Also
And besides (she went on), what’s really irrational is to think that sentiment is irrational. It’s irrational because unrealistic, unobservant, extraterrestrial. It’s not irrational to have feelings of attachment or repugnance to things or places or people because of certain associations and memories, even if there is no possibility of material physical benefit or harm. It’s bizarrely literal-minded to think it is. The wedding ring example for instance: if it made any sense to think it’s irrational to want to keep the same one in preference to a duplicate, then nobody would ever want a wedding ring at all; the custom would never have gotten started. If it made sense to think that, then wedding rings wouldn’t mean anything, they’d just be bits of detritus like bottle caps and buttons and those plastic loops that hold sixpacks together, and nobody would bother with them. But people do bother with them, the custom did get started, wedding rings get inherited or buried with their owners, not thrown out with the tub the cottage cheese came in. Why? Because they stand for something. And valuing things because they stand for something is a common human habit, and not necessarily irrational (although in the case of flags, I have to say, it can go off the deep end). If signs and symbols are irrational then it’s irrational to value anything that’s not 100% utilitarian and necessary for survival; it’s irrational to look at sunsets, to listen to music, to read poetry, to tell jokes, to fly kites. But it’s not irrational to do any of those things. They’re extra, but extra is good. It’s irrational to think it isn’t. It’s also irrational to confuse feelings to which rationality is simply irrelevant with ones which are irrational.
And besides again, Hood has something else wrong. Even if humans tend to be irrational (which I wouldn’t dream of denying) it doesn’t follow that it’s hopeless or pointless to keep offering rational arguments about public questions, to keep saying what’s wrong with creationism (even though the Guardian said Hood said the ‘battle by scientists against “irrational” beliefs such as creationism is ultimately futile’), to keep pointing out evidence that creationism is wrong, and the like. To think it is is again unobservant and extraterrestrial. It’s not as if no one ever listens to anyone or learns anything. It’s not as if all arguments fall on deaf ears, as if all evidence gets ignored. People aren’t interchangeable units, after all (they’re like wedding rings that way); some of them listen better than others, and most of them listen better at one time than at another. Religion and superstition ebb and flow, and they vary greatly with geography, history, and culture, as do reason and science and thinking clearly. So it’s not futile to go on arguing against irrational beliefs, and doing so does not entail thinking everyone ought to abandon sentiment. So there.
Quote: “(even though the Guardian said Hood said the ‘battle by scientists against “irrational” beliefs such as creationism is ultimately futile’)”
If religious belief was innate (in some sense) there would not be large differences among countries (and ethnic groups) in the percentage of believers versus non-believers. The fact that there ARE such differences implies that religious belief is a behaviour which is modifiable.
The battle is far from futile.
Mr. McGuinness is correct, and Hood is obviously an idiot.
Why?
Because there are planty of other irrational beliefs which were or are religious, which are not believed any more, or are only believed by the uneducated, with no access to proper education and information.
Here are a few:
The Earth is flat.
Light comes from people’s eyes.
The opposite of Newton’s First law (Aristotelean physics).
Women are inferior to men, and subject to their orders.
etc …..
G. Tingey – how are belief systems such as Aristotelean physics, or the Greek idea that things “rush to their own kind” rather than are subject to gravitation, irrational – let alone religious? Wrong, to be sure – but nonetheless perfectly respectable attempts to make sense of the world.
I agree that religion is not innate. In fact, I think theism as such is rooted in the same _rational_ sense-making, pattern-seeking faculty that we have and that we use for scientific inquiry and poetry as well. Faith on the other hand would be (by definition) irrational, as would be clinging to beliefs like creationism in the face of ovewhelming evidence.
Interesting tidbit related to Keith’s remark: the Piraha tribe of the Amazon appears to do quite well without any creation stories or mythologies of any kind. Downside of which is that they seem to do without any imaginative discourse of any kind: if I understand it, they literally _see_ forest spirits and the like. This brings to mind Julian Jaynes’ hypothesis about consciousness, religion and the “bicameral mind”.
Human beings are hardwired for warfare and murder as well, but nobody ever says that the fight against those is futile.
Well actually some people do say that – but the more sensible people tell them why they’re wrong. Janet Radcliffe Richards for instance, in Human Nature After Darwin, and the much-maligned Dawkins himself in many places. Evolution is one thing and morality is another. Evolution is in fact morally loathsome, and claims that it is ‘futile’ to resist it should always be regarded with deep suspicion.
Dawkins seems to have a bit of a reputation as this hard-core genetic determinist/social Darwinist. Which is totally undeserved. I believe he defines human cultural history at one point as a constant struggle to overcome our ‘selfish genes’.
I know, I know. He keeps correcting that, over and over again, but it just goes on getting endlessly recycled. Truth putting boots on again.
He’s said, explicitly and somewhat heatedly, that in science he’s a passionate evolutionist and in morality and politics he’s a passionate anti-evolutionist. Evolution is morally hateful (which is one reason people like me find a deity [except a cruel one] very hard to believe in); Darwin said that, Huxley said that; it’s inescapable.
Mind you, Dawkins-the-liberal was involved in that awful Guardian “tell a stupid American to vote for Kerry” campaign, and I don’t quite forgive him for that. But his anti-SocialDarwinist credentials are not in doubt.
I don’t think my (obvious) acceptance of evolution affects my opinion about a deity a lot. I don’t believe that eternal life/afterlife or for that matter a static, unevolving universe are possible anyway, and would reject theisms based on that. I don’t think a (possible) God has any control over the future or indeed whether or not hideous creatures such as the Guinea worm can appear. But that’s a notoriously difficult topic (which has kept quite a few theology departments afloat).
I’ve always been bothered by Dawkins’ assertion that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I think it’s overestimating the power of the argument from design somehow. Lucretius had no problem being both an atheist and a forerunner, somewhat, of evolutionary thought.