State Health Index. What they discovered was that suffering and belief in God were highly correlated, even after controlling for income and education. Further on though, Bering dismisses this phenomenon.

"In moments of despair, even the staunchest of atheists can find themselves appealing to God. But this just shows that atheists are human, with human brains, that work in predictable ways.... I for one don't handle suffering well; having a low grade fever and a sore throat is enough to have me privately asking God why He is being so unspeakably cruel to me. But I'm also sure my wobbly epistemological stance during these difficult times doesn't have much bearing elsewhere in the meta-physical cosmos."

Whist his argument is flippant, I think it is a point worth discussing.

Finally, I read the longer notes at the end of the book with interest; particularly this excerpt...

"Evidence suggests that the personality variable of 'religiosity' (basically, how much passion someone tends to feel about religious topics, wherever she falls on the belief scale) is largely determined by genes. Your identical twin brother may be an evangelical preacher while you're a screaming atheist, but these genetics data help explain why you're both so hot and bothered about God."

As someone with a very religious sister and a deeply committed (and vocal) atheist brother, I found this interesting.

This is a short book (252 pages),that is nevertheless too long. Having said that, I loved Bering's writing, plus I like arguments and examples that are well fleshed out - so it didn't really bother me.

Later add: I have added another star to my rating. Since reading it I find that I have discussed it endlessly with friends. I realise it has made a big impact on my understanding religion and spiritual beliefs. It has changed the way I think, and any book that does that deserves five stars.

[Abraham · Rating 5 out of 5]

An old guy at a party once jokingly asked me, "Does God exist?" "Yes," I said, with an absolute certainty that surprised even me. I felt a little stupid. It was completely the wrong tone to strike. My dad -- a big reason I've been more or less an atheist my whole life -- was standing right there. The old guy was totally thrown. It was like doing improv with Michael Scott, only I was Michael Scott. Even now, I'm like 98% certain that God does NOT exist. None of this stops me from believing in Him.

In this book, Bering shares similar personal stories about faith-like feelings popping up out of nowhere. He, like me and so many other no-doubt-about-it atheists, KNOWS that God doesn't exist. But that doesn't stop him from sometimes FEELING like there's more to life, or that there's life after death, or that God, the Universe, or SOMETHING has a plan for us. It's one thing to SAY you don't believe in any of that hocus pocus, but mark my words. It's up there somewhere -- in your brain, I mean. Just as the celibate priest still has the innate urge to fuck, the consummate sinner still has the innate urge to believe.

Bering is something of a Richard Dawkins type. They're more or less in the same boat, intellectually. But thankfully Bering comes off as much less of an ass hat. He's not nearly as condescending toward believers, even though the main thesis of the book is that belief/faith is really just a scratch on our cognitive lens, a peculiar byproduct of evolution. (Kinda ironic, isn't it, how evolution gave rise to the very minds that distrust it or say it's patently untrue?) If you don't want your faith to be tested, don't read this book. Otherwise, it's a fun, surprisingly readable destruction of your most cherished beliefs. :)

[Adam Lewis · Rating 5 out of 5]

A superb and accessible account of religious cognition.



I do not read many non-fiction books in one sitting no matter how interesting I find their subject material as it is nearly impossible not to become bored at some point and put them down. Yet in the past year, Bering's book is one of only two that have kept my attention so captured to be finished within 24 hours.



As one of the leading scholars in the field of religious cognition Bering weaves a persuasive thesis that builds on the strengths of his research and others. Herein you will not find someone wrestling with theological minutia as cognitive accounts of religion go right for the root of what really matters for a rigorous account of the supernatural--the structure of the conceptualization rather than the propositional content. As Bering amply demonstrates, the foundations of religious thought are based on cognition that is much more general and deep than any specialized religious expression may superficially hint at.



The first chapter opens with an exposition on theory of mind--that ever present and nearly ubiquitous feature of our minds that fills it with recognition and understanding of other minds (only those with Autism and Asperger's syndrome typically have an impaired theory of mind). As the level of social sophistication was ratcheted up by evolution in our species, we broke into new niches that had previously been denied other Hominidae by their biological equipment--namely laryngeal and cerebral. A theory of mind allows for us to represent what other minds may be thinking or intending and language allows these things to be communicated.



How does theory of mind relate to God?--in a foundational manner, Bering argues. What is God but theory of mind applied to the mindless domain of nature where it does not belong? We see this illustrated by the numerous and interesting historical examples that Bering gives us such as the disaster with a bridge and a clown and some geese where many people died. (You'll have to read it to get the details.) In the aftermath, natural causes were ascertained (a faulty weld) but God was nevertheless invoked by many in the town as the "meta-agent" overseeing the event (note this was not to the exclusion of the actual cause). Indeed, a preacher even penned some sermons that laid blame to the "sins" of the town. God was therefore sending a symbolic message with the disaster to the townsfolk to get back on the straight and narrow. Such instances are not the sole property of the past as the rhetoric of many Christian evangelicals surrounding hurricane Katrina and the Haitian earthquake demonstrate. When looking at such examples it becomes clear that intentionality is also tied up in this process and is a clue as to why one of the most fundamental aspects of religion is the interpretation of natural events within a social-teleological frame.



In another central chapter to the argument, Bering takes on the afterlife and why these beliefs are often central in the constellation of important religious subjects. Included here is the claim that the precursors to reasoning about the afterlife emerge as a developmental regularity. Bering and psychologist David Bjorkland conducted an experiment where a puppet show about a mouse getting killed by an alligator was shown to a large sample of children. The surprising results demonstrated that even young children not yet enculturated into a particular religious tradition had a clear concept of biological death, yet still attributed thoughts and emotions to the mouse as if its mind were still functioning. More research covered here discusses how even many atheists that did not believe in life after death still reasoned about it as if consciousness were still active--such as saying that a dead man "realizes he's dead now." Bering calls this the "simulation constraint hypothesis" and argues that it is a foundational aspect of afterlife beliefs since it is impossible to imagine what it is like to be dead and this imparts the illusion that people can "go somewhere" after they die.



