Michael Shermer On The Evolutionary Roots Of Political Tribalism

Science writer and historian Michael Shermer isn't afraid to make some generalizations about people and their political ideologies. We all, more or less, belong to tribes, he says, and the characteristics are fairly easy to predict:

This is why, for example, the political beliefs of members of each party are so easy to predict. Without even knowing you, I predict that if you are a liberal you read the New York Times, listen to NPR radio, watch CNN, hate George W. Bush and loathe Sarah Palin, are pro-choice, anti-gun, adhere to the separation of church and state, are in favor of universal health care, vote for measures to redistribute wealth and tax the rich in order to level the playing field and believe that global warming is real, human caused and potentially disastrous for civilization if the government doesn’t do something dramatic and soon. By contrast, I predict that if you are a conservative you read the Wall Street Journal, listen to conservative talk radio, watch Fox News, love George W. Bush and venerate Sarah Palin, are pro-life, anti-gun control, believe that America is a Christian nation that should meld church and state, are against universal health care, vote against measures to redistribute wealth and tax the rich and are skeptical of global warming and/or government schemes to dramatically alter our economy in order to save civilization.

Some might beg to differ. Certainly there are those of us who are moderate, who fit somewhere in the middle of these two ideological descriptions. Some of us may even find ourselves migrating from one side of the spectrum to the other over the course of our lifetime. But I'm willing to bet that, for the most part, Shermer is correct. We do tend to like to seek out information that supports our beliefs, while rejecting information which calls our beliefs into question. We all are guilty of drinking the kool-aid, to various degrees.

Shermer's predictions bring up two questions: 1) Why are we so prone to such tribalism? and 2) Why are these tribal affinities remain so predictable -- and so strong -- despite our unlimited access to information and our capacity for critical thought?

Shermer describes how this tribalism has evolutionary roots, and was crucial to our survival. He takes us back to our hominid ancestors who lived in small bands on the African Savanna:

There, in those long-gone millennia, were formed the family ties and social bonds that enabled our survival among predators who were faster, stronger, and deadlier than us: unwavering loyalty to your fellow tribesmen was a signal that they could count on you when needed. Undying friendship with those in your group meant that they would reciprocate when the chips were down. Within-group amity was insurance against the between-group enmity that characterized our ancestral past. As Ben Franklin admonished his fellow revolutionaries, we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately.

In this historical trajectory our group psychology evolved and along with it a propensity for xenophobia — in-group good, out-group bad. Thus it is that members of the other political party are not just wrong — they are evil and dangerous. Stray too far from the dogma of your own party and you risk being perceived as an outsider, an Other we may not be able to trust. Consistency in your beliefs is a signal to your fellow group members that you are not a wishy-washy, Namby Pamby, flip-flopper, and that I can count on you when needed.

Surely, now that we have evolved the capacity for rational thought, and live in such a racially and ideologically diverse society, we have overcome this tribal mentality, right?

Research in cognitive psychology shows, for example, that once we commit to a belief we employ the confirmation bias, in which we look for and find confirming evidence in support of it and ignore or rationalize away any disconfirming evidence.

Shermer describes a study conducted during the 2004 Bush-Kerry Presidential election. Drew Westen, a psychologist at Emory University scanned the brains of 30 men, half of which were characterized as "strong" Republicans, and half which were characterized as "strong" Democrats. These men's brains were scanned as they watched videos of both Bush and Kerry making statements which contradicted previous statements.

Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own preferred candidate off the evaluative hook. The brain scans showed that the part of the brain most associated with reasoning — the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex — was quiet. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex that is involved in the processing of emotions, the anterior cingulate that is associated with conflict resolution, and the ventral striatum that is related to rewards. Roughly translated: we have an emotional reaction to conflicting data, rationalize away the parts that do not fit our preconceived beliefs about a candidate and then receive the positive reinforcement of a neurochemical hit, probably dopamine.

In other words, reasoning with facts about the issues is quite secondary to the emotional power of first siding with your party and then employing your reason, intelligence and education in the service of your political commitment.

Studies like these tend to show us what we already assume about human nature -- we have seen it enough in our own experiences. But understanding the science behind such instincts reminds us that, no matter how evolved we think we are, we are still, in many ways, quite primal.

Biblical Literalism and Circular Logic: Protecting the House of Cards

Answers in Genesis, the organization behind The Creation Museum and the forthcoming Ark Encounter theme park, are no strangers to circular logic.  It's pretty much the foundation of their evangelistic philosophy, which boils down to the following: "The Bible is literally true, because The Bible tells us it is literally true. If any of it is not literally true, then we can't trust any of it, and that's not possible."

Take Dr. Georgia Purdom's March 10 blog entry at Answers in Genesis, "Is The Virgin Birth Really That Important To the Christian Faith?"  In this entry Purdom criticizes the liberal theology of folks like Rob Bell, whose latest book challenges some of Christianity's longstanding literal interpretations of scripture.  She states: "If the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is not true, then Jesus is not God and the Bible is not true...if the doctrines of creation and the Fall aren’t true, then the whole birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is pointless!"

Earlier, on March 7, Answers in Genesis president/CEO and founder Ken Ham posted a piece entitled "Maligned by Ken Ham?" in which he defends AiG's young-earth views against the BioLogos Foundation, who are working to prove that religion and science can co-exist.  BioLogos accepts (and promotes the teaching of) evolution.  Ham writes, "If there was not one man Adam and one woman Eve, and a literal event of the one man Adam taking the fruit in rebellion and thus bringing sin and death into world, then one may as well throw the rest of the Bible away. It would mean what God wrote through Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5 for instance is plain wrong. If we are not all descendants of one man who sinned, then who are we, and why are we sinners?"

A recently posted article on the historical accuracy of Genesis states: Genesis 1–11 should be understood as literal history. Jesus and the New Testament authors viewed it as such, and the internal consistency of Genesis demonstrates its historical nature. Consequently, to interpret Genesis 1–11 in the same way Jesus did, you must treat the passage as historical narrative and follow the standard principles of interpretation. When you do this, it is clear that God created everything in six normal-length days approximately six thousand years ago.  

The shorter version: Genesis 1-11 is literally true because the Bible says so.

I can't prove to you that the virgin birth did not occur any more than I can prove that Muhammad did not fly on the back of a winged horse. But given what we know about biology and the laws of physics, we can safely conclude that these incidents did not occur as reported in scripture. It's certainly not difficult for Ham or Purdom to dismiss the Muhammad claim.  In fact, I'm sure they use similar logic that I use to dismiss the Muhammad claim, which is essentially: We have no evidence whatsoever that flying, winged horses existed, and therefore we can safely conclude that this did not occur.

By the same token, we have overwhelming evidence that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.  Even if we generously allow a margin of error of a few million years (as most scientists do), it's a far cry from 6,000 years. We also have mountains of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence supporting the fact that mankind evolved over millions of years from simpler lifeforms.  This leaves me with no choice but to dismiss Adam and Eve as mythology.

But to state that the virgin birth, the Genesis creation story, and the Adam and Eve narrative are true because the Bible says they are true is circular logic. The mission statement of Answers in Genesis reads, in part, "We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness."  So it goes without saying that AiG's entire existence is at stake, and any compromise on their part would threaten the organization's very existence. 

Denialism is a bitch.  Many individuals approach compromise in their faith the same way AiG approaches compromise. To admit that certain claims in the Bible are not true would mean that they have to reevaluate beliefs which had been treated as truths for a large part of their lives.  They begin to feel as if the whole house of cards might come down.

To be clear, those who deny the age of the earth are not as small a minority as one might think.  According to a 2010 Gallup poll, around 40% of Americans align with the beliefs of Young Earth Creationism (that the heavens and the earth were created by the Abrahamic God in six days approximately 6-10k years ago), rising to over 50% among Republicans. Approximately 75% of Americans believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.

Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine and columnist for Scientific American says, "[Denialism] is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it - sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact.”  

It is our natural tendency to believe only the evidence which fits into our preconceived ideas -- ideas that for many of us were presented to us as fact while we were children, and which we nurture our whole lives.  It is a natural tendency to seek and embrace only the information which backs up these beliefs. 

It is a difficult thing to alter one's beliefs.  Which is easier -- to continue to believe everything we've been taught and to ignore nagging doubts, or to completely overhaul our entire belief system?   The former only requires compartmentalization -- perhaps some denialism.  The latter can greatly affect our everyday life.  Millions of people build their entire lives around their faith.  Their faith often forms a basis for their communities, their friends, their activities.  It is incorporated into major life events: births, marriages, deaths.  Many believe that without their faith their life lacks purpose, or that without a rewarding afterlife where they are reunited with their loved ones, the pain of death may be too hard to bear.  It is not difficult to see why people might be hesitant to deny the virgin birth, or the resurrection, or any number of scriptural claims that are central to one's faith. To do so could affect their marriages, their social life, their standing in the community, or even their careers. It can be a serious commitment to rethink one's faith. And who has time for more commitments these days?

When the evidence against the extraordinary claims of scripture is overwhelming, the only thing many have left is circular logic. If we start with the premise that the Bible is the literal word of God, then we must dismiss any evidence that does not support our premise. We see this all the time in the anti-evolution community. If one were to pore over the numerous anti-evolution articles on the AiG site, it would quickly become clear that their tactics are very similar to any denialist tactics (anti-vax, climate change denial, etc.), such as criticizing relatively insignificant aspects of the larger theory, using anecdotes (often untrue) to cast doubt, or by distracting people from the evidence with character assassination and negative associations.

The reason many religious literalists use circular logic is because, quite simply, it is the only logic they have. Talking snakes and donkeys? A talking, burning bush? Walking on water? Parting the sea? Woman from a rib? Ascending bodily into heaven? The Bible says these are true, so they must be. If they didn't happen, then the Bible is not true, and then everything is pointless.

It doesn't have to be that way. Yes, for some (myself included), admitting that parts of the Bible are not true may lead to eventually leaving religion behind altogether. But even more have found a way to see these stories as literature, poetry, myth, or parable, and still retain their belief in a God, and remain a follower of Jesus's teachings. And to those folks, I can imagine that the beauty of evolution is a much more satisfying and awe-inspiring origin story than a dude made out of dirt. I also imagine that viewing the virgin birth as myth doesn't take away from the beauty and kindness associated with the Christmas holiday.

But it's starting to get a little silly, in this age of accelerated scientific discovery, to embrace claims that would be silly under any other circumstances, simply because the source of those claims claims that the claims are true.