The God Meme Charles T

REVIEWS & RECONSIDERATIONS

The God Meme Charles T. Rubin

magine a tone-deaf music schol- notes cannot explain is not worth ar, who against the tide bravely explaining. Far from being a dis- Iinsists that music is really all ability, our acute’s tone-deafness is about the patterns formed by the the tool that allows him to rend the written notes on the page. He calls curtains of musical mystification. himself an “acute.” He is proud of This acute scholar has a great deal his open-mindedness; he has actu- in common with Daniel Dennett, phi- ally talked to people who claim they losophy professor at Tufts University, enjoy listening to music. They are National Book Award and Pulitzer not a bad lot on Prize finalist, and the whole, but what Breaking the Spell: Religion as a self-proclaimed Natural Phenomenon he hears from them “bright”—that is, by Daniel C. Dennett only confirms his Viking ~ 2006 ~ 464 pp. nonbeliever. While beliefs. For even the $25.95 (cloth) he admits he is no so-called experts expert on the par- disagree radically in their judgments ticulars of religious doctrine, he has of what they hear, and most of those interviewed believers and sees that who just plain enjoy music seem religion can play a very positive role inarticulate about why they like what in their lives. But the real story of they do, and ignorant about how religion is the spread of a corrosive music actually works. As bad, when illusion—inspiring acts of interde- people “make music,” they do it for nominational brutality, or standing a bewildering variety of motives, in the way of scientific progress, or some good, some not. So it is hardly dulling individuals to the truths of surprising that often very popular existence. Even acknowledging the “musicians” have unsavory personal good that religion does for some habits. All in all, the scholar is only people—as a source of comfort in reinforced in his theory that any- mourning or character-building thing about music that the written for the weak-willed—it is perfectly

SPRING 2006 ~ 71

Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. CHARLES T. R UBIN possible that “something we could Some of that study might even be devise might do as well or better.” useful, despite the fact that there Dennett has also noticed that believ- have been “few good researchers, in ers disagree about what their faith any discipline” who have taken up demands, and can be pretty murky the topic. These “second-rate col- on its particulars. Combine this leagues” have done second-rate work shocking situation with the obvious because the objective study of reli- dangers crusading religion seems gion has largely been the province to be playing in the twenty-first of social science, which is not at all century—Christian fundamentalism the sort of science Dennett believes at home, radical Islam abroad—and is worthwhile. Rather, what we need you can understand why Dennett is an inquiry into religion informed believes it is time to “break the spell.” by Darwin, a study based in the The bright man’s alternative to piety “testable hypotheses of evolutionary is a scientific account of the origins psychology.” and workings of religion, one that allows us to see religion for what it s Dennett presents it, evolution- is and then move beyond it. Aary psychology starts from the Dennett believes—or wants us to insight that the brain evolves interac- believe—that by proposing the sci- tively with the external environment entific study of religion he is bravely to have capacities which, in human breaking a taboo. But it seems unlike- beings, produce certain patterns of ly that Dennett has much to fear from thought. Some of these capacities and his colleagues at the university club, patterns prove competitively advan- and even he must repeatedly qualify tageous, others do not. Religion, as his claim to the title of taboo-breaker. Dennett defines it—“social systems No doubt many pious believers are whose participants avow belief in a unwilling or uninterested in seeing supernatural agent or agents whose their most fundamental beliefs close- approval is to be sought”—repre- ly scrutinized. At times, Dennett sents a pattern of thought that is claims to be writing to such believ- evidently extremely powerful, given ers, trying to get them to open up how omnipresent it seems to be in to such examination. But the more a human history. Dennett thinks that potential religious reader is likely to theories of evolutionary psychology be upset by Dennett’s book, the less are beginning to get a handle on why likely he would be to pick it up in the that might be true—that is, under- first place. standing the benefits and costs of the And of course, Dennett is perfectly religious way of thinking, and how aware that we have “been looking it fits into distinctive human mental carefully at religion for a long time.” structures.

