I stole the title of Richard Dawkins’ essay/post from last year.¬† It’s chock full of what I love and hate most about Dawkins.¬† He breaks his bulldog mode and praises religious leaders on occasion, and this time he waxes positive about Jesus, of all people:
Of course Jesus was a theist, but that is the least interesting thing about him…What was interesting and remarkable about Jesus was not the obvious fact that he believed in the God of his Jewish religion, but that he rebelled against many aspects of Yahweh’s vengeful nastiness. At least in the teachings that are attributed to him, he publicly advocated niceness and was one of the first to do so. To those steeped in the Sharia-like cruelties of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; to those brought up to fear the vindictive, Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac, a charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness must have seemed radical to the point of subversion. No wonder they nailed him.
So Dawkins manages to slap around Judaism and Islam, but he’s still good with Jesus, at least in this context.¬† The next part of the essay brings up several fascinating points of discussion, including the possibility (raised in Dawkins’ narrative by a post-Christian Anglican Bishop) that “humanity is a ’singularity’ in evolution”–in a sense, we’ve evolved beyond evolution, thanks to our brains.¬† We have behaviors, including what Dawkins calls “super niceness” (to strangers, no less) that would likely be eliminated in many evolutionary schemes.¬† Super niceness, he says, is “just plain dumb…[but] the kind of dumb that should be encouraged.”¬† He then suggests, in the ultimate back-handed compliment, that religions hold the key to encouraging these dumb ideas:
Well, do we know of any comparable examples, where stupid ideas have been known to spread like an epidemic? Yes, by God! Religion. Religious beliefs are irrational. Religious beliefs are dumb and dumber: super dumb. Religion drives otherwise sensible people into celibate monasteries, or crashing into New York skyscrapers. Religion motivates people to whip their own backs, to set fire to themselves or their daughters, to denounce their own grandmothers as witches, or, in less extreme cases, simply to stand or kneel, week after week, through ceremonies of stupefying boredom…We may not understand why humans behave in the weird ways we label religious, but it is a manifest fact that they do. The existence of religion is evidence that humans eagerly adopt irrational beliefs and spread them, both longitudinally in traditions and horizontally in epidemics of evangelism. Could this susceptibility, this palpable vulnerability to infections of irrationality be put to genuinely good use?
This is where the my atheist, social scientist hackles are raised.¬† Dawkins may be a great evolutionary biologist, but he’s still stuck about a century back with his argument that believers are not behaving rationally.¬† For every example he’s given above, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, economists can demonstrate that these believers are using the same calculating decision-making processes that Dawkins himself uses to get through life.¬† Their perspective may be different (they may be adding an afterlife with a strict father-figure who has a severe reward/punishment system into their calculations), but they are no less rational.
I think this is one of my beefs with the dogmatic atheists: they use labels like “irrational” to otherize their opponents and our differences into a difference of kind rather than of degree.¬† Religious fundamentalists do the same thing.¬† This approach discourages discussion, empathy and understanding.¬† I am probably every bit as unbelieving in God as Dawkins, but I strongly disagree with his tactics.¬† He’s preaching to the choir.¬† I want to reach out to the believers.¬† They are not going to listen to me if I begin by saying (and believing) that they are dumb and irrational.
So to all you theists out there: I may disagree with you and feel that your beliefs are completely unfounded and unjustified (and respect that you may think the same about mine), but I know that you are not dumb (many of you have the brightest minds I know!).  And you are most certainly not irrational.
14 responses so far ↓
1 nee // Mar 1, 2007 at 5:28 am
I agree with you in that if you tell people they are dumb and irrational, you will get nowhere. However, I wouldn’t say “all you theists” are “most certainly not irrational”. I right clicked on “irrational” to pull up a more official definition than the one in my head and used the firefox dictionary plugin.
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
2.
a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.
3. Mathematics Of or relating to an irrational number.
n. Mathematics
An irrational number.
I’d say that some beliefs I carried when I was a theist and some of those I know others carry are definitely lacking accord with sound judgment.
Atheists have no corner on rationality. Everyone does irrational things. That doesn’t negate the irrationality of some actions and beliefs of theists.
That said, it’s not the way to win friends and influence people. I respect people’s desire to believe all manner of irrational things and they do the same for me (phew!). The key is, we don’t tell each other we’re being irrational or rational. It’s an attack statement. In other words, I don’t see Hawkins’ declaration of irrationality as inaccurate - more like unskillful.
2 Johnny // Mar 1, 2007 at 7:08 am
Imagine me reading this post, nodding my head slowly, and at the end saying, in my best southern cal surfer voice, “Totally.”
I think it is a fair assesment of Dawkins. I would add that, beyond alienating all believers and being a century behind on the social sciences he also has no idea about the sophistication in contemporary philosophy of religion.
I am not a theist, but after carefully studying the arguments that philosophers make for theism, the last thing I would call them is irrational.
3 Tammy Takahashi // Mar 1, 2007 at 9:15 am
I think it’s easy to criticize things that we’ve never experienced - things we don’t get. When we’ve been there, like you have, we know how people arrive at their conclusions, because we’ve had the same perspective at one time.
But when we don’t see it from the other person’s perspective, we can’t know. Or we don’t choose to know. Instead, we blame the other for not seeing it our way, when in reality, we condemn others because we can’t understand theirs.
I think dogma of any sort is a step toward the irrational, or at least, a step away from understanding. Dogma separates us, giving us reason to close our ears to other ideas or possibilities.
On the other hand, dogma has to exist. The various dogmas are the boundaries of belief. It’s impossible for everyone to stay in the middle of the pool. There are always people who end up hanging on to the edge. Without the edge, there would be no middle. The pool couldn’t exist.
I agree with you that humanity, in general, is smart. In fact, I would say that those with strong attachment to dogma are hyper smart. Almost too smart.
So smart, it’s hard to come up with something that will stump them.
I believe everyone is smart in their own way. Everyone. If I can’t see where their strength is, it’s my blurred vision, not their responsibility.
4 Miko // Mar 1, 2007 at 1:49 pm
[dissenting voice] Um. I think religion is irrational. I think everything that could possibly be in the realm of spirituality is, by definition, irrational. The peace I feel, a thousand feet about LA in the Getty garden? Completely irrational. I’m no further from my problems and life than I was on the 405, yet? Peace. [/dissenting voice] But I don’t think that irrational = dumb. Humans aren’t rational beings, they aren’t irrational beings; they’re beings who necessarily exhibit both rational and irrational behaviors. Love? Irrational. Religion? Irrational. But neither are dumb. Perhaps “irrational” is a derogatory word to many people, but it doesn’t have to be. Perhaps we need to discuss spirituality in such a way that we do not alienate people, but that makes it no less irrational.
5 John // Mar 1, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Oooh! I like where this discussion has gone! Blog posts don’t allow much room for nuance (even one as long as this one was), but comments are where the initial ideas can be challenged, elaborated, and increased in depth and nuance.
My aversion to the idea that “religion is irrational” is based largely in my role as an anthropologist and sociologist of religion. Especially in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, religious belief was dismissed in this way (religious belief as a whole by secular social scientists, and “primitive” ones by Christian and Jewish scholars). In the mid-20th century, social scientists came back and showed that labeling other belief and ritual systems as irrational betrayed a bias of superiority and a lack of understanding of other cultures. Their critique of their colleagues and predecessors was similar to what Tammy mentioned above:
I think it‚Äôs easy to criticize things that we‚Äôve never experienced - things we don‚Äôt get. …we blame the other for not seeing it our way, when in reality, we condemn others because we can‚Äôt understand theirs.
I think that Dawkins doesn’t get religion. He’s never been there.
6 John // Mar 1, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Responding to nee and Miko on the irrationality of belief:
I might be inclined to agree with you to some extent, but I think you have to be careful not to be too dismissive of the logic behind religious beliefs and choices. Miko identified that moment of experiencing the other–I can see the irrationality of that moment. But what about the decisions the believer makes stemming from that moment? They are generally very rational and calculating. If I believe in God, afterlife and heaven, then I will logically follow certain commandments that will ensure me a cushy eternal retirement home. It’s this aspect of the rational thought processes of the believer that I want to highlight–too many people dismiss the whole thing out of hand.
