Re: What Use is Religion
- From: Anthony Campbell <ac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:59:37 -0500 (EST)
On 2006-11-18, RAGLANDMYCOOL@xxxxxxx <RAGLANDMYCOOL@xxxxxxx> wrote:
When it comes to Dawkins theory of religion being a misfiring of the
brain the reviews I've read and Dawkins own words below are pretty
vague. Clearly, religion has no adaptive value in a strict Darwinian
sense. I stated before it was a biological adaptaption but the honest
answer is I don't know how it developed. I think it is similar to
language in that regard. Dawkins argument seems to hinge on the
following, "Darwinian selection sets up childhood brains with a
tendency to believe their elders. It sets up brains with a tendency to
imitate, hence indirectly to spread rumors, spread urban legends, and
believe religions. However, given that genetic selection has set up
brains of this kind, they then provide the equivalent of a new kind of
non-genetic heredity, which might form the basis for a new kind of
epidemiology, and perhaps even a new kind of non-genetic Darwinian
selection. I believe that religion is one of a group of phenomena
explained by this kind of non-genetic epidemiology, with the possible
admixture of non-genetic Darwinian selection. If I am right, religion
has no survival value for individual human beings, or for the benefit
of their genes. The benefit, if there is any, is to religion itself."
[snip]
While Dawkins's hypothesis may perhaps explain why religions are
transmitted from one generation to the next, it does not account for the
origin of the beliefs themselves. The same applies to theories based on
religion as meme. Probably every society that has been studied contains
beliefs in invisible beings who take an interest in, and interfere with,
human life. This is surely very odd.
In "Religion Explained", Pascal Boyer claims that beliefs of this kind
are generated by the same mental mechanisms that underlie the formation
of normal explanatory beliefs, such as why a tennis ball breaks a
window. I don't find this entirely persuasive. However, he does make a
good job of pointing out why the usual explanations that sceptics offer
for religion don't work well either.
Boyer also raises the interesting question: why are some people
apparently immune to religion? If it is normal for the human mind to
form religious belief, are those who fail to do so abnormal?
Unfortunately he does nto answer this question.
Anthony
--
Anthony Campbell - ac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Microsoft-free zone - Using Linux Gnu-Debian
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
on-line books and sceptical articles)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The New Eugenics: The Case Against Genetically Modified Humans
- Next by Date: Re: Robot Evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: BOW WOW
- Next by thread: Re: What Use is Religion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