72 ~ THE NEW ATLANTIS

For example, Dennett makes the tion. The one you just have to pass interesting suggestion that man’s on to friends is a successful meme; it ability to adopt a deeply layered sticks in your head and it replicates “intentional attitude” (i.e., I think when you tell it to others—although that he thinks that I think, etc.) in probably not exactly the same way it our relations with other humans may was told to you. At some point, that spill over into our dealings with the difference may make it less funny natural world, leading to various or more. The memes of 11th-grade forms of animism. Other sugges- American history may not stick in the tions seem less promising, such as 11th-grade head as well as the latest the trite notion that threats of hell- pop song, but they get themselves fire, because of their “deep psycho- published and republished in books logical impact,” are a powerful means that will remain required reading to enforce the profession of beliefs long after that pop song—successful that are otherwise incomprehensible. enough on its own terms—resides in Maybe for some. Lincoln could joke a forgotten MP3 file. about the shovel thief who, when Meme theory is pretty heady stuff, threatened with damnation as he was and Dennett uses it to maximum caught in the act, quipped that with advantage, even though by doing credit extended for that long, he’d so he puts himself in conflict with take two. the evolutionary psychologists on A crude evolutionary argument whom he otherwise relies. Dennett might conclude from the widespread believes that memes are “selfish”; persistence of religious belief that their success at replication does not it conveys a competitive advantage. mean that the tools they use to rep- Dennett’s use of the “meme” concept licate themselves—us, individually allows him to cast doubt on any such or collectively—benefit. Their rela- conclusion. Just as genes are the tionships with hosts may be mutu- basic units that transmit our biologi- ally beneficial, or neutral, or para- cal traits, memes are the basic units sitic. Even though he calls for more of our culture—ideas and concepts. research, Dennett is pretty sure that Memes are replicators driven by the the religion meme is parasitic. How same evolutionary logic that drives else to explain the persistence of reli- biological replication: the differen- gious teachings so manifestly at odds tial success at reproduction caused with what modern science tells us by variations that prove adaptive, or about the world? How else to explain not, under competitive circumstanc- the propensity of religion to become es. That joke that you hear and forget fanaticism? How else to explain that is a meme that cannot compete suc- the United States, a country with cessfully with others for your atten- such impeccable Enlightenment cre-

SPRING 2006 ~ 73

Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. CHARLES T. R UBIN dentials, should continue to exhibit take what they have to say seri- such a powerful place for religious ously, except as data. At times, “we” belief ? Religion is stuck in our heads means the elite academic commu- like a bad commercial jingle; it is a nity; at other times, it means modern dangerous spell that needs to be bro- democracy as a whole. His idea of a ken by science. national conversation would appar- ently exclude the likes of Thomas f religion is a bad meme, the way Jefferson, who though perhaps him- Ito get rid of it, or to get rid of its self a “bright,” still trembled for his most dangerous forms, is to focus nation when he remembered that on transmission. (Because he wants God is just. If Jefferson really meant innocent believers to be held mor- that a Divine creator has providential ally responsible for the dangerous oversight over the affairs of man, he actions of religious fanatics, the dis- can’t be part of the discussion. tinction between faith and fanaticism A second policy recommendation is consistently obscured in the book.) is that teaching the truth about reli- Dennett says he is against “crude gion—the truth as discovered and and cruel” programs of religious proven by modern science—should hygiene such as were attempted in be mandatory in all schools, whether the Soviet Union; they don’t work, public or private. As Dennett puts it, and (worse?) they often lead to a “We teach them about all the world’s religious rebound. But it is clear he is religions, in a matter-of-fact, histori- interested in sophisticated and gentle cally and biologically informed way.” efforts towards “inoculation and iso- Depending on the teacher and the lation,” to which end he presents a curriculum, one can imagine this variety of policy recommendations effort as a live- or a dead-virus inocu- for consideration. lation, but inoculation it obviously is. First and foremost, we need more “No religion should be favored, and research into the evolution of reli- none ignored.” The more one takes gion. His own book is made up this inclusiveness seriously, the more mostly of “possible stories”—edu- absurd the sheer scale of the project cated guesses about the evolutionary becomes—unless the very idea of the origins of religion—but he wants thing is, in Woodrow Wilson’s words, scientists to develop more testable to chill by overexposure. The point, hypotheses and the research to test in other words, is not to understand them. Believers who are not willing the world’s varied, rich, and complex to subject their beliefs to the strict religious traditions, but to under- canons of scientific rationality are stand the absurdity of religion in the to be excluded from the discussion. abstract by drowning students in a “We” simply have no obligation to superficial sampling of its particulars.

