Does the HADD hypothesis explains why making unfalsifiable claims on random things being secretly connected by a higher power is sometimes called religion and sometimes called evolutionary psychology ?
@Autists-Guide5 жыл бұрын
I appreciate the video. Nicely done. Although I'm not seeing the problem. There's biological capability and cultural reinforcement (confirmation) ... gene-meme interaction. A feed-back loop. I have flow diagrams if anyone is interested. ;)
@danielebbeling40565 жыл бұрын
Re -lig - ion Reg- ion Leg - ion Re- volut - ion In-vent- ion Where ;and when ; WAS this ..Ion ? Why were the upper portions of the heavens called , “ ion - o- sphere” Does it declare , “ Io - no - sphere “ ! Was it the place of Sion ; or Zion ? To go. Off-plane port? Consider Indus Valley Indus -tree A volute is a spiraling compressing configuration. There; was solut involut , etc. HERE was a portal to another plane.
@sethapex96705 жыл бұрын
kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nZ6iq8KEqcvFkaM.html
@DingoAteMeBaby5 жыл бұрын
Look at ancient egypt. It seems very interesting the shift from animal gods to human gods. It seems that human based gods emerges when complex urban society develops. Extrapolated, it could be that humans in urban settings naturally just assume the most dangerous thing around them is not an animal predator, but another human.
@azn30005 жыл бұрын
Is there a time in ancient Egyptian religion in which we can see a "shift" in such gods? From my understanding, animal Egyptian gods not always depicted or seen as animals, they are also represented as humans sometimes. And what about those non-urban societies that depict their gods as human-like or those that lack an anthropomorphic body at all?
@ThePrinceofParthia5 жыл бұрын
@Wednesday's Child the Egyptian gods are very distinct from the other pantheons that you mentioned, and the similarities between the rest of them can be explained because they are all descended from proto Indo European religious practices.
@IHeartZui5 жыл бұрын
Osiris and his sister (Isis) were not anthropomorphized animals nor their parents Geb and Nut and these are some of the earliest Gods in the pantheon so it would be hard to put a time line on a transition period. Early paleoliths in Egypt show basic animal headed concepts most likely arising from the shamantic practice of "inhabiting" a sacred animals "power" through the use of a head dress made of a skull and other elements. The Egyptians are often referred to as a bronze age people with a stone age soul because they did not forget these ways when they urbanized
@IHeartZui5 жыл бұрын
@Wednesday's Child Any hypothesis about the belief systems of the people of Gobekli Tepe are just unverifiable assumptions
@IHeartZui5 жыл бұрын
@Wednesday's Child Egypt had language that has been deciphered and plenty of physical artifacts. Though too often Egyptology is more interpretive art history than archaeology id say there is a bit more to work with.
@vlaw71035 жыл бұрын
Plot twist: there WAS a spirit haunting Darwin's umbrella
@narrelleweir63835 жыл бұрын
No, he didn't train his dog properly so it barked at anything.
@robertedwards9094 жыл бұрын
Is video seems question begging
@Saintdraconis2 жыл бұрын
It was the spirits of all the turtles he eated
@OtakuUnitedStudio Жыл бұрын
@@narrelleweir6383 Pretty sure that was just a joke, my guy.
@toddyahushua79725 жыл бұрын
The vsauce of religion right here. Even kinda sounds like him.
@redflags65835 жыл бұрын
He doesn't enunciate like an idiot tho
@jlupus88045 жыл бұрын
He should edit his videos and scripts the same way :D
@elvondrago964 жыл бұрын
lemme guess, his name is Gabriel. Brother of Michael?
@toddyahushua79724 жыл бұрын
www.thevolumesoftruth.com/Above_Reproach Thus says The Lord to His servant: My son, why do you question Me in this way? To question My servant is to question Me. Therefore listen and have understanding, that My will may be fulfilled in you. That which you call the Old Testament was indeed written through My servants and prophets of old, and all who were wise gave heed, obeying the writing thereof. Yet even then that which would come to be written in the New Testament already existed, awaiting the day I would send out My apostles and prophets to proclaim the Good News. Was it the Old Testament? No. It was the New Testament, never before seen, heard or published. And now the time has come for Me to send out My apostles and prophets once again, to announce My coming and to set all these crooked paths straight; behold, it is time to blow the Trumpet and prepare My way before Me. Does that which My messengers proclaim agree with the Bible? Yes. For the words in these Letters are My words; as are the words in your Bible My words, though they have been greatly misinterpreted and mistranslated by men. Therefore put no difference between them. For to reject any part of My Word is to reject the whole. I tell you the truth, the three books are one, one on-going testament to My glory. Thus much of what My servants proclaim, you have already heard. Yet they will also declare that which you have not heard (nor have you understood, because of man’s doctrine in you). Therefore, again I say to you, what My prophets of the end of this age write is indeed new to many, yet remains in perfect agreement with the prophets of old. For I do not change; I shall surely make My plans known.
@drewharrison64333 жыл бұрын
@@toddyahushua7972 Cool story, bro.
@oskarhenriksen5 жыл бұрын
"It was only the wind. You've been hadd!"
@ZachJ3674 жыл бұрын
Must've been the wind.... For King and Country!!!
@lucasmaicelilopes70573 жыл бұрын
Then took an arrow in the knee
@Morfeusm3 жыл бұрын
Why I read this in Johnatan Frakes voice?
@sgtstull5 жыл бұрын
This is a great channel, and very underrated. I've always been interested in religion and I'm glad there is someone who makes such high quality videos on these subjects.
@domhnal19845 жыл бұрын
Never have I wanted to subscribe and like a KZfaq channel more than I have yours. I know you are also an academic with all of the demands that come with it (lectures, classes, research, publication, dissertation students), but you are doing good work here. Bringing religious literacy to the table is essential for us to claw our way out of this mess. Please continue! And at an alarming rate!
@AllThingsInfinite5 жыл бұрын
An excellent video as always! I love how you're able to explain things in an understandable way for the general public without sacrificing the complexity of these topics. Usually people on youtube focus just on one side of the argument, but you always give an explanation of both sides, even in such a short video. I really appreciate all the work you do!
@jim225122515 жыл бұрын
From a believer's perspective HADD fits with the idea that there is intentionality on the part of God to be known by us. "You have made us for yourself o God and our hearts are restless until they rest in You" (Augustine)
@ReligionForBreakfast5 жыл бұрын
I like that. Might be the basis for a cognitive theology of some sort. Seminary dissertation topic?
@carmentripodi34495 жыл бұрын
This sounds a little bit similar to the idea of Sensus Divinitatis by John Calvin and used by Alvin Plantinga. Here are two links some video clips about this, that might interest you. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/otifY5iD27axm3k.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/otifY5iD27axm3k.html
@aliciamontero70615 жыл бұрын
The muslims believe that God wanted to be known and this is the reason to create human beings.
@Kevorama02055 жыл бұрын
Everything can fit with God. That’s the reason it’s not a good theory. “You can’t explain that!” always becomes “Of course God did it like that!” once we do. And that can be done for any unexplained thing, really.
@aliciamontero70615 жыл бұрын
@wearealltubes" I have not created the Jinn and Mankind, except to worship me " Then, there is a hadith qudsi that goes something like " I was a hidden Treasure I desired to be recognized so I created the creature" . : کنت کنزاً مخفیاً فأحببت أن أعرف فخلقت الخلق لکی أعرف. Just what I have read. Sufism has used it a lot in their texts.
@Notorax15 жыл бұрын
Oh! This was very interested! I myself have no actual knowledge in regards to the cognitive sciences inspired religious studies field, this has been very fun to watch.
@huntedboy285 жыл бұрын
YOU ARE SO UNDERRATED TO THE POINT WHERE I FEEL BAD
@blackcat16425 жыл бұрын
i love how you updated your avatar with a beard
@dawntavishflynn88024 жыл бұрын
I love this theory because I'm a simultaneously spiritual and highly analytical person.
@cristobalrojas37123 жыл бұрын
You will love Dr Jordan Peterson's videos
@wendbnew3 жыл бұрын
What does it mean, that you are spiritual?
@headsworthtg35853 жыл бұрын
@@cristobalrojas3712 yea, if you want to fall down a reactionary rabbit hole
@abdulaleem92073 жыл бұрын
how is it possible?
@tnl-warrior32183 жыл бұрын
@@wendbnew u have a connection with the unseeable forces
@Salsmachev5 жыл бұрын
I don't think Durkheim can really account for religion either, though. Religion is not just a communal experience; in some ways it is deeply individual. Durkheim certainly explains much of how organised religion and religious communities develop, but he doesn't have any way to account for religious Inspiration, which often flies directly in the face of organised religion. The basic intuitions that often guide religion do seem to have something more than a purely social origin.
@haywardjeblomey65055 жыл бұрын
If he's correct, that explains inspiration as a simple epiphany. Your imaginary friend gave you really good advice, in other words. It's a moving experience to hear the ultimate knowledge from the ultimate boss of the universe, and you just happen to be his best friend.
@aaronmoreton5 жыл бұрын
👏
@Salsmachev5 жыл бұрын
@@haywardjeblomey6505 But Durkheim doesn't really have any way of accounting for epiphany, that's the problem. Structuralism can only account for what we do with epiphany (viz. interpreting it within a religious framework). It's reductive to suggest that religion comes about as the result of social interaction and the creation of community when there are clear counterexamples. I'd posit that it's actually more hylomorphic, with both upward and downward causality.
@haywardjeblomey65055 жыл бұрын
@@Salsmachev You don't know where epiphany comes from? It comes from memory (experience) and the processing of those memories through other emotional states. One can never come to the correct conclusion if they don't have the experience of knowing the proposition, for example.
@Salsmachev5 жыл бұрын
@@haywardjeblomey6505 I don't think we actually have any substantive disagreement here. Epiphanies, according to your explanation of them, are not consistent with a wholly structuralist/Durkheimian account of religion.
@nerdysister5 жыл бұрын
Brilliant! This is a deep and useful subject for all of our species. Excellent job, I would love to see videos with further research
@vatsdimri36754 жыл бұрын
Great channel, definitely deserves more subscribers. Here are my views on what you said. I agree with you that HADD isn't the end of the story but it definitely is an important part. I think HADD + Abstract Thinking, together with some other social facts (like social identity) can easily explain how religions can develop.
@p.bamygdala21393 жыл бұрын
This is awesome!!! Thanks so much for exploring religion in the mind as well as in the brain. I hope you'll find a way to BRIDGE the social and hard sciences to show where in the brain and in the genes our loyalty to community, rituals, etc. play out. Eg., amygdala and DRD4 gene.
@jacobborgmann77625 жыл бұрын
I've heard of this one before I liked your retelling of the lesson I also liked your personal touch, as you mention your own persuasion that Religion is a social construct. Good to enter the dirt and stake your own claim!
@jondavis71225 жыл бұрын
Great work! It shows you enjoy what your doing.
@FlowerThePot3 жыл бұрын
This channel is a real gem!
@joeyi81565 жыл бұрын
Love that you are back doing videos again! Could you please cover the Genetic Fallacy??(Morality defined by genetic adaptation)
@kittee64095 жыл бұрын
Loved this video! Could you do a video on the history of marriage in religion? I read an article for my sociology class that claims for the first 500-1000 years of Christianity the religion rejected the concept as "tainted and secular," and didn't adopt it as sacrament until 1215. I don't know if there is any truth to this, but I thought you might have some knowledge on the subject. Thanks!
@daddyleon5 жыл бұрын
*+ReligionForBreakfast* A point of criticism about 8:48-9:10 Yes, obviously..cultural learning mechanisms are VERY important in shaping the content and place where religious form. That's not the claim of HADD either (i.e. it doesn't claim to describe how it happens, just suggests that HADD is at the forefront for the entire process, it allows it 'to go'). That's not a real argument against what HADD. That counter argument to HADD is, I think, akin to saying: "the shape, slope, and surrounding features of the land (like reefs, rocks, islands, etc.), the trajectory of the ocean currents, and the force and direction of the wind are the factors that determine what the waves will look like, what direction they go, the height they will have and other things. Therefore we can brush away the moon and tidal currents as contributing to the explanation of the movements of seas and oceans." I think it's missing the point entirely. I see it as HADD opening the door for personal/chance interpretations and other larger social forces (both in the moment and over looong stretches of time) to either discount/explain away or run with those HADD experiences. We certainly don't know how it all works, and I think focussing too much on those neuro-studies is going to be a red herring. We might see where it starts to happen, but locking people up in an ƒMRI for the entirely of belief-forming that can take quite long it's going to be practical. And to some extent, even if/when those devices become tiny and portable, you can only see where it happens - that doesn't necessarily tell you (why or) how it happens _like_ that.
@p.bamygdala21395 жыл бұрын
Granted to all of that. But the reason I'm excited about the progress happening with the neuroscience of religion (not just *adoption* but continued *adherence* to beliefs) is that once we know the exact mechanism and process by which a person chooses emotional satisfaction from sticking with happy memories vs embracing the new and unknown based on objective evidence, then we can explore how to shape experiences scientifically so that people can be incentivized to think rationally. Taken to the next level, we could develop a cure for irrationality!
@p.bamygdala21395 жыл бұрын
Amazing stuff! Please keep exploring neuroscience and cognitive psychology as it connects with religion. This is exciting! The big question that arises here is: where in the brain are "Cultural leaning mechanisms" happening? Also, agency detection might explain *adoption* of religious beliefs, but what about *maintaining* religious beliefs and doubling down when presented with conflicting evidence? How do the social sciences explore adherence and submission to group think? In neuro, it's all about the power of the amygdala..... Thanks again!
@user-zd7fi1fh6r5 жыл бұрын
Well done, well put, and well, just really interesting. Thank you.
@tiburcio434 жыл бұрын
As an atheist who tried a catholic prayer practice, I have this hunch that there is utility in relating to the chaos of the world in an anthropomorphized manner. It felt strangely natural and it kind of made it easier to pay attention to subtle "responses of the world" to your own actions.
@AbandonedVoid6 ай бұрын
I think that's such an interesting overlap between pareidolia and confirmation bias, because it only appears once you prime yourself to look for these communications. You see a similar pattern with the concepts of synchronicity and manifestation.
@johnstewart20112 жыл бұрын
Thank you. This is a topic I’ve long considered and wondered about. I have my own theories that are too long to express, but it’s good to learn about other people’s concepts.
@traceursebas5 жыл бұрын
Love the deviation into neurotheology! Hope to see more :) Btw how’s the Shinto videos coming along?
@randysalber49604 жыл бұрын
A fine video! Excellent introduction to the concept.
@dali_hemingway21973 жыл бұрын
People who have never had a paranormal experience cannot fathom what it's like to have one. I can tell you from years of experiences that these phenomena exist. I consider myself an educated person, a pretty rational one at that (and, no, I do NOT do drugs). My encounters with the paranormal on numerous occasions rocked me to the core, and made me realise that whatever I was denying existed is not only real but quite earth-shattering. My whole outlook on this subject has completely turned my world upside down.
@sirblackrose5293 Жыл бұрын
What did you experience exactly if I may ask, and how did you come into the conclusion that it’s paranormal?
@salim53947 ай бұрын
Check the wires in your house
@elfarlaur5 жыл бұрын
I find that psychologists and other scientists often overlook aspects of culture which are integral to understanding things like religion. This is why it's important for people discussing these theories to be deeply grounded in religious studies and history more generally. I'm glad you pointed to that in this video
@RobespierreThePoof8 ай бұрын
Psychology isn't the science that has traditionally accounted for culture and religion. In fact, clinical psych has had to find ways of accommodating things like cultural norms in a fairly ad hoc manner in more recent decades. But in practice, a good clinical psychologist will handle those issues well as part of cultural competency. That said, the psychology of religion is a valuable research area into itself which I personally feel is ripe for some major new research developments.
@gracesoncarthel49275 жыл бұрын
I’ve had this question for a while so it’s cool to see it being discussed
@lshulman585 жыл бұрын
I also wonder how this theory might relate to the tendency for young children to invent "invisible friends" or pretend that their stuffed animals and dolls have personality and are talking to them and the children talk to these inanimate objects? Basically, belief in invisible supernatural beings (spirits, ghosts, gods, angels, demons...) is an extension of the tendency of young children to have "invisible friends". Freud's theory holds that this is exactly what is going on: belief in a god is an "infantile neurosis" - adults acting like children, being attached to God as an invisible friend. So, question of cause and effect: is the idea of God merely an extension of the childhood tendency to invent imaginary friends? Or do chidren "invent" these imaginary friends because the mind of a child actually is more open to perceiving the real existence of these invisible beings? Might it be that religious skeptics lose this childlike innocence due to an overly logical mind?
@chubbyclub2502 Жыл бұрын
Honestly I think I can actually invent an invisible friend if I like. I also already tend to have conversations with my self.
@markbondurant64345 жыл бұрын
We live in a model of the outside universe we build in our minds, like a mini-matrix. Of course we see personality. We're seeing our own egos.
@dynamic90164 жыл бұрын
Great topic and I really appreciate it.
@mrroneill995 жыл бұрын
Love you and your channel. Sounds to me that cultural forces amplify the inherent individual HADD neurophysiological tendencies. Greetings from Ireland. ❤️👍🏻👌☘️🇮🇪
@jonatanpinadulucmusic4 жыл бұрын
ALways thought that the need to believe in the afterlife as a way to cope with death anxiety in recently self-aware primitive humas and common practices like talking to the dead after they´ve passed were the "why" and the "how" at the bassis of the formation of early religious rituals and beliefs and the first deities. This video is more about the pre-dispositions that enabled those practices and the creation of deities that would explain forces of nature and random uccurrences. So interesting.
@yodheyodhe3 жыл бұрын
I live in New Orleans and Practice Voodou, I'm looking forward to your videos about the Orisha and Lwa at some future point.
@pauljordan30644 жыл бұрын
I am so glad I happened across this channel! Great information and great presentation!
@perrydowd92855 жыл бұрын
Gosh we've come a long way since Gordon Childs. Thanks for the upload.
@JaimeNyx155 жыл бұрын
I was just listening to Daniel Kahneman cite the theory of biologically wired religion tendencies in Thinking, Fast and Slow last week. Thanks for giving this idea some more context!
@user-ej5gx7ph7q Жыл бұрын
Excellent job and man, you did this 3 years ago... The temporal and amygdala; it sounds like identifying (agency) to mediate a fear, gain control, as you summed up in the beginning. The ability for agency I think is a value free judgement. I mean, would our neurology be particular whether you imagine someone behind a tree or a god in the sky? Great examination... Thank you
@olinayoung62873 жыл бұрын
Fascinating, thank you!
@milsantosvideos5 жыл бұрын
Great channel!
@matthewbateman64875 жыл бұрын
I ~ H.A.D.D. always enjoyed your videos -- but these new animations are a real plus!! I really mean it!
@patrykmadej33905 жыл бұрын
I think HADD explains the physical basis for religion pretty well, it's a mechanism that became useful for society building reasons and made it more likely that people believe in certain flavours (like personalised gods rather than generic power)
@canis20205 жыл бұрын
I have been trying to find a way to say this without people feeling like I am attacking their beliefs. This is very clear. Thank you.
@ReligionForBreakfast5 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I know how you feel. One way to say it diplomatically would be to compare it to love. Loving someone has a neuro-chemical basis too baked into our brain from evolution. But that fact doesn’t negate the meaning and importance in loving someone. Same goes with religion.
@steliosmitr82455 жыл бұрын
@@ReligionForBreakfast it doesnt even negate the existance of objective love or an objective divine/God or anything really. As someone in the comment section noted, religious beliefs being hardwired inside us coincides with '' intentionality on the part of God to be known by us.''
@nobredalto5 жыл бұрын
It's good to know about this theory, because it makes sense in a way, even though doesn't hold much water... Creates a really great discussion!
@chronosx74 жыл бұрын
I wouldn't say it "doesn't hold water" he even quotes a colleague "it is important for the history of religion [...]". I'd rather say it explains the origin of the tendencies (a framework of sort) that "are made use of" later during cultural interactions to conceive of gods we traditionally find in religions.
@sobertillnoon5 жыл бұрын
The beard is coming in quite nicely I know this isn't the point of your videos but I HADD to say it.
@hermesmercuriustrismegistu48415 жыл бұрын
Great video. I always follow every video you make. What microphone model you are using? Thx for your answer
@twistedhumor41723 жыл бұрын
Also, pareidolia and our ability to have imaginary conversations with others( often times arguments we have in the shower) definitely add to the picture.
@A_Box5 жыл бұрын
These actually sound like 2 different things. Like when people do stuff together in a community with a sense of belonging. That would be interesting to study biologically because it can happen even in the absence of belief in the supernatural.