At the end of the book Bering makes a claim that I feel has been sorely lacking in this subject's literature--the explicit argument that this science is the way to pull back the curtain on the Wizard of Oz of God and all his mental minions. As Bering notes, this is not a slam dunk argument for one could believe that this was the way in which the Almighty Creator of the Universe tinkered with human cognitive evolution to give us these, ahem, imperfections so we can recognize Him. Indeed, a leading scholar in the field, Justin Barrett, believes just such a thing. Yet, as one concerned with parsimony as Bering is, I find this to be very weak sauce.



Of course, this review merely constitutes a very poor, incomplete summary of an excellently explicated and important book that cannot even begin to give the full text its due. I hope that it may spark the interest of readers enough to pick Bering's book up and be introduced to the fascinating topic of religious cognition.

[Arjun Ravichandran · Rating 2 out of 5]

The basic gist ; we are deeply social creatures, and our much-prized cognitive faculties are due to our highly complex primate sociability and the associated need to decipher what the 'other' is thinking about us. This basic thrust behind our cognitive character accounts for us positing 'teleo-rational-projection' which simply means positing intentionality and personality to aspects of reality that simply do not entail such a projection e.g. the natural world. The author shows that this compulsive need to posit another 'mind' that is essentially OUR mind is the root cause for the delusions that the human animal has struggled with since the emergence of his complex social network ; these latter include the belief in a life after death, the belief in a uncreated creator, the belief in souls, destiny, fate, etc. These are all simply evolutionary adaptations that do not function as well when they are elevated above and beyond their adaptive usefulness as trannquilizing delusions.
I enjoyed the writing style which makes for quick, easy, effortless reading but I did feel that the content was a little simplified. I suppose this is because for someone who has read the great existentialist philosophers, starting with Nietzsche, the insights contained in this book seem a watered-down version of the profound insights contained in these writers. The constant quoting of studies was also a bit distracting. Finally, the author's smug humor, which is sprinkled throughout the text, was a distraction. I don't understand why psychologists feel the need to be funny. Would you ask a dentist to show you a card trick?

[Thomas Lanz · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was blown away by this book. The title makes it sound like another dud but do not be put off by that -- this is an engaging (addictive!) read that will completely flip your worldview and have you questioning things that you did not even know needed questioning. I have been around a long time and have seen it all. This book is special: beautifully written and as much a work of literature as it is pop science. I do not define myself either as religious or atheist and care little for such discussions. Theology bores me to tears. You won't find any of that in The God Instinct. However, if you are a fan of existential philosophy (as I am) in the spirit of Camus, Sartre, Dostoyevsky and their ilk, you will love, love, love Bering. It is not an uplifting book by any stretch of the imagination but if you want reality informed by science this is a MUST READ. And as others have said it is also very funny and not in a corny way like other science writers.

[Julia · Rating 1 out of 5]

Quick run down: Cognitive psychology has made a breakthrough discovery in theory of mind, where humans have the capacity to analyze the minds of others and therefore anticipate their behavior and our own. Because of this, we've invented God as someone who can keep us all in line, as a sense of a mind who is watching helps us modify our behavior. First of all, reducing human belief in God to a natural explanation does not make a case against God's existence. The strength of any argument should be based on its own merits. Let's see how well Bering measures up with his own.

"The mind is what the brain does; the brain stops working at death; therefore, the subjective feeling that the mind survives death is a psychological illusion operating in the brains of the living." -Bering, 130

Most scientists I've read who address this issue of consciousness would not venture to claim Bering's first premise, at least not so dogmatically. Brains compute, just like a computer, but a computer doesn't require consciousness to compute and neither do we, so there's no "reason" why consciousness should have evolved along with the brain's computing ability. C.S. Lewis put it well: "I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset." Greg Koukl explains the absurdity of reducing consciousness to the brain's physical workings:

"That's like saying that a movie is nothing more than light shining through a piece of celluloid. A movie requires light shining through a piece of celluloid and then you can see it projected on the screen. But to say that it is nothing more than that misses something very obvious. Did you ever go upstairs in a movie theater and look through the window of the projection room? There is a big giant disc spinning, the celluloid goes through an apparatus, and there is hot light.
Now, what if I were to tell you that that is the movie right there. The movie is the physical action that I can see happening. You'd think that was ridiculous. A movie is much more than the physical mechanism, the machinery with the celluloid passing through it with a sharp, bright light behind it. Rather, the movie is the image that is being projected on the screen, and it's even more than just an image. There is a story, dialogue, characterization. There are all these other things that go beyond just the physical representation."

Bering brings up problem of evil as a case against God, I suppose, and then doesn't even engage with it at a serious level. It's like bringing up a joke and then neglecting to say the punch line. Don't bother. I understand, he has an axe to grind as a homosexual and moral relativist, but then write a book about those issues, not one that claims to be cold-hard "science." Don't get me wrong, it was interesting to read his studies about how children made mistakes in perception. But ultimately, they proves nothing. Enter the discipline of philosophy, in which humans learn discernment."The unexamined life is not worth living" (Socrates).

Bering acknowledges that his argument doesn't disprove the existence of God, but I'm not sure if he understands what he means by that, or he's just taking another jab: "Does all this disprove the the existence of God? Of course not. Science speaks only to the improbable, not the impossible."

The burden of proof lies on atheists like Bering that theory of mind doesn't have a corresponding metaphysical reality because they can't even account for the emergence of the existence of consciousness. Bering attempts to, but he runs into the chicken or egg dilemma (though he doesn't bring that up). Did our sense of shame develop our pre-frontal cortex or did our pre-frontal cortex develop our sense of shame? Of course he admits we are at the beginning stages of study in cognitive psychology, but that doesn't give him the excuse to expect his readers to accept his thesis based on his sloppy work.

I am sure there are other books that better engage in the topic of mind and belief than this one which is riddled with quick jabs to God and Christians and thoroughly seeped with the unscientific philosophy of scientism.

[Zaher Alhaj · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting, amusing, informative, and accessible intro into the evolutionary psychology and the cognitive processes that enable humans to believe in metaphysical things. Nature does not care about being moral or not, as its main concern is the survival and reproduction (i.e. genes passing). Everything that ensues is the cultural product of each community or society.
However, it is a very illuminating notion to make distinction between what is scientific (i.e. real or true) and what is practical (i.e. pragmatic or applicable), between what is rational and what is human. I do believe that the dilemma of the New Atheism is considering religion as a virus (e.g. Dawkins) or a parasite (e.g. Dennett), thus they completely ignore the important role of religion in building cohesive societies and low-cost regulations. Of course, I am no trying here to evangelize any dogmatic ideology, but trying to adopt a more balanced view about the role of religion, considering the pros and cons.
One caveat here: the whole gist of the book is based on the so-called “Theory of Mind”. Although there is a countless of evidences that back the theory, one always must be open to new discoveries and breakthroughs in this arena. The pleasure of the science is in finding things out, in its fluidity and dynamism, especially for neuroscience and cognitive psychology that are still in infancy.

[Book Shark · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Belief Instinct by Jesse Bering

The Belief Instinct is an enjoyable book whose response to our basic belief system can be attributed to an understanding of the "theory of mind". Mr. Bering weaves an interesting narrative on how psychological illusions caused by the "theory of mind" gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage. This 272-page book is composed of the following seven chapters: 1. The History of an Illusion, 2. A Life without Purpose, 3. Signs, Signs, Everywhere Signs, 4. Curiously Immortal, 5. When God Throws People Off Bridges, 6. God as Adaptive, and 7. And Then You Die.

Positives:
1. An enjoyable, well-written, well-researched book that builds up an interesting theory to a satisfactory end.
2. Elegant prose, very conversational tone throughout.
3. Mr. Bering is a well-read author who doesn't hesitate to immerse quotes, anecdotes, studies smoothly into his narrative.
4. At times, though-provoking but never unintelligible.
5. "Teleo-functioning reasoning" explained.
6. Evolution of our cognitive systems.
7. Interesting look at autism.
8. The human penchant to see meaningful signs.
9. Many references to scientific studies sprinkled throughout book.
10. The idea of an afterlife guided by our intuitions.
11. The illusion of purpose.
12. A thorough and satisfactory explanation of the "theory of mind".
13. Human evolution lead by the coevolution of the theory of mind and language.
14. The impact of human gossip.
15. The cognitive illusion of "God".
16. Good use of links and an excellent comprehensive bibliography.

Negatives:
1. I really wanted to give this book 5 stars but I was a little disappointed in what was not included in the book versus what was in it. Namely, a more thorough debunking of souls. I would have liked to have seen the term defined and more depth.
2. A little more science would have helped. Very basic, I understand the book is intended for the masses but more science was merited.

In summary, I enjoyed this book. It didn't take long to read and Mr. Bering does a wonderful job of tying everything together at the end. It satisfactorily addresses why we have supernatural beliefs and why it was advantageous to our ancestors. A little more "soul" searching would have been icing on the cake but a sweet treat nonetheless.

Recommendations: "Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer, "Human" by Michael S. Gazzaniga, ", "Supersense" by Bruce M. Hood, "The Third Basic Instinct..." by Alex S. Key and "The Ego Tunnel" by Thomas Metzinger.

[Shai · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bering is funny and to the point. He covers a lot of material in this book, in support of his main thesis: humans invented god because they are predisposed to see minds and intentionality in their worlds. He is also very well read, quoting Sartre on one page and the creator of Sex in the City on the next one.

The book was a little too long for my taste. It felt that he could have stated his arguments more concisely, but that might just be the academic in me.

[Maughn Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bering is "an atheistic psychological scientist who studies religion" (4). The problem he addresses is that many people experience beliefs and feelings of being the object (the toy, the victim, the darling, the child, the creature) of a big mind out there (God, destiny, ghosts). This is problematic because (a) it can be scary and counterproductive and(b) even when we don’t believe in such things we sometimes feel, intuit them, and what accounts for that? Bering's hypothesis is that these beliefs and feelings originate in our own minds, as a kind of “belief instinct” rather than being caused by the actual existence of a big mind out there. Psychology, evolutionary biology and cognitive science have evidence that these beliefs and feelings are a consequence of “theory of mind,” the uniquely human ability to think about other minds - to wonder what other minds are thinking, to hypothesize about that, and to act on it. I agree with most of his conclusions, but I think he sometimes misses the point. Learning to drop superstitious beliefs about “Gods, souls, and destiny [as] simply a set of seductive cognitive illusions” (8) is necessary but not sufficient for wellbeing. Finding meaning and purpose is necessary to living well, so is justified independent of our "overactive theory of mind." And Bering sometimes gets caught in the false dichotomy that meaning is either superstitious or an empty human construct. Naturalistic, human-constsructed meanings are all we need, and getting over our cognitive delusions about supernatural meanings won't stop us from needing them.

[Toni Kely-Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book puts forward the theory that human's belief in God has led to our success as a species. What I enjoyed about this author is his more balanced and sensible approach than the extreme views of someone like Richard Dawkins who is just a fundamentalist of a different kind. The author sees religion as a cultural construct but the belief in God (or something similar) as very different. He demonstrates through "theory of mind, how even non-believers we still turn to God to cope when dealing with death (our own and others), serious illness or tragedy. He explains how "theory of mind" enables us to find and apply meaning in our lives and reduce anxiety, whether it is those who thought that a flood was a punishment from God or when someone close to us passes we look for "signs" of them watching over us. This quote about a natural disaster was gold! "Yes God killed many people, acknowledged believers. But "praise Jesus", he spared a lot of lives too...namely theirs". This is a very accessible read and I found it one of the best books I have read that articulates so well our ability to self-reflect, plan and find meaning outside our immediate self. And coming to terms with our mortality can be difficult - which is why God is so important in many people's lives.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read hundreds of books on psychology, but Jesse Bering is regularly able to take on subjects in a completely unique way. I love books from skeptics and learning why people believe in God or the supernatural, and sometimes the studies are repetitive as well as the way their written about. This is my second book I've read of Bering's, and again, the brings so many new perspectives and studies while also intertwining some personal anecdotes. Not only did this book teach me more about the psychology of why people believe, but it opened my mind to better understand why people search for meaning in meaningless events and get stuck on the idea of having a purpose in life. If you're interested in this subject, you definitely need this book.

[Nicole Napier · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I've ever read. It talks about how as human beings we're prone to make connections between strange nuances and bizarre coincidences that are not necessarily there. This is why God has been used as a guiding light by so many people in their lives. This book claims that this is really nothing more than a psychological "theory-of-mind".

Fascinating book. Used many interesting examples to prove its point. Definitely recommend it.

[Daniel Dimitrov · Rating 4 out of 5]

A sobering yet entertaining read, which looks into the god instinct or in other words - why we need God to exist. Jesse Bering is a Professor in evolutionary psychology, so all evidence flows through that prism, even though it touches upon philosophy a little bit as well (the Antient Greek and Sartre).

——-

“Инстинктът към Вярата“ (The Belief Instinct) на Джеси Беринг, професор по комуникация на науката в Онтарио, Канада, има типичен психологически поглед към господ. Въпросът, с който авторът се занимава, е не дали господ същоствува или не, а защо искаме и имаме нужда той да съществува.

Според Беринг, нуждата се дължи на склонността ни да правим телеологически грешки в мисленето си. Плод на еволюцията ни е склонността да си обясняваме нещата като функция от тяхната крайна спирка и отношението им към нас, а не като функция от безразлични естествени закони.

Слънцето съществува, за да ни дава светлина, кравите съществуват, за да ни дават мляко и месо, кучетата, за да ни правят компания. Жените съществуват, за щастието на мъжете, аз съществувам, за да изпълня дарбата си на архитект, музикант, математик, писател... Дори Фърги (вокалистката на Black Eyed Peas) обявява, че нейната дарба от бога е да пее и всеки, който не я оценява, обижда бог. А хората, те съществуват, за да се възпроизвеждат. В този начин на мислене, отбелязва автора, няма място за смисъл в съществуването на хомосексуалността например.

И така докато Сартр не обявява, че съществуването предхожда есенцията и не можем да търсим висш смисъл в съществуването си, защото то по конструкция предхожда смисъла, който си мислим, че е заложен.

Означава ли това, че религията е безмислено занимание? Авторът ни среща с математик, който въпреки всичко обича религията си — редът, логиката, повтаряемите ритуали му помагат да успокоява аутизма си. “Вярата не е дар, който господ ми е дал, това е дар, който сам съм си дал”.

Ограничава ли се телеологическото мислене до религията само? Алан Тюринг, брилянтният британски математик съкратил Втората световна война с години след като разгадава кода на Енигма и междувременно изобретил принципа на съвременните компютри, е осъден на “лечение” от хомосексуалността си. Но той е осъден от секуларен съд, в едно секуларно общество, което е смятало, че базира решенията си на последните достижения на науката —хомосксуалността се счита за медицинска диагноза по това време. Както вероятно знаете, Тюринг приема психически и физически трудно “лечението” с инжекции естроген, както и изолацията и невъзможността да практикува и преподава и в последствие се самоубива преди да навърши 42.

По случайност паралелно чета Проблемът (на) Спиноза (Ървин Ялом). Въведение във философията на този интересен холандски философ от 17ти век от еврейски произход, предвестник на епохата на Просвещението. На базата на няколко аксиоми и логически съпоставки, Спиноза извежда интересни изводи ——

Аксиома: Господ е всемогъщ. Теорема: Следователно господ няма нужда от нас, безсмислено е да смятаме, че е заложил някакъв смисъл в живота ни.

Аксиома: Господ е безкрайност. Аксиома: Природата е безкрайност. Аксиома: Една безкрайност не може да съществува извън друга безкрайност. Теорема: Следователно господ и природата са едно и също нещо.

[Todd Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

In The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life Jesse Bering, Associate Professor in Science Communication at the University of Otago, posits that religious belief is a byproduct of our ability to attribute mental states to others (otherwise known as ‘theory of mind’). The basic concept is that people naturally (and sometimes falsely) attribute an intelligence to random events and then seek out mental reasons for the supernatural agent to have acted in such a manner. This is apparent in the often-uttered phrase ‘things happen for a reason’ which implies an intelligent plan exists which explains what otherwise could be considered pure happenstance.

As an example: a tornado hits a small town, killing several people. Survivors then begin casting about for reason for the disaster … because people are sinners, or a reason for their survival … because God must have a plan for their life … whatever. One can then see how this would manifest belief in a supreme being as providing a psychologically satisfying explanation as to the cause of the occurrence.

I find Bering’s idea to be a minor twist on the ‘Hyperactive Agency-Detection Device Theory’ (HADD) of religious belief in which individuals perceive agency behind random events such as natural disasters, then attribute that agency to a supernatural intelligence. He’s merely skipping over the agency to the perceived intelligent intent behind the event.

At any rate, Bering goes into some detail as to how ‘theory of mind’ manifests itself in everyday life:
- People feel they have a purpose in life or a destiny
- They perceive that otherworldly messages are being communicated in natural events
- They believe their mental lives will persist after death
These ideas strike individuals as intuitive and are emotionally appealing. They also, according to the author, directly lead to a belief in the supernatural, meaning that this form of irrationality will likely be with our species for some time to come.

