Richard Dawkins

[555]

Richard Dawkins latest book The God Delusion is out now.
Also, have people seen this:

http://richarddawkins.net/index.php

[anevilpetingzoo]

Why do you people insist on making me read all of these books, my backlog is already huge!

[bluesky]

I thought it wasnt going to be in bookstores until October-ish! Is it already available??

And I love the idea of the new Dawkins Foundation. Id really like to register as an available speaker, but I dont think I should without my PhD yet... I need more education/experience... But still! There are several folks here at II that I hope will register!

[David B]

I hadn't seen it.

I wonder when the paperback will be out.

David B (watches the pennies, but looks forward to reading it)

[bluesky]

OMG After playing on the new site a bit, I found this: Link (http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=event.php&idcal=33)

Please excuse the all-caps, but... DAWKINS + COLBERT IS GOING TO BE SOOO AWESOME!!! EEEEEEE!!!!!!!

[LambdaCalculator]

Id really like to register as an available speaker, but I dont think I should without my PhD yet... I need more education/experience... But still! There are several folks here at II that I hope will register!

It's up to you. You may be right about the "experience" part, but other than the fact that it might give you a little more clout in the minds of attendees, I don't see why your lacking a PhD should cause you to refrain from at least volunteering.

Please excuse the all-caps, but... DAWKINS + COLBERT IS GOING TO BE SOOO AWESOME!!! EEEEEEE!!!!!!!

I agree, for one simple reason (http://orderforfree.blogspot.com/2006/09/richard-dawkins-alreasonable.html).

[judanne]

Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God.(from above link) Priceless :rolling:

[RBH]

I hadn't seen it.

I wonder when the paperback will be out.

David B (watches the pennies, but looks forward to reading it)There are some fairly extended excerpts here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5372458.stm). As usual, he doesn't mince word:To be fair, much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries. This may explain some of the sheer strangeness of the Bible.RBH

[breathilizer]

Awesome! Early releases are fan-fucking-tastic! The collection will soon be complete...

[_Naturalist_]

I just ordered it, looks interesting.

[Mike Elphick]

I sincerely believe that Dawkins would have done evolution better service by sticking to the subject he really knows about. The anti-evolution lobby are going to use this book in a way that is bound to undermine much of the good work Dawkins has done, not only in furthering the science of evolution, but by explaining it so well for the general public.

Richard Dawkins explains his latest book (http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=article_body.php&id=170#157).
Why, if religion is false, do so many people believe in it? (I am one of those who see it as an unfortunate by-product of otherwise useful psychological predispositions).It may be unfortunate in the eyes of Dawkins, but not for the many millions of people who have some religious belief that they find helpful and which gives some sort of meaning to their lives. Why do so many people believe in it? Because religion is a product of our evolution. It might now be vestigial -- its ancestral survival value may no longer be significant, but, as we all know, being vestigial does not mean it serves no function ;).

Where, if not from religion, does our morality come from? Don’t we need religion, in order to be good? (I cannot believe that those who advocate a morality based on the Bible have actually read it. We not only shouldn’t get our morals from religion, we don’t. Believers and unbelievers alike participate in a slowly shifting moral Zeitgeist rooted in Darwinian rules of thumb).Where, if not from evolution, does religion come from? (I cannot believe that those who advocate evolution for our origins can have read the subject :Cheeky:. We not only got religion form evolution, but also laughter. Should we now dismiss laughter whilst we follow this shifting 'Zeitgeist'?)

Even if religion is false, doesn’t it do some good? (Yes, but only by accident). And weren’t Hitler and Stalin atheists? (The answer is: No for Hitler, yes for Stalin, and your point is . . . ?)Only by accident?

Religion may be nonsense, but isn’t it harmless nonsense, like astrology and crystal balls? Why be so hostile? (Scientists have a particular reason to be hostile to any systematically organized effort to teach children to reject evidence in favour of faith, revelation, authority and tradition. Religion teaches people to be satisfied with petty, small-minded non-explanations or mysteries, and this is a tragedy, given that the true explanations are so enthralling. Moreover, such hostility as I have is limited to words. I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement).Of course religion defies that sort of logic, but so does art and man's liking for drugs, fast cars, dancing,..

A recurring theme of my book is consciousness-raising. Just as Darwinian biology raised our consciousness to the power of science to explain things outside biology, and just as feminists taught us to flinch when we hear “One man one vote”, I want us to flinch when we hear of a ‘Christian child’ or a ‘Muslim child”. Small children are too young to know their views on life, ethics and the cosmos. We should no more speak of a Christian child than of a Keynesian child, a monetarist child or a Marxist child. Automatic labelling of children with the religion of their parents is not just presumptuous. It is a form of mental child abuse.Whilst I admire Dawkins' contribution to the science of evolution, I really do find this embarrassing (just like his television series on the same subject). If, as Dawkins has just told us, we don't get our morals from religion, where do they come from? Don't they come from the very source that Dawkins labels 'mental child abuse'?

[Monad]

Richard Dawkins latest book The God Delusion is out now.
Also, have people seen this:

http://richarddawkins.net/index.php

But...Richard Dawkins is God :huh:

[Eric H]

Desmond Tutu described religion as a morally neutral tool like a knife. The surgeon’s knife can be used to heal, and in the hands of a murderer it can kill.

Injustice is at the heart of mans problems; there are a billion people on Earth existing on a dollar a day. We have unfair trade rules that keep countries poor. Thirty thousand children die needlessly every day due to abject poverty and disease.

A huge amount of good is done in the name of God and religion, but somehow our friend Richard seems to overlook this and he just seems to focus on the bad.

Peace

Eric

[breezanne]

Mike and Eric,
Glad to see a few here who comprehend "balance" ... above just some "other" kind of dogma.

[Jennie]

I hadn't seen it.

I wonder when the paperback will be out.

David B (watches the pennies, but looks forward to reading it)

That's why I love my library.

[bluesky]

A huge amount of good is done in the name of God and religion, but somehow our friend Richard seems to overlook this and he just seems to focus on the bad.
As someone who has seen first-hand the 'good' thats being done in the name of God in Africa regarding HIV/AIDS, Id rather not take their 'good.' Thanks though.

The fact of the matter is, the same or better 'goods' can be done without the inherent harm of religion. Im not willing to pay the price for their 'good' when I can get it elsewhere at a lower cost-- cost of life, cost of reason, cost of sanity, cost of humanity, etc. Again, thanks though.

(not so much a E/C thread anymore...)

[lpetrich]

Mike Elphick's argument can be applied to many things that he likely dislikes, and that many of us here are also likely to dislike. I'm reminded of how Sam Harris has noted that religion all too often gets a pass for things that would be considered unacceptable in most other contexts.

Hunting scapegoats has given large numbers of people a sense of purpose. Blame your troubles on the blacks or the Jews or the Communists or the capitalists or the liberals or the Protestants or the Catholics or ... Does that mean that scapegoat-hunting is a Good Thing?

Stereotype-mongers often get happiness from beliefs like blacks are stupid and lazy and criminal and lecherous and subhuman, Jews are unscrupulous and conniving, etc. Does that meaning that stereotype-mongering is a Good Thing?

Belief in the efficacy of sorcery has been very common in many places and times. In some societies, It was believed that all sickness and death is due to malicious sorcery -- even when they are aware of "rational" explanations, like being attacked by an elephant that one is trying to hunt. Should we believe that?

There had been a widespread belief that eclipses of the Moon are due to some monster trying to eat it, or else some sorcerer making it go away. Should we believe that also?

Divination has been a VERY common practice in centuries past; should we do stuff like consult Tarot cards whenever we want to make decisions?

Should we believe that the Earth is flat and that the Sun moves around it?

...

[Oolon Colluphid]

The anti-evolution lobby are going to use this book in a way that is bound to undermine much of the good work Dawkins has done,
Let them try.

Let them come.

Dawkins and I are waiting.

:mad: :devil1: ;)

[PinkPanther_04]

I sincerely believe that Dawkins would have done evolution better service by sticking to the subject he really knows about. The anti-evolution lobby are going to use this book in a way that is bound to undermine much of the good work Dawkins has done, not only in furthering the science of evolution, but by explaining it so well for the general public.
Of course there will be a backlash, like there always is from reactionaries. They can thrash and foam all they want, and they'll do it whether or not they're given additional "ammunition." But I think it is a responsibility of scientists to publically oppose the major factor that prevents so many people from understanding and supporting scientific research and understanding. As long as people use their religious beliefs to undermine and attack science, scientists will have a legitimate reason to criticize those beliefs.

ETA: I will say that I prefer a slightly more subtle approach, like Sagan's, but that doesn't mean a more confrontational style can't also be effective.

[espritch]

A huge amount of good is done in the name of God and religion, but somehow our friend Richard seems to overlook this and he just seems to focus on the bad.


There are already plenty of people out there ready to give religion a free pass on every evil done in it's name. Why should Dawkins join that chorus? Given the horrors that have been and continue to be committed in the name of religion, it is not enough to note that good is also done. In Nazi Germany prior to the war, the people had bread and the trains ran on time. Should we regard the good received by many average Germans as excusing the horrors committed by the fascists?

The question that should be asked is not whether more good than evil is done in the name of religion, but whether religion is true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Most people recognize this as a reasonable position to take with regards to most things. If I told you I could walk on water, you would demand evidence, and you would be right to do so. Yet, when presented the extraordinary claims of religion, most believers demand no evidence at all, they just believe by faith. This is an abandonment of reason that makes religion inherently dangerous.

[LambdaCalculator]

I'm reminded of how Sam Harris has noted that religion all too often gets a pass for things that would be considered unacceptable in most other contexts.

Indeed, and the most egregious one of all is that it gets a pass on empirical reasoning. "Faith" is the all purpose buzzword that justifies beliefs for which there are zero evidence or reasons to hold. The reason people talk about "faith" when talking about Jesus being born of a virgin and rising from the dead or Mohammed recieving the Quaran from the archangel Gabriel is because there are no good reasons to believe them. They are not only far outside of the realm of scientific plausibility, they conflict with the individual, real-world experiences of just about every human alive (e.g., most people are born of a non-virgin and stay dead).

Dawkins book is spot on. Both the idea of a supernatural "God" and the claims of religion in general are delusions, and Dawkins does not (and should not) mince words on the subject. This isn't "dogmatism" (as has been claimed in this thread with the usually laughable ignorance already), it's simply the same empirical reasoning we apply to those who claim that evolution is false, the Holocaust is a Jewish Zionist hoax and HIV does not cause AIDS.

[JamesBannon]

(from above link) Priceless :rolling:

Yeah, that was a cracker and I left a comment on the web site to that effect. Dawkins at his best.

People who say that a less ascerbic approach is needed are missing the point to my mind. Why should we respect poisonous beliefs? Why should allow the belief in the great stinker to poison people's minds and deprive them of the will to act in their own interests?

[PinkPanther_04]

People who say that a less ascerbic approach is needed are missing the point to my mind. Why should we respect poisonous beliefs? Why should allow the belief in the great stinker to poison people's minds and deprive them of the will to act in their own interests?
Well, I said something sort of close to that. It has nothing to do with respecting any belief or allowing beliefs to poison minds (although you can't force anyone to believe in anything, so in order to not invoke the thought police, we do have to allow people to believe whatever they want). I just think it's a matter of honey vs. vinegar. If you want to get to the people who have the highest likelihood of deconverting, you might want to avoid putting them in defensive mode. If someone feels insulted they're not likely to be open to further argument. But on the other hand, a very direct approach may be needed for some people, so there's certainly a place for that as well. I was just stating a personal preference.

[flashbaby]

To some fundies Richard Dawkins is the devil incarnate so whatever he did would inflame them.
Its about time someone did say it how it is about the legalised brainwashing that is religion.
I'm not an evangelical atheist in that I believe we have any duty or anything to help people deconvert. If Richard Dawkins puts anyone off deconverting so what, we are not trying to save souls for our god. There may be battlelines being drawn up between faith and reason but the side of reason will not prevail simply by deconverting the faithful.

[PinkPanther_04]

If Richard Dawkins puts anyone off deconverting so what, we are not trying to save souls for our god.
Why does it need to be about souls to be important? These people and their beliefs really do affect our lives in significant ways. Some people won't come around no matter what, so I guess there's no point in worrying about them, but others can be deconverted or at least softened up a bit. And I think it's a good thing to help people become more receptive to secular ideas. Different approaches work better for different people, but my personal reaction, even as a strong atheist, is that Dawkins is sometimes more harsh than he really needs to be to get the point across.

[flashbaby]

Why does it need to be about souls to be important? These people and their beliefs really do affect our lives in significant ways. Some people won't come around no matter what, so I guess there's no point in worrying about them, but others can be deconverted or at least softened up a bit. And I think it's a good thing to help people become more receptive to secular ideas. Different approaches work better for different people, but my personal reaction, even as a strong atheist, is that Dawkins is sometimes more harsh than he really needs to be to get the point across.

Since souls don't exist they are of no importance but fundies believe they are very important and want to save them with a degree of desperation. Nothing from an atheist point of view can take on that degree of significance.

It is difficult from a British perspective to see deconverting as important as it might seem in the USA as we don't have the same level of religious crap to wade through. I currently run no risk of having christians dominating my workplace and neighbourhood, most people in the UK are at best mild christians if they give religion any thought at all.
But I want to at least keep it that way and not have an increasing level of fundamentalist crap here and I think Dawkin's book might just help ( though I suspect it will have no lasting effect).

I agree he appears to be harsher than is needed sometimes but I still think it was important for someone slightly well known to say the things he does.

ETA the book is now top of the amazon uk bestseller list so I guess RD is better than slightly well known

[flashbaby]

I just wanted to add this is my 100th post, do I get a certificate?

[PinkPanther_04]

Since souls don't exist they are of no importance but fundies believe they are very important and want to save them with a degree of desperation. Nothing from an atheist point of view can take on that degree of significance.
My real life is as important to me as their imaginary afterlife is to them.

It is difficult from a British perspective to see deconverting as important as it might seem in the USA as we don't have the same level of religious crap to wade through. I currently run no risk of having christians dominating my workplace and neighbourhood, most people in the UK are at best mild christians if they give religion any thought at all.
This may be the issue. Over there I guess religious people are just sort of an unobtrusive fringe group. It's very different here, especially in Texas and the South where I've lived all my life.

[flashbaby]

You don't need saving to have this life but they need to save you so you and they can have the good afterlife ie flatter jesus or he will torture you in hell. I suspect this makes them think the imaginary one is more important.

