richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
THL R O O T S OF R E L I G I O N 175so well schooled to obey orders without question that they carriedon marching, right into the path of an oncoming train. Now, ofcourse, I don't believe the story and I hope the preacher didn'teither. But I believed it when I was nine, because I heard it from anadult in authority over me. And whether he believed it or not, thepreacher wished us children to admire and model ourselves on thesoldiers' slavish and unquestioning obedience to an order, howeverpreposterous, from an authority figure. Speaking for myself, I thinkwe did admire it. As an adult I find it almost impossible to creditthat my childhood self wondered whether I would have had thecourage to do my duty by marching under the train. But that, forwhat it is worth, is how I remember my feelings. The sermonobviously made a deep impression on me, for I have remembered itand passed it on to you.To be fair, I don't think the preacher thought he was serving upa religious message. It was probably more military than religious,in the spirit of Tennyson's 'Charge of the Light Brigade', which hemay well have quoted:'Forward the Light Brigade!'Was there a man dismayed?Not though the soldiers knewSome one had blundered:Theirs not to make reply,Theirs not to reason why,Theirs but to do and die:Into the valley of DeathRode the six hundred.(One of the earliest and scratchiest recordings of the human voiceever made is of Lord Tennyson himself reading this poem, and theimpression of hollow declaiming down a long, dark tunnel from thedepths of the past seems eerily appropriate.) From the highcommand's point of view it would be madness to allow eachindividual soldier discretion over whether or not to obey orders.Nations whose infantrymen act on their own initiative rather thanfollowing orders will tend to lose wars. From the nation's point ofview, this remains a good rule of thumb even if it sometimes leads
176 T H E Ci O D D E L U S I O Nto individual disasters. Soldiers are drilled to become as much likeautomata, or computers, as possible.Computers do what they are told. They slavishly obey anyinstructions given in their own programming language. This is howthey do useful things like word processing and spreadsheet calculations.But, as an inevitable by-product, they are equally robotic inobeying bad instructions. They have no way of telling whether aninstruction will have a good effect or a bad. They simply obey, assoldiers are supposed to. It is their unquestioning obedience thatmakes computers useful, and exactly the same thing makes theminescapably vulnerable to infection by software viruses and worms.A maliciously designed program that says, 'Copy me and send meto every address that you find on this hard disk' will simply beobeyed, and then obeyed again by the other computers down theline to which it is sent, in exponential expansion. It is difficult, perhapsimpossible, to design a computer which is usefully obedientand at the same time immune to infection.If I have done my softening-up work well, you will already havecompleted my argument about child brains and religion. Naturalselection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatevertheir parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience isvaluable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for amoth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility.The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mindviruses. For excellent reasons related to Darwinian survival, childbrains need to trust parents, and elders whom parents tell them totrust. An automatic consequence is that the truster has no way of distinguishinggood advice from bad. The child cannot know that 'Don'tpaddle in the crocodile-infested Limpopo' is good advice but 'Youmust sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, otherwise the rainswill fail' is at best a waste of time and goats. Both admonitions soundequally trustworthy. Both come from a respected source and aredelivered with a solemn earnestness that commands respect anddemands obedience. The same goes for propositions about the world,about the cosmos, about morality and about human nature. And,very likely, when the child grows up and has children of her own, shewill naturally pass the whole lot on to her own children - nonsenseas well as sense - using the same infectious gravitas of manner.
- 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 172 and 173: T H I', R O () T S OF R K I. I G I
- 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
- Page 222 and 223: R O t ' i l s O F M d l t A I I'I'V
176 T H E Ci O D D E L U S I O N
to individual disasters. Soldiers are drilled to become as much like
automata, or computers, as possible.
Computers do what they are told. They slavishly obey any
instructions given in their own programming language. This is how
they do useful things like word processing and spreadsheet calculations.
But, as an inevitable by-product, they are equally robotic in
obeying bad instructions. They have no way of telling whether an
instruction will have a good effect or a bad. They simply obey, as
soldiers are supposed to. It is their unquestioning obedience that
makes computers useful, and exactly the same thing makes them
inescapably vulnerable to infection by software viruses and worms.
A maliciously designed program that says, 'Copy me and send me
to every address that you find on this hard disk' will simply be
obeyed, and then obeyed again by the other computers down the
line to which it is sent, in exponential expansion. It is difficult, perhaps
impossible, to design a computer which is usefully obedient
and at the same time immune to infection.
If I have done my softening-up work well, you will already have
completed my argument about child brains and religion. Natural
selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever
their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is
valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a
moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility.
The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind
viruses. For excellent reasons related to Darwinian survival, child
brains need to trust parents, and elders whom parents tell them to
trust. An automatic consequence is that the truster has no way of distinguishing
good advice from bad. The child cannot know that 'Don't
paddle in the crocodile-infested Limpopo' is good advice but 'You
must sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, otherwise the rains
will fail' is at best a waste of time and goats. Both admonitions sound
equally trustworthy. Both come from a respected source and are
delivered with a solemn earnestness that commands respect and
demands obedience. The same goes for propositions about the world,
about the cosmos, about morality and about human nature. And,
very likely, when the child grows up and has children of her own, she
will naturally pass the whole lot on to her own children - nonsense
as well as sense - using the same infectious gravitas of manner.
Change language