Evolution and Religion

Several books have been published lately taking an evolutionary look at religion. Dan Dennett and Richard Dawkins, each in their own way, have argued that religion merits scientific study. Their basic question seems to be the following. Human societies are characterised by religious beliefs and practices which often cost an awful lot in terms of energy (e.g., all those cathedrals that took several generations and lots of mortar, stone and lives to construct) and survival (think of the various religious wars, saints sacrificing themselves, etc.). What is it that motivates people to do these things? Both authors are atheists -- as am I, incidentally -- and are keen defenders of a naturalism that has its roots in evolutionary theory. Both authors favor a meme-selection theory of cultural change and consequently are looking for the gene that makes possible the meme of religion. So far so good, I would say. But both authors also take a dim view of religion. Dennett considers it a parasite that does more damage than good to mankind. Dawkins is not friendlier.

This attitude annoys me. Both Dennett and Dawkins have no interest in finding out what adherents see in religion. What is it that attracts otherwise intelligent people to religion? D & D argue quickly, much too quickly, that religion is irrational and stupid. While that may be true in the end, proper philosophical method requires that you first seek to understand the point of view of the opponent with an open mind as to what is attractive and plausible about it. D & D don't -- a missed opportunity.

Is evolution dangerous for religion? I am not sure, but I am sure about this: too much, far too much is attributed to evolution. Too much, far too much is labelled as 'evoution'. Perhaps I will give some examples of this in the coming days...