Confronting Mediocrity

Why are some people deeply religious while others are not? I fall into the latter category and have always struggled to understand why some individuals hold strong beliefs about matters without empirical evidence. Christianity offers a clear example for exploring this phenomenon. A question I’ve often asked is why 2.4 billion Christians adhere so passionately to a faith that rests on limited verifiable evidence (Pew Research Center, 2022). The only explanation that resonates with me is that there must be neuroanatomical or neurophysiological differences influencing these belief systems. I’m not implying a neurological deficit—rather, the suggestion is that brain structures and functions naturally vary, influencing how we perceive and interpret the world.

The notion that our brains shape our worldviews is supported by extensive scientific research. Neuroanatomy and neurophysiology have clear correlations with personality traits and belief systems. While exploring this fully is far beyond the scope of this post, an illustrative example is the amygdala.

The Amygdala

The amygdala is a small, almond-shaped brain structure located deep within the temporal lobes. It is crucial for processing emotions, especially fear and anxiety. When we perceive threats, the amygdala activates the “fight-or-flight” response, preparing us for potential danger (Phelps & LeDoux, 2005). Functional MRI studies have revealed correlations between amygdala size, heightened sensitivity to threat, and conservative political ideology (Kanai et al., 2011). Such findings suggest that variations in the amygdala may underlie differences in how individuals experience and interpret uncertainty, potentially influencing religious beliefs. To be sure, it’s not just the nature of the amygdala that influences our perception, there are many other neuroanatomical variations that contribute to the unfolding of how we perceive the world.

The Basis of Belief

Humans can generally be categorized into two groups: those who crave certainty and closure, and those comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. Two central uncertainties—what happens after death and why we exist—create deep psychological tension for many. Personally, I’m comfortable not knowing these answers. For others, this uncertainty is deeply unsettling, and religion provides the necessary psychological structure to resolve it. Their belief heuristics help maintain these religious views even when faced with contradictory evidence. The practical consequence of this is that discussions with believers of religion based on evidence, or the lack thereof, will not result in any change in their belief system.

Filling the Uncertainty Void

Despite extensive historical research highlighting inconsistencies, contradictions, and human influences on Christianity’s formation, billions continue to embrace it as literal truth. This adherence is not due to naivety; rather, it stems from deep psychological and emotional mechanisms:

• Terror Management Theory (TMT) posits that religious beliefs help individuals manage existential anxiety. Knowing our inevitable death uniquely burdens humans with existential dread. Religious narratives provide comforting, definitive answers, such as eternal life and divine justice, alleviating death anxiety (Greenberg et al., 2008). Thus, challenges to religious belief threaten the psychological structures safeguarding individuals from existential chaos.
   
• Cognitive Dissonance describes the psychological discomfort from encountering
  information that conflicts with established beliefs (Festinger, 1957). The New Testament canon provides a coherent belief system—simple, emotionally resonant, and socially supported. Discovering historical evidence showing the canon’s development as politically driven and humanly flawed creates internal conflict. Many believers resolve this discomfort by reinforcing their beliefs and dismissing contradictory evidence as biased or irrelevant.
   
• Divine Relationship captures how many believers emotionally relate to God as children relate to caregivers, making their faith deeply personal and emotionally essential (Kirkpatrick, 2005). Challenging religious texts doesn’t merely present intellectual puzzles—it threatens perceived relationships with divine protectors. For many, these relationships feel more immediate and comforting than any factual counter-argument.

Religion often underpins an individual’s identity, providing meaning and narrative coherence. To question religious beliefs can thus feel like questioning one’s very identity and sense of self.

What Could Have Been

I acknowledge that many individuals inherently require religion to make sense of their existence due to innate neuropsychological predispositions. What I find regrettable, however, is that Christianity’s formation involved deeply flawed political processes designed to centralize institutional power.

Imagining alternative historical developments of the Christian canon offers intriguing possibilities:

• Shepherd of Hermas focused on personal morality and repentance rather than divine sonship and atonement. Popular yet excluded due to its lack of institutional clarity, its inclusion could have shifted Christianity towards individual moral accountability.
   
• Acts of Paul and Thecla, portraying empowered female religious leaders, might have legitimized female clergy from Christianity’s early stages, drastically altering church structure and gender roles.
   
• Gospel of Thomas emphasized personal introspection and divine understanding independent of clerical mediation. Its inclusion could have promoted a radically individualistic spirituality, reducing institutional dominance.

Considering such alternatives underscores how institutional power, politics, and historical biases profoundly shaped modern religious belief structures.

References

• Pew Research Center. (2022). Global Christianity. https://www.pewforum.org/global-religious-landscape-christians
• Phelps, E. A., & LeDoux, J. E. (2005). Contributions of the amygdala to emotion processing: From animal models to human behavior. Neuron, 48(2), 175-187.
• Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current Biology, 21(8), 677-680.
• Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Arndt, J. (2008). A uniquely human motivation: Terror management. In J. Shah & W. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation Science (pp. 114-134). Guilford Press.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2005). Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion. Guilford Press.

Notes

It will be helpful for the purpose of this article to examine the origin of the New Testament and why some people believe it to be a factual representation of the teachings of Jesus. There is broad consensus that Jesus is a historical figure, but there is little factual evidence that it accurately reflects Jesus’ philosophy.

I see many issues with the New Testament that would cause me to reject outright as religious dogma.

• Historical verification. There is limited external historical evidence to corroborate many events described in the New Testament.
   
• Oral ambiguation. Prior to being written down, stories about Jesus were transmitted orally, which can lead to alterations and embellishments.
   
• Timeline. The New Testament texts were written many decades after the events they describe, increasing the potential for alterations and embellishments over time.
   
• Canon development. The formation of the New Testament canon involved the selective inclusion and exclusion of texts that were influenced by theological and political considerations. Texts selected for inclusion were designed to maintain the centralized power of the church and suppress alternative views from texts with similar attribution.
  For example, the Shepherd of Hermas was excluded because it focused on personal morality and repentance, not divine sonship or atonement. If the Gospel of Thomas had been canonized inner knowledge over institutional doctrine would be emphasized suggesting the kingdom of God is within you, not the church. This is uncomfortably familiar to how authoritarian regimes in the current era shape history to serve their ambitions.
   
• Sequential, translations spanning languages and centuries introduce inaccuracies and variabilities
  • 1st Century CE – Original Composition in Greek (Jesus spoke in Aramaic)
  • 2nd Century CE – Early Syriac Translations
  • 4th Century CE – Latin Vulgate
  • 1382 – Wycliffe’s English Translation
  • 1525 – Tyndale’s New Testament
  • 1535 – Coverdale’s Bible.
  • 1539 – Great Bible Authorized by King Henry VIII
  • 1560 – Geneva Bible
  • 1611 – King James Version (KJV)
  • 1881–1885 – Revised Version (RV)
  • 20th–21st Centuries – Modern Translations
  • Note: The New Testament has been translated to over 1,700 languages