Dennett: An Evolutionary Account of Religion

           

           A meme is an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.  Dennett claims that memes are a very critical part of cultural development and have been instrumental in the evolution of religion.  Religion is cultural and social.  This is how religion came to be as we know it today.  Someone told someone who told someone about a god or gods and that was passed on to us today.  We have divination and rituals that make up some memes in religion.  Divination is seeking knowledge of the unknown through supernatural ways.  Divination allows for the religious to give a reason to why they did or did not do something.  It gives more reason to the unknown that we cannot explain.  But Dennett thinks that we must owe something in regards to our religion.  Due to evolution there must be some kind of give and take. 

            Another example of a meme that Dennett uses is the one where a person is trying to decide what is coming towards them.  Is it a man?  Is it an animal?  Or is it a tree walking?  Because the event is frightening and puzzling the person goes with the obvious answer that it must be a tree walking.  This seems to be something that eases the person’s mind which would explain an evolutionary reasoning as to why folk religions arose.  Evolution tells us that we need to feel protected much like what religion does.  Religion makes us feel protected in the sense that we have a reason to do good, as Dennett talks about.  Dennett uses this folk religion meme to explain that perhaps religion was based on something that was never true, such as a walking tree.  But do we not have reason to believe that Jesus was here on earth and is God is flesh form?    

            Rituals are memes because they have been passed down through the ages.  Participating and thinking of new rituals help spread religion which makes us good stewards of religion.  We must be good stewards of religion in order for the religion to keep going and stay relevant to the world today.  This leads to what the costs and benefits are in religion.  It seems the cost in religion could be the human time and energy element and the benefit is to get to heaven or perhaps have a personal fulfillment in one’s own life.  These rituals must mean something to people if they have stayed with mankind over the years.  One can just go through the motions but it seems there is something more along with it.  This goes along with Dennett’s belief in belief understanding of religion.  Sacrificing an animal to get rain is more of a real religion to Dennett because you can easily see the give and take.  But in regards to more organized religion, such as Catholicism, the mystery seems to be too much and not a good enough reason of explanation.    

What is really at stake for religion?

Why do we really need a reason for believing what we believe, especially if it has been handed down for generations?

Are Shamans in touch more with the “real world’ and religion in general more so than other organized religious groups?

 

           

            

The Will to Believe by William James

The Joker's Social Experiment

“The Will to Believe” can be looked at as a response to Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief”. Clifford, as we have previously read, states that we should not believe anything that lacks sufficient evidence, whereas James suggests that our reasoning uses other considerations apart from what the evidence may point to, and if our goal is to have true beliefs then we must sometimes take the risk of believing without strong evidence.

                James says that believing is not something that always comes from a rational thought process, and it would be nearly impossible to make someone believe something that they already know is not true. This idea also disregards Pascal’s notion of “deciding” to believe something simply because it offers a positive outcome. Pure logic does not dictate belief. There is a genuine option that cannot be decided by intellectual grounds alone; passionate and emotional parts need to be present as well.

                Many people will argue that it is better to make a decision based on evidence. James agrees with this to a certain extent, however, there are infinite instances where there is simply not enough time to judge based on proof and evidence in order to make a decision.

In the scene from The Dark Knight, the people had to make an extremely difficult moral decision. Some would argue that the rational thing to do would be to destroy the other ferry in order to save their own lives. The civilians could, perhaps, take peace in the fact that the lives they were destroying were that of prisoners, not “good” people like themselves; just as the woman said, “Those men had their chance.”  In a logical and instinctual way of thinking, one would want to save their own life rather than be killed. However, logic, instinct, and reason are not the only variables present and cannot be used to come to a conclusion. This is a judgment based off of emotion and passion as well.  In the end both boats made a morally conscious decision without using sound logic or proof alone.  They had to put their trust in the people they did not know to do the same.

James discusses that in society it is crucial that people cooperate and that it is useful, and sometimes essential, that people trust each other when there is not proof or evidence that people are trustworthy. There are times where one must act without evidence or proof. We see that clearly in The Joker’s “Social Experiment”.

Religion, just like the decision in the scene from The Dark Knight, is a live, forced, and momentous option.  Either option is distinctly relatable to you, you must choose one for remaining idle is not an option, and the final outcome will have a large effect on you.  In religion even choosing not to believe or not to act is making a decision, for you will not gain what believers do if religion is, in fact, true; just like in the scene, not acting had consequences as well. So whether you chose to believe, not to believe, or remain undecided, you make a choice in choosing your fate and your peril.

What would you have done on the ferry?

How can we trust others without knowing that they are trustworthy?

Is believing without evidence responsible?

Is believing a choice? 

Pascal's Wager

According to Blaise Pascal, believing that God exists or does not exist is a wager one must make.  God is or He is not.  There is no option but to wager with your life to believe in God or not to believe.  Our body is meant to reason because we cannot fully comprehend the infinite because we are finite.  Therefore, we cannot fully comprehend God who is infinite.  Our nature leads us to reason, but God’s nature is something we cannot fully know.  We do know that the infinite exists but we cannot comprehend it because we have limits that the infinite does not have.  We know God is infinite because He has no affinity to us.  We do not know what He is or if He is.  Pascal says it is in lacking proof that Christians make sense.  Therefore we must choose: does God exist or does He not exist?

            The wager Pascal describes is best looked at in this format.

God exists                   God does not exist

Belief              infinite gain                 finite loss

Skeptic            infinite loss                  finite gain

If you choose to believe that God exists, you will infinitely gain.  If you choose to believe that God does not exist, then you finitely lose.  If you chose to be a skeptic, and God does exist you will infinitely lose.  If you chose to be the skeptic and God does not exist you finitely gain.  However you wager, there will be losses and gains.  But which gain or loss is greater to you?  Gaining infinity in Heaven and losing our finite lives on earth or losing infinity in Heaven and gaining more to our finite life?

            We either believe in the possibility of an infinite life, although we cannot be completely sure it exists, or we believe there is nothing more but our finite life on earth.  Pascal writes that “you have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness,” in regards to this wager.  There is the chance to gain infinitely if you chose so. 

            Believing in God means you can gain an infinite life; whereas if you wager towards not believing in God you will gain only finitely.  Pascal believes that believing that God does exists gives you two wins.  You will have something to live for on earth and some place to go after; therefore you receive two wins whether or not God really does even exist once we are dead.  However, if one chooses not to believe in God and He does exist you cannot gain anything and lose it all.  

             Pascal's wager is the option we must make in life: either we believe or we do not believe.

            We are already here so why not wager and pick the best option for the best life?  Why not believe in God if it can make your life fuller and possibly end in an infinite life?     

Swinburne vs Hume---What is a Miracle?

                              some of us see miracles as unseen. 

            to some, waking up in the morning is a miracle. 
                         A miracle is in the eye of the beholder.

Swinburne and Hume 

Interpretations of Miracles

According to Webster’s Dictionary, a miracle is something extraordinary or surprising. A miracle is also defined as a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific law and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency. Although there is nothing specifying that there must be evidence and it must be a one-time occurrence, Hume and Swinburne have their own requirements about what it takes to be considered a miracle. They both require evidence, but Swinburne gives evidence the time of day, while Hume really believes there is nothing that could persuade him to believe anything is out of the law of nature. 

Hume believed miracles to be a violation of the law of nature. “Miracles” to Hume are something that happens that breaks the laws of nature. Hume states the occurrence of miracles is so rare that it’s irrational and illogical to believe they occur at all because evidence collected shows the laws of nature cannot be broken. Hume believes miracles happen (if they do at all) to uneducated, ignorant, and barbarous people, and are false because they fail to prove the religions they come from are in fact true.

Hume’s argument on how miracles happen to uneducated people is a confusing argument because he never says what is required in order to be an “educated” person. Even if he believes miracles happen only to uneducated people, why can’t they happen to educated people, who know the laws of nature? Hume’s evidence to support miracles is to have memories of the experience, people must provide testimony about the experience, physical traces of the event, and understanding modern science and what is thought physically impossible or most improbable. Hume believes it is only a miracle if it has never been observed in any age or country. Hume’s main conclusion is that a miracle does not exist unless it has evidence that shows the laws of nature were broken.

            Swinburne and Hume both argue that natural laws are based on people’s experiences of observing the world. He suggests a miracle is an occurrence of a non-repeatable counter instance to a law of nature. Swinburne supports the idea of God performing miracles. So, if something happens more than once, he asks, do we have evidence to believe it is a law of nature? Swinburne asks what evidence would be needed in order for someone to believe you have had a miracle. He challenges Hume’s idea because Hume believes that you can only have a miracle if you can prove it even occurred. Because if you try to say you have evidence, but it has happened multiple times in the past, Hume will not become persuaded to believe it is in fact, a miracle. Swinburne says that after the evidence is identified, you have to assess it and establish a conclusion and use factors in discussion about interpreting events in the past. He believes you can either accept as many sources of evidence as possible, or find evidence that shows to be consistent, and having empirical reliability it should not be rejected if relevant without good reason.

          Swinburne brings up the principle of credulity which states that if it seems to one person that x is present, then x is probably present. It is reasonable to believe that the world is probably as we experience it to be, unless we have some specific reason to question a religious experience. If we do, then we ought to accept that it is evidence for the existence of God. Swinburne’s main conclusion is “that there are no logical difficulties in supposing that there could be strong historical evidence for the occurrence of miracles”.    

Crohn's Disease- Miracle or Coincidence? 
Do you believe it is a  miracle or coincidence that she became healed? 

*If a miracle were to happen to you, do you think you could have any evidence to explain it? And if not, would you still claim it as a miracle?

*Do you believe the word miracle is used loosely in today’s society? Seeing that people believe waking up in the morning is considered a miracle but happens every day.

*Have any of you heard of any miracles, or had any personal occurrences?

A Summary of Clifford’s Ethics

A boat owner sent out a ship knowing that it possibly had major structural damage. This ship owner convinced himself that the ship was sea worthy due to it not ever failing before. But he had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in a patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. Even though in the end he was positive about his ship’s ability, he intentionally worked himself into this frame of mind willingly. As a result of his action, he must be held responsible for it. When an action is done it is absolute and unrevisable. Right or wrong forever. The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his beliefs, not just the content of it. Meaning if in the beginning his actions and thoughts were unjust and these thoughts were ignored then all thoughts from thereafter are also so.

In another case Clifford presents a scenario in which a community of people is individually attacked in an attempt to destroy their community. This was a religious community which was misunderstood, and individuals were singled out to attack in an attempt to destroy the religion. However the information the action was based on was unjust and the individuals were proven to be innocent. The information the investigators gathered was easily accessible. Even though the accusers believed what they were doing was just, they had no right to follow with their actions, seeing as they had not done their homework, as many of you who skipped this reading. Their sincere conviction was obtained by prejudicial beliefs, not beliefs that take time to research and develop. Again whether they were right or wrong they entered into a situation without the proper development of their beliefs.

One cannot hold a strong argument on one side of a question without exploring and researching the opposing or conflicting views or thoughts. Our thoughts are the byproduct of our lives, nature vs. nurture essentially. To hold a belief without the proper nourishment or to develop a belief while suppressing thought and ideas is ethically unmoral. However it is natural to be so, the saying ignorance is bliss comes to mind. Naturally power is the most satisfying feeling, to hold a belief in which we believe to be correct and true is powerful. However we are called to investigate these beliefs further and complete a fullness of knowledge to be ethically correct. To not investigate and try to further out knowledge essentially is destructive to us and others. Further we should try not to do evil, for then we break society. “Thus it is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.“

“It is by experience that we find authority to base our views and beliefs. But it is also impossible; we must accept some to be evidently true.” These long standing postulates enable us to ask the question for which we can then discern and find meaning through experimentation in which we conclude truths. We must approach these topics of the unknown using the scientific method. We may believe what goes beyond our experience, only when it is inferred from that experience by the assumption that what we do not know is like or similar to what we do know. Using this process we can examine deeper questions of metaphysics, God, the afterlife, and morality. We may believe the statement of another person, when there is reasonable ground for supposing that he knows the matter of which he speaks, and that he is speaking the truth so far as he knows it. It is wrong in all cases then to believe on insufficient evidence.