Caveman Logic: The Persistence of Primitive Thinking in a Modern World (39 page)

Censorship without tribunal or public awareness is a frightening prospect. In the case of science textbooks it is accomplished without threat of imprisonment or other loss of freedom. Its underlying method—capitalism—is as American as apple pie. You offer the product the market wants and you make money. If you get out of step with your market, you suffer the consequences. Ironically, the entire process is quite Darwinian. Selection currently favors a right-wing, religious conservative approach to teaching biological science. And so those textbooks are proliferating. Pure science books, offering an unapologetic look at Darwinian natural selection, are in danger of becoming extinct.

Ask most Americans what kind of government they have and they will tell you, “a democracy.” By that, they mean the country is governed by the will of the people. Close, but no cigar. Americans may have the vote, but their will does not directly determine the running of the country. The Founding Fathers were very clear about this. They trusted the average American to vote (spare us from a monarchy!), but not to run the country. They were careful to make provisions for a little more expertise. And so, Americans vote for people, presumably more qualified than they, who in turn will run the country. Just how qualified are these candidates? In what way are they superior to the common folk who vote for them?

Selecting our leaders through public elections is further complicated by the fact that a vast number of Americans do not even bother to vote. Voter turnouts in the United States are disgracefully low compared to those of other voting nations. Presumably, the problem does not lie simply with Americans being too lazy to vote. In May 2006, an Alabama singer named Taylor Hicks won the
American Idol
television contest by receiving about 64 million votes. That figure is noteworthy because it is larger than the number of votes ever received by a candidate in a US presidential election up until 2008. Plainly, Americans know how to vote when the issue is something they really care about.

The situation is even further complicated by the fact that American presidential elections are decided not by the popular vote, but by the Electoral College, guaranteeing that a vote in Vermont, for example, is worth less than a vote in Texas. But that is another story. The point is simply that it behooves Americans to look very closely at the leaders they elect because it is the character of these persons, not of the voters themselves, that will determine how the country is run.

Some of our leaders take pride in acting “intuitively.” But defaulting to beliefs or decisions that feel “natural” can also be an unmitigated recipe for disaster in the modern world. Allowing what feels “right” or “comfortable” to dictate the terms of international politics is a luxury we can ill afford. But how do we raise the consciousness of those who make critical decisions on our behalf? How do we raise the standard by which an electorate makes its decisions in a democracy?

If we elect superstitious persons whose dependence on unenlightened belief systems shapes their private worldviews, then it should surprise no one that their running of the country will also reflect such thinking. Educated or enlightened voters may be horrified by such a prospect, but it is part of the deal, etched into our Constitution. Is this so much hyperbole? Will our valiant leaders set aside their private superstitions and irrationalities when it comes time to decide America’s actions and policies?

Probably not. In fact, it is almost surely the case that a candidate for the US presidency would face certain defeat if he or she did not profess belief in a supernatural controlling deity or did not attend regular (and probably Christian) church services. Thus, statements such as George W. Bush’s well-publicized words about God wanting him (Bush) to run for office are viewed with equanimity, if not admiration by the American electorate. As for presidential advisors, here is a sample of the thinking of televangelist James Robison, a close friend and spiritual advisor of former President George W. Bush: “I was driving down the road with my wife one day when I heard God speaking in my mind and my heart. It was not an audible voice, but it was nonetheless real. I heard Him say,
I really like the way you come to me. You don’t just come to me with a list of requests and concerns. Instead you crawl up into my arms, lay your head on my shoulder and rest. I like that.
”
¹⁹

One can only hope that Robison’s wife was driving at the time. His words are consistent with a long tradition of US presidents invoking the approval of a deity when announcing policy decisions. Even Josiah Bartlett, the fictional US president on television’s
The West Wing
, was no exception. Bartlett, more educated and liberal than many real presidents in recent history, regularly ended his public addresses by stating, “God bless you, and God bless America.” Moving from television to reality, few wars have been waged without leaders (on both sides) proclaiming that “God is on our side.” The antidote to this kind of self-serving pomposity has been a matter of public record for nearly 150 years but is rarely acknowledged. When President Lincoln was asked during the Civil War whether the deity was in line with his policies, Lincoln famously replied, “My concern is not whether God is on our side, (but rather) whether we are on God’s side.”

The Constitution is supposedly there to protect us from the blurring of church and state, because neither the candidates nor the clergy have much inclination to do so. Rev. Rick Warren, viewed by many as the heir apparent to Billy Graham’s role as national spiritual leader, was quite flagrant in attempting to influence the results of US elections. Warren, whose book
The Purpose-Driven Life
sold in excess of 30 million copies, sent a well-publicized message to more than 100,000 preachers, reminding them to emphasize “non-negotiable” issues (such as stem cell research and gay marriage) for Christians to keep in mind when selecting a candidate for political office.

Whether politicians like it or not, the electorate is doing what it can to negate the Constitution and blur the distinction between church and state. The Presidential Prayer Team publishes books and maintains a Web site (
www.presidentialprayerteam.org
) in order to teach Americans how to pray for their leaders. Once again, we are faced with the puzzle of why God will be more persuaded by the choreographed prayers of the many than the humble, uncoordinated efforts of the few. In any case, books sold by this organization are geared to helping individuals “record the journey of your intercession on behalf of the United States.”

The supernatural belief systems lying at the core of American politics go well beyond conventional religion. For example, would most Americans be perturbed to learn that the running of their country at the highest levels was based on astrology? Following the Reagan presidency, it was revealed that virtually nothing of importance, from the president’s daily schedule to interactions between the superpowers, had been decided without first consulting an astrologer. Three books have confirmed these events: one by Donald Regan, Reagan’s chief of staff; another by Nancy Reagan, whose faith in astrology informed and directed presidential actions; and a third by Joan Quigley, the San Francisco-based astrologer whom Reagan regularly consulted. Mrs. Reagan explained in her book that a background in show business had predisposed her and her husband to an uncritical acceptance of superstition in navigating life’s uncertainties.

The question is, had the American electorate been aware of the extent to which the running of their nation had been turned over to such irrational beliefs, would they have protested or taken steps to replace the Reagan presidency? The answer is far from clear. Remember that a large portion of the US population admits holding a belief in astrology. Whether this extends beyond reading daily newspaper astrology columns “for fun” to seeking astrological advice before making life-altering decisions is really the question. The point simply is that the man we elected
did
believe that the fate of Americans and their country was best entrusted to the alignment of celestial bodies, and so that is how our affairs were governed during his presidency. Democracy or not.

The September 17, 2007, issue of
Time
magazine contained a full-page editorial by Michael Kinsley, titled “God as Their Running Mate
.”
Kinsley noted, “Candidates often call him [God] a personal advisor. Voters need to know exactly what that means.” Kinsley’s focus was on the possible conflict between the orthodoxies and doctrines of one’s faith and how adherence to those beliefs might affect performance in elected office. As the June 9, 2008, issue of
Time
made clear, the problem is not uniquely American. The issue featured a cover story about a recently resigned British prime minister; it was titled, “The Faith of Tony Blair.”

There is a second cause for concern that does not get addressed often enough to satisfy atheist voters. If candidates are literally engaging in dialogue, and important dialogue at that, with an imaginary being, what does this say about their sanity? If we do not share the view that God exists, much less gets involved in political contests or international affairs, then who is speaking in God’s voice during these dialogues? Is this still a private conversation, or do voters have the right to hear what kinds of ideas are floating around the heads of our candidates? Does attributing the dialogue to what may be an imaginary playmate confer some sort of immunity from voter scrutiny?

A
s a species, we’re always picking up after our mistakes and inventing new sorts of toys. But the real question is whether we can survive the mental equipment we’ve been blindly depending upon since the Pleistocene Age.

We are a species predisposed to supernatural views of misfortune: when lightning strikes our favorite tree in the backyard, we ask, “What did I do to deserve that?” We are a species that, when faced with the normal effects of disease and decay, turns to a supernatural agent and asks for an exception to be made in our case. We are a species prone to thanking a supernatural agent when fortunate outcomes occur, lest we be seen as ungrateful and risk jinxing the deal. We are a species that sees faces in grilled cheese sandwiches and is prepared to pray to them. We are a species that has trouble supporting a baseball team named the Devil Rays, ultimately resulting in the offending word
devil
being dropped (
angel
fish, good;
devil
ray, bad). We are a species that sometimes shows the sophistication of a Neanderthal when evaluating fragmentary evidence and reaches conclusions about ghosts, “signs,” and magical powers in the world around us. We are a species that chooses comfort over reality, especially when that comfort enjoys widespread social support. And we are a species that goes to war to protect our particular delusions against those who do not share them.

I have a colleague who, whenever I raise these issues, humorously says, “Well, we’re not going to get anywhere with
this
brain.” You can see his point. Natural selection has produced a mind with a very low ceiling. Admittedly, in some respects, it is a spectacular instrument. It certainly has kept our bodies alive and breeding. But in other ways, it has painted us into some unbelievable and potentially deadly corners. Most humans seem incapable or unwilling to get past the haze of Caveman Logic. It’s bad enough that we are wrong about so many things, despite the availability of alternative knowledge. What is worse is the genuine peril that surrounds us as the twenty-first century dawns. What
is
the prognosis for our species?

One possibility is that despite the pleading of a small number among us, we will remain mired in superstition and delusion. Our social institutions will continue to support the most flawed parts of our minds. Without wallowing in the details any further, it is clear that this is a bleak picture. But is there a rosier one and can it be achieved? We might sit around and wait for our minds to evolve past their Pleistocene limitations, but this seems foolhardy. For one thing, we are dealing with a
very
slow process and, given the ignitable mixture of superstition and technology in the world today, we just may not have the luxury of waiting. For another, there is no reason to believe that selection pressure will favor the kinds of changes we’d have to make in order to improve. As we have already pointed out, virtually everything that is
wrong
with our minds is tied, one way or another, to something that is quite right. As my grandma (last heard from in chapter 1) might have pointed out in her own less-formal way, taking away the distorted lenses we presently use to see the world is unlikely to improve our reproductive fitness.

“Nature,” observed Katharine Hepburn’s character in
The African Queen
, “is what we were put in this world to rise above.” This famous line—and there are many others like it—is readily interpreted to mean “to rise above our basest nature.” In other words, cut out the violence, jealousy, greed, rape, lying, and cheating, and let’s get on with what makes us really special.

This is a really bum rap for “nature,” which is often blamed for everything that is wrong with us. But to Ms. Hepburn’s credit, her statement also includes a rather enlightened premise that is not celebrated widely enough. Namely, that we
can
rise above it. Putting the case in more contemporary terms, our destinies are not carved in stone or etched into our genomes. Her words are a rallying call against biological determinism.

We consider it a badge of accomplishment when we suppress a primitive antisocial impulse. This is the essence of Freudian psychology: our conflict with basic instincts that continue to prod us toward aggression, sexuality, and immediate gratification. But we are better than that. Most of us do not simply hit, rob, or rape whenever the urge crosses our mind. We control those urges, learn to sublimate them, and live peacefully with other members of our species. We pride ourselves on this. We enshrine it in our legal system. We disparage and punish those who do not suppress those primitive impulses we have all experienced. We know you can’t simply grab that piece of cake in the bakery window or reach for that woman (or man) whose appearance has just excited you.