Results that you should have reasonable levels of confidence in should be framed in generalities, not absolutes. E.g., “The great majority of human cultures that we have observed have distinct and strong religious traditions”, and not “humans evolved to have religion”.
The former is an empirical claim of a strong pattern which, if true, requires explanation. The latter is a hypothesis that explains it, makes falsifiable predictions, and is useful if true.
Are you saying the specific hypothesis is problematic, or that the whole logical structure is?
It may be true that we have areas in our brain that evolved not only ‘consistent with holding religion’, but actually evolved ‘specifically for the purpose of experiencing religion’… but it would be very hard to prove this second statement, and anyone who makes it should be highly suspect.
To prove the second statement, we just need to find gene variants that are strongly correlated with religious beliefs. ETA: and manipulate them experimentally to determine the direction of causality, or observe the effect of natural mutations.
It may be true that we have areas in our brain that evolved not only ‘consistent with holding religion’, but actually evolved ‘specifically for the purpose of experiencing religion’… but it would be very hard to prove this second statement, and anyone who makes it should be highly suspect.
To prove the second statement, we just need to find gene variants that are strongly correlated with religious beliefs.
No, the second statement hinges on a causal claim, so correlations alone can’t prove it unless supplemented with strong causal assumptions. Gene variants being correlated with religious beliefs is consistent with three different causal hypotheses: (1) gene variants influence religious belief, (2) religious belief influences gene variants, and/or (3) gene variants and religious belief have some common cause. Correlations only tell us that at least one of the hypotheses is true; they don’t allow us to conclude that hypothesis 1 is correct.
It don’t know why this got downvoted, as it is completely correct.
As a practical example, consider the correlation between intelligence and Ashkenazic ancestry, and how that arose, with respect to those three alternatives.
| Are you saying the specific hypothesis is problematic, or that the whole logical structure is?
Both the hypothesis and the logical structure are appropriate. What is not appropriate is presenting weak hypotheses as explanations without identifying them as weak and without giving alternative hypotheses.
To exaggerate just slightly, you might compare the use of these explanations to the use of government conspiracies as explanations for major political events. It is easy to come up with explanations that assume conspiracy, and it is obviously true that the government is hiding information from us in some cases, but without strong evidence that we do not currently have, tales of the Illuminati are only amusing, not productive. Likewise, explanations based on human evolution are very easy to construct, and it is obvious that we evolved…
| To prove the second statement, we just need to find gene variants that are strongly correlated with religious beliefs.
This is a bit off topic, but interesting! So… That’s not quite true. We might, for example, find that genes that are correlated with imagination, creativity, or schizophrenia are also correlated with religious beliefs. But that doesn’t mean that either these genes or these traits evolved ‘for religion’ in any meaningful sense… any more than we would use that sort of rhetoric to prove that ‘humans evolved specifically for the purpose of experiencing schizophrenia’. We are muddying teleology here just a bit, but in many cases that is exactly the purpose of these arguments.
The former is an empirical claim of a strong pattern which, if true, requires explanation. The latter is a hypothesis that explains it, makes falsifiable predictions, and is useful if true.
Are you saying the specific hypothesis is problematic, or that the whole logical structure is?
To prove the second statement, we just need to find gene variants that are strongly correlated with religious beliefs. ETA: and manipulate them experimentally to determine the direction of causality, or observe the effect of natural mutations.
No, the second statement hinges on a causal claim, so correlations alone can’t prove it unless supplemented with strong causal assumptions. Gene variants being correlated with religious beliefs is consistent with three different causal hypotheses: (1) gene variants influence religious belief, (2) religious belief influences gene variants, and/or (3) gene variants and religious belief have some common cause. Correlations only tell us that at least one of the hypotheses is true; they don’t allow us to conclude that hypothesis 1 is correct.
ETA: [does Fonzie thumbs-up] aaaayyyy!
It don’t know why this got downvoted, as it is completely correct.
As a practical example, consider the correlation between intelligence and Ashkenazic ancestry, and how that arose, with respect to those three alternatives.
| Are you saying the specific hypothesis is problematic, or that the whole logical structure is?
Both the hypothesis and the logical structure are appropriate. What is not appropriate is presenting weak hypotheses as explanations without identifying them as weak and without giving alternative hypotheses.
To exaggerate just slightly, you might compare the use of these explanations to the use of government conspiracies as explanations for major political events. It is easy to come up with explanations that assume conspiracy, and it is obviously true that the government is hiding information from us in some cases, but without strong evidence that we do not currently have, tales of the Illuminati are only amusing, not productive. Likewise, explanations based on human evolution are very easy to construct, and it is obvious that we evolved…
| To prove the second statement, we just need to find gene variants that are strongly correlated with religious beliefs.
This is a bit off topic, but interesting! So… That’s not quite true. We might, for example, find that genes that are correlated with imagination, creativity, or schizophrenia are also correlated with religious beliefs. But that doesn’t mean that either these genes or these traits evolved ‘for religion’ in any meaningful sense… any more than we would use that sort of rhetoric to prove that ‘humans evolved specifically for the purpose of experiencing schizophrenia’. We are muddying teleology here just a bit, but in many cases that is exactly the purpose of these arguments.