What is the basic argument that the evolutionary psychologist is making? They argue that, “believing that supernatural being are watching you is so basic to being human, that even an atheist regularly, involuntarily, have moments where their minds turn into a supernatural direction…In the history of the world, every culture in every location, at every point in time has developed some supernatural belief system. When a human behavior is so universal, scientists often argue that in must be an evolutionary adaptation. There is, something that is so helpful, that the people who had it thrived and the people who didn’t slowly died out until we were all left with the trait.” They give the subway example were a little kid goes into the subway …show more content…
As religious beliefs usually guide people to the right, moral path, he believes that his “test” is the proof that everyone has the religious belief trait, because once the children realized they were being watched by a supernatural being they would not cheat.
Do you agree or disagree with this hypothesis? (Provide a rational for your opinion).
I disagree. I believe that people are more worried about the punishment that can be given to them by humans during this lifetime, rather then by God or any other supernatural character in the next life. To me, this test proves does not support his thesis, because there are tests (such as the marshmallow experiment) that prove that children are not worried about long-term commitments/events/situations. Therefore, the first set of children who did not have anyone watching them just wanted the reward. The second and third group also wanted the reward, but at that point if they cheated they wouldn’t get it, and there “was” someone there to tell one them. Thus, their best shot at winning was to follow the impossible rules.
What are the larger implications of this work (if this theory is correct) on the large world