Blinded by Science

Discovery Institute ^ | 6/2/03 | Wesley J. Smith

[Heartlander]

Blinded by Science


Wesley J. Smith
National Review
June 16, 2003

---

Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, & What Makes Us Human, by Matt Ridley HarperCollins, 336 pp., $25.95)

This is a very strange book, and I am not quite sure what the author is attempting to achieve. At the very least it appears that he wants to shore up genetic determinism as the key factor in understanding human nature and individual behavior.

Genetic determinism is rational materialism's substitute for the religious notion of predestination; taking the place of God as puppet master are the genes, whose actions and interactions control who we are, what we think, and how we act. This reductionist view received a body blow recently when the mappers of the human genome found that we have only about 30,000 genes. Because of their understanding of human complexity, the scientists were expecting at least 100,000 -- and that means there are probably too few genes for strict genetic determinism to be true.

Ridley, a science writer and former U.S. editor of The Economist, tries to ride to the rescue. In doing so, he adds a twist that he hopes will overcome our apparent genetic paucity: Yes, he says, our genes decide who we are, what we do and think, and even with whom we fall in love. But, he posits, our molecular masters are not rigidly preset when we are born. Rather, they change continually in reaction to our biological and emotional experiences.

Hence, 30,000 are more than enough for a soft genetic determinism to be true -- which means that the battle between those who believe we are the product of our biology (nature) versus those who believe we are the result of our environment (nurture) can now end in a truce in which both sides win. We are indeed controlled by our genes, but they in turn are influenced by our experiences. Ridley says that the mapping of the genome "has indeed changed everything, not by closing the argument or winning the [nature versus nurture] battle for one side or the other, but by enriching it from both ends till they meet in the middle." To Ridley, the core of our true selves isn't soul, mind, or even body in the macro sense; we are, in essence, merely the expression of our genes at any given moment.

If this is true, then my perception of Nature via Nurture as so much nonsense was the only reaction I could have had, given my original genetic programming, as later modified by my every experience and emotion from my conception, through the womb, childhood, high school, college, practicing law, the death of my father, indeed up to and including the reading of this book. If that is so – if I was forced by my gene expression of the moment to perceive this book as I have -- what have we really learned that can be of any benefit to humankind? We are all slaves to chemistry and there is no escape.

Even aside from such broader issues, Ridley does not make a persuasive case. Maybe it is my legal training, but I found his evidence very thin. He doesn't present proofs so much as resort to wild leaps of logic predicated on questionably relevant social science and facile analogies based on a few animal studies. These are simply not strong enough to be the sturdy weight-supporting pillars that his thesis requires to be credible. Let's look at just one example. He cites studies of monogamous prairie voles to suggest that humans only think they fall in love, when, in reality, what we call love is merely the expression of genes resulting in the release of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin. Claiming that he is not going to "start extrapolating anthropomorphically from pair-bonding in voles to love in people," he proceeds to do just that. Citing the vole studies and Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream -- in which a love potion makes Titania fall in love with a man with a donkey's head – Ridley writes:

Who would now wager against me that I could not do something like this to a modern Titania? Admittedly, a drop on the eyelids would not suffice. I would have to give her a general anesthetic while I cannulated her medial amygdala and injected oxytocin into it. I doubt even then that I could make her love a donkey. But I might stand a fair chance of making her feel attracted to the first man she sees upon waking. Would you bet against me?

But shouldn't it take far more than measuring the physical effects of oxytocin on prairie voles to prove that something as complex, maddening, unpredictable, and wonderfully and uniquely human as romantic love can, in reality, be reduced to the mere expression of genes leading to chemical secretions? Not, apparently, to Ridley. "Blindly, automatically, and untaught, we bond with whoever is standing nearest when oxytocin receptors in the medial amygdala get tingled." Gee, if he'd known that, Bill Clinton could have purchased fewer copies of Leaves of Grass.