[finix]

Dawkins book is spot on. Both the idea of a supernatural "God" and the claims of religion in general are delusions, and Dawkins does not (and should not) mince words on the subject. This isn't "dogmatism" (as has been claimed in this thread with the usually laughable ignorance already), it's simply the same empirical reasoning we apply to those who claim that evolution is false, the Holocaust is a Jewish Zionist hoax and HIV does not cause AIDS.

I for one wouldn't be too surprised if the reference to dogmatism wasn't to deny the delusional nature of all things supernatural, but rather to the seeming "dawkinsism", his being portrayed as infallible in every which way and being defended as such by his acolytes (as has happened in this thread with the usual vehemence already).

[PinkPanther_04]

You don't need saving to have this life but they need to save you so you and they can have the good afterlife ie flatter jesus or he will torture you in hell. I suspect this makes them think the imaginary one is more important.
Well, yeah I understand why being saved is important to them. Most of my friends growing up were Southern Baptists, so I'm pretty clear about all that. I'm just saying that the more religious influence there is in my government and in my society, the more detrimental it is to my life right now (which, since it's all I've got, is the most important thing possible to me). Some of these people are actively trying to take away our reproductive rights, our access to important education on several subjects, and our ability to conduct important medical and scientific research, limit our freedom of expression, control our foreign policy for the benefit of their own religious agenda, and a host of other intrusions. It's a real threat that we have to fight here. People's actual lives and well-being are at stake.

[flashbaby]

I agree with all of this but I don't think the answer is deconverting a smallish number of people.

[PinkPanther_04]

I'm not even talking about just deconversion. You don't have to get someone to give up their religion to make them understand. But you can't teach them that atheists are the enemy. There are too many Christians in this country to piss them all off. We can't afford it. We have to work with them, even if they remain Christians, which most of them will.

[untermensche]

Let me guess.

God is a harmful human delusion.

Saved you the price of the book.

[breezanne]

One way to avoid making any progress at educating people about science is to start off by telling them what idiots they are.

Another way is to pretend that everyone must share your own personal beliefs about the fundamentals of reality... or must write-off mental awareness itself as just another thing that physical stuff just happens to do (despite the fact that inherently obvious "mind" is quite superfluous - or else nonexistent - in any hypothetical purely physical reality).

Dawkins is smart in some ways, not so smart in others. By rights, he ought to be encouraging us to be as skeptical about his extremism as anyone else's. Else he just can't handle the word "God"... but it keeps evolving anyway. He needs to learn better how to tell the wheat from the chaff.

[Aegeri]

I've never read anything by Dawkins actually. I've read some Gould, but generally I've never really read 'popular' science books on evolution or similar. When I do, I prefer books that are more "hard science" like Endless forms most beautiful (for example).

I am aware that Dawkins tends to be rather virulent and that he really doesn't like religion much though.

[David B]

I haven't read the latest, but I don't think Dawkins is outspoken enough about religion.

Not even in 'The Root of All Evils?'.

I seem to be in a bit of a minority - but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong.

David B

[Aegeri]

Even I wouldn't say you're wrong based on that opinion actually David B. Individual writers like Dawkins (or any Atheist, including PZ Meyers for example) I think should be more than welcome to say they don't particularly care for religion or whatever and be as outspoken about it as they like. I think there is somewhat of a ridiculous notion that just because there are atheists who support evolution, we should hide them away and make sure that we advertise the theists in the group more so like Kenn Miller (for example). I'm perfectly happy with the fact that a lot of different people interpret evolution metaphysically for different reasons (such as how Dawkins declared Evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, or something along those lines).

The evidence is always the same and the massive weight of scientific evidence suggests that evolution occured. Beyond that, I don't care how people interpret the meaning of the fact evolution occured and how it relates to their religious (or non-religious) point of view.

[PS: I am a theist incidentally, but even I can see how ridiculous some people are about the whole issue of hiding atheists under the rug for political reasons]

[Janus]

I've never gotten the impression Dawkins was very concerned with deconverting anyone. Most of his arguments against religion are meant as a wake-up call to 'tolerant' rationalists who refuse to criticise religion and denounce its negative aspects.

[JamesBannon]

I haven't read the latest, but I don't think Dawkins is outspoken enough about religion.

Not even in 'The Root of All Evils?'.

I seem to be in a bit of a minority - but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong.

David B

Same here David. In the UK we tend to be far too politically correct when dealing with some of the more agregious prattlers. Christians aren't so much of a problem here (aside from sectarianism in Scotland and Northern Ireland) as they're more integrated into the culture generally but Islam is becoming an increasing problem. We even have the Muslim Council of Great Britain talking to the government about the introduction of Sharia for family law and, given Tony Blair's appeasement strategy at home and his support for "faith based" schooling, it has some chance of success. It is to be hoped that the government will tell them in no uncertain terms that Sharia will not be incoporated into family law even if it's only for Muslims. If they want Sharia law then they can all sod off to Iran or some such place where such barbaric practices are supported.

[Red Expendable]

I wasn't aware of this book, till reading this thread.

Right on! Dawkins is awesome and I'm glad he wrote this book that will,hopefully raise some awareness and bring the subject more into the open.

There's not enough people doing what he is doing. This is a good thing people. What happens to a minority that never speaks up for itself? It'll get trampled. We (as atheists) should support him, not shy away.

Religious fundamentalism (appears to be) on the rise, and we have to put the issue out there. He's a popular science writer, and he's able to get the message out to millions of people.

Religion/god belief should be challenged in my opinion and if people absolutely can't stand him or anything he says then fuck'em.

I think the buzz created can make people have to THINK about the arguments he puts forth. This is a good thing. Let's challenge this beast. Get it out in the open.

Atheists are a minority that need to stop hiding in the shadows trying not to piss anyone off. I mean, fuck that bullshit.

So glad someone who is a popular writer like he is, has written something that challenges god belief! YES!

RedEx

[David B]

[PS: I am a theist incidentally, but even I can see how ridiculous some people are about the whole issue of hiding atheists under the rug for political reasons]

Not just a theist, but a Christian, according to your profile. A term which, if you will excuse the expression) includes a multitude of sins.

Some more heinous than others.

What could broadly described as Spong type Christianity less heinous than most, IMV.

Once one starts denying evolution, despite all the evidence in its favour, and just the pathetic arguments (AIG seems to me the best of a sorry bunch) against it, then religion is a real problem, IMV. For the person concerned, but also for the people who encounter the person.

Rather analagous to being a drunken deadbeat is a problem for the person concerned, but also a problem for people who happen to met a drunken deadbeat on a late night bus home.

David B (in a moment of drunken intuition, compares the Spong, or near Spong, brand of religion with the controlled, but perhaps marginally excessive, with the escape from reality provided by mild intoxication that he enjoys, but fundamentalism and inerrancy of the bible with the deadbeat drunk on the bus)

[Aegeri]

Not just a theist, but a Christian, according to your profile. A term which, if you will excuse the expression) includes a multitude of sins.

Depends really on which ones you would like to throw at me and such forth. I'm well aware of what the term means however and I don't agree with most of the 'fundy lawls' idiocy that spews forth out of America like the crap against Stem Cells, proper sexual education campaigns etc.

I like to use my brain.

What could broadly described as Spong type Christianity less heinous than most, IMV.

I have no idea what a "Spong" is supposed to be.

Once one starts denying evolution, despite all the evidence in its favour, and just the pathetic arguments (AIG seems to me the best of a sorry bunch) against it, then religion is a real problem, IMV. For the person concerned, but also for the people who encounter the person.

Which I don't and I've been arguing against creationists (and getting rather bored of it, truth be told because there are so much more constructive things I can be doing) for years now.

[Philosoft]

Dawkins is smart in some ways, not so smart in others. By rights, he ought to be encouraging us to be as skeptical about his extremism as anyone else's. Else he just can't handle the word "God"... but it keeps evolving anyway. He needs to learn better how to tell the wheat from the chaff.
What makes Dawkins' opinions extremist? Dawkins believes a set of things about religion, but AFAIK, he does not advocate discrimination against those who disagree with him. He makes it clear that he has little respect for the dogmatically religious (and even the apathetically religious to some extent), but we all feel that our philosophical adversaries are seriously wrong, be they honestly mistaken, delusional, or malicious. Most of us just don't have a worldwide forum for our opinions, and/or perhaps the professional wherewithal to unleash them.

[David B]

I have no idea what a "Spong" is supposed to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong



Which I don't and I've been arguing against creationists (and getting rather bored of it, truth be told because there are so much more constructive things I can be doing) for years now.

Bored with it or no, creationists really have to be opposed. Silence is so akin to acquiescence, IMV.

David B

[Hedshaker]

I wasn't aware of this book, till reading this thread.

Right on! Dawkins is awesome and I'm glad he wrote this book that will,hopefully raise some awareness and bring the subject more into the open.

There's not enough people doing what he is doing. This is a good thing people. What happens to a minority that never speaks up for itself? It'll get trampled. We (as atheists) should support him, not shy away.

Religious fundamentalism (appears to be) on the rise, and we have to put the issue out there. He's a popular science writer, and he's able to get the message out to millions of people.

Religion/god belief should be challenged in my opinion and if people absolutely can't stand him or anything he says then fuck'em.

I think the buzz created can make people have to THINK about the arguments he puts forth. This is a good thing. Let's challenge this beast. Get it out in the open.

Atheists are a minority that need to stop hiding in the shadows trying not to piss anyone off. I mean, fuck that bullshit.

So glad someone who is a popular writer like he is, has written something that challenges god belief! YES!

RedEx

I totally agree with you 100% :notworthy:

For me Dawkins is a beacon of light in a sea of bullshit and he deserves the full support of skeptics everywhere.

I'll be buying his book for sure ;)

[Aegeri]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

Ah, never heard of him before. I don't recall being a bishop though (I'm a scientist so I don't exactly have the time for that).

Bored with it or no, creationists really have to be opposed. Silence is so akin to acquiescence, IMV.

David B

Of course that is the case. It's just I've found I have better things I could be doing with my time rather than playing whack a mole. I still respond to dumb things, I just have less patience to spend the same amount of time doing it (if that makes sense?).

Edited in: Also, I used to spend a lot more time on the issue and such forth in the past. Now I have this kind of apathy that I really can't explain that seems to have gripped me. I would sooner write a post now on the recent O157:H7 outbreak of <i>Escherichia coli</i> than I would on anything to do with creationism. I have simply become bored with the same idiotic crap being repeated ad nauseum. There are also a lot of people who play whack a mole with creationists really well, like the Pandasthumb crew, Richard Dawkins, Kenn Miller and such forth.

[David B]

Of course that is the case. It's just I've found I have better things I could be doing with my time rather than playing whack a mole. I still respond to dumb things, I just have less patience to spend the same amount of time doing it (if that makes sense?).

Yup, that makes sense.

David B (Knows the feeling of :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: only too well.)

[Aegeri]

Yup, that makes sense.

David B (Knows the feeling of :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: only too well.)

It's also the fact it made me immensely depressed, caused me to become more and more antagonistic even to people I regarded as my friends and such forth. Now I try to limit how much I argue on the issue so I don't suffer burnout and I keep my level of frustration down.

[LambdaCalculator]

I for one wouldn't be too surprised if the reference to dogmatism wasn't to deny the delusional nature of all things supernatural, but rather to the seeming "dawkinsism", his being portrayed as infallible in every which way and being defended as such by his acolytes (as has happened in this thread with the usual vehemence already).

This is really pathetic. Because I happen to agree with Dawkins on religion I must think he's "infallible in every which way".

Come back when you have a real argument, junior.

[espritch]

Let me guess.

God is a harmful human delusion.

Saved you the price of the book.

Let me guess.

Haven't read it. Don't plan to. But still feel qualified to critique it.

Saved yourself the trouble of thinking.

[Jaggers]

I haven't read the latest, but I don't think Dawkins is outspoken enough about religion.

Not even in 'The Root of All Evils?'.

I seem to be in a bit of a minority - but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong.

David BDave B.,
I generally agree with Dawkins, but I'm a little confused by your statement here. What more would you expect Dawkins to say or do to attain the level of outspokenness that you desire?

[judanne]

I like Dawkins. I like his irreverence, his ability to turn a phrase, his wit. It's enjoyable and educational. I rather doubt he's out to deconvert non-souls to the EAC. Personally, I'd prefer to live in a world where religion didn't exist or at least the fundamentalist versions of it. I really don't give a rat's ass if people want to waste their time and energy paying homage to and building their lives around a fantasy father figure. I do care when they try to cram it down everyones throats in the form of anti-scientific nonsense and narrow minded moral platitudes (the short list). I particularly despise their lust for the political power and cultural influence to draw the whole world into their stupid apocalyptic nightmare. There's something fundamentally creepy about people who are willing to suspend logic and reason to such an extent that they might believe, anticipate and work toward the unfolding of the events described in revelations. While I think the whole notion of a god is just plain silly and primitive, it's really the dour messianic, evangelism that offends me the most.

[DNAReplicator]

Dave B.,
I generally agree with Dawkins, but I'm a little confused by your statement here. What more would you expect Dawkins to say or do to attain the level of outspokenness that you desire?

He hit the spot here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,,552388,00.html

[David B]

Dave B.,
I generally agree with Dawkins, but I'm a little confused by your statement here. What more would you expect Dawkins to say or do to attain the level of outspokenness that you desire?

Can't think of specific things off the top of my head. Maybe it's time for me to re-watch the dvds of the Root of All Evil.

My general impression remains though - though it is just an impression

David B

[Padre Bear]

Near the beginning of the thread Mike raised the issue concerning the social evolution of religion and its purpose within a evolutionary structure.

Presumably it exists because it has served a purpose. Moral ethic, social adherence, community durability, and complexes of these and other things are all possibilities.

Having read 4 or 5 of Dawkins books I will be interested to see if or how he deals with this issue if he does. It is not an unimportant idea to understanding the durability of "faith" and/or "religion" in human culture. To date I have not found Dawkins comments on such things helpful having little connection to the motivations of spiritually mature and sophisticated persons.

[Vitalstatistix]

Near the beginning of the thread Mike raised the issue concerning the social evolution of religion and its purpose within a evolutionary structure.

Presumably it exists because it has served a purpose. Moral ethic, social adherence, community durability, and complexes of these and other things are all possibilities.

Having read 4 or 5 of Dawkins books I will be interested to see if or how he deals with this issue if he does. It is not an unimportant idea to understanding the durability of "faith" and/or "religion" in human culture. To date I have not found Dawkins comments on such things helpful having little connection to the motivations of spiritually mature and sophisticated persons.As I see it there's no doubt that it has a biological basis, but there are no set answers on why it's there. There's no shortage of hypotheses though

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html
http://www.csicop.org/cgi-bin/search/search.cgi?q=belief*
http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/596b/Schaffer/God-Accident.html

[Mike Elphick]

Near the beginning of the thread Mike raised the issue concerning the social evolution of religion and its purpose within a evolutionary structure.

Presumably it exists because it has served a purpose. Moral ethic, social adherence, community durability, and complexes of these and other things are all possibilities.

Having read 4 or 5 of Dawkins books I will be interested to see if or how he deals with this issue if he does. It is not an unimportant idea to understanding the durability of "faith" and/or "religion" in human culture. To date I have not found Dawkins comments on such things helpful having little connection to the motivations of spiritually mature and sophisticated persons.In practically every human tribe and society there is belief in some sort of god or gods and an acceptance of the dogmas and customs associated with it. Yet us humans have prospered by virtue of our innate abilities to solve problems through observation and deduction. How can we be logical and clear thinking at one moment, but illogical and irrationional at another? The answer is that we cannot escape our evolutionary past and the coevolution of our genes and culture. We are still animals, however hard we try to hide from it.

According to this article (http://personalwebs.oakland.edu/~dow/personal/papers/religion/evolrel12.dist.pdf) there are three main theories that explain the evolution of religion: -
Commitment Theory
Commitment theory proposes that religion increases group cooperation by sending costly signals to members of the group. These signals overcome mistrust, lower defection, and allow the benefits of cooperation to be realized. Religion can be seen as an autopredatory defense mechanism that works in the context of groups.Cognitive Theory
Cognitive theory proposes that the underlying modules of the brain create religion. This implies that religion emerges from the unconscious without any particular function as an entity itself; however there is empirical evidence that there are psychological and ecological adaptations that are associated with the whole entity. Cognitive theory simply states that the mental modules that make up religion have evolved because they created well being in other ways for individuals in the past.I like this theory because it explains man's search for agents that cause things to happen. Cognitive theory also provides a route for learning important cultural ideas and explains man's desire for altered states of consciousness, liking for rhythms, music etc. Ecological Regulation Theory
Ecological regulation theory proposes that religion is part of a cybernetic system that controls the exploitation of the environment in a productive way. It helps to maintain the food supply and produce well being. Religion helps to make a cultural system adaptive. Cross-cultural evidence indicates that this is probably true in a wide sample of cultures.Take your pick. No doubt there are other theories, but I found that particular article well worth the read. If you scroll down to the very end, you will find a nice diagram showing 'The Gene-Culture Coevolution of Religion'.

I've not got Dawkins' book and am simply relying on reviews. Why should 'the religious meme' be still with us, because our knowledge and understanding of the world should by now have made this particular meme extinct? As it has not disapperared, I'm puzzled why Dawkins doesn't call upon evolution to explain why something as irrational as religious belief is still so strongly held, and in apparently more fundamentalist form.

I don't think Dawkins has a clue about religion at the personal level -- how it has the capacity to bring peace, joy and hope to its participants and he clearly doesn't understand the power of prayer, since he expects the subjects who are prayed for to benefit, when it is actually the people who pray who profit.

I do agree with him about fundamentalism and that religions are potentially dangerous, but there is more to religion than the outward political caricature he paints.

[Padre Bear]

Sitting in my office this morning I see The Selfisn Gene, Unweaving the Rainbow, The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable, and I know I've laoned out a couple so the Dawkins list is closer to 6 or more.

In all these books I have never found Dawkins to sufficiently deal with the emergence, durability, and mutability of humanities urge to believe. I will look forward reading this newest effort.

Fact is that tens of thousands of brilliant, rational people still "believe" despite all the arguments of Dawkins and others. The questions are "Why?" and "To what end?" Some are even confounded by their own belief.

[EricK]

I don't think Dawkins has a clue about religion at the personal level -- how it has the capacity to bring peace, joy and hope to its participants and he clearly doesn't understand the power of prayer, since he expects the subjects who are prayed for to benefit, when it is actually the people who pray who profit.

But isn't he here simply arguing with theists in their own terms. I have never heard a theist claim that the benefit of prayer is to the person praying, whereas it is obvious to me (and I am sure to Dawkins to) that that is the only place any benefit arises.

[DNAReplicator]

`Why should 'the religious meme' be still with us, because our knowledge and understanding of the world should by now have made this particular meme extinct? As it has not disapperared, I'm puzzled why Dawkins doesn't call upon evolution to explain why something as irrational as religious belief is still so strongly held

I think this is the same fallacy as the view that life is bound to become more complex, or animals more intelligent as evolution 'progresses'.

Just as the only arbiter of a 'successful' gene is the rate at which that gene passes itself on to the next generation, so it is with memes. So a meme that understands the fabric of reality through quantum physics but fails to successfully reproduce, is less ‘successful’ than one that outlaws abortion and or executes people who reject it.

Put it another way, if you hear that a person has 14 kids, do you think they are more likely to be a) a scientist, or b) a religious-numpty-redneck?

[Padre Bear]

But isn't he here simply arguing with theists in their own terms. I have never heard a theist claim that the benefit of prayer is to the person praying, whereas it is obvious to me (and I am sure to Dawkins to) that that is the only place any benefit arises.

Erick that is preached in churches all the time. Not all Christians are the straw soldier types they are often portrayed to be. If the God of Israel and Jesus is omniscient then prayer darts do nothing to aid him in awareness of the human condition, general or specific. So what then of prayer, except that those who are praying may be transformed by the act into further acts of compassion and care, seeking to promote peace by peaceful living, etc.

[EricK]

Erick that is preached in churches all the time. Not all Christians are the straw soldier types they are often portrayed to be. If the God of Israel and Jesus is omniscient then prayer darts do nothing to aid him in awareness of the human condition, general or specific. So what then of prayer, except that those who are praying may be transformed by the act into further acts of compassion and care, seeking to promote peace by peaceful living, etc.

If I believed that my praying for you was not of benefit to you but was of benefit to me, then I wouldn't offer to pray for you if you were suffering in some way. And yet certain religious people are always offering to pray for other people. That is why I assumed they thought that the prayer was of benefit to the person being prayed for.

[Wads4]

Whilst I admire Dawkins' contribution to the science of evolution, I really do find this embarrassing (just like his television series on the same subject). If, as Dawkins has just told us, we don't get our morals from religion, where do they come from? Don't they come from the very source that Dawkins labels 'mental child abuse'?

You must be a Kantian; I am always disappointed that Kant, having demolished the traditional "proofs" of God, fell prey to the Moral argument.
It seems fairly obvious, and I am sure could be empirically proved, if it has not already been done so by anthropologists,--that our morals come from the practical necessity of people who live together in communities, of having to find a modus vivendi, so as to avoid a murderous free for all in which the winner takes all. "If you stop throwing rocks at me, I'll stop hitting you with my club"--would be a basic moral law. No doubt you will say that religious people believe their morality comes from God. Where did God get his morality from, if not from the realisation that people living together in communities have to find a modus vivendi?--and so we come full circle. Morality originates in human society, for human society. One does not need a God from whom to obtain it second-hand. Do I ask the Queen or the President or Prime Minister if it is alright for me to kill a child or rape someone?

