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。」
上方圖卡製作日期 20160722
「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。
五月份學術界著名的 “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」台灣達爾文主義者 陳立民 Chen Lih Ming（陳哲）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幾則相關報導：
【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
