January 16, 2013
Jared Diamond: It’s irrational to be religious
From Salon:
Nevertheless, it’s not the case that there are no limits to what can be accepted as a religious supernatural belief. Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer have independently pointed out that actual religious superstitions over the whole world constitute a narrow subset of all the arbitrary random superstitions that one could theoretically invent. To quote Pascal Boyer, there is no religion proclaiming anything like the following tenet: “There is only one God! He is omnipotent. But he exists only on Wednesdays.” Instead, the religious supernatural beings in which we believe are surprisingly similar to humans, animals, or other natural objects, except for having superior powers. They are more far-sighted, longer-lived, and stronger, travel faster, can predict the future, can change shape, can pass through walls, and so on. In other respects, gods and ghosts behave like people. The god of the Old Testament got angry, while Greek gods and goddesses became jealous, ate, drank, and had sex. Their powers surpassing human powers are projections of our own personal power fantasies; they can do what we wish we could do ourselves. I do have fantasies of hurling thunderbolts that destroy evil people, and probably many other people share those fantasies of mine, but I have never fantasized about existing only on Wednesdays. Hence it doesn’t surprise me that gods in many religions are pictured as smiting evil-doers, but that no religion holds out the dream of existing just on Wednesdays. Thus, religious supernatural beliefs are irrational, but emotionally plausible and satisfying. That’s why they’re so believable, despite at the same time being rationally implausible.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 07:40 AM | Permalink
Comments
Strangely, people seem to believe in human rights that correspond neatly to all kinds of all-too-human categories but no one has yet tested the hypothesis that they only exist on Wednesdays. There's little evidence that these rights "exist" in any empirical way and yet people go on believing in them, struggling for them, guiding their lives and - in fact - the lives of entire societies by them. Thus, human rights are irrational, but emotionally plausible and satisfying. That's why they're so believable, despite at the same time being rationally implausible.
Posted by: ajay | Jan 16, 2013 9:38:16 AM
ajay,
You make no sense at all.
Posted by: Olavi Valo | Jan 16, 2013 9:47:28 AM
I am having trouble following you, there, Ajay. You claim that human rights are irrational? Or that belief in a virgin birth or prophets or whatever other demonstrably irrational stuff is in fact rational?
Or do you mean to suggest that because Human Rights are an aspirational goal, they are equivalent to the irrational beliefs of religion?
Sorry. Not trying to be rude. Just can't make sense of your comment.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 17, 2013 4:25:33 AM
A bit of remedial reading for you, Ajay:
"THE first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." But there is great probability that things had then already come to such a pitch, that they could no longer continue as they were; for the idea of property depends on many prior ideas, which could only be acquired successively, and cannot have been formed all at once in the human mind. Mankind must have made very considerable progress, and acquired considerable knowledge and industry which they must also have transmitted and increased from age to age, before they arrived at this last point of the state of nature."
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.htm
Posted by: Ashley | Jan 17, 2013 7:07:35 AM
Wow, just a bit of satire which clearly fell flat! I was merely pointing out that we live in a world in which people constantly endorse beliefs (and subsequent practices or vice versa) in extraordinarily strong ways that have no basis in empirically verifiable fact. Diamond's argument is completely irrational and based on a grade school version of what religious and/or theological claims are. Atheism can do better than this drivel. That's ALL I'm saying... (oh and leave poor Rousseau - and perhaps inadvertent ad hominem attacks - out of the discussion perhaps?)
Posted by: ajay | Jan 17, 2013 11:58:48 AM
ajay, I doubt many atheists would say "human rights" have an objective existence and would exist even if humans weren't around to define them. So, they do not "endorse beliefs" in human rights in the way that theists do with God. It is more of an exhortation to action, like "if we all agree to respect these rights the world will be a better place".
Posted by: Jesse M. | Jan 17, 2013 1:45:08 PM
It's impossible to be religious... unless your religion is free market capitalism based off the selfish gene. Diamond has transitioned nicely from ornithology to outright attempts at crushing social movements. Hell of a career arc.
Posted by: Jake | Jan 17, 2013 6:33:15 PM
I know how to solve this, lets ask the Talking Snake, my go to guy when dealing with Bronze and Iron Age Fiction.
I'll jump on Mohammad's Flying Horse, and get his insight.
Posted by: Dave Ranningdd | Jan 18, 2013 11:41:14 AM
Post a comment