Scientists often point out that most of the beliefs purveyed by religious systems are incompatible with modern scientific knowledge. That discussion has been going on since the Enlightenment, and especially since the publication of “The Origin of Species”. As a recent example, Dawkins (1993) has likened religion to a virus, and referred to religious belief as involving an “infected mind”. The implication of his writing is that humans would do fine if they trusted to scientists, who Dawkins defines elsewhere as “the specialists in discovering what is true about the world and the universe”, and could reject “bad or silly traditional information”. Of course Professor Dawkins is right in saying that the basic beliefs, if taken literally, are simply unacceptable to most twentieth century minds. Stories of the Virgin birth, of Resurrection and Ascension, require more than a pinch of salt. And school teachers must no longer be expected to teach about specific gravity in one lesson and talk about Jesus walking on water in the next. Of course, science can do a better job in helping us to understand our origins than can Genesis or any comparable myth. Of course, science is better fitted to help us understand the relation between cause and consequence in everyday life. But to reject all religion because religious beliefs are incompatible with modern scientific knowledge is unsatisfactory for at least three reasons.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alexander, R. D. (1979). Darwinism and human affairs. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Austin, J. (1975). How to do things with words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Backman, C. W. (1988).The self: a dialectical approach. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 229–260.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. To be inserted.
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (eds.) (1992). The adapted mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Betzig, L. L., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., & Turke, M. (1988). Human reproductive behaviour: a Darwinian perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and Loss, vol 1. Attachment. London: Hogarth.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1991). Culture and cooperation. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Cooperation and prosocial behaviour, (pp. 27–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boyer, P. (1994). The naturalness of religious ideas. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Boyer, P. (1995). Causal understandings in cultural representations. In D. Sperber, D. Premack,& A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal Cognition, (pp. 615–44). Oxford: Clarendon.
Brown, L. B. (1987). The psychology of religious belief London: Academic Press.
Bruce, S. (1996). Religion in the modern world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Buss, D. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books.
Buunk, B. P. (1995). Sex, self-esteem, dependency and extra-dyadic sexual experience as related to jealousy responses. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12,147–153.
Byrne, D., Nelson, D., & Reeves, K. (1966). Effects of consensual validation and invalidation on attraction as a function of verifiability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,2, 98–107.
Carrithers, M. (1983). The Buddha. Oxford University Press.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H. Barkow,L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind, (pp. 163–228). New York: Oxford University Press.
Dawkins, R. (1993). Viruses of the mind. London: British Humanists Association.
Dudbridge, G. (1995). Religious experience and lay society in Tang China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist paradigm. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B,205, 581–598.
Hinde, R. A. (1987). Individuals, relationships, and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hinde, R. A. (1989). Patriotism: is kin selection both necessary and sufficient? Politics and the Life Sciences, 8, 58–61.
Hinde, R. A. (1991). A biologist looks at anthropology. Man, 26, 583–608.
Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: a dialectical perspective. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Hinde, R. A. (1999). Why gods persist: a scientific approach to religion. London: Routledge.
Hood, R. W., Spilke, B., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R. (1996). The psychology of religion. New York: Guilford.
Humphrey, N. (1976). The social function of intellect. In P. Bateson and R. A. Hinde (Eds.),Growing points in ethology, (pp. 303–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Humphrey, C., & Laidlaw, J. (1994). The archetypal actions of ritual. Oxford: Clarendon.
James, W. (1892). The varieties of religious experience. New York: Longmans Green.
Johnson, G. R. (1986). Kin selection, socialization, and patriotism: an integrating theory.Politics and the Life Sciences, 4,127–140.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1995). Beyond modularity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Küng, H., & Kuschel, K-J. (1993). A global ethic. London: SCM Press.
Larson, E. J., & Witham, L. (1997). Scientists are still keeping the faith. Nature, 386,435–436.
Lawson, E. T., & McCauley, R. N. (1990) Rethinking religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, G. (1995). The articulation of circumstance and causal understanding. In D. Sperber, D.Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal Cognition, (pp. 557–76). Oxford: Clarendon.
Marks, I. M. (1987). Fears and phobias. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart.
Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind, (pp. 555–80). New York: Oxford University Press.
Planalp, S., & Rivers, M. (1996). Changes in knowledge of personal relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships, (pp. 299–324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Prins, K. S., Buunk, B. P., & Van Yperen, N. W. (1993). Equity, normative disapproval and extra marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 39–53.
Rawson, J. (1995). Chinese Jade. London: British Museum Press.
Reynolds, V., & Tanner, R. (1983). The biology of religion. New York: Longman.
Smith, H. (1991). The world’s religions. San Francisco: Harper.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press.
Turner, V. W. (1967). The forest of symbols: aspects of Ndembu ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Warner, M. (1976). Alone of all her sex. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Wulff, D. M. (1997). The psychology of religion: classic and contemporary. New York: Wiley.
Zaehner, R. C. (1962). Hinduism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zahavi, A. (1977). The testing of a bond. Animal Behaviour, 25, 246–247.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hinde, R.A. (2000). Biology, Culture, & Religion. In: Tonneau, F., Thompson, N.S. (eds) Perspectives in Ethology. Perspectives in Ethology, vol 13. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1221-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1221-9_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-5447-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-1221-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive