I read this for a discussion group. Not the whole book, just chapter five, entitled “The Roots of Religion”. The framework here is evolution, both biological and cultural. I’m comfortable discussing biological evolution, since my life is full of biologists and the natural world is a major source of entertainment and enjoyment for all of us. I think evolutionary theory is sound. Cultural “evolution” is another story.
First of all, Dawkins tells us that all human cultures have religion. I’ve been under the impression that Confucianism and Taoism are better described as philosophies, since they don’t rely on the supernatural and don’t “guarantee” life after death. I’m sure Dawkins deals with this someplace.
Dawkins attitude towards religion is negative and condescending to an extreme. He thinks “believers” are totally irrational. Most of my friends in the discussion found this annoying and felt Dawkins damaged his case by being so unpleasant. One person found him “bracing”. Maybe we need some relief from having to treat ALL religious viewpoints with careful respect. Some ARE “better” than others.
Dawkins takes a big leap when he treats cultural “memes” as self replicating and therefore just like genes. I’ve barely grasped the concept of memes. There’s no way I can grant the idea of “cultural evolution” the same status as the contemporary, very well developed and useful theory of biological evolution.
A few days ago, I watched and participated in a “religious” event, a performance of Handel’s “Messiah”. Can something so complex, enduring and moving be categorized as a “meme”? Not by me. No, I don’t believe every word of it. I don’t expect to be “raised incorruptible”. But there’s room in my life for mystery and for aesthetic appreciation, and in ways I can’t explain, for belief.
AMG Reading Journal 