What do you think?
Rate this book
Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing
An essential feature of religious experience across many cultures is the intuitive feeling of God's presence. More than any rituals or doctrines, it is this experience that anchors religious faith, yet it has been largely ignored in the scientific literature on religion.Starting with a vivid narrative account of the life-threatening hike that triggered his own mystical experience, biologist John Wathey takes the reader on a scientific journey to find the sources of religious feeling and the illusion of God's presence. Hisbook delves into the biological origins of this compelling feeling, attributing it to innate neural circuitry that evolved to promote the mother-child bond. Dr. Wathey, a veteran neuroscientist, argues that evolution has programmed the infant brain to expect the presence of a loving being who responds to the child's needs. As the infant grows into adulthood, this innate feeling is eventually transferred to the realm of religion, where it is reactivated through the symbols, imagery, and rituals of worship. The author interprets our various conceptions of God in biological terms as illusory supernormal stimuli that fill an emotional and cognitive vacuum left over from infancy.These insights shed new light on some of the most vexing puzzles of religion, like the popular belief in a god who is judgmental and punishing, yet also unconditionally loving; the extraordinary tenacity of faith; the greater religiosity of women relative to men; religious obsessions with sex; the mysterious compulsion to pray; the seemingly irrepressible feminine attributes of God, even in traditionally patriarchal religions; and the strange allure of cults. Finally, Dr. Wathey considers the hypothesis that religion evolved to foster reproductive success, arguing that, in an age of potentially ruinous overpopulation, magical thinking has become a luxury we can no longer afford, one that distracts us from urgent threats to our planet.Deeply researched yet elegantly written in a jargon-free and accessible style, this book presents a compelling interpretation of the evolutionary origins of spirituality and religion.
464 pages, Hardcover
First published January 12, 2016
66 people are currently reading
532 people want to read
About the author
John C. Wathey
3 books10 followersJohn C. Wathey is a computational biologist whose research interests include evolutionary algorithms, protein folding, and the biology of nervous systems. From 1991 to 1995, he was a senior applications scientist at Biosym Technologies (now named Biovia), a company that develops molecular modeling software for the pharmaceutical industry. In 1996, he founded his own business, Wathey Research, and, since that time, most of his scientific research has been funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
July 31, 2016
The Illusion of God’s Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing by John C. Wathey
“The Illusion of God’s Presence” is a very solid book that provides biological insights into the belief of “God”. Biologist John C. Wathey takes the reader on an interesting journey of what’s behind the illusion of God’s presence. With a great grasp of the topic, this well researched book provides readers with an understanding of the evolutionary foundation behind the origins of religious beliefs. This stimulating 445-page book includes fifteen chapters broken out by the following three parts: 1. Seeing God in a New Light, 2. Evidence and Questions, and 3. Personal Implications.
Positives:
1. Well-researched, stimulating book.
2. The fascinating topic of the biological origins of religious beliefs.
3. Wathey covers the topic from many angles and makes very good use of the latest scientific findings that lead to compelling arguments. His tone is respectful, even-handed, and his science is well grounded.
4. Does a wonderful job of defining religious experiences. “Religious belief, like any belief, is a phenomenon of the human mind and, therefore, of the human brain. Like all of our mental experience, it emerges from the electrical and biochemical activity of our immensely complex neural circuitry.”
5. I like that Wathey clearly defines why science has a role in testing for religious claims. He provides requirements for a scientific theory of religion. “A god who answers prayer and rescues desperate believers must act in the world, which means that beliefs of this kind are empirically testable.”
6. A look at faith. “But to accept anything on faith requires some degree of disconnection from reality. Faith demands the deliberate denial of contradictory evidence, a constant struggle to hide the truth behind a veil of illusion.”
7. The grand theory of evolution, the foundation of biology and Wathey’s compelling arguments. “My goal is just to present an interesting sample of those ideas that hypothesize the emergence of religion, directly or indirectly, through evolution by natural selection.”
8. A very interesting look at how the brain circuitry that implements the innate model of the mother relates to religious beliefs in adulthood. “The existence of this circuitry in the adult gives rise to religious experience, and hence religious belief, especially under conditions of great physical or emotional stress that evoke feelings of desperate need and helplessness.” “Prayer is the adult manifestation of infantile crying. The object of that supplication is a being whose presence is felt because of the activation of the innate model of the mother.”
9. Compelling case for infantile imagery in religion. Many great examples provided. “For the purposes of this chapter, the important point is that God is often seen as a parent to helpless humans who seek divine assistance from a condition of infantile dependence.” “The essence of my hypothesis is that an adult's sensation of God's presence arises from the innate neural circuitry that, in infancy, initiates the infant's part of the mother-infant bond.”