That said, a lot of people arrive at their foundational religious beliefs (or at least support them) with reason. The Jehovah’s Witnesses rely heavily on rational argument (and strong social pressure). My dad, who is one of the most Spock-like people I know, is a theist. To him, the complexity of life and the universe’s physical laws are enough to convince him of the existence of a Creator of some type. There are many arguments against this, but that doesn’t make his belief any less justified or rational.
7 nee // Mar 1, 2007 at 3:24 pm
John, I’ve been religious and I absolutely believed I had rational reasons to believe. Few people will call their current actions and beliefs irrational. Thats why I say it’s an attack statement.
I watched something on tlc last night about the branch davidians in waco. I recall very well watching the news when that was going on and thinking Koresh certainly believes what he is doing is rational. However, that didn’t make it any less irrational in the eyes of most others.
Who decides what “sound judgment” is? I guess what I’m saying is when it comes to being rational or irrational, the degree and direction thereof is going to depend on who you ask and when.
8 Miko // Mar 1, 2007 at 4:39 pm
John (#5)/nee (#7): I ran across this today while doing what else? Listening to NPR. I’m turning into a right walking ad for them, and I don’t mean to be (unless they start paying me…). While discussing the existence of ruins that align with the sun, it was mentioned that the ruins predate the Incan sun cult. I found “cult” to be a derogatory term, perhaps coming from the same place that “irrational” might from someone. But it is a valid descriptor and I respect the man (Catholic university notwithstanding) for attempting to understand a religious context that is very foreign from his own.
My sister is teaching her kids about the Greek & Roman gods & goddesses and was telling me how they found certain aspects funny, backward, or weird. Including Athena springing from Zeus’ forehead. She told me that she explained it to her kids that, from the standpoint of a primative, natural birth is pretty weird, so this would be no less so. I think this exhibits an astonishing better-than-thou attitude toward an extremely advanced culture, but more than that, I found it baffling that someone who believes that ritual cannibalism will ensure eternal life would speak so of someone else’s irrational beliefs…
John (#6): I think that the choices one makes after the initial irrational experience can be rational, but I don’t think it always is. I also think actions with an irrational purpose (to ensure a cushy eternal retirement) are necessarily irrational actions, even if they are good. They are valid actions, but irrational.
9 nee // Mar 1, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Miko, I’m becoming NPR’s publicist as well. Funny, coming from the woman who had a “Rush is Right” bumper sticker on her car back back in ‘93.
I think I should start a church of This American Life fanatics. I need someone to paint an Italian renaissance style portrait of Ira Glass for the vestibule…
10 Johnny // Mar 1, 2007 at 5:19 pm
There is a part of me that wants to agree with Miko, and a part of me that doesn’t. I think she is on to something when she speaks of love not being rational. Most people don’t “fall in love” because they are given a fool proof argument, and that is probably a good thing.
However, I would distinguish between, rational, non-rational, and irrational. I believe that the term, irrational, has negative connotations for good reasons. We use it to describe behavior that cannot be persuaded by reason at all. It may be true that our experiences should not be categorized as rational, but that doesn’t mean that our behavior, or thought, is completely resistant to reasonable persuasion.
11 John // Mar 1, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Miko: We may be talking across each other, so I want to try to nail down what we mean and where we diverge. I think we are using rational and irrational to mean different things (again, one of those problems when talking about “big idea” topics like religion and God and belief).
Again, I’d like to emphasize the original context of this conversation. Dawkins is basically saying, “I’m a scientist and rational, and you religious nuts are not.” This perpetuates the idea that religious people and non-religious people think differently, that we make choices through different processes, that the gulf between believers and skeptics is a huge one.
‘Irrational’ implies (to me) that there is no logical connection between the steps in a thought process. I have an irrational fear of flying but not of driving on LA freeways, in spite of all the statistics that state that the former is safer than the latter. But there is a logic behind much of religious belief and action. Many people have a sublime experience of God, and to them, this is extrasensory evidence (and not any more or less rational than the evidence of seeing something with our eyes), which is then reinforced by trusted authority, the shared experiences of others, and by perceived evidence in the natural world.
Here’s a concrete example. Let’s say that there’s a five year old girl who believes in Santa. All the authority figures in her life reaffirm her belief. She gets presents, year after year marked, “From Santa.” All of the popular media seems to support Santa’s existence, he visited her Church last year, and the letters she sends to him don’t bounce back. This girl has loads of evidence and the word of trusted authority figures for believing in Santa. She doesn’t have enough knowledge about the physical world to understand the problems of chimneys and flying reindeer and Christmas magic. So my question to you is, is her belief rational? Why or why not?
12 Miko // Mar 1, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Johnny (#10): I could agree to “non-rational” as an appropriate term for our discussion & as a substitute for “irrational”.
John (#11): I agree that Dawkins comes across as a pretentious *ahem* and that his assumption is that he thinks more rationally than anyone else (and certainly moreso than religious nuts). I would argue that there are many parts of even Dawkins’ life that falls under non-rational (hat-tip to Johnny).
Your five year old girl, I believe, would have a rational belief. But I also believe that most religious people (and I’m excluding children here) have reasons beyond “all the authority figures in [their] life” tell them that God exists. I take it as an assumption (we all know what happens when one assumes, I know, I know) that “religious people” have some reason to be religious. And I would argue that that reason, if it’s a good one, is a non-rational one. If it’s a rational one, it’s likely to be a bad reason. One can be religious because it is expected of one (rational) or because one has had a particularly significant event that one interprets as proof of the Divine (non-rational). I would argue that the first should not be religious in the first place and that the second has a very good reason to be religious. A non-rational reason (if reason can be said to be non-rational).
If your five year old girl, upon learning that reindeer don’t fly and her fireplace doesn’t have a chimney, persists in her belief because her parents continue to tell her that Santa’s real, I would call that a bad (rational) reason for belief. If, however, upon learning the aforementioned, she hears hooves on her roof one evening, she may persist in her belief for a non-rational (mystical) reason. She knows reindeer can’t fly but she also knows what she has experienced. Knowing the two to be at odds, one has to make a rational decision: to hold a non-rational belief or not to.
I was watching Constantine yesterday (great flick, incidentally) and at one point, he’s talking to Gabriel (not the archangel, but half angel & half mortal) asking what God wants from him. Gabriel responds that God wants him to believe; Constantine says, he does in God, why else is he talking to someone whose wings he can see. No, replies Gabriel, “you don’t believe, you know. There’s a difference.” I’m on the fence about what I think about this. On the one hand, I think there’s more to respect in one who knows these things. But on the other hand, I don’t believe they can be known, so we’re stuck with belief. I’m certain that certain things I believe in are, in actuality, the way that I believe they are. But I can’t prove it, so I call it a belief. Other things I believe in, I’m pretty certain are not, in actuality, the way I believe them to be. But it helps me to be a good person to believe them. Are there degrees of belief? If so, are there degrees of truth? If not (and if so, still, to the first), why not?
13 Miko // Mar 1, 2007 at 6:41 pm
nee (#9): I’m not a fan of it, myself, but I know people who love it. I think that may actually be a church I could get into even if I don’t like it since I’m all for that kind of historical work.
14 Jonathan // Mar 2, 2007 at 7:51 pm
irrational vs. non-rational vs. rational… belief vs. knowledge — I LOVE it! What we need now is to sit down and have a great discussion (in the spirit of Socrates) about the semantic meaning of these terms. Once we can iron out a meaning for each, we can then have a killer discussion, and one worth having since this same subject keeps coming up! Unfortunately, this is impossible to do in comments or with weblogs, and I’ve pulled 4 all-nighters in the past 8 days so most thinking capacity is gone.
Leave a Comment