John Tierney writes in his New York Times column:
If I’m serious about keeping my New Year’s resolutions in 2009, should I add another one? Should the to-do list include, “Start going to church�
This is an awkward question for a heathen to contemplate, but I felt obliged to raise it with Michael McCullough after reading his report in the upcoming issue of the Psychological Bulletin. He and a fellow psychologist at the University of Miami, Brian Willoughby, have reviewed eight decades of research and concluded that religious belief and piety promote self-control.
I doubt that Tierney is seriously considering church attendance as a means of supporting his New Year’s resolutions, but it’s interesting that he even throws the idea out there. We talked about memes in back-to-back editions of FastForward Radio (here and here) back in September. One of the most important things to remember about these self-reproducing ideas is that it is not their truth content that makes them successful. To give just one example, there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that childhood vaccinations cause autism, and yet look at how successfully that idea has been transmitted all over the world. But I wouldn’t suggest that the folks spreading that meme actually believe it to be untrue. Spreading such an idea while knowing it to be false would be an awfully strange thing to do.
Or would it?
Green Santa brings joy to children and helps save the planet.
Does it matter whether he really exists?
After all, isn’t buying into (what he believes to be) a false meme exactly what Tierney is suggesting doing, albeit in an offhand and humorous way? Someone taking Tierney’s advice would adopt religious belief — or at least religious practice — not because he or she believes it to be true, but simply because he or she finds it to be useful. And, in fact, this is one of the great critiques leveled against religion over the centuries, the idea that it has succeeded not because it is true, but because it has (take your pick):
-
Helped to keep the masses in line
-
Provided meaning and stability to otherwise empty lives
-
Served as a focus for organizing economic, social, and artistic activity
-
…and on and on
Tierney is suggesting doing on an individual level what these critics claim that we have done at a societal level — buy into a set of ideas not because they are true, but because of the many side benefits they provide. The big difference is that it’s hard to imagine society as a whole — or even a large segment of society — buying into something they know (or even strongly suspect) to be false. People don’t necessarily believe in or spread memes because they are true, but by and large they have to believe in them in order to get behind them, right?
Well, maybe not.
Last week, a lot of us engaged in supporting the Santa Claus meme. Parents go out of their way to promote this idea to their children because it is a tradition, because it is meaningful, because it makes Christmas a more joyful time — choose your reason — but not because we believe it’s true. I’m not criticizing the Santa meme; I enjoy it as much as the next dad. I’m just pointing out that it is, indeed, an example of a false meme spread by people who don’t believe in it.
Are there others?
Consider this recent item on Digg Science:
Global Warming: Reasons Why It Might Not Actually Exist
telegraph.co.uk — 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved, according to the Telegraph’s Christopher Booker. Sceptics have long argued that there are other explanations for climate change other than man-made CO2 and here we look at some of the arguments put forward by those who believe that global warming is all a hoax.
Okay, disclaimers: I don’t think global warming is a hoax. The temperature figures are what they are. However, I’m not ready to put human-caused-climate-change-by-means-of-CO2-emissions right up there with gravity just yet. There are criticisms of the prevailing models and projections, and some of these come from scientists, and, no, not all of those scientists are in the thrall of Big Oil (or the Freemasons or the Trilateral commission, for that matter, but let’s keep it on one set of memes at a time.)
Interestingly, climate-change “denialists” are accused of doing the very thing we’re talking about, here — knowingly spreading a false meme that they don’t believe in. Are there scientists who are doing that? I kind of doubt it. I’m going to allow that the scientists on both sides are sincere, if tending to be swayed by non-scientific factors such as politics. But obviously scientists aren’t the only ones engaged in this discussion. Consider these comments from the Digg item quoted above:
who cares if its real or not, leaving fossil fuels is a good thing.
Just because global warming is a SCAM doesn’t mean we should pollute.
who gives a ***** if global warming is real or not….. isn’t it extremely important to use green energy sources to keep our air cleaner.. our water cleaner.. and earth happier in general?
I’m not convinced man-made Global Warming is real. But it doesn’t really matter. I’d like to live life without polution, where I don’t have that ugly brown cloud over my city. I’m all for clean energy. Lets do our best to not pollute.
Personally I believe in Global Warming. But you know what? It DOESN’T MATTER THAT MUCH! With or without global warming the global environment is in a rough enough state that serious action is required global warming or no global warming.
I’m just so sick of these articles saying it’s not real, ‘nothing to see here.’ Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but I can’t see a disadvantage to erring on the side of caution, and cleaning up our act. I can’t see a problem with humans improving how we treat the planet, and this has been a good motivator. People, governments, and thusly corporations are not going to change unless there is motivation.
That last one is fairly close to my own views on the subject, but I have to admit that I’m a lot less comfortable with that position when I look at it in this light. Now, granted, Digg commenters can’t be taken as representative of anything other than Digg commenters. And none of them (in the first few dozen, anyway) come right out and say “I believe this idea to be false, but I will support it anyway because of the environmental benefits it provides.” Plus, anywhere that discourse gets politicized to this extent, there is another major driver behind both sides of the debate — the need to have one’s own side “win.” Whether a proposition is true or false is apparently less important than whether it is useful or not, and even that fact is less important than the overarching consideration of whether it belongs to us or to them.
But still how different are the two following propositions?
X is false, but people should believe X because of the benefits it brings.
We don’t know whether X is true or false, but people should believe X because of the benefits it brings.
Erring on the side of caution is all very well, but that is not what we do when we buy into a proposition irrespective of its truth content because belief in that proposition brings about certain benefits. This makes me wonder — how much of what we believe as a society or as individuals are we bought into not because it is true, but because it is useful? And then how much of what we believe do we believe simply because it belongs to our side?
UPDATE: Just found the following via James Taranto and The Best of the Web Today:
As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God
That’s about as straightforward as it gets, isn’t it? “X is false,” etc. Very interesting.