There may be a reason why placental mammals, such as ourselves, were greatly more successful evolutionarily than marsupials (which, other than opossums, are restricted to Australia). Researchers have looked for possible constraints related to the marsupial reproductive system, which is the major difference between the two groups. Marsupials have very brief gestational periods, after which the young, still at the embryonic stage, are born from the uterus and climb along the outside of the mother's body to to a teat, which expands in the embryo's mouth to provide a strong point of attachment. Most, though not all, marsupials have pouches which protect the young at this vulnerable stage. The entire fetal stage of development occurs outside the mother's body.

In a lightning search, I found one interesting paper (Sears, K.E. (2004) Constraints on the morphological evolution of marsupial shoulder girdles. Evolution, 58, 2353-2370) which finds statistical evidence that there are constraints on the scapula (shoulder blade bone) due to the embryo's need to climb to the teat at such an early stage. This has apparently limited diversification in the structure of this bone, which in turn imposes constraints on locomotion. (The scapula is an extremely important site for muscle attachment; in humans, 13 muscles attach there). Simply stated, there may be a lot fewer marsupials than placentals out there because there are fewer ways to get around, and thus fewer niches available for them to expand into.

So, it was probably more likely that large-brained types like us would be placentals. But maybe it wouldn't be impossible. So I like to imagine sometimes the convenience that being marsupial would provide to the reproductive half of our species. For instance, in placentals like us, body resources are preferentially diverted to a developing fetus; we cannot control the process. If resources are scarce for a marsupial mother who is unable or unwilling to provide for her young, she does not have to. All she has to do is remove the embryo from the teat. (Marsupials are known to do this for various reasons, including sexual selection of the young.)

If humans were marsupials, there would be no abortion debate. This is because the abortion debate is not about life, it is about control. Because a placental woman cannot remove a developing fetus easily by herself, this action can be controlled by other people. There would be no possible way to prevent the removal of a dime-sized embryo from someone's body.

There are a lot of people out there who I am sure are outraged by my characterization of the abortion debate. But it is obvious to many of us that the political debate is not about the sanctity of life, or the definition of life, or the point at which life begins, or anything to do with life. All of these discussions are obfuscations. If it were about any of these, there would not be the large overlap there is between anti-abortionists and those who are pro-capital punishment, those who support a war that has spurred the killing and maiming of generally hundreds of innocent civilians (including a hefty number of children) per week, and those who are anti-birth control. Anti-abortionism is also a fairly recent phenomenon in Christian history. Therefore it is actually a political movement, not a foundational religious moral issue. But others have pointed out these inconsistencies before.

The interesting analysis is in what human behavior we attempt to regulate. Certainly there is a largely "golden rule" theory behind many of our laws. (Despite Christian Right assertions that our laws are based on the Biblical Ten Commandments, the evidence belies this because only two transgressions listed, murder and theft, are against the law and both are necessary for a stable, functioning society. The others are not.)

But there are also repeated attempts, some successful, others not, to legislate morality at a level that is not necessary for a stable society. Abortion is clearly one of these. Other examples I can think of are Prohibition, anti-sodomy laws, and anti-drug laws (which arbitrarily leave out a slew of drugs, including nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, and those deemed to have a medical purpose). Of these, only the last are still extant, and it would be a stretch to argue that they are in any way effective. But, it is at least possible, as it was during Prohibition, to nab someone with the goods and therefore punish a few token perpetrators. Sodomy laws were also largely unenforceable, aside from a few tokens, and have mostly been abolished. One can be caught in the act of sodomy, but it is harder than catching someone with drugs.

Why don't all these political Christian anti-abortionists demand other laws that could be deemed equally moral? For example, why does no one propose to make adultery illegal (as it is in many religiously based societies)? My guess is that lawmakers, because they are in positions of power, engage in it often and don't want their fun dampened. But another reason is that such a law would be about as easy to enforce as an anti-sodomy law. And what about greed, one of the seven deadly sins, specifically prohibited by the Ten Commandments? That would be inconvenient too, since it keeps our economy churning along. And of course one cannot attempt to regulate thought in a "free society."

But abortion is a winner. First, because it affects only women (and a few rogue doctors), which most of our lawmakers are not. Second, because pregnancy is the scarlet letter for many communities. It is God punishing the woman for fornication. It just so happens there is no scarlet letter for men (aside from a few diseases, and you couldn't legislate against the curing of a disease, could you?) so even those who believe men should be equally punished for such activity have no way of proving it. There's no point, so the men are safe.