74 ~ THE NEW ATLANTIS

The required teaching of religion truth. If push comes to shove, some in schools goes along with a third of them are prepared to lie and even suggestion: that parental teaching to kill....Are they a lunatic fringe? of religion be closely monitored and They are certainly dangerously out treated as a potential form of child of touch with reality, but it is hard to abuse. Parents, he suggests, should know how many they are.” be prohibited from teaching anything We may not know how many there “likely to close the minds” of children are, but Dennett has a list of eleven “through fear and hatred” or “by dis- names, Senators and Representatives abling them from inquiry”—precisely who are members of the “Family” or what Dennett believes much religion “Fellowship Foundation,” “a secre- routinely does. “It’s just an idea,” tive Christian organization that has he says coyly. If you throw enough been influential in Washington, D.C. memes out there, maybe some of for decades,” and “may be pursuing them will stick. Rather than offering policies that are antithetical to those a new science of religion, Dennett of the democracy of which these seems most interested in floating any congressmen are elected to repre- strategy that will weaken or destroy sent.” Confusingly, he calls for these the influence of religion. Perhaps “nonfanatical Christians” to expose such Machiavellian rhetoric and poli- the End Times movement, conduct- cies are what the victory of science ing “an objective investigation” into requires, but this is, in itself, hardly “the possible presence of fanatical science at all. adherents in positions of power in the government and the military.” n a section exposing the “Toxic This is Dennett’s sophistry at its IMemes” of religion, Dennett trots best, or perhaps an example of his out the problem of dual loyalties: own anti-religious fanaticism. He religious believers who use “the secu- wants the “nonfanatical” members of rity of a free society” to advance their an organization he fears is fanatical own agendas. “There are some among to investigate themselves. He gives them who are working hard to ‘has- the congressional members of the ten the inevitable,’ not merely antici- “Family” the choice between being pating the End Days with joy in their conspirators or useful idiots. Are hearts but taking political action to we supposed to be impressed with bring about the conditions they think the clever way in which the rubric are prerequisites....[T]hese people of the End Times movement allows are not funny at all...they put their him to lump together sponsoring allegiance to their creed ahead of the National Prayer Breakfast, secret their commitment to democracy, to anti-democratic diplomacy, fanatics peace, to (earthly) justice—and to in positions of power, people who

SPRING 2006 ~ 75

Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. CHARLES T. R UBIN will lie and kill to get what they After all, modern science is predi- want—and all with complete deni- cated on a fact/value distinction that ability on his own part (“I explicitly effectively prevents it from asking called them nonfanatical”)? Dennett fundamental normative questions, let argues that one of the sources of the alone answering them. “What is the religion meme’s success is the appeal purpose of the universe, and my of secretive power operating behind life in it?” is not a question science the scenes; evidently Dennett stands proposes to answer. Dennett is fully ready to exploit that power, despite aware of the distinction between his claim to “gently, firmly educate facts and values. Because he accepts the people of the world, so that that values cannot be settled by facts, they can make truly informed choices he believes we need “a political pro- about their lives.” cess of mutual persuasion and educa- The question is: why should a firm tion” in which we “reason together.” advocate of reason and investigation But it is far from clear why scientific and evidence like Dennett have to rationality should be the sole arbiter resort to such low tactics? Dennett of this political process, designed to runs up against the same problem settle the very kinds of questions again and again—the problem that from which it cuts itself off. And it is Enlightenment critiques of religious hardly clear that a religiously naked belief have confronted for centuries. democracy will really produce better It is exemplified in the following answers to our eternal moral ques- passage: “There is only one way to tions, or a society more worthy of respect the substance of any purport- moral esteem. ed God-given moral edict: consider it conscientiously in the full light of arly in his career, Leo Strauss reason, using all the evidence at our Ewas convinced that even the command. No God that was pleased most ardent Enlightenment skep- by displays of unreasoning love tic had some sense of the standoff would be worthy of worship.” Yet on between reason and revelation. “The moral questions—on what ways of tenets that the world is the creation life deserve our deepest devotion—it of an omnipotent God, that miracles is precisely the authority of reason, are therefore possible in it, that man and its limits, that remains in ques- is in need of revelation for the guid- tion. And between modern reason ance of his life, cannot be refuted embodied in experimental science by experience or by the principle of and ancient revelation updated by contradiction.” It is not that Dennett tradition, it is not at all clear that misses this aspect of religious faith modern scientific rationality has the entirely. He knows it implies a claim upper hand. not subject to scientific confirma-

76 ~ THE NEW ATLANTIS

Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. THE GOD MEME tion. But while the scientist must acter he attributes to efforts to prove be a skeptic concerning miracles, he or disprove the existence of God. cannot prove that skepticism is the Dennett may well be aware that his only appropriate attitude. Dennett privileging of scientific rationality claims that “the only way to take the over faith in public debate is purely hypothesis of miracles seriously is to rhetorical—perhaps even unreason- eliminate the nonmiraculous alterna- able. But the fact that reason should tives.” What he should have said was not pretend to know what it does not the only way for science to take the know does not stop him. hypothesis of miracles seriously is to According to Strauss, the result of eliminate the nonmiraculous alterna- the standoff between orthodoxy and tives. For the believer, miracles will the Enlightenment was twofold: “Man remain facts in a value-laden provi- had to establish himself theoretically dential order, values science does not and practically as master of the world even attempt to touch on. For while and master of his life; the world cre- science concedes the realm of value ated by him had to erase the world as a first principle of its particular merely ‘given’ to him; then ortho- kind of rationality, religion is hardly doxy would be more than refuted—it willing to concede the realm of facts. would be outlived.” Breaking the Spell Rather than being two different is written in the knowledge that for all kinds of experience, science and reli- the success of modern science, all the gion are better seen as two different world is not secular Europe, nor does horizons in which experience takes it show signs of rapidly becoming so. place. Viewed from the point of view The “fortress of orthodoxy” which of science, Dennett may be correct the Enlightenment project left behind that what we call faith is really “belief has proven itself capable of more in belief,” the willingness to trust than rearguard actions—sometimes that which we cannot really know or in ways that awaken the best human verify for ourselves. As an adherent possibilities, sometimes in ways that of scientific rationalism, he acknowl- elicit the worst. Dennett writes in edges that two observers may look the hope that as science shows ever at the same evidence and draw oppo- greater ability to explain ever more site conclusions. Why not apply that things, as it provides ever more plau- thought more broadly, acknowledg- sible alternative stories about the real ing that the world would look differ- origins of religious belief, the fortress ent whether seen through the prism may be besieged and starved out. of reason or through the prism of Religion, once and for all, will be revelation? From this point of view, outlived. his book has some of the “quixotic” But, not unreasonably, he is and hence “not very important” char- not confident on this point. That

SPRING 2006 ~ 77

Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. CHARLES T. R UBIN explains why a book that professes mony” is the answer to this question. to treat religious belief seriously and That is unacceptable to Dennett. For respectfully contains so many little unless such testimony will subject epigrammatic digs at religion from itself to the scrutiny of scientific sages like Andy Rooney. Mockery, rationality, it is mere data concerning Strauss wrote, was the great weapon memes in a mind. the Enlightenment deployed against But Dulles’s point is defensible. an orthodoxy it could not rationally One cannot see the signs of God if refute. “Mockery of the teaching of one does not know what to look for. the tradition is not the successor of a Exodus gives extended testimony to prior refutation of those teachings. . . the difficulty, even with miracles, of but it is the refutation: it is in mock- maintaining a belief in God’s pres- ery that the liberation from ‘preju- ence in history. How much harder dices’ that had supposedly already will it be for those who must con- been cast off is actually first accom- tent themselves with the daily round plished.” In other words: If you can’t of miracles (the world continues to beat them, ridicule them. exist!) which familiarity makes invis- ible? ennett’s unwillingness to admit Not unfairly, Dennett derides the Dthe limits of scientific ratio- sloppy and incoherent jumble of ideas nality has consequences throughout by which all too many people define the book. For example, it leads him their faith. But so does Cardinal to misrepresent William James, for Dulles. The salient difference in this whose work The Varieties of Religious context is that Dulles holds, not Experience he professes great respect. unreasonably, that people can be edu- At one point, he quotes James out of cated through personal witness to context, making him agree with a see more clearly what is otherwise point that James is in fact criticizing, only dimly evident. Witness is not precisely in a context where James the only path here; revealed reli- is about to articulate his sense of gions, like many others, are full of the limitations that science’s assump- techniques of discipline and educa- tions create for its ability to under- tion. To dismiss these wholesale as stand religion. Or again, it leads indoctrination or obfuscation is just Dennett to trivialize the otherwise more mocking. perfectly justified question posed by People without faith seem to believe Avery Cardinal Dulles, who wonders that it is something easy and com- “how God comes to us and opens fortable, and for some that may be up a world of meaning not acces- true. But for serious believers, faith sible to human investigative powers.” is a hard climb, an ever-renewed For Cardinal Dulles, “personal testi- challenge. There is no reason in prin-

78 ~ THE NEW ATLANTIS

Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. See www.TheNewAtlantis.com for more information. THE GOD MEME ciple to think that the truth about himself can smile and smile and still the world articulated through rev- be villains. That seems an unprom- elation is any easier to comprehend, ising start for confronting fanati- any more obvious, any less requir- cism. If Dennett were a little less ing of sustained effort and attention, interested in conspiracies in high than is quantum mechanics—which, places, he might instead investigate as Richard Feynman famously said, what the memes are that allowed “nobody understands.” the United States over time to be an Dennett’s worries about the bad increasingly successful embodiment things done in the name of religion of Enlightenment ideals, a leader in can only be shared by decent people. free inquiry, science, and technology, But however dressed up they are and at the same time a bastion of in the latest research of evolution- generally tolerant orthodoxy. Surely ary psychology, Dennett is deploying a friend of science would find those the same old Enlightenment tropes memes worth propagating. that didn’t work all that well the first time around, and only confirm Charles T. Rubin is an associate pro- the sense of believers that crusad- fessor of political science at Duquesne ers for scientific rationality such as University.

SPRING 2006 ~ 79