richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
THE ROOTS OF RELIGION 181psychologist Deborah Keleman tells us in her article 'Are children"intuitive theists"?' 81 Clouds are 'for raining'. Pointy rocks are 'sothat animals could scratch on them when they get itchy'. Theassignment of purpose to everything is called teleology. Childrenare native teleologists, and many never grow out of it.Native dualism and native teleology predispose us, given theright conditions, to religion, just as my moths' light-compassreaction predisposed them to inadvertent 'suicide'. Our innatedualism prepares us to believe in a 'soul' which inhabits the bodyrather than being integrally part of the body. Such a disembodiedspirit can easily be imagined to move on somewhere else after thedeath of the body. We can also easily imagine the existence of adeity as pure spirit, not an emergent property of complex matterbut existing independently of matter. Even more obviously, childishteleology sets us up for religion. If everything has a purpose, whosepurpose is it? God's, of course.But what is the counterpart of the usefulness of the moths' lightcompass? Why might natural selection have favoured dualism andteleology in the brains of our ancestors and their children? So far,my account of the 'innate dualists' theory has simply posited thathumans are natural born dualists and teleologists. But what wouldthe Darwinian advantage be? Predicting the behaviour of entities inour world is important for our survival, and we would expectnatural selection to have shaped our brains to do it efficiently andfast. Might dualism and teleology serve us in this capacity? We mayunderstand this hypothesis better in the light of what thephilosopher Daniel Dennett has called the intentional stance.Dennett has offered a helpful three-way classification of the'stances' that we adopt in trying to understand and hence predictthe behaviour of entities such as animals, machines or each other. 82They are the physical stance, the design stance and the intentionalstance. The physical stance always works in principle, becauseeverything ultimately obeys the laws of physics. But working thingsout using the physical stance can be very slow. By the time we havesat down to calculate all the interactions of a complicated object'smoving parts, our prediction of its behaviour will probably be toolate. For an object that really is designed, like a washing machineor a crossbow, the design stance is an economical short cut. We can
182 T H \l G O D D F I. U S 1 O Nguess how the object will behave by going over the head of physicsand appealing directly to design. As Dennett says,Almost anyone can predict when an alarm clock willsound on the basis of the most casual inspection of itsexterior. One does not know or care to know whether it isspring wound, battery driven, sunlight powered, made ofbrass wheels and jewel bearings or silicon chips - one justassumes that it is designed so that the alarm will soundwhen it is set to sound.Living things are not designed, but Darwinian natural selectionlicenses a version of the design stance for them. We get a short cutto understanding the heart if we assume that it is 'designed' topump blood. Karl von Frisch was led to investigate colour vision inbees (in the face of orthodox opinion that they were colour-blind)because he assumed that the bright colours of flowers were'designed' to attract them. The quotation marks are designed toscare off mendacious creationists who might otherwise claim thegreat Austrian zoologist as one of their own. Needless to say, hewas perfectly capable of translating the design stance into properDarwinian terms.The intentional stance is another short cut, and it goes onebetter than the design stance. An entity is assumed not merely to bedesigned for a purpose but to be, or contain, an agent withintentions that guide its actions. When you see a tiger, you hadbetter not delay your prediction of its probable behaviour. Nevermind the physics of its molecules, and never mind the design of itslimbs, claws and teeth. That cat intends to eat you, and it willdeploy its limbs, claws and teeth in flexible and resourceful ways tocarry out its intention. The quickest way to second-guess itsbehaviour is to forget physics and physiology and cut to theintentional chase. Note that, just as the design stance works evenfor things that were not actually designed as well as things thatwere, so the intentional stance works for things that don't havedeliberate conscious intentions as well as things that do.It seems to me entirely plausible that the intentional stance hassurvival value as a brain mechanism that speeds up decision-
- 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 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 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 : «
- Page 226 and 227: K O O I S O I V! (> R A 1 1 T Y : W
- Page 228 and 229: 1K O O I \ < ) i VI O K A I . i l >
THE ROOTS OF RELIGION 181
psychologist Deborah Keleman tells us in her article 'Are children
"intuitive theists"?' 81 Clouds are 'for raining'. Pointy rocks are 'so
that animals could scratch on them when they get itchy'. The
assignment of purpose to everything is called teleology. Children
are native teleologists, and many never grow out of it.
Native dualism and native teleology predispose us, given the
right conditions, to religion, just as my moths' light-compass
reaction predisposed them to inadvertent 'suicide'. Our innate
dualism prepares us to believe in a 'soul' which inhabits the body
rather than being integrally part of the body. Such a disembodied
spirit can easily be imagined to move on somewhere else after the
death of the body. We can also easily imagine the existence of a
deity as pure spirit, not an emergent property of complex matter
but existing independently of matter. Even more obviously, childish
teleology sets us up for religion. If everything has a purpose, whose
purpose is it? God's, of course.
But what is the counterpart of the usefulness of the moths' light
compass? Why might natural selection have favoured dualism and
teleology in the brains of our ancestors and their children? So far,
my account of the 'innate dualists' theory has simply posited that
humans are natural born dualists and teleologists. But what would
the Darwinian advantage be? Predicting the behaviour of entities in
our world is important for our survival, and we would expect
natural selection to have shaped our brains to do it efficiently and
fast. Might dualism and teleology serve us in this capacity? We may
understand this hypothesis better in the light of what the
philosopher Daniel Dennett has called the intentional stance.
Dennett has offered a helpful three-way classification of the
'stances' that we adopt in trying to understand and hence predict
the behaviour of entities such as animals, machines or each other. 82
They are the physical stance, the design stance and the intentional
stance. The physical stance always works in principle, because
everything ultimately obeys the laws of physics. But working things
out using the physical stance can be very slow. By the time we have
sat down to calculate all the interactions of a complicated object's
moving parts, our prediction of its behaviour will probably be too
late. For an object that really is designed, like a washing machine
or a crossbow, the design stance is an economical short cut. We can