The Illusions of Co-Relations

There is a flourishing literature in the area called 'The Biology of Belief' according to which the reasons why we believe certain things, accept certain (possibly trans-empirical) goals, and follow certain practices can be shown to be rooted in specific cognitive structures or processes within us, and more specifically, our brains. One can broadly distinguish two positions in this context : one I shall call Strong Co-Relation (SCR) and the other Weak Co-Relation (WCR). Let me start with the latter view first with the example of Buddhist teaching which revolves around two central claims :

P1 : Existence itself is suffering.

P2 : The way out of this circle of suffering is by following the Eight-fold Path laid down by Buddha.

Now a WCRist will argue concerning people who do accept P1 and P2 that their acceptance can be co-related with the activation of certain 'domains' in the brain (or even with genes, to go down one more level into the microscopic end of the spectrum); as a corollary, in the case of non-Buddhists who do not give assent to P1 and P2, these domains remain unactivated. This does not, however, the WCRist emphasises, settle the question of whether or not one should accept P1 and P2 : this is an entirely different issue. To put it more concisely, the empirical observation that P1 and P2 can be closely related to specific brain process is a justification neither for nor against them.

A proponent of SCR will go much further than this, and will declare that this is all that can be said about P1 and P2, which are not 'truth-claims' at all. It is just that some human beings have the requisite brain-domains activated, and consequently accept P1 and P2, and that this is the end of the matter. One cannot meaningfully ask, according to the SCRist, questions such as whether or not we have any justifiable grounds for accepting P1 and P2 : we are, in a manner of speaking, enslaved to our brain-domains.

Quite a number of people, especially newspaper reporters, seem to follow version of SCR. For example, every now and then there is the occasional report in magazines that people who are 'religious' have their characteristic experiences because of a certain gene (the 'God-gene') that they possess. What is usually unclear is whether this is an expression of WCR or of SCR; if of WCR, this is surely an interesting empirical observation, but if it is SCR that is being defended here, it leaves unanswered the question of whether or not we have adequate reasons for holding 'religious' beliefs.

But it might be asked : 'Why this irritating concern with adequate reasons? Is it not simply a reflection of your 'academic' bias that you must seek such reasons in the process of believing in anything?' In reply, I submit the following considerations. Take the case of a man called Rana Pratap who believes that men are inherently superior to women on all counts, and that it is essential for the maintenance of public order that husbands should beat their wives once a week to ensure that they do not cross their proper bounds. When you point out, from various angles, that this belief is grossly unjustified, Rana Pratap immediately starts talking like a SCRist and gives you the following riposte : 'See, Madam, you believe that it is wrong for husbands to beat their wives, and that is because domains A, B, and C inside your brain are activated. But I believe that it is right to do so, and that follows from the phenomenon that it is brain-domains X, Y and Z that are functioning in me. Neither you nor I are 'right' or 'wrong'; we are simply performing our actions in co-relation with our brains.'

If you stil believe in SCR, try to formulate a response to Rana Pratap that does not, explicitly or implicity, raise the issues of 'adequate reasons', 'justification' or 'good grounds for belief'. It is therefore an unwarranted leap of logic from saying that Beliefs S, U, Y, or P are co-related to brain-domains WE456, KI764, PO9878 or GF554 to declaring that the questions of whether Beliefs S, Y, U or P are 'true' or 'false', 'justified' or 'unjustified' can be thrown overboard. Indeed, translated into political action, SCR can become a potent tool for defending the status quo : 'I shall continue to beat my wife because my brain-domain WB123 says so; I do not need any adequate reasons to justify my belief.'