Robert Sapolsky Explains the Biological Basis of Religiosity, and What It Shares in Common with OCD, Schizophrenia & Epilepsy

Since the 19th cen­tu­ry, thinkers like Lud­wig Feuer­bach, Friedrich Niet­zsche, and Sig­mund Freud have the­o­rized reli­gion as a strict­ly psy­cho­log­i­cal and anthro­po­log­i­cal phe­nom­e­non born of the ten­den­cy of the human mind to project its con­tents out into the heav­ens. The Dar­win­ian rev­o­lu­tion pro­vid­ed anoth­er framework—one ground­ed in exper­i­men­tal science—to explain reli­gion. Social sci­en­tists like Pas­cal Boy­er have inte­grat­ed these par­a­digms in com­pre­hen­sive accounts of the ori­gins of reli­gious belief, and in the­o­ries like E.O. Wilson’s Socio­bi­ol­o­gy, evo­lu­tion­ary biol­o­gy pro­vides an expla­na­tion for all social phe­nom­e­na, of which reli­gion is but one among many human adap­ta­tions. Advances in neu­ro­bi­ol­o­gy have fur­thered sci­en­tists’ under­stand­ing of reli­gion as a prod­uct not only of human con­scious­ness, but also of the phys­i­cal struc­ture of the brain. In exper­i­ments like the “God hel­met,” for exam­ple, sci­en­tists can induce reli­gious expe­ri­ences by prod­ding cer­tain areas of sub­jects’ brains.

It is in this con­text of psy­chol­o­gy, anthro­pol­o­gy, and evo­lu­tion­ary and neu­ro­bi­ol­o­gy that we need to sit­u­ate the lec­ture above from Stan­ford pro­fes­sor Robert Sapol­sky. Where many crit­ics of reli­gion explic­it­ly reject reli­gious author­i­ty and belief, Sapol­sky, though him­self “stri­dent­ly athe­is­tic,” has no such agen­da. As an arti­cle in the Col­orado Springs Inde­pen­dent puts it, “he’s no Christo­pher Hitchens.” Sapol­sky freely admits, as do many scientists—religious and non—that reli­gion has many ben­e­fits: “It makes you feel bet­ter. It tends to decrease anx­i­ety, and it gets you a com­mu­ni­ty.” How­ev­er, he claims, these pos­i­tives are the result of evo­lu­tion­ary adap­ta­tions, not proofs of any super­nat­ur­al realm. In fact, reli­gios­i­ty, Pro­fes­sor Sapol­sky argues above, is bio­log­i­cal­ly based and relat­ed to seem­ing­ly much less adap­tive traits like obses­sive com­pul­sive dis­or­der, schiz­o­phre­nia, and epilep­sy.

Part of a lec­ture course on “Human Behav­ioral Biol­o­gy” at Stan­ford, the reli­gion lec­ture is one Sapol­sky admits he is “most ner­vous for, sim­ply because this one peo­ple wind up hav­ing strong opin­ions about.” As he moves ahead, he presents his case (with occa­sion­al inter­rup­tions from his stu­dents) for reli­gios­i­ty as a result of nat­ur­al selec­tion, con­nect­ing belief to the selec­tion of genes for dis­eases like Tay-Sachs, the exis­tence of which can help to explain dispir­it­ing his­tor­i­cal cas­es like the Euro­pean Pogroms against the Jews in the Mid­dle Ages. Through­out his lec­ture, Sapol­sky makes con­nec­tions between reli­gios­i­ty and biol­o­gy, the­o­riz­ing, for exam­ple, that St. Paul had tem­po­ral-lobe epilep­sy.

At the end of his lec­ture, around the 1:19:30 mark, Sapol­sky issues a dis­claimer about what he’s “not say­ing”: “I’m not say­ing ‘you got­ta be crazy to be reli­gious.’ That would be non­sense. Nor am I say­ing, even, that most peo­ple who are, are psy­chi­atri­cal­ly sus­pect.” What he is say­ing, he con­tin­ues, is that “the same exact traits which in a sec­u­lar con­text are life-destroy­ing” and “sep­a­rate you from the com­mu­ni­ty” are, “at the core of what is pro­tect­ed, what is sanc­tioned, what is reward­ed, what is val­ued in reli­gious set­tings.” What fas­ci­nates Sapol­sky is the “under­ly­ing biol­o­gy” of these traits. Sapol­sky even con­fess­es that he “most regrets” his own break with the Ortho­dox reli­gion of his upbring­ing, but that his athe­ism is some­thing he “appears to be unable to change.” The ques­tions Sapol­sky asks broad­ly cov­er the phys­i­cal deter­min­ism of gain­ing faith, and of los­ing it, which he says, is “just as bio­log­i­cal.” What we are to make of all this is a ques­tion he leaves open.

You can watch Sapolsky’s full series of lec­tures on Behav­ioral Biol­o­gy here, and for a ful­ly anno­tat­ed sum­ma­ry of his reli­gios­i­ty lec­ture above, see this site.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Stanford’s Robert Sapol­sky Demys­ti­fies Depres­sion

Biol­o­gy That Makes Us Tick: Free Stan­ford Course by Robert Sapol­sky

Do Your­self a Favor and Watch Stress: Por­trait of a Killer (with Stan­ford Biol­o­gist Robert Sapol­sky)

Dopamine Jack­pot! Robert Sapol­sky on the Sci­ence of Plea­sure

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness


by | Permalink | Comments (10) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!


Comments (10)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Hanoch says:

    The reli­gion from which Sapol­sky estranged him­self is based on an inter­gen­er­a­tional trans­mis­sion of his­tor­i­cal events, bear­ing some sim­i­lar­i­ties to the way we know about the hos­til­i­ty between Spar­ta and Athens, or Cae­sar’s expe­di­tions in Gaul. Accord­ing to Jew­ish his­to­ry, sev­er­al mil­lion peo­ple were wit­ness to the Exo­dus and the giv­ing of the Torah. Sapol­sky must assume, there­fore, that the his­tor­i­cal events are false to begin posit­ing an alter­na­tive basis (e.g., biol­o­gy) for the exis­tence of West­ern reli­gion. I believe the sci­en­tif­ic term for this is called “putting the cart before the horse”.

  • Astronasty says:

    So glad you did a sto­ry on this too :) Thanks, Josh, for the tip of the hat and the link to my arti­cle at the end there. Much respect to you guys!

  • Josh Jones says:

    You’re wel­come, thanks for read­ing!

  • Thad. T says:

    Hilar­i­ous! If a chris­t­ian schol­ar taught a course that claimed that athe­ism arose from evo­lu­tion and was akin to “OCD, Schiz­o­phre­nia & Epilep­sy” would it be rea­son­able for me to be incred­u­lous? But if you turn it around that’s OK, because he claims he’s objec­tive about reli­gion? Sor­ry, I don’t see how this is objec­tive, it seems rather biased. The best part is that it is a claim that can­not be dis­proved, we can’t rewind his­to­ry and tin­ker with evo­lu­tion or watch his­to­ry rewound to show how or why reli­gion arose, so this isn’t actu­al­ly a sci­en­tif­ic hypoth­e­sis, it is sim­ply faith based, but for athe­ism, or anti-deism, or what­ev­er this 18th cen­tu­ry belief sys­tem is called.

  • Brian B says:

    Thad T„,
    He does not claim that athe­ism aris­es from evo­lu­tion because he has no evi­dence to so claim. Where­as his god/schizophrenia etc. is evi­dence based. New evi­dence may arise and new par­a­digms pro­posed but based on the exist­ing evi­dence Sapol­sky is being entire­ly crit­i­cal and ratio­nal

  • bill horrocks says:

    And, of course, our under­stand­ing of ‘What’s going on’ is, of neces­si­ty, ground­ed in our own cul­tur­al con­text and can only be medi­at­ed using the vocab­u­lary, mythol­o­gy and gath­er­ing spaces afford­ed to us in that con­text. Fas­ci­nat­ing to con­sid­er how an indi­vid­ual 2000 years ago ded­i­cat­ed to dis­cov­er­ing ‘what’s going on’ in the con­text of a super­sti­tious and rit­u­als bound cul­ture, sub­ject­ed to ruth­less impe­r­i­al sub­ju­ga­tion, with no his­to­ry of biol­o­gy and neu­ro­science (and no lec­ture the­aters or access to the inter­net) might address who­ev­er he could get to lis­ten to him, what fate might befall him, what influ­ence he might have on the future devel­op­ment of the poten­tial of the species and what kind of write ups he might get

  • Robert Callow says:

    Before a man can rea­son cor­rect­ly he must first be made ful­ly aware of the pri­ma­ry cause of why he is nat­u­ral­ly prone to lie and deceive (even when there is plen­ty to go round) and not only deceive oth­ers but him­self also when­ev­er it suits him. Only then can he hope to ful­ly under­stand the cure for his fool­ish behav­iour.

    Dar­win­ian evo­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry, as with so many oth­er beliefs that have been con­trived and believed in by sick and fool­ish minds, does absolute­ly noth­ing to rid the human race of the cause of lying and liv­ing by lies and delu­sion, but does much to encour­age it, and for as long as peo­ple refuse to see and acknowl­edge the fun­da­men­tal cause of why they can’t help lying and deceiv­ing them­selves, deceiv­ing oth­ers and being deceived by oth­ers they will nev­er see and believe in the cure. Instead, they shall con­tin­ue to live by lies and remain inca­pable of halt­ing their insane jour­ney on their road into chaos and despair and end­less destruc­tion:

    We don’t need to look far now to see a pathet­ic human race deceiv­ing and being deceived, lying and liv­ing by lies, killing and being killed, whilst at the same time remain­ing unable to halt the increas­ing destruc­tion of the envi­ron­ment in which it needs to exist; and so I ask again, was there ever a more con­vinc­ing sign of the lying self-deceiv­ing self-destruc­tive insan­i­ty rul­ing over the human race?

    Has there ever been more con­vinc­ing evi­dence of the ter­ror wait­ing to engulf us?

    If lost souls would only open their eyes and look for them­selves they might see and believe in the cure for their delud­ed state before it’s too late.

  • James M Apperson says:

    Re “Chris­tians have been giv­en the Spir­it of Truth. We under­stand that “align­ment” with the logos does not come from a deep­er, more rea­son­able under­stand­ing of the nat­ur­al world; rather, right­eous­ness comes from a rela­tion­ship with God through Christ, the true Logos.”
    —-

    (All lit­er­al-read­ing-based ver­sions of) That reli­gious sys­tem (which just hap­pens to be most ver­sions of “Chris­tian­i­ty” (and oth­er Abra­ham­ic reli­gions) in exis­tence)
    demand that all con­trary views and val­ues are wrong, proven-wrong, and evil.

    Facts, log­ic, and ethics
    do not real­ly sup­port their nar­ra­tives.

    But every sin­gle one
    of their:
    tens of thou­sands
    of
    ~mutu­al­ly exclu­sive~ rival sects
    are:
    “cer­tain” of it any­ways.

    How­ev­er,
    the peo­ple who cre­at­ed all ver­sions of it,
    and
    the peo­ple who pro­mote those
    have usu­al­ly been care­ful to phrase their rhetoric in such a way, so that it’s not too obvi­ous that they’re auto­mat­i­cal­ly demo­niz­ing all con­trary views and val­ues.

    That means:
    pro­mot­ing it
    is against the rules of this group (and most oth­er sim­i­lar groups).

    But it covert­ly slides under the radar; so that it gets a ~free pass~ to speak divi­sive­ly about all con­trary views, val­ues, and every­one whom holds to those con­trary views and val­ues.

    More deeply,
    they’ll even go-so-far as to den­i­grate us all
    as
    unwor­thy to even exist.

    Some even go fur­ther; teach­ing that we (me, my kids, you, your kids, etc)(everyone who isn’t a devout and doc­tri­nal­ly-ade­quate believ­er) deserve eter­nal tor­ture; unless we join their “total­ly not a reli­gion” before it’s too late.

    Upon exam­in­ing that clev­er­ly schemed ~free pass~. …

    There’s no ratio­nal rea­son why such a deeply, inher­ent­ly abu­sive and destruc­tive sys­tem should be shel­tered from pub­lic scruti­ny and account­abil­i­ty,
    while equal­ly abu­sive sys­tems are not giv­en that same free pass.

    More eas­i­ly rec­og­niz­able forms of Mafia Rack­e­teer­ing schemes,
    and
    oth­er ide­olo­gies which (also; same as Chris­tian­i­ty):
    fos­ter-and-shel­ter domes­tic abuse,
    child abuse.
    emo­tion­al vio­lence,
    will­ful and wide­spread, sys­tem­at­ic infil­tra­tion and hijack­ing of entire polit­i­cal sys­tems, and
    which pose a bla­tant threat to the con­tin­u­a­tion of our species, …

    are not giv­en the same free pass.

    Social taboos and for­mal rules against ~call­ing it out for what it is~
    are part of the prob­lem;
    — help­ing to per­pet­u­ate so many sig­nif­i­cant dys­func­tions; which under­mine every facet of human per­son­al, famil­ial, and soci­etal health.


    As Sapol­sky puts is:
    “the same exact traits which in a sec­u­lar con­text are life-destroy­ing” and “sep­a­rate you from the com­mu­ni­ty” are, “at the core of what is pro­tect­ed, what is sanc­tioned, what is reward­ed, what is val­ued in reli­gious set­tings.””

    Human biol­o­gy
    and what counts as health vs dis­ease
    does­n’t change inside of a church or faith-based set­ting.
    It’s the same, no mat­ter where we go, why we’re there, or what songs we sing.

    So we real­ly are talk­ing about a soci­etal­ly-sanc­tioned and pro­tect­ed
    mas­sive net­work of clus­tered, gross­ly dys­func­tion­al cells;

    dis­guised so that our social and polit­i­cal sys­tems don’t rec­og­nize these as a threat;
    a threat which,
    in the ever-increas­ing light of dis­cov­ery,
    has proven to be rav­aging to the body of human­i­ty.

    STOICISM can help the con­se­quences of their reli­gion
    become more bear­able.
    But it can’t cure the dis­ease.
    We have no hope of doing that;
    until we start giv­ing each oth­er per­mis­sion
    to open­ly and hon­est­ly talk about it.

  • James M Apperson says:

    I tried to go back and edit, or delete and repost my com­ment.

    I can’t see where the but­tons for that are locat­ed.

    But I meant to include this:

    “This was post­ed in a “Sto­icism” dis­cus­sion group.”
    and then
    “My reply to that was this:”.

  • Thinker says:

    “Dar­win­ian evo­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry, as with so many oth­er beliefs that have been con­trived and believed in by sick and fool­ish minds, does absolute­ly noth­ing to rid the human race of the cause of lying and liv­ing by lies and delu­sion, but does much to encour­age it, and for as long as peo­ple refuse to see and acknowl­edge the fun­da­men­tal cause of why they can’t help lying and deceiv­ing them­selves, deceiv­ing oth­ers and being deceived by oth­ers they will nev­er see and believe in the cure. Instead, they shall con­tin­ue to live by lies and remain inca­pable of halt­ing their insane jour­ney on their road into chaos and despair and end­less destruc­tion:”

    Oh sure — and just how much has chris­tian­i­ty done to improve soci­ety? You guys have only had 2000 years right.… how many chris­t­ian soci­eties have exist­ed in his­to­ry (Byzan­tium, Tsarist Rus­sia, 17th cen­tu­ry Gene­va, Puri­tan set­tle­ments in Amer­i­ca, the Span­ish con­quis­ti­dors…) and end­ed up as repres­sive or total­i­tar­i­an or geno­ci­dal regimes — in fact all the evi­dence we have shows that peo­ple grow­ing up in evan­gel­i­cal fun­da­men­tal­ism end up worse of in many aspects — social repres­sion, sex­u­al repres­sion (porn use for exam­ple is high­er in the bible belt), lack of trust in evi­dence & the sci­en­tif­ic method, dis­trust in edu­ca­tion, gullible mass­es of evan­gel­i­cals snake-charmed by their narcis­tic megachurch pas­tors liv­ing in their palaces & pri­vate jets.…. If you guys are hap­py being mis­er­able — go knock your­selves out and do us all a favor and take Trump with you — just leave the rest of us alone.

Leave a Reply

Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.