10. “God” as an attachment figure and a menu of life paths. “Rather than generating a single, one-size-fits-all pattern of attachment behavior, however, the attachment system sends each infant down one of a few distinct behavioral paths: secure, avoidant, or ambivalent.”
11. The biological roots behind the proliferation of religion. Wathey explains the concepts of the social and neonatal roots with examples and compelling research. “Finke and Stark identified those selective pressures as a longing for spiritual comfort and a need to belong to a social group that demands costly sacrifice from its members.”
12. Some keen observations that stimulate the brain. “The church was the only form of social organization allowed the slaves, and it persisted as the foundation of the civil rights movement.”
13. Answers the provocative question, why are women more religious than men?
14. Controversial topics are discussed such as the religious obsession with sex.
15. A study of why questions concerning the Jonestown massacre. “Sociologist Gary Maynard argues persuasively that Jim Jones had an extreme case of narcissistic personality disorder, a psychopathology that is usually most damaging not to the person who has the condition, but to those around him.” “Cult membership is driven and sustained by emotion, not reason.”
16. Religious misogyny. “Religious misogyny is a product of the social root of religion: it reflects the patriarchy that permeates nearly all human cultures.”
17. A look at motherese, infant-directed speech and the impact of breastfeeding.
18. A look at the fascinating science of neurotheology, the scientific study of activity in the human brain during spiritual experiences.
19. Debunks dualism. “The competing hypothesis favored by most scientists is that of mind-brain unity: the mind is entirely the result of the activity of the brain and ceases to exist when the brain dies.”
20. Helpful appendices, notes and references provided.
Negatives:
1. The constant cross-references affect the flow of the book.
2. Limited use of visual material.
3. Comprehensive references provided but I would have also liked a formal bibliography.
4. Some redundancy.
5. Some of the topics covered in this book were covered better by: Pinker, Shermer, and Swaab. Check my further suggestions.
In summary, Wathey succeeds in telling the general public what science has to say about religious experiences. My biggest complaint of the book is the uneven flow of the book. The book also lacks visual material that would have improved the overall product. That said, this is a very good book and well worth your time. I look forward to Wathey’s follow up to this book. I recommend it!
Further suggestions: “We Are Our Brains: A Neurobiography of the Brain, from the Womb to Alzheimer’s by D.F. Swaab, "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" and "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths" by Michael Shermer, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker, “Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality" by Laurence Tancredi, "Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain" Michael S. Gazzaniga, "The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life" by Jesse Bering, "50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True" by Guy P. Harrison, "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts" by Carol Tavris. For the record, I have reviewed all the aforementioned books.
“The Illusion of God’s Presence” is a very solid book that provides biological insights into the belief of “God”. Biologist John C. Wathey takes the reader on an interesting journey of what’s behind the illusion of God’s presence. With a great grasp of the topic, this well researched book provides readers with an understanding of the evolutionary foundation behind the origins of religious beliefs. This stimulating 445-page book includes fifteen chapters broken out by the following three parts: 1. Seeing God in a New Light, 2. Evidence and Questions, and 3. Personal Implications.
Positives:
1. Well-researched, stimulating book.
2. The fascinating topic of the biological origins of religious beliefs.
3. Wathey covers the topic from many angles and makes very good use of the latest scientific findings that lead to compelling arguments. His tone is respectful, even-handed, and his science is well grounded.
4. Does a wonderful job of defining religious experiences. “Religious belief, like any belief, is a phenomenon of the human mind and, therefore, of the human brain. Like all of our mental experience, it emerges from the electrical and biochemical activity of our immensely complex neural circuitry.”
5. I like that Wathey clearly defines why science has a role in testing for religious claims. He provides requirements for a scientific theory of religion. “A god who answers prayer and rescues desperate believers must act in the world, which means that beliefs of this kind are empirically testable.”
6. A look at faith. “But to accept anything on faith requires some degree of disconnection from reality. Faith demands the deliberate denial of contradictory evidence, a constant struggle to hide the truth behind a veil of illusion.”
7. The grand theory of evolution, the foundation of biology and Wathey’s compelling arguments. “My goal is just to present an interesting sample of those ideas that hypothesize the emergence of religion, directly or indirectly, through evolution by natural selection.”
