Book of the Month: The "God" Part of the Brain

Back in March I received my first ever solicitation from a publisher to review Matthew Alper’s The “God” Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Spirituality and God. Needless to say, I was excited at the prospect. It made me feel like I had finally achieved something as a blogger. Nevertheless, when I received the book, I made a promise to myself not to pander to the publisher and maintain a critical eye throughout the read so that I could provide an honest assessment. To do otherwise would make me feel intellectually dishonest, which is something I refuse to do. What I didn’t expect was how amazing The “God” Part of the Brain would turn out to be. Quite frankly, this is probably the best book I’ve ever read concerning atheism. The writing is great and easy to follow, and, more importantly, the book makes an excellent argument.

As the subtitle explains, Alper sets out to find a scientific explanation for the apparent compulsion humans feel to believe in a god and spirituality in general. Although Alper’s reasoning has drawbacks in a couple of places, which I will cover later, I feel he generally succeeds in his stated task. Not only that, but his logic addresses a number of disparate thoughts I’ve had on my own and ties them together in a comprehensive framework that simply makes sense to me.

The book begins with Alper’s personal reasons for exploring this particular topic, including his battles with LSD, which showed him how easily it was to alter one’s consciousness and personality. Alper saw this as direct evidence that one’s consciousness—what theists consider properties of an immortal soul—is entirely dependent on the electrochemical processes of the brain, thereby making the existence of any sort of spiritual realm a dubious supposition. This observation lays an important framework for the rest of the book. Namely, we are utterly dependent in the chemical and electrical functions of our brain for the basis of our personality and perception of reality.

Next, the book goes into the author’s loss of religion and quest to understand the nature of the universe through science. For the scientifically literate, this is little more than an overview of the current scientific understanding of the universe. Nevertheless, Alper’s writing abilities make it an interesting read.

With the scientific foundation laid down, Alper then moves to the primary hypothesis of the book, a concept he calls biotheology: the human compulsion to believe in a higher power and an afterlife are an evolutionarily evolved genetic trait that serves as a coping mechanism to alleviate our anxiety towards death. For evidence, Alper cites the universality of religion in human culture. Even though each religion has its differences, their basic foundations are remarkably similar in the same way that all languages share specific, essential characteristics. Thus, religion seems to be just another genetically inherited factor amongst several others that make up the human psyche. Certainly, Alper is not the first to suggest such a hypothesis, but he won me over with the novel rationalization behind it (granted, he may not be the first to have come up with this rationality, but it was new to me).

In essence, it all comes down to anxiety. Alper deftly explains how anxiety plays an essential role in the lives of every creature on Earth. It drives us to eat, sleep, mate, flee from danger, etc. Without anxiety, living organisms would feel no compulsion to perform the tasks necessary to our survival as an individual and a species. However, humans had a unique problem. As the first creature to be aware of its existence with the ability to plan ahead and ponder its place in the cosmos, early humans encountered an existential problem. Since we, unlike other organisms, are aware of our impending death, the resulting anxiety would provide a serious problem. After all, what purpose is there to succeeding in life if we’re just going to disappear? Alper argues that this would provide an inescapable source of anxiety with no solution, thereby making everyday function difficult at best. To deal with the problem, natural selection eventually found an end run around this anxiety. As a species, we began to see a spiritual side to ourselves, which we believed would survive death and last for eternity, thereby removing the anxiety of an inescapable demise. Furthermore, the belief that there are all-powerful, paternal figures personally caring for us provides another source of relief from anxiety. Combined, this genetically inherited belief in spirituality and god became the basis for all theistic thought. In an amusing irony, it seems we evolved the need for religion.

For the remainder of the book, Alper tackles the various experiences associated with religion including spiritual experiences, prayer, religious conversion, near-death experiences, speaking in tongues, morality, the existence of atheists, and even why America is more religious than every other developed nation in the world. The best sections come when Alper uses the finds from scientific research to support his hypotheses. His section on spiritual experiences is particularly effective because science has already had great deal of focus on this phenomenon, and Alper has a plethora of documentation to turn to. This includes studies with MRIs that show how meditation has a direct affect on the part of the brain associated with our sense of self. Indeed the sense of “being one with the universe” is nothing more than the restriction of blood flow to the part of the brain that keeps us grounded in reality.

In other areas, Alper deals with logic chains, which are not nearly as convincing. His section on the effects of personal prayer relies on a number interlinked hypotheses that all have to be true in order for the final conclusion to also be true. While he could very well be right that prayer relieves overall anxiety, thereby allowing the body to heal better because there’s less strain on the central nervous system, there’s simply not enough evidence available to support each part.

Another drawback is that Alper is not a scientist. While certainly no fault of his own, he can only rely on what he has taught himself and what the studies of others have found. I’m not saying a person must be a scientist to write about scientific matters. Indeed, I enjoy writing about science, and I’m no scientist. However, for a work that makes such bold, scientifically based conclusions, it would certainly lend Alper a far greater degree of credibility and authority.

Regardless of the shortcomings, I can’t deny that I like and almost entirely agree with Alper’s logic. His arguments are well conceived and well written and almost always backed by scientific research. Even when there’s little evidence to go off of, Alper still performs exceptional thought experiments that maintain their rationality throughout. I could go on and on recounting the great ideas in this book, but, for brevity’s sake, I’ll just ask you to read it for yourself.

In the end, I loved The “God” Part of the Brain. Perhaps it’s simply because Alper provided what I had been looking for. For a while now, I’ve felt there must be a biological reason for the human need for religion, and Alper provided the comprehensive explanation I had sought. While authors like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris provide excellent reasons to doubt the existence of a higher power, they don’t add much to understanding why we delude ourselves. Alper effectively fills in this gap for those atheists wishing to find the answer. More than anything, it forces nonbelievers to consider the reality of our situation. If belief in religion actually is a genetically inherited trait, then it’s not going away anytime soon. With this understanding, perhaps we can find more effective means of communicating with theists in a way that is constructive for both sides so that we can all work together towards a more positive future.

I want to thank Sourcebooks for providing me with Alper’s book. More importantly, I want to thank them for bringing this book to my attention. It truly is a worthwhile read and I recommend you go out and pick it up.

Evolution of New Species Does Occur and Here's How to Picture it and Support it with Evidence

Since tomorrow is Charles Darwin's 198th birthday, I decided to take some time to pass on an excellent visualization of evolutionary speciation that my high school biology teacher utilized.

Before I begin, let me define speciation. Also called macroevolution, it is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. For creationists, this is one of their largest points of contention. They argue that no species of animal has ever been observed giving birth to a different species. While certainly true, this is not how the theory of evolution says new species will arise. If an animal's offspring were a different species, that would probably serve better as proof for Creationism more than evolution. As a rule, an animal will always be the same species as their parents. Then how does evolution say new species will arise? Well, come along and I'll relate the excellent example my biology teacher told me.

Let's say you have a species of frog that lives in Florida. It's particularly successful and multiplies quickly. This obviously causes competition for food and forces the frogs to spread out so they can find more food. This spread serves as a form of migration and eventually these frogs and their descendents spread out so far that they span from Florida to New York (obviously, this is a bit large for frogs and they would more likely spread east and west since the climate changes aren't as extreme, but follow along for the sake of argument). However, the environment at each latitude is a bit different and favors certain mutations within the frog population. They might have to eat different foods, the climate might change their mating patterns, their coloration might change to blend in with the different vegetation, et cetera. Sure, these are all examples of microevolution and do not make it a new species, but with enough changes you start to get something different with the variations becoming greater the farther away you get from the original habitat.

Now, the frogs in Virginia will be a little different than the original population, but the Florida frogs and the Virginia frogs will still be able to breed with each other since they are not as different and might still intermingle. On the other hand, the New York frogs will have taken much longer to get where they are and have a much different climate than Florida, causing them to change even more than the Virginia frogs, but they can probably still interbreed with the Virginia frogs since the separation in time and space is once again not terribly large. However, the New York frogs cannot interbreed with the Florida frogs since they have had too many changes to successfully interbreed and produce viable offspring, thereby making the New York frogs a new species. It wasn't quick or sudden, but it eventually led to speciation. Put simply, the frogs can breed with their neighboring populations, but not the next population over.

Of course, this is just a theoretical illustration and would be useless if it didn't have any evidence to support it. So, is there any evidence? Yes. Just look at mules. Mules are created by breeding a male donkey with a female horse. However, donkeys and horses are still separate species because mules not viable, i.e., they are sterile (except for extremely rare cases). This shows that horses and mules were once part of the same species. However, there were population migrations and the group that lived in the Asian steppes eventually became horses that adapted to living in open grassland while the group that settled in northern Africa became the wild ancestors of donkeys and adapted to subsist on more meager resources. However, they are still similar enough to interbreed and produce young, albeit sterile. It's an excellent example of recent speciation. The ability to breed a lion and a tiger to produce a sterile liger is a similar example.

Now that we've seen evidence for recent speciation, can we find evidence for speciation in progress? Yes. All you need to do it look at ourselves and the existence of different races. Early humans spread out from Sub-Saharan Africa to span the reaches of the globe. As they moved to different climates, they began to adapt. Sunny Africa favored dark-skinned humans, Asia favored a similar adaptation, although to a lesser degree, and cloudy Northern Europe favored humans with paler skin. Nevertheless, human populations weren't isolated from each other long enough to develop different species, and the devlopment of transportation technology allowed us to intermingle once again, finally preventing it. However, if the different races had remained isolated from one another, then we certainly would have seen the speciation of different humans with homo sapiens as the common ancestor. Of course, you could compare this to the Bible-friendly explanation from Answers in Genesis. I'll let you be the judge.

In conclusion, speciation or macroevolution is really not too hard to understand and accept when you just look at the world around us. The evidence for it is easy to find.

P.S.: In my discussion, I used the out of Africa hypothesis to explain the existence of different races. You can see the other scientific hypotheses here.

Update: Here's a good article about a new find that supports the out of Africa hypothesis.

In Celebration of Evolution Sunday

Today is Evolution Sunday and some 600 churches will be discussing evolution in a positive way to try and reconcile science and religion. While I don't really feel science actually can be reconciled with religion, it's better than what most other churches are saying.

Anyway, to help further this event, I would like to provide this link to Talk Origins about the 29+ evidences that macroevolution exists. You'll always hear creationists accept microevolution (small physical changes, like a bird population gaining longer beaks) but completely deny macroevolution (the change from one species to a different one). Hopefully, this resource can aid you in your struggles.

Debunk ID Claims. It's Fun!

Sorry I've been on a bit of an evolution/ID craze lately, but I just went the American Museum of Natural History last week, and my interest in the subject has been somewhat high of late. Anyway, I came across this piece of ID nonsense by Helena on the blog Shelly the Republican and became so frustrated, I decided I'd waste my time destroying the arguments piece by piece. Hopefully, someone will find something useful here for their own endeavors. So it begins:

“While I was reading to my daughter from Percival Davis’ excellent “Of Pandas and People” I learnt something about the differences between the way Neo-Darwinists an proponents of ID think. I think the Darwinists are only interested in looking at disconnected details: They fail to see the big-picture and that is why they fail to spot the handiwork of the Intelligent Designer even though the evidence is staring them in the face: Let me give you an example.”

Notice the use of the term “Darwinists.” No question where this person stands. As for reading to her daughter from Of Pandas and People, how lame can you get? I can’t imagine something more boring for a child than hearing excepts from a textbook. Of course, this person probably home schools her child to keep her away from the "evils" of secular schooling. Sound like a little brainwashing? Sure does to me.

As far as Of Pandas and People being excellent, or as Helena says in a caption under a picture of the textbook, “This is probably the best biology text-book ever written. It totally debunks the myth of evolution,” this is about as far from reality as you can get. Of Pandas and People probably the worst biology textbook written in the 20^th century. I don’t want to waste space showing why, but Dr. Kenneth Miller, a cellular biologist and expert witness for the plaintiffs of Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board, does an excellent job in his critique of the book. Moving on to Helena’s great example:

“The Tasmanian Wolf looks remarkably like the wolf you and I know of. It’s about the same size, has a similar diet and even has the same kind of fur , jaw structure, teeth and behavior. Anybody can see that these two animals are examples of the same kind of creature. But if you ask an evolutionist where this creature might be placed on the “tree of life”, they would place these two very similar creatures about as far from each other as could be and yet still both be considered mammals. That’s sort of like somebody from Kentucky claiming that their next door neighbour lives in New Jersy!”

Riiiiight. The only problem is that the wolf is a placental mammal and the Tasmanian wolf is a marsupial. These are radically different methods of mammal reproduction and would not have arisen out of chance. It takes common descent for such different reproductive methods to evolve. The reason Tasmanian wolves are so far away from wolves in the mammal cladogram (or tree of life) is because the marsupial reproductive method is shared by several other mammals that live in the same area (Australia and the surrounding islands). Since the marsupial reproductive method is so different from the way all other mammals reproduce, it simply makes logical sense to group marsupials together. They’re obviously related. As for the Kentucky and New Jersey neighbors analogy, a better analogy would be that those people are both descended from Charlemagne. They might not be closely related now, but their ancestors were and shared similar lifestyles.

“These taxonomical oddities are not an isolated feature: Darwin’s “Tree of Life” abounds with anomalous classifications: Few high-schools mention that evolutionists regard all birds as a sub-class of reptiles. That is to say if one branch of the tree represents every living and extinct reptile, every known species of bird would be represented by a sub-branch of that reptile branch. Next time you hear an iguana say “Polly Want a Cracker”, tell me, but until then I propose that this classification makes no sense at all!”

Birds are classified as archosaurs (a group of reptiles) because they descended from reptiles through dinosaurs. You can see it in the fossil record. The creature classified as the
archaeopteryx has the skeletal structure of a dinosaur but the feathers of a bird. This is also not the only case. The recently discovered microraptor gui is another, more advanced example of the transition of dinosaurs into birds. Helena has this quote under the picture of a parrot:

“Oh no! We are being attacked by a DINOSAUR… RUN! Oh wait - have the neo-darwinists been watching too much Jurassic-park?”

What makes her think all dinosaurs were vicious? I think she’s the one that needs to lay off the Hollywood a bit.

“Wouldn’t it make more sense if we devised a more functional taxonomy; one where very similar kinds of animal were grouped together? One based on the sensible principles and proven science of Intelligent Design?”

Um, grouping similar kinds of animals is the way animal classification works. However, they’re grouped beyond mere superficial appearances. Animals are grouped by everything from skeletal structure to musculature to reproductive strategies, etc. It goes beyond how they merely look. As for ID being proven: That just shows her ignorance of science. Science never proves anything. It simply finds evidence that either support theories or falsify (disprove) them. It’s made that way to keep the door open to new discoveries. As for ID, you can’t prove or disprove the presence of an intelligent designer, so it can’t be falsified. Therefore, ID isn’t even science, much less a theory.

“One might wonder why this idea has not occurred to the proponents of neo-darwinism? Actually it has, but they dismiss it because of a few small details here and there. One such difference between the Tasmanian and American wolf is it’s reproductive strategy: The Tasmanian wolves are “marsupial”, and other wolves are “placental” like our species. Evolutionists say that these are two very different branches of evolution, one which has retained primative DNA, the other has developed more modern features. Because of this one single difference, these two wolves are consigned to different ends of evolution’s spectrum.

“Why should reproductive strategy be valued above all other differences and similarities? It makes no sense at all given that everything else about the two wolf species is so similar. Surely science should recognise similarities as well as differences?”

