richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
T H I', R O () T S OF R K I. I G I O N 173recently, the only night lights on view were the moon and the stars.They are at optical infinity, so rays coming from them are parallel.This fits them for use as compasses. Insects are known to usecelestial objects such as the sun and the moon to steer accurately ina straight line, and they can use the same compass, with reversedsign, for returning home after a foray. The insect nervous system isadept at setting up a temporary rule of thumb of this kind: 'Steer acourse such that the light rays hit your eye at an angle of 30degrees.' Since insects have compound eyes (with straight tubes orlight guides radiating out from the centre of the eye like the spinesof a hedgehog), this might amount in practice to something assimple as keeping the light in one particular tube or ommatidium.But the light compass relies critically on the celestial object beingat optical infinity. If it isn't, the rays are not parallel but diverge likethe spokes of a wheel. A nervous system applying a 30-degree (orany acute angle) rule of thumb to a nearby candle, as though it werethe moon at optical infinity, will steer the moth, via a spiraltrajectory, into the flame. Draw it out for yourself, using some particularacute angle such as 30 degrees, and you'll produce anelegant logarithmic spiral into the candle.Though fatal in this particular circumstance, the moth's rule ofthumb is still, on average, a good one because, for a moth, sightingsof candles are rare compared with sightings of the moon. We don'tnotice the hundreds of moths that are silently and effectively steeringby the moon or a bright star, or even the glow from a distantcity. We see only moths wheeling into our candle, and we ask thewrong question: Why are all these moths committing suicide?Instead, we should ask why they have nervous systems that steer bymaintaining a fixed angle to light rays, a tactic that we notice onlywhere it goes wrong. When the question is rephrased, the mysteryevaporates. It never was right to call it suicide. It is a misfiring byproductof a normally useful compass.Now, apply the by-product lesson to religious behaviour inhumans. We observe large numbers of people - in many areas itamounts to 100 per cent - who hold beliefs that flatly contradictdemonstrable scientific facts as well as rival religions followed byothers. People not only hold these beliefs with passionate certitude,but devote time and resources to costly activities that flow from
174 T H E C, O D D F. 1. U S 1 () Nholding them. They die for them, or kill for them. We marvel atthis, just as we marvelled at the 'self-immolation behaviour' of themoths. Baffled, we ask why. But my point is that we may be askingthe wrong question. The religious behaviour may be a misfiring, anunfortunate by-product of an underlying psychological propensitywhich in other circumstances is, or once was, useful. On this view,the propensity that was naturally selected in our ancestors was notreligion per se; it had some other benefit, and it only incidentallymanifests itself as religious behaviour. We shall understand religiousbehaviour only after we have renamed it.If, then, religion is a by-product of something else, what is thatsomething else? What is the counterpart to the moth habit ofnavigating by celestial light compasses? What is the primitivelyadvantageous trait that sometimes misfires to generate religion? Ishall offer one suggestion by way of illustration, but I must stressthat it is only an example of the kind of thing I mean, and I shallcome on to parallel suggestions made by others. I am much morewedded to the general principle that the question should beproperly put, and if necessary rewritten, than I am to any particularanswer.My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any otherspecies, we survive by the accumulated experience of previousgenerations, and that experience needs to be passed on to childrenfor their protection and well-being. Theoretically, children mightlearn from personal experience not to go too near a cliff edge, notto eat untried red berries, not to swim in crocodile-infested waters.But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to childbrains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question,whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey thetribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone.Trust your elders without question. This is a generally valuable rulefor a child. But, as with the moths, it can go wrong.I have never forgotten a horrifying sermon, preached in myschool chapel when I was little. Horrifying in retrospect, that is: atthe time, my child brain accepted it in the spirit intended by thepreacher. He told us a story of a squad of soldiers, drilling beside arailway line. At a critical moment the drill sergeant's attention wasdistracted, and he failed to give the order to halt. The soldiers were
- 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
- Page 156 and 157: W H V T H t R t A I M O S T C E R T
- Page 158 and 159: WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GO
- Page 160 and 161: W H Y T H E R i ; A L M O S T C E R
- Page 162 and 163: T H E R O O T S OF R K 1. i G I ()
- Page 164 and 165: THE ROOTS OF RELIGION 165themselves
- Page 166 and 167: THE ROOTS ()1 ; R fc L I G I O N 16
- Page 168 and 169: T H 1-; R O O T S O F R E I 1 C 1 O
- Page 170 and 171: T H E R O O T S OF R E L I G I O N
- Page 174 and 175: THL R O O T S OF R E L I G I O N 17
- Page 176 and 177: T H E R O O T S OF R I: I. I (i I O
- Page 178 and 179: T 11 E R O O T S O F R K L 1 (. 1 O
- Page 180 and 181: THE ROOTS OF RELIGION 181psychologi
- Page 182 and 183: THE R O O T S O F R E L I G I O N 1
- Page 184 and 185: THE R O O T S O F RELIGI O N 185boo
- Page 186 and 187: T H E ROOTS OF RELIGION 187Breakfas
- Page 188 and 189: T H E R O O T S O F R E L I G 1 0 N
- Page 190 and 191: T H E R O O T S O F R E L \ G I O N
- Page 192 and 193: T H E ROOTS OF RELIGION 193the prob
- Page 194 and 195: T H E R O O T S O F R E L I G I O N
- Page 196 and 197: T H E R O O T S OF RELIGION 197'mem
- Page 198 and 199: T HE ROOTS OF RELIGION 199ambiguity
- Page 200 and 201: T H E R O O T S OF R E L I G I O N
- Page 202 and 203: T H E ROOTS OF RELI G I O N 203They
- Page 204 and 205: T HE R O O T S O F R E L J G 1 O N
- Page 206 and 207: T H E R O O T S O F R E L 1 G I O N
- Page 208 and 209: THE R O O T S OF M O R A L I T Y :
- Page 210 and 211: T H E R O O T S OF M O R A L ! T Y
- Page 212 and 213: T H H R O O T S O F M O R A L I T Y
- Page 214 and 215: T H K R O O "I S O ! ; M O R A M T
- Page 216 and 217: T H F , R O O T S O F M O R A L I T
- Page 218 and 219: \ I i') K A I I M : \V 1 ! \ A i d
- Page 220 and 221: R (> O I S (i I Y1 O l< A I I I "I
174 T H E C, O D D F. 1. U S 1 () N
holding them. They die for them, or kill for them. We marvel at
this, just as we marvelled at the 'self-immolation behaviour' of the
moths. Baffled, we ask why. But my point is that we may be asking
the wrong question. The religious behaviour may be a misfiring, an
unfortunate by-product of an underlying psychological propensity
which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful. On this view,
the propensity that was naturally selected in our ancestors was not
religion per se; it had some other benefit, and it only incidentally
manifests itself as religious behaviour. We shall understand religious
behaviour only after we have renamed it.
If, then, religion is a by-product of something else, what is that
something else? What is the counterpart to the moth habit of
navigating by celestial light compasses? What is the primitively
advantageous trait that sometimes misfires to generate religion? I
shall offer one suggestion by way of illustration, but I must stress
that it is only an example of the kind of thing I mean, and I shall
come on to parallel suggestions made by others. I am much more
wedded to the general principle that the question should be
properly put, and if necessary rewritten, than I am to any particular
answer.
My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other
species, we survive by the accumulated experience of previous
generations, and that experience needs to be passed on to children
for their protection and well-being. Theoretically, children might
learn from personal experience not to go too near a cliff edge, not
to eat untried red berries, not to swim in crocodile-infested waters.
But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to child
brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question,
whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the
tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone.
Trust your elders without question. This is a generally valuable rule
for a child. But, as with the moths, it can go wrong.
I have never forgotten a horrifying sermon, preached in my
school chapel when I was little. Horrifying in retrospect, that is: at
the time, my child brain accepted it in the spirit intended by the
preacher. He told us a story of a squad of soldiers, drilling beside a
railway line. At a critical moment the drill sergeant's attention was
distracted, and he failed to give the order to halt. The soldiers were
Change language