richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
A R G U M E N T S F O R G OD'S E X I S T E N C E 103analysis is the technique whereby an investigator looks at all theresearch papers that have been published on a topic, and counts upthe number of papers that have concluded one thing, versus thenumber that have concluded something else. On the subject ofreligion and IQ, the only meta-analysis known to me was publishedby Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine in 2002 (Mensa is the society ofindividuals with a high IQ, and their journal not surprisinglyincludes articles on the one thing that draws them together). 57 Bellconcluded: 'Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationshipbetween religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educationallevel, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higherone's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to bereligious or hold "beliefs" of any kind.'A meta-analysis is almost bound to be less specific than any oneof the studies that contributed to it. It would be nice to have morestudies along these lines, as well as more studies of the members ofelite bodies such as other national academies, and winners of majorprizes and medals such as the Nobel, the Crafoord, the Field, theKyoto, the Cosmos and others. I hope that future editions of thisbook will include such data. A reasonable conclusion from existingstudies is that religious apologists might be wise to keep quieterthan they habitually do on the subject of admired role models, atleast where scientists are concerned.PASCAL'S WAGERThe great French mathematician Blaise Pascal reckoned that, howeverlong the odds against God's existence might be, there is an evenlarger asymmetry in the penalty for guessing wrong. You'd betterbelieve in God, because if you are right you stand to gain eternalbliss and if you are wrong it won't make any difference anyway. Onthe other hand, if you don't believe in God and you turn out to bewrong you get eternal damnation, whereas if you are right it makesno difference. On the face of it the decision is a no-brainer. Believein God.There is something distinctly odd about the argument, however.
104 T H E G O D D E I US1ONBelieving is not something you can decide to do as a matter ofpolicy. At least, it is not something I can decide to do as an actof will. I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite theNicene Creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that Ibelieve every word inside them. But none of that can make meactually believe it if I don't. Pascal's wager could only ever bean argument for feigning belief in God. And the God that you claimto believe in had better not be of the omniscient kind or he'dsee through the deception. The ludicrous idea that believing issomething you can decide to do is deliciously mocked by DouglasAdams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, where wemeet the robotic Electric Monk, a labour-saving device that youbuy 'to do your believing for you'. The de luxe model is advertisedas 'Capable of believing things they wouldn't believe in SaltLake City'.But why, in any case, do we so readily accept the idea that theone thing you must do if you want to please God is believe in him?What's so special about believing? Isn't it just as likely that Godwould reward kindness, or generosity, or humility? Or sincerity?What if God is a scientist who regards honest seeking after truth asthe supreme virtue? Indeed, wouldn't the designer of the universehave to be a scientist? Bertrand Russell was asked what he wouldsay if he died and found himself confronted by God, demanding toknow why Russell had not believed in him. 'Not enough evidence,God, not enough evidence,' was Russell's (I almost said immortal)reply. Mightn't God respect Russell for his courageous scepticism(let alone for the courageous pacifism that landed him in prison inthe First World War) far more than he would respect Pascal for hiscowardly bet-hedging? And, while we cannot know which wayGod would jump, we don't need to know in order to refute Pascal'sWager. We are talking about a bet, remember, and Pascal wasn'tclaiming that his wager enjoyed anything but very long odds.Would you bet on God's valuing dishonestly faked belief (or evenhonest belief) over honest scepticism?Then again, suppose the god who confronts you when you dieturns out to be Baal, and suppose Baal is just as jealous as his oldrival Yahweh was said to be. Mightn't Pascal have been better offwagering on no god at all rather than on the wrong god? Indeed,
- Page 56 and 57: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS 51can
- Page 58 and 59: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS 53in
- Page 60 and 61: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 55McGrath goes o
- Page 62 and 63: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 57the Cambridge
- Page 64 and 65: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 59unequivocally
- Page 66 and 67: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 61non-interventi
- Page 68 and 69: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E S I S 63s
- Page 70 and 71: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 65Another typica
- Page 72 and 73: T H E G O D H Y P O THESIS 67NOMA -
- Page 74 and 75: T H E G O D II Y P O T H E S I S 69
- Page 76 and 77: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 71longer based o
- Page 78 and 79: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 73advanced techn
- Page 80 and 81: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 82 and 83: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 84 and 85: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 86 and 87: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 88 and 89: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 90 and 91: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 92 and 93: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 94 and 95: A R G U M ENTS F O R G O D ' S E X
- Page 96 and 97: ARGUMENTS F O R GOD'S E X I S T E N
- Page 98 and 99: A R C U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 100 and 101: A R G U M E N T S FOR G O D ' S E X
- Page 102 and 103: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 104 and 105: ARGUMEN T S FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE 101
- Page 108 and 109: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 110 and 111: A R Ci U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S
- Page 112 and 113: ARGUMENTS F O R G OD'S E X I S T E
- Page 114 and 115: W H Y T II E R E A L M O S T C E R
- Page 116 and 117: W H Y T H E R E A I. M O S T C E R
- Page 118 and 119: W H Y T H ERE AL.MOS T C E R TAINL.
- Page 120 and 121: W H Y T H f ' R i . A L M O S T C 1
- Page 122 and 123: W H Y T l i l - I U ; A L M O S T C
- Page 124 and 125: W H Y r i-i r R r A I M O S T C t R
- Page 126 and 127: W H Y '11IKRK A L M O S T (.: F R T
- Page 128 and 129: no evidence of its own, but thrives
- Page 130 and 131: W H Y r H E RE A 1. M O S T C F.RTA
- Page 132 and 133: I ! T R t AI.M15S I' ('. I R !' A f
- Page 134 and 135: W H Y T H E R E A I . M O S T C H R
- Page 136 and 137: A I. M O S I C 1 R I'A I N M is X <
- Page 138 and 139: W i I Y 1 II F. R F A 1 Vi (.) S T
- Page 140 and 141: W H Y r 11 r u r -\ i. \i o s r c r
- Page 142 and 143: W 11 Y '1 11 !•; R I. A I VI () S
- Page 144 and 145: !' R I ALMOST l' I U '[ A I \ I Y i
- Page 146 and 147: W H Y T H !• R E A I. M O S "I" C
- Page 148 and 149: extravagant God hypothesis and the
- Page 150 and 151: W H Y T H K R K A L VI O S I C E R
- Page 152 and 153: W H Y T H H R B A L M O S T C E R T
- Page 154 and 155: WHY T H E R K A L. M O S T C R R T
A R G U M E N T S F O R G OD'S E X I S T E N C E 103
analysis is the technique whereby an investigator looks at all the
research papers that have been published on a topic, and counts up
the number of papers that have concluded one thing, versus the
number that have concluded something else. On the subject of
religion and IQ, the only meta-analysis known to me was published
by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine in 2002 (Mensa is the society of
individuals with a high IQ, and their journal not surprisingly
includes articles on the one thing that draws them together). 57 Bell
concluded: 'Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship
between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational
level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher
one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be
religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind.'
A meta-analysis is almost bound to be less specific than any one
of the studies that contributed to it. It would be nice to have more
studies along these lines, as well as more studies of the members of
elite bodies such as other national academies, and winners of major
prizes and medals such as the Nobel, the Crafoord, the Field, the
Kyoto, the Cosmos and others. I hope that future editions of this
book will include such data. A reasonable conclusion from existing
studies is that religious apologists might be wise to keep quieter
than they habitually do on the subject of admired role models, at
least where scientists are concerned.
PASCAL'S WAGER
The great French mathematician Blaise Pascal reckoned that, however
long the odds against God's existence might be, there is an even
larger asymmetry in the penalty for guessing wrong. You'd better
believe in God, because if you are right you stand to gain eternal
bliss and if you are wrong it won't make any difference anyway. On
the other hand, if you don't believe in God and you turn out to be
wrong you get eternal damnation, whereas if you are right it makes
no difference. On the face of it the decision is a no-brainer. Believe
in God.
There is something distinctly odd about the argument, however.
Change language