Why Do We Believe?

Recent public opinion polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans still believe in God and a universal spirit, almost nine out of ten people according to the latest Gallop poll published in 2011. The same polls show that a great percentage of people surveyed also believed in miracles, heaven, afterlife, hell, and the devil. Although these percentages have diminished since 1994, the numbers are perplexing in the wake of modern scientific discoveries.

Human beings have always believed in supernatural things, even those that may defy conventional wisdom or are considered scientifically refutable. Scientists and theologians have offered different answers to the question of why people believe in general, especially why they believe in strange things. In his newly published book The Believing Brain, author Dr. Michael Shermer, who is the founder of the Skeptic Society, tries to provide answers to this and similar questions by relying on scientific analyses. The central theme of Shermer's book is that people first believe in what they want to believe and then search for justification afterward. In other words, "beliefs come first; reasons for beliefs follow in confirmation of the realism dependent on the belief." This is the persistent theme of his book. Based on the scientific analyses he presents, he claims that our brain is the manufacturer of beliefs by default. Belief in the supernatural, such as God and an afterlife, is the direct result of what Dr. Shermer calls patternicity and agenticity--our desire to find a pattern and assign an agent to all events whether they are meaningful or not. People continue to believe in what they want to believe, indicating that whatever the driving forces behind believing are, they must be compelling and pervasive. However, believing, no matter how ubiquitous, does not confirm that what we believe is true and really exists.

We have an innate tendency to connect the dots and believe in patterns, even those that happen to be untrue. For example, we automatically assume that there is a ferocious beast behind the trees when we hear a rustling sound simply because we fear the tragic consequences if, in fact, our assumption is correct. In Shermer's words, we are susceptible to patternicity, which is our "tendency to find meaningful pattern in both meaningful and meaningless noise." This leads us to another error, agenticity--intentionally creating an agent that is in charge and in control of every situation, and hence our life. Throughout his book, Dr. Shermer tries to provide scientific validation for his disbelief concerning the existence of the supernatural. His explanation of patternicity and agenticity is really compelling and scholarly. He asserts that "our brains are belief agencies, evolved pattern-recognition machines that connect the dots and create meanings out of the patterns [true or false] we think we see in nature." In other words, because we are designed by natural selection to be inherently risk averse, we choose to play it safe when confronted with a risky situation and we respond conservatively by choosing the option that protects us in case the pattern we think is true happens to be true. We strive to avoid making a Type I error--the presumption there is a "dangerous predator" that may kill us even though it turns out to be false. Patternicity is the human inclination to inculcate a pattern, connect the dots, and assign intentional agency that controls the events. The agents may not even exist, but we think they are in control of the world. Examples include an intelligent designer, extraterrestrials, conspiracy, and even government, which we believe can solve our economic problems by implementing policies for the economy. However, most of the agents we have created so far have not existed, but we keep believing in them anyway. "There is now substantial evidence from cognitive neuroscience that humans readily find patterns and impart agency to them" (p. 88).

By the same token, when it comes to believing in God/religion, we employ a similar slanted way of thinking. We even use the scheme of cost benefit to make sense out of it. The cost of believing in God is allegedly nil while the consequence of not believing is unbearably harsh. The expected reward for believing, however, is enormously worthwhile and enticing, offering a life of eternal bliss in another world. Accordingly, believing in God is a rational, riskless economic choice that makes sense when weighing the costs and the benefits. Of course, this kind of reasoning is not new. A few centuries ago, a French philosopher, Braise Pascal, crafted this innovative argument to rationalize believing in God. Unable to come up with concrete proof for the existence of God, he argued that whether God exists or not, believing in him is a good deal. You lose little or nothing if you believe in God even if it turns out that God does not exist. However, if there is God, you would be rewarded handsomely with an endless, lavish life in heaven. As appealing as it may sound, this argument is flawed for three reasons.

First, believing does entail profound costs, monetary and non-monetary. The monetary costs could be significant, especially if you are a committed adherent of a strict religion like Islam. Being devotedly pious, you are obligated to pay religious taxes, such as tithes and Khoms (an Islamic tax levied on wealth, a 20% flat rate), and to contribute to charity. That may not sound too burdensome, however, consider the seemingly non-monetary costs such as the opportunity cost of your time and forgoing possible income due to spending precious time following rules and fulfilling stringent requirements. You have to spend time preparing and conducting daily prayers and other time consuming rituals over your lifetime. Imagine, if you are a highly paid professional, how much income you would have to sacrifice as a result of believing. Abiding by rules and guidelines and avoiding forbidden activities generate the heaviest costs of devoting yourself to a religion. The more restrictive the religion is, the higher the cost of compliance. Compared to Islam, Christianity is a more flexible and less strict religion, making the cost of believing lower for its devotees. Perhaps, that is why it is a popular religion in Western countries in which economic prosperity, income levels, and cost in terms of time matter. In other words, high-income people are attracted to Christianity because it makes sense economically; it is a low cost option for them.

Less restrictive religious rules promote flexibility, tolerance, and freedom, and discourage fanaticism. On the contrary, adhering to a more restrictive religion, with high opportunity, becomes an inexpedient choice for more affluent people. In addition, imposing rigorous rules and infusing superstitions enables a religion, like Islam, to set apart its marginal followers and its zealous believers, those who can be taken full advantage of to function as the foot soldiers for its religious rulers. Promoting superstitions and rigorous rituals also help Mullahs to winnow the loyal faithful from the pretentious believers. Those who really believe in often nonsensical rules will do whatever Mullahs tell them to do, including sacrificing their lives for the sake of their beliefs. Although there are many people who fake devotion, those who really follow these strict codes are deadly serious and are not faking it. They will likely to do whatever they are told to do, even killing innocent people and disrespecting the rights of others for the sake of their beliefs. Furthermore, added restrictions may serve as a needed strategy, albeit cynical, to effectively boost the credibility of a religion among naà ¯ve believers. One can argue that the economic cost of organized religion is even more serious from a social stand point, even if it may appear trivial for individuals. The negative correlation between strict believing and economic progress in Muslim countries, for instance, has been observed and is validated by some researches. It is like a two-way reinforcing correlation. Muslims are poor because they live in Islamic countries. Poor people are drawn to Islam because their low level of income makes the opportunity cost of compliance low and thus affordable.