In the "God Delusion", Dawkins
- himself in the grip of a rationalist fever reminiscent of the parched academia
of George Eliot's Dr. Casaubon - maintains that the success and survival of
religion requires for him a strictly Darwinian explanation. He expresses his
dissatisfaction with several theories which attempt to do this; namely (1) the
stress and placebo effect - it provides solace and comfort during trying times
such as bereavement (2) it answers our fear of death and mortality and (3) that
religion satisfies our innate curiosity about ultimate origins and the nature of
the universe. He ultimately rejects all these as he feels they are too weak in
and of themselves to explain religion's widespread diffusion and instead plumps
for the "by-product" explanation, popularised most notably by the evolutionary
biologist, Stephen Jay Gould.
In one of his more scathing moments Dawkins says; "religious behaviour in humans is a misfiring, an unfortunate manifestation of an underlying psychological propensity that was once useful". This is in line with Gould's metaphor of the "spandrel" ( a non-utilitarian appendage which just happens to be formed when two arches meet) to explain how religious thought originally emerged. This is typical of the views of the "by-product" camp that see a susceptibility to religious belief as an outgrowth of the brain's complex architecture. Whilst evolving to tackle head-on pragmatic difficulties, the brain has also evolved, quite unfortunately of course, a "god-centre". They have also used theory of mind/folk psychology to explain how the mind can form ideas of "disembodied entities" with their own personalities, wishes and desires.
With Dawkins, the focus is incessantly upon the ultimate truth status of the claim that there is a God. Lately, he seems intent on satisfying his own scruples on the matter by consulting with particle physicists such as Stephen Weinberg on the nature of the big bang and on ultimate origins. He seemed particularly keen to press Weinberg on his ideas of the multiverse - the multiple "big bang" hypothesis. Presumably, this is because he is aware that in "our universe" there are just too many exact ratios; for example the binding strength of an electron to a hydrogen nucleus - which provide grist to the mill of those who wish to argue from the point of view of Intelligent Design - anathema to author of the Blind Watchmaker. What we are seeing here is a man in the grip of a personal crusade intent on stretching the jurisdictional competence of his chosen field - the invention of the meme for instance so he can deliberate on cultural phenomena, mostly of the religious kind, and most often in a derogatory fashion. If an anthropologist were to treat his object of study with the same degree of scorn he would be quickly run out of town.
The difficulty I have with Dawkins is that he views religion almost exclusively through the reductionist prism of Darwinian natural selection. In addition, he seems wholly oblivious that he is in complete opposition to the thoughts and behaviour of 90% of the human race - dismissing them in effect as irrational. In a development studies seminar I was at once we were discussing supernatural beliefs as they were so prevalent in the "underdeveloped" countries and a chap from Ethiopia said, in reference to the Ganges rituals; "Listen, you don't have to ask whether or not these beliefs are true or false, that doesn't matter, the effects of the supernatural are all around you to see for yourselves, thousands upon thousands of people are bathing themselves in the water. It is there, it can be seen, it can be observed and touched.It is a reality". There was, moreover, no judgement of the rightness and wrongness of this behaviour implied in this observation. The best way of looking at this is, I think, to accept that unlike any other species homo sapiens has produced a dazzling array of different types - the majority of whom appear to be happy to entertain notions of a "higher power" and most of them in turn appear equally content to ritually worship a localised version of this deity. Some again appear to get their kicks pouring scorn on such behaviour. All the colours of the rainbow, it seems.
Religion is much more than the declaration that there is a God in the heavens, benevolent or otherwise. It has become for many a social ritual; it has a social dimension that Dawkins appears to be completely unwilling or unable to account for, at least in anything I've read - He views a preacher as the spreader of a meme virus and the church itself as the locus of epidemiology. I mean, most people I know that go to church could not claim any indepth knowledge of scripture but they all have some kind of a conception of a "Creator Being" and it is this which provides sufficient justification to listen to their particular account of it - be it Christian, Judaic or Islamic.
Where Dawkins and the by-product camp have difficulty it seems is in finding an adaptive purpose for religion precisely because of this narrow perspective that they have chosen to view it from. Don't you get the sense that Darwinist principles becomes less and less applicable the more complex societies become? I mean, the structural-functionalists solved this problem seventy years ago by studying an institution simply in terms of what functions it carried out; what purposes it served. Emile Durkheim's long analysis "The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life" concluded that religion had three major functions; (1) Disciplinary - it enforced ethics and morals, provided guidelines (2) Cohesive; brought people together, strengthened bonds (3) It is vitalizing and euphoric; it contributed to well-being, confidence and gave a boost to the spirits (no pun intended). Is this not enough? Is this not sufficient explanation of it's adaptive capability. The proof, in fact, appears to be in the pudding - religion's very ubiquity demonstrates quite well that it serves many purposes.
