How We Believe, 2nd Ed.

by Michael Shermer

  It turns out that the number-one reason people give for why they believe in God is a variation on the classic cosmological or design argument: The good design, natural beauty, perfection, and complexity of the world or universe compels us to think that it could not have come about without an intelligent designer. In other words, people say they believe in God because the evidence of their senses tells them so. Thus, contrary to what most religions preach about the need and importance of faith, most people believe because of reason. So the fifth chapter reviews the various proofs of God, from those presented by medieval philosophers to those proffered by modern creationists, and considers what these arguments, and their employment in the service of religious belief, tell us about faith.

  This relationship between science and religion, reason and faith, the subject of the sixth chapter, has once again emerged to the forefront of cultural importance due to a conjuncture of events, including the millennium that beckons us to reconsider the meaning of the past and future and the relative roles of science and religion in history; the discovery by physicists that the universe is more finely tuned and delicately balanced than we ever realized; the magnificent photographs of the universe made by the Hubble Space Telescope revealing an almost spiritual beauty of the cosmos as never seen before; and the issuance by the Pope of two statements, one acknowledging the validity of the theory of evolution and the other endorsing the successful marriage of fides et ratio, faith and reason.

  Because humans are storytelling animals, a deeper aspect of the God Question involves the origins and purposes of myth and religion in human history and culture, the subject of the seventh, eighth, and ninth chapters. Why is there an eternal return of certain mythic themes in religion, such as messiah myths, flood myths, creation myths, destruction myths, redemption myths, and end of the world myths? What do these recurring themes tell us about the workings of the human mind and culture? What can we learn from these myths beyond the moral homilies offered in their narratives? What can we glean about ourselves as we gaze into these mythic mirrors of our souls?

  Not only are humans storytelling animals, we are also pattern-seeking animals, and there is a tendency to find patterns even where none exists. To most of us the patterns of the universe indicate design. For countless millennia, we have taken these patterns and constructed stories about how our cosmos was designed specifically for us. For the past few centuries, however, science has presented us with a viable alternative in which we are but one among tens of millions of species, housed on but one planet among many orbiting in an ordinary solar system, itself one among possibly billions of solar systems in an ordinary galaxy, located in a cluster of galaxies not so different from billions of other galaxy clusters, themselves whirling away from one another in an expanding cosmic bubble that very possibly is only one among a near-infinite number of bubble universes. Is it really possible that this entire cosmological multiverse exists for one tiny subgroup of a single species on one planet in a lone galaxy in that solitary bubble universe? The final chapter explores the implications of this scientific worldview and what it means to fully grasp the nature of contingency—what if the universe and the world were not created for us by an intelligent designer, and instead is just one of those things that happened? Can we discover meaning in this apparently meaningless universe? Can we still find the sacred in this age of science?

  To help me answer these questions a number of people have been highly influential in my thinking and writing, both directly and indirectly. The ultimate genesis of my beliefs, as it is for all of us of course, is parental, so I thank my mother, Lois, my stepfather, Dick, my late father, Richard, and my stepmother, Betty, for raising me in an atmosphere open and uncritical toward both religious and secular beliefs; I truly had a free choice in the matter, as it should be for all children. For introducing me to Christianity in my youth I thank the Oakleys: George, Marilyn, George, and Joyce (though they are not to be blamed for my subsequent fall from grace). At Glendale College Professor Richard Hardison was especially effective in helping me think clearly about philosophy and theology, particularly with regard to reason and faith; and at Pepperdine University Professor Tony Ash’s courses on Jesus the Christ and the writings of C. S. Lewis awakened me to the depth and seriousness of Christian theology and apologetics. The primary credit (or blame, depending on your perspective) for my turn toward science and secular humanism in graduate school goes to Professors Bayard Brattstrom, Meg White, and Doug Navarick at the California State University—Fullerton, whose passion for science made me realize that no religion could come close to the epic narratives told by cosmologists, evolutionary biologists, and social scientists about the origins and evolution of the cosmos, life, behavior, and civilization.

  Over the past two decades countless conversations with hundreds of people have helped me sort out some answers to these deep religious and philosophical questions, but those most directly affecting the development of this book include Skeptic magazine editors and board members David Alexander, Tim Callahan, Napoleon Chagnon, Gene Friedman, Nick Gerlich, Penn Jillette, Gerald Larue, Bernard Leikind, Betty McCollister, Tom McDonough, Sara Meric, Richard Olson, Donald Prothero, Vincent Sarich, Jay Snelson, Carol Tavris, Teller, and Stuart Vyse. As always I acknowledge the support of the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine provided by Dan Kevles, Susan Davis, and Chris Harcourt at the California Institute of Technology; Larry Mantle, Ilsa Setziol, Jackie Oclaray, and Linda Othenin-Girard at KPCC 89.3 FM radio in Pasadena; Stan Hynds and Linda Urban at Vroman’s bookstore in Pasadena; as well as those who help at every level of our organization, including Jane Ahn, Jaime Botero, Jason Bowes, Jean Paul Buquet, Bonnie Callahan, Cliff Caplan, Randy Cassingham, Amanda Chesworth, Shoshana Cohen, John Coulter, Brad Davies, Clayton Drees, Janet Dreyer, Bob Friedhoffer, Jerry Friedman, Sheila Gibson, Michael Gilmore, Tyson Gilmore, Steve Harris, Andrew Harter, Laurie Johansen, Terry Kirker, Diane Knudtson, Joe Lee, Tom McIver, Dave Patton, Rouven Schaefer, Brian Siano, and Harry Ziel.

  I am especially grateful for the additional input provided by my agents Katinka Matson and John Brockman, my editor John Michel and my publicist Sloane Lederer at W. H. Freeman and Company (as well as Diane Maass, Peter McGuigan, and all the folks in production at this fine publishing house); as well as Louise Ketz and Simone Cooper; and for taking the time to read individual chapters or provide valuable feedback on my thinking I thank Richard Abanes, Michele Bonnice, Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Richard Elliott Friedman, Ursula Goodenough, Alex Grobman, Donald Johanson, Elizabeth Knoll, J. Gordon Melton, Massimo Pigliucci, Michael Ruse, Eugenie Scott, Nancy Segal, Frank Tipler, Bob Trivers, Edward O. Wilson, and Rabbi Edward Zerin. Bruce Mazet and Frank Miele both went above and beyond the call of duty to both critique and support my efforts to grasp the deeper meaning of the God Question; and James Randi, as always, serves as inspiration requiring perspiration to keep up with his tireless efforts to keep us on our intellectual toes.

  The influence of Frank Sulloway on my thinking is immeasurable, but not his effect on this book, especially Chapter 4 and our corroboration on the study of religious attitudes, which can be measured precisely and significantly at three sigmas above the mean. I am also deeply appreciative of my Skeptics Society partner Pat Linse, not only for her brilliant artwork and design of Skeptic magazine and for preparing all of the illustrations for this book, but also for the conversations on God and religion that have kept in check my occasional paroxysms of irritations with religion.

  Finally, I thank Kim for being my wife, confidante, and best friend who has refereed the countless wrestling matches that go on in my mind about the timeless questions that concern us all; and Devin (although she had no choice in the matter) for being my daughter, joy, and source of mind-cleansing play so necessary to get rid of the cognitive clutter that goes with research and writing.

  When we began the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine in 1992 we adopted a quote from the seventeenth-century philosopher and religious think
er Baruch Spinoza: “I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.” When it comes to religion it is especially difficult for any of us to apply this principle consistently. But if we do, the moral dilemma of how to discuss the God Question without offense may be resolved. As my friend and colleague Stephen Jay Gould told me: “You cannot understand the human condition without understanding religion or religious arguments.”

  I hope that this book in some small way adds to our understanding of the human condition.

  INTRODUCTION TO THE PAPERBACK EDITION

  The Gradual Illumination of the Mind

  Reconsiderations and Recapitulations on the God Question

  It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follows from the advance of science.

  —Charles Darwin

  In the first edition of this book I wrote on page xv of the Preface: “Of course it is okay for people to believe in God; moreover, people will believe regardless of what I say or think.” The second part of this sentence can be verified, since God’s ratings have not slipped in the polls one iota since How We Believe was first released in October 1999. In fact, a March 2000 poll from Gallup shows that, as always, belief in God remains potent, not only in America but worldwide:

  —Belief in God: Even when Gallup added the option for respondents that they “don’t believe in God, but believe in a universal spirit or higher power,” only eight percent chose that response with 86 percent saying that they believe in God. Gallup added: “In fact, only five percent of the population choose neither of these choices and thus claim a more straightforward atheist position.”

  —Church Attendance: Although less than the percentage of people who believe in God, “about two-thirds of the population claim to attend services at least once a month or more often,” Gallup said, while “thirty-six percent say they attend once a week.” By contrast, only 8 percent say they never attend religious services, while 28 percent report that they “seldom” go.

  —Church Membership: Matching the figures for church attendance, two-thirds of Americans say they are members of a church or some other religious institution. “Only nine percent of the public respond with ‘none’ when asked to identify a religious affiliation or preference,” Gallup concluded.

  —Importance of Religion: Americans match people in other countries in ranking religion as very or fairly important in their lives. In a joint study between Gallup International and the London-based Taylor Nelson Sofres marketing firm covering 60 countries, 87 percent said that they consider themselves to be part of some religion. In America 60 percent say that religion is “very important in their life,” with another 30 percent saying that it is “fairly important.”

  —God and Politics: Since 2000 is a presidential election year, Gallup found that 52 percent of voters surveyed “would be more likely to vote for a candidate for president who has talked about his or her personal relationship with Jesus Christ during debates and news interviews.” As anyone who watched the presidential debates knows, all the candidates went on public record to extol their Christian beliefs, including the Democratic candidate Al Gore, not exactly known for his conservatively religious views. On the Republican side, George W. Bush announced that he considered Jesus to be the most influential philosophical thinker in his life.

  SKEPTICISM AS A VIRTUE

  Is it okay for people to believe in God? A number of atheists objected to this statement. One wrote me: “Religion is a bad idea. Belief in god is a bad idea. These ideas should be self-evident to any rationalist. That religion/belief is common is not a reason to avoid such statements. That religion/belief will perhaps always be with us is not a reason. That religion/belief is old is not a reason. That religion/belief may at times do some good is not a reason. None of these statements are reasons to avoid clearly stating the truth. Anything less is duplicitous, disingenuous, appeasing—and ultimately, helps the other side by providing approval where disapproval should instead be offered.”

  “The other side.” What a revealing way to phrase a critical attitude toward religion, whose long history of dividing the world between “our side” and the “other side” is a notoriously bloody one. Should nonbelievers really ape this most nonsalubrious side of the system of belief from which they so often distance themselves? Clearly religion has no monopoly here. The very propensity to cleave nature into unambiguous yeses and noes may very well be an evolutionary by-product whose ultimate outcome could result in the extinction of the species (and a further indication that not everything in evolution can be explained by its adaptive significance).

  Another friend who objected to my “okay to believe” statement spelled it out even clearer: “I won’t let anyone who believes in god in my home. I won’t sleep with them and I have none in my social circle. But I can do more.” What “more” shall we do? What more can we do? Should we evangelize against Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the other systems of religious belief? Since I am a libertarian in more ways than just political, I am disinclined to tell people what they should or should not be doing with their personal lives and beliefs. Nevertheless, I am a scientific and skeptical activist (not just a dispassionate onlooker from the intellectual sidelines), so I am forced on a daily basis to attempt to dissuade people from their less rational beliefs. How to reconcile these competing motives? Through a positive push-forward program instead of a negative push-back agenda. Evangelize for science rather than rail against religion. Don’t curse the darkness; light a candle. Charles Darwin, who renewed the science-religion debate nearly a century and a half ago, expressed this position well in the epigraph above.

  Nevertheless please note that in this edition of the book I changed the phrase to read that it is okay not to believe in God. By this statement I am speaking to those atheists, nontheists, and nonbelievers of all stripes as a form of validation from a fellow free-thinker; I am also reaching out to theists and believers of all faiths who, occasionally or even frequently, doubt their faith. Doubt is good. Questioning belief is healthy. Skepticism is okay. It is more than okay, in fact. Skepticism is a virtue and science is a valuable tool that makes skepticism virtuous. Science and skepticism are the best methods of determining how strong your convictions are, regardless of the outcome of the inquiry. If you challenge your belief tenets and end up as a nonbeliever, then apparently your faith was not all that sound to begin with and you have improved your thinking in the process. If you question your religion but in the end retain your belief, you have lost nothing and gained a deeper understanding of the God Question. It is okay to be skeptical.

  In light of Darwin’s wise advice, why, one may ask, do I devote an entire chapter (2) to a head-on confrontation of the alleged proofs of God’s existence? The reason is that my laissez-faire attitude toward other people’s religious beliefs ends when they use, misuse, and abuse reason and science in the service of faith and religion. As even libertarians will admit, your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Claims that religious tenets can be proved through science require a response from the scientific community. Making evidentiary claims puts religion on science’s turf, so if it wants to stay there it will have to live up to the standards of scientific proof. This is not an archaic academic or philosophical issue. As I show in Chapter 4, the scientistically based “design argument” is the most common one made. People say they believe in God because of the evidence of their senses and their understanding of how the world works. In other words, they give reasons for their beliefs. What are those reasons? If they are good reasons shouldn’t we all become believers?

  GOD AND THE INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED UNIVERSE

  The hottest area in the search for scientific support of God’s existence can be found in the so-called “new creationism” that deals in “irred
ucible complexity” and especially “Intelligent Design” (ID as it is known among its adherents). Although I discuss these at length in Chapter 5, they continue to generate so much attention that it is worth expanding on it more here. It is rapidly becoming the strongest scientistic argument for believers. For example, I participated in two scientific debates on ID in 2000, a number of new books on it have been released by Christian publishers since my book came out, and an entire issue of the Christian magazine Touchstone was devoted to Intelligent Design, “a new paradigm in science that could revolutionize the way we view creation, the cosmos, and ourselves.”