dkomo wrote:
> It's often said that belief in supernatural agents such as those found
> in the religions of the world is not a direct adaptation but a
> *side-effect* of the way our minds work.
It is often said that nothing is impossible, :-)
> But what exactly is a side-effect of evolution? Richard Dawkins in his
> new book _The God Delusion_ offers a good example of such a side-effect:
> the tendency of moths to fly in crazy patterns near a bright light
> source at night, such as candle flames, campfires and electric lights.
> The moth will often fly into the flame and immolate itself.
Have you missed a bit out? How does "side effect of the way our minds
work" = "side effect of evolution".
snip
> So what causes this idiotic moth behavior?
It surely isnt idiotic or intelligent?
> It isn't an evolutionary
> adaptation as it obviously doesn't improve the moth's fitness. Dawkins
> explains it in the section "Religion as a By-Product of Something Else"
> in Chapter 5 "The Roots of Religion".
>
> Dawkins speculates that moths use light sources at optical infinity at
> night (such as the moon or distant cities) to navigate:
>
> "The insect nervous system is adept at setting up a temporary rule of
> thumb of this kind: 'Steer a course such that the light rays hit your
> eye at an angle of 30 degrees.' Since insects have compound eyes (with
> straight tubes or light guides radiating out from the center of the eye
> like the spines of a hedgehog), this might amount in practice to
> smoething as simple as keeping the light in one particular tube or
> ommatidium."
>
> _The God Delusion_, p. 173
> Ordinarily such a navigation system serves the moth well. The system is
> quite accurate as long as the light source is at infinity, and they can
> use the same system with reversed sign to return home after a foray.
> The problem arises when the moth flies past a light source that is close
> by, with its light rays diverging like the spokes of a wheel. As the
> moth attempts to keep a angle of 30 degrees to the light, it will have
> to keep turning its fly path, producing a spiral which steers it into
> the flame or electric light.
that might well be true, it sounds plausible.
> Now Dawkins draws the analogy between religion and the moth:
>
> "Now, apply the by-product lesson to religious behavior in humans. We
> observe large numbers of people -- in many areas it amounts to 100
> percent -- who hold beliefs that flatly contradict demonstrable
> scientific facts as well as rival religions followed by others.
Question. Where has this been observed? I'm not aware of anywhere where
that can be observed. Im not aware that any large group of persons
wherer they all share identical religious beliefs even inside religious
buildings.
The cast majority of religious folk dont hold views that flatly
contradict demonstrated science. If it is demonstrable but hasnt been
then their view is ill informed rather than delusional or contrary.
That religions contradict each other is important why? Because they
cant all be right? There are many contradictory scientific ideas
(closed universe/open universe) are those who hold one view point
delusional?
> People
> not only hold these beliefs with passionate certitude, but devote time
> and resources to costly activities that flow from holding them.
True of many things, not just religion.
> They
> die for them, they kill for them. We marvel at this, just as we
> marveled at the 'self-immolation behavior' of the moths.
Some people kill for religion/gain/money/standing/approval of
others/sexual gratification. The vast majority of religious people do
not kill for their religious views, nor do they die for them.
> Baffled, we ask why.
Well people die for their beliefs mostly because other people want to
kill them because of their beliefs. This is true in politics, religion,
racial terms etc.
That people will die rather than sacrifice their core values or lose
face or whatever isnt baffling at all imho. Why does it baffle Dawkins?
Doesnt he understand pride? malice? self worth?
> But my point is that we may be asking the wrong question.
Id stick with that one til you work it our Richard ;-)
> The
> religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an
> underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is or
> once was, useful. On this view, the propensity that was naturally
> selected in our ancestors was not religion per se; it had some other
> benefit, and it only incidentally manifests itself as religious behavior."
>
> _The God Delusion_, p. 173-174
It may be all sorts of things. It might be that there is something in
the water.
Dawkins argues that moths do things that are bad for them and this may
be because they evolved a needed skill (navigation) but electric lights
etc cause the reaction of self harming behaviour because thay are
closer than the natural lights and thus cause the moth to mis navigate
and to harm itself. Its feasible, but might not be so.
He then likens that to religious behaviour and claims that there is
some behaviour that evolved as a a benefit to humans but that religion
is the short circuited bit ( ie the bit that causes people to harm
themselves like the moth does).
Sorry but is that meant to be a sensible argument? He doesnt identify
the good that this the bad side effect of. He hasnt shown that religion
harms the person concerned (indeed in certain environments it has some
serious biological advantages LDS polygamy etc).
Dawkins convinces only the already convinced with such feeble
arguments. He would imho be right at home in a looney fundamnetalist
setting since he never lets facts or the truth get in the way of his
poor argument.
Whilst I am not a young earth creationist or an intelligent design
follower I have to say that Dawkins has somehow turned science in to a
religion. A poor state of affairs indeed.
If we must all accept whatever anyone else claims is a demonstrable
fact or be labelled as delusional then we are in a real mess. What
shall we do when scientists get it wrong? Shall we change our minds
about who is delusional and attack some toehr group when cold fusion is
shown to be a hoax? Some claimed it was a demonstrated fact!
The need to be (intellectually) right and to attack and persecute those
that we disagree with may well be a very dangerous side effect of
something good that we evolved. It appears that Dawkins is suffering
from the very thing that he introduces as possible in those he derides.
Phil
