March 9, 2006
METAPHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF (via Pepys):
The Belief Trap: The evolutionary explanation of religion gets stuck. (Judith Shulevitz, March 8, 2006, Slate)
Evolutionary theory, [Daniel Dennett ] says, can tell us why religion evolved and what it was meant to achieve, which means it can explain why the religious act the way they do. In an age of growing fanaticism, this seems a claim worth paying attention to. And Dennett seems the man to make good on it. A philosopher of mind—he has written acclaimed books on consciousness and evolutionary theory—Dennett knows how to argue about science and how to argue from within it. A militant atheist, he doesn't promise to keep an open mind about religion. But in theory, at least, his frankness adds value to his opinions. [...][I]n the end, Dennett gives up. When it comes to interpreting what people say about religion, he writes, "everybody is an outsider" (his italics), the natives and the anthropologists, the religious and the scientifically minded. Why? "Because religious avowals concern matters that are beyond observation, beyond meaningful test, so the only thing anybody can go on is religious behavior." He closes his chapter and moves on. He does not seem concerned that he has just admitted the impossibility of distinguishing religion from everything else. Nor does he worry that this admission undermines the ambition of his book, which is to explain the biological rationale for religion, not to propose a grand theory of culture.
Dennett is not the first writer to find himself going around in this particular circle.
Of course, the most interesting evolutionary question that Mr. Dennett could address is what his own religious belief could possibly have been meant to achieve since it's an obvious Darwinian dead-end in terms of survival of the species. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 9, 2006 7:18 AM
why religion evolved and what it was meant to achieve
In other words, Dennett's evolution is directed and teleological.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 9, 2006 12:43 PMDarwinism is.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 12:46 PMI don't get it, oj. Are you saying that specific religious beliefs evolved?
Posted by: Dave Kaiser at March 9, 2006 4:00 PMMr. Kaiser:
No, I'm saying that his own analysis needs to be applied to Darwinism as well.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 4:12 PMMy apologies, I just realized that you're Orrin Judd, the author of this blog. I am delighted to have the honor.
Mr. Judd,
Very funny to see Dennett get stuck in trying to analyze religion to death, but it was my understanding that Dennett was making a slightly different point, that the religious impulse as a whole (instead of a specific religious belief) was something that had evolved.
I was confused why you linked to the European demographics article. Surely there can be plenty of overlap between Christians and people who accept Darwin's theory. (Are they all atheists in Europe now?.) Not so sure about Muslims, as I've only been to France once when I was a little boy.
"No, I'm saying that his own analysis needs to be applied to Darwinism as well."
I thought he gave up on his own analysis
Posted by: Dave Kaiser at March 9, 2006 4:34 PMIs there any way to edit these posts when I make a typo?
Apologies.
Posted by: Dave Kaiser at March 9, 2006 4:35 PMNo, there can't be any overlkap between Darwinists and Jews/Muslims/Christians, though all believe in evolution.
European culture is secular and Darwinist and it's dying. Dennett therefore has to explain why evolving a belief in Darwinism disfavors survival.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 4:42 PMMr. Judd,
"Dennett therefore has to explain why evolving a belief in Darwinism disfavors survival."
So are you saying that DENNETT is saying that specific beliefs evolve? I thought he meant religious impulse as a whole.
Posted by: Dave Kaiser at March 9, 2006 4:46 PMMr. Kaiser:
All beliefs would have evolved, right? Including the belief that beliefs evolved?
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 4:55 PMHopeless. It's too damn dumb. Cultural and biological evolution are being as thoroughly confounded as they were in the bad old days of d'Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. It's as though people think that culture is innate.
Well, here we go again: Irreligion is not a Darwinian dead-end. It is a Spencerian dead end. We allow the irony, for Spencer himself was irreligious.
Religion is not genetic, it is cultural. It has positive survival value, so it has an impact on the biological survival of populations bearing it AS A CULTURAL TRAIT. Simply put, balanced, non-hypertrophic religion allows a greater degree of freedom and progress, because society may thus function with less stultifying repression. When Big Father is watching, you don't need Big Brother to do so.
For this reason, Religion surpasses irreligion as a cultural trait and populations bearing this trait surpass those without it.
Does this mean that the balanced form of religion practiced in the United States, and which sets us apart as a holy nation and a royal priesthood is "superior" to other ways of living?
Yes it does. What are you going to do about it, build an aircraft carrier?
Posted by: Lou Gots at March 9, 2006 5:38 PMLou:
Obviously. But Darwinists think Spenserism applies to biology as well as culture.
Posted by: oj at March 9, 2006 6:22 PMoj:
You do too, which is why you're constantly referencing "breeding" or "animal husbandry" to explain evolution.
The "Intelligent Designer" isn't selecting for failure, eh ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 10, 2006 6:38 AM
Michael:
Duh? Obviously Creation is teleological.
Darwinism maintains that it isn't as a doctrinal matter, though in practice all Darwinists think it is and the theory implicitly argues that it is.
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2006 7:25 AM