I have been reading/listening to some Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett lately. These two gentleman are promoting a concept that religion is an infectious idea (a meme, as they call it) that is fit for survival, and has therefore survived through the course of human history. As I was reading through I was wondering about something and thought some of you might like to tackle this idea (either for or against).
Here’s what I was thinking: If, through the process of natural selection, an idea can survive that is fit for propagation, then does that idea necessarily have to match up with reality?
Dennett says that religion is a fit idea that has survived because of its very “fit-ness.” He ascribes the continuance of religion as attributed to the process of natural selection. Throughout his discussion of religion (Breaking the Spell), he is basically claiming that God is false or unknowable (so false in practicality). However, natural selection has advanced and evolved this idea of God. So has the process of evolution given humanity a false, fit idea about God? If this is what Dawkins and Dennett are supporting (of course, not stated that way), then what else might be a false idea that has survived due to “fit-ness” through natural selection?
Thanks,
MJ
Some books related to this matter:
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as Natural Phenomenon
Alister McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine – a rebuttal of Dawkins’ book
When you think about it, death is a frightening thing. None of us can conclusively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what lies beyond the grave; it’s a one-way journey. Many religions put stock in books of prophecy or in the dead returning as ghosts to deliver messages, and it’s certainly possible that such events can occur – unfortunately, they’re not repeatable. If I’m a Christian, I’m praising the life of a ma n who lived two thousand years ago. I’m only hearing about him from ordinary men and women passing along his life story. I don’t have the opportunity to witness his resurrection firsthand. So all I’m able to judge is the merit of Christ’s ideas that are with us today (or the ideas of any other religion, for that matter).
And when you’re trying to answer the question of “what happens to us when we die?”, religion has the superior idea. I want to be able to live on after this life. I want to see my good deeds in this world rewarded in some way or another. When the alternative to an afterlife of some sort or another is nothing at all, it’s easy to see why people are much more receptive to the idea of life after death than the competition. I know I’d rather have a chance to live in eternal bliss or be reincarnated or something similar than to die forever.
As a scientist, I don’t see how we can ever prove if there’s a God through argument alone; while I know I find myself thinking at least once a day, “how could all of creation have come into reality by chance?”, I know that argument isn’t enough to prove that God does or does not exist. But at the end of the day, I don’t think it matters one way or another whether God exists. Organized religion does a lot of good in this world, and men and women have a responsibility to do the right thing and to live as good citizens of the world regardless of what their religious beliefs are. If I live a good life and do my best to help others, I’m living exactly the way I should – whether there is a God or not.
But at the end of the day,I don’t think it matters one way or another whether God exists.
When I first came to an understanding that there could be a God-being who created everything, including the vast universe, I did not have this same reaction. My reaction was awe; thinking about what type of being could actually create like this. Also, I had a deep sense of respect, due to the power this being must possess if the being is real.
Thanks,
MJ
I have always found theories regarding religion as a death-mastering concept as unpersuasive.
This is for two reasons:
the first one is the primarily. Religion (good religion at least) deals with life. What is the meaning of life?
Secondly, the thought of eternal life is regarded as a later development in religion and not as a part, typically, in the beginning of the development of religion.
Therefore: the theory that religion tries to rescue man from death is not true. Rather, religion tries to vitalise life. And claims to point to the meaning of life which is fellowship with God through Jesus.
/Christoffer
No, religion attempts to answer the question, what is the meaning of life. Each religion has its own answer, differing from the other religions.
As for your statement on eternal life being later in religion, every religion has a post mortem survival dogma, each differing from the other. Each respective religion deals with the question of man’s destiny after this life is through. It is not a matter of being later or earlier, but it is an ever present dogma for each religion.
There is only one rescue that I would challenge you to respond to christoffer, and that is a risen Jesus from the grave. There is the answer to all the questions toward meaning and purpose in life.
I don’t know if that is the sole purpose or point of religion, I know the Scriptures answer the question “What is the meaning or purpose of life” in the book of Ecclesiastes. So the other 65 books must pertain to something, mainly, I think, especially in the new testament, how to organize the church of Christ and how to achieve salvation
Richard Dawkins/John Lennox debate link:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1707,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-John-Lennox,Fixed-Point-Foundation-Richard-Dawkins-John-Lennox
Enjoy!
Roger
links broken
Curious to know what you CC bloggers think about the film Zeitgeist? If you haven’t seen it, I strongly, strongly encourage it. The intro is a bit long and artsy, but if you’ll just watch the first part I would love to know your thoughts on it. You can email me at botounami@gmail.com if that’s easier.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
I just need to talk to somebody.
Thank you,
Steven
HI MJ,
I think it would be difficult for Dawkins to reconcile that religion is a product of evolution and has survived so long because of its fit-ness,though at the same time its a totally flawed concept.
This problem is part of the bigger picture of the problem materialists have to face when trying to explain the source or reason for such things as morals,conscience,art,music etc.
Music and art have endured through evolution but its totally useless to our survival,so has things like art.
Being a materialist,Dawkins should not even believe that religion exists!
Materialism is the idea that everything is either made only of matter or is ultimately dependent upon matter for its existence and nature.
How would he explain how matter conjured itself to bring about a concept unrelated to its physical existence or nature.
The two best things I’ve read that really challenge this idea of “memes”. I think they are a real help to Christian apologetics:
“Moral, Believing Animals” by Christian Smith
and
“The Way of Ignorance” by Wendell Berry. In an essay by that name, Berry directly responds to Dawkins with razor-sharp wit.
Lydia,
Thanks for the articles! I will check these out. 🙂
MJ
Easy E: Music and art have endured through evolution but its totally useless to our survival
Agreed. Dennett’s explanation in New Orleans last year was that music and beauty (didn’t specify art) are good for reproductive purposes. They attract mates. This doesn’t seem plausible for a portion of the musical and artistic world…ie. Handel’s “Messiah.”
Being a materialist,Dawkins should not even believe that religion exists!
He explained that religious ideas, especially Christianity, are fit for survival because they are so well-conceived. But this does not address the need for religious ideas to evolve to enhance survival. Nor does it address any kind of evidence for the evolution of the concept of God to propogate the human species.
Materialism is the idea that everything is either made only of matter or is ultimately dependent upon matter for its existence and nature.
Good definition. 🙂
How would he explain how matter conjured itself to bring about a concept unrelated to its physical existence or nature.
Yes, that is basically my question as well.
Thanks, Easy E.
MJ