Darwin v. God
I'm not going to offer a critique of Richard Dawkins latest book, The God Delusion, because I think that has been done adequately already, by H. Allen Orr in The New York Review, among others (and because I have not read it all--I left my copy in the States). But I do wish to discuss one reason why he thought it necessary for him to write the book in the first place. Why did Dawkins take it upon himself to write a wholesale attack on, not only fundamental Christianity or Islam, but the entire human enterprise of religion? The philosopher Daniel Dennett, in a response to Orr, calls Dawkins "no expert on religion" but suggest that he considered it his duty "as a concerned scientist" to subject religion to "unflinching scrutiny" This is, I suppose, the unflinching scrutiny that scientists or philosophers bring to their analyses of the natural world. But why is Dawkins the best suited to apply such scrutiny? Dennett criticizes Orr for defending religion, saying "he adopts a double standard when the topic is religion." But isn't Dennett upset when a religion scholar sets out to write a book on science (as has happened with certain text books recently)? Is he not, then, applying just such a double standard to Dawkins's work?
Orr suggests a more plausible explanation: Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. "And as we all know, Darwinism had an early and noisy run-in with religion." And clearly, the recent attempts by certain religious sorts to whitewash Dawinism have gotten under Dawkins's skin. But, as Orr notes, although Darwinsim "demands a rejection of anything approaching biblical literalism," there is no reason that "evolutionary biology cannot inform our view of religion." He suggests that religious belief can be made to jive with the facts of evolution. That is, we can have God and Darwin. And if this is so, then perhaps Dawkins's professional reason for diving into the debate (in book form) is unwarranted.
But Dawkins primary grievance against religion--and remember, he attacks religion generally--is not that it does not conform to the facts of evolution, but rather that it is simply wrong, false, a lie, a delusion. But what Orr focuses on as the central argument in the book is a strictly philosophical thought experiment (the Ultimate Boeing 747 example). Dawkins, it seems, is attempting to hit religion from within. Even if you are not convinced about Darwininsm, Dawkins claims, you should still be able to see that God cannot exist. His argument has been sufficiently criticized by Orr and others (not least, Thomas Nagel in The New Republic).
I think it is fair to say that Dawkins's attempt failed, but I want to investigate more the relationship between evolution and religion. Orr may be right that the facts of evolution can be reconciled with the beliefs of religion. But this does not go far enough. A more fundamental problem for religion, going back at least to Marx and Nietzsche, is the claim that religion is somehow at odds with evolution. That is, given that evolution is life, is the basic truth of human life, religion is dangerously and fundamentally anti-life. Even if religious beliefs can be reconciled with evolution, religious practice never can be. The things demanded by religious observance--altruism; deference to others; sacrifice and offering; glorification of death; limits on reproduction--seem to be the exact opposites of the things necessary for evolutionary success.
But, perhaps practicing religion (I'm also talking of religion generally here) actually had an advantage for our ancestors. That is, rather than being a cumbersome evolutionary anomaly--and beyond its simply being useful for group cohesion--perhaps religion's seemingly harsh strictures actually contained evolutionary advantages for individuals. If this is right, it would give us an entirely novel way to think about religion. Putting aside the question of whether we should only support human activities that make sense evolutionarily, Dawkins and company could be criticized for not giving religion enough credit: perhaps it is beneficial (or even necessary) in a strictly evolutionary sense. It makes no sense to attack the human practice of sleeping simply because it wastes valuable time. Perhaps it makes just as little sense to attack religion.
What do I have in mind? Well, only really one specific thing: providing offerings of food and resources to a god could actually make you healthier and wealthier. For most organisms, the more food you get the better able you are to survive, and the more you survive, the more you reproduce, and reproduction equals evolutionary success. But humans are different. Even basic tools developed many millions of years ago could have the capability to provide more than enough food for an individual and his immediate family/offspring. Our ancestors' greatest concerns would have been things like finding shelter and avoiding predators. Food, at least when the weather was good, would not have been so difficult--it is more within human control. Under these circumstances, a human could potentially eat too much. Unlike other animals, we do not have the ability to carry lots of extra food on our bodies. In a prolonged famine, no matter how much fat we had, we'd get it. Our ancestors might have been able to preserve and store food for the lean times, as long as they didn't set about gorging themselves whenever they got a fresh kill. Gorging would have had a twofold disadvantage: making them sluggish now and leaving them unprepared for future shortages.
Religion's seemingly counter-advantageous demand for sacrifice and offering would have taught moderation and potentially saving and planning. Michael Pollan, in an article I've mentioned before, " Unhappy Meals", points out that "Once one of the longest-lived people on earth, the Okinawans practiced a principle they called "Hara Hachi Bu": eat until you are 80 percent full." Moderation is clearly beneficial; giving up ten percent to the gods can be healthy. And a Confucian proverb, in the Mencius (7A23) says, "If the people consume their stores at the proper time and expend them in accordance with ritual propriety, their stores will be inexhaustible" (Roger Ames and Henry Rosemont translation). Following traditions, adhering to rituals: these are ways to ensure that there is always enough food--and these are exactly what religion demands.
Perhaps this is an outline of an evolutionarily beneficial explanation of one aspect of religion: offering and sacrifice. If I wanted to make a full case here, I'd have to try to similarly explain what is to be gained from religion's rules about reproduction and expensive ceremonies and glorification of death. But this is a start. It is not to hard to see the plausibility of my view. How could religious belief ever take hold if it was not somehow fundamentally beneficial? (I should note that I'm leaving aside the question of its truth. Even if God is real, people would not easily be persuaded to believe it if it were not beneficial to their survival. And even if some people did, by the rules of evolution, they'd be quickly eliminated from the gene pool.)
One final thought: even though the details of evolution were entirely novel when Darwin proposed them, I believe that the conflict between his sort of biology and religious practice is much older. Look at the challenge put to Abraham. In terms of biology, the sacrifice of Isaac is the most damaging thing that Abraham could do. God puts him in a position to choose between biology and religion, between life and ritual. If I am right, this is a deep perversion of the ritual--the tool designed to save is used as a weapon. Are humans, who have lived by religious practice and belief, able to be killed by it as well? Of course, God does not make him do it. But my question remains unanswered...
Orr suggests a more plausible explanation: Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. "And as we all know, Darwinism had an early and noisy run-in with religion." And clearly, the recent attempts by certain religious sorts to whitewash Dawinism have gotten under Dawkins's skin. But, as Orr notes, although Darwinsim "demands a rejection of anything approaching biblical literalism," there is no reason that "evolutionary biology cannot inform our view of religion." He suggests that religious belief can be made to jive with the facts of evolution. That is, we can have God and Darwin. And if this is so, then perhaps Dawkins's professional reason for diving into the debate (in book form) is unwarranted.
But Dawkins primary grievance against religion--and remember, he attacks religion generally--is not that it does not conform to the facts of evolution, but rather that it is simply wrong, false, a lie, a delusion. But what Orr focuses on as the central argument in the book is a strictly philosophical thought experiment (the Ultimate Boeing 747 example). Dawkins, it seems, is attempting to hit religion from within. Even if you are not convinced about Darwininsm, Dawkins claims, you should still be able to see that God cannot exist. His argument has been sufficiently criticized by Orr and others (not least, Thomas Nagel in The New Republic).
I think it is fair to say that Dawkins's attempt failed, but I want to investigate more the relationship between evolution and religion. Orr may be right that the facts of evolution can be reconciled with the beliefs of religion. But this does not go far enough. A more fundamental problem for religion, going back at least to Marx and Nietzsche, is the claim that religion is somehow at odds with evolution. That is, given that evolution is life, is the basic truth of human life, religion is dangerously and fundamentally anti-life. Even if religious beliefs can be reconciled with evolution, religious practice never can be. The things demanded by religious observance--altruism; deference to others; sacrifice and offering; glorification of death; limits on reproduction--seem to be the exact opposites of the things necessary for evolutionary success.
