richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
T H E R O O T S OF R I: I. I (i I O N 177On this model we should expect that, in different geographicalregions, different arbitrary beliefs, none of which have any factualbasis, will be handed down, to be believed with the same convictionas useful pieces of traditional wisdom such as the belief that manureis good for the crops. We should also expect that superstitions andother non-factual beliefs will locally evolve - change over generations- either by random drift or by some sort of analogue ofDarwinian selection, eventually showing a pattern of significantdivergence from common ancestry. Languages drift apart from acommon progenitor given sufficient time in geographical separation(I shall return to this point in a moment). The same seems to be trueof baseless and arbitrary beliefs and injunctions, handed downthe generations - beliefs that were perhaps given a fair wind by theuseful programmability of the child brain.Religious leaders are well aware of the vulnerability of the childbrain, and the importance of getting the indoctrination in early. TheJesuit boast, 'Give me the child for his first seven years, and I'll giveyou the man,' is no less accurate (or sinister) for being hackneyed.In more recent times, James Dobson, founder of today's infamous'Focus on the Family' movement,* is equally acquainted with theprinciple: 'Those who control what young people are taught, andwhat they experience - what they see, hear, think, and believe - willdetermine the future course for the nation.' 79But remember, my specific suggestion about the useful gullibilityof the child mind is only an example of the kind of thing that mightbe the analogue of moths navigating by the moon or the stars. Theethologist Robert Hinde, in Why Gods Persist, and the anthropologistsPascal Boyer, in Religion Explained, and Scott Atran, inIn Gods We Trust, have independently promoted the general ideaof religion as a by-product of normal psychological dispositions -many by-products, I should say, for the anthropologists especiallyare concerned to emphasize the diversity of the world's religions aswell as what they have in common. The findings of anthropologistsseem weird to us only because they are unfamiliar. All religiousbeliefs seem weird to those not brought up in them. Boyer didresearch on the Fang people of Cameroon, who believe . . .* I was amused when I saw 'Focus on your own damn family' on a car bumpersticker in Colorado, but it now seems to me less funny. Maybe some children needto be protected from indoctrination by their own parents (see Chapter 9).
178 T H E COD D E L V S I () N. . . that witches have an extra internal animal-like organthat flies away at night and ruins other people's crops orpoisons their blood. It is also said that these witches sometimesassemble for huge banquets, where they devourtheir victims and plan future attacks. Many will tell youthat a friend of a friend actually saw witches flying overthe village at night, sitting on a banana leaf and throwingmagical darts at various unsuspecting victims.Boyer continues with a personal anecdote:I was mentioning these and other exotica over dinner in aCambridge college when one of our guests, a prominentCambridge theologian, turned to me and said: 'That iswhat makes anthropology so fascinating and so difficulttoo. You have to explain how people can believe suchnonsense.'' Which left me dumbfounded. The conversationhad moved on before I could find a pertinent response -to do with kettles and pots.Assuming that the Cambridge theologian was a mainstreamChristian, he probably believed some combination of the following:• In the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virginmother with no biological father being involved.• The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus,who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazaruspromptly came back to life.• The fatherless man himself came alive after being dead andburied three days.• Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to the top of a hilland then disappeared bodily into the sky.• If you murmur thoughts privately in your head, the fatherlessman, and his 'father' (who is also himself) will hear yourthoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able tohear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.
- 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 174 and 175: THL R O O T S OF R E L I G I O N 17
- 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
- Page 224 and 225: K O O I S O! M O R A I . I H : «
T H E R O O T S OF R I: I. I (i I O N 177
On this model we should expect that, in different geographical
regions, different arbitrary beliefs, none of which have any factual
basis, will be handed down, to be believed with the same conviction
as useful pieces of traditional wisdom such as the belief that manure
is good for the crops. We should also expect that superstitions and
other non-factual beliefs will locally evolve - change over generations
- either by random drift or by some sort of analogue of
Darwinian selection, eventually showing a pattern of significant
divergence from common ancestry. Languages drift apart from a
common progenitor given sufficient time in geographical separation
(I shall return to this point in a moment). The same seems to be true
of baseless and arbitrary beliefs and injunctions, handed down
the generations - beliefs that were perhaps given a fair wind by the
useful programmability of the child brain.
Religious leaders are well aware of the vulnerability of the child
brain, and the importance of getting the indoctrination in early. The
Jesuit boast, 'Give me the child for his first seven years, and I'll give
you the man,' is no less accurate (or sinister) for being hackneyed.
In more recent times, James Dobson, founder of today's infamous
'Focus on the Family' movement,* is equally acquainted with the
principle: 'Those who control what young people are taught, and
what they experience - what they see, hear, think, and believe - will
determine the future course for the nation.' 79
But remember, my specific suggestion about the useful gullibility
of the child mind is only an example of the kind of thing that might
be the analogue of moths navigating by the moon or the stars. The
ethologist Robert Hinde, in Why Gods Persist, and the anthropologists
Pascal Boyer, in Religion Explained, and Scott Atran, in
In Gods We Trust, have independently promoted the general idea
of religion as a by-product of normal psychological dispositions -
many by-products, I should say, for the anthropologists especially
are concerned to emphasize the diversity of the world's religions as
well as what they have in common. The findings of anthropologists
seem weird to us only because they are unfamiliar. All religious
beliefs seem weird to those not brought up in them. Boyer did
research on the Fang people of Cameroon, who believe . . .
* I was amused when I saw 'Focus on your own damn family' on a car bumper
sticker in Colorado, but it now seems to me less funny. Maybe some children need
to be protected from indoctrination by their own parents (see Chapter 9).
Change language