As to the book, it was fine. While I’m not convinced Bering’s theory of mind has better explanatory power than HADD, I learned a bit about how it manifests in human psychology. This allows me to confidently say that I know, that you know, that I thought the book was ‘ok’, but was not exactly a page-turner … if you know what I mean.

[Deb · Rating 5 out of 5]

**Padding the existential givens**

The existential givens of life can be quite brutal: there is no absolute meaning, purpose, destiny, order, or permanence to our lives. (Yikes!)

The truth is, it's hard to really, deeply believe those truths. Although accepting these existential givens is ultimately (and counter-intuitively) a way towards a meaningful life, our primitive brains are designed to pad us from these realities. (After all, if our ancestors were truly aware of the truths of life, they might have not been so motivated for the daily hunt-gather-and-reproduce activities.) The mechanism our brains have used to buffer us from these harsh existential givens is the theory of mind—the capacity for us to reason about the unobservable mental states of others, be it people, deities, or other supernatural agents.

As the author explains:
“Evolved human cognition—in particular, our theory of mind—is directly responsible for the illusions of purpose and destiny, for the feeling that otherworldly communicative messages are encrypted in the occurrence of natural events, and, finally, for our intuitions that our mental lives will persist in the wake of our complete neurological death.” (p. 130)

The theory of mind has had immense adaptive value in allowing our ancestors to turn a blind eye (/mind) to the existential givens and plow through the course of evolution:
“The intoxicating pull of destiny beliefs, seeing 'signs' in a limitless array of unexpected natural events, the unshakable illusion of psychological immortality, and the implicit assumption that misfortunes are related to some divine plan of long-forgotten moral breach—all of these things have meaningfully coalesced in the human brain to form a set of psychological processes. They are functional because they breed explicit beliefs and behaviors (usually but not always of a religious nature) that were adaptive in the ancestral past.” (pp.191-192)

After showing how our theory of mind has helped us grapple with life's existential givens, the author masterfully (and courageously!) argues how God is but a cognitive illusion:
“By all accounts, the basic illusion of God (or some other supernatural agent) 'willfully' creating us as individuals, 'wanting' us to behave in particular ways, 'observing' and 'knowing' about our otherwise private actions, 'communicating' His desires to us in code through natural events, and 'intending' to meet us after we die is pretty convincing for most people...The cognitive illusion of an ever-present and keenly observant God worked for our genes, and that’s reason enough for nature to have kept the illusion vividly alive in human brains.” (pp. 195-196)

I found this book to be a brilliant, stimulating, and endlessly thought-provoking exploration into the meaning of life—or more accurately, how we make meaning when there really is no meaning. (Or as the author straightforwardly puts it: “The unthinkable truth that there is no answer because there is no riddle, that life is life and that is that.” ) Wrapping my brain around these ideas has provided some nice cushioning for sitting on those concrete existential givens.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Is there an innate instinct for belief in God? The Theory of Mind states that humans have the (perhaps unique) capacity to put themselves in other people’s shoes and imagine what others are thinking; we tend to see others as doing things intentionally and for a reason. When someone winks at you, your brain isn’t content with processing the superficial layer of behaviour being exhibited by this other person, but wants to know what this behaviour is about. Other animals certainly have minds; but they don’t tend to exhibit this Theory of Mind that is so highly developed in humans. The jury is still out on whether we’re entirely unique in having ToM; but we are certainly the best at it. Our evolved brains apply this ToM not only to the innards of other people and animals, but to categories that haven’t any mental innards at all. We completely overshoot the mark in ascribing mental states to things that cannot possibly have mental states. What if God’s mental states were all in our minds too? Since the brain is a product of evolution, and natural selection works without recourse to intelligent forethought, this mental apparatus of ours evolved to think about God without God needing to be real.

- Why is the purpose-of-life question so seductive? Many atheists claim to still need purpose in life, suggesting that logical thought runs counter to our natural psychology. Wanting to understand our origins (and the origins of the universe too) seems to be an eruption of our innate human minds that is then clothed in religious talk. In Piaget’s stage theory of cognitive development, artificialism referred to young children’s seeing aspects of the world as existing in order to solve certain human problems; Piaget thought that artificialist beliefs never went away and cropped up in the nonbeliever’s mental representations; in other words, even though the non-believer said he didn’t believe, he still acted as though there were something akin to God. People, and especially children, are thus promiscuous teleologists, in that they think things exist for a pre-conceived purpose; can we ever truly grasp the completely mindless principles of evolution by random mutation and natural selection? Understanding destiny for what it is - a cognitive illusion that is alluring and deadly - can make us resist those who say they have special knowledge about what God has in store for us. So to see an inherent purpose in life, whether purpose in our own individual existence or life more generally, is to see an intentional creative mind, God, that had a reason for designing it this way and not any other way. Natural selection, a mindless process, disputes this; we aren’t accidents, as that implies that there is a mind who created us, but he made a mistake. Rather, we simply are. Owing to our ToM and teleological reasoning, it is difficult for humans to refrain from seeing humans in intentional terms.

- Just like other people’s behaviours, natural events can be perceived by humans as being about something other than their surface characteristics only because our brains are equipped with the specialised cognitive software that enables us to think about underlying psychological causes. Natural events outside the head are filtered through our evolved ToM and interpreted subjectively inside the head. Just because we humans see, feel, and experience meaning doesn’t make meaning inherently so. When religious folk credit God with all the complexity of the universe, they are, in all probability, using their mindlessly evolved theory of mind to make meaning of the meaningless.