[dmarker]

In practically every human tribe and society there is belief in some sort of god or gods and an acceptance of the dogmas and customs associated with it. Yet us humans have prospered by virtue of our innate abilities to solve problems through observation and deduction. How can we be logical and clear thinking at one moment, but illogical and irrationional at another? The answer is that we cannot escape our evolutionary past and the coevolution of our genes and culture. We are still animals, however hard we try to hide from it.

Humans evolved to deduce by direct cause and effect. This has served us very well when we lived in small hunter gather groups. The red berries are good to eat, but if you eat the green ones they will make you sick. We wounded the animal on the left hindquarters, those set of hoofprints are lighter on the left rear leg, we follow those prints to catch the animal we wounded.

But direct cause and effect is good for religious purposes as well. We drew pictures of a successful hunt on a cave wall and our hunt was successful; drawing pictures of successful hunts will make our hunting successful.

Coupled with intermittant reenforcement, which works on all mammals at least, and you have the makings of religious ritual.




According to this article (http://personalwebs.oakland.edu/~dow/personal/papers/religion/evolrel12.dist.pdf) there are three main theories that explain the evolution of religion: -
I like this theory because it explains man's search for agents that cause things to happen. Cognitive theory also provides a route for learning important cultural ideas and explains man's desire for altered states of consciousness, liking for rhythms, music etc. Take your pick. No doubt there are other theories, but I found that particular article well worth the read. If you scroll down to the very end, you will find a nice diagram showing 'The Gene-Culture Coevolution of Religion'.

I've not got Dawkins' book and am simply relying on reviews. Why should 'the religious meme' be still with us, because our knowledge and understanding of the world should by now have made this particular meme extinct? As it has not disapperared, I'm puzzled why Dawkins doesn't call upon evolution to explain why something as irrational as religious belief is still so strongly held, and in apparently more fundamentalist form.

He does. As well as a number of other authors, see explanation above.



I don't think Dawkins has a clue about religion at the personal level -- how it has the capacity to bring peace, joy and hope to its participants and he clearly doesn't understand the power of prayer, since he expects the subjects who are prayed for to benefit, when it is actually the people who pray who profit.

In his youth, Dawkins had some religion at the personal level. But he deconverted entirely by 18.

Then why are prayer studies conducted on those being prayed for rather than those praying? And wouldn't that make praying a selfish act rather than a selfless one?



I do agree with him about fundamentalism and that religions are potentially dangerous, but there is more to religion than the outward political caricature he paints.

I think you've missed the points of his religious writings entirely. The moderates of every religion gives tacit permission to the fundies is his main point. Another point is that behaviors generally not tolerated in other areas are tolerated when religion is the reason behind it.

For example, in the US, Drug store chains are not permitted to fire pharmicists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because they have religious objections to that form of birth control. Suppose that a pharmicist refused to fill a prescription for a fertility drug because he or she believes that 6 billion people are enough. The pharmicist has no religious reason behind it, just a strong zero population growth opinion. Should the company be barred from firing that person as well? Plus, in the US, for that to stand you have to make allowances for all pharmicists' crisis of concious. Should a pharmicist who has taken up Scientology be protected when he or she refuses to fill a prescription for a psychiatric med?

To be honest, there are legitimate reasons to withold a prescription. One is when the pharmicist has knowledge that the patient is taking a counter-indicated medication, another is when the pharmicist believes that the patient is going to different doctors to obtain meds illegally, and when the pharmicist knows that the patient has an adverse reaction to an ingredient in that med. But the reasons are in patient's best interest and have nothing to do with the personal feelings of the pharmicist.

This is an example where the moderates give tacit permission to the fundies and where bad behavior is tolerated on religious grounds. Because of fellow religious feeling, moderates tolerate the fundies' refusal of birth control without really considering the floodgates that would be opened if all pharmicists were allowed to break their legal employment contracts on personal grounds. Bad behavior is tolerated merely because the pharmacists have a religious feeling about the matter.

Now, I'm not saying that pharmicists shouldn't have conciousness or be forced to dispense meds that they personally have an objection to. However, these pharmicists can start their own pharmacies and have signs clearly posted that they will not fill these certain prescriptions. That way, the patient can choose not to avail him or herself of the pharmicist's services. However when they take employment with a company, they are expected to fill the prescriptions that the company fills unless filling that prescription is not in the best interests of the patient for the reasons I've stated above.

[Philosoft]

Erick that is preached in churches all the time. Not all Christians are the straw soldier types they are often portrayed to be. If the God of Israel and Jesus is omniscient then prayer darts do nothing to aid him in awareness of the human condition, general or specific. So what then of prayer, except that those who are praying may be transformed by the act into further acts of compassion and care, seeking to promote peace by peaceful living, etc.
It is obviously not that simple. Christians solicit prayers all the time - "Please pray for my grandmother who is being treated for lung cancer." "Pray for my son who has a job interview." Etc.

While your theology seems sound, it is not overwhelmingly convincing to those who would rather believe that God is listening to them and taking action on their behalf.

[Jaggers]

Commitment Theory
Commitment theory proposes that religion increases group cooperation by sending costly signals to members of the group. These signals overcome mistrust, lower defection, and allow the benefits of cooperation to be realized. Religion can be seen as an autopredatory defense mechanism that works in the context of groups. I find this very interesting. The article goes on to explain that, in Commitment Theory, a person signals their trustowrthiness to the group by abandoning logic and reason by professing irrational beliefs of religion. Thus, by abandoning reason in favor of the group's irrational belif system, the person essentially is sacrificing something of value to himself (the cognitive faculty to create an accurate world model) to demonstrate his commitment to the group. If religion truly served this type of function, I find it very interesting that religious beliefs are selected for their inherently irrational character. If true, this also helps explain pretty well why nontheists are so mistrusted in our culture. Nontheists are, in this context, refusing to submit their rationality to the groups' irrational religious beliefs. We aren't making the necessary sacrifice to demonstrate to the group our commitment to the group. Thus, we are viewed as not trustworthy.

[RBH]

Bear in mind als that religiosity may not necessarily be itself a selected trait but is a side effect of selection for some other trait. Here is an argument (http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/2006/08/18/e-broaddus-on-the-detection-of-agency-and-intentionality/) to that effect.

RBH

[wetnewspaper@hotmail]

Richard Dawkins latest book The God Delusion is out now.I got this on Monday.
I've never read Dawkins before, nor any science book (non-textbook). I'm up to page 150, and liking it for the most part, but sometings bother me.
From a literary point of view, Dawkins mostly writes in a simplified essay-type sort of way, which is fine for solidifying an arguement, but leads to A LOT of repetition. I don't know if this is the typical style of Sicence literature, but it's a little tedius.
I liked his rebuttle of common creationist arguements, but it didn't quite go far enough. He says at the begining that he wants this book to convert people, but it expects people to already know what he's talking about. i.e. He'll say the natural selection offers answers that creationism doesn't, but then never (at least not by page 150) says how.

His arguements against a god is where I am now, and frankly is the low point. Basically, his only arguement is 'however unlikely life is, god is unlikelier' and then he goes in to different aspects like diversity of live, the anthropic principal etc, always coming to the same conclusion. This type of arguement is great against ID because it's their single founding argument, that coomplexity requires a designer, but religion at large is more nuanced, and is based on many arguments (notably that no known rules apply). So while I personally agree with Dawkins, I don't think he's going to convince anyone else.
One other thing that bothered be is his talk of the anthropic principal re: cosmology. He admits that he doesn't understand much of it, but thetn seems to attack people for not believeing some random theory. He mentions a theory by Susskind. In the footnote(pg 145) he quotes susskind saying tha phyisists don't like his theory and Dawkins retorts that he thinks it's beautiful, but maybe that's because his concsiousness has been raised by Darwin. It struck me as kind of arrogent, especially since he isn't a cosmologist.