For placental humans, anti-abortion laws are much easier to enforce than many morality laws, because either you go have it done by a doctor in a sterile facility, or you take your life in your hands. Certainly some people have opted for the latter approach when abortion has been illegal, but anti-abortion law remains relatively enforceable.

But if we were marsupials, there would be no scarlet letter for women, either. The disposing of an embryo would be so quick and easy it would be nearly impossible to catch someone in the act. So, we wouldn't bother. There would either be no attempt at anti-abortion law, because it would be acknowledged to be unenforceable, or, a law would pass without fanfare and hang out on the books forever, but be meaningless and unenforceable (somewhat like recent remnants of anti-sodomy laws). So no debate. But as we are, that power could be wielded easily, and so attempts to wield it will never end.

Labels: gender, health, humans, morality, religion

Pharyngula has already had an excellent post and subsequent discussion about last week's Times magazine article, "Darwin's God." Of course that's not going to keep me from my own pontification. I agree wholeheartedly with PZ on most points, but I hope to add to the discussion by commenting on what I thought were the more irritating quotes from the article.

The spandrels vs. adaptation dichotomy irritates me. An evolutionary spandrel may become adaptive in a context different from why it appeared. But the biggest problem with the whole article is the discussion of human evolutionary adaptation. Such discussions seem to be getting more and more popular, but are just a sign that our society today has swung way back to the "nature" explanations from the "nurture" explanations that were prevalent in previous decades. They are not any more valid today than they were a hundred years ago, but people actually have this idea that scientists have figured all this stuff out, just because we know how to sequence a gene now. Culture is completely intertwined with ecology for humans, and yet everyone wants to make ecological arguments for why we do things. It makes no sense. Culture is so plastic that anything said about evolutionary pressures hominids faced a million years ago is a made up just-so story. Evolutionary psychology is bogus, because it's just too easy to make up any story about humans' past that fits your pet theory.

Maybe cognitive effort was precisely the point. Maybe it took less mental work than Atran realized to hold belief in God in one's mind. Maybe, in fact, belief was the default position for the human mind, something that took no cognitive effort at all.

Although at first reading this seems an outrageous statement to a true atheist, I think on one level it has validity - I just argue with its assumptions about why some people apparently find it easier to believe in a god than not. The number one reason is culture: most of us have been brought up to believe in a god, so that does indeed become the default position for the majority out there who aren't that interested in thinking the idea through. For most, following the culture we are born into is not only simpler, but probably more adaptive as well (in terms of reproduction). But what that means is different for every place and time in human history.

Folkpsychology, as Atran and his colleagues see it, is essential to getting along in the contemporary world, just as it has been since prehistoric times. It allows us to anticipate the actions of others and to lead others to believe what we want them to believe; it is at the heart of everything from marriage to office politics to poker. People without this trait, like those with severe autism, are impaired, unable to imagine themselves in other people's heads.

This is an important point (touching on the importance of human sociality without spelling it out as such), and relates back to a previous post of mine.

They had learned that, in certain situations, people could be fooled -- but they had also learned that there is no fooling God.

The bottom line, according to byproduct theorists, is that children are born with a tendency to believe in omniscience, invisible minds, immaterial souls...

OK, this was commented on at Pharyngula, but I just have to add my agreement that this is one of the stupidest things anyone could say, and illustrates that the author of the article doesn't understand atheism at all. It also relates to something I have pointed out previously, that just because young children do something doesn't make it genetic. It's mind-boggling they could go from the previous statement about how important sociality is, to this statement which assumes babies live in some sort of vacuum and learn nothing about the society around them. And yet everyone knows and comments on the silly things toddlers do in imitation of adults and other kids. Belief in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and God is learned.

"Our psychological architecture makes us think in particular ways," says Bering, now at Queens University in Belfast, Northern Ireland. "In this study, it seems, the reason afterlife beliefs are so prevalent is that underlying them is our inability to simulate our nonexistence."

I like this analysis of why afterlife belief is so prevalent. For each of us, the universe only exists as filtered through our bodily senses. There is no objective reality. So we cannot imagine a reality that does not involve the use of our senses. Because it is impossible to imagine it, our brains hurt less to assume it doesn't exist.

...religion filled people with "a new zest which adds itself like a gift to life . . . an assurance of safety and a temper of peace and, in relation to others, a preponderance of loving affections."

It is just as easy to argue that the negative elements of religion would be destructive. Picking and choosing the "positive" aspects of religion is ridiculous, as Mark Twain pointed out in satirical essays about people who attribute all good to God, but do not blame God for all the horrible disasters in life (which in the life of the average person on this planet, arguably way outnumber the good things).

...helped them attract better mates because of their reputations for morality, obedience and sober living.

Even if you argue that these are all components of successful religions, this is bogus because in most people's cases, this is only the facade and not how they actually live their lives. Was it more genuine in the past? No way to know. But clearly for the major religions today, there are too many cheaters in the system to make membership in a religion a reliable signal for a good mate. There is a literature on ecological relationships that shows the mathematical level at which a mutualism breaks down because the number of cheaters makes it nonadaptive to trust your partner - this selects against the cheaters, presumably, and in many nonhuman mutualisms, a balance is achieved through selection. But when it comes to humans, culture is once again complicating the issue. It is nonadaptive for beaten women to return to their mates over and over again, but domestic violence is often sadly a cultural norm. To an abused woman, there are usually other perceived social repercussions in defying that norm, not to mention the perception that they would be worse off without the beater. So nonadaptive behaviors on the individual level persist in humans (various other addictions are another example), due to cultural reasons that cannot be ignored when one is making 'evolutionary' arguments.

"Religious and secular rituals can both promote cooperation," Sosis wrote in American Scientist in 2004. But religious rituals "generate greater belief and commitment" because they depend on belief rather than on proof. The rituals are "beyond the possibility of examination," he wrote, and a commitment to them is therefore emotional rather than logical -- a commitment that is, in Sosis's view, deeper and more long-lasting.

Unlike PZ, I think I agree with this. There is more to being in some thing perceived as a religion than being a Trekkie. Yes, people love to form clubs, and that is an outgrowth of our sociality. But religion works best for forming groups because:

1) Most people hate to think - any teacher or professor knows this - because it takes more energy than not thinking. Religions are convenient for nonthinkers because since they involve non-factual matters of faith, there is always someone telling you how to think, so it is easy to be a member.

2) Religion also combines the group-forming with the comfort of someone telling you that your crappy little life has some larger meaning. It also tells you that you will live forever, which appeals to everyone's fear of death (which is completely natural - heck, yeah, I fear death, so I try not to think about it!). You are also being told in most successful religions that personal responsibility is not important. Either whatever happens to you is the fault of infidels, or you will be forgiven as long as you confess, etc. Man, how appealing is that?

3) Religion is much better in fostering the us vs. them dichotomy that humans again tend to by virture of sociality. Like ants, we have a need to recognize "nestmate" from "nonnestmate," because we are competing for resources with the "nonnestmates." Civil War reenactors don't have any particular adversary that bonds them as a group (except maybe all the non-Civil War reenactors who think they're nuts). Costumes, behavior, etc. all are useful many societies to recognize whether or not someone believes in your god or the wrong one.


In sum, I completely agree with others who found the idea that it is difficult to "resist" religion completely bogus. I, like PZ and others, feel no such tendencies whatsoever. Again it is clear the author doesn't truly understand what atheism is. For me, it is not only being a 'non-believer.' Much more important, it is being competely comfortable with a universe in which there is no God and in which where we are today was arrived at solely by chance. My worldview is as natural to me as the worldview of some one who claims to be 'religious.' Don't you dare patronize me by saying that it isn't, because it's just as easy for me to think you are the misguided nut as vice versa. I prefer live and let live, which means: don't try to convert me, and don't make laws affecting me that are based on your religion.

What is the true difference between natural atheists and natural theists? In my view, it is the desire to think deeply about the world at all levels, without having to believe that in the end my life has to have some sort of meaning that ties neatly into the natural world. My thought is the emergent sum of a lot of complex (to me) chemical and electrical processes. Death is the end of those processes, period. I used to wonder why open atheists were in the minority. (No matter what the polls say, I am skeptical that there are as few atheists as people believe.) Now I understand that the 'deep thinkers' that identify themselves as theists just need that crutch; they need to think that their life somehow has meaning within the vast unknowable universe. This seems a natural state for a social species - the need to be accepted by society could easily be projected onto a god as well, once the species achieves awareness that there is a lot more out there beyond their patch of forest. After all, your own personal god will never desert you, will always forgive you, etc. Those of us who don't feel the need to be accepted by a god may have less of a need to be accepted by society as well (although we tend to find our own godless societies to be a part of). We probably have transcended biology at some level, because knowledge has set us free.

Labels: evolution, humans, religion, sociality