Abstract
In recent decades, the humanities have been in thrall to postmodern skepticism, whereas Darwinism, brimming with confidence in the genuine progress they have made in the sciences of biology and psychology, have set their sights on rescuing the humanities from the ravages of postmodernism. In their attempt to formulate a biological theory of religion, the neo-Darwinists (Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, among others) have moved beyond their area of competence, revealing themselves to be inverted fundamentalists. Ignorant of the long and rich history of religious thought, they commit an ideology, rather than a science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Further Reading
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities; Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
Dawkins, R. (1996). Unweaving the rainbow: Science, delusion and the appetite for wonder. Boston and New York: Houghton-Mifflin.
Dawkins, R. (2005). The “atheist” interview with Gordy Slack. Retrieved April 25, 2005 from http://www.Salon.com.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon and Shuster.
Dennett, D. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. New York: Viking.
Goodheart, E. (1996). The reign of ideology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Huxley, J. S. (1941). Man stands alone. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Patai, D., & Corral, W. (2005). Theory’s empire: A dissenting anthology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goodheart, E. Neo-Darwinism and Religion. Soc 45, 125–129 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-008-9073-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-008-9073-9