Predictably, it's completely botched. This time it's the not-so-"bright" evolutionary scientist Daniel Dennett, whose latest book is reviewed by George Johnson in Scientific American. Assuming the review is accurate, Dr Dennett subscribes to some lame-brained ideas about the origin of religion.
In the 21st century, cybernetic metaphors provide a rational grip on what prehistoric people had every reason to think of as ghosts, voices of the dead.
Why did they have "every reason" to think that? Where did the belief in voices of the dead come from?
And that may have been the beginning of religion.
I think not. Religion involves belief in, worship of, and obedience to what one believes to be divine, so a step is missing here. Did these hypothetical prehistoric people believe ghosts or voices of the dead were divine? And, if so, why?
If the deceased was a father or a village elder, it would have been natural to ask for advice–which way to go to find water or the best trails for a hunt. If the answers were not forthcoming, the guiding spirits could be summoned by a shaman.
Why would it have been "natural to ask [a dead person] for advice"? Why could the guiding spirits be "summoned by a shaman"? Notice, too, that we have now leaped from "ghosts" or "voices of the dead" to "guiding spirits"? The latter description may imply a belief that these spirits were divine, but how exactly did these hypothetical prehistoric people make that leap? Or is it just in Dr Dennett’s head?
Drop a bundle of sticks onto the ground or heat a clay pot until it cracks: the patterns form a map, a communication from the other side. These random walks the gods prescribed may indeed have formed a sensible strategy.
Now "gods" have mysteriously appeared. One begins to wonder if it’s Dr Dennett doing a "random walk".
The shamans would gain in stature, the rituals would become liturgies, and centuries later people would fill mosques, cathedrals and synagogues, not really knowing how they got there.
Is there any actual historical evidence that this "would" happen and then that "would" happen? And he claims to read the minds of all who attend "mosques, cathedrals and synagogues". Some might think that rather presumptuous. I attend a mere church, but I know how it got there–and it had nothing to do with any shamans (unless the Archbishop of Canterbury counts). I daresay most religious believers have some inkling as to the origins of their holy institutions, and likewise know of no shaman. I suggest that Dr Dennett should acquaint himself with some information on the histories of actual religions.
With speculations like these, scientists try to understand what for most of the world's population needs no explanation: why there is this powerful force called religion.
The key word here is "speculations". My question is: In view of the fact that there is no appeal to any known data or evidence, why would a thoughtful person take these speculations seriously?
It is possible, of course, that the world's faiths are triangulating in on the one true God. But if you forgo that leap, other possibilities arise: Does banding together in groups and acting out certain behaviors confer a reproductive advantage, spreading genes favorable to belief? Or are the seeds of religion more likely to be found among the memes–ideas so powerful that they leap from mind to mind?
That "triangulating" remark bears no relationship to any religion that I know of. Why would anyone "forgo that leap" to take Dr Dennett's series of unsubstantiated and ever-more-fanciful leaps that have no basis in any known facts? To avoid confronting the actual truth claims of religion? (Just asking.)
Dennett hopes that this book will be read not just by atheists and agnostics but by the religiously faithful–and that they will come to see the wisdom of analyzing their deepest beliefs scientifically, weeding out the harmful from the good. The spell he hopes to break, he suggests, is not religious belief itself but the conviction that its details are off-limits to scientific inquiry, taboo.
Scientific analysis? Scientific inquiry? Give me a break. What’s going on here is neither scientific nor analytical, and doesn't even seem to be much of an inquiry. Science involves gathering data and formulating and testing hypotheses. No testable hypotheses are presented, and the only data in view arise from Dr Dennett’s fertile mind. Does this really pass for science in the halls of academe these days?
Dennett speculates how a primitive belief in ghosts might have given rise to wind spirits and rain gods, wood nymphs and leprechauns. The world is a scary place. What else to blame for the unexpected than humanlike beings lurking behind the scenes?
As Roy Clouser has said about exactly this line of speculation, "that’s not even plausible". I would have thought that someone wanting to inquire into the origins and propagation of religion would want to consider actual historical, anthropological, and archaeological evidence. One might consider reading the holy books of major religions. One could even read or speak with historians, archaeologists, and scientists who are religious believers. (Speak with religious believers? Maybe that's asking a bit much.)
Based on this review of Dr Dennett’s book, being a sociobiologist these days requires little more than indulging your prejudices and letting your fancy flow. No doubt Dr Dennett likes to think of himself as a "skeptic". That must be another of those words whose meaning has completely changed recently. Anyone who accepts his whimsical speculations would seem rather credulous.
via Arts & Letters Daily.
I blogged other atheist scientists' takes on religion here and here.
Check out Foyle's Atheocracy Watch post.
Posts