But, perhaps practicing religion (I'm also talking of religion generally here) actually had an advantage for our ancestors. That is, rather than being a cumbersome evolutionary anomaly--and beyond its simply being useful for group cohesion--perhaps religion's seemingly harsh strictures actually contained evolutionary advantages for individuals. If this is right, it would give us an entirely novel way to think about religion. Putting aside the question of whether we should only support human activities that make sense evolutionarily, Dawkins and company could be criticized for not giving religion enough credit: perhaps it is beneficial (or even necessary) in a strictly evolutionary sense. It makes no sense to attack the human practice of sleeping simply because it wastes valuable time. Perhaps it makes just as little sense to attack religion.
What do I have in mind? Well, only really one specific thing: providing offerings of food and resources to a god could actually make you healthier and wealthier. For most organisms, the more food you get the better able you are to survive, and the more you survive, the more you reproduce, and reproduction equals evolutionary success. But humans are different. Even basic tools developed many millions of years ago could have the capability to provide more than enough food for an individual and his immediate family/offspring. Our ancestors' greatest concerns would have been things like finding shelter and avoiding predators. Food, at least when the weather was good, would not have been so difficult--it is more within human control. Under these circumstances, a human could potentially eat too much. Unlike other animals, we do not have the ability to carry lots of extra food on our bodies. In a prolonged famine, no matter how much fat we had, we'd get it. Our ancestors might have been able to preserve and store food for the lean times, as long as they didn't set about gorging themselves whenever they got a fresh kill. Gorging would have had a twofold disadvantage: making them sluggish now and leaving them unprepared for future shortages.
Religion's seemingly counter-advantageous demand for sacrifice and offering would have taught moderation and potentially saving and planning. Michael Pollan, in an article I've mentioned before, " Unhappy Meals", points out that "Once one of the longest-lived people on earth, the Okinawans practiced a principle they called "Hara Hachi Bu": eat until you are 80 percent full." Moderation is clearly beneficial; giving up ten percent to the gods can be healthy. And a Confucian proverb, in the Mencius (7A23) says, "If the people consume their stores at the proper time and expend them in accordance with ritual propriety, their stores will be inexhaustible" (Roger Ames and Henry Rosemont translation). Following traditions, adhering to rituals: these are ways to ensure that there is always enough food--and these are exactly what religion demands.
Perhaps this is an outline of an evolutionarily beneficial explanation of one aspect of religion: offering and sacrifice. If I wanted to make a full case here, I'd have to try to similarly explain what is to be gained from religion's rules about reproduction and expensive ceremonies and glorification of death. But this is a start. It is not to hard to see the plausibility of my view. How could religious belief ever take hold if it was not somehow fundamentally beneficial? (I should note that I'm leaving aside the question of its truth. Even if God is real, people would not easily be persuaded to believe it if it were not beneficial to their survival. And even if some people did, by the rules of evolution, they'd be quickly eliminated from the gene pool.)
One final thought: even though the details of evolution were entirely novel when Darwin proposed them, I believe that the conflict between his sort of biology and religious practice is much older. Look at the challenge put to Abraham. In terms of biology, the sacrifice of Isaac is the most damaging thing that Abraham could do. God puts him in a position to choose between biology and religion, between life and ritual. If I am right, this is a deep perversion of the ritual--the tool designed to save is used as a weapon. Are humans, who have lived by religious practice and belief, able to be killed by it as well? Of course, God does not make him do it. But my question remains unanswered...
Labels: religion
posted by Brian at 1:06 PM
1 Comments:
I agree entirely with your take on religion as an adaptation -contra Dawkins. Other evidence comes from anthropological studies on Native Americans from the NE coast. Their famous potlatches were essentially religiously inspired ways to regulate surplus and political power. The competitors to be chief would host potlatches and give away their surpluses or even destroy them. Those who could store the most and thus give away the most became chief.
I take from this, and other examples found in the islands of Southeast Asia for instance, that religion and sacrifice served to encourage surplus production to meet demands for food in times of scarcity. It was essentially Keynesian (counter-cyclical fiscal policy) at the level of a village.
Other arguments for religion as an adaptation could be made based on the importance of propriety, for in-group relations, and one's treatment of foreigners (though both depend, considerably, on the religion).
More generally, I believe a society's ability to make authority abstract (rather than dependent on immediate threats or rewards from power) is the basis for civilization, but would have been impossible without religion, broadly defined as constraints on desire, enforced without the empirical presence of another.
Post a Comment
<< Home