For the most part though, it is rather funny and interesting, but I think it could be tighter.

[Mike Elphick]

I think this [questioning why 'the religious meme' should still be with us] is the same fallacy as the view that life is bound to become more complex, or animals more intelligent as evolution 'progresses'.Good point.
Just as the only arbiter of a 'successful' gene is the rate at which that gene passes itself on to the next generation, so it is with memes. So a meme that understands the fabric of reality through quantum physics but fails to successfully reproduce, is less ‘successful’ than one that outlaws abortion and or executes people who reject it.Maybe, but you're using highly exaggerated examples!

I think memes are likely to compete with one another more freely than genes (because they are tied down together in chromosomes). Therefore 'knowledge memes' should by now have displaced irrational 'religious memes'.

Put it another way, if you hear that a person has 14 kids, do you think they are more likely to be a) a scientist, or b) a religious-numpty-redneck?You're forgetting c) Someone claiming benefits!

[RBH]

Mike Elphick wroteI think memes are likely to compete with one another more freely than genes (because they are tied down together in chromosomes). Therefore 'knowledge memes' should by now have displaced irrational 'religious memes'.Why? Remember, a gene;s "interest" is in its own replication, not its host's. Analogously, a meme's "interest" is in its own replication, not its host's welfare.

RBH

[Mike Elphick]

I find this very interesting. The article goes on to explain that, in Commitment Theory, a person signals their trustowrthiness to the group by abandoning logic and reason by professing irrational beliefs of religion. Thus, by abandoning reason in favor of the group's irrational belif system, the person essentially is sacrificing something of value to himself (the cognitive faculty to create an accurate world model) to demonstrate his commitment to the group. If religion truly served this type of function, I find it very interesting that religious beliefs are selected for their inherently irrational character. If true, this also helps explain pretty well why nontheists are so mistrusted in our culture. Nontheists are, in this context, refusing to submit their rationality to the groups' irrational religious beliefs. We aren't making the necessary sacrifice to demonstrate to the group our commitment to the group. Thus, we are viewed as not trustworthy.Another interesting consequence of abandoning reason in favour of irrationality is the probability that the practitioner will conform. Being total obedient, and doing what your elders command, might have been significant in our evolution.

[Mike Elphick]

Why? Remember, a gene;s "interest" is in its own replication, not its host's. Analogously, a meme's "interest" is in its own replication, not its host's welfare.A collection of genes is required for any particular gene to replicate, but this is not necessarily so with memes. Why can't one meme displace another one?

[breezanne]

Good points, all around...

A few more things to toss around. Anytime someone insists that some human construct is "all black" or "all white" (no offense to colors, I like my chocolate very dark), I have a strong suspicion that they are off balance. Simplistic. Just like those they vehemently oppose. If you don't believe there IS a middle ground you will never be able to meet there, except perhaps in bloodshed.

Seems to me that one function of most religions has been to explicate the basic morals that cultures have naturally gleaned over much time. An instructional "short cut," if you will. What other public "institutions" do the same? Schools to some degree, but that's a more recent phenomenon. At best, a religious tradition can be a touchstone of lived wisdom, so that individuals don't have to figure it all out over and over again. For some reason, bunches of dogmas and rituals get tacked on, but I guess some people enjoy rituals (like comforting habits). And most people are dogmatic on one thing or another, including Dawkins (materialism).

On the other hand, regarding how religion can give "a pass" on otherwise unacceptable behavior, this has many tentacles. Obviously, in any locale, "powers that be" establish what "unacceptable behavior" means. Here in the US, we have an avowed ideal of keeping religion from dictating public policies, for the simple reason that we value one's freedom to espouse any or no religion at all. I tend to agree that this freedom does not give you the right to tell your boss what you will or won't sell for him... it gives you the right to work for another boss who agrees with you, or work for yourself. We have that freedom here.

Then again, we see societies where the avowed ideal is precisely the opposite, to have religion dictate all public policies... for the simple reason that religion is supposed to embody mankind's accumulated wisdom. Does it? Most of us do not think so. But do some religions have some things right (at least on the page)? Most of us do think so. Don't kill Don't steal Don't lie etc. But I especially appreciate the phrase attributed to Jesus, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." Apparently that "wise guy" valued freedom too.

So the problem lies in holding to not only the occasional good bit of advice from the ages, but also to what is rational and workable now. We don't need detailed notes on how a man may justly dispense with an unwanted third wife, or how one should cleanse a town of its unwanted inhabitants to prepare for the "chosen ones." And if some guy tells me his religion is correct and should dominate the world, I'll tell him no, my beliefs are correct and should dominate the world, and my army is bigger (am I any better than he is?). He may eventually sigh with relief when he comprehends that ... I believe in the importance of even his freedom ... that we need to find room for everyone to abide peacefully with their own beliefs, to the exact degree that their own beliefs do not step on my beliefs or my toes, which are not free to step on his beliefs or his toes, and so on. Like collections of bubbles that adjust their boundaries quite comfortably. No single bubble says "I'm going to expand 'til I take up ALL the space." That's rather the goal in the so-called "free world." Only trouble is, if we have a government that does not remain cognizant of that goal, but instead seeks to impose our ways on other nations, we can do some damage to our credibility on the "live and let live" count, right?

Anyway, bear with me, I'm almost done. The other thing that I see somewhat differently than most of you... "God" signifies as many different concepts as there are thinkers. I find it a useful word, and while a manlike God has never made the slightest bit of sense to me, I have no problem with an infinitely vast and pervasive sense of nonlocal connectedness. Fits with physics, it does (a criterion of mine). And in that vein, prayer (by any name) can represent more than simply some biofeedback salve to the one praying, or some comforting words to the one prayed for. It's an acknowledgment of the interconnectedness of all that exists, including our minds, and of the fact that loving thoughts and actions are naturally more conducive to the unfolding of good. I've seen it work. And no, I'm not religious. At all. I don't even care for ritual, much less obedience -- (loved that quick note on the origin of ritual behavior). But a mature society would be respectful of others not out of obedience, but out of a deeper understanding that we are all connected... and that harming others harms self... including eventual pain at causing others pain. Somebody has to let the "vengeance" buck stop here... and now. That's kind of what the doctrine of "forgiveness" is all about.

Being a materialist, without fully realizing how insubstantial matter (in spacetime) really is, Dawkins has limited room in his current philosophy. So, while he speaks beautifully, he is not speaking coherently to all those who have a bigger view, though they frame it in a vast variety of ways, some of which are patently illogical, some of which are dangerous, but some of which have aspects that should not be ignored, springing from both intelligence and love. Like I said earlier, we will never educate people about science by first telling them how stupid they are. Defensive walls shoot way up.

Enjoyed The Ancestor's Tale, and will surely read this new Dawkins, as time allows. Perhaps an extremist rant will help pierce some of the dreadful aspects of religiosity, but I fear he will offend a great many gentle and wise folks as well, whom he might have led in a quieter way as useful emissaries to their own extremist relatives. He is coming with a sword himself, methinks. But... let us read... and then chat again.

