No ghost in the machine

No ghost in the machine

Photo by Francisco Ghisletti on Unsplash

Originally published 22 July 2007

Anthro­pol­o­gist Pas­cal Boy­er thinks he knows what all super­nat­ur­al beings — gods, ghosts, witch­es, fairies, and so on — have in com­mon: They are opti­mal com­pro­mis­es between the inter­est­ing and the expected.

They have to be inter­est­ing or they would­n’t be wide­ly believed. What makes them inter­est­ing is some sin­gu­lar vio­la­tion of the com­mon­place. Gods live for­ev­er. Ghosts walk through walls. Witch­es fly on brooms. Fairies live under the ground. Except for these excep­tion­al fea­tures, super­nat­ur­al beings are oth­er­wise just like us. They have per­son­al­i­ties. They think, they have emo­tions, they make choices.

The same is true of fairy tale crea­tures: Puss-‘n‑Boots, Har­ry Pot­ter, Ents and Hobbits.

Boy­er has devised what he calls a Cat­a­logue of Super­nat­ur­al Templates:

Per­sons can be rep­re­sent­ed as hav­ing coun­ter­in­tu­itive phys­i­cal prop­er­ties (e.g. ghosts or gods), coun­ter­in­tu­itive biol­o­gy (many gods nei­ther grow or die) or coun­ter­in­tu­itive psy­cho­log­i­cal prop­er­ties (unblocked per­cep­tion or pre­science). Ani­mals too can have all these prop­er­ties. Tools and oth­er arti­facts can be rep­re­sent­ed as hav­ing bio­log­i­cal prop­er­ties (some stat­ues bleed) or psy­cho­log­i­cal ones (they hear what you say). Brows­ing through vol­umes of mythol­o­gy, fan­tas­tic tales, anec­dotes, car­toons, reli­gious writ­ings and sci­ence fic­tion, you will get an extra­or­di­nary vari­ety of dif­fer­ent con­cepts, but you will also find that the num­ber of tem­plates is very lim­it­ed and in fact con­tained in the short list above.

There is noth­ing unfa­mil­iar here. Anthro­pol­o­gists have long told us that ani­mism — ascrib­ing human­like spir­its or souls to non-human ani­mals, plants or objects — is a uni­ver­sal pre­sci­en­tif­ic way of under­stand­ing the world. Child psy­chol­o­gists have amply demon­strat­ed that ani­mism is the default world­view of chil­dren. The child who draws a face on the Sun is just doin’ what comes naturally.

The Yale Uni­ver­si­ty child psy­chol­o­gist Paul Bloom expands on this by offer­ing his own method for cre­at­ing a super­nat­ur­al being:

  1. Start with the notion of an imma­te­r­i­al soul.
  2. Embody or mod­i­fy it in some unusu­al way.
  3. Stir in inter­est­ing details.

Every god invent­ed by humankind — and there have been thou­sands — falls under this rubric. Every god invent­ed by humankind shares human char­ac­ter­is­tics: love, father­ly or moth­er­ly care, inten­tion, anger, jeal­ousy, ret­ri­bu­tion. As Voltaire said rather scorn­ful­ly: God cre­at­ed man in his own image, and man prompt­ly returned the favor.

Every reli­gious per­son, of what­ev­er faith, will of course assert that his or her god is not just more of the same; the Romans, for exam­ple, with their pletho­ra of human­like gods, con­sid­ered the monothe­is­tic Chris­tians super­sti­tious. When, after Con­stan­tine, Chris­tians achieved promi­nence, they turned Roman super­sti­tion on its head. Now it was Zeus and his Olympian com­pan­ions who qual­i­fied as super­sti­tious “myths.” One per­son­’s myth is an anoth­er per­son­’s the­ol­o­gy — and vice versa.

Bloom points out that there is a com­mon dis­con­nect between the “the­o­log­i­cal­ly cor­rect” ver­sions of what­ev­er God or gods we wor­ship and our intu­itive notions of divin­i­ty. Most Jews and Chris­tians, for exam­ple, will describe God as an omnipresent, form­less, all-know­ing, all-pow­er­ful deity, but psy­cho­log­i­cal stud­ies sug­gest that at a deep­er intu­itive lev­el believ­ers usu­al­ly invest their deity with human char­ac­ter­is­tics. Psy­chol­o­gists Justin Bar­rett and Frank Keil queried adults in the Unit­ed States and India about their reli­gious beliefs. Respon­dents assert­ed that their god (God, Shi­va, Krish­na, Brah­man, Vish­nu) has no phys­i­cal or spa­tial prop­er­ties, is omnipresent, and can know every­thing at once, but fur­ther prob­ing showed that most peo­ple imag­ine their divin­i­ty with human attrib­ut­es and limitations.

Bloom writes: “For all of us, but par­tic­u­lar­ly for chil­dren, there is a pull toward the human, a nat­ur­al assump­tion that oth­er enti­ties will share our cog­ni­tive pow­ers and bod­i­ly con­straints. Many four-year-olds say a tulip can feel hap­py and can feel pain, and they think that ele­phants, snakes, ants, and even trees have beliefs. Our capac­i­ty for under­stand­ing inten­tion has evolved to deal with peo­ple, and so we tend to extend a peo­ple-like analy­sis even to crea­tures whose pow­ers are much weak­er (tulips) or stronger (God).”

Behind this trans­fer­ence of human­like qual­i­ties to super­nat­ur­al beings is the notion of imma­te­r­i­al souls, selves that only tem­porar­i­ly reside in a phys­i­cal body. Whether body-soul dual­ism is innate or cul­tur­al­ly trans­mit­ted has not been ful­ly estab­lished, but it is cer­tain­ly true that almost every­one on the plan­et believes in imma­te­r­i­al spir­its. There may be no more coun­ter­in­tu­itive (or more thor­ough­ly sub­stan­ti­at­ed) dis­cov­ery of mod­ern sci­ence than the under­stand­ing that every aspect of per­son­hood — cog­ni­tion, emo­tion, self-aware­ness, mem­o­ry, and so on — is inex­tri­ca­bly embed­ded in flesh. The mind is what the brain does. Until, and when, we final­ly absorb this thor­ough­ly rev­o­lu­tion­ary fact, we will con­tin­ue to pop­u­late the world with human­like gods and spir­its — reduc­ing what­ev­er Mys­tery is wor­thy of our rev­er­ence to a human dimension.

Share this Musing: