Why Are People Religious? A Cognitive Perspective

Summary: Researchers investigate both the cognitive and neurobiological basis of why so people have religious beliefs.

Source: The Conversation.

The quick and easy answer to why people are religious is that God – in whichever form you believe he/she/they take(s) – is real and people believe because they communicate with it and perceive evidence of its involvement in the world. Only 16% of people worldwide are not religious, but this still equates to approximately 1.2 billion individuals who find it difficult to reconcile the ideas of religion with what they know about the world.

Why people believe is a question that has plagued great thinkers for many centuries. Karl Marx, for example, called religion the “opium of the people”. Sigmund Freud felt that god was an illusion and worshippers were reverting to the childhood needs of security and forgiveness.

A more recent psychological explanation is the idea that our evolution has created a “god-shaped hole” or has given us a metaphorical “god engine” which can drive us to believe in a deity. Essentially this hypothesis is that religion is a by-product of a number of cognitive and social adaptations which have been extremely important in human development.

Adapted for faith

We are social creatures who interact and communicate with each other in a co-operative and supportive way. In doing so we inevitably have stronger attachments to some individuals more than others. British psychologist John Bowlby demonstrated this influence of attachments on children’s emotional and social development, and showed how these can suffer when they are threatened through separation or abuse. We continue to rely on these attachments in later life, when falling in love and making friends, and can even form strong attachments to non-human animals and inanimate objects. It is easy to see that these strong attachments could transfer to religious deities and their messengers.

Our relationships depend on being able to predict how others will behave across situations and time. But the things that we form attachments to don’t necessarily need to be in front of us to predict their actions. We can imagine what they would do or say. This ability – known as cognitive decoupling – originates in childhood through pretend play. It is a small leap from being able to imagine the mind of someone we know to imagining an omnipotent, omniscient, human-like mind – especially if we have religious texts which tell of their past actions.

Another key adaptation that may help religious belief derives from our ability to to anthropomorphise objects. Have you ever seen the outline of a person only to realise that it is actually a coat hung on the door? This capacity to attribute human forms and behaviours to non-human things shows we also readily endow non-human entities, such as gods, with the same qualities that we possess and, as such, make it easier to connect with them.

Behavioural benefits

In addition to these psychological aspects, the ritual behaviour seen in collective worship makes us enjoy and want to repeat the experience. Dancing, singing and achieving trance-like states were prominent in many ancestral societies and are still exhibited by some today – including the Sentinelese people, and Australian aborigines. As well as being acts of social unity, even more formal rituals also alter brain chemistry. They increase levels of serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin in the brain – chemicals that make us feel good, want to do things again and provide a closeness to others.

a woman praying
A more recent psychological explanation is the idea that our evolution has created a “god-shaped hole” or has given us a metaphorical “god engine” which can drive us to believe in a deity. NeuroscienceNews.com image is adapted from The Conversation news release.

These cognitive adaptations are facilitated by educational and household norms which don’t tend to dispute religious ideas. While we are encouraged to challenge other ideas presented to us early in childhood that may not have a strong evidence base – such as Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy – this is not the case with religion. These challenges are often discouraged in religious teachings and sometimes regarded as sinful.

Regardless of your point of view, the impact of religion and religious thinking on human functioning and evolution is a captivating intellectual debate that shows no sign of ending. Of course, one might argue that god creates everything outlined above but then this leads us onto another, bigger question: what is the evidence for god?

About this neuroscience research article

Source: Nick Perham – The Conversation
Publisher: Organized by NeuroscienceNews.com.
Image Source: NeuroscienceNews.com image is adapted from The Conversation news release.

Cite This NeuroscienceNews.com Article

[cbtabs][cbtab title=”MLA”]The Conversation”Why Are People Religious? A Cognitive Perspective.” NeuroscienceNews. NeuroscienceNews, 2 January 2019.
<https://neurosciencenews.com/religion-psychology-cognition-10410/>.[/cbtab][cbtab title=”APA”]The Conversation(2019, January 2). Why Are People Religious? A Cognitive Perspective. NeuroscienceNews. Retrieved January 2, 2019 from https://neurosciencenews.com/religion-psychology-cognition-10410/[/cbtab][cbtab title=”Chicago”]The Conversation”Why Are People Religious? A Cognitive Perspective.” https://neurosciencenews.com/religion-psychology-cognition-10410/ (accessed January 2, 2019).[/cbtab][/cbtabs]

Feel free to share this Neuroscience News.
Join our Newsletter
I agree to have my personal information transferred to AWeber for Neuroscience Newsletter ( more information )
Sign up to receive our recent neuroscience headlines and summaries sent to your email once a day, totally free.
We hate spam and only use your email to contact you about newsletters. You can cancel your subscription any time.
  1. Science is my favorite but this time you (the author) need some history lessons. Science will NEVER account for the miracles Ive seen in my life. Once you have felt the holy spirit it becomes obvious there is way more to life. Love is the center and you will never account for it’s power. God bless.

  2. I totally agree with Doug about the “scientific” mentality of the article.

    Moreover: “what is the evidence for god?”
    Easy: as a Catholic (not for education, but after many doubts and challenges due to atheists or people of other religions I’ve known or read about and after several experiences I had), the Holy Shroud, the picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the miracles (which aren’t just “strange healing”, but about religious conversions: faith is more important than health for salvation), the exorcisms, the Saints’ lives and so on.
    Too often people who talks about these facts do not know anything about them, or they have very little knowledge about religion, with the results of making very silly reasonings. An example is the fallacious argument that since prayer doesn’t bring about healing then it is useless, a way of thinking that doesn’t understand the importance of suffering as an offer to God and that forgets totally that Christ lived as a human to suffer with and for us.
    And too often people who study these topics aren’t honest: examples are the very bad conducted “scientific studies” to try to show the Holy Shroud, not yet replicated by anyone, as a fake, or the analysis of just the simple miracles.

    Faith and rationality aren’t against each other: in fact, they support each other. What the Saints’ wrote is a brilliant example of this.

    Every day we struggle to find the truth about this world (e.g.: understanding how our organism function to know how to prevent and cure every kind of disease). Then why don’t we likewise struggle to find the Truth beyond this world, since it isn’t an idle difference wether after our death the light simply turns off or there is a new life?
    Great thinkers as John Locke said that it is fundamental for every state and government to study every faith to understand which one is The One, since Truth is the only thing that can guide our lives (and, actually, the foundation of every religion is truth, not peace or love, and the devil is the “father of falsehood”). But this study has to rest on the careful and honest analysis of what, for every religion, is closer to the Truth: Saints and exorcists, not priests or theologists; relics; miracles; holy apparitions; comparison of sacred texts between them; etc.

    However, religious truth is about ethics, it is about good and evil and maybe that’s the problem, since it can restrain a lot our “freedom”, even though as scientists (and as Aristotle said) it is our duty to bow our freedom to the truth.

    Jesus (since He is the Way, the Truth and the Life) bless you all.

  3. This article is lacking any shred of science and exhibits sloppy reasoning from start-to-finish. The opening two sentences shape how misguided the author is in multiple capacities (not just science) by calling Karl Marx a “great thinker”…Karl Marx’s ideas were discredited by virtually all economists over 100 years ago, but that is besides the point.

    1. First, the author writes about the human need for attachment: “We continue to rely on these attachments in later life, when falling in love and making friends, and can even form strong attachments to non-human animals and inanimate objects. It is easy to see that these strong attachments could transfer to religious deities and their messengers.”

    Humans need for social relationships and attachment is not evidence of humans making up a deity; these things are not related. If you want to demonstrate this connection, you have to provide evidence for it; but the author has no evidence, so he postulates a theory as if its fact without supporting evidence. Just because these attachments “could transfer to religious deities” in theory, is not evidence of them ever doing so. This is junk science. Actual science requires some demonstration of cause-and-effect, but the author does no such thing here. He arbitrarily connects these things free from evidence or demonstration.

    2. Next, the author writes: “This ability – known as cognitive decoupling – originates in childhood through pretend play. It is a small leap from being able to imagine the mind of someone we know to imagining an omnipotent…”

    Nope, that is not a “small leap,” that’s a GIANT LEAP without supporting evidence to make the connection. Having the ability to imagine the unreal, is not evidence of God not existing, nor is it evidence that humans make up an omnipotent deity simply because humans have the ability to imagine things.

    This is an irrelevant thesis. For example, my height is 6’0, but I have the ability to imagine that I’m 10 feet tall…but that is not evidence that I’m (falsely) imagining being 6’0 tall, nor is it evidence that I’m not 7’0 tall.
    My ability to imagine is totally irrelevant to the claim and does not show whether I’m being truthful or not. I could also imagine something in the past that never happened, but that does not mean something that did actually happen in the past is not true, simply because I have the ability to imagine something false. The reasoning here is totally juvenile.

    3. Then, the author writes: “Another key adaptation that may help religious belief derives from our ability to to anthropomorphise objects. Have you ever seen the outline of a person only to realise that it is actually a coat hung on the door? This capacity to attribute human forms and behaviours to non-human things shows we also readily endow non-human entities, such as gods…”

    No it doesn’t. Seeing a scarecrow in the dark, and mistaking it for a human being, does not show “we also readily endow non-human entities, such as gods..” These things are totally disconnected, it is only the authors imagination that connects these things. Being deceived because something looks like something else in the dark is not evidence that I am being deceived in completely unrelated capacities.

    4. Then he writes: “the ritual behaviour seen in collective worship makes us enjoy and want to repeat the experience. Dancing, singing and achieving trance-like states were prominent in many ancestral societies and are still exhibited by some today – including the Sentinelese people, and Australian aborigines….alter brain chemistry. They increase levels of serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin in the brain – chemicals that make us feel good, want to do things again…”

    Love-making and sky-diving also increase serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin, but they are real things. The thrill of victory on a team may also have the same effects or being at a concert. Of course, none of this is evidence that any of those things are fake, nor is it evidence that religion is false.

    5. Finally, the author writes: “These cognitive adaptations are facilitated by educational and household norms which don’t tend to dispute religious ideas. While we are encouraged to challenge other ideas presented to us early in childhood that may not have a strong evidence base – such as Father Christmas or the Tooth Fairy – this is not the case with religion. These challenges are often discouraged in religious teachings and sometimes regarded as sinful.”

    That statement is shockingly ignorant. The author suggests that religious people have never challenged their ideas. People have challenged religious ideas for thousands of years and they have held up because there is a wealth of evidence and/or it is a much more rational explanation than everything came from nothing at all for no reason whatsoever. Isaac Newton was not an atheist, nor was Galileo, nor was Louis Pasteur, or Kepler, or Faraday or a long list of great scientists. The presumption that religious people only believe in a deity because they’ve never challenged the idea of a God is utterly false in every way.

    The scientists mentioned above were not theists out of ignorance and definitely did not exhibit the type of juvenile reasoning throughout the entirety of this article. This article is an absolute embarrassment to anyone who actually cares about science.

  4. “what is the evidence for god?”
    None whatsoever. But we DO have evidence of the social advantages of a submitting to those in power “aka Priests of the various religions and dictators”.

  5. Excellent article!!!

    Spiritual belief having an neurological basis makes so much sense. From an evolutionary adaptive perspective, all life forms that have existed on this planet have had to, in some way or form, adapt to survive and flourish (Of course discounting any and all environmental cataclysmic events, like for example, the mass extinction of Dinosaurs due to asteroids,etc). I believe that among the various factors that have helped to establish as well as perpetuate this physical neurological /spiritual nexus within the brain was and is the permeating momentum of ritual.

    Ritual, as we know, is introduced at an early age within many households and communities.

    Many rituals (specifically religious oriented ones) are structured, organized, and patterned in a rhythmic, repetitive way to engage both emotional and cognitive processes. This in turn affects neuro-chemistry which, if engaged in consistently over time, changes the “hard-wiring” of the brain…it basically adapts. Hence, ones physical brain structure, if examined through the use of an FMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Machine), would reflect such physical activities (for insistence praying, or meditating, etc.) within specific areas of the brain.

    Various studies have been conducted using FMRI with Nuns, Monks, people who meditate, and and control groups (people who do not consider themselves spiritual at all). It was shown overwhelmingly that brain function within the Nuns, Monks, and people who meditated actively within the FMRI, was significantly different. Specific areas within their brains lit up like Christmas trees.Their brains were way more energy efficient, relaxed, aroused yet disengaged and calm all at the same time. It goes without saying…religion or belief, if you will, does indeed have a cognitive /neurobiological basis.

  6. Evolution has to work with what it’s already come up with. It can’t just say oops, then go back and start over. Cetaceans can’t go backwards and evolve hands. There is a ratchet effect that necessitates that solutions to adaptive problems be developed out of existing structures. Artificial cultural solutions, representing prepackaged attempts to solve multiple problems at once, might be likened to kluges, clumsy, inelegant solutions used as temporary measures until the right program is found. These may access and attempt to intertie multiple neural or psychological processes. Religion can serve as a perfect example of a kluge. It attempts to package a number of makeshift solutions to several psychological needs and wants: a sense of social belonging, comfort of ritual, security of identity, security of belief, non-threatening versions of altered states, moral regulation, rationalization for command or obedience, rationalization for the world’s lack of justice, and reassurance about death. We are much better people when we can feel reverence and gratitude, sense unity, grant forgiveness, and maintain an equilibrated, peaceful state of mind. We are a long way from finding the perfect replacement for such a kluge. We are so far away, in fact, that we might want to reflect on the reasons why religions have failed us so badly in matters of morality, integrity, character, and adaptive cognition. Religion’s much-vaunted improvement in morality is clearly a failure. Moral concern only seems to translate reliably to moral performance within the in-group or congregation itself, and that only where hypocritical gossip and backbiting is lacking. In fashioning replacements, we might rethink our strategy and address these needs and wants one at a time, but well, instead of all at once and poorly. Then we might look back with wonder on the days when religious zealotry wasn’t regarded a mental illness, requiring intervention, confinement, and quarantine.

  7. At the biological level there’s also a survival benefit to having a firm belief in a deity – the power of prayer. Or rather the auto-suggestion and beneficial placebo effects they offer since most often prayers request help for yourself or of those close to you to get well soon. Of course, a receiptiant of the prayer must be a believer also, and be aware (to varying degrees) that they have one or more people praying for them. Undoubtedly prayers to win the lottery would not be as successful.

Comments are closed.