In an essay at the Web site of Skeptic magazine, David Sloan Wilson, author of Darwin's Cathedral, concludes that when it comes to a scientific understanding of religion, Dawkins is "just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion."
Wilson's critique of the science in Dawkins' God Delusion pulls no punches. It deserves a careful read. From the introduction:
In Darwin's Cathedral I attempted to contribute to the relatively new field of evolutionary religious studies. When Dawkins' The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues. Hence this critique of The God Delusion and the larger issues at stake.
From later in the essay:
Finally, I agree with Dawkins that religions are fair game for criticism in a pluralistic society and that the stigma associated with atheism needs to be removed. The problem with Dawkins' analysis, however, is that if he doesn't get the facts about religion right, his diagnosis of the problems and proffered solutions won't be right either. If the bump on the shark's nose is an organ, you won't get very far by thinking of it as a wart. That is why Dawkins' diatribe against religion, however well-intentioned, is so deeply misinformed.
PS: Stranger Fruit already has a discussion going on the essay.
- Log in to post comments
The criticism in this article is mainly centering on a disagreement of the author regarding Dawkins views on group selection and asking why Dawkins didn't address this point in The God Delusion. The way I read that book was that Dawkins was not writing a thorough scientific discourse about the social evolution and survival of religion but was instead concentrating on one particular question - is the God hypothesis true.
That question is not criticized by Wilson and yet that is the major point that the theological community have been getting their knickers in a twist about. When people call Dawkins an angry atheist or fundamentalist it is because he has questioned whether God exists and not because they want him to consider group selection a little more in his writings.
The reviewer mistakes The God Delusion for being a book dedicated entirely to group selection, which it isn't. This critique seems no more informative than one that says 'Dawkins fails to elaborate on measles evolution, as well as why crustaceans are so delicious, further, he does not fully address the "god is perfect so he must exist because if he didn't he wouldn't be perfect" argument and instead calls it silly, only dedicating a mere quarter chapter to this particular issue.
Dawkins book was about philosophy, belief, and the rationality of religion. While the evolutionary basis of religion may be interesting, it in no way effects the Dawkins conclusions.
Taylor,
Wilson's essay is not a book review. Note the title: Beyond Demonic Memes,
Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion. As the editor says in introducing it, "evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, has penned the following analysis of Dawkins' theory of religion, which he feels is wide of the mark based on the evidence."
I liked this bit:
If sciencists who are ardent about atheism applied their skills as scientists to understanding the phenomena of religion, they'd likely be far more effective in affecting change. I think Dawkins would like people to understand science better, part of what Wilson is saying it would help if Dawkins himself engaged in more science, less rhetoric.
Attachment is the root of all dissatisfaction. All religions are basically an attempt to deal with the fact the one day you are going to die. What ever other social/political/theological baggage has accumulated over the centuries is all just a footnote to the simple fact that religions basically say human life is eternal in some form. It gives people false hope and only strengthens our greatest attachment: to our own lives.
The reason people deny evolution and/or embrace religion is that the implication of evolution is that human beings are just like everything else: we die, rot and are gone forever, and most people just won't accept that simple, obvious fact.
(Yes, I am a Buddhist)
Oh, Nisbet. You fell for the Courtier's Reply yet again. I almost feel sorry for you.
Stogoe,
I appreciate the concern, and the cryptic reference to the Courtier's Reply, but I am holding up just fine.
The point that Wilson makes is that if you want to understand religion scientifically, you better pay attention to actual scientific research in the area, instead of playing the role of armchair theorist.
Moreover, as Trinifar aptly argues, complaints and attacks on religion will only go so far. (In fact, they backfire.) If you want to figure out how to change society, then it makes sense to explore the scientific basis for the persistence of religion, instead of attributing it to a "virus of the mind."
Far from a Courtier's Reply, Wilson's critique strikes at the heart of Dawkins' thesis.
As he writes:
Dawkins argued on behalf of adaptationism in his debates with Gould and would probably agree with everything I have said so far. For religion, however, he argues primarily on behalf of non-adaptation. As he sees it, people are attracted to religion the way that moths are attracted to flames. Perhaps religious impulses were adapted to the tiny social groups of our ancestral past, but not the mega-societies of the present. If current religious beliefs are adaptive at all, it is only for the beliefs themselves as cultural parasites on their human hosts, like the demons of old that were thought to possess people. That is why Dawkins calls God a delusion. The least likely possibility for Dawkins is the group-level adaptation hypothesis. Religions are emphatically not elaborate systems of beliefs and practices that define, motivate, coordinate and police groups of people for their own good...
...Dawkins fully accepts the concept of major transitions, but he pretends that it doesnt require a revision in his ideas about group selection. Most important, he doesnt pose the question that is most relevant to the study of religion: Is it possible that human genetic and cultural evolution represents the newest example of a major transition, converting human groups into the equivalent of bodies and beehives?...
...Time will tell where Dawkins sits on the bell curve of open-mindedness concerning group selection in general and religion in particular. At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion. It is time now for us to roll up our sleeves and get to work on understanding one of the most important and enigmatic aspects of the human condition.
The question of God existence does not affect the goodness or badness of religion whatsoever, whatever religion means wether religion can be considered as one category or as a set of categories, one for each religion or if religion embodies also materialistic religions formerly claimed to be based on Sciencie, like marxism, Nazism or Cultural Determinism. Maybe religion must embody everything that anyone has to believe without direct proof. In that sense, anyone that uses the argument of authority is a believer, included the people that believes what a supposed sicientist say. Aren´t believers the social scientis that accepted cultural determinismo few years ago? There was no proof!!! and ineed that theory of human nature was embraced by the offical scientific comunity. Aren´t they believers, yes, fanatic believers I must say. Who or what can assure that such attitudes can not be reproduced inside sciencie again and again? No question, religion and sciencie is deeply intermixed also in the scientific community, not only in the lay men. That is unavoidable because every man has moral inclinations that are above reason.
In the other side, godness or badness of a particular religion depends on its social effects. No relation with trutness or falseness whatsoever. The godness of a particular religion depends on how the core values and beliefs affect the economical and social development.
Seen from this point of view, I have to say that a religion that put stress in personal self improvement, belief on a moral purpose based on others well being, that enphasizes on respect of other lifes, that believes men are free to choose (no matter if this is true or not) is a much better way of thinking than an all-exceptic mentality, that is the way of thinking promoted by atheistic scientism in a way or other. excepticism taken alone is something insane even for science, not to mention for comunity life. because science is a pursuit that need a sane mix of excepticism and faith in the meaning of putsuit of truth. And that is something not attainable for a mentality eroded by a excess of excepticism.
We al believe in something! we are all religious!. We cant be other way!!!. So the best thing we can do is to embrace the most positive religion. It is faith sooner or later.
Bob,
If religion is merely a way to avoid the reality of death, how do you explain the following religions (none of which have an afterlife): Deism, Epicureanism, Falun Gong, certain strains of Judaism, Taoism, and some strains of Unitarian Universalism? Some Native American religions also lacked an afterlife. Other religions allow an afterlife for a few, but not for most.
I think this interpretation of religion is severely limited, relies far more on a particularly condescending view of religion and human beings than on evidence, and does not follow from evidence.
Wilson's critique of Dawkins' science is in service of a Wilson hypothesis (religion can be explained as an evolutionary adaptation) that is unproved, to put it mildly. Dawkins hasn't gathered the type of data Wilson has on religion because he doesn't share this hypothesis. (Note for example Wilson's careful examination of Jainism, whose strict practice sometimes involves fasting to death, which would tend to rule it out as adaptive behavior. Wilson explained [got around?] this by gathering data on the behavior of "lay" Jains from which he hypothesized a useful role for the more ascetic members.)
Whether it is a valid critique of Dawkins that he doesn't share Wilson's hypothesis and so hasn't done the type of data-gathering that Wilson has, must in my opinion await some greater support for Wilson's hypothesis than mere plausibility. I frankly am somewhat skeptical that a specific adaptive function for religion will be proved, as opposed to a more generalized human genetic predisposition toward social heirarchy and thus following group leaders, whether the group be defined as a tribe, a state, or a religion.
Dawkins replies: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1403,Richard-Dawkins-Replies-to-David…
Rationality is a very small part of our brain. We use it, but we over-estimate how good we are at it. Compare how difficult small puzzles in logic can be (like those "which cards must you turn over?" puzzles) with how quickly and easily we recognise faces, make complex movements, control our hormone levels, and so on.
One of the unique aspects of human brains is our drive to understand. But our thirst for understanding and explanations is much stronger than our skills of rationality. In early development, children are programmed to try to understand the rules of their social environment, and this understanding is not bound by rules of rationality. Religion is not really separable from these drives: to understand and to fit into complex societies. So trying to treat religion as a separable concept from an evolutionary point of view is fraught with difficulties.
These attempts to understand religion rationally often seem to ignore important aspects of hierarchical societies and the attractiveness of power. Being Chief Liar of a church not only entitles the holder to wear (and perhaps design!) his own clown suit, but also gives him immense authority, which the holder might not be able to attain by other means.