From the Cultural Maturity Blog
Another Compare and Contrast observation turns to the recent spate of popular books presenting arguments for atheism, most notable Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. It would be wonderful if Dawkins’ argument, and the arguments of related advocates of a narrow scientism, added something to the science/religion debate. But from the perspective of Cultural Maturity, they contribute very little.
Dawkins sets up a straw man polemic—a parental father God interpretation of religion versus materialism. He then launches into an attack on religion (with the assumption that if his attack is successful, a materialist interpretation must be the appropriate conclusion). Some of his attack has solid basis (certainly evolution effectively challenges literal biblical interpretation). Some is just wrong-headed (from a mature systemic perspective, making religion the cause of war is like hitting someone with a left hook and blaming the violent act on the offending left hand).
But because his conclusions are based on a false dichotomy to begin with, whether the attack is sound or not is of no significance. Observing that religious claims have often been nonsensical and that much of great harm has been done in the name of religion does not negate the spiritual/poetic/subjectivist/archetypally feminine side of experience and certainty doesn’t prove that the material/objectivist/archetypally masculine side of things holds final truth. (Thought such straw man argument certainly sells lots of books. A great many of sales have been to religious fundamentalists wanting to sharpen their own, equally polemical, and partial, positions.)
I find it sad that the rich contributions of evolutionary biology get turned into this kind of simplistic thinking (speaking as one who made evolutionary theory a major focus as an undergraduate). While the best of evolutionary thinkers do better, particularly in popular writings such simplistic interpretation today are common and often celebrated—and result in some remarkably muddled conclusions.
The other evening I was listening to a radio conversation on the neurology and evolutionary significance of music. One of the interviewees noted that both Steven Pinker and Dawkins regarded music as a secondary epiphenomenon at best, with little real evolutionary significance (just happened to come along as “ear candy.” I find it rather hard to imagine reaching such a conclusion if a person were at all in touch with the part of human intelligence that relates to music. (Note the Evolutionary History of Music presentation at www.Evolmusic.org where I demonstrate how specific relationships to music and specific musical dynamics support the particular needs of different stages in culture (and in formative process more generally.]