Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, May 11, 2006 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document Religion's Misguided Missiles

by Richard Dawkins - The Guardian

Special report: terrorism in the US

Saturday September 15, 2001

A guided missile corrects its trajectory as it flies, homing in, say, on the heat of a jet plane's exhaust. A great improvement on a simple ballistic shell, it still cannot discriminate particular targets. It could not zero in on a designated New York skyscraper if launched from as far away as Boston.

That is precisely what a modern "smart missile" can do. Computer miniaturisation has advanced to the point where one of today's smart missiles could be programmed with an image of the Manhattan skyline together with instructions to home in on the north tower of the World Trade Centre. Smart missiles of this sophistication are possessed by the United States, as we learned in the Gulf war, but they are economically beyond ordinary terrorists and scientifically beyond theocratic governments. Might there be a cheaper and easier alternative?

In the second world war, before electronics became cheap and miniature, the psychologist BF Skinner did some research on pigeon-guided missiles. The pigeon was to sit in a tiny cockpit, having previously been trained to peck keys in such a way as to keep a designated target in the centre of a screen. In the missile, the target would be for real.

The principle worked, although it was never put into practice by the US authorities. Even factoring in the costs of training them, pigeons are cheaper and lighter than computers of comparable effectiveness. Their feats in Skinner's boxes suggest that a pigeon, after a regimen of training with colour slides, really could guide a missile to a distinctive landmark at the southern end of Manhattan island. The pigeon has no idea that it is guiding a missile. It just keeps on pecking at those two tall rectangles on the screen, from time to time a food reward drops out of the dispenser, and this goes on until ... oblivion.

Pigeons may be cheap and disposable as on-board guidance systems, but there's no escaping the cost of the missile itself. And no such missile large enough to do much damage could penetrate US air space without being intercepted. What is needed is a missile that is not recognised for what it is until too late. Something like a large civilian airliner, carrying the innocuous markings of a well-known carrier and a great deal of fuel. That's the easy part. But how do you smuggle on board the necessary guidance system? You can hardly expect the pilots to surrender the left-hand seat to a pigeon or a computer.

How about using humans as on-board guidance systems, instead of pigeons? Humans are at least as numerous as pigeons, their brains are not significantly costlier than pigeon brains, and for many tasks they are actually superior. Humans have a proven track record in taking over planes by the use of threats, which work because the legitimate pilots value their own lives and those of their passengers.

The natural assumption that the hijacker ultimately values his own life too, and will act rationally to preserve it, leads air crews and ground staff to make calculated decisions that would not work with guidance modules lacking a sense of self-preservation. If your plane is being hijacked by an armed man who, though prepared to take risks, presumably wants to go on living, there is room for bargaining. A rational pilot complies with the hijacker's wishes, gets the plane down on the ground, has hot food sent in for the passengers and leaves the negotiations to people trained to negotiate.

The problem with the human guidance system is precisely this. Unlike the pigeon version, it knows that a successful mission culminates in its own destruction. Could we develop a biological guidance system with the compliance and dispensability of a pigeon but with a man's resourcefulness and ability to infiltrate plausibly? What we need, in a nutshell, is a human who doesn't mind being blown up. He'd make the perfect on-board guidance system. But suicide enthusiasts are hard to find. Even terminal cancer patients might lose their nerve when the crash was actually looming.

Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this -- it's a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn't we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don't be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn't appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there's a special martyr's reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.

Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.

It's a tall story, but worth a try. You'd have to get them young, though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology to make the big lie sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book and make them learn it by heart. Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it. It is called religion and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.

Facetious? Trivialising an unspeakable evil? That is the exact opposite of my intention, which is deadly serious and prompted by deep grief and fierce anger. I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite -- or too devout -- to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one's own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.

If death is final, a rational agent can be expected to value his life highly and be reluctant to risk it. This makes the world a safer place, just as a plane is safer if its hijacker wants to survive. At the other extreme, if a significant number of people convince themselves, or are convinced by their priests, that a martyr's death is equivalent to pressing the hyperspace button and zooming through a wormhole to another universe, it can make the world a very dangerous place. Especially if they also believe that that other universe is a paradisical escape from the tribulations of the real world. Top it off with sincerely believed, if ludicrous and degrading to women, sexual promises, and is it any wonder that naive and frustrated young men are clamouring to be selected for suicide missions?

There is no doubt that the afterlife-obsessed suicidal brain really is a weapon of immense power and danger. It is comparable to a smart missile, and its guidance system is in many respects superior to the most sophisticated electronic brain that money can buy. Yet to a cynical government, organisation, or priesthood, it is very very cheap.

Our leaders have described the recent atrocity with the customary cliche: mindless cowardice. "Mindless" may be a suitable word for the vandalising of a telephone box. It is not helpful for understanding what hit New York on September 11. Those people were not mindless and they were certainly not cowards. On the contrary, they had sufficiently effective minds braced with an insane courage, and it would pay us mightily to understand where that courage came from.

It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.

Comments 1 - 12 of 12 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #285774 by jdbriggs on November 17, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Professor Dawkins,
By using your same line of reasoning, one can conclude that if religious people don't value their own lives, secular humanists do. However, while secular humanists may value their own lives, they don't value the lives of others. This can be demonstrated by the Holocaust, or more recently, abortion. The Holocaust was created by a staunch atheist, Hitler. Also, today many people are saying that because they don't want to have a baby, they should be able to kill it to preserve their own happiness. Who supports abortion and who does not? In addition, there has been a recent movement by secular humanists seeking to legalize euthanasia. I would propose that there have been thousands more deaths caused by secular humanism than have been caused by religion. I'm sure several people will bring up the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. They may even go all the way back to ancient civilizations sacrificing people, but I could also bring up the millions killed by communist dictators such as Stalin. Another argument that you use that simply doesn't work is lumping all religions together. By saying that religious people don't value their lives, you assume that all religions are the same. As a Christian, I myself believe that it is extremely wrong to kill others, or yourself for the simple reason that all humans are made in the image of God. There are very specific instances when we as Christians are allowed to kill (in a time of war for example, killing not civilians, but an armed enemy) but murder is always a sin. What those terrorists did was a sin plain and simple. Thus, "suicide bombings" are a sin problem and not a religion problem. It may be a problem with that specific religion that encourages such acts, but it is not a problem with religion as a whole. You also say that the teaching of an afterlife is very dangerous. It is dangerous in the case of Islam, because they believe that by killing yourself and some of the "infidels" you will grant yourself access to the 72 virgins. However, Christianity contains no such teachings. By killing yourself, you have committed one great, final sin and have denied yourself access to heaven. You will be condemned to hell for all eternity. Not a happy thought. The Bible teaches that we should not attempt to harm our enemies in any way, but rather pray for them.

Other Comments by jdbriggs

2. Comment #285775 by decius on November 17, 2008 at 3:22 pm

 avatarComment #285774 by jdbriggs

It's Professor Dawkins to you, ignorant dickhead.

Hitler the secular humanist, unbelievable.

Other Comments by decius

3. Comment #285797 by Corylus on November 17, 2008 at 4:01 pm

 avatarJDBriggs
There are very specific instances when we as Christians are allowed to kill (in a time of war for example, killing not civilians, but an armed enemy) but murder is always a sin. What those terrorists did was a sin plain and simple. Thus, "suicide bombings" are a sin problem and not a religion problem. It may be a problem with that specific religion that encourages such acts, but it is not a problem with religion as a whole. You also say that the teaching of an afterlife is very dangerous. It is dangerous in the case of Islam, because they believe that by killing yourself and some of the "infidels" you will grant yourself access to the 72 virgins.However, Christianity contains no such teachings. By killing yourself, you have committed one great, final sin and have denied yourself access to heaven. You will be condemned to hell for all eternity. Not a happy thought. The Bible teaches that we should not attempt to harm our enemies in any way, but rather pray for them.
Well that's Samson stuffed...
25And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said, Call for Samson, that he may make us sport. And they called for Samson out of the prison house; and he made them sport: and they set him between the pillars.

26And Samson said unto the lad that held him by the hand, Suffer me that I may feel the pillars whereupon the house standeth, that I may lean upon them.

27Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport.

28And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.

29And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left.

30And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.

Judges 16: 25-30
You reckon he's in hell?

Other Comments by Corylus

4. Comment #285798 by Goldy on November 17, 2008 at 4:04 pm

 avatar
The Bible teaches that we should not attempt to harm our enemies in any way, but rather pray for them.
So does the Koran. Apparently...

Other Comments by Goldy

5. Comment #285801 by Goldy on November 17, 2008 at 4:10 pm

 avatar
The Holocaust was created by a staunch atheist, Hitler

Some would argue he was a Catholic. After all, Catholicism is like the Mafia, isn't it? Once in, always in.
Holocaust - in wikipedia, I read
The term holocaust originally derived from the Greek word holókauston, meaning a "completely (holos) burnt (kaustos)" sacrificial offering to a god. Its Latin form (holocaustum) was first used with specific reference to a massacre of Jews by the chroniclers Roger of Howden[7] and Richard of Devizes in the 1190s.

And
The word "holocaust" has been used since the 18th century to refer to the violent deaths of a large number of people.[10] For example, Winston Churchill and other contemporaneous writers used it before World War II to describe the Armenian Genocide of World War I.[11] Since the 1950s its use has increasingly been restricted, with its usage now mainly used as a proper noun to describe the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi party.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
So, strictly speaking, Hitler did not create it. One could argue that the Ottoman Turks did. But then, how many times were a people persecuted and killed? Many places speaking English with a population that is stereotypically Anglo-Saxon are in fact populated by immigrants who subjugated the indigenous population. Surely that too is a holocaust.

Other Comments by Goldy

6. Comment #286228 by jdbriggs on November 18, 2008 at 11:07 am

Goldy and Corylus-you both make very good points. The point about Samson is particularly good. I'll have to research that. I'll have to look into that about the Koran teaching Muslims to pray for their enemies. Do you really believe that if you've been a Catholic once then you can never go to any other religion? That's interesting, because that means that Marie Curie is technically not even an atheist, or even an agnostic. She should still be considered a Catholic even though she became an agnostic as a teenager. I'm sorry, I'll remember to define my terms more carefully next time. I was referring to the massacre of countless Jews by Adolf Hitler during WWII.
Decius-lol....while you never presented any form of argument, your comment did leave me laughing for quite a while. Every time I saw it, all I could think of was Michael from "The Office" saying, "Dwight you ignorant slut." lol....but I'm sorry that I offended you. While I actually believe it should be Dr. Dawkins, I changed it to Professor Dawkins just for you Decius.
I left these comments not to try to change anybody's mind, I merely left them to try to present the other side of the argument and make people think. Your comments (except for Decius', which just made me laugh) have all made me have to think, for which I am grateful. What better way is there to learn than when our views are questioned?

Other Comments by jdbriggs

7. Comment #286236 by the great teapot on November 18, 2008 at 11:28 am

Jdbriggs

I prefer not to kill or cause pain because I don't like to see other people (or other animals) suffer.
The fact that a book says we are made in gods image seems a rather abstract, head in the clouds way of looking at things.Are you hoping to be rewarded for this love of god approach?

Other Comments by the great teapot

8. Comment #286237 by Roger Stanyard on November 18, 2008 at 11:28 am

 avatarJDBriggs talks out of his backside: "The Holocaust was created by a staunch atheist, Hitler."

One thing Hitler was not was a staunch atheist. What evidence there is suggests that he probably never rejected Catholocism. He seems never to have left the church. Moreover, the evidence actually strongly points the other way - that he was religious.

Worse still, Germany in the 1920s and 1930s was deeply religious - far more so than it is now.

That the churches did so little to stop either Hitler or the anti-semitism remains a serious issue to this day. How many Nazis and perpetrators of the Holocaust were ever ex-communicated for their actions? As far as I am aware, none, not even Father Tiso, the Nazi head of state in Slovakia.

The issue is even more alarming when we take into account that the RCC backed the fascists in Italy, Portugal and Spain (and, I assume, the Vichy regime in France). The Greek Orthodox Church also backed the military take-over in Greece in 1967.

Quite frankly organised religion's defense of freedom against the mass killings of fascism in Europe during the 20s, 30s and 40s was pathetic.

Indeed, we in Western Europe owe a far greater debt to the Red Army than organised religion for our freedoms. It was the Red Army that broke the back of the Wermacht and, as a result, broke Hitler.

American fundies need not gloat either about Europe's so called moral shortcomings. According to McIver (quoted on Talk Origins, IIRC) 40,000 US pastors joined the Ku Klux Klan at one time or another. You can bet your bottom dollar that not a single one of them was black.

Strange isn't it that today just about every white supremecist or militia group in the USA claims to be Christian and the BNP in the UK has been trying to set up its own religious organisation.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

9. Comment #286239 by severalspeciesof on November 18, 2008 at 11:38 am

 avatarReligion as the elephant in the room...

I'd also add ignorance, topped off with irrational, uncritical thinking...

Which religion seems to favor...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

10. Comment #286241 by Roger Stanyard on November 18, 2008 at 11:43 am

 avatarGoldy: "But then, how many times were a people persecuted and killed? Many places speaking English with a population that is stereotypically Anglo-Saxon are in fact populated by immigrants who subjugated the indigenous population. Surely that too is a holocaust."

Yep, the Anglo Saxons have nothing to be proud of there and it was all done when the vast majority of Anglo-Saxons were practising Christians. Let's have a look at a few of the examples - the famine in Ireland in the 1840s, the near wipe out of aboriginies in Australia, the treatement of Native Americans, our "occupation" of Africa, the invention of the concentration camp in the Boer War, the occupation of what is now Zimbabwe.

What the first thing we sent in after we "conquered" these people - missionaries to relieve our consciences by saving souls!

Re my previous post: I'm not here in the business of bashing religion but when the religious start arguing that what Hitler did was because of atheism, something seriously does not add up.

This whole game of equating Hitler with atheism is just another fundamentalist pack of lies. It is lifted straight from the crapola that Darwinism was responsible for the Holocaust. He wasn't. It was a Christian nation that was.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

11. Comment #286253 by mitch_486 on November 18, 2008 at 12:07 pm

 avatarjdbriggs,

What those terrorists did was a sin plain and simple. Thus, "suicide bombings" are a sin problem and not a religion problem



you pompouse little ignoramus.
What about the crusades? They were in the name of YOUR God.
And honestly, don't come here and say "it's not my religion". We've all heard it before and it's a red flag for complete and utter stupidity.

Other Comments by mitch_486

12. Comment #286428 by the great teapot on November 18, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Viva la quince brigade.

Other Comments by the great teapot
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: