The God Truthiness V: Children are Stupid, Cults are Smart
dr clam's two posts about The God Delusion's Chapter 5 really stick it to the man. We've commented a little on “The Selfish Meme”, and I'm left with the opinion that further study of the Gospels would be required if we were to make headway in that area, so I'll leave it for now.
“Adaptive? Aye!” is dr clam at his strongest worrying Dawkins at his weakest. In 'Group Selection' Dawkins waffles between the camps of group selection as significant or not in the promulgation of religion. Dawkins claims “there are formidable objections” to group selection (198), but then on the next page states “Those of us who belittle group selection admit that in principle it can happen. The question is whether it amounts to a significant force in evolution” (199). He seems a little unsure about, or maybe he's just hedging his bets about, the importance of group selection. I recommend “Adaptive? Aye” to readers because it's the kind of counter-argument Dawkins' has left himself open to. Gut his exposed underbelly dr clam, gut him!
And Dawkins' hypothetical of the coward in the tribe of warriors concludes with “Hence tendencies towards martyrdom will decline in future generations” (199) is, rather than being a “simplified toy example”, an oversimplified toy example. Maybe its only contrariness because Dawkins blithely dismisses group selection as as a factor, but I' d really like him to have treated it a little more.
However while 'Group Selection' is a weak section, at least it doesn't contradict the purpose of the chapter.
Dawkins' is much more taken with the theory “of religion as an accidental by-product – a misfiring of something useful” (218). And so the next two sections 'Religion as a By-Product of Something Else' and 'Psychologically Primed for Religion' are more persuasive. These talk about the role of children's brains in the acceptance of religion. The ideas that children are very capable dualists (they readily make a distinction between body and mind) and teleologist (they assign a purpose to everything) demonstrates the susceptibility of children to religious ideas. Further I was impressed with Daniel Dennet's 3 stances (physical, design and intentional) (211-212), and Lewis Wolpert's “irrational persistence” (it's bad to keep changing your mind) (217) and Lionel Tiger's “perceptual defense” (humans consciously see what they wish to see) (218) as persuasive arguments.
But in all of this Dawkins focuses on the role of children. What about believers who came to the religion as adults? I don't know what percentage of believers fall into this area, but it could be important. If believers who were brought up since children in a faith constitute a small percentage of total believers, then Dawkins' argument is significantly weaker. So while I think he's worked a fairly strong argument, he could tighten it up considerably.
But after all of these sections 'Cargo Cults' is a very strong finish to the chapter. It was fascinating to read about the formative state of a cult. A cult's growth is fast, and its so adaptive. It would be very interesting reading if a well documented ancient cult could be compared and contrasted with a modern (urban?) cult. After reading 'Cargo Cults' I could easily picture how the cult of Jesus took hold.
Labels: Dawkins
posted by winstoninabox @ 4:43 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
This isn't a response to this entry, but I want to respond to your suggestion that Dawkins is demanding proof of God's existence. I find this demand to be equivalent of demanding a proof of "Euclids Fifth Axiom". In the same way that the fifth axiom defines euclidian geometry, a belief in God goes some way to defining a philosophy in which the main advantage is easy self-consistency, and a good default or fall-back sense of purpose in life. I don't see any sense in the argument that the existence of God is unlikely given the evidence, as much as it makes sense to say that Euclids fifth axiom is likely to be true because the evidence seems to be that (given the other axioms) the sum of the angles in a triangle are 180'. Dawkins seems to be philosophically naive, and seems to play on the fact that most of his readers are too. Absolute morals are axiomatic in a self-consistent philosophy, and a "God" is the simplest conceptual way to fit that axiom into a philosophy. I think Dawkins is selling a non-self-consistent philosophy as logical and self-consistent. I have decided that Darwinism is no longer the be-all in evolution and that Lamarckism is a very big force.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
is the site recommended to me by my lecturers last year for the dating and information about the authorship of the early christian writings -- not just the gospels that made the cut after the council of Nicaea.
It might be argued that people who come to religion as adults have ulterior motives, like wanting to marry someone of that religion; or power; or to be seen in a certain way in their community. Adults who come to _faith_ may come to the religion after a crisis or tragedy or something fearful, where they are reduced (emotionally) to a child-like state. I will have to have a chat to my co-workers, because I'm sure they have more *actual* stats than I!
My definition of 'religion' is simply 'what you believe about the universe'. It would be highly peculiar if a large subset of these possible worldviews that had nothing in coming except the existence of a 'God' - which can have any number of definitions - were only accessible through regression to a childlike state. Unless, maybe, it is impossible ever to change your worldview at all unless you regress to, or retain, a childlike state? Hence 'unless you become as little children etc.', and the very similar advice about scientists retaining their sense of wonder by one of those famous dead physicists.
This also kind-of sort-of assumes that the Universe with 'God' in it would be the more comfortable universe, the one it would be more pleasant to live in, and I am absolutely certain that for very many people this is not true.
Dawkins seems to be philosophically naive, and seems to play on the fact that most of his readers are too.
Dawkins has placed his professional reputation (and judging by the hate mail he receives maybe even his life) on the line by releasing The God Delusion. He would be beyond naive, but a fool to do so without understanding the field he is writing about. As I've said, it is not philosophy or theology.
I gather that you consider yourself in the set of people who are not philosophically naive, and have also not read his book. Before you make too many more such assumptions about what you think Dawkins is writing about, you should at least take the time to read the book. That way statements like "I think Dawkins is selling a non-self-consistent philosophy as logical and self-consistent" could at least be made with authority.
The God Delusion references over 140 works. Your assumptions about Dawkins, his readers and his philosophy references none.
Thanks emmajeans for the website. Reading over a few of the Apocrypha was fantastic. What a crazy mixed up time must have been had at the first council of Nicaea.
Dawkins has placed his professional reputation (and judging by the hate mail he receives maybe even his life) on the line by releasing The God Delusion.
He is crazy like a fox. The controversy is selling the book in amazing quantities. He had a ready audience of people whose views he was affirming. He has multiplied it many times by insulting peoples world views. My not reading it is in part a protest by one as me who believes that the existence of God can neither be disproven nor proven. A lot of his conclusions can and should be attacked scientifically without a belief in God.
Post a Comment
<< Home