Rating: 
Summary: pretty good
Review: Although the book doesn't have any major problems, I was a little disappointed. I wanted something profound and challenging from a book with this title, but I only got a few new ideas. The author deals with supernatural concepts rather than all the phenomena of "religion." I do not necessarily believe in god, but I think religion generally has depths (transcendent insights) that the author hasn't considered or attempted to explain.Some of the most interesting parts of this book are when the author reviews traditional skeptical arguments skeptically. In other words, he challenges common explanations of belief and usually finds significant problems with them. But he attempts to replace dismissive accounts of religion with a genuinely scientific explanation. Although he doesn't present a religious vision, he certainly isn't passively supporting ordinary skepticism. I can't imagine someone from any major religion losing their faith over this book, although it could challenge beliefs in ghosts, personal messages from god and so on. I think an educated, thoughtful religious person would find his theories less challenging than traditional skeptics. The author is an anthropologist, but he is one of the first in that field to be strongly influenced by sociobiology and cognitive science. If you're familiar with Matt Ridley, Robert Wright, or especially Stephen Pinker, Boyer's theory will sound familiar. Boyer's writing isn't as exciting, and often not as well-organized as theirs, but he makes his case. The book's biggest weakness is that the author doesn't argue some points thoroughly enough. Someone unfamiliar with social psychology might not pick up on the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments. Someone with a good background in anthropology might find some of his perspectives shocking. If you're not familiar with sociobiology and social psychology, you might learn and enjoy more from a book by one of the other authors I mentioned. The bibliography is pretty good. The paperback binding is very good.
Rating: 
Summary: Religion is not a distinct "thing"
Review: Anthropology has long struggled with religion, since religion takes so many diverse forms around the world and since it purports to make truth-claims about the world (this or that supernatural being or force exists). The first response by pre-anthropologists and early anthropologists was to dismiss "other religions" as absurd and false while maintaining that one's own religion was, of course, true and sensible. Soon it became impossible to reject other religions or to privilege one's own religion as more true or rational than any other. Then the serious study of religion began.
Boyer's work is a very readable version of a growing consensus in the social and even natural sciences--that religion must be approached in a new way since we have been assuming that it was a distinct entity with a distinct source. Boyer and others suggest, rather, that religion is actually a epi-phenomenon of other more mundane interests, tendencies, and capabilities that evolved in humans for quite non-religious reasons.
Boyer discusses and supports with empirical field research a variety of these foundations, both cognitive and social. They include the kinds of things we are programmed to attend to and that kinds of "reasoning" that we are prone to engage in.
Other sciences are beginning to converge on this point. Lee Kirkpatrick's "Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion" offers essentially the same analysis--that there are psychological and social habits and abilities of humans that make religion like, as he says, socio-emotional cheesecake. That is, we do not have a "cheesecake gene" and our attraction to cheesecake is not a distinct phenomenon, but cheesecake fits a whole host of our desires and tastes. So with religion.
For an even more intensive critique of religion and reason, from an accessible anthropological perspective, take a look at my own "Natural Atheism" or visit www.naturalatheism.us
Rating:
Summary: A good book, with major flaws
Review: Boyer does a good job debunking 'common sense' explanations for religion. He provides some other debunking as well. I learned that everything I've read second-hand about Richard Dawkins' idea of selfish genes is a gross distortion of what Dawkins meant, nice to know. He does a few odd things, such as explaining 'memes', then never touching on the concept again, instead relying entirely on genes for his explanations apparently. Boyer uses examples well to explain his ideas, making the book an easier read than I expected, though it is written in an academic style. The book is something of a fraud, though. A more accurate title would be Why People Believe Some Things More Easily Than Others. Much of the book is spent writing about superstitions and rituals regarding nature or human nature that illustrate how people think inferentially and intuitively instead of as scientists, something that I'm sure applies to religious beliefs, but is much more general. When he gets around to specific religious beliefs, he writes as if systems theorized from those general principles of our minds are enough to explain religion, a view that requires a number of assumptions, which he doesn't label as assumptions. He assumes that his building blocks are genetic and evolutionary in origin, sometimes giving a possible basis for that, but never more than conjecture at that level. He uses anthropology to describe the diversity of beliefs and the study of cognition to analyze them, but stands well outside religion in the process. I found nothing that addresses such a specifically religious phenomenon as why people can experience an evolving prayer life if religion is indeed all an illusion. He touches on how William James focused on exceptional religious experiences, but then just moves on to his own focus on general religious belief as if the former is irrelevant. He proposes advantages to such things as believing in a personal God rather than something less relevant to us, given the way our minds work, but ignores the advantage of such a belief being real rather than imaginary. He assumes that the benefits of cooperation were sufficient pressure evolutionarily to account for the universal morality we have at an early age, rather than spirituality or for that matter the power of memes playing even a role in such a thing, simply because that morality exists. He argues for religion having a 'parasitic' existence both on this innate morality and on speculated biological mechanisms that relate to death. In the process he assumes that many parts of our cognition are as hard-wired as our ability to recognize faces, when they may be much more flexible than that. Otherwise, why aren't they as localizable in the brain as facial recognition is? Maybe PET and functional MRI will prove this assumption has some validity, but they haven't yet, unless Boyer knows some data I don't. His arguments amount to describing a God-shaped void in our mind, without ever actually showing that such a thing got there evolutionarily, either if God exists or doesn't exist. He describes his complete model over a couple of pages toward the end of the book, but it's just that, description based on assumptions. He dismisses the possibility that spiritual experiences create beliefs rather than it being exclusively the other way around. Just because the data regarding that is difficult is no reason to pretend it doesn't exist. It's not unlike the difference between the way believers use the words 'knowing God' and 'faith' compared to nonbelievers. If one assumes that believers are making it up at some level, 'choosing' to believe what they believe in a way that is no different than for any belief, the analysis is limited to something much more superficial than what religion is for believers. This book is not the ultimate explanation for religion, but it can be a springboard for exploring how religion is more than mere beliefs. It does point out how beliefs can be separate from spirituality, even if it does so by dismissing the latter. It's much better than listening to someone say something like 'believers are stupid' or 'religion is wishful thinking', though if someone holds as rigidly to Boyer's conclusions as they might to such simpler ideas, it still would shut off further conversation. The book interested me as a scientist and while it made the part of me that has faith yawn, it is a good book for the intellectually inclined. Keep in mind that it's only part of the story.
Rating: 
Summary: explanations of religion explained
Review: Boyer does a great job explaining (and debunking) other theories of religious development, but his tone often shifts distractingly from anthropological narrative to vast philosophical oversimplification. On one page we read some anectodtes about the Fang people, and then on the next page we're assaulted by a diatribe against classical theism. Oh, but they both involve the supernatural. Boyer would have us believe that the Fang belief system and the systematic theology of Thomas Aquinas are really just different by-products of the same cognitive inference systmes. The problem, of course, is that ANY explanation of anything can be reduced in kind, inlcuding Boyer's. So, Boyer, in the end, says nothing that the title implies. Maybe we should blame that on the publisher. One more quick comment: this book is way too repetitive. How many times does Boyer have to offer apology that he is not concerned with the origins of specific religious rituals? Too many. If you're interested in the religious and philosophical implications of the lastest cognitive research I suggest just about anything by Steve Pinker or Daniel Dennett. Also, check out Ray Kurzweil's "Spiritual Machines."
Rating:
Summary: Boyer - New Insight to the Ultimate Question
Review: Boyer lays out a compelling description of the psychologial processes people use to create and build religious ideas. I found that I was haunted by his concept that religion, and ultimately ethics, are guided by basic evolutionary forces. Man is a social animal reacting to social pressures that operate below our concious level. I recommned this to Atheists and Agnostics everywhere! Life... what a ride!
