Premium
ON THE REALITY OF TOOTH FAIRIES: A REVIEW OF THE GOD DELUSION.
Author(s) -
Zeiler Michael D.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.75
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1938-3711
pISSN - 0022-5002
DOI - 10.1901/jeab.2007.88-435
Subject(s) - delusion , natural (archaeology) , intelligent design , natural selection , creatures , epistemology , naturalism , psychology , evolutionism , power (physics) , darwinism , process (computing) , selection (genetic algorithm) , sociology , computer science , philosophy , artificial intelligence , physics , archaeology , quantum mechanics , psychiatry , history , operating system
In The God Delusion , Richard Dawkins reviews the evidence for and against God. After considering arguments for a divine power, he says the main current one is that the characteristics of living creatures must be attributed to an all‐powerful designer. Design is the only plausible account, because the excellent fit between each plant and animal and its environment could not possibly have appeared in one stroke by pure chance. Dawkins agrees that randomness could not have done the job, but he says that a designer is equally unlikely. The only viable explanation is evolution by natural selection, a process that operates without plan or design. He then turns to the adaptive value of religious belief. After failing to find any, he proposes that belief in divinities is the by‐product of a powerful tendency to learn from others, an adaptive strategy produced by natural selection. Adults and other influential figures teach children many useful things, but they also train them to worship deities. Religious devotion is established through education, and it is maintained over generations by the social learning processes underlying all instances of cultural evolution. Dawkins' arguments together with other problems encountered in describing evolutionary processes highlight the importance of social learning. His discussion leads the reviewer to assert that only by knowing the mechanisms of social learning is it possible to understand how biological and cultural evolution interact to produce life as we find it.