@markanthonycruzii50774 жыл бұрын
Hello sir. Please make a video on why our ancestors pray or pay tribute to some unknown powers they felt that are above them.. Thanks 😊
@aishabello82262 жыл бұрын
This is such a Materialist & Empiricist Viewpoint
@olivierleguen8688 Жыл бұрын
Thank you your video(s). I think you should look also into sociality theory, which is a much more elegant way of understanding the concepts of supernatural beings. Basically human brain is hardwired to interact with other brains which are not directly accesible (one cannot mindread). So even in very basic and common interactions in everyday life humans are constantly looking for agency, applying intentions and believes to others. This is not a huge step to understand how this process is applied to the world around us. Dialogue is also to consider and Esther Goody for instance claims that the religious practice of prayers is a dialogue. of course for such mechanism to work in a social group, culture (as you mention in your video) is fundamental and channel to way we believe and act "religiously".
@lucasgalvao8433 жыл бұрын
Spinoza had a similar theory about organized religion as being caused by improper identification of final causality in natural phenomena. Although Spinoza never implied that judging natural events as having finality is part of some natural human cognitive behavior, he sees it as a vice that ultimately leads to moral servitude.
@luciamorenovelo83455 жыл бұрын
I believe the paintings and other depictions of human/animal beings made by early humans are better explained by trance states, dreams, etc. And I agree with your friend: religion is a complex issue and I believe complex issues have complex origins. Both biological and cultural influences must play a part in it. On a personal note, I anthropologize my computer, and he definitively has a mind of his own. I talk to him often, shout at him and shake my fist at it, but he still does his own thing. Maybe a nice offering would change the tide in my favor? Here's a thought!
@longschlongsilver76283 жыл бұрын
In my experience, everyone I've ever come across always seem to a 'religious' connection towards something, whether it's in a God, something material, or something else, despite them being religious or not.
@s-g-j5 жыл бұрын
I can't find the original source, but I recall seeing an article that said that organized religions tend to form when the population of a group exceeds one million people. This would seem to fit with the social aspect proposed here.
@ThePrinceofParthia5 жыл бұрын
I mean the first organised religions that we have evidence for came about in cities with populations between ten and twenty thousand, so a million seems rather too high a number
@heterian973 жыл бұрын
As a curious coincidence (Or maybe not), the analogy of the ghost being the coats' rack is very similar to a Buddhist one. This one is about being in a house without light and seeing a snake on the floor. But you take a candle and see it was just a rope. The analogy is to illustrate that nothing in Samsara can hurt us and hence we are just mistaking a rope with a snake. I am a Buddhist, but i do have to say that if we try to apply this from a secular-practical point of view then it's not only useless, but kinda dangerous. I find that funny.
@salim53947 ай бұрын
Are you still Buddhist
@Mrosen75424 жыл бұрын
Maybe as humans moved into settlements in the Neolithic, those cultural methods slowly changed from fear of predators to storytelling which was passed down over the millennia. Pantheons usually reflect the social status of society. So if you have a hunter-gatherer tribe of a couple dozen people, spiritualism might make sense; likewise, if you have a budding empire from a city-state with a king, it makes sense that the gods would have particular identities with control and hierarchy. This would also explain the slow formalization and stratification seen in religions and the usage of kings to represent themselves as divine as they likened themselves to gods.
@lshulman585 жыл бұрын
time stamp 7:45-8:00: Problem of cause and effect: which came first? (sorry for all the multiple comments. This one really got me thinking!)
@filosofen5 жыл бұрын
Animals has HADD too, but I don't think they are religious. But we differ from other animals that we have a much deeper understanding of the future and the past, so we can ask ourselfs "What hapens after we died?" etc. Then we make up answers which becomes a part of our culture.
@ThePrinceofParthia5 жыл бұрын
That and the ability to communicate abstract concepts, which I think is the major criterion for culture. AFAIK only orcas can do this outside humans, and the scientific literature describes them as having cultures.
@dylanrichardson1995 жыл бұрын
This was fascinating, and it is clear that religion can be mostly explained as a social construct. However, it would be interesting to study some of the cross-cultural similarities in religion. Are they also just byproducts of how we interact socially or are there some inherent individual aspects of ourselves which universally influence and exacerbate the development of religion on a personal level?
@justincronkright5025 Жыл бұрын
2:40 - There actually is the major downside of just loss of potential energy (your senses & co-ordination device - i.e. your brain, are power hungry). Then you also just have the lack of ability to think of other things. Think of novellists or engineers, etc. going for a walk in the woods to clear their heads or just walk & think. I can easily imagine the probably thousands of times someone has wanted to/just gone to walk in the woods to think through something, from couplings & children & marriages (forced or proposed) to how can I plant my crops better.
@surgeeo14065 жыл бұрын
This reminds me of Theo Jansen, a kind of contemporary Da Vinci, who makes wind powered walking machines out of pvc pipe structures. The randomness of the wind creates the illusion that those machines have agency, that they walk or stop on their own will, it's easy to adopt the utterly irrational idea that they're living beings.
@FreedomSpirit1085 жыл бұрын
Cool vid thanks
@Tinkering4Time3 жыл бұрын
Hypothesis: Religion began as a recursive psychosocial phenomena starting with HADD in a small group of humans, but continued into cultural learning mechanisms when these humans taught other humans, like their children, which evoked HADD and informed how later humans experience and understand it. Transferred or was connected from threat detection to anthropomorphizing via placation behavior- leaving or offering a predator meat to avoid becoming its prey. This relationship influences the CLMs of the society, and is anthropomorphized as rational behavior on the part of the predator since it appears to be following a social construct like trade. This again enters the CLMs and the idea of placating or bargaining with other HADD instances not so directly attributed to predators begins to manifest in the psychological conditioning of the society.
