Resistance is Futile
More Bruce Hood.
Religion and other forms of magical thinking continue to thrive — despite the lack of evidence and advance of science — because people are naturally biased to accept a role for the irrational, said Bruce Hood…This evolved credulity suggests that it would be impossible to root out belief in ideas such as creationism and paranormal phenomena, even though they have been countered by evidence and are held as a matter of faith alone.
No, it doesn’t suggest that. It may suggest it would be difficult, but it doesn’t suggest it would be impossible. Just for one thing, if it suggested that, then the existence of any skeptics would be ruled out.
People ultimately believe in these ideas for the same reasons that they attach sentimental value to inanimate objects such as wedding rings or Teddy bears…Similar beliefs, which are held even among the most sceptical scientists, explain why few people would agree to swap their wedding rings for replicas. The difference between attaching significance to sentimental objects and believing in religion, magic or the paranormal is only one of degree, Professor Hood said.
Well I think that’s quite wrong: I think the difference is one of kind, not of degree.
This innate tendency means it is futile to expect that such beliefs will die out even as our scientific understanding of the world improves, he said…“No amount of evidence is going to get people to take it on board and abandon these ideas.”
Well, that’s obviously not true of all people (unless one accepts his equation of sentiment about rings* with belief in the existence of a deity), so that statement is much too sweeping.
“I want to challenge recent claims by Richard Dawkins, among others, that supernaturalism is primarily attributable to religions spreading beliefs among the gullible minds of the young. Rather, religions may simply capitalise on a natural bias to assume the existence of supernatural forces.”
It’s both (and more). Why not just say it’s both? Why try to claim that it’s all one and that that one rules out any change of mind?
Compare Hood’s claim with this look at ‘Jesus Camp’.
Through Kids In Ministry International, she conducts conferences and operates a summer camp for children and teens designed to instill a deeper devotion to God and their brand of Evangelical Christianity, in addition to unleashing a call to activism. Scenes of children proselytizing and learning about creationism in addition to a host of conservative principles engendered some unease amongst the generally liberal New York audiences during the Tribeca Film Festival…
I’d love to think that that’s a futile endeavor and that those children don’t become one bit more evangelical-fundamentalist than they would have been without all this training, but I can’t quite manage it.
A particularly inflammatory scene that heightens the political overtones for viewers takes place at a revival meeting lead by Fischer and her associates, in front of well over 100 children. In the scene, Fischer takes a life-size standup photo of President George W. Bush to the stage, and with a large American flag in the background, asks the crowd to raise their hands towards him in prayer. “I didn’t realize how the secular world viewed what we were doing,” Fischer said…
That’s not particularly relevant; I just threw it in because it’s so grotesque. She didn’t realize how the ‘secular world’ viewed the activity of praying to a life-size picture of Bush. She didn’t realize how we funny secularists view the deification of George W Bush. That’s quite funny, in a terrifying way.
*What kind of evidence could there be that would falsify sentimental attachment to a ring or a Teddy Bear?
I’ll pass on any other comments about Fischer other than to point out that praying to George Bush – or any other person – is idolatrous and unChristian. What was she thinking about?
I think I agree with most of OB’s comments about Mr Hood.
Indeed! Raining down brimstone and sending a pestilence or two as punishment for this blasphemy would be bad, as it’s innocent children being brainwashed – but a well-targetted lightning strike? Not even a lethal one, mind you, just a warning lightning strike?
I know Pat Buchanan used to regularly mutter darkly about the transition of the US from Republic to Empire, but didn’t know you had actually reached the stage of the Divine Emperor yet. OB, do you think my hobbyhorse, called “Incitatus”, has any chance for Senate membership?
Merlijn, it depends how much cash Incitatus has. They don’t just give Senate seats away for free you know.
Incitatus would not stand a chance. He is (a) not rich enough or (b) stupid enough.
OB posted about a silly aricle about evidence based medicine and fascism. There is a nice demolition at Ben Goldacre http://www.badscience.net/?p=284
Now there’s a simultaneous post – all of three seconds apart. Saying the same thing, too.
Thanks for Ben Goldacre link, Jeffrey: I already have it in News (posted August 19). Ben told me about it his own self; he’s a B&W fan. That’s nice, innit.
I think you folks may be being a little unfair here. Are they really, truly praying “to” George W. Bush? Are they worshipping him? Of course not. They are praying “for” him. Maybe I’m being pedantic, but this is a big difference.
It is scary enough that the Evangelical right believes so strongly that W is doing the work of the Lord. Or, more generally, that they have developed patriotism (not the peron of W) into an idolatorous religion, but to accuse them of this degree of idolatory is questionable/
“The Peron of W” — nice typo! Would be a freudian slip, if only Freud existed…
There’s a bit of a dogmatic whiff about this ’causes of a belief in supernaturalism’ debate, on both sides. Isn’t it necessary to acept the posibility that a belief in the supernatural perists because a large number of people have direct experience of something that cannot be otherwise explained and that may be the supernatural? We may choose to believe that this experience has other causes or meanings, but until we can prove it (and we are unlikely to be able to) shouldn’t we be a bit more circumspect? Otherwise, it all looks a bit, well, religious.
As long as contributors think they have good reasons for expressing their yeah or nay on this, that, and the other, I think they should be encouraged and I’m eager to read them. Why else would I want to visit B&W Notes & Comment? I’ve always felt that the dogmatic whiffs come from those who eschew and try to discourage argument.
_
“Isn’t it necessary to acept the posibility that a belief in the supernatural perists because a large number of people have direct experience of something that cannot be otherwise explained and that may be the supernatural?”
It depends what you mean by the supernatural, and direct experience, and something, and otherwise explained, and may be. Hood is apparently talking in general about religious beliefs, but in fact he seems to switch his terms without notice at times too, and that makes it hard to be sure exactly what he is claiming.
John M: “Isn’t it necessary to acept the posibility that a belief in the supernatural perists because a large number of people have direct experience of something that cannot be otherwise explained and that may be the supernatural? We may choose to believe that this experience has other causes or meanings, but until we can prove it (and we are unlikely to be able to) shouldn’t we be a bit more circumspect? Otherwise, it all looks a bit, well, religious.”
No, no, no.
The problem is that ALL of these “direct experiences” CAN be otherwise (naturalistically), and more plausibly, explained. The “burden of proof” is on those who claim that these more prosaic explanations are inadequate and ONLY a supernatural explanation will suffice.
There has been more research published on the brain being “hardwired for faith” recently, this is related to a discussion on a new book by National Cancer Institute molecular geneticist Dean Hamer: “The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes” (Doubleday).. There’s a nice quote regarding the choice of words in the title:
“Assistant Professor of Theological Ethics Amy Laura Hall, agree that it’s also the language of marketing. They concede that those sorts of absolutist claims are probably more about selling books than explaining the science. According to Hall, who has examined the marketing of various science endeavors—including genomics—during the 20 th century, genome scientists may reject genetic determinism, but the allure for marketers is too strong. “Big money follows simple messages of certainty,” she says.
http://www.genome.duke.edu/genomelife/glarchive/issue16/godgene
Argh. Marketing meets science and marketing wins. We’re lucky our book wasn’t called Truth Will Make You Rich and Get You Lots of Hot Sex.
“Why Truth Will Get Your Kids Though The Ivy League Universities”