- Why do bad things happen to good people? This question presupposes an intelligent, morally concerned agent behind the scenes. Gray and Wegner argue that human suffering and God go hand in hand; when bad things happen, we look for the culpable human agent to blame; when misfortune is not trailed by a responsible agent, people need to find another intentional agent to imbue the event with meaning and allow some sense of control; cue God. Gopnik suggests that humans have an innate explanatory drive that causes us to search for causal explanations because knowing why feels good. This explanation doesn’t need to be correct; it just needs to sound plausible. People say that God will disappear once we have a complete causal explanation of the universe; but this only answers how and we will always ask why. People expect retribution for moral wrongdoing, and this is a completely natural way of thinking. Real life is seldom a drama with a satisfying ending; but people can’t help but conceive of life as being a narrative with a linear progression and a satisfying ending. We’ve evolved a powerful set of cognitive illusions that prevents us from seeing clearly, and we cannot get rid of these illusions any more than we can get rid of colour vision. Narrative psychologists believe that we secretly portray ourselves as living out a sort of preauthored screenplay that will eventually end in some meaningful, coherent way. So who is writing the script? Whatever your theological view (God is passive, God is screenwriter, etc) all theories evoke your ToM and all have something to say between morality and this-worldly pain. In any event, it’s hard to shake the view that someone is keeping watch over us; something invested in our behaviours and feelings; something that cares.

- When we feel like we are being watched, we will change our behaviours to be more pro-social. Our internal beast is impulsive and hedonistic because that sort of behaviour payed off for our ancestors in the past. This beastly capacity is still with us, overlayed with a more modern capacity to get in the minds of others and control our behaviour; and these two capacities are in perpetual conflict. Why should getting in your mind matter? If you see me do something bad, you will go and tell the others which will decrease my chances of reproduction, so I’d better watch my behaviour around peeping toms! Patience, restraint, modesty - these are all desirable and socially endorsed, not because they’re heavenly virtues, but because they’re pragmatic. Luckily, we possess, not only an ability for self-restraint, but the concept of God who constantly watches what we do to make sure we are making the right decisions; decisions which happen to be favourably inclined toward morals and social norms. Destiny, seeing signs in natural events, and the attribution of misfortune to some previous transgression, all coalesce in the human brain to form a set of functional psychological processes. They are functional because they breed explicit beliefs and behaviours that were adaptive in the ancestral past. The illusion of God engendered by our theory of mind, was one very important solution to the adaptive problem of human gossip. By curtailing bad behaviours, the sense of being observed by a morally invested, reactive Other, especially one that created us and for whom we’re eternally indebted in return, meant fewer self-destructive scraps for those ravenous wolves of gossip to feed on. Does this disprove God? Of course not; it may be possible that God designed the human cognitive structure so that we may be able to perceive Him. But the facts of the evolutionary case imply strongly that God’s existence is rather improbable. The illusion can be so convincing that you refuse to acknowledge that it’s an illusion at all. But that may simply mean that the adaptation works particularly well in your case. So, knowing what we do now, is it wise to trust our evolved, subjective, mental intuitions to be reliable aguges of the reality outside our heads, or do we instead accept the possibility that such intuitions in fact arise through cognitive biases that - perhaps for biologically adaptive reasons - lead our thinking fundamentally away from objective reality?

[Jamy · Rating 5 out of 5]

What is the purpose of life? We have all had occasion to ask this question at least once in our lives. It is a query born of many reasons: existential crisis, grief, failure, pain, loneliness, boredom or plain curiosity, but in search of answers for which most of us chase after mere shadows only to go to our graves unanswered and unfulfilled. It is a question we ask and dupe ourselves into believing the lie we come up with, though never quite convincingly. Could there be a reason for this? Could we be going about it the wrong way? May be the answer lies not in asking what is the purpose of life but in knowing the psychology behind why we ask such a question in the first place. Thus, in line with this reasoning, using the Theory of Mind, a psychological trait human beings adaptively developed through our evolutionary struggle to survive, this book ventures to answer a couple of other similar important, hot button questions. 

Even though the book relies heavily on studies in various fields of Psychology, it is not by any means the dense, inaccessible mess which reads in the dreary voice of an academic text book infested with jargon and riddles. On the contrary, the narrative voice is charmingly addictive, complemented with wit, humour and coherence. It must also be pointed out that it is not as pandering to the gratification and indulgence of atheistic views as the book might outwardly be perceived. The purpose of the book is not to bring to the table such polarising issues as the existence of God or the human soul and abuse and vilify those who believe. Instead, it reaches behind the curtain to bring to light and address the underlying questions as to why we believe in the existence of God or the afterlife and the human soul's place in it, sometimes unwittingly by atheists themselves.

I have come out of this book with many of my pesky, roiling questions mollified with the argument and reasoning provided that has pestered my, dare I say, soul over the years. Those who dare confront matters of the soul and the afterlife, read the book at your own peril.

[Vicky · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am ready to give the book 10 stars or more. The author does not try to prove or disprove many important beliefs developed by humans. He talks about human evolution and the tendency to believe in God, to look for meaning during different stages of life, to have purpose for existence. God or Gods were always a tool to explain mysteries, to ask for answers. In our adaptive biological development, we use our brain to create explanations, to link events, to look for coincidences and to find explanations. Our mind is what our brain does. The theory of the mind is the most fascinating idea in the science of phycology

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Belief Instinct is pleasurable in that it's wholly unlike books by the sort of atheists who doggedly pursue the conversion of their readers to their way of thinking. Bering is methodical and scientific in building his argument. He's also very personable and quite funny. [full review]

[Amy Turner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not as good as I expected. The author is not a strident atheist like Dawkins, but is very convinced that God is all in our heads. I don't think he did that good a job of building the case. Some interesting results of surveys and experiments.

[Fredrik Köhler · Rating 5 out of 5]

An evolutionary psychology approach to why people tend to believe in gods, karma, ghosts and a higher purpose of life.

Jesse Bering has written a thoughtful piece that both make you smile and see religiosity and scepticism in a new light.

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well-reasoned and clear explication of the cognitive biases underlying our theistic beliefs.

[Gregg Sapp · Rating 4 out of 5]

One common phrase that always makes me grimace is “everything happens for a purpose.” Really? The moral and rational inconsistencies in that statement insult common sense. Believing that there is some divinely directed master plan behind natural disasters, miscarriages, or school shootings is no more intellectually defensible than believing in the tooth fairy – unless, of course, you are haplessly resigned to the notion that “God works in mysterious ways.”