Well, at least she knows that Tasmanian wolves are marsupials. However, different reproductive strategies are a huge difference anatomically. By Helena’s reasoning, the differences between the Echidna (a spiny, egg-laying mammal that lives in Australia and New Guinea) and a porcupine are miniscule. They both look spiny, but who cares if one lays eggs and other doesn’t. They must still be closely related, right? Please. Completely different reproductive organs require completely different ancestral lineages. Now, biologists do recognize the similarities between wolves and Tasmanian wolves. That’s why they’re both classified as mammals. The reason they have similar body structures is because mammals share similar body structures to begin with. The reason they share the same lifestyle is because they’re both predators. That sort of lifestyle favors quick animals with teeth effective for killing. Since they both came from a common ancestor, it’s no surprise they look similar forms to adapt to the same problem.

“Wouldn’t it make more sense to see this in the context of Intelligent design? It’s possible that the designer made two different revisions of the same basic design. This is something that human designers do all the time, and it seems perfectly normal to us. What is the probability that these two creatures “evolved” to look the same: According to evolution, change happens by random mutation. An evolutionist might therefore expect one kind of wolf to turn blue, and the other one to grow antlers.”

The first half appeals to the intelligent designer that lies outside of science, so that’s the first problem. I’ve already addressed why evolution favors similar body types when starting with a common ancestor. The descendents only have so much to work with. As for the last half, it’s just another huge misrepresentation of evolution. The reason wolves don’t have antlers is because natural selection didn’t favor it. Things don’t just appear fully formed with evolution. There would have been a long progression starting with very small antlers on prehistoric wolves, probably started from small bony growths on its skull. If those wolves with small antlers managed to reproduce enough to live on, then we might have eventually seen large antlers on wolves. This is exactly what we see with deer evolution. However, wolves’ relatives never had antlers to begin with and natural selection never favored wolves with antlers. That’s why they never appeared. Natural selection is not random. Either a physical trait helps something survive, or it doesn’t.

“Fortunately that is not the case. We are left with two varieties of wolf, one version placental, the other version marsupial. We can only guess at what the objectives of the designer were, but I personally suspect that these creatures are two iterations of a design that eventually left us with the most perfect wolf-like form: The modern domesticated dog.”

The Tasmanian wolf is only called a wolf because European settlers thought it looked like wolves from Europe. Another name for these creatures is Tasmanian tiger because it has stripes. Does that make it another type of tiger? There’s no such thing as a marsupial wolf. Wolves are only placental. That’s part of what makes them Canis lupis, or wolves.

“So what can we learn from these wolves? I suggest that in science (as in all walks of life), sometimes scrutiny of the details alone can lead to false conclusions. Sometimes the only sensible, common sense approach is to look at the big picture: And once we step back and appreciate the many wonders of creation the Designer’s signature is self-evident.”

The major problem is that a Tasmanian wolf being a marsupial is a part of the big picture. It’s a radically different reproduction method requiring completely different reproductive organs from those of placental mammals. That’s what makes it part of a different species, genus, family, order, and infraclass. There’s no way a Tasmanian wolf and a wolf could have interbred, which would make them the same species. They don’t even have the same plumbing, so to speak. Ignoring such a difference ignores the big picture.

As you can see, ID persists because of ignorance and faulty reasoning. People who support it either know nothing about evolution and biology or simply repeat what a pastor told them without doing any real research. Helena tries to take the “common sense” approach but fails due to complete ignorance on her chosen subject of pontification. Looking at superficial similarities and ignoring actual differences is simply being lazy. It shows a complete lack of desire to learn something.

Update: After doing a little research, it seems like I've been had. This might actually be a parody. Read my full post on the subject here.

Update: This post is real. Read more here.

Planet Atheism

This blog now belongs to the new group Planet Atheism. It's a good place to see the latest posts from a large number of atheist-related blogs, so I recommend checking it out.

Excellent Resource for Fighting Christian Fundamentalists

Brian Elroy McKinley has provided this amazing resource for those wishing to argue against fundamentalist Christians. He correctly points out that reason and evidence will not work. Instead, he shows you how to use fundamentalists' greatest weapon, the Bible, against them. Few fundamentalists have actually read the book, and the contradictory nature of the Bible makes it easy to find quotes as counter points to their various claims. So, the next time you find yourself in a debate with a fundamentalist Christian, don't bother with the tools of rational being, just use McKinley's handy guide.

Book of the Month: The God Delusion

I read this one a couple of months ago, but the months simply don't pass fast enough for me to get every worthy book I read posted on a monthly basis. Perhaps I should go bimonthly. Anyway, I digress.

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, renowned evolutionary biologist from Oxford University, turns his incredible intelligence against religion. It could almost be considered the atheist's Bible, except it's not like the Bible at all. Instead of telling you how to live life and being filled with fanciful stories, Dawkins encourages people to think critically for themselves and uses solid, rational arguments against the existence of a higher power. He deplores the place religion has in society and sees it as a negative force in the world responsible for much of the world's suffering. More than anything The God Delusion is a call for people to open their eyes and throw off their irrational, harmful beliefs in favor of a secular, humistic worldview.

While I don't necessarily agree with Dawkins' call for the abolition of religion--I think everyone should be free to believe what they want as long as it doesn't hurt others--his great intellect and insight gives rational thinkers everywhere powerful ammunition in their struggles to articulate their beliefs. Dawkins destroys many of the unfounded assumptions frequently leveled at atheists and shows that we can all be good people without the comforting myths of religion.

I certainly don't recommend this book to die-hard Christians. They'll probably be too disgusted to read past the inside flap. However, doubting believers, agnostics, and atheists will find a sincere, rational look at religion from a nonbeliever's point of view, and might even look at the world in a new light afterwards. I certainly do.

Carnival of the Godless

My essay on the evolution-creation controversy made it on yesterday's Carnival of the Godless at Daily Irreverence. There's some great articles there on various atheist and secular-related topics, and I recommend you check them all out.

If you'd like to take part in the carnival, you can submit your entries here.

Atheist Blogroll

This blog is now a member of the Athiest Blogroll maintained by Mojoey over at a Deep Thoughts. You can see a list of the entire blogroll at the bottom of the sidebar to the right. There's some excellent sites over there, so if you're an an atheist or just want to enjoy some free thought, check it out. If you'd like to get your blog added to the blogroll, just click on the icon at the top of the list and follow the insructions. Enjoy!

Book of the Month: The End of Faith

Sam Harris' The End of Faith challenges us to take a hard look at religion in the modern world and wonder why we still refuse to apply reason and evidence to it when we require rationality for any other subject of debate. As Harris argues (and I agree), we need to make this change sooner rather than later because Iron Age beliefs can quickly become the means to our extinction in an age of nuclear weapons.

Harris initially confronts the most obvious religious problem in the world today: militant Islam. His main point is that all Islam is militant and not a religion of peace. For proof, one simply needs to read the Koran where every single book has calls for Muslims to kill infidels. It's refreshing to see an author confront the truth of the matter rather than skirting the issue and saying the Islam has been "hijacked by radicals." Only with the true nature of the problem in sight can we even try to address the problem.

However, Harris does not limit himself to Islam. He turns equally against Christianity and shows how destructive of an influence it has become in the US. Many of his arguments can be found throughout this blog. Correctly arguing that no modern Christian derives thier morality from the literal word of the Bible, Harris makes a plea for people of faith to confront the true issues of the day with reason rather than outdated poetry and realize that clinging to religious dogma would be considered a sign of insanity if only everyone else wasn't doing it. Consider the following quote from The End of Faith: "Jesus Christ - who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens - can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favourite burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?" I just hope enough Christians can get the message. I doubt they will, but The End of Faith will at least provide rational people with quality ammunition to argue their point.

The Root of All Evil - The Virus of Faith (Part 2)

As promised, here's part two. Enjoy.

The Root of All Evil - The God Delusion (Part 1)

This is an excellent documentary (from which the Ted Haggard clip came) by Richard Dawkins, an Oxford professor and scientist. In it, he argues that religion does more harm than good in the modern world. I don't necessarily agree with his call for complete atheism, but I do think he's correct about the ignorance and hatred that comes from blind faith and organized religion. All in all, it's an interesting look at the rise of intolerant religion in the modern world. I'll post part 2 shortly.