Human structure and behavior are determined by thermodynamics. There’s not a single human characteristic that escapes its sculpting influence and this includes our brains. I’ve been thinking about the pervasiveness of religion lately and this too is likely a conserved trait that has been strongly selected within the architecture of the brain. And why would a structure that leads to irrational belief be selected? Surely a more realistic or scientific view contributes more to survival. If we go back into prehistory before written knowledge began accumulating en masse, the typical mind of a family or tribe member explained the world in terms of myths, spirits and ancestors. These animal and ancestor spirits could probably be spoken to in order to gain some influence upon the unfolding of uncertain events.

But the greatest survival advantage would come from a coalescing of smaller groups or tribes into the worship of a common God(s) through the intercession of a priestly class, perhaps the tribal leaders of the coalesced groups. Citizens of this new “civilization”, based upon the worship of a God at a central temple would organize themselves around supplying the temple with adequate sacrifices and offerings to satiate the all-powerful God(s). This net energy brought from the area surrounding the temple would feed the specialists residing there and complexity would flourish.

These large civilizations would easily defeat smaller tribes and gain slaves, resources, and territory at the periphery. The glue that holds it all together is the belief that a God made everything and intercedes on the earth and responds to the ritualized actions of priests and worshipers. Scientific explanations tend to dissolve the glue that binds and currently there is a tug-of-war between religious and scientific explanations. Which is most important? Can we maintain and practice technology and still pay homage to the Gods? I think that is exactly what we are doing while downplaying or obfuscating much of unpalatable reality. Those societies in which individuals have transcendent experiences or large releases of dopamine/opioids in the presence of the all powerful God are the more cohesive and most likely to continue believing as they conquer and assimilate the non-believers. The individuals of the religious societies, or those most likely to get rewarded by believing in the magic of a God have greater reproductive success than those groups that do not have the tendency to coalesce into religious tribes. Over time much of the world’s population has become hard-wired with a tendency (sometimes overcome) to be magical thinkers and that cause and effect are the whims, rewards and punishments emanating from the agency of a God.

https://qz.com/852450/the-neuroscience-argument-that-religion-shaped-the-very-structure-of-our-brains/

Fast forward to today and even with the wide availability of knowledge, religions still persist and thrive. Why? Because the population has evolved to believe that a God makes everything happen and they are unwilling, unable or too lazy to supplant that fantasy with a real study of physics, chemistry and biology. Atheism and intellectualism are denigrated and rejected in favor of the simple religious glue that holds society together and provides a common identity. For most, a reading of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” simply does not have the same religiously orgasmic effect as the almighty power of God at a church revival. It is unlikely that the magical thinking will be abandoned because its tendency is hard-wired in the brain and it has emotionally-rallying survival value in holding together societies. Even the government, businesses and Federal Reserve jump on the God bandwagon for acceptance.

So there is a reluctance to accept real explanations that may undermine the belief system that helps hold a society together. A rejection of scientific explanations leaves room for divine intervention brought forth by prayer and offerings and a reward of eternal life in heaven.

Humans will likely ignore scientific warnings of our current perils while continuing to pursue rewards while hoping for magical interventions from a God. Natural selection will take any course that has a healthy positive EROEI, even towards warped human brain wiring that provides the framework for a skewed interpretation of reality. Rob Mielcarski of www.un-denial.com brought this article to my attention and I’ve provided an excerpt:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

“In “Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us” (Oxford), Jack Gorman, a psychiatrist, and his daughter, Sara Gorman, a public-health specialist, probe the gap between what science tells us and what we tell ourselves. Their concern is with those persistent beliefs which are not just demonstrably false but also potentially deadly, like the conviction that vaccines are hazardous. Of course, what’s hazardous is not being vaccinated; that’s why vaccines were created in the first place. “Immunization is one of the triumphs of modern medicine,” the Gormans note. But no matter how many scientific studies conclude that vaccines are safe, and that there’s no link between immunizations and autism, anti-vaxxers remain unmoved. (They can now count on their side—sort of—Donald Trump, who has said that, although he and his wife had their son, Barron, vaccinated, they refused to do so on the timetable recommended by pediatricians.)

The Gormans, too, argue that ways of thinking that now seem self-destructive must at some point have been adaptive. And they, too, dedicate many pages to confirmation bias, which, they claim, has a physiological component. They cite research suggesting that people experience genuine pleasure—a rush of dopamine—when processing information that supports their beliefs. “It feels good to ‘stick to our guns’ even if we are wrong,” they observe.”