Dr. Bering coined the phrase,
“theory of mind” to explain such belief as an evolutionary flaw; a necessary
error that aided in mankind’s survival by giving us empathy. The “theory of mind” also gives us the tendency
to attribute consciousness and intelligence to an unknown cause that influences
non-living things and natural phenomenon. Thus, this “theory of mind” causes us
to see messages from the divine in natural occurrences.
In a 2012 interview about
this book with Anouk Vleugels, a Journalist from United Academics, Bering says
that we are influenced by “cognitive biases that are difficult to override” and
that “we easily fall under the impression that we are in a moralistic social
relationship with God”. Thus, it is instinctively burned-in and thus, very difficult to remove the belief or need for a "moralistic social relationship" with this non-existent God from our collective psyche.
Bering’s naturalistic approach to our collective
belief in God is the only viable and reasonable approach, if indeed there is no
God. But I would add that even if there
is a God (and I am a Theist) human beings easily accept all kinds of foolish beliefs
that fall outside the realm of reasonable faith. From crystals power, ouija boards, astrology,
witchcraft, ghost, angel worship and the myth-based ideas of the afterlife,
human societies have easily incorporated such things into our cultures and
societies from the very dawn of time. So even if there is an entity that is self-existent and is indeed the one true creator of the universe, Bering's ideas still have merit because most belief systems do seem to come from some instinctive drive that pushes us to accept almost anything that claims to be in the supernatural realm.
I am a theist – I definitely
believe in God. Yet, my belief is not
driven by my need to explain the universe nor the desire to have a moralistic
framework for right and wrong, for good and evil. I accept easily enough that without God, good
and evil can be defined from many different perspectives. For example, moral and ethical systems can be
developed built on the perpetuation of OUR species. Another approach could be
to build an ethical system based on helping our society grow and increase in
size and biological and reproductive health. I also am very skeptical of most religious claims, both theologically and pragmatically, especially from charismatic circles.
However, the real question isn’t
about survival or existence which is part of Bering’s model. No, the real question is about TRUTH. The issue at hand is what is true
in the absolute sense of the word true, within an appropriate context and
within a proper domain. Please don’t
ignore the idea of appropriate context and appropriate domain. It’s easy to oversimplify survival,
existence, ethics, morals, and truth. I
don’t have enough time to explore all of this, so let me go back to the ideas
expressed by Bering’s thoughts.
In the summary of the book,
it says that “the instinct to believe in God and other unknowable forces
gave early humans an evolutionary advantage.” This is fine; belief in God gave us an
advantage over other animals. However, Bering also admits that that God’s
existence is “unknowable” using absolute factual verifiable, testable repeatable
evidence. It’s unknowable, yet, he
writes this entire book based on the absolute fact that there is no God.
Bering, and I’m sure many
others, would like to remove belief in the supernatural from mankind’s
psyche. The book summary states
that belief in God and other superstitions are “psychological illusions” and
these ideas “have outlasted their evolutionary purpose”. The question that remains, from Bering’s
perspective is how do we take on a “whole new challenge: escaping them” – them being “psychological illusions” such as believing in God. Thus, Bering is saying in essence that we
need to “fix” this universal human tendency to believe and break free of it
all.
My question is this: what if God really does exist? What if there really is another realm, imperceptible
by the tools, instruments and gadgets we can build? Bering and many other atheists dismiss
off-hand that possibility. Sure, we can’t
measure, test for, prove or otherwise validate God’s existence – it’s “unknowable”. Yet, it is a categorical logical fallacy to
put orthodox religious systems such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism in the
same grouping as ancient Greek or Roman mythology, ancestor worship, ancient tribal
religions, unicorns, fairies or even the infamous flying spaghetti
monster! Bering makes a semantic ontological
error in doing so. It’s a type of fallacy
of composition!
The real problem with Bering
and many other atheists is their own unshakable adherence to philosophical naturalism. The introduction and summary of the book should
start off by clearly stating this adherence, especially when entering into a
topic that generally calls most of humanity – conservatively about 89% – immature at best and idiotic
at worst for believing in the supernatural.
I’m not bothered by such prejudice, just the arrogance that says that
the burden of proof is on me, the theist. While I admit that the proposition
has not been proved to be true, unknowable is just that – unknowable. It’s a basic proof of impossibility and I’m
sure Mr. Bering knows this.
Being reasonable and even
demanding evidence does not preclude the existence of another realm. It simply means we can’t use the tools, ideas
and principle of philosophical naturalism to discuss them. It doesn’t invalidate these tools (e.g. the naturalistic
empirically based scientific method) it just uses them in the proper context
and domain. If a proposition is true,
such as “my wife love me”, and cannot be proved using empirical evidence, it
doesn’t mean I’m an idiot. I think my
non-believing friends, including Dr. Bering, should be more careful.