In “The Belief Instinct,” evolutionary psychologist Jesse Bering argues, conversely, that the human mind works in comprehensible ways. At the core of Bering’s argument are three essential hypotheses with fancy-sounding names, but which describe very familiar tendencies of the human mind.

First, “Teleo-functional reasoning” refers to the supposition that any object or artifact exists for some preconceived purpose. Related to this is the corollary belief that there is a purposeful agent behind everything that happens. Historically, for example, theologians have argued that the beauty and complexity of this world would be impossible without an intelligent creator to provide the necessary tweaks to make sure everything works as it should.

Second, “psychological continuity reasoning” posits that, by cognitive default, humans perceive existence as an ongoing state of being. A simple example would be my assumption that my wife still exists, even when she is not in my presence. More significantly, our innate tendency, when confronted by death, is to envision a person’s mental being to endure, somehow, in some for or another. Hence, we intuit that human beings have non-materials souls.

Finally, Bering’s most versatile postulate is that human beings possess a “theory of mind,” which serves us primarily in our social lives, but also lends itself to chimeras about the existence of God. I use my theory of mind whenever I try to imagine what another person is thinking or feeling at any given moment. By applying the theory of mind, I recognize that the people around me are independent thinkers with a mental presence every bit as complicated as my own.

Of theory of mind, Bering writes: “The evolutionary significance of this mind-reading system hinges on one gigantic question: Is this psychological capacity – this theory of mind, this seeing of souls glimmering beneath the skin, spirits twinkling behind orbiting eyes, thoughts in a flurry of movement – is this the one big thing that could help us finally understand what it means to be human.”

So, the simple explanation for our predilection toward supernatural belief goes like this. We are hardwired to believe that everything in our world was designed for a purpose. We likewise apprehend that non-material mental states can exist outside of the body. Combine these with theory of mind, and – voila – we conceive of an apparitional, all-knowing deity who fabricated the universe to achieve defined goals and who sees us, always, even if we cannot see it.

This general formulation seems feasible in terms of how it describes the inner workings of the human brain and the kinds of thoughts and actions it naturally produces. But, if we accept that supposition, we must then see these traits as evolved adaptations that facilitate reproductive success in the human species.

Here, it seems to me that Bering engages in a little teleo-functional reasoning of his own. Having established that the belief instinct is a universal attribute of human neurological machinery, he, in effect, asks what it is for. It must have a purpose, right? He theorizes that, equipped with a theory of mind, primitive human beings living in social groups found it necessary to curb their “impulsive, hedonistic, and uninhibited” instincts in order to get along with others. They began to wonder what others were saying about them behind their backs. This compelled them to behave. However, other people were not able to keep a constant eye on them. That’s where the conception of an all-seeing God became a handy contrivance for ensuring conformity. Those who fell into line were more likely to achieve reproductive success. Theory of mind makes all this possible.

Maybe. Bering cites numerous studies in support of his position. Still, I wonder if Bering’s social explanation for the evolved belief instinct doesn’t confuse cause with effect. That is, it seems to me that human beings evolved a mind capable of supporting a theory of mind, first, and all the societal and philosophical institutions arising from it are derivative – some may be adaptive, others not so much.

My non-academic speculation aside, “The Belief Instinct” makes an important contribution to the sociology and psychology of religion. At the very least, it provides intellectual justification for refuting the quaint notion that "everything happens for a purpose."

[Amelia and John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bering offers a good dose of early 2000s anti-religion angst throughout his work. His main argument is essentially that belief in God is an illusion, conditioned by our evolved cognitive apparatus. The golden key to his account is Theory of Mind.

According to Theory of Mind, humans simulate how other humans act, giving an account for why they do what they do. Bering gives a wink as an example. If someone materially closes and reopens their left eye at you, you imbue that act with culturally conditioned meanings. A wink is more than just the act itself.

For Bering, Theory of Mind is foundational to his argument. Just as we simulate and suppose the consciousness and intelligibility of other people, we do the same for the universe. Because the universe seems intelligently designed, we presume there must be some designer behind it. And when bad things happen, we assume that it is for some odd reason that we may never know, or we assume it is a divine punishment for humanity's bad actions.

More interestingly, Bering believes that a belief in an omniscient Being serves to surveil ourselves in our private lives. We curtail our actions amongst other people because we are concerned with our reputation. From the evolutionary perpsective, we wish to keep a good reputation so that, via our community members' Theory of Mind about us, our genetic reproductive capacities will remain high. But in the absence of group members, a belief in a divine Being who has access to our private deeds and thoughts will curtail us, ensuring we remain within the bounds of acceptable thought and practice even when we are by ourselves.

I had several problems with Bering's arguments. He draws heavily from psychological studies which draw on considerable sample sizes, but the questions seem primed with bias. For example, Bering and his colleague gathered together a group of children and told them a story about a mouse. The mouse died, and the researchers asked the children whether the mouse was sad that he had died, or if he was still mad at his sister, etc. The children responded on the terms of these questions, which Bering et al. extrapolated to prove that these children had an evolved capacity to believe that souls continue to exist even after bodies die. But aren't these questions suspiciously primed to have the children respond in such a way? Perhaps the children answered the way they did to appease the inquirers, or to play along with researchers who they thought were playing pretend. I am also methodologically skeptical that psychological studies can reveal any universal truths, evolutionarily conditioned or not, about humanity writ large.

Bering also has a thoroughly Christian understanding of religion. Not all religions hold to a belief in a Divine Being who is omniscient. Even within the Abrahamic traditions, there are rabbinic (Judaism) and Gnostic (Christian) traditions that point to passages like that in Genesis, where God roams Eden searching for Adam and Eve after they ate of the forbidden fruit. In this passage, God does not seem to know where Adam and Eve are, hence asks them where they are. For these rabbis and Gnostics, this proves that God is not really omniscient, thereby defeating Bering's emphasis on omniscience from the root.