8. A very interesting look at how the brain circuitry that implements the innate model of the mother relates to religious beliefs in adulthood. “The existence of this circuitry in the adult gives rise to religious experience, and hence religious belief, especially under conditions of great physical or emotional stress that evoke feelings of desperate need and helplessness.” “Prayer is the adult manifestation of infantile crying. The object of that supplication is a being whose presence is felt because of the activation of the innate model of the mother.”
9. Compelling case for infantile imagery in religion. Many great examples provided. “For the purposes of this chapter, the important point is that God is often seen as a parent to helpless humans who seek divine assistance from a condition of infantile dependence.” “The essence of my hypothesis is that an adult's sensation of God's presence arises from the innate neural circuitry that, in infancy, initiates the infant's part of the mother-infant bond.”
10. “God” as an attachment figure and a menu of life paths. “Rather than generating a single, one-size-fits-all pattern of attachment behavior, however, the attachment system sends each infant down one of a few distinct behavioral paths: secure, avoidant, or ambivalent.”
11. The biological roots behind the proliferation of religion. Wathey explains the concepts of the social and neonatal roots with examples and compelling research. “Finke and Stark identified those selective pressures as a longing for spiritual comfort and a need to belong to a social group that demands costly sacrifice from its members.”
12. Some keen observations that stimulate the brain. “The church was the only form of social organization allowed the slaves, and it persisted as the foundation of the civil rights movement.”
13. Answers the provocative question, why are women more religious than men?
14. Controversial topics are discussed such as the religious obsession with sex.
15. A study of why questions concerning the Jonestown massacre. “Sociologist Gary Maynard argues persuasively that Jim Jones had an extreme case of narcissistic personality disorder, a psychopathology that is usually most damaging not to the person who has the condition, but to those around him.” “Cult membership is driven and sustained by emotion, not reason.”
16. Religious misogyny. “Religious misogyny is a product of the social root of religion: it reflects the patriarchy that permeates nearly all human cultures.”
17. A look at motherese, infant-directed speech and the impact of breastfeeding.
18. A look at the fascinating science of neurotheology, the scientific study of activity in the human brain during spiritual experiences.
19. Debunks dualism. “The competing hypothesis favored by most scientists is that of mind-brain unity: the mind is entirely the result of the activity of the brain and ceases to exist when the brain dies.”
20. Helpful appendices, notes and references provided.
Negatives:
1. The constant cross-references affect the flow of the book.
2. Limited use of visual material.
3. Comprehensive references provided but I would have also liked a formal bibliography.
4. Some redundancy.
5. Some of the topics covered in this book were covered better by: Pinker, Shermer, and Swaab. Check my further suggestions.
In summary, Wathey succeeds in telling the general public what science has to say about religious experiences. My biggest complaint of the book is the uneven flow of the book. The book also lacks visual material that would have improved the overall product. That said, this is a very good book and well worth your time. I look forward to Wathey’s follow up to this book. I recommend it!
Further suggestions: “We Are Our Brains: A Neurobiography of the Brain, from the Womb to Alzheimer’s by D.F. Swaab, "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" and "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths" by Michael Shermer, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker, “Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality" by Laurence Tancredi, "Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain" Michael S. Gazzaniga, "The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life" by Jesse Bering, "50 Popular Beliefs That People Think Are True" by Guy P. Harrison, "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts" by Carol Tavris. For the record, I have reviewed all the aforementioned books.
June 10, 2016
The author holds that few people believe in god(s) or the supernatural because they are convinced by logical arguments or make a rational decision. Instead, belief is emotional and experiential, not intellectual - and I agree. Most people, he holds, believe because they have felt a "divine" presence, such as when they pray, worship, or are in despair or crisis (or joy). Raised a Christian, Wathey has had two strong mystical experiences of God's presence after he became an atheist, experiences that did not change his mind but which drove him to find a naturalistic explanation for this sense of a loving, forgiving, powerful divinity. In explaining his view, he includes a lot of interesting material on the neuroscience of infancy and child development. I didn't feel his explanation was sufficient, but it may well be a factor. Also, he considered this instinctive divine presence to be like the anthropomorphic parent-God he grew up with (though he brings up the judgmental, punishing God as a different aspect imposed by society for its own ends). But then it is his own experience and those raised like him that he is attempting to explain. I found the weakest part of the book to be his arguments against mind/body dualism - they didn't convinced me.
As a person not raised in any religion, I've always wondered why people believe in gods like the Abrahamic, Hindu, or Classical ones. One criticism I would have is that Wathey doesn't emphasize enough that most people believe what they do because they have been trained to do so since earliest childhood, usually in a community that assumes and rewards such belief. People so trained often hold that belief in such divinities is instinctive or natural, but I don't find it so. Until there are enough people raised without religious training in a secular context, it will be hard to know how "natural" belief in particular types of supernatural beings really are. Still, Wathey's orientation toward people's felt experience would be more productive for most people than trying to convince through logical argument alone. Experience is hard to trump, whether one's interpretation of that experience is in line with reality or not.
As a person not raised in any religion, I've always wondered why people believe in gods like the Abrahamic, Hindu, or Classical ones. One criticism I would have is that Wathey doesn't emphasize enough that most people believe what they do because they have been trained to do so since earliest childhood, usually in a community that assumes and rewards such belief. People so trained often hold that belief in such divinities is instinctive or natural, but I don't find it so. Until there are enough people raised without religious training in a secular context, it will be hard to know how "natural" belief in particular types of supernatural beings really are. Still, Wathey's orientation toward people's felt experience would be more productive for most people than trying to convince through logical argument alone. Experience is hard to trump, whether one's interpretation of that experience is in line with reality or not.
September 8, 2016
A few decades back my wife and I took the kids to Disney World. In August. On the third day of heat and humidity we were scheduled to go to that movie-themed park which is part of Disney; I think they changed the name of it relatively recently, but whatever. Anyway, all my wife and kids wanted to do was stay at the hotel and go to the pool. I, being stubborn, posited that I had not flown practically the width of the country to do something we could have easily - and more cheaply - done at home. My wife claimed it was not the heat, not even the humidity that was keeping her from the movie park but the fear that seeing how they do the wonderful effects would ruin the movies for her: “The science will take away the essence of the movies, and why do I want to risk that? ... Plus it is so freakkkkkkkkin hot.” Well, I’m going!
I went, I waited, I wilted.
John C. Wathey’s The Illusion of God’s Presence had me thinking of those Disney days again. Reading it was interesting and entertaining, to say the least. In fact, I would say the book contained some of the most interesting information detailing scores of fascinating scientific studies, all presented in the most boring style I think I’ve encountered. I went, I waded, I wilted.
There was a point or two during the early course of my reading that I thought perhaps the most memorable thing I would take from this book was the realization of the dyslexically similar spelling of two fields which have interested me going back probably to 10 B.D.E. (i.e., Before the Disney Era mentioned previously): Theology and Ethology. [I majored in Psychology with an emphasis on Animal Behavior and almost enrolled in the monastery after graduation.] Not so though - there was much more memorable information in the book. It was interesting to read of the various tie-ins, beyond their spelling, between those two ologies. For the most part Wathey made many excellent points. However, at times, even though I agreed with most of his reasoning, his conclusions felt a bit heavy-handed to me.
Can things be too interesting? I know it sounds ridiculous, but I did get so engrossed in so many of the consecutively explicated scientific experimental findings that when Wathey finally returned to his title subject I audibly uttered “Oh yeah, the God thing.”
The last subsection of the book felt ironically preachy to me, not that I disagree with its main premise. I see the connection Wathey was making, but I thought that topic (God, Humanity, and the Earth) would have functioned better and felt less preachy if it were an Appendix. In fact, the entire Chapter 15 (What if God is not Real?) may have functioned better as an Appendix because I feel it went beyond the scientific discussion of the illusion of God’s presence, presenting the author’s personal views (again, not that I necessarily disagree with those views).
I know Mr. Wathey is supremely proud of his sequel, and he has every right to be; I’m sure it is well-researched and extremely thorough in its presentation and explications, just as this current work is. However, I couldn’t help but chuckle after the nth reference to his sequel where "n" exceeded my species specific innate releasing mechanism threshold (a small homage to Lorenz and Tinbergen!). At that point every reference to the sequel took on a John Frum or “Godot” feel. He said it’s coming! Just wait! You’ll see, Charlie Brown!
As I finished the book on a beautiful Labor Day afternoon I contemplated the many thought-provoking studies I had now been made aware of. Fascinating for sure. Valid, no doubt. Stimulating absolutely. Discussion-provoking indeed. But I have a nagging thought. Perhaps my wife’s opinion of that Disney movie park vs. the movies applies here? Science, as valid as it is, may take away the essence of religion. Why do I want to risk that? Plus Wathey’s style is so freakkkkkkkkin dry!
Let’s go to the pool.
I went, I waited, I wilted.
John C. Wathey’s The Illusion of God’s Presence had me thinking of those Disney days again. Reading it was interesting and entertaining, to say the least. In fact, I would say the book contained some of the most interesting information detailing scores of fascinating scientific studies, all presented in the most boring style I think I’ve encountered. I went, I waded, I wilted.
