I hope you address the typically-taboo religious beliefs in addition to things like ghosts, spoon benders, and the like. Religious claims are so often without merit, they demand challenge (and, in your case, explanation as to “why?”) Please don’t treat transubstantiation with any more respect than you’d treat those who claim that Elvis still walks among us. I look forward to the interview!

It sounds like this will be an hour of challenging anything spiritual and “proving” the argument with reference to neural impulses and brain theories. As far as I’m concerned much of this psychology-theory is unbelievable. Most of their studies are done on rats being deprived of their cheese and then mapping their brains.

Viv,
As long as religious fanatics challenge the legitimate science taught in our public schools and women’s personal health choices, then the fairy tales which are defended as “anything spiritual” should definitely also be challenged.

Funny how science and its attendant proofs are so hard for the scientifically illiterate to believe, yet belief in a magic force which no one can see or prove in any way is beyond reproach.

Oh yeah… I forgot to mention the religiously grounded challenges to the equal rights of gay individuals.

Could Prof. Hood address this:

When we hear about some phenomenon, just visualizing what we’re hearing, constructing an image of what’s being described as we try to understand, must bias us into temporarily believing in whatever it is — a unicorn, a flying witch, a god, or a positive electron. Then our more grown-up, skeptical faculties judge whether it’s possible, and then we may reject the belief. Is there any research on this idea?

Also, I rather like the slogan of the MIT Atheists: The Invisible and the Nonexistent are very difficult to distinguish!

A joke: A physics professor has a good-luck horseshoe nailed over his office doorway.

A student visiting notices and says, “But surely, professor, you don’t believe in that stuff?!”

The professor replies, “Of course not. But they say it works whether you believe in it or not.”

How can we intellectually not believe in something and somehow still believe in it? I’m Haitian and do not believe in Voodoo and its zombification but deeply I still fear it. I can say the same about religion and God.

I suppose there are actually senses that kick in preconscious, and because of that we are predisposed to suspect the preconscious senses of doing all sorts of things. Actual preconscious — lots of things we do, like vision, smell, might seem unbelievable. In a less technological world people might know how to depend on these preconscioius senses more. Consider the people without hands who learn to use their feet, things like that.

I’d like Bruce to address the difference between the the irrational behaviors he speaks of and OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) behavior.

Cats that are at a momentary impasse will groom themselves; they need it anyway, it doesn’t use a lot of energy (so it’s almost survival neutral), and it seems to cathect the need to do ’something’.

How are autists different? We have our own, idiosyncratic, rituals, but I’ve noticed we tend to have an indifference to the usual superstitions….

I like Daniel Dennett’s explanation that religion and other superstitions piggy-back on the survival-positive ability to be healed by shamans, to be hypnotised.

hi,

two quick questions:

1. 18th century philosopher thomas reed thought that our notion of causation in the world was based on our experience of exercising our own will to affect the world. does professor hood see superstition having any basis in this, i.e. might it be that we see agency in the world and so wish to do things that appease the agent?

2. how deep-seated does professor hood think superstition is? animals with apparently simpler psychologies than ours (e.g. pigeons) show so-called superstitious behavior.

very best,

paul (cambridge, MA)

I, too, think the rituals of some major league baseball players is ridiculous. However, perhaps the repetition puts them at ease or even focuses them and, in turn, calms them thus allowing them to be more successful?

One of the worst and most pernicious superstitions, which just happens to keep any society running (badly, as all are): ‘If I do what I’m supposed to do, nothing too bad will happen to me.’

Tell that to any survivor of one Holocaust or natural disaster or another, if you want a derisive laugh or a punch in the nose.

How about superstition regarding the scientific? People often make judgments based on a pseudo-scientific veneer, only to find there is no factual basis for the belief at all.

What about superstition and autistic people? My husband & son are both Asperger’s Syndrome and neither are superstitious – they’re very “logical” (think mr. Spock)

If “faith” is defined as belief in that which can’t be proven analytically, then why are we limiting the discussion to superstition? Wouldn’t your theory also explain away belief in God?

Hey:

Brian Aldiss(sci-fi writer) had a great essay in Nature regarding astrobiology and the search for intelligent life beyond earth. He argues the skeptic side, but has some great thoughts on humanity’s innate beliefs in the supernatural. Some of my favorite bits:

“An intimacy with the non-human is a fundamental human trait. A vast population of ghosts, ghouls and other mythical creatures has accompanied humankind through the ages, haunting its woods, houses and graveyards. …

Above these minions, as religion outranks superstition, are assembled an even more formidable array of fictitious beings, the gods and goddesses of our inner world. What a collection they are! Belief in them beggers belief: adorned with snakes and skulls, they arrive to impose restrictive laws for human conduct, laws that frequently include whom we should or should not sleep with, and the preservation of life and the sacrifice of it….

We do not believe in fairies any more, nor do we find it necessary to blaspheme against Baal. But it seems that we are born animists…

The latest manifestation of this creaking floorboard in the brain, the alien arriving here from outer space, is the most interesting.”

Nature 409, 1080-1082 (22 February 2001)

I have to admit to loving that creaking floorboard. Makes for a richer soup.

The problem with religious beliefs is that they are not superstitions in of themselves if we assume for a moment for the sake of discussion that religious beliefs are illogical than the religious beliefs would be a mythology and the consequences of those beliefs would be superstitions. For example, you could believe that there is a god but it is hard to say based on that belief what superstitions could arise you might think that god is watching you for example and consequently change your actions in some way. However, it’s also very likely that you might think that god doesn’t care about you or pay attention in any meaningful ways to your actions and consequently not have any superstitions arise from your belief in god.

I’m thinking about 3 different phenomena:

Historical and primitive: the response to a powerful need to explain nature and events, but without the benefit of the current observational skills. This is what we have been intent on getting rid of.

Sense of control: you already mentioned that this gives us a sense of control over events.

Ritual: I’d love to hear comment about the value of ritual in impacting our sense of well being.

there may be a basic desire to ostracize those who transgress moral norms. by accepting something that is intimately associated with a vicious killer we may feel that we are not ostracizing him as we should.

paul (cambridge, MA)

I wonder why you believe that living intuitively verses rationally is somehow inferior. I make most of my decisions on instinct and strong feelings, which usually turn out to make sense. Most successful people live this way.

The most basic form of superstition is religion. Although science can tell us HOW things happen, we will always wonder and WHY things happen and come up with an explanation to answer our and doubts and the unknown.

Bruce Hood seems to assume that any irrational behavior is superstitious. Did Obama repeat basketball playing because it brought good luck, or because it addressed anxiety in a stressful time?

I have much appreciation and agreement with the fruits of cognitive science, but I also find it’s adherents saturated with the notion that if a thing cannot be measured or proven, it simply does not exist. Where is the place for doubt, for wonder? It’s a sterile existence, if you ask me.

Dr. Hood’s thesis, conclusions, and insights do apply to the minds most of us have, but it is my experience that there are those who have attained (and this is possible) or were blessed with higher levels of consciousness and awareness. These special people are very rare but those of them with wisdom, say that we can nurture and expand our consciousness. Most of us never venture there. Again it is my experience and that of many I know to have directly seen many instances of “unknowable” knowledge.

There are, even if rare, higher levels of consciousness and mysteries unknown. I have witnessed too many instances not to believe this.

Dr. Hood’s comments on religion are right on also, but that is just the level of all our culturally developed religions that came from mis-understood teachings of those who really knew – the true Prophets., the original messengers One must search with sincerity and an open mind, no doubt, to find these answers.

Thanks you and all the best to all, searchers and non-searchers.

I am all for honest, progressive conversations regarding spirituality, psychology, and physiology. Nonetheless, I find your choice of Dr. Hood to be particularly provocative and insensitive on one of the most revered and somber days for Christians. I look forward to listening to Dr. Hoods lucid and insightful comments on another day. However, the invitation of an athieist and scientist on this day in particular is in exceedingly poor taste on the part of WBUR.
Sincerely,
Griffin Kirk

The impulse of imagination, before organized religion,
or organized science, has individual and group survival
value.

A focus of attention on the unknown or unsensed can
at least help fill in gaps in what we can apprehend.

It’s an antidote to an ever-narrowing focus on
ourselves or our tribe or our species …

I think superstition has something greater occurring with a correlation to the love of ignorance as bliss. As children we covet our imaginations and the wondrous things we believe while the cruel world spins round. The magic that lies within each superstitious belief gives us hope that there is a chance that a result may occur just by “wishing” it to be so.

Mr. Hood is right regarding religious indoctrination. As a Catholic friend of mine once said “It is easier to create them than convert them (to Catholicism)”.

Religion is indoctrination to a set of beliefs. It differs from indoctrination to a society’s common values by adding the concept of behavior related to a greater force, creator, etc rather than the common good.

Is the meaning of life subjective, situational or does it fall in the realm of an absolute truth? How do you see believing in the unbelievable defining the meaning of life for groups and individuals within society?

A la the illustration of Theseus’ ship, am I being supperstious to believe that although all the cells in my 54 year old body are a lot younger than 54, I am still I?

Very interesting discussion, but I can’t help but think that our scientific self-satisfaction permeates it. The level of practical know-how required to live a pre-industrial life in the rain forest, for example, is huge, and may dwarf the relative simplicity of the urban grid and our relatively regimented society. Pre-industrial and pre-agricultural cultural and cognitive structures were highly effective. While the scientific world-view fits very well with our intellectual picture of things, its ability to sustain us for thousands of years has yet to be proven. Given scale of our environmental problems, I believe the verdict is still in doubt.

Human evolution takes a very long time, much longer than known history. I think it is simplistic, arrogant, and narrow-minded to think that our ancestors were stupid. They clearly were not. Again, evolution is much slower than that. They were as intelligent as we are. Credit them. I am fairly convinced that the various authors of Genesis, for example, knew full well and intended to first orate, then write in metaphorical terms. I am sure there were many then, as far back as early Vedic days and earlier, as now, who were perfectly capable of understanding the mythical metaphorical nature of the belief systems of their time and place and used them, as many do now, simply as a vehicle to spiritual harmony. To claim this kind of intelligence only belongs to modern people is silly.

The views put forward were expressed as ‘this is reality’ but they only saw the world as physical. In reality everything is energy, as shown by science. Our computers work because silicon chips, which are quartz crystal, can be programmed with energy. Wallboard in our houses is made of gypsum which is also a form of quartz, and we are energy so when two people have an argument the memory of that angry exchange is held in the walls – thats why people get ‘feelings’ about being in certain houses or rooms. The same may occur with the mass murderer’s sweater holding an energetic blueprint of the owners thoughts. All thoughts produce emissions of energy from the brain, it goes somewhere!

I LOVE that the very last caller raised the ultimate superstition, belief in free will.

FWIW I heard Joy Brown once say that there was a study that confirmed that people could indeed tell when there is someone looking at them.

There’s absolutely no supernatural belief involved in saying that people in front of you act different when someone behind you is staring at you, or that you’ll perform better in various situations when you’ve gone through your normal routine, or that a gesture expressing some connection with a killer is repugnant to you.

Oh, the current caller just mentioned astrology.

There are many ways that the time of year you’re born could have effects: the light/dark time cues could alter maternal hormones, leading to in-utero effects; an infant’s first experience of seasonal conditions like cold and flu season, temperature extremes, seasonally-available foods, and seasonal allergens could have different effects at age one month than at age seven months; and being the oldest, youngest, or in the middle of your elementary-school peers could be a formative influence. There’s no realistic way to follow through all the effects from first principles. The only way to find out these effects is empirically — which is part of what astrology is.

Of course, astrology is full of hogwash too. You can filter out noise from signal if you know the signal characteristics in advance, but amplifying an unknown signal inevitably amplifies noise.

The reason we have these apparently irrational tendencies to believe is that they’re rational under circumstances of pervasive ignorance.

What was profoundly disappointing about this discussion is the imprecision with which the hosts labeled something as superstitious. The woman who brought up the point about “abstraction” absolutely hit the nail on the head, and both Tom and Prof. Hood seemed to miss it completely. Take the example of revulsion at wearing Darmer’s raincoat, which was blanketly dismissed as superstitious. Well, it depends on how the raincoat wearer explains it. The woman caller gave an explanation about abstractions, and which had nothing to do with any belief that the coat contained any “essence” of Darmer that would rub off on her, and yet you kept going back to that interpretation of the revulsion.

I find it interesting that belief in god is called superstition while not believing in god is not superstition. Since when has god’s existence been proven or disproven? It is just as superstitious to believe god does not exist as it is to believe god does exist. A person either has faith of a god existing or they have faith one does not.

[...] [...]

[...] You can find it here. [...]

The myth that humans have no free will is one of the prevalent excuses for wrong doing. It’s not me, it’s my genes, it’s my upbringing, it’s someone else.

Morality is based on free choice. This is essential in Jewish teaching.

Tom, you said you have relatives who are “snake handlers.” I don’t believe you.

I think your “snake handler” meme is a dead giveaway as to your real attitude about religious people who don’t conform to your crowd’s rationalist standards.

I think it’s also a reliable indicator that you are less interested in empirical accuracy than you are interested in affirming your allegiance to a specific stereotypical view that is dominant within the circles you move in.

Maybe I’m wrong, and you really do have relatives who are snake handlers. If so, I hope you’ll interview them on air, or at least interview a scholar who actually studies Appalachian snake handlers.

I missed the last part of the show, but I heard the guest talk about how people erroneously think they can feel it when someone is watching them from behind, and that that has been disproved. I also heard the host use “what if” examples involving some mass murderer named Darmer… Did anyone think to ask this scientist: “What if the person in the experiment watching the subject from behind was a mass murderer like Darmer?” I am supposed to believe that if some creep like that was behind me contemplating wringing my neck and eating me for breakfast that I wouldn’t sense anything unusual?

The cost of religious supersition is too high despite its ability to provide internally consistent explanations tht are comforting. The insularity, intolerance, hatred, and violence that is the natural consequence of religious superstition and the mentality of religion working at the tribal and national level wipes out any benefit at the family and community level. Some of the most sadistic and ruthless acts commited by mankind has been on behalf of one religion to destry another rival.

Regarding sensing people behind you. Studies have shown that the brain often registers external stimuli before awareness and a decision to react enters our consciousness. For example, reflective actions (grabbing something with the hand). So, perhaps the brain hears something behind us that is below the level of what we can perceive consciously and what we first experience at the conscious level is merely an intuition that someone is behind us. Only moments later enough auditory stimuli accumulates and passes the threshold of consciousness and conscious confirmation.

Why this would develop would make sense from an evolutionary-survival perscpective.