杏吧原创

THE philosopher Daniel Dennett has been called a 鈥淒arwinian fundamentalist鈥�, a sobriquet he bears with pride. His 1995 book Darwin鈥檚 Dangerous Idea was an attempt to establish natural selection as the fundamental process that explains adaptive design and function in all organisms, including humans, and that extends beyond biology to ethics, language and meaning. In his new book, Breaking the Spell, Dennett seeks to bring religion within that fold, aiming for 鈥渁 forthright, scientific, no-holds-barred investigation of religion as one natural phenomenon among many鈥�. This time, though, he is concerned with the natural selection not of genes but memes 鈥� 鈥渋nformation packets or recipes for doing something鈥� as well as behaviours such as shaking hands or religious practices.

Believers should not expect much encouragement from this book: Dennett is a self-proclaimed atheist. You don鈥檛 have to read far to get the gist. Chapter one starts with this parable: 鈥淵ou watch an ant in a meadow, laboriously climbing up a blade of grass, higher and higher until it falls, then climbs again, and again, like Sisyphus rolling his rock. What benefit is it seeking for itself in this strenuous and unlikely activity? Wrong question, as it turns out. Its brain has been commandeered by a tiny parasite, a lancet fluke (Dicrocelium dendriticum) that needs to get itself into the stomach of a sheep or a cow in order to complete its reproductive cycle. This little brain worm is driving the ant into position to benefit its progeny, not the ant鈥檚.鈥�

So it is with religious ideologies, says Dennett. Like the lancet fluke, religious beliefs promote their own survival more than that of the believers. More people have died in the valiant attempt to protect sacred places and texts, he suggests, than in the attempt to protect food stores or their own children and homes. Moreover, religious cults cast evil spells, just like fanatical politics, addictive drugs, gambling, alcohol and child pornography. This is the spell that Dennett would like to break: the hold that Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other religions have on individuals and societies.

Is an atheist in any position to write a book judging the history and practices of the world鈥檚 religions? Dennett has a ready answer: religions are part of human culture and should thus be subject to historical, psychological and anthropological research. They are also natural phenomena that should be subject to scientific research. He dismisses claims such as that of the religious scholar Mircea Eliade, who maintained that a 鈥渞eligious phenomenon will only be recognised as such if it is grasped at its own level, that is to say, if it is studied as something religious鈥�, or the sociologist Emil Durkheim, who believed that a person who does not bring 鈥渁 sort of religious sentiment鈥� to the study of religion is 鈥渓ike a blind man trying to talk about colour鈥�. This, says Dennett, is 鈥減re-emptive disqualification鈥�, similar to the claim that only women can study feminism.

He acknowledges that there are several thousand religions in the world today in addition to the few dozen major world religions, and that millions may have existed throughout history. Which religions survive or become extinct is simply a matter of natural selection, he claims, as it is for any other meme. Religions persist because parents teach their beliefs and practices to their children.

Here his analysis starts to get a little sketchy. Surely memes and other cultural constructs, including religious beliefs, are transmitted not only vertically, from parents to children, but also horizontally and obliquely, to unrelated persons of the same or other generations. Moreover, Dennett pays scant attention to the phenomenon of cultural assimilation. In New Guinea, for example, members of a defeated tribe adopt the language and cultural traditions of the victors. The early expansion of Christianity was not only accomplished through the preaching of Paul and Jesus鈥檚 apostles, but mostly by the assimilation of social groups, notably the massive conversion of the citizens of the Roman Empire following the Emperor Constantine鈥檚 proclamation of the Edict of Milan in AD 313.

Why do people believe at all? This is the crux of Dennett鈥檚 argument. Religion has three purposes, he says: to comfort us in our suffering and allay our fear of death, to explain things we cannot otherwise explain, and to encourage group cooperation in the face of trials and enemies. 鈥淎t the root of human belief in gods lies an instinct on a hair trigger: disposition to attribute agency 鈥� beliefs and desires and other mental states 鈥� to anything complicated that moves.鈥� It鈥檚 all a consequence of what Dennett calls a 鈥渉yperactive agent detection device鈥� (HADD) 鈥� a biological adaptation that allows humans, as well as animals, to react to immediate dangers in the environment.

Dennett seems to have a tin ear for religion. He queers his pitch by focusing on the negative consequences of belief. He might, for example, have analysed further the fascinating biological, cultural and philosophical aspects of our awareness of death and how this awareness may have played a fundamental role in the origin of many of the world鈥檚 religions 鈥� surely more significant than the hypothetical HADD. The existential anxiety that emerges from awareness of death is alleviated by belief in a life beyond death.

Dennett would have elicited greater interest in his theories from religious believers 鈥� who are surely among his main target audience 鈥� and others if he had engaged his considerable philosophical acumen and sharp pen in analysing the positive aspects of religion. These include how belief in an afterlife helps people by relieving their existential anxiety, and how religious beliefs provide purpose and meaning to life and are a source of individual fulfilment and group cohesion. He might also have explored the emergence of systems of morality, such as that exemplified by the Ten Commandments, and how moral codes have contributed to the success not only of various religions but also of social groups and even nations. Instead, he belabours religiously motivated wars and persecutions and the dubious morality of fundamentalist terrorists who bomb abortion clinics.

Dennett says his motive for writing this book is to stimulate arguments about religion from a scientific and biological perspective, which have not been much in evidence until now. 鈥淢y task was to demonstrate that there was enough reason to question the tradition of faith so that you could not in good conscience turn your back on the available or discoverable relevant facts,鈥� he explains. 鈥淚 am quite prepared to roll up my sleeves and get down to examining the evidence and considering alternative theories of religion.鈥� However, the book preaches to the choir of the unbelievers, without offering them useful insights about the religious phenomenon. It will not be well received by believers; its shrill tone will likely provoke much criticism and stimulate angry responses, rather than stimulate constructive dialogue.

鈥淗e preaches to the choir of the unbelievers, without offering them useful insights about religion鈥