Now, this was certainly not published in an academic press, and certainly does raise interesting questions about religion and evolution. However, for such a perspective I prefer work like that of Matt Rossano in Supernatural Selection, which is much less polemical and more grounded in evolutionary psychology and theory.

[Ajay Warner · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been pondering the issues in this book for many years, and I may finally have stumbled on a book with new insights. This is a book selection for a skeptics discussion group.

Thoughts:
(1) ABBA's song "Knowing me, knowing you" kept going through my head while reading this book. That's what the essence is: we know ourselves, and when we observe others act or react, we project our motives onto them. This is called the theory of mind.

(2) This "theory of mind" is also at work when people assign motives and intentionality to a deity that they imagine is behind an act of physics or disease. Example: "I was spared for a reason."

(3) Projecting meaning onto random occurrences gives people a feeling of control over the uncontrollable, and it also gives most people a great sense of comfort that their lives have purpose and are more than just one-in-7-billion, accidental, biological, temporary, insignificant. (I'm perfectly ok with the fact that the universe is entirely indifferent to my existence, but I know I'm definitely a statistical outlier when it comes to being ok with obscurity and meaninglessness. I believe in meanings, not Meaning).

(4) When people talk to their computers or their cars, they know the difference between fantasy and reality. They know they aren't really talking to a living, conscious being. Then why do people lose that ability to tell real from fiction when it comes to angels, elves, UFOs and gods? Because from an evolutionary standpoint, it would be helpful to have a powerful ally against things that go bump in the night.

(5) We are deeply hardwired to see patterns of meaning, whether they actually exist or not. This has kept members of our species alive when we see patterns that reveal danger, but sometimes it works against us - that is where superstition comes from. We are hardwired to be superstitious. Much as we'd like to believe we're perfectly rational at all times, there are times when the scared child in us hides under the blankets.

I've read elsewhere that autistic people are less likely to believe in God than the rest of the population. Maybe this is because they don't possess a theory of mind, which infers motivations to the actions of others. If they can't attribute states of mind to other beings (people, dogs, or deities), they don't see a reason to assign intentionality to physical phenomenon or coincidence. This sounds like a perfect subject for neuroscientific research.

Highly recommended. I also recommend "When God Talks Back" - the evangelical Christian experience as described by an anthropologist.

[Tina Nonfiction Librarian · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is not about a verification or disapproval of a deity, this book dwells into the cognitive psychology research of belief instincts. Bering explains our belief nature, why we believe in the supernatural, why are we so confident that the all seeing eye is keeping watch? Why people believe in destiny Why even the most hard core atheists sometimes find themselves asking “God, why me?”

In psychology this questions are answered by research into a theory of the mind, which can be found both in humans and animals. In short, it means that our superstitions convictions depend on a capacity to reason that other beings have an unobservable mental state. Which help us to predict what are other thinking and makes us believe the unbelievable. Another part of this book deals with our nature of supernatural beliefs. Why are human superstitions? Why we believe in signs? Why are we so obsessed with the afterlife? Why scientist accepts nature theology and why is God so cruel?

Answers to these questions Bering bring us by simply describing the psychology experiments that explore these human beliefs. He argues that we have evolved our belief instinct as a coping mechanism and a sort of survival instinct. As Bering quotes Voltaire, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.” God is to humans what Big Brother is to George Orwell. If you have a feeling someone is always watching you will modify your behavior accordingly, this is why people gossip, another trait Bering sees as evolutionary developed instinct. We are all each other’s moral police.

Despite the fact that it took me almost a month to finish this book, I highly recommend it. If you struggle with your belief convictions and are more inclined toward atheism and rational thoughts but often find yourself questioning God when something happens, then this is a book for you. Also, if you like well written and researched cognitive psychology book choose Jesse Bering.

[Τοβίας Χάος · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jesse Bering presents a theory that explains the evolutionary origin of concepts like soul, belief in supernatural instances, religion, afterlife (the immortal mind) etc. based on the "theory of mind" hypothesis. The latter describes the human ability to imagine other minds (do they exist?) and think about what other minds think (about oneself). It is due to this ability that life in social groups became possible through the invention of morals and behavioral standards. As gossip, hearsay, and rumors became a real threat for successful reproduction, it was necessary to act within a certain codex and suppress natural (and otherwise more successful) selfish behavior. A byproduct of this "theory of mind" and its effects was the belief in a supernatural, superhuman instance that "watched" over one's behavior - otherwise it would have been difficult to sustain it.
We owe our tendency to believe in supernatural occurrences, gods, fate, afterlife, souls, morals, etc. to the evolutionary success of the "theory of mind". The human brain that developed the ability to think about what others think (including non-existent minds), "suffers" from "side-effects", i.e. the above illogical, restraining beliefs.
Nowadays, with psychological sciences advancing and analyzing theory of mind and related topics, we have a chance to see these beliefs for what they are and decide how to deal with it.

[Nicholas Whyte · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/3015978.html

It's a short and breezy exploration of the psychology of belief - not as wearyingly hostile as Richard Dawkins, but equally taking it for granted that there is no "there" there. I was particularly drawn into the first few chapters' exploration of theory of mind - our ability to attribute mental states to others and to adapt our behaviour to take others' mental states into account. This is one of the things that makes us human - not just that we have a greater cognitive ability than other animals, but that we treat each other as fellow individuals. Bering makes a strong argument that belief in God, or in the supernatural, is a natural development from the fact that we have theory of mind, and therefore is to an extent an evolutionary adaptation to cope with our intelligence and social natures. He then ranges around the areas of philosophy, psychology and organised religion with a bit less impact, but he has set up the argument well enough (and the book is short enough) that I enjoyed following it though to the end. I must read more of his books, which include Why is the Penis Shaped Like That? and Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us.