@reanimationeas3424 жыл бұрын
As for the sociological model- there would have to be causation as to the origins of what formed religion. Religion and or other ideals need some sort of causation
@EladLerner5 жыл бұрын
Thank you for exploring this topic. I found that some of the rebuttles a bit lacking, although I am no expert. Saying that some espect of life is a sociological construct (i.e. religion) misses the fact the a society is made out of people who all have similar neurological pathways. So if a tendency to think in a similar way is prevelant across a population, culture will arise. Also, saying that a person's views is shaped by his upbringing is just moving the issue one generation backwards - Someone still had to come up with the idea, using their brain, and the idea had to make sense to the people around that person, inside their own brains. Not to mention that a decendent will have similar genes, and so similar neurological pathways, to their parents, and therefor be similarly suspicious to the same types of thoughts (I'm not saying that, for example, Christianity itself is hardwired, but religiosity maybe is).
@arvinrajmathur3783 жыл бұрын
So, I understand that this video is a bit dated, but it just showed up on my feed after I discovered your channel. So, first of all, really interesting discussion. I have some thoughts about this, actually. If there was an "original religion," wouldn't it have interpreted all observable phenomena as the distributed actions of a single monistic universal agency? I always thought that this is the reason for all of the world's various sacrifice/replenish cosmologies (e.g. that which is common in Hinduism, Mesoamerica and other regions). Secondly, I would argue that global religions/cosmologies really started to change after the advent of farming. One of the most interesting things that I think resulted in a kind of ontological change, concurrent with a practical change, is the emergence of a kind of materialism that would have followed agriculture. If we were to posit that paleolithic hunter-gatherer societies followed a similar sacrifice/replenish cosmology as many modern and ancient societies (which one could interpret as an extension of human exchange models to the cosmos), the decision to suddenly take something and make it "mine" could indicate a significant departure from the previous ideology. That is, that this previous integral part of the world cosmos is now suddenly an object that "I" can control and whose reproductive cycles I can manipulate to my own benefit. However, in order for such a manipulation to be possible, Neolithic populations have to understand the rules and the mechanics of it all. This would result in a kind of "medical gaze" that anatomizes objects that would have been previously associated with mysticism. Similar concurrent developments also point to this direction, such as the development of pottery, which shows an understanding of clay mineralogy and the types of temperatures needed to produce pottery with adequate thermal properties. All of these changes are in full force by the Chalcolithic, where we even start seeing metallurgy and other pyrotechnically transformative crafts. This, to me, signals the emergence of increased analytical thinking about natural objects, which may represent a significant departure from previous notions about the same objects. Moreover, as these objects are given a new social life as chipped, molded and pyrotechnically transformed objects, new objects may not even remotely resemble the original raw materials in terms of ontology. For a comparison, in modern English, we use the word "chicken" to refer to both the farm animal and the meat that we purchase in the store, but we have become so far removed from the production process that we often do not regard these two things as being even remotely similar. So, basically, I do agree with your thesis that religion is socially constructed (as are all worldviews), but I would further this by stating that it also relates specifically to the ways that people engage with their surroundings and the social role that specific aspects of our environments take as we interpret them. I suppose that in this way, it creates a kind of feedback loop between perceptions by members of a group and the social structures that interpret and make sense of these perceptions.
@danielmcelroy45055 жыл бұрын
I’d love to hear more about these type of theories in a series/ miniseries
@lukasmakarios49985 жыл бұрын
There is also a hardwired tendency to discern faces in a jumble of visual features, or even static. It causes us to see patterns, even though we know there is no face and no organization actually present. Look at a cloud, haven't you ever seen a bunny rabbit? This evolved in the same way as the HADD you mentioned, and is further enhanced by social pressures to see and understand expressions. The "face" of the Man in the Moon is a perfect example, and the Moon was often regarded as a god in early societies. So, there is the mechanism needed to go from fearing sneaky tigers and ghosts to fearing capricious gods. None of this, however, can disprove the notion that a God actually does exist, and has created a finely tuned Cosmos, designed to evolve intelligent life with religious tendencies.
@luisoncpp5 жыл бұрын
Actually I first learned the legend of the rabbit on the Moon and for a long time I never saw "the man on the Moon", I used to see a rabbit. The first time I saw a human face on the moon was after a documentary talking about that when I was already an adult. Now about what you mentioned, I think the HADD is a very poor explanation for the development of beliefs, it could be a factor, but I see things like introspection/meditation and philosophy as something essential for religions, not just giving random names and faces (and that's in addition to the part about social norms already described on the video).
@Kevorama02055 жыл бұрын
Of course it cannot disprove an unfalsifiable God concept like the one you describe. There is no way to observe a universe and intelligently determine that it isn’t fit for intelligent life, so that isn’t surprising at all for that to be the case. As always happens, we come up with an explanation for the huge influence religion has besides it not being true, but it still doesn’t matter, because there is always something we cannot explain, isn’t there?
@Witiok19925 жыл бұрын
I like your job. Really.
@mawgans74705 жыл бұрын
Psychology and Religion - two areas which need to mix more.
@mawgans74705 жыл бұрын
Alicia Tur How so?
