The Author

Imagine you are walking down the street and come upon a woman lying on the ground crying. Suddenly you realize she has obviously been assaulted. You rush to her side, feeling an intense desire to help. The thing we would refer to as our “self” stands at the intersection of the lines of input and stimuli with decision and action. By all accounts you will tend to feel that you are the root cause of your own thoughts and actions. Personal choice has led you to either act or not to act. You seem to be acting on your own free will. However, as I hope to highlight this perspective cannot be held in light of what science tells us about the workings of the human brain.

At a conscious level we are aware of only a small portion of the information that our brains are processing at each moment. While we are continually aware of acute changes in our moods, thoughts, perceptions, behavior, etc. we are left completely unaware of the brain states that produce these changes. Yet nearly all of us maintain that we are the creators of our own patterns of thought and action. The physiologist Benjamin Libet has demonstrated that neural activity in the motor regions can be detected 350 milliseconds before the subject is aware that they have decided to move. (Libet, Gleason, Wright and Pearl, 1983). More recently fMRI data has been shown to convey that “conscious” decisions can be seen in neural activity 10 seconds before the subject is aware of them. (Soon, Brass, Heinze and Hayes, 2008) These findings make it difficult to maintain that one is the conscious author of their own actions.

No perspective which takes into account causality leaves room for freewill. Our internal dialog of thoughts, desires and moods simply pop into minds producing either action or stasis. The reasons for this are left unexplained from a purely subjective point of view.  Our belief in free will seems to spring out of our moment to moment ignorance of the causal chain which produces our thoughts and actions. The term “free will” merely describes the feeling of being the author of our own thoughts as they arise in consciousness. Take for instance a train of thoughts like, “I’m hungry. I think there is some cake in the fridge. Well cake isn’t very healthy, maybe cottage cheese would be better,” this example highlights the apparent choices one can make, and they seem freely made.  But looking deeper reveals that these thoughts simply arise free of our authorship and yet direct our actions nevertheless.

The alternative position to traditional free will is often known as Determinism, and is almost considered a bad word by most people. The philosopher Daniel Dennett has highlighted the confusion most people carry with regards to determinism. “They equate determinism with fatalism.” This confusion produces questions such as, “if determinism is true why should I do anything? Why not just wait and see what happens?” This line of questioning reveals that most people imagine that if our choices depend on prior causes that they do not matter. The fact that I am writing this paper is the result of a choice to do so, if I had not decided to write it, it would not get written. But my choice to do so was unquestionably the result of many causal factors, such as the desire to achieve a decent grade, social pressures and a desire to achieve a goal. Choice is as important as those who fancy free will state that it is. Some people imagine that if we acknowledge that we are not the author of our own thoughts and actions that, moral and political freedoms then become unimportant. But merely acknowledging the causal influences and the fact that we do not know what we will intend until the intention arises, does not lessen the value of personal freedom of individuals to do what they intend or not to do otherwise, regardless of the source of those intentions.

This issue is not purely philosophical and academic, meant to be a silly logical exercise. This belief in free will is the foundation of the religious notion of “sin” as well as the underlying commitment to retributive justice. Free will has been deemed by The Supreme Court a “universal and persistent” base for law in our country, also stating “a deterministic view of human conduct that is inconsistent with the underlying precepts of our criminal justice system” (United States v. Grayson, 1978). It seems that any advancements in science which threaten the commonly held notions about free will draw into question the ethics of punishing people for their bad behavior. It seems that the primary worry is that an honest discussion of the root causes of our behavior will erode moral responsibility. But does the acknowledgement of underlying causes for our behavior mean that we cannot be expected to take responsibility for our actions? Of course we wouldn't.

We can view human beings as forces of genetic and environmental influences and still not be prevented from talking about moral responsibility, it does however, cause problems for our practices of retributive punishment. Obviously there are people who possess the intent to harm and cannot be helped away from his intention. We need to protect society from them. It is clear from the scientific findings that the people who are the worst criminals we can imagine have some grouping of bad genetics, bad influences, bad ideas and bad circumstances. The role these have played in the bad choices they have made should seem obvious. The question then becomes, which of these ingredients can we hold them responsible for? The justice system (if is to be just) must reflect the understanding that any of us could easily have been dealt a very different hand in life, and given that different hand we could be in their place. It borders on immorality to not consider the level of blind chance which is involved in morality.

Imagine a heinous murder in which the killer did it “just for the fun of it”. Yet upon psychiatric and medical examination he is found to have a tumor the size of a golf ball in the medial prefrontal cortex of his brain (this area is responsible for emotional control and behavioral impulse). It would be fairly easy to surmise that he was not in any real sense responsible for his actions in carrying out the murder. He was not in his right mind. We would not prescribe the same punishment for him as we would a perfectly healthy individual. Why not? Would it be moral to deny this man surgery as a ”punishment” for his crime? And furthermore where do we draw the line in ascribing personal responsibility apart from the causal forces which author our thoughts and actions? 

Claims of Knowledge About The World.

Are beliefs different from other claims of knowledge about the world? What is intended when we say that a person believes a certain proposition about the world? In the case with anything which carries as much familiarity we must be wary of being led astray by the terms we use to describe cognitive events. Believing is not guaranteed to be a unitary phenomenon simply because we have one word to describe it. Precision in description is key when one attempts to describe mental events, such as memory, recognition, or belief.

Our closer cousins in the animal kingdom (dogs, pigs, apes, etc.) can be seen to form associations regarding things and events, this could be said to be "believing" things about the world. This is not however the sort of "believing" I am shooting for in this essay. When I refer to beliefs that people subscribe to consciously ("Malaria is transmitted by mosquito bites," "Soccer is superior to hockey," "Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead,") I am speaking about ideas that are communicated and acquired, through language. In order to believe a particular proposition, is to say that it is a correct representation of some state of the world, this fact brings about some insight into what our standards should be in the function of beliefs. Mostly it reveals why we value evidence and demand logical coherence in regards to the propositions we asses all the time. In the same way that we are not free to mean whatever we fancy when using words like "dead" or "fire" or "two" we are not free to adopt unjustified claims about science or history. When anyone becomes certain they have such an ability to fly free of justification for what they maintain as "true", they should not be shocked when the rest of us cease to listen to them.

A strong case can be made that what gives our brains its unique humanness is largely our capacity to evaluate new statements of asserted truth in reference to the multitude of others it has already integrated. With the use of intuitions regarding truth and falsity, necessities of logic and contradiction, we are capable of putting together coherent images of the world. What must take place inside our heads in order for this process to occur, for us to come to a conviction that a particular statement or group of statements are true or false? No one really knows, what it takes at the level of neurological events. Information processing, especially linguistically, must play a substantial role, for sure, but how does the brain take products of reasoning, perception and memory into focus regarding particular propositions and convert them into the substance of actions. In an adaptive sense beliefs have been extremely useful. By believing things about reality we are able to predict events and ponder the possible outcomes of certain actions or occurrences. This can and has been exploited by the unsavory. But living a life free of understanding which is in some large ways second hand does not appear to be possible.

"Beliefs are principles of action: whatever they may be at the level of the brain, they are processes by which our understanding (and misunderstanding) of the world is represented and made available to guide our behavior." Sam Harris

Once a proposition has been affirmed as true by in an individuals mind it can have powerful effects in both emotional states and actions they take. Imagine someone proposes to you, "The police have raided your home." There are many things which may either throw you into a panic or lead you to reject this claim at all. Maybe you have a large drug operation in your basement (panic), maybe you are sitting on your couch when told this (disregard). In the first case the door of belief has opened forcefully and in the second case belief has not opened. Beliefs are interdependent with their neighbors, both being related in semantics and logic. They constrain and are indeed constrained by each other. A belief like I highlighted above "malaria is transmitted by mosquito bites," hinges upon the affirmation of many basic and derivative endorsements of truth. In order to integrate this as a true statement of reality one must first accept that mosquitoes bite humans (basic) and that malaria is a disease which is carried in the blood (derivative). But one could not be said to believe this example and then claim that humans cannot acquire malaria because mosquitoes do not bite them.

The things which a person integrates into their mind as true must be highly coherent in order for personal identity to remain intact. Try to picture a person who thinks he is a professional cyclist and that he has no legs, that he has a daughter who is also his mother. Once logical inconsistency reaches a certain level our notions of personhood disappear. Our behaviors are largely informed by what we believe, this necessitates that we believe things that are at a minimum possible. "Anything is possible," you might say. Lets see how that would work. There is a knock at the door, either it is a salesman or it is not. I may believe one proposition or the other, I may even say I do not know. I cannot say it is both.

To say that you believe a particular proposition to be true is to admit that when questioned "why" you can provide defensible reasons. In order to claim that a particular belief is an accurate portrayal of some aspect of reality it must be defensible and coherent within the framework of the multitude of other acknowledge claims you have accepted. Spinoza thought that belief was synonymous with comprehension, while disbelief needs a rejection upon comprehension. Maybe comprehending a proposition is analogous to perceiving an object in physical space. It may that we default to accepting appearances as real until they are shown to be false. Regardless of whether this process is active or passive, we are continuously auditing the verbal ideas (our and others) looking for factual inconsistencies. Changing just one word in a spoken phrase determines the different response we are likely to have. If someone stops you in the street and says, "help a Spinx is raping a woman in the alley." you may question the validity of this claim. If he says "help a man is raping a woman in the alley." you may run faster than he will to help.

In the epistemic sense, belief is that which aims at representing knowledge of reality. This commands that to believe something is to say that it is true, not simply that we would like it to be so. Placing these constraints upon ourselves is indeed a very good thing. Unrestrained wishful thinking is not likely to lead to a very long or peaceful existence. We generally place a high level of importance on evidence for the claims people make. But in some especially tenacious beliefs, biases can nearly prevent us from engaging the lack of support for our most strongly held ideas about reality. We as humans can have massive failures of rationality which can take several forms, all the way from inconsistencies in logic to full on losses of subjective continuity. The possibility that we will ever be able to possess minds which are perfectly free of contradiction is zero. Still, due to the demands of language and conduct, the reality is we cannot afford to leave incoherence in place, to do so requires failures in linguistic sense or of understanding regarding possible occurrences. Simply it is immoral to continue to call something true which is not supported by evidence in reality.

As soon as we conclude that beliefs are efforts to bring understanding into line with reality, we come to understand that in order for them to be valid they must be in correct standing with reality. To say that your understanding of the world represents the way the world is, you must believe that your beliefs are a result of the way reality is. This in turn leaves you vulnerable to new evidence. If nothing could conceivably change in your experience and understanding which would lead you to question a particular belief or set of beliefs, then you cannot claim that your understanding of reality is based upon reality. It is at least in some part based on fantasy. No one would want to admit this is the case. But resistance is not only futile but incoherent.

Who would do such a thing?

"The mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and the most devastating one. Religion is man-made." Christopher Hitchens


It may be hard to imagine, but I enjoy discussing philosophy with people. Especially people whom I carry a differing opinion with. Many times the topic hinges upon religion. This suits me fine, as I view the question over whether god/s exist to be the first question one must resolve to answer in philosophical pursuits. All questions turn upon how one answers this singular question. 


So, the topic comes up occasionally with a friendly fellow at work. We have over the years covered the map of possible arguments for and against the existence of, in his case, Gods (specifically Yahweh, Holy Spirit and Jesus, he has tried to explain how they can be one personage. I don't buy what he's selling though). However, much to your relief I am sure, I do not intend to cover all of these topics in their entirety here. Only one of his arguments on behalf of his brand of theism is of concern to me in this blog today. The quote from Mr. Hitchens which I shared above, came up in conversation. My friendly opponent's reply was to say that religion couldn't be man made, because no one would want to make something like religion up. Picking my jaw up off the floor, it dawned on me that he hadn't really thought this through. Well, the first thing we can discover by this interesting admission is that he does not carry a very favorable view of his religion. It was as if he was admitting God is an unlovely character, mean and wrathful, who would want to invent such a thing? I agree wholeheartedly and frankly think that's a promising thing for him to admit. Though he seems very committed to his religion, I would not venture to call him well adjusted, maladjusted would fit better. So his little response explains much in the way of his apparent existential angst. 


I have a legitimate point to make here and it is not how much better I am than a well intentioned, though misguided fellow. So please excuse my momentary digression. Now back to topic at hand. I wish to confront directly the claim he made, namely that no one would want to make up religions, complete with Hell fire and eternal punishment and a God who knows your every thought and deed. I think he made an interesting point, and it surely got me thinking. So head on is the best approach, and head on it will be. 


What are the possible reasons which people would desire to manufacture god/s and the religions which go with them? 
1.  To provide answers to questions which are yet to be answered. To a primitive and unscientific culture the world around them and the universe which contains it would be an utterly terrifying place, with everything around them seemingly arrayed for their destruction. Why does the Sun come up? Where does it go? Why does it rain? Why did the rain stop? Where do these people go when they stop being animated? The list of unanswered questions would likely have been limitless for early man trying to make sense of the world and it's events. Looking to the forces of nature he easily could have assigned sentience to them and allowed those mysterious questions be answered with mysterious answers. 
2.  To provide comfort for morning and loss. All sentient beings on this earth will lose everything they care about, all of their desires will come to an end. This is a fact that is nearly too much to handle. As a way of coping with this reality an afterlife becomes very appealing if one is to imagine that all if those desires will be prolonged indefinitely all of those losses will be made new again. 
3.  To provide protection from danger. To our modern sensibilities life seems pretty sterile and safe, but even in our day and age life is precarious. But imagine what dangers and peril confronted our ancestors  in pre-historic times when god/s were invented. There was surely much comfort to be had in the reassurance that a powerful deity would protect and guide you and your tribe. 
4.  To vanquish enemies. We humans are extremely prone to in group loyalty and out group hostility, need some evidence? Tune into a sporting event and see the rabid fans fighting over which team is better. Even in modern times with our moral sensibilities turned way up, we can be given to an irrational allegiance to our "tribe". During the distant past tribes and chiefdoms would coalesce under the banner of a particular god or a pantheon of gods. This would provide much ion the way of strength of spirit and purpose, not to mention the confidence the imagined protection of gods would stimulate. And who doesn't like to imagine revenge falling upon their enemies, especially an eternity of torment?
5.  To restrict undesirable behaviors within the community. People can and often do commit acts which are undesirable to others. The well believed prospect of an ever present all seeing and vengeful god is pretty good insurance against someone stealing your livestock or borrowing your ass. Frankly men want to control other men's behaviors. One of the best ways to accomplish this is to control their desires. Religious myths perform this duty substantially well.  


This list is by no means comprehensive and is highly speculative for sure. Much has been written on the beginnings of mans attempts to explain life, death and everything in between. We know very little about the earliest religions, progressively more as the age of the religion in question becomes less. For instance we have enough documentation (No Man Knows My History by Brodie is all the reference you need) regarding the invention of Mormonism to declare with near certainty that it was invented from whole cloth by Mr. Smith. Why would he have gone to all the trouble? Well, he wanted recognition among his fellows for starters. He later found that he wanted to have numerous wives. It just so happens his Heavenly Father provided a revelation that he should do just that. I obviously do not know what all of his motivations were, and this is not my point anyway. I only hope to highlight how easy it is to see how this man and his followers invented a religion. Why would it be harder to imagine the other religions being invented in the same way for similar reasons.

This post is a feeble attempt to explain why human beings would have been compelled to create god/s. A point that is raised by compiling such an inventory, is that belief in god/s and religions once provided a benefit to both individuals and society. I would not disagree. But I would raise a few additional questions. Is this service still provided today? Does the benefit they provide outweigh the negative consequences they carry as baggage? Could the benefit provided by sectarian religions be provided in a secular framework just as well or better without the negative baggage our religions bring along? And finally and most crucially; Are they true?

If the premise of the heading quote which I began this with is true. That religions are man made, fabrications. Then the answers to all four of my rhetorical questions are answered for us. What can be destroyed by the truth, should be. 

A Parable On Critical Thinking

Fran told her little brother Tom that there was no Tooth Fairy; it was their parents who put the money under the pillow.

Tom would not believe Fran. He was certain there was a Tooth Fairy. He would put a tooth under his pillow, and there was money there the next morning. And all his friends agreed that the Tooth Fairy brought them money too. And it couldn't be Mom and Dad because he'd wake up if they came in the room and lifted his pillow. Anyway, Mom and Dad said there was a Tooth Fairy, and they wouldn't lie.

Fran asked him how he thought the Tooth Fairy found out about lost teeth, how she got into the house, where she got the money from, and what she did with the teeth. Tom said he didn't know, but wasn't it a wonderful mystery? Fran repeatedly pointed out that older kids all eventually stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy. Tom said this only confirmed that those who continue to receive money  would continue to believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Fran set up a nifty experiment to test this idea. She convinced several neighborhood kids to help test whether the Tooth Fairy would appear if the parents didn't know a tooth had been lost. It turned out that every time the parents knew about the tooth, there would be money under the pillow the next morning, and every time the parents didn't know about the tooth, there would be no money. Tom said the Tooth Fairy doesn't participate with those who do not believe in her, so she wouldn't bring money if she knew she was being tested.

Fran used her toy Detective kit to dust the money Tom had been receiving. She found their parent's fingerprints all over it. Tom said that the fingerprints only confirmed that the money had been touched by their parents. But that it didn't disprove that the tooth fairy put it there. After all, Tom said the Tooth Fairy doesn't leave fingerprints because she is magical. She likely could have even put the fingerprints there as a test to trick us. 

When Tom Lost his next tooth, Fran covered the floor in Tom's room with flour. The following morning she showed him their parents footprints leading from the door to the head of his bed and back. He said that didn't prove anything either because mom and dad could have just come in to check on him and then the Tooth Fairy came late. After all fairies don't leave footprints because they hover. 

On the next tooth loss occasion. Fran set up a video camera in Tom's room and caught footage of their parents coming in and lifting up his pillow to retrieve the tooth and place the money. Again Tom asserted that this didn't prove anything. The tooth fairy wouldn't appear when a camera was on. Or maybe she is a shape shifter who transformed to look like their parents on video. Or maybe she just asked mom and dad to help out this time.

Fran in frustration took Tom into their parents room, and showed him a small box containing several baby teeth with dates and ages written on the bags. She said that was proof that their parents were taking the teeth and giving him the money. Tom responded saying, that the Tooth Fairy probably passed the teeth onto their parents as keepsakes. Or she sold the teeth to their parents to raise funds for fairy charities. That would explain the fingerprints, wouldn't it? 

Fran made Tom come with her to confronted their parents, who admitted they had been taking the teeth and leaving the money under the pillow. Tom said they are just lying. You can't trust what anyone says about these things. He was going to ignore all the evidence because the Tooth Fairy thing worked this he knew for sure. The Tooth Fairy was real.

Fran could not understand her brother's belief in spite of all evidence to the contrary. so she tore out all her hair in frustration and left it under her pillow. Yet it was still there the next morning.