The most fascinating thing about this book is that Ridley inadvertently makes a splendid argument for intelligent design. At this point, I am sure Ridley's "I am utterly appalled" genes are expressing wildly. He is, after all, a scientific materialist in good standing. Yet, throughout the book, in order to make his arguments understandable, he resorts explicitly to the imagery of the guiding hand. He even gives it a name: the "Genome Organizing Device," or "G.O.D." Ridley claims that the G.O.D is "a skillful chef, whose job is to build a souffle," consisting of the various parts of us and all other life on the planet. Note the language of intentionality in his description of the evolution of the human brain:

To build a brain with instinctive abilities, the Genome Organizing Device lays down separate circuits with suitable internal patterns that allow them to carry out suitable computations, then links them with appropriate inputs from the senses. . . . In the case of the human mind, almost all such instinctive modules are designed to be modified by experience. Some adapt continuously throughout life, some change rapidly with experience then set like cement. A few just develop to their own timetable.

But according to my lay understanding, this violates the theory and philosophy of evolution. The hypothesis of natural selection holds that species origination and change are promoted by genetic mutations. Those mutations that change the organism to make it more likely than its unchanged peers to survive long enough to reproduce are likely to be passed down the generations. Eventually, these genetic alterations spread among the entire species and become universal within its genome. It is through this dynamic evolutionary process of modification, the theory holds, that life fills all available niches in nature. It is also the process, although the details are not known, by which the primates now known as homo sapiens became conscious.

The philosophy of Darwinism posits that this evolutionary process is aimless, unintentional, purposeless, and without rhyme or reason. This means it has no biological goal: It just is. Hence, G.O.D. would not want to "build a brain," develop nature via nurture in species, or do any other thing. Yet, throughout the book, Ridley seems able only to describe what he thinks is going on using the language of intention. Could this be because Ridley's theories would require interactions that are so complex and unlikely that they would seem laughable if described as having come together haphazardly, by mere chance?

So what are we to learn from his insights? In terms of how we live our lives, not much beyond what common sense already tells us: Parents matter and should engage with their children; human teenagers enjoy doing what they are good at, and dislike doing what they are bad at; and so on. That much is harmless; but Ridley's deeper point is subversive of human freedom and individual accountability. He denies the existence of free will: Our actions are not causes but effects, "prespecified by, and run by, genes." Indeed, he claims unequivocally, "There is no 'me' inside my brain, there is only an ever-changing set of brain states, a distillation of history, emotion, instinct, experience, and the influence of other people -- not to mention chance."

Ridley asserts this as if it would be a good thing to learn that the complexity and richness of human experience could accurately be reduced to merely the acts of so many slaves obeying the lash of chemical overseers acting under the direction of our experience-influenced gene owners. "Nature versus nurture is dead," Ridley concludes triumphantly. "Long live nature via nurture."

Sorry. Maybe it's my genes, but I just don't buy it.

[Kudsman]

But adults do not see a physical being greater than they are that cares. So they invent one, and they feel good about it.

Obviously your opinion and you are entitled to it. If I may ask, Whom do you thank for your little girls everynight before closing your eyes for maybe the last time?

[Kudsman]

I cant wait for the response now. I'm leaving for home but iwill check back later.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

Whom do you thank for your little girls everynight before closing your eyes for maybe the last time?

Amazingly, I know who the girls' mother is. I know that's quite an accomplishment in modern America, but I do.

[unspun]

Midst the hypothetics, hyperbolics, and hysterics involved in conspiracy theory study, I think one can find that certain spiritually prompted folks have been around for centuries, looking for their opening and testing the envelope.

We know that a really big spirit sits on the lid of their pot, until the time of God's choosing, eh?

That doesn't mean we don't tackle lies against the truth head on, of course.

2 Thessalonians 2 :: New International Version (NIV)
Listen to this  Previous chapter | This chapter | Next chapter

2 Thessalonians 2

The Man of Lawlessness

¹Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, ²not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. ³Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness^[1] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. ⁴He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
⁵Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? ⁶And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. ⁷For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. ⁸And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. ⁹The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, ¹⁰and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. ¹¹For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie ¹²and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Stand Firm

¹³But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you^[2] to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. ¹⁴He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. ¹⁵So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings^[3] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
¹⁶May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, ¹⁷encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word.

Footnotes

1. 2:3 Some manuscripts sin
2. 2:13 Some manuscripts because God chose you as his firstfruits
3. 2:15 Or traditions

[exmarine]

Let's presume that I know as much as 0.00001%. Since almost none of that knowledge existed when Genesis was written, I still have a solid knowledge base probably thousands of times more extensive than the most advanced person living in Moses time.

You are a beneficiary of aggregate knowledge - that doesn't make you smarter. Besides, how do you know what knowledge existed when Genesis was written? What makes you think men are smarter today than they were then? You have no way of knowing. By itself, technology is no guide since knowledge grows over time as a cumulative aggregate and has nothing to do with the intelligence of the populations. Most Americans are STUPID (over half can't find Chicago on a map) yet they enjoy the technology. And you would be ignorant as well if there weren't libraries and schools to teach YOU the ins-and-outs of various technologies. Knowledge and intelligence are clearly two different things. One does not have to have a technological expertise to be wise and live a good life. If that were true, then all men born before the 20th century were superstitious dolts, and I know you don't want to go there, do you? So spare me your chronological snobbery.

Their problem was, back then, that much of what they took as "knowledge", simply wasn't so. It was fantasy. I'm sure they knew lots of things about placating gods that didn't exist, and how the Hokey Pokey was good for summoning rain in the months of February and March, but that doing it in August would call up a demon and drag the dancer off to Hell, but I'm not especially worried about such things.

That so? Talking about biblical people? Got examples or just more simplistic assertions? Your atheistic bias is shining like a beacon.

Yes, how ironic that many discoveries were delayed because the preconceptions of those men prevented them from exploring the truth fully. It doesn't matter that Einstein's feelings about God prevented him from comprehending and accepting quantum mechanics. QM is still a valid theory that forms the second pillar of modern physics, next to Relativity.

Okay, that BEGS the question: What preconceptions did Kepler, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Pasteur, Faraday have that prevented them from making their discoveries sooner? Inquiring minds want to know, and I hope you have somehting more than bias to reply with because I'm growing weary of your unsupported unscientific opinions. I didn't mention Einstein, you did. Just deal with the men I listed.

[Heartlander]

1) The ego's refusal to contemplate it's own non-existence prompts urges to placate it by believing in immortality.

This is a ‘self’ statement because it speaks of one’s ‘ego’, so ‘I’ will respond. I am now a Christian after a long road of searching. I did have eastern, atheistic, and Gnostic beliefs at one time. I became a Christian though through total humility and at the loss of the once sacred ‘self’. Immortality either is or is not and immortality played no role in the revelation of Truth. Your statement is false.

2) The child's experiences with caring parents (huge incomprehensible beings outside of the infant's experience doing things to make it comfortable and happy) are carried as memories and feelings of Something that cares, even as the growing child learns to realize that it's parents are flawed stupid humans. The real impressions of an infant that someone huge and powerful and caring exists to take care of them persist into adulthood. But adults do not see a physical being greater than they are that cares. So they invent one, and they feel good about it.

The gods 'invented' through the ages were imperfect and with human faults. What child would want a god of chaos (Seth)? Again, false statement.

Futhermore, even if you remove God we still see religions:
Naturalism
Nihilism
Materialism
Scientism

[betty boop]

It seemed to me when I read the Great Divorce that Lewis was thinking about how a realm closer to the presence and fuller glory of God would be based upon increased.... actuality, more than by applying people's models of physics, but that impression could be wrong in that the one doesn't principally preclude the other.

Yes, increased actuality -- that's an excellent way to put it, unspun. But that increased actuality was "too much" for unredeemed mortals to comfortably bear, given their (gross) physical nature....

...I'm still having trouble with fitting the realm of Heaven into matters having to do with our physics, but will hope to work on that, AG....

Goodness, unspun -- I wouldn't dream of doing that. "Physics" is probably the wrong language. At the end of the day, I'm not sure we can cram the realm of Spirit into any physical model. Maybe it can be done; but I sure wouldn't know how to do it.

Thanks for your lovely post!

[Alamo-Girl]

Jeepers, no wonder! Thank you so much for the insight! I'm very glad you are 'out of' that study and I'm praying for a life line for your friend.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

No. The fact that I'm smarter means I'm smarter. You should stop confusing the words "smart" and "knowledge". I'm smarter than the majority of the people in 2000BC because I'm smarter than the majority of people in 2003AD. "Smart" is the ability to process knowledge in a timely fashion to extract useful results, and as far as is known, the average level of intelligence hasn't changed appreciably since the end of the last Ice Age.

I know more than the people in 2000BC because there's more information available and it's more reliable as well. I know more than most people in 2003AD because I have a better education, and a better CPU.

As for not knowing what the knowledge base was in 2000BC, that's absurd. Every hear of the science called "archeology"?

Yes, yes. Libraries and schools....do what? Why they store knowledge from the past for transmission to the future. Exactly what I was implying.

No, not all men born before the 20th were superstitious dolts. Most of them, but one should always avoid generalizations. Sounds like you're pining for the "good old days". Chronological snobbery? LOL!

Got examples or just more simplistic assertions? Your atheistic bias is shining like a beacon.

The division of food into "clean/unclean" categories, instead of learning to cook food properly. The prohibition against mixing milk and meat. The death penalty for wearing garments made of two seperate thread materials (Leviticus 19:19). The error that rabbits have a cud to chew on (Leviticus 11:6). The statement that God created the animals as they are. The blame laid on women for not bearing children, as if God didn't know that half the time it's the male's fault.

What preconceptions did Kepler, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Pasteur, Faraday have that prevented them from making their discoveries sooner?

Kepler was fascinated with the ancient geometers and attempted to fit Brahe's data into a weird scheme of platonic solids and regular geometry. For twenty years he tried to fit the facts of the solar system into the mythos that the heavens are perfect. Only when he attempted to fit the data to the most imperfect form, the ellipse, did he gain success. Only after he abandoned his religious preconceptions and seek alternate views did he acheive success. Twenty years. Wasted.

Newton - firm believer in alchemy, his forays into the physical reality of what we now call chemistry were total flops.

Galileo - Certainly exceeded the boundaries of religious orthodoxy of his time, and even when so far as to cast the Pope in the role of an idiot.

Pasteur - was able to see the right answers about biology and disease even though perhaps the rest of his life was clouded by religious mysticism. If he had truly adhered to the religious orthodoxy of his day, he wouldn't have been seeking biological sources of disease, he would have been seeking improved excorcism techniques.

Faraday - electrical science was so far beyond the knowledge of the sheep chasers that wrote the bible that they didn't have a chance of mucking it up in advance, so Faraday had a clean field in front of him.

[betty boop]

They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.... For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.... and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. [i.e., they have delighted in the lie]

Let no one say we haven't had fair warning....

[betty boop]

I'm praying for a life line for your friend.

So am I, A-G. She refused the one I proffered, sad to say. I gather Christianity wasn't "leading-edge" enough for her.... She seemed to believe it was the root of all human problems, rather than of man's salvation.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

The gods 'invented' through the ages were imperfect and with human faults. What child would want a god of chaos (Seth)? Again, false statement.

Children weren't doing the inventing. Adults that were once children were the pushers of unreason. Not that they considered it as such. You should step back into time, before the Age of Reason, when almost all grown men and women believed in all sorts of superstitions, when the ethylene induced mutterings of women in the Oracle at Delphi were considered revelations, and when a comet was viewed as a sign from the gods....(Oh, wait, such irraitonality still exists...top notch computer programmers donned their Nikes and hitched a ride on Comet Hale-Bopp, right? Many after hacking their own testicles off...)

And adults would feel a need to invent a god of chaos because everyone's life has an aspect of chaos in it. And one shouldn't discount the impact the truly insane had on our sane but superstitious ancestors. Yup, all kinds of gods were invented, including the God Abraham made up.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

Indeed, the spirit of anti-Christ has been around for long time and will be released full force when the restraining Spirit is removed. Personally, I believe this will begin the tribulation.

We see the spirit of anti-Christ on this forum all the time. Lots of posters are not Buddhist, not Hindu, not Muslim, etc. - but for some it does not suffice to be simply not Christian. Instead they make a concentrated effort to attack Christianity.

We see a similar thing among the atheists on the forum. The atheists are in the minority here. Among them are the kind who don't believe but don't mind if you do.

Then there are the evangelical atheists who try to persuade others to their point of view by respectful conversation.

And then there are the extremist atheist fundamentalists - who viscerally hate God and by extension, Christ, the Holy Spirit and all who believe. There is no purpose to their sentences, just a spewing of venomous hate.

I suspect that type is part of the anti-Christ spirit as well.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post! As long as she is seeking, there is hope. I agree with you in prayer for her.

[Heartlander]

And adults would feel a need to invent a god of chaos because everyone's life has an aspect of chaos in it. And one shouldn't discount the impact the truly insane had on our sane but superstitious ancestors. Yup, all kinds of gods were invented, including the God Abraham made up.

Man, what happened in your life that makes you believe this?

[Dataman]

Back when I was a kid, science fiction books (I was a SF buff) had the recurring theme of the evolution of the consciousness of man. I didn't know anything about Theosophy and considered the idea a product of the genre: fiction. Now I find out that there are those who really believe that we are on the verge of some new evolutionary development. I'll bet there is a direct correlation between the number of people who believe the newage (Like Pen Gilette says, "rhymes with sewage") nonsense and the falling test scores of public schools.

Unspun: Your quote is dead on. Rare is the person that understands that passage.

[Dataman]

sheep chasers that wrote the bible

Nice cheap shot. Nobody has to pigeon-hole you since you do it yourself.

[PatrickHenry]

We see a similar thing among the atheists on the forum. The atheists are in the minority here. Among them are the kind who don't believe but don't mind if you do.

Then there are the evangelical atheists who try to persuade others to their point of view by respectful conversation.

And then there are the extremist atheist fundamentalists - who viscerally hate God and by extension, Christ, the Holy Spirit and all who believe. There is no purpose to their sentences, just a spewing of venomous hate.

That's a very perceptive listing, A-Girl. It may also apply in reverse. There are the religious, who: (1) don't mind if someone else is not; (2) try to persuade others to their point of view by respectful conversation; and (3) extremist religious fundamentalists - who viscerally hate those who do not believe.

On the evolution threads, I've seen all three types on both sides. The type 3 individuals, on either side, are the most difficult personalities to deal with. Human nature is endlessly fascinating.

[exmarine]

No. The fact that I'm smarter means I'm smarter. You should stop confusing the words "smart" and "knowledge". I'm smarter than the majority of the people in 2000BC because I'm smarter than the majority of people in 2003AD. "Smart" is the ability to process knowledge in a timely fashion to extract useful results, and as far as is known, the average level of intelligence hasn't changed appreciably since the end of the last Ice Age.

Are you really? Is your name Gabriel - he used to toot his own horn a lot... Ahem, what is the difference between the "ability to process knowledge" and "intelligence?" If intelligence hasn't changed since the last Ice Age (how surprising - another unsupported assertion), then why is it that someone as intelligent as you can't process as much knowledge as you? That's a head-scratcher!