@josephawatson5 жыл бұрын
I'm just gonna put this out there I swear my cat is plotting against me but then again I might just be anthropomorphising her actions :P
@typograf625 жыл бұрын
You are wrong. She is gatamorphing YOUR actions. She beleives that you are thinking and reasoning.
@perrydowd92855 жыл бұрын
Your cat is plotting against you.
@mamamheus77515 жыл бұрын
Nah, cats are evil. You're not paranoid, she is out to get you 😂
@abdulaleem92073 жыл бұрын
haha.
@davicalil-pinturarelampago82894 жыл бұрын
I think pareidolia also helped our ancestors to see what is not there. pareidolia works in all of us, all the time. I would like to know your thoughts. Love your videos, congrats
@AlTorresFineArt5 жыл бұрын
Well made!
@KaiHenningsen3 жыл бұрын
I always understood that idea as an explanation of how belief in the supernatural got started, NOT as an explanation of why we have world religions. At best, how we got beliefs in the first gods. Everything after that is clearly a social (and sometimes even intentional) phenomenon, that may get bolstered by the original thing, but involves much more (especially childhood indoctrination). Though I have to say, arguing that religious people are more likely to make this misattribution is a counter-argument seems to me a bit absurd, as that is exactly what I would expect to see if the theory is correct. People more likely to commit this misattribution would thereby more likely to assume they had found support for their religion, thus making it more likely for them to commit to their religion. Now I wouldn't expect a huge difference there, but that's certainly the result I'd expect.
@marlons12 жыл бұрын
I'm not very religious but the Lord's prayer helps me calm down when my anxiety is at its worse. It is very interesting how that is hard wired into my inner self. Probably has something to do with me learning it as a child and me finding comfort in it now that I'm older. Either way I'm glad it works when I need it the most.
@binibini26002 жыл бұрын
i love that for u
@theagnosticdeist3373 Жыл бұрын
Same here!
@eskarinakatz7723 Жыл бұрын
That’s like with me and the Shema.
@everestrada91415 ай бұрын
Okay, funny thing, I was watching the HAD bit and was just about to type in a comment abt the role social interactions had in our evolution when the video went to the part about the brain scans. Maybe this whole thing *could* have started as a way to detect predators but as soon as humans depended more in cooperation, I’m betting our ability to “read” the emotions and thoughts of others built on that base and just became increasingly complex as our social environments did. It’s a pattern I’m noticing in evolutionary theory actually. Regardless of how any given trait started out evolutionarily speaking, changes in that trait have impacts on other traits and aspects of our evolution, with pressures increasing and decreasing at different times, even different intervals and rates. Aka, nothing evolved in isolation ever and many changes in one thing will affect everything and everyone in the network, for better or worse
@lukejones71643 жыл бұрын
There's substantial scientific evidence that how religious or spiritual someone or a group is largely boils down to genetics. Of course culture and upbringing influences what particular religion you tend to believe in, but whether or not a person is religious/spiritual at all mainly comes do to genetics.
@TiagoLageira5 жыл бұрын
Most likely is a combination of these things
@incredulouspasta33045 жыл бұрын
I think there is a bit of equivocation going on. Two different questions are being explored: 1. What is the best predictor of individual, specific religious beliefs? (culture, duh!) 2. Why do religions tend to develop among groups of people? (HADD seems like a good candidate)
@coreartalex67085 жыл бұрын
I just realize watching this video that Creepy Pasta is the "modern" way in which we (humans) are interpreting the Ghosts, Monsters, Demons & Gods.
@apersonlikeanyother68955 жыл бұрын
Alejandro Guerra Villegas Using Ockham’s razor it’s absurdly unlikely to think every single person who has seen a ghost was mistaken. It is assumed to be impossible, then other often unlikely explanations are looked for.
@coreartalex67085 жыл бұрын
@@apersonlikeanyother6895 I'm not saying that Creepy Pasta is a lie, I'm saying it's the modern equivalent to manuscripts from Old Age.
@lshulman585 жыл бұрын
time stamp 9:00-9:25: that we LEARN to be religious (and more specifically, WHICH religion) clearly is linked to being raised with religion - people do tend to follow the religion that their parents taught them or to not be religious if their parents were not religious. HOWEVER, what might account for the exceptions to this? Especially when those exceptions occur in the same family - e.g. siblings raised the same way with regard to religion who end up going in the opposite direction as adults - they either convert to a religion that is very different from the one they are raised with or those raised with religion, become atheists or those raised without religion have some sort of "conversion experience" that results in them becoming religious.
@20firebird3 жыл бұрын
i think... both of these theories make an amount of sense, but i don’t think either is the full story. life is hard. i think religion arose because it gave ancient people a way to understand and try to control the chaotic, mysterious, and often dangerous world around them, and because it gave solace and a sense of purpose in times of tragedy. it filled (and still fills) a need, and society and the human brain empowered it.
@RioTTesa5 жыл бұрын
I think that to anthropomorphize natural phenomena was their scientific approach to stuff. e.g. Violence is like tiger, must beware of tiger, must beware of tiger in people (violence in people). Tiger as a 'god' would be actually a way of thinking of "a natural principle not binded by tiger..". I think the spiritual is a model for similarities between observable phenomena.
@RioTTesa5 жыл бұрын
A second step towards religion/mysticism would be: e.g. there is a tiger person (violence) principle around there. It is not bound by an object, by people or animal. It can manifest when you least expect (a tree falling over someone and killing). Let's friggin respect 'tiger person' (let's beware of violence)
@p.bamygdala21395 жыл бұрын
Excellent insights! Thanks! My question now, is where do these impulses / needs / decisions take place within the brain! I want to see a timeline of which areas are stimulated in which order, to get an understanding of the true difference between the believer and the skeptic.
@oskarljung22014 жыл бұрын
it's dark when i go by bicycle to work every morning. and today i saw at least three people on the road. they turned out to be a shrub, a switch board, and a garbage bin. But for a split second they me brain saw them as human figures, and drew my attention to them. this was H.A.D.D in action and i think the darkness supercharged it so conclusions about what shapes in the dark were was made before i had time to analyze them
@JarkeyBacon5 жыл бұрын
Love the video, it was very interesting. One thing that bugged me though was how you slide the text off from right to left and not left to right, it doesn't go the way I would expect such as left to right or up to down. Just a small thing. Cheers
@sarahharris27295 жыл бұрын
Ive posted in the past from a theological POV and practicing medium. HAD came after the chicken. HAD is the egg. Not the other way round. Moot point. I used to dog sit a dog and I once saw him reacting to a spirit that normally I only see. This dog also barks at certain moving objects but only to an untrained eye (and third eye) can one not tell the difference. Its like trying to tell the difference between light red and dark red by smelling it with your nose. There will not be a meeting of minds through intellectualism alone.
@amoghbajpai4145 Жыл бұрын
While attributing any object to the supernatural can be understood as having arisen from certain superhuman experiences, what can be a possible hypothesis to explain that everything belongs to a supernatural God? Also, considering the diversity of religious beliefs and their corresponding philosophies what can possibly serve as an explanation for that?
@levinb15 жыл бұрын
Until I saw your video displayed on the main screen, I never realized that the brain and the mushroom cloud have very similar shapes.
@wat98344 жыл бұрын
if we get our beliefs from the people around us, where did they get their beliefs then? There has to be some sort of basis in which these beliefs arose from rather than the "we got it from society" or it's a tradition thing. I'm far more convinced of the H.A.D.D. theory since it provides the foundation of the simple to complex evolution of religiosity. Though i may not communicate it well, i hope that anyone who's reading this will understand what im trying to ask. :)
@integre233 жыл бұрын
Many people have HADD these experiences.
@DavidMaurand4 жыл бұрын
please note that the theory's proponent works at a conservative (evangelical) seminary - a remarkable bit of scholarship to emerge from such a place.
@ChristianMLee5 жыл бұрын
So it could be H.A.D.D + Abstract Thinking + Correlation.
@daddyleon5 жыл бұрын
I think you missed the bit of social influences.
@lukeeckstein34985 жыл бұрын
@@daddyleon I think social influences have become important over time. However, they didn't seem too important in the first religions. For example, the Mesopotamians pretty much thought of themselves made to be the slaves of the gods while the Ancient Egyptian temples were mainly just for the priests. Commoners rarely went to temples. It wasn't like a place of worship of today. On the other hand, it's definitely not just HADD because humans believed objects like the Sun were gods. Sure, the Sun moves around in the sky. However, you aren't going to get a glimpse of the Sun out of the corner of your eye and think it was a person. I think the answer is closer to a little girl talking to a doll like its a real person or even having an imaginary friend. However, I really don't think the social aspect played that large of a role.
@daddyleon5 жыл бұрын
@@lukeeckstein3498 Sorry, I don't understand, could try and explain how the Mesopotamian/Egyptian societies didn't influence their citizens while their societies were very different and the people within the societies did share quite some beliefs - ifaik, at least.
@lukeeckstein34985 жыл бұрын
@@daddyleon Oh boy, I'm not saying that societies didn't influence their citizens. They certainly did. I'm just saying there wasn't as much of a communal aspect to the religions of the past like there is today. For example, people today might go to church or a bible study. This may give the appearance that communal activity is important in religion. Which it may be today, but not in the past. In ancient Egypt you didn't get people going to the temple every week.
@daddyleon5 жыл бұрын
@@lukeeckstein3498 Sorry I still really don't understand. Perhaps it's because I'm not a native speaker? You mean societies that build pyramids and ziggurats weren't really into communal religion? Sure, now we have bible studies, madrassas, etc. But that doesn't mean that society, the 'priestly class', and the zeitgeist explanations for HADD didn't have a major influence.
@michaelmcdonnell59985 жыл бұрын
Shalom, Aure!
@googlelife553 жыл бұрын
Interesting theories and concepts. What i see it fails to address is the emerge of religions, at least the main ones we know. Every new religion emerged faced extreme resistance from none believers of that new belief although they are from the same social circles and system. It’s only until several years, decades or centuries until the surrounding community embraced the new beliefs which didn’t happen peacefully in most cases and lot of bloodshed and suffering was committed in the process. The question is what was the motivation and driver of the early devotees to promote the new beliefs despite of their weakness, vulnerability, suffering and horrifying events they had to face for many years but still they continued their efforts, activities and sacrifices for the sake of holding or spreading their belief. This kind of devotion cannot be explained by the suggested theories. Even if the motives behind such emerging new believes Nd religions was because of glory, power, political and spiritual circumstances, only few have survived from generation to another until today.
@izual989 Жыл бұрын
I do a lot of tech support and hear about inanimate things that hate or are mad regularly.