Thursday, September 23, 2010

Richard Dawkins' Letter to his Daughter: Good and Bad Reasons for Believing

The following is a letter from evolutionary biologist and author Richard Dawkins to his daughter Juliet when she was 10 years old.  If you're a parent, I invite you to read and contemplate this letter and consider what it is that you're teaching your child about how to think and navigate the world we live in.

I wish I'd received such a letter at the age of 10, or at the age of 30 for that matter. The letter is printed in Dawkins' book The Devil's Chaplain.

"Dear Juliet,

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 something else.”

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 an 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 600 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 tidbits 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 is because 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 convinced 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.

Your loving

*The fatwah against Salman Rushdie was prominently in the news at the time."

I've read this over many times in the past few days since first coming upon it. Whoever sent it my way, thank you.  It is a very profound letter and I can't help but wish I'd been raised with such a grounded and real view of life.

tall penguin


Anonymous said...

I'm sure your parents would be honoured to know that you think they failed you in same way. Maybe Richard's daughter will feel the same way about him someday.

I do not necessarily believe all the stories in the Bible. They were written in a way people at the time could understand it. Let's keep that in mind. I also believe proving the world is more than 5000 years old does not disproves God. If Richard had the perceptive skills to be more than a one trick pony he would soon relalize that it is not only with his eyes that he can see. Of course, this ability cannot be taught or understood if you believe you already have all the answers. Richard is a closed book so I hold out little hope for him. I'm awaiting his book 'The Allah Delussion' and his impending book signing tour of the Middle East. I wont be waiting my breath for that one though. That would put his convictions too much to the test. The Pope is an easier and softer target. Life is just the way Richard wants it. He picks on featherweights and backs away from real battles if they courage of conviction. He is a coward. P.S., I think the letter was written to help his daughter fall asleep because it bored the shit out of me.

Call me Paul said...

Oddly enough, Anonymous, your comment bored the shit out of me. Same old trite mumbo jumbo I've read on message boards and blog comments a thousand times. Have you ever had an original thought, one that wasn't implanted into you by your mind controlled upbringing? Sorry, Anonymous, but you should take your hackneyed platitudes back to your insular religious conclave where you can be comfortably surrounded by millions of people who think just like you do, and not be frightened by challenging concepts and ideas out here in the reality based community.

Dave said...

This is a good answer to the problem I've grappled with as a parent. I don't want to teach my kids WHAT to think, but rather HOW to think. But kids are kids, so the attempt to teach them HOW is accepted into their brains as rule-based WHAT's. It's been a challenge. Dawkins was raised by parents that taught him HOW instead of WHAT, and he's passed that healthy tradition on to his own child. Hopefully, she'll do the same for hers.

I love it when I tell Zach something and he asks, "How do you know that?" He doesn't just accept what I say, he wants to know the evidence. And it has happened that I show him my evidence, and he decides he doesn't agree with the conclusion I've reached based on it. (It's also happened that he's changed my mind!) I sincerely hope he continues to think critically.

Thanks for sharing this, good stuff!

Anonymous said...

Anyone tell you you are a dick?
I was born an Etheist pea brain. I have never attended church in my life. It was through my own thinking that I came to believe there is a God. To me it was inconveivable for there not to be one. Tell me how I came to believe that? You can't, because you can't read about it in the Bible. You are totaly disarmed because you cannot use the same bullshit on me that you can on everybody else. Go on, use the same arguments your tiny little mind has been brainwashed to spewing out everytime you challenge someone who believes in God and, like your dick, you will be coming up horribly inadequate. I've drawn my own conclusions in a way that you cannot possibly conceive. I have followed no path. You are such a loser. Sorry, that's been said hundreds of times already.

Anonymous said...

Hi Tall Penguin.
Thanks for your feedback on my comment. I apologize for my saying his letter bored the 'shit' out of me. Mind you, I did so with a purpose, and paul took the bait. Now's time to apply my social experiment. My response to Paul will no doubt ruffle his feathers more than if I had responded in the more reasonaed, compassionate, thoughtfl or 'Godly' way that I am responding to you now. I have no ill will towards Paul. I'm sure he's a decent fellow who's just very passionate about his beliefs. I respect his opinion and beliefs. I just have my own. If Paul reads only my posting he will respond in a very angry way. Of course if he reads this post before responding to mine it might disarm him and he will either not respond; or respond with an intellectual argument, although I'm not sure what that will look like. Or, respond in a very emotionally angry way but this is least likely because he'll want to try and demonstrate his intellectual superiority that Atheits (most) like to think they have over 'beleivers'.
If I don't check back in, I wish you all the best and sounds like you're doing great in raising your daughter. Thank you for your thoughtful response. You've disarmed me with your kindness. A thought to ponder...
Take care.

Call me Paul said...

"Social experiment." That's good, Anon. Rich. Not new, unique or interesting. Just more same old same old. You are right, you don't know me, but you are right - I am a people who behave like dicks. I am the other side of the golden rule, baby. I replied to you the way you deserved based upon your first comment. Maybe that's the big difference between you and I, Anon. I know I'm a dick, but you have yet to realize the truth about yourself.

Anonymous said...

Nick (Russia):

I certainly appreciate what Richard Dawkins wrote to his daughter. I grew up as a Jehovah's Witness and I still am. I think a lot on why I believe in God. I am not going to defend my religion, it is certainly a cult. His remarks of authority and tradition are great. If only I knew that at the age of ten too ;)

But one line of reasoning on Dawkins' part I find faulty. If not faulty, than at least narrow-minded. His materialistic view of this metaphysical question (if there is a God or something superior) is not working out well. Nobody can scientifically prove there is a god. But nobody can scientifically prove there is none. With all the bullshit religion did to mankind, the question still can't be answered yes or no.

Just three hundred years ago no one would believe there would be airplanes, cell phones, computers, internet etc. Those concepts would contradict physical laws known at the time. Impossible from the scientific point of view of the days.

I am not going to take sides in that issue though. My point is only to be honest and as broad-minded as possible. There are things we know nothing about of. We can't apply known rules and evidence to evaluate the unknown. So at the moment I disagree with Richard's way of proving things.

tall penguin said...

"Nobody can scientifically prove there is a god. But nobody can scientifically prove there is none."

This is a terrible argument for God. Just like it's a terrible argument for unicorns, fairies, Zeus, Thor and the purple cow that lives under my bed that just happens to disappear whenever someone looks under it.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

Anonymous said...

Nick (Russia):

I tend to agree with the arguments.

And giving the religion absolute and unreserved right to decide in this question is certainly crazy. (How the hell they could know?!)

The thing that still bothers me is the option that we still can be missing out something with this strictly materialistic approach. For example, there are plenty of documented phenomena we still can't explain rationally. I mean some supernatural stuff like ghosts, disappearing objects, voices, voodoo, maybe UFOs, etc. I know this all can have a rational explanation. But we still don't have it. Which makes me think, Is there really nothing out there? Is there an invisible side of the world? Are spirit forces really NOT existing?

tall penguin said...

Hi again Nick,

I entertained many of the same questions that you are now pondering, when I first began thinking for myself. I trust that once you start educating yourself post-JW you'll find that much of what you thought was unanswerable does in fact have logical, rational explanations.

For starters, I would suggest reading Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time." I think you'll find it most interesting and useful.

Anonymous said...

Nick (Russia):

I'll sure give it a chance ;) Are all ex JWs so predictable? ;) Thanks for yr suggestion. Gosh, what am I going to explore else? ;)

Charles said...

To whom it may concern,
I found this essay to be overwhelmingly refreshing. To previous comments, I was intrigued by the format of the piece as a letter to his daughter. I do not believe that it was written purely for his daughter, which I have no objections to. The essay dumbs down the claims made against all religions, but only does so to point out that this is the only way that pious individuals can understand it. I have read intensive papers and books on the fallacies and wording of the Bible and religion. This essay introduces most of these topics efficiently, while not bogging itself down in complicated reasoning and wording that can turn a non-atheist or non-agnostic away. I have gone through a Catholic High School and have first hand seen the pressures that are put on children at a very young age. Bringing up that there is no evidence for god, or reasoning is useless against the now throughly trained minds of religious followers. However, most of the arguments can be refuted as simple logical fallacies, such as “The Bible says that God is real. God wrote the Bible, therefore God is real,”. You may either want to burst out laughing or become furious by this quote because of its utter stupidity. But throughout my life, asking well respected religious figures, I have hear quotes similar to this. I am no one but a concerned citizen for my country and our world.
This is a link to an extensive look at the Bible that opened my mind to an argument that I had never encountered. I hope that anyone interested will take the time to real at least the beginning of this essay:


Elssar said...

Its a really good read. Thanks for posting

Anonymous said...

That's a letter I would love to read to my daughter (if I have one), and I'm a bible-believing Christian.