The division of food into "clean/unclean" categories, instead of learning to cook food properly. The prohibition against mixing milk and meat. The death penalty for wearing garments made of two seperate thread materials (Leviticus 19:19). The error that rabbits have a cud to chew on (Leviticus 11:6). The statement that God created the animals as they are. The blame laid on women for not bearing children, as if God didn't know that half the time it's the male's fault.

So many errors and bias here I don't know where to begin. Tell me, when you drink blood from a dead animal, can you get sick from bacteria? When you eat crustaceans (sea bugs) and bottom feeders, are they clean animals? Have you ever heard of trichinosis? Have you ever heard of hygiene? Do you wash your hands before you eat? Your ignorance and bias toward the bible is also palpable - been reading skeptic websites lately? (How objective of you!) I would bet my paycheck that you have never read the bible. Tell me - when a rabbit chews, does it "appear" that it is chewing a cud? Yep - it's simply the language of appearance. Why do YOU use language like "the sun went down" - does the sun really go down? The bible says that God created "kinds" of animals - do you have an insight as to what that refers to? Show me where it says that God created the animals as they are TODAY. Show me in scripture where women are blamed by God for not being able to bear children.

And Lev. 19:19 reads: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. Where does it say you are put to death for wearing the wrong garment? You should verify your biased claims before making them.

Kepler was fascinated with the ancient geometers and attempted to fit Brahe's data into a weird scheme of platonic solids and regular geometry. For twenty years he tried to fit the facts of the solar system into the mythos that the heavens are perfect. Only when he attempted to fit the data to the most imperfect form, the ellipse, did he gain success. Only after he abandoned his religious preconceptions and seek alternate views did he acheive success. Twenty years. Wasted.

He didn't abandon his believe in God, he may have set aside certain stupid beliefs of his day, I don't know. However, it was the SCIENTISTS of his day, not just the religious people (read non-scriptural), who had false Aristotlean conceptions about the cosmos. So-called scientists of that day (like the darwinists of today) held onto bogus theories. So stop trying to make it look like Christians believed in a phony cosmos and Kepler chucked his Christian beliefs to attain his breakthroughs.

Newton - firm believer in alchemy, his forays into the physical reality of what we now call chemistry were total flops.

You have to try to find a way to smear anyone who disagrees with your worldview, don't you? Newton was a theist! Period. And he invented Calculus (what have you invented latelly?) and newtonian mechanics. He is irrefutably in the top 5 of the last millenium in the importance of his contributions. Becuase he believed that a rational God created a universe that was also ordered and rational, he was able to make his discoveries.

Give me some examples of some atheists who made some big scientific breakthroughs from that day. There are none that I know of.

Galileo - Certainly exceeded the boundaries of religious orthodoxy of his time, and even when so far as to cast the Pope in the role of an idiot.

Yeah, you got one right! Except that he also exceeded the boundaries of scientific orthodoxy of his time. The catholic church was wrong in their superstitious beliefs. So?

Pasteur - was able to see the right answers about biology and disease even though perhaps the rest of his life was clouded by religious mysticism. If he had truly adhered to the religious orthodoxy of his day, he wouldn't have been seeking biological sources of disease, he would have been seeking improved excorcism techniques.

This is getting old. Pasteur was a great scientist. Period. You can't discount his contributions no matter how hard you try, and guess what - he was a theist!

Faraday - electrical science was so far beyond the knowledge of the sheep chasers that wrote the bible that they didn't have a chance of mucking it up in advance, so Faraday had a clean field in front of him.

I won't even answer this one since you resort once again to your epithets.

YOU HAVE FAILED to show that the religous beliefs of these men caused a delay in their discoveries as you asserted. So, what was the purpose of that exercise? It is becoming clear to me that you are bigoted against anyone who believes in God. It's becuase of people like you that I spend time on these threads exposing the BIAS for what it is.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

Man, what happened in your life that makes you believe this?

Nothing at all. It's an aspect of history that must be considered. After all, since there is no God, one should consider why men insist on inventing gods over and over and over again. The natural conclusion is that gods fill emotional and cognitive needs not otherwise satisfied by reason.