There was a point or two during the early course of my reading that I thought perhaps the most memorable thing I would take from this book was the realization of the dyslexically similar spelling of two fields which have interested me going back probably to 10 B.D.E. (i.e., Before the Disney Era mentioned previously): Theology and Ethology. [I majored in Psychology with an emphasis on Animal Behavior and almost enrolled in the monastery after graduation.] Not so though - there was much more memorable information in the book. It was interesting to read of the various tie-ins, beyond their spelling, between those two ologies. For the most part Wathey made many excellent points. However, at times, even though I agreed with most of his reasoning, his conclusions felt a bit heavy-handed to me.
Can things be too interesting? I know it sounds ridiculous, but I did get so engrossed in so many of the consecutively explicated scientific experimental findings that when Wathey finally returned to his title subject I audibly uttered “Oh yeah, the God thing.”
The last subsection of the book felt ironically preachy to me, not that I disagree with its main premise. I see the connection Wathey was making, but I thought that topic (God, Humanity, and the Earth) would have functioned better and felt less preachy if it were an Appendix. In fact, the entire Chapter 15 (What if God is not Real?) may have functioned better as an Appendix because I feel it went beyond the scientific discussion of the illusion of God’s presence, presenting the author’s personal views (again, not that I necessarily disagree with those views).
I know Mr. Wathey is supremely proud of his sequel, and he has every right to be; I’m sure it is well-researched and extremely thorough in its presentation and explications, just as this current work is. However, I couldn’t help but chuckle after the nth reference to his sequel where "n" exceeded my species specific innate releasing mechanism threshold (a small homage to Lorenz and Tinbergen!). At that point every reference to the sequel took on a John Frum or “Godot” feel. He said it’s coming! Just wait! You’ll see, Charlie Brown!
As I finished the book on a beautiful Labor Day afternoon I contemplated the many thought-provoking studies I had now been made aware of. Fascinating for sure. Valid, no doubt. Stimulating absolutely. Discussion-provoking indeed. But I have a nagging thought. Perhaps my wife’s opinion of that Disney movie park vs. the movies applies here? Science, as valid as it is, may take away the essence of religion. Why do I want to risk that? Plus Wathey’s style is so freakkkkkkkkin dry!
Let’s go to the pool.
February 14, 2016
This is a quite insightful and stimulating book. I will take a little bit different review angle than other five-starrers to offer additional insights — and one critical bit of critique.
Like Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer, Wathey offers an evolutionary-based account of the development of human religious belief. Unlike them, though, he does not go down the road of cognitive theories. While not rejecting the idea that agency imputation and pattern detection, run amok beyond our early hominim days, and "hacked," could have been part of the evolution of religion, he says that they're insufficient. To add to his thoughts, the best that can do is say that Something that is Out There is causing otherwise inexplicable things to happen.
However, the Atran/Boyer angle can't fully explain a personal deity, one whose presence countless millions believe they have ineffably experienced, and whom billions believe exist as a *personal* deity. In other words, they don't explain the rise of belief in a god, or gods, with whom people believe they have a personal relationship.
And, that's where Wathey starts. He believes that attachment theory, "hacked," can explain just that. He notes that it especially explains what people call "spirituality." Now, he then adds that this is often "feminine" in nature. What about the masculine image of god in western monotheisms? Wathey says that comes from the organized religion side of what constitutes religion. He uses parallel lists of dualities/polarities, with some as sliding-scale semi-polarities, to illustrate this, with neonatal/individual/feminine/immanent vs social/corporate/masculine/transcendent. He backs this up with surveys about people who identify is primarily "religious only," primarily "spiritual only," those "spiritual and religious," and those "neither." From there he goes in yet further directions, many of which he promises will get yet more exploration in a sequel.
As other reviewers note, so called New Atheists may not like this book, any more than they do Atran or Boyer. Both they, and he, treat religious beliefs and accounts of religious experiences with respect. Wathey adds that he even personally,as a secularist, once had a sensation of being in the presence of what he would call "the other" were he religious.
That gets to the one mild criticism. Wathey's clearly talking about things that could be subsumed under "numinous," as popularized by Rudolf Otto, then Jung et al, though they may not have personalized this experience as much as he does to personal mystic experiences. It was surprising not to see him further explore this avenue; in fact, Otto isn't even mentioned by name.
Like Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer, Wathey offers an evolutionary-based account of the development of human religious belief. Unlike them, though, he does not go down the road of cognitive theories. While not rejecting the idea that agency imputation and pattern detection, run amok beyond our early hominim days, and "hacked," could have been part of the evolution of religion, he says that they're insufficient. To add to his thoughts, the best that can do is say that Something that is Out There is causing otherwise inexplicable things to happen.
However, the Atran/Boyer angle can't fully explain a personal deity, one whose presence countless millions believe they have ineffably experienced, and whom billions believe exist as a *personal* deity. In other words, they don't explain the rise of belief in a god, or gods, with whom people believe they have a personal relationship.
And, that's where Wathey starts. He believes that attachment theory, "hacked," can explain just that. He notes that it especially explains what people call "spirituality." Now, he then adds that this is often "feminine" in nature. What about the masculine image of god in western monotheisms? Wathey says that comes from the organized religion side of what constitutes religion. He uses parallel lists of dualities/polarities, with some as sliding-scale semi-polarities, to illustrate this, with neonatal/individual/feminine/immanent vs social/corporate/masculine/transcendent. He backs this up with surveys about people who identify is primarily "religious only," primarily "spiritual only," those "spiritual and religious," and those "neither." From there he goes in yet further directions, many of which he promises will get yet more exploration in a sequel.
As other reviewers note, so called New Atheists may not like this book, any more than they do Atran or Boyer. Both they, and he, treat religious beliefs and accounts of religious experiences with respect. Wathey adds that he even personally,as a secularist, once had a sensation of being in the presence of what he would call "the other" were he religious.
That gets to the one mild criticism. Wathey's clearly talking about things that could be subsumed under "numinous," as popularized by Rudolf Otto, then Jung et al, though they may not have personalized this experience as much as he does to personal mystic experiences. It was surprising not to see him further explore this avenue; in fact, Otto isn't even mentioned by name.
June 4, 2016
There are a lot of individuals who, in spite of reason and lack of evidence, still persist in believing in a God. There is no argument that can convince them, for they claim to have 'experienced' god personally, and thus can believe.
This book offers a naturalistic explanation for this phenomenon. It boils down to INNATE predispositions that are evolutionarily formed in the human species, and reside in the orbitalfontal cortex, that create in each of us the certainty of the existence of our mother (immediately after birth), and this occurrence is at the root of all subsequent feeling of the presence of a god. Longing for the certainty of a mother blossoms into longing for the certainty of a God as we age.
A second root for the feeling of the existence of god, is the need for social bonds in order to survive, and it also is an evolutionary adaption. These two roots are explored in detail (the first root more than the second) in this work.
The author makes a lot of sense for you can clearly see this in everyday experience. It is not a proof for the non-existence of god, but it is an explanation for a common phenomenon that otherwise defies rational analysis.
This book offers a naturalistic explanation for this phenomenon. It boils down to INNATE predispositions that are evolutionarily formed in the human species, and reside in the orbitalfontal cortex, that create in each of us the certainty of the existence of our mother (immediately after birth), and this occurrence is at the root of all subsequent feeling of the presence of a god. Longing for the certainty of a mother blossoms into longing for the certainty of a God as we age.
A second root for the feeling of the existence of god, is the need for social bonds in order to survive, and it also is an evolutionary adaption. These two roots are explored in detail (the first root more than the second) in this work.
The author makes a lot of sense for you can clearly see this in everyday experience. It is not a proof for the non-existence of god, but it is an explanation for a common phenomenon that otherwise defies rational analysis.
October 25, 2016
Wathey (a computational biologist) advances a hypothesis such that admits few refutations. It is well presented, well argued, and copiously documented: we're dealing here with a hard-core empiricist… Maybe one that will not go down in history as one of science's great explicators. He is no popularizer: Wathey is a scientist for scientists.
His prose is wry and dry; to the point. His idea is quite simple: the religious experience of God's presence is a vestigial, phantom sensation of our hardwired neonatal longing for mother. His arguments and his evidence are airtight.
Having said that I believe Chapter 11 is a witheringly unnecessary digression. Wathey makes up for it with Chapter 14, a Ramachandran-like feast of neurological curiosities.
This is an important book that will make ripples in neurotheological studies.
His prose is wry and dry; to the point. His idea is quite simple: the religious experience of God's presence is a vestigial, phantom sensation of our hardwired neonatal longing for mother. His arguments and his evidence are airtight.
Having said that I believe Chapter 11 is a witheringly unnecessary digression. Wathey makes up for it with Chapter 14, a Ramachandran-like feast of neurological curiosities.
This is an important book that will make ripples in neurotheological studies.
March 7, 2023
For what it is - a reductionist, materialist, naturalist, positivist treatment of perceptions about God's existence or presence - it is very good, i.e., research-based and widely acceptable within the scientific community. After reading it, I was struck by the notion that science needs more religion and religion needs more science; chiefly because whenever one side critiques or attacks the other, it does not aim at the authentic target, but at a caricature of it.
In this case, Wathey attacks a caricature of religion, in general and of Christianity, in particular. His firsthand experience with Christianity ended as a teenager, whose religious maturity was quite limited (as described by James W. Fowler in the book, Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning). Thereafter, Wathey's secondhand knowledge has been gained mostly from descriptions of religion by skeptics, who seldom portray religion in an accurate, much less positive light. (To be fair, however, there are types of religious people who give negative verisimilitude to what Wathey and others think about religious people.)
Wathey's thesis is two-fold: first, we seek attachment to our parent (especially the mother), which is an inborn neonatal drive that eventually gets misdirected toward God later in life; second, we become drawn into communities, one of which is church or synagogue, there to be tested in our devotion to it, by offering sacrifice and conforming ourselves to its established values. As a reductionist, Wathey takes for granted that all of this is merely the result of evolution, not requiring anything prior to set it all in motion.
Wathey is unaware of millions of religious people (including scientists) who accept evolution and who intellectually can show that it is a process begun by and used by God. He thinks that religious people are in error for not accepting the clear mandates of science, in this regard. He, doubtless, is unaware that many Christian thinkers since Augustine have maintained that all truth is God's truth. Wathey holds in his mind a narrow caricature of religion.
Religious people can easily believe all that neural science shows about our perception of God's existence and presence, since they can show that a creator God caused our bodies to be formed thus predisposed. Reductionists, being mostly descriptive in their philosophy, rather than explanatory, ignore any antecedents that explain not only the "how," but also the "why." Why would God create mankind in any other way than as presently described in the science?
His other chief caricature of religion is that religious people believe in mind-body dualism. Sure this may be true of eastern religions and post-Hellenistic Judaeo-Christianity, but the notion is not vouchsafed by genuine biblical religion. The Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) holds to mind-body unity, as does objective exegesis of relevant New Testament passages. Wathey, just like most Jews and Christians, is unaware of how Judaeo-Christianity was corrupted by Greek philosophy, especially neo-Platonism.
Otherwise, the book is valuable and I recommend that everyone read it.
In this case, Wathey attacks a caricature of religion, in general and of Christianity, in particular. His firsthand experience with Christianity ended as a teenager, whose religious maturity was quite limited (as described by James W. Fowler in the book, Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning). Thereafter, Wathey's secondhand knowledge has been gained mostly from descriptions of religion by skeptics, who seldom portray religion in an accurate, much less positive light. (To be fair, however, there are types of religious people who give negative verisimilitude to what Wathey and others think about religious people.)
Wathey's thesis is two-fold: first, we seek attachment to our parent (especially the mother), which is an inborn neonatal drive that eventually gets misdirected toward God later in life; second, we become drawn into communities, one of which is church or synagogue, there to be tested in our devotion to it, by offering sacrifice and conforming ourselves to its established values. As a reductionist, Wathey takes for granted that all of this is merely the result of evolution, not requiring anything prior to set it all in motion.
Wathey is unaware of millions of religious people (including scientists) who accept evolution and who intellectually can show that it is a process begun by and used by God. He thinks that religious people are in error for not accepting the clear mandates of science, in this regard. He, doubtless, is unaware that many Christian thinkers since Augustine have maintained that all truth is God's truth. Wathey holds in his mind a narrow caricature of religion.
Religious people can easily believe all that neural science shows about our perception of God's existence and presence, since they can show that a creator God caused our bodies to be formed thus predisposed. Reductionists, being mostly descriptive in their philosophy, rather than explanatory, ignore any antecedents that explain not only the "how," but also the "why." Why would God create mankind in any other way than as presently described in the science?
His other chief caricature of religion is that religious people believe in mind-body dualism. Sure this may be true of eastern religions and post-Hellenistic Judaeo-Christianity, but the notion is not vouchsafed by genuine biblical religion. The Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) holds to mind-body unity, as does objective exegesis of relevant New Testament passages. Wathey, just like most Jews and Christians, is unaware of how Judaeo-Christianity was corrupted by Greek philosophy, especially neo-Platonism.
Otherwise, the book is valuable and I recommend that everyone read it.
March 21, 2016
Astonishing!
March 4, 2025
TLDR, bro deconstructed, and now embraces materialism. This writing took a lot of effort, but misses on some really basic things. Here are just a teeny handful of things I noted.
Embarrassing understanding of iconography in part 2, demonstrates clear lack of research.
Freudian psychoanalysis shows up in much of this work, several of Wathey’s conclusions contradict recent studies.
Clear bias shows up in the chapter ‘Is God an Evolutionary Hack’, “Why does God want us to mutilate our genitals, especially those of our children? Why does the creator of this infinitely vast universe care so much about what we do with our sexual organs as adults? Why is lust considered sinful? Why was Jesus born of a virgin, and according to Catholics, his mother also?” Pg 157. These questions above reveal a depth of misunderstanding of incarnation theology, and Christianity as a whole. Also - does the last question above imply that Wathey thinks that Protestants, Greek Orthodox, and the like do not view Mary at the God-Bearer? Curious.
“God’s presence arises from prior hyperactivity of the cholinergic basal forebrain system… by helplessness… We see it in the brain’s response to primary reinforcers, in the addictive nature of religious emotion, and in the overwhelming feeling of certainty without evidence that characterizes faith. In its essence, this trick of the brain may be merely an accidental consequence of evolution’s use of nonmodifiable synapses to implement the core of human nature.” 250, 251
Interesting read, not convincing - but a valuable look into what thought and life looks like, post-faith.
Library of UNM has some really interesting stuff in their philosophy/religious section. S/o to their staff for being so helpful!
Embarrassing understanding of iconography in part 2, demonstrates clear lack of research.
Freudian psychoanalysis shows up in much of this work, several of Wathey’s conclusions contradict recent studies.
Clear bias shows up in the chapter ‘Is God an Evolutionary Hack’, “Why does God want us to mutilate our genitals, especially those of our children? Why does the creator of this infinitely vast universe care so much about what we do with our sexual organs as adults? Why is lust considered sinful? Why was Jesus born of a virgin, and according to Catholics, his mother also?” Pg 157. These questions above reveal a depth of misunderstanding of incarnation theology, and Christianity as a whole. Also - does the last question above imply that Wathey thinks that Protestants, Greek Orthodox, and the like do not view Mary at the God-Bearer? Curious.
“God’s presence arises from prior hyperactivity of the cholinergic basal forebrain system… by helplessness… We see it in the brain’s response to primary reinforcers, in the addictive nature of religious emotion, and in the overwhelming feeling of certainty without evidence that characterizes faith. In its essence, this trick of the brain may be merely an accidental consequence of evolution’s use of nonmodifiable synapses to implement the core of human nature.” 250, 251
Interesting read, not convincing - but a valuable look into what thought and life looks like, post-faith.
Library of UNM has some really interesting stuff in their philosophy/religious section. S/o to their staff for being so helpful!
January 21, 2018
Very insightful. Enough things to think about for a while. We develop the idea of Another when we are just babes and the sense of Another stays with us until we discover where it came from and why. The evolutionary byproduct of our biological underpinnings.
December 5, 2020
This was informative, and I learned so much. I really appreciated the discussion of creationism and the misconceptions of evolution in the appendix.
July 9, 2021
A fascinating premise backed by scientific evidence. More people should be reading this book.
September 6, 2017
The Origin of God Revealed
The best explanation of belief in gods I have found. The roots of belief lie in our extended early developmental genetic and experiential relationships with care givers (mothers especially) and social bonding. The rather bleak ending of the book bothered me because it rang true that our course as a species may bring our own demise.
The best explanation of belief in gods I have found. The roots of belief lie in our extended early developmental genetic and experiential relationships with care givers (mothers especially) and social bonding. The rather bleak ending of the book bothered me because it rang true that our course as a species may bring our own demise.
July 6, 2023
This is an extremely valuable book as it's one of the few atheistic tracts that takes seriously the mystical experience, which is a profound motivator for spiritual and religious sentiment. Wathey makes a compelling argument, and although I don't agree with his conclusions, it is refreshing to see someone offer a naturalistic account of mystical/transcendent experiences. Highly recommended.
August 11, 2018
Interesting interpretation of how religion started
Overall I enjoyed this book quite a lot. I was a little bit disappointed that I wasn't reading the more scientific book that he keeps teasing us with, but this book was enjoyable. Chapter 10 did saga bit with technicality correct science, but overall is thesis seemed sound.
Overall I enjoyed this book quite a lot. I was a little bit disappointed that I wasn't reading the more scientific book that he keeps teasing us with, but this book was enjoyable. Chapter 10 did saga bit with technicality correct science, but overall is thesis seemed sound.
July 2, 2016
Excellent discussion of the psychological basis of our yearning for comfort and our need to see order in the world.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews