個人長期主張，信仰宗教是人之本能的、動物性的行為。一年前針對台灣約半數哲學界人士人有「身心靈」三種能力的主張，個人對其中「靈」的存在提出質疑，個人認為「靈」不存在。他們所說的「靈」現象，個人認為其實是人的動物性。這是人類在進化過程中產生的一種可用佛洛伊德的「本能」（instinct）來解釋的現象，所以它還是人的動物性，因此應屬於「身」。「身心靈」說因此應該只是「身心」說。當時個人在 blog 上發表下面一句話：「有些人主張靈性或慧根，並認為這些高於理性，其實它們是人的動物本性，或說是人天生配備軟體的內容，或說是人的感性，且低於理性。」
「靈」或「靈性」或「慧根」的概念是給「宗教」存在預留的窗戶；個人反「身心靈」理論只是個人許多駁斥宗教中之理論中的一類。
五月份的 “Evolutionary Psychological
Science”（進化論心理學）期刊登出了一篇從進化論心理學角度的宗教研究論文，該論文指出，信仰宗教為一種本能(instinct)。這與個人長期的見解相仿。
從「進化論心理學」的角度切入宗教是非常正確且重要的角度，因為個人認為人的「宗教心」(religiosity)，其實是人的低級本能（instinct）或動物性心智，低於理智；關於本能（instinct）個人建議閱讀佛洛伊德著作。
個人多是從哲學角度談宗教問題，特別是從理性與感性理論談此問題，個人認為一般所稱的「感性」其實是「人的動物性」。在哲學領域內一般把宗教歸類為形而上學的一部份，個人主張廢除形而上學這門學問，宗教當然也要跟著消滅。
「台灣反宗教者聯盟」陳立民 Chen Lih Ming（陳哲 CLM）於 20 May 2017
下為關於《演化心理科學》（Evolutionary Psychological Science）期刊五月份上一篇研究論文的一則相關報導，更多報導見全文網址：
【英研究：無神論者更聰明 因為克服「宗教本能」】
〔自由時報 編譯陳正健／綜合報導2017-05-19 16:51〕
信仰宗教與否和智力息息相關！根據英國與荷蘭的最新研究，無神論者的平均智商更高，因為他們克服了人類信仰宗教的本能。
英國阿爾斯特社會研究（Ulster Institute for Social
Research）與荷蘭鹿特丹伊拉斯姆斯大學（Erasmus University
Rotterdam）聯合進行研究。研究團隊建立了「智商－錯配關聯模型」，試圖解釋為何智力與宗教信仰呈現負相關。
研究指出，信仰宗教可視為一種本能，有助人類的發展。不過，高智商的人類能超越這種本能，以更理性的方試解決問題。
另外，研究也探討本能與壓力之關聯。高智商的人更能在壓力之下，駕御自己的本能。不受本能所制約的人更能解決問題。
根據一項 2013 年的研究回顧，在成長初期，高智商小孩更有可能遠離宗教。在老年時期，智商高於平均的人也較無宗教信仰。
本研究刊登於《演化心理科學》（Evolutionary Psychological Science）期刊。
【Why is Intelligence Negatively Associated with
Religiousness?】
Abstract (論文摘要)
We present three models which attempt to
explain the robust negative association
between religion and intelligence: the
Irrationality of Religion Model, the Cultural Mediation Hypothesis, and the
Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis. We highlight problems with each of them and
propose that the negative religion-IQ nexus can be understood through substantially
revising the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis. We argue that religion should be regarded as an evolved domain or instinct.
Intelligence, by contrast, involves rising above our instincts. It follows
that an inclination toward the non-instinctive will thus be an aspect of
intelligence because it will help us to solve problems. Thus, intelligence will
involve being attracted to evolutionary
mismatch, to that which we would not be instinctively evolved to be
attracted to. It is this, we argue, that is behind the negative
religion-intelligence nexus. We respond to potential criticisms of our model
and we examine how this model can be further tested.
Keywords
Religion Cultural
Mediation Hypothesis Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis Evolutionary
mismatch Intelligence
【ATHEISTS
MORE INTELLIGENT BECAUSE THEY CAN OVERRIDE “INSTINCTIVE” RELIGIOUS BELIEFS—BUT
IT WILL BE THEIR DOWNFALL】
Atheists
tend to be more intelligent than religious people because they are able to rise
above the natural instinct to believe in a god or gods, scientists have said.
But
according to Edward Dutton, from the Ulster Institute for Social Research in
the U.K., and Dimitri Van der Linden, of the Rotterdam University in the
Netherlands, this could also lead to their decline—in the same way high
intelligence appears to have played a role in the fall of the Roman Empire.
Dutton
and Van der Linder build on the theory that religion is instinctive, and it
evolved as a behavior that helped humans become the highly successful species
they are today.
There has
been a great deal of research into how religion originated, with the most
prevalent idea being it evolved to help societies to form —believing there was
heaven and hell, for example, would ensure cooperative, social behavior over
fears of eternal damnation.
But now
society has developed, why does religion still exist?
In a
study published in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science, Dutton and Van
der Linden say the link between higher intelligence and atheism, and lower
intelligence with religion, can be accounted f or by our instincts.
According
to the study, our genes mean belief in religion is instinctive—it did, after
all, help us develop as a species. Having a higher intelligence, they say,
allows people to override these instincts and engage in more rational, and
therefore enhanced problem-solving behavior.
But this
is not all good news for non-believers, nor does it mean heightened
intelligence will be selected, eventually leading to a species full of
hyper-intelligent atheists. Instead, the ability to override your instincts
would likely lead to a decline in intelligent, atheist people, because they are
more likely to be antisocial and to have fewer children—or to not have them at
all.
“It’s
true that people who are less intelligent tend to have more children than
people who are more intelligent,” Dutton tells Newsweek .
“And intelligence is negatively associated with religiousness. So on that
basis, you would expect religiousness to increase.
“If you
have higher intelligence, you’re less instinctive. You’re lower in what you
might call ‘evolved instincts’ that have evolved over thousands and
thousands of years until the Industrial Revolution, when natural selection
slowed down.”
He says
that with intelligence being around 80 percent genetic, eventually there will
be a decline in intelligence—and, as a result—a rise in religiousness. And
this, he adds, could eventually lead to the fall of society. “It was commented
on at the end of Rome, that the upper class weren’t having any children. It’s
the same now,” he says.
Before the Industrial Revolution, parish
records show that it used to be the richer, more intelligent people survived
and had more children. As a result, society became more and more intelligent, up until the point of the
widespread innovation of the Industrial Revolution.
“But
these [breakthroughs] can only be sustained if we continue to have a certain
level of intelligence, so if intelligence is decreasing then eventually the
inventions that our ancestors were capable of coping with, we’ll no longer be
able to cope with. We’ll go backwards,” Dutton says. “That’s what happened with
the Romans.”
As a
society becomes less religious, and more intelligent, we begin to lose the
benefits religion brings in terms of group society. If a society becomes too
intelligent, it becomes antisocial and stops breeding, and it eventually
declines.
Next,
Dutton plans to look more closely at the genetics of atheism, not only that it
reflects high intelligence and low instincts, but that our instincts might
be changing. If natural selection is becoming weaker, there may be a
propensity towards instincts that would have been removed under natural
selection. These instincts may have been disfavored because of their
association with poor genetic health, he explains—and atheism could be an
example of this.
“I think most
people think it is rational to be an atheist,” he says. “But the reason why
people are atheist is not necessarily some logical reasoned choice.”
【Is religion
an evolved domain or instinct?】
〔phys.org , May 17, 2017〕
The question about why more intelligent people tend to be atheistic dates back to the
times of Romans and Ancient Greeks. The link between intelligence and religion
can be explained if religion is
considered an instinct, and intelligence the ability to rise above one's
instincts. This is the suggestion by Edward Dutton of the Ulster Institute
for Social Research in the UK, and Dimitri Van der Linden of the Rotterdam
University in the Netherlands, in an article in Springer's journal Evolutionary
Psychological Science.
The
Intelligence-Mismatch Association Model proposed by
the two authors tries to explain why historical
evidence and recent survey data in different countries and between various
groupings supports the stance that intelligence seems to be
negatively associated with being religious.
Their model is based on the ideas of
evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's Savanna-IQ Principles, according to
which human behavior will always be somehow anchored in the environment in
which their ancestors developed.
Dutton
and van der Linden argue that religion should
be regarded as a separate evolved domain or instinct, whereas intelligence
allows people to rise
above their instincts. Rising above instincts is
advantageous because it helps people to solve problems.
"If religion is an evolved domain then
it is an instinct, and intelligence—in rationally solving problems—can be
understood as involving overcoming instinct and being intellectually curious
and thus open to non-instinctive possibilities," explains Dutton.
In the proposal of their
Intelligence-Mismatch Association Model, Dutton and van der Linden also
investigate the link between instinct and stress, and the instinctiveness with
which people tend to operate during stressful periods. They argue that being intelligent helps people during
stressful times to rise above their instincts.
"If religion is indeed an evolved domain—an instinct—then it
will become heightened at times of stress, when people are inclined to act instinctively, and there is clear
evidence for this," says Dutton. "It also means that intelligence
allows us to able to pause and reason through the situation and the possible
consequences of our actions."
The researchers believe that people who are
attracted to the non-instinctive are
potentially better problem solvers. "This is important, because in a changing ecology, the ability to
solve problems will become associated with rising above our instincts,
rendering us attracted to evolutionary mismatches," adds van der Linden.
網址：
〔Wikipedia 維基百科〕
【GLAUBE UND
IQ:Sind religiöse Menschen wirklich dümmer?
Schon antike Statistiker meinten, dass
Intelligenz und Religiosität irgendwie zusammenhängen. Genau gesagt: Atheisten sind oft schlauer. Stimmt
das? Und wenn ja - warum? 】
Dutton und Van der Linden versuchen es nun
mit einem Ansatz, der auf evolutionspsychologischen Modellen beruht. Zunächst
seien sämtliche Merkmale der
menschlichen Biologie – also neben der Anatomie etwa auch vererbbare
instinktive Verhaltensmuster – im Wesentlichen durch die
Umweltherausforderungen der Evolution vorgeprägt. Dutton und Van der Linden
betrachten nun auch die Religiosität als
Sonderform eines Instinkts: einer
Verhaltensweise, die über so lange Strecken der Evolution sinnvoll war, dass
sie sich als gängiges, nicht ständig bewusst hinterfragtes und erbliches
Verhaltensmuster etabliert hat. Weil eine höhere Intelligenz Menschen aber
im höherem Maß erlaubt, auch gegen
instinktive Verhaltensweisen zu handeln, wenn die Situation es rational
erfordert, würden Intelligenz und Religiosität negativ korrelieren.
Dafür, dass Religiosität – das heißt die generelle Bereitschaft, in
bestimmten Bereichen Glaubensinhalten mehr oder weniger ohne rationale Prüfung
zu folgen – tatsächlich eine
"instinktive" Grundausstattung des Menschen wurde, sprechen
diverse Gründe, wie auch Religionswissenschaftler argumentieren. So wachsen
übersichtliche Gruppen von Menschen eines gemeinsamen Glaubens schneller eng
zusammen, sie erkennen im anderen womöglich rascher eine Bereitschaft zu Kooperation
und altruistischem Verzicht sowie zur Ein- und Unterordnung gegenüber Regeln
und Normen oder dem aktuell gültigen sozialen Rahmen. Zudem könnten Verstöße
gegen Regeln in solchen Gruppen seltener sein, die sich ständig von einer
höheren Instanz bewertet sehen. Tatsächlich spricht für die Einordnung von Religiosität als Instinkt zudem, dass
Instinkte in Stresssituationen quasi automatisch stärker werden – was für
Religiosität sowohl bei einzelnen Individuen wie auch Gruppen nachgewiesen
ist. Religiöse
Menschen bekommen außerdem meist mehr Kinder – und würden so den
erblichen Instinkt "Religiosität" weitergeben.
Eher das Gegenteil gilt für intelligente
Menschen: Sie bekommen statistisch weniger Kinder – auch wenn andere
Einflussfaktoren wie der sozioökonomische Status oder der Entwicklungsgrad der
Heimatländer berücksichtigt werden. Allerdings dürfte höhere Intelligenz
ebenfalls evolutive Vorteile gehabt haben, wie Forscher mit optimistischer
Weltsicht anerkennen. Insgesamt führe dies zu der etwas paradoxen Situation,
fassen Dutton und Van der Linden zusammen, dass die Evolutionsprozesse sowohl
höhere Intelligenz wie auch stärkere Religiosität des Menschen gefördert haben,
obwohl beide gegeneinanderarbeiten. Würde eine Eigenschaft dominieren, so
häuften sich die Nachteile, konstatieren die Evolutionspsychologen an
ausgewählten Beispielen: Extreme, fundamentalistische religiöse Gruppen werden
nachweislich etwa immer weniger offen und durchlässig und stagnieren in dem von
ihnen ausgestalteten Ethnozentrismus; Gruppen von Menschen mit einem allzu
starken Fokus auf Intelligenz dagegen sterben bei aller Offenheit vielleicht
einfach aus, weil sie keine Kinder mehr bekommen. All das, schließen Dutton und
Van der Linden an, "ist zugegebenermaßen natürlich spekulativ".
Immerhin erkläre ihre Sicht der Dinge aber die
immer wieder bestätigte negative Korrelation von Intelligenz und Religiosität.
© Spektrum.de
