Skip to main content

Is God a Human Invention? Commentary # 1

Submitted by Ken Watts on Thu, 12/06/2007 - 16:49

Yesterday, I found a YouTube recording of the debate at Tufts between Daniel Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza over religion, science, and the existence of God. It's broken into short segments, which I'll be posting along with this commentary.

image
image

I found it instructive, not because it shed any new or exciting light on those subjects, but because it shed light, for me, on the nature of the debate.

I think it does this in a variety of ways, which I hope to examine in posts to come, but the first thing that struck me, as I viewed the clips yesterday, was an alternation between two types of rhetoric, which I'll call the rhetoric of science, and the rhetoric of politics. Dennett and D'Souza provide us with a miniature exhibit of the interplay between these two kinds of rhetoric in the society at large.

Rhetoric is the art of persuading or convincing. Scientific rhetoric aims to deepen understanding at the conscious level and to bring our conscious worldviews into line with the evidence. Political rhetoric aims to motivate us to action or commitment. It tends to operate on the subconscious level, where our motivations often reside.

So, for example, if your house was about to collapse, and I knew it, and there was little or no time to convince you of the fact, I would probably use political rhetoric to get you out quickly. I wouldn't be as concerned with how well you understood the causes of the collapse, or the exact nature of the situation, as I would be with what would motivate you to leave.

I might, for example, scream at you, or assume an authoritarian stance, ordering you to move this instant, without any argument. None of this would deepen your understanding, but it would affect you at the subconscious level, and it might save your life.

Both Dennett and D'Souza see a certain dangerous urgency in the world.

D'Souza believes that society is in danger of losing its values by rejecting Christianity, and that individuals are in danger of going to hell because they have rejected God.

Dennett believes that world peace is endangered by toxic religions, and that individuals are in danger of manipulation and ignorance because they accept superstitions.

Because of this both rely, to some extent, on political rhetoric—the rhetoric that operates primarily on the subconscious, rather than the conscious, mind.

You can see this quite clearly in Dennett's first presentation.

He begins by introducing the agreed-upon topic for the debate, which is "Is God a Human Invention?".  He then provides some background information:

  1. The only religion that is growing today (in numbers) is Islam.
  2. Islam is not growing by making converts, but because of a high birth rate.
  3. Christianity is not growing.
  4. Evangelical Christianity is losing its youth—only a small percentage become "bible-believing adults".
  5. The apparent growth of Christianity in the U.S. is because the Christians have become more vocal, not more numerous.
  6. The United States is much more religious than Western Europe.
  7. The United States has a much higher rate of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, and abortion than Western Europe.
  8. The fastest growing group (defined by religious criteria) in the world is those who are not religious.

None of these points seems to have much bearing on the debate question—"Is God a Human Invention". So why does Dennett give them as background information?

These are, in fact, part of the argument that Dennet makes, but they are rooted in political rhetoric, rather than scientific rhetoric. By providing this list of facts, Dennett undermines some of the audience's motivations to reject his point of view on the debate question and accept D'Souza's.

People are often—subconsciously and irrationally—motivated to join the winning side, move with the tide, jump on the bandwagon. To the extent that the audience believes that religion is the way the world is going, they will be motivated to agree with D'Souza's arguments.

By pointing out that religion and Christianity (D'Souza's brand of religion) are not growing, but that the number of nonreligious is, Dennett is not making a direct argument against D'Souza's position, but he is removing an irrational, subconscious, motivation in favor of that position—and by doing so he is clearing the ground for a more conscious consideration of the issue by the audience.

This is a use of political rhetoric, since it addresses the audience's motivations for agreeing or disagreeing, rather than the question itself.

The same is true of his point about the lower rates of homicide, STDs, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the relatively godless Western Europe, compared to the U.S.

We tend—subconsciously and irrationally—to assume that if a belief has beneficial results then it must be true. Even if Dennett chose to attack this assumption on a conscious level, and got the audience to consciously agree, the chances are that the assumption would still operate subconsciously: if religion leads to better behavior, it must be good, and if it is good it must be true.

But in this case, Dennett is lucky. He doesn't have to attack the subconscious assumption. He can merely introduce evidence that cuts the chain off at its source. Religion doesn't lead to the behavior it claims to lead to.

In both these cases, he's addressing motives for accepting D'Souza's position, rather than the position itself.

In both cases, he is quite justified, because those motives are based on misinformation, and he addresses them by correcting that misinformation. The ultimate effect is irrational, but his methods are both honest and rational.

In the next segment, he doesn't fare quite so well.