Religion has it's origins in the animistic beliefs and practices of archaic homo sapiens and probably emerged in East Africa during the time of the Upper Paleolithic some 50-60,000 years ago. Jared Diamond has speculated that the most common cause of death in these early hunter-gatherer bands was murder and in this world where life was "nasty, brutish and short" it led me to reflect on the Dawkins genotype and what role could have been played there by such a spindly, cerebral character. I cannot easily envisage him holding out long in a life and death struggle with a rival clan, or having the physicality to provide for those around him in an often harsh, brutal, dog-eat-dog environment. On the contrary, I would imagine his genotype would welcome and perhaps be responsible for initiating the institution of a set of beliefs with their accompanying moral edicts and sanctions prohibiting the wanton taking of life, and thereby ensuring the protection of the weak and disadvantaged - snails otherwise crushed underfoot by the brute logic of force.
When I see how easily he takes to the evangelical role of enlightening the world as to the so-called "irrational" propositions of organised religion via reference to the gospel of Darwinist natural selection - I can easily make the mental adjustment required to transport him back into the Palaeolithic and see in him all the characteristics of a proto-priest or shaman; arguing for group cohesion, the ending of senseless murder, of intra-clan conflict - and supporting his arguments by saying his authority derives from the all-encompassing eternal mother-goddess. Why? - because he will feel in his bones that this argument represents the only right path for the group and his outrage over the wanton malevolence of the clan's more brutish unthinking genotypes will stir his blood to such a degree that he will be wont to attribute his mental and bodily paroxysms - caused by the inlayering and sedimentation of a lifetime's violent sensory impressions - as being sacredly derived from an ancestral spiritual dimension. A thousand times this outrageous reverie, this dance of possession, may have occurred and a thousand times an axe head guided by the hand of the nearest brute force alpha male may have reigned down on the head of this demented and spiritualised imposter.
But, here and there, there were other dynamics, other groups who were prepared to listen, and were rapidly developing the capacity to do so - perhaps women themselves played a role, tired of being endlessly set upon in a world that knew no law - others who were prepared to engage empathically with the arguments and rationale of this new form of cerebral organisation that offered glimpses of peace of mind and security. It is not often remarked upon, but as the neocortex was expanding along with the front, temporal and parietal lobes (areas concerned with language and the executive functions; ie the type of judgement that informs morality), the gross physical strength of the homo erectus and other precursor hominid forms was likewise being gradually replaced by a much physically weaker homo sapiens.
Dawkins is entitled to deploy Darwinian principles in explaining group adaptation during this era but his barely disguised loathing for religion is colouring his perceptions of what those mechanics may have been - viewing the matter simply from the vantage point of what good can possibly be gained by positing the existence of things "which are patently untrue" is to ignore the living breathing complexities of a fully enculturated Paleolithic man, which is why the best insights for appreciating what is happening here are usually found coming from the sociologists and anthropologists - not experts in biological evolution.
In one of his more scathing moments Dawkins says; "religious behaviour in humans is a misfiring, an unfortunate manifestation of an underlying psychological propensity that was once useful". This is in line with Gould's metaphor of the "spandrel" ( a non-utilitarian appendage which just happens to be formed when two arches meet) to explain how religious thought originally emerged. This is typical of the views of the "by-product" camp that see a susceptibility to religious belief as an outgrowth of the brain's complex architecture. Whilst evolving to tackle head-on pragmatic difficulties, the brain has also evolved, quite unfortunately of course, a "god-centre". They have also used theory of mind/folk psychology to explain how the mind can form ideas of "disembodied entities" with their own personalities, wishes and desires.
With Dawkins, the focus is incessantly upon the ultimate truth status of the claim that there is a God. Lately, he seems intent on satisfying his own scruples on the matter by consulting with particle physicists such as Stephen Weinberg on the nature of the big bang and on ultimate origins. He seemed particularly keen to press Weinberg on his ideas of the multiverse - the multiple "big bang" hypothesis. Presumably, this is because he is aware that in "our universe" there are just too many exact ratios; for example the binding strength of an electron to a hydrogen nucleus - which provide grist to the mill of those who wish to argue from the point of view of Intelligent Design - anathema to author of the Blind Watchmaker. What we are seeing here is a man in the grip of a personal crusade intent on stretching the jurisdictional competence of his chosen field - the invention of the meme for instance so he can deliberate on cultural phenomena, mostly of the religious kind, and most often in a derogatory fashion. If an anthropologist were to treat his object of study with the same degree of scorn he would be quickly run out of town.
The difficulty I have with Dawkins is that he views religion almost exclusively through the reductionist prism of Darwinian natural selection. In addition, he seems wholly oblivious that he is in complete opposition to the thoughts and behaviour of 90% of the human race - dismissing them in effect as irrational. In a development studies seminar I was at once we were discussing supernatural beliefs as they were so prevalent in the "underdeveloped" countries and a chap from Ethiopia said, in reference to the Ganges rituals; "Listen, you don't have to ask whether or not these beliefs are true or false, that doesn't matter, the effects of the supernatural are all around you to see for yourselves, thousands upon thousands of people are bathing themselves in the water. It is there, it can be seen, it can be observed and touched.It is a reality". There was, moreover, no judgement of the rightness and wrongness of this behaviour implied in this observation. The best way of looking at this is, I think, to accept that unlike any other species homo sapiens has produced a dazzling array of different types - the majority of whom appear to be happy to entertain notions of a "higher power" and most of them in turn appear equally content to ritually worship a localised version of this deity. Some again appear to get their kicks pouring scorn on such behaviour. All the colours of the rainbow, it seems.
Religion is much more than the declaration that there is a God in the heavens, benevolent or otherwise. It has become for many a social ritual; it has a social dimension that Dawkins appears to be completely unwilling or unable to account for, at least in anything I've read - He views a preacher as the spreader of a meme virus and the church itself as the locus of epidemiology. I mean, most people I know that go to church could not claim any indepth knowledge of scripture but they all have some kind of a conception of a "Creator Being" and it is this which provides sufficient justification to listen to their particular account of it - be it Christian, Judaic or Islamic.
Where Dawkins and the by-product camp have difficulty it seems is in finding an adaptive purpose for religion precisely because of this narrow perspective that they have chosen to view it from. Don't you get the sense that Darwinist principles becomes less and less applicable the more complex societies become? I mean, the structural-functionalists solved this problem seventy years ago by studying an institution simply in terms of what functions it carried out; what purposes it served. Emile Durkheim's long analysis "The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life" concluded that religion had three major functions; (1) Disciplinary - it enforced ethics and morals, provided guidelines (2) Cohesive; brought people together, strengthened bonds (3) It is vitalizing and euphoric; it contributed to well-being, confidence and gave a boost to the spirits (no pun intended). Is this not enough? Is this not sufficient explanation of it's adaptive capability. The proof, in fact, appears to be in the pudding - religion's very ubiquity demonstrates quite well that it serves many purposes.
Religion has it's origins in the animistic beliefs and practices of archaic homo sapiens and probably emerged in East Africa during the time of the Upper Paleolithic some 50-60,000 years ago. Jared Diamond has speculated that the most common cause of death in these early hunter-gatherer bands was murder and in this world where life was "nasty, brutish and short" it led me to reflect on the Dawkins genotype and what role could have been played there by such a spindly, cerebral character. I cannot easily envisage him holding out long in a life and death struggle with a rival clan, or having the physicality to provide for those around him in an often harsh, brutal, dog-eat-dog environment. On the contrary, I would imagine his genotype would welcome and perhaps be responsible for initiating the institution of a set of beliefs with their accompanying moral edicts and sanctions prohibiting the wanton taking of life, and thereby ensuring the protection of the weak and disadvantaged - snails otherwise crushed underfoot by the brute logic of force.
When I see how easily he takes to the evangelical role of enlightening the world as to the so-called "irrational" propositions of organised religion via reference to the gospel of Darwinist natural selection - I can easily make the mental adjustment required to transport him back into the Palaeolithic and see in him all the characteristics of a proto-priest or shaman; arguing for group cohesion, the ending of senseless murder, of intra-clan conflict - and supporting his arguments by saying his authority derives from the all-encompassing eternal mother-goddess. Why? - because he will feel in his bones that this argument represents the only right path for the group and his outrage over the wanton malevolence of the clan's more brutish unthinking genotypes will stir his blood to such a degree that he will be wont to attribute his mental and bodily paroxysms - caused by the inlayering and sedimentation of a lifetime's violent sensory impressions - as being sacredly derived from an ancestral spiritual dimension. A thousand times this outrageous reverie, this dance of possession, may have occurred and a thousand times an axe head guided by the hand of the nearest brute force alpha male may have reigned down on the head of this demented and spiritualised imposter.
But, here and there, there were other dynamics, other groups who were prepared to listen, and were rapidly developing the capacity to do so - perhaps women themselves played a role, tired of being endlessly set upon in a world that knew no law - others who were prepared to engage empathically with the arguments and rationale of this new form of cerebral organisation that offered glimpses of peace of mind and security. It is not often remarked upon, but as the neocortex was expanding along with the front, temporal and parietal lobes (areas concerned with language and the executive functions; ie the type of judgement that informs morality), the gross physical strength of the homo erectus and other precursor hominid forms was likewise being gradually replaced by a much physically weaker homo sapiens.
Dawkins is entitled to deploy Darwinian principles in explaining group adaptation during this era but his barely disguised loathing for religion is colouring his perceptions of what those mechanics may have been - viewing the matter simply from the vantage point of what good can possibly be gained by positing the existence of things "which are patently untrue" is to ignore the living breathing complexities of a fully enculturated Paleolithic man, which is why the best insights for appreciating what is happening here are usually found coming from the sociologists and anthropologists - not experts in biological evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment