Good And Bad Reasons For Believing
Richard Dawkins - a letter to
Now that you are ten, I want to write
to you about something that is important to me. Have you ever
wondered how we know the things that we know? How do we know,
for instance, that the stars, which look like tiny pinpricks in
the sky, are really huge balls of fire like the sun and are very
far away? And how do we know that Earth is a smaller ball whirling
round one of those stars, the sun?
The answer to these questions is "evidence."
Sometimes evidence means actually seeing ( or hearing, feeling,
smelling..... ) that something is true. Astronauts have travelled
far enough from earth to see with their own eyes that it is round.
Sometimes our eyes need help. The "evening star" looks
like a bright twinkle in the sky, but with a telescope, you can
see that it is a beautiful ball - the planet we call Venus. Something
that you learn by direct seeing ( or hearing or feeling..... )
is called an observation.
Often, evidence isn't just an observation
on its own, but observation always lies at the back of it. If
there's been a murder, often nobody (except the murderer and the
victim!) actually observed it. But detectives can gather together
lots or other observations which may all point toward a particular
suspect. If a person's fingerprints match those found on a dagger,
this is evidence that he touched it. It doesn't prove that he
did the murder, but it can help when it's joined up with lots
of other evidence. Sometimes a detective can think about a whole
lot of observations and suddenly realise that they fall into place
and make sense if so-and-so did the murder.
Scientists - the specialists in discovering
what is true about the world and the universe - often work like
detectives. They make a guess ( called a hypothesis ) about what
might be true. They then say to themselves: If that were really
true, we ought to see so-and-so. This is called a prediction.
For example, if the world is really round, we can predict that
a traveller, going on and on in the same direction, should eventually
find himself back where he started.When a doctor says that you
have the measles, he doesn't take one look at you and see measles.
His first look gives him a hypothesis that you may have measles.
Then he says to himself: If she has measles I ought to see......
Then he runs through the list of predictions and tests them with
his eyes ( have you got spots? ); hands ( is your forehead hot?
); and ears ( does your chest wheeze in a measly way? ). Only
then does he make his decision and say, " I diagnose that
the child has measles. " Sometimes doctors need to do other
tests like blood tests or X-Rays, which help their eyes, hands,
and ears to make observations.
The way scientists use evidence to learn
about the world is much cleverer and more complicated than I can
say in a short letter. But now I want to move on from evidence,
which is a good reason for believing something , and warn you
against three bad reasons for believing anything. They are called
"tradition," "authority," and "revelation."
First, tradition. A few months ago, I
went on television to have a discussion with about fifty children.
These children were invited because they had been brought up in
lots of different religions. Some had been brought up as Christians,
others as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Sikhs. The man with the microphone
went from child to child, asking them what they believed. What
they said shows up exactly what I mean by "tradition."
Their beliefs turned out to have no connection with evidence.
They just trotted out the beliefs of their parents and grandparents
which, in turn, were not based upon evidence either. They said
things like: "We Hindus believe so and so"; "We
Muslims believe such and such"; "We Christians believe
Of course, since they all believed different
things, they couldn't all be right. The man with the microphone
seemed to think this quite right and proper, and he didn't even
try to get them to argue out their differences with each other.
But that isn't the point I want to make for the moment. I simply
want to ask where their beliefs come from. They came from tradition.
Tradition means beliefs handed down from grandparent to parent
to child, and so on. Or from books handed down through the centuries.
Traditional beliefs often start from almost nothing; perhaps somebody
just makes them up originally, like the stories about Thor and
Zeus. But after they've been handed down over some centuries,
the mere fact that they are so old makes them seem special. People
believe things simply because people have believed the same thing
over the centuries. That's tradition.
The trouble with tradition is that, no
matter how long ago a story was made up, it is still exactly as
true or untrue as the original story was. If you make up a story
that isn't true, handing it down over a number of centuries doesn't
make it any truer!
Most people in England have been baptised
into the Church of England, but this is only one of the branches
of the Christian religion. There are other branches such as Russian
Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Methodist churches. They
all believe different things. The Jewish religion and the Muslim
religion are a bit more different still; and there are different
kinds of Jews and of Muslims. People who believe even slightly
different things from each other go to war over their disagreements.
So you might think that they must have some pretty good reasons
- evidence - for believing what they believe. But actually, their
different beliefs are entirely due to different traditions.
Let's talk about one particular tradition.
Roman Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was so
special that she didn't die but was lifted bodily in to Heaven.
Other Christian traditions disagree, saying that Mary did die
like anybody else. These other religions don't talk about much
and, unlike Roman Catholics, they don't call her the "Queen
of Heaven." The tradition that Mary's body was lifted into
Heaven is not an old one. The bible says nothing on how she died;
in fact, the poor woman is scarcely mentioned in the Bible at
all. The belief that her body was lifted into Heaven wasn't invented
until about six centuries after Jesus' time. At first, it was
just made up, in the same way as any story like "Snow White"
was made up. But, over the centuries, it grew into a tradition
and people started to take it seriously simply because the story
had been handed down over so many generations. The older the tradition
became, the more people took it seriously. It finally was written
down as and official Roman Catholic belief only very recently,
in 1950, when I was the age you are now. But the story was no
more true in 1950 than it was when it was first invented six hundred
years after Mary's death.
I'll come back to tradition at the end
of my letter, and look at it in another way. But first, I must
deal with the two other bad reasons for believing in anything:
authority and revelation.
Authority, as a reason for believing something,
means believing in it because you are told to believe it by somebody
important. In the Roman Catholic Church, the pope is the most
important person, and people believe he must be right just because
he is the pope. In one branch of the Muslim religion, the important
people are the old men with beards called ayatollahs. Lots of
Muslims in this country are prepared to commit murder, purely
because the ayatollahs in a faraway country tell them to.
When I say that it was only in 1950 that
Roman Catholics were finally told that they had to believe that
Mary's body shot off to Heaven, what I mean is that in 1950, the
pope told people that they had to believe it. That was it. The
pope said it was true, so it had to be true! Now, probably some
of the things that that pope said in his life were true and some
were not true. There is no good reason why, just because he was
the pope, you should believe everything he said any more than
you believe everything that other people say. The present pope
( 1995 ) has ordered his followers not to limit the number of
babies they have. If people follow this authority as slavishly
as he would wish, the results could be terrible famines, diseases,
and wars, caused by overcrowding.
Of course, even in science, sometimes
we haven't seen the evidence ourselves and we have to take somebody
else's word for it. I haven't, with my own eyes, seen the evidence
that light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. Instead,
I believe books that tell me the speed of light. This looks like
"authority." But actually, it is much better than authority,
because the people who wrote the books have seen the evidence
and anyone is free to look carefully at the evidence whenever
they want. That is very comforting. But not even the priests claim
that there is any evidence for their story about Mary's body zooming
off to Heaven.
The third kind of bad reason for believing
anything is called "revelation." If you had asked the
pope in 1950 how he knew that Mary's body disappeared into Heaven,
he would probably have said that it had been "revealed"
to him. He shut himself in his room and prayed for guidance. He
thought and thought, all by himself, and he became more and more
sure inside himself. When religious people just have a feeling
inside themselves that something must be true, even though there
is no evidence that it is true, they call their feeling "revelation."
It isn't only popes who claim to have revelations. Lots of religious
people do. It is one of their main reasons for believing the things
that they do believe. But is it a good reason?
Suppose I told you that your dog was dead.
You'd be very upset, and you'd probably say, "Are you sure?
How do you know? How did it happen?" Now suppose I answered:
"I don't actually know that Pepe is dead. I have no evidence.
I just have a funny feeling deep inside me that he is dead."
You'd be pretty cross with me for scaring you, because you'd know
that an inside "feeling" on its own is not a good reason
for believing that a whippet is dead. You need evidence. We all
have inside feelings from time to time, sometimes they turn out
to be right and sometimes they don't. Anyway, different people
have opposite feelings, so how are we to decide whose feeling
is right? The only way to be sure that a dog is dead is to see
him dead, or hear that his heart has stopped; or be told by somebody
who has seen or heard some real evidence that he is dead.
People sometimes say that you must believe
in feelings deep inside, otherwise, you' d never be confident
of things like "My wife loves me." But this is a bad
argument. There can be plenty of evidence that somebody loves
you. All through the day when you are with somebody who loves
you, you see and hear lots of little titbits of evidence, and
they all add up. It isn't a purely inside feeling, like the feeling
that priests call revelation. There are outside things to back
up the inside feeling: looks in the eye, tender notes in the voice,
little favors and kindnesses; this is all real evidence.
Sometimes people have a strong inside
feeling that somebody loves them when it is not based upon any
evidence, and then they are likely to be completely wrong. There
are people with a strong inside feeling that a famous film star
loves them, when really the film star hasn't even met them. People
like that are ill in their minds. Inside feelings must be backed
up by evidence, otherwise you just can't trust them.
Inside feelings are valuable in science,
too, but only for giving you ideas that you later test by looking
for evidence. A scientist can have a "hunch'" about
an idea that just "feels" right. In itself, this is
not a good reason for believing something. But it can be a good
reason for spending some time doing a particular experiment, or
looking in a particular way for evidence. Scientists use inside
feelings all the time to get ideas. But they are not worth anything
until they are supported by evidence.
I promised that I'd come back to tradition,
and look at it in another way. I want to try to explain why tradition
is so important to us. All animals are built (by the process called
evolution) to survive in the normal place in which their kind
live. Lions are built to be good at surviving on the plains of
Africa. Crayfish to be good at surviving in fresh, water, while
lobsters are built to be good at surviving in the salt sea. People
are animals, too, and we are built to be good at surviving in
a world full of ..... other people. Most of us don't hunt for
our own food like lions or lobsters; we buy it from other people
who have bought it from yet other people. We ''swim'' through
a "sea of people." Just as a fish needs gills to survive
in water, people need brains that make them able to deal with
other people. Just as the sea is full of salt water, the sea of
people is full of difficult things to learn. Like language.
You speak English, but your friend Ann-Kathrin
speaks German. You each speak the language that fits you to '`swim
about" in your own separate "people sea." Language
is passed down by tradition. There is no other way . In England,
Pepe is a dog. In Germany he is ein Hund. Neither of these words
is more correct, or more true than the other. Both are simply
handed down. In order to be good at "swimming about in their
people sea," children have to learn the language of their
own country, and lots of other things about their own people;
and this means that they have to absorb, like blotting paper,
an enormous amount of traditional information. (Remember that
traditional information just means things that are handed down
from grandparents to parents to children.) The child's brain has
to be a sucker for traditional information. And the child can't
be expected to sort out good and useful traditional information,
like the words of a language, from bad or silly traditional information,
like believing in witches and devils and ever-living virgins.
It's a pity, but it can't help being the
case, that because children have to be suckers for traditional
information, they are likely to believe anything the grown-ups
tell them, whether true or false, right or wrong. Lots of what
the grown-ups tell them is true and based on evidence, or at least
sensible. But if some of it is false, silly, or even wicked, there
is nothing to stop the children believing that, too. Now, when
the children grow up, what do they do? Well, of course, they tell
it to the next generation of children. So, once something gets
itself strongly believed - even if it is completely untrue and
there never was any reason to believe it in the first place -
it can go on forever.
Could this be what has happened with religions
? Belief that there is a god or gods, belief in Heaven, belief
that Mary never died, belief that Jesus never had a human father,
belief that prayers are answered, belief that wine turns into
blood - not one of these beliefs is backed up by any good evidence.
Yet millions of people believe them. Perhaps this because they
were told to believe them when they were told to believe them
when they were young enough to believe anything.
Millions of other people believe quite
different things, because they were told different things when
they were children. Muslim children are told different things
from Christian children, and both grow up utterly convinced that
they are right and the others are wrong. Even within Christians,
Roman Catholics believe different things from Church of England
people or Episcopalians, Shakers or Quakers , Mormons or Holy
Rollers, and are all utterly covinced that they are right and
the others are wrong. They believe different things for exactly
the same kind of reason as you speak English and Ann-Kathrin speaks
German. Both languages are, in their own country, the right language
to speak. But it can't be true that different religions are right
in their own countries, because different religions claim that
opposite things are true. Mary can't be alive in Catholic Southern
Ireland but dead in Protestant Northern Ireland.
What can we do about all this ? It is
not easy for you to do anything, because you are only ten. But
you could try this. Next time somebody tells you something that
sounds important, think to yourself: "Is this the kind of
thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it
the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition,
authority, or revelation?" And, next time somebody tells
you that something is true, why not say to them: "What kind
of evidence is there for that?" And if they can't give you
a good answer, I hope you'll think very carefully before you believe
a word they say.
RICHARD DAWKINS is an evolutionary biologist;
reader in the Department of Zoology at Oxford University; fellow
of New College. He began his research career in the 1960s as a
research student with Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nico Tinbergen,
and ever since then, his work has largely been concerned with
the evolution of behavior. Since 1976, when his first book, The
Selfish Gene, encapsulated both the substance and the spirit of
what is now called the sociobiological revolution, he has become
widely known, both for the originality of his ideas and for the
clarity and elegance with which he expounds them. A subsequent
book, The Extended Phenotype, and a number of television programs,
have extended the notion of the gene as the unit of selection,
and have applied it to biological examples as various as the relationship
between hosts and parasites and the evolution of cooperation.
His following book, The Blind Watchmaker, is widely read, widely
quoted, and one of the truly influential intellectual works of
our time. He is also author of the recently published River Out