Arguing for the intrinsic, as opposed to accidental or occasional, unreliability of human perception is like sawing off the branch you're sitting on.

I'm really surprised that you would argue this. This is in effect the "science is just a belief system" argument. It ignores the fact that collection of empirical evidence is not based on individual (variable) perception. Such evidence is compiled by multiple observers and peer-reviewed before it is accepted.

Spiritual (subjective) experiences such as Alper describes when he refers to "the distorted mirror" are just the type already rejected by science because they cannot be duplicated. I don't see how this is "sawing off the branch he is sitting on" by any stretch. In fact, much of science has been devoted to designing instruments to end our reliance on our unreliable sense perceptions.

Surely reincarnation has to incorporate a soul, or some other supernatural entity? Otherwise, what exactly is being reincarnated?

This is one of the classic questions asked of Buddhism. My understanding is that Buddhists believe not in reincarnation of an immutable soul, but that the aggregates that make up a person split apart and then rejoin in new forms. I've heard the process compared to one flame being used to ignite another, and that one used to ignite another and so on - clearly something has been passed on, though it's not the "same" fire each time. This analogy may shed some light on what is meant by the word nirvana, which as I mentioned in my post, literally means "extinction".

Also, for BlackSun:

But regarding the specific citation you mentioned on p. 226, Alper is using it to build a case for humans' relative perception and belief in non-existent supernatural realms–not to say that human relativism is a method of perception which is valid in an ontological sense.

I agree that this is what he was trying to do with it - to show that our perception of a spiritual reality is not necessarily reliable. However, he fails to notice that this argument is applicable in exactly the same way to his own position. Arguing for the intrinsic, as opposed to accidental or occasional, unreliability of human perception is like sawing off the branch you're sitting on.

The book does sound dubious in its claims, but just one point about the existence of atheists if his theory were correct. Isn't the fact that we have learned to over ride our genes what makes us different from other animals, as Richard Dawkins argues in the Selfish Gene? It's still a wildly speculative point, but I don't find the presence of atheists to be among the main problems in his theory, from the way you've described it (that's not a criticism, just an acknowledgement of the fact that I haven't read the book for myself :) )

And personally, I highly doubt that religious belief is "hardwired" into our genes. The cultural aspects - especially childhood indoctrination - affect what we believe a lot more than anything genetic. But that's just my opinion, I haven't done the research or anything (well, not yet).

As an aside: Keep up the good work, Adam. I'm a regular reader, I just don't comment all that much.

...this would imply that our cross-cultural "spiritual" beliefs in such concepts as a god, a soul, and an afterlife constitute nothing more than manifestations of the way our species happens to process information and therefore interpret reality. In such a case, God would no longer represent any absolute being but rather a cognitively generated, subjective, human conception--not a divine but an organic phenomenon.

Alper then discusses what would happen if humans were able to adopt a more objective way of thinking. He compares it on p.228 to treating a schizophrenic and getting them to find a grip on reality. On p. 229, he compares our innate perception (of the majority of the species, certainly not everyone) to looking in a mirror through a distorted lens:

Because we are ignorant that these lenses exist, we have no way of knowing that our self-perceptions have been distorted. Though we may believe that our view represents a perfect reflection of ourselves, we are actually misinformed.

Thus he is arguing for an objective and scientific evaluation of ourselves and our beliefs. We can do this by first understanding and then systematically removing our subjective distortions and seeing things as they really are. Part of this can be achieved through finding out which portions of our perceptions may be innately programmed toward false beliefs.

This seems to me an eminently reasonable proposition. If there is even a partial genetic basis or tendency, certainly it warrants further study. I can't vouch for Alper's sourcing, or specific studies, but it seems to follow in the vein of a lot of what I've read in evolutionary biology. (Specifically the list of human cultural "universals" in Pinker's book.) While he is not as rigorous as Dennett or Pinker, I find Alper's work to be a valuable additional perspective.

...I don't think Alper ever claims that human behavior is as deterministic as that of a worm.

Many times in the book, Alper uses the term "hardwired" to describe human religiosity. He doesn't say that all human behavior is genetically determined, but he does claim that religious belief is. Look at quotes like this:

"Subsequently, trying to convince someone who is hardwired to believe in a spiritual reality that no such thing exists may be as futile as trying to convince a schizophrenic that the voices he hears are coming from within his own head as opposed to from some external reality." (p.228)

In fact, schizophrenics sometimes can be taught to reason through their delusions, although I don't think that's what Alper had in mind when he wrote that passage.

He builds the case through successively more complex genetically based behaviors in more complex animals, finally leading to a sound genetic basis for many human behaviors.

But that is my point - his argument for the genetic basis of human religiosity is solely an armchair argument from analogy. Yes, there are many complex behaviors in other animals that are genetically determined. But Alper simply assumes that the same must be therefore true for human beings as well, taking no cognizance of the fact that human beings have a whole upper level of mental and cultural complexity that other species do not. I'm willing to grant that things like language, or cause-and-effect thinking, or face recognition are genetic instincts. I'm even willing to concede that some of the tendencies that lead to religion are instincts. I'm not willing to concede that belief in supernatural beings and an afterlife is itself an instinct, not without evidence.

I think the quote you cite on p.226 is taken out of context. Alper addresses such solipsistic notions earlier in the book, and then leads the reader back around to an endorsement of empiricism and the need for objectivity.

If you believe so, please provide a citation. I was shocked by this quote myself, as it seemed to blatantly contradict everything he had just spent the previous two hundred pages arguing, and I looked for indicators that he was using this as a rhetorical question to demonstrate its fallacy. However, I found none. If you know of something I've missed, by all means, post it and I will gladly retract that remark.

Have you read "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker? In the back of that book is a list of human universals, which I think provides a very good starting point for discussion of what may be considered to be innate programming toward belief. Among those are the spirit/matter dualism and afterlife.

I think the quote you cite on p.226 is taken out of context. Alper addresses such solipsistic notions earlier in the book, and then leads the reader back around to an endorsement of empiricism and the need for objectivity. When he speaks of relativism, he is using it to identify how the various different subjective forms of belief have arisen, and because they are so different and subjective, do not point to the actual existence of a single or objective external divine deity or reality.

Our thought processes without strict logical discipline leads us to all sort of spurious conclusions. Surely a guy who knows everything, is infinitely intelligent and can do anything easily explains anything.

To be able to pass yourself off as knowing the motives of this person and how to get on his "good side" would lead to a lot of respect, power and personal security, surely an aphrodisiac at any point in time.

Yet in my opinion religion has been a net negative for societies that incorporate it since it distracts from using our intellects to address real issues.

There are certainly other near universal human practices that are a net negative. Coming to mind are war and the elevation of a few to run their societies at their own pleasure.