Rating:
Summary: Boyer - New Insight to the Ultimate Question
Review: Boyer's analysis of human spiritual beliefs is at once sweeping and precise. Using evolutionary concepts to demonstrate the foundation of "belief" is not new, but Boyer surpasses all previous efforts. He shows how all peoples have some reverence for spiritual entities, but these aren't necessarily "gods". In most instances the veneration is more likely to be for departed ancestors as it is for some vague "divine" object. Ancestor worship is widespread in today's societies as it was in Neolithic times. Boyer accepts this universality as well as the intensity of feeling associated with the homage, whether for a vague spirit or identifiable individual. Such universality, he proposes, must have evolutionary roots. In his view those roots lie in our
cognitive processes. "Religion" is defined at the outset chiefly by casting away commonly-held definitions. While some aspects of "religion" may deal with natural forces, mostly they are related to daily human activities. In Boyer's view, these forces are "projections of the human mind". In nearly every instance, the "spirit" whether ancestor, deity or even a forest tree, exhibits human characteristics. These are not always predictable. In fact their very presence is predicated on spurious and unforeseen events. The very unreality of their behaviour commands respect. Our perception of their existence result from "inferences" stored in the mind from other experiences. Although he views Western institutionalised religions as outside the norm of human society, the same basic pattern holds even there. "Consolation", usually a form of release from death, for example, is almost absent from most religions. Western monotheism is an exception from the human norm. Boyer argues that the human mind has evolved in communities which have reinforced acceptance of supernatural entities. He incorporates Richard Dawkins' "meme" concept to demonstrate how this process works. Ideas about the supernatural are communicated to others as experiences, warnings or even behaviour norms. Since so many facets of this acceptance relate to behaviour of individuals within the community, the feedback loop reinforces his view of the evolutionary context. It isn't the community itself which fosters the evolutionary persistence of belief, but individuals whose genetic tendency for belief were those who mated and bred, passing and strengthening that tendency. The memes aren't absolutes, but like genes, may be modified over time and place. Again, like genes, accepted changes become adaptations, varying what the observer infers from the supernatural. Boyer's analysis will remain a seminal work for some time. Provocative and challenging, it raises as many questions as it provides answers. His use of cognitive science as an analytical tool is novel and there are many areas requiring further research. Boyer concedes religion is a "complex" issue, but urges shedding preconceived ideas. More behavioural studies are needed, collecting and analysing evidence. This book introduces new concepts requiring further explaination. It is to be hoped that younger students will further the work outlined in this excellent book. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: Persuasive and penetrating
Review: Boyer's analysis of human spiritual beliefs is at once sweeping and precise. Using evolutionary concepts to demonstrate the foundation of "belief" is not new, but Boyer surpasses all previous efforts. He shows how all peoples have some reverence for spiritual entities, but these aren't necessarily "gods". In most instances the veneration is more likely to be for departed ancestors as it is for some vague "divine" object. Ancestor worship is widespread in today's societies as it was in Neolithic times. Boyer accepts this universality as well as the intensity of feeling associated with the homage, whether for a vague spirit or identifiable individual. Such universality, he proposes, must have evolutionary roots. In his view those roots lie in our
cognitive processes. "Religion" is defined at the outset chiefly by casting away commonly-held definitions. While some aspects of "religion" may deal with natural forces, mostly they are related to daily human activities. In Boyer's view, these forces are "projections of the human mind". In nearly every instance, the "spirit" whether ancestor, deity or even a forest tree, exhibits human characteristics. These are not always predictable. In fact their very presence is predicated on spurious and unforeseen events. The very unreality of their behaviour commands respect. Our perception of their existence result from "inferences" stored in the mind from other experiences. Although he views Western institutionalised religions as outside the norm of human society, the same basic pattern holds even there. "Consolation", usually a form of release from death, for example, is almost absent from most religions. Western monotheism is an exception from the human norm. Boyer argues that the human mind has evolved in communities which have reinforced acceptance of supernatural entities. He incorporates Richard Dawkins' "meme" concept to demonstrate how this process works. Ideas about the supernatural are communicated to others as experiences, warnings or even behaviour norms. Since so many facets of this acceptance relate to behaviour of individuals within the community, the feedback loop reinforces his view of the evolutionary context. It isn't the community itself which fosters the evolutionary persistence of belief, but individuals whose genetic tendency for belief were those who mated and bred, passing and strengthening that tendency. The memes aren't absolutes, but like genes, may be modified over time and place. Again, like genes, accepted changes become adaptations, varying what the observer infers from the supernatural. Boyer's analysis will remain a seminal work for some time. Provocative and challenging, it raises as many questions as it provides answers. His use of cognitive science as an analytical tool is novel and there are many areas requiring further research. Boyer concedes religion is a "complex" issue, but urges shedding preconceived ideas. More behavioural studies are needed, collecting and analysing evidence. This book introduces new concepts requiring further explaination. It is to be hoped that younger students will further the work outlined in this excellent book. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: Simply AMAZING
Review: Deep, well-researched insight into the mental phenomena that trigger religious thought. Not an easy read (in particular the 'setup' portion of the first 100 or so pages), but great payoff as you go along. LOVED the condensed 'history of all religions, ever' towards the end of the book.
Rating:
Summary: To Know or Not Know Yourself...
Review: I cannot but recommend this book to anyone who is truly interested in expanding their views of how, and most of all "why" religion is such a widespread, compelling, cross-culture type phenomenon. Why do so many religious systems have common themes? Is the concept of God produced by a specific neural correlate in the brain, or is there a module of sorts that evaluates religious information? Why does the instinctual mind work well with religious ideologies? Why are people prone to accepting some forms of religion and not others? All these are questions that I have both asked myself and have heard others speak about in the past, and in our evaluation of these issues we can get carried away in directions that apparently might be completely off target. Boyer speaks about how counterintuitive ontological definitions "stick" more in the mind. Experiments show that when the brain's biases are defied, attention is aroused leading to better memorization and retention. For example when my guinea pig "Piglet" runs from one corner of the room to another, and in the process hops a few times, it is very unlikely for this to be retained in memory. But if Piglet hopped and FLEW to the corner instead of running, my brain would have a field trip! The relevance of the defied expectation is dictated by the fact that my ontology of guinea pigs does not include levitation or Super-G-Pig stunts of any kind. I would more than likely remember Piglet's feat for some time! Perhaps it will lead to a broadening of my ontological classification of rodents. Similarly, and you will have to read the book to grasp the relevance of this jump, supernatural agents also are characterized by counterintuitive ontology. Boyer proposes that the reason all supernatural agents have counterintuitive aspects to them is because those that were proposed in the past that lacked these didn't survive, or weren't remembered,transmitted, or found relevant. Boyer gives a compelling presentation of evolutionary psychology's ideas about the mind, and specifically of what kind of mind it takes to conceive the religious. Religion is presented as a cultural possibility arising from the underlying complex machinery of the brain. Various types of inference systems are identified and explained, and how these apply in the computation of the salience of one religious proposition over another. Religious doctrines that are successful are those that tap into various types of cognitive modules (these have no specific relevance to religion per se), creating salient inferences. The more a religion is relevant in terms of the salient inferences it creates, the more likely we are to intuitively feel that its propositions are correct. Boyer also speaks about issues such as death and why so often religion deals with death and the continuation of the agency of men as spirits after death. He explains how the mind has an internal contrast between inference systems when witnessing death, and the relevance of this to religion. His attempts at explaining the emergence of ritual is also very compelling. I especially find interesting the parallel he draws between ritual and obsessive compulsive disorders, not that he identifies ritual with compulsion, but rather correlates the types of brain mechanisms involved in the two processes. Boyer speaks about religious guilds, and this part of the book should be especially interesting to anyone part of a religious community because what he has to say about religious organizations is extremely relevant to the context of your life in that orgnization. He highlights the problematic nature of religious guilds and of their specialists (priests, shamans, etc.) in terms of balancing out theological correctness with the apathy it produces. He also evidences how the strive for theological correctness in guilds, in the attempt to solidify coalitions, often causes the guild to distance itself from what is optimal for the mind's bias-driven analysis of supernatural concepts, with the consequent drift of membership from orthodoxy. Excessively rigid doctrinal positions are the natural reaction of the guild to the constant tendency of the individual mind to make of the religious concepts an ever-increasing personal and practical issue. The consequence is the unavoidable loss of relevance of the official doctrine when compared to the charismatic nature of personal and practical belief and culture. For any serious student of religious life this book is a must!
Rating:
Summary: Finally, Not a Christocentric View of Religion
Review: I enjoyed this book and would recommend it to anyone who is truly interested in looking at religion scientifically. It makes great use of recent findings in psychology and anthropology. One of the best aspects of this book is that it looks at religion from a world view instead of a "Christocentric" view. Most books I read on religion, purportedly scholarly works, tend to look at things from a Modern, Western, Christian, ethnocentric viewpoint, even when they look at other religions. From the first page, I could see that the author had successfully taken into account view points from other cultures.
| 