[RBH]

A collection of genes is required for any particular gene to replicate, but this is not necessarily so with memes. Why can't one meme displace another one?It can, if it's a more efficient/persistent replicator. That's why churches (aggregations of people infected with the same memeplex) support missionaries: to attempt to displace one meme set with another. The "missionary" meme is in effect part of the replication machinery of the religiosity memeplex.

RBH

BTW, I'm making this up as I go: I'm far from an expert on meme theory, such as it is.

[Mike Elphick]

You must be a Kantian; I am always disappointed that Kant, having demolished the traditional "proofs" of God, fell prey to the Moral argument.
It seems fairly obvious, and I am sure could be empirically proved, if it has not already been done so by anthropologists,--that our morals come from the practical necessity of people who live together in communities, of having to find a modus vivendi, so as to avoid a murderous free for all in which the winner takes all. "If you stop throwing rocks at me, I'll stop hitting you with my club"--would be a basic moral law. No doubt you will say that religious people believe their morality comes from God. Where did God get his morality from, if not from the realisation that people living together in communities have to find a modus vivendi?--and so we come full circle. Morality originates in human society, for human society. One does not need a God from whom to obtain it second-hand. Do I ask the Queen or the President or Prime Minister if it is alright for me to kill a child or rape someone?I've obviously not expressed myself very well. I agree with what you say, but I was trying to point out that the mode of transmission of morals to children is identical to that used for religion, which Dawkins calls 'mental child abuse'.

[RBH]

I've obviously not expressed myself very well. I agree with what you say, but I was trying to point out that the mode of transmission of morals to children is identical to that used for religion, which Dawkins calls 'mental child abuse'.I'm not so sure that Dawkins' reference to mental child abuse' is meant to apply to mode of transmission. It's my impression (I haven't read that particular piece of Dawkins for some time) that he was referring to the content. I could be wrong.

RBH

[Mike Elphick]

It can, if it's a more efficient/persistent replicator. That's why churches (aggregations of people infected with the same memeplex) support missionaries: to attempt to displace one meme set with another. The "missionary" meme is in effect part of the replication machinery of the religiosity memeplex.I see what you mean. That's very true and might explain why there is a rise in creationism as a protective measure against science. However, I'm not convinced it's the main factor. One might have expected these memes to have 'mutated' to keep up with the times, yet most seem to be buried in the past.

I can assure you, I know far less than you do about memes!

[Mike Elphick]

He does [call upon evolution to explain why something as irrational as religious belief is still so strongly held, and in apparently more fundamentalist form]. As well as a number of other authors, see explanation above.Ok, but that's not been mentioned by any of the reviewers, hostile or friendly, and neither did I pick this up in his television series, but that was a few months ago. Yes, it is mentioned by other authors, but it's Dawkins' book we're discussing.

In his youth, Dawkins had some religion at the personal level. But he deconverted entirely by 18.Likely the same type of religious upbringing I had here in the UK: believe, pretend to believe or else!

Then why are prayer studies conducted on those being prayed for rather than those praying? And wouldn't that make praying a selfish act rather than a selfless one?That's true, if it were rational, but it isn't, which is my point about its evolutionary significance. Religion is good for you and extends your longevity. Praying is good for you and so is forgiveness.

I think you've missed the points of his religious writings entirely. The moderates of every religion gives tacit permission to the fundies is his main point. Another point is that behaviors generally not tolerated in other areas are tolerated when religion is the reason behind it.I agree with that. This is the danger of political correctness (and health and safety is not far behind).

[Padre Bear]

If I believed that my praying for you was not of benefit to you but was of benefit to me, then I wouldn't offer to pray for you if you were suffering in some way. And yet certain religious people are always offering to pray for other people. That is why I assumed they thought that the prayer was of benefit to the person being prayed for.

Except that by praying for you it does open me to a commitment of compassionate concern which may benefit both of us. In my answer I should have said it can aid both, not in a magical way but in practical ways.

I am not dismissing that many or even most Christians or others believing in
prayer may not take your supposition but rather that the other is not taught. I know the latter is true because I teach it all the time as do others I know.

[Linda]

From the preface of The God Delusion, "Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Isaraeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers', no Northern Ireland 'troubles', no 'honour killings', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts'). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it. Incidentally, my colleague Desmond Morris informs me that John Lennon's magnificent song is sometimes performed in America with the phrase 'and no religion too' expurgated. One version even has the effrontery to change it to 'and one religion too'."

I think that Richard Dawkins is making it very clear that religion is very dangerous to the entire world. It is not okay to just ignore the situation and let religious people believe whatever they want to believe as one religious group's beliefs become the reason (un-reason) for warring with other religious groups all on the basis of 'My imaginery friend is better than your imaginary friend'. Those of us who are not god believers are getting killed in the crossfire - - and most of us are smart enough to know that this life is the ONLY one that we will ever have. Religious people need to wake up and face the god-myth that they have created for themselves before their irrational beliefs destroy civilization itself. As for morality, what could be more immoral than the wars fought over religious beliefs? Those wars are not based on land disputes, resource disputes or for any other reason than to 'prove' the 'my imaginery friend is better than your imaginery friend' dispute. (This is not to imply that I believe that war over resources or land are morally acceptable, by the way.) Societal laws to not steal, murder, etc., were in place well before religion was manufactured. So religion is not needed in order to have a moral framework for society.

We need writers, philosophers, scientists, free-thinkers, et al, to stop treating the followers of religions with kid gloves so that the terrible events arising from their differences in religious beliefs can end, once and for all. Richard Dawkins is trying to do that with his book, as is Sam Harris with The End of Faith and with Letter To A Christian Nation as is David Mills in The Atheist Universe, Michelle Goldberg in Kingdom Coming, and many other books that expose religion for what it is. The best book that accomplishes this in the western world is the Bible. For those believers out there, try reading it. If you can read the entire book with genuine objectivity, you will be appalled that you ever believed in a so-called 'loving' god.

Richard Dawkins and other writers of non-fiction books on religion are making an attempt to wake up the world about the dangers of religious beliefs. Bravo for them.

[DNAReplicator]

I find this very interesting. The article goes on to explain that, in Commitment Theory, a person signals their trustworthiness to the group by abandoning logic and reason by professing irrational beliefs of religion.....Nontheists are, in this context, refusing to submit their rationality to the groups' irrational religious beliefs. We aren't making the necessary sacrifice to demonstrate to the group our commitment to the group. Thus, we are viewed as not trustworthy.

Beautifully put, and entirely consistent with my own experiences with religion (very much including Buddhism). However this is not the full story, as a religion must also offer the adherent something of equal or greater value in return. Again, applying Dawkins style selfish gene reasoning, a higher rate of gene reproduction is the payoff This is achieved either through a higher reproductive rate for the adherent, or for a community of closely related individuals (e.g. folks with similar genes).

From a literary point of view, Dawkins mostly writes in a simplified essay-type sort of way, which is fine for solidifying an arguement, but leads to A LOT of repetition. I don't know if this is the typical style of Sicence literature, but it's a little tedius.

I also find Dawkins a bit repetitive, even if I agree with most of the stuff he keeps repeating. But then again the first 50 pages of ‘The Selfish Gene’ had more impact on me than any other writing I can think of. So I can forgive the repetitious and slightly tedious dumbing-down of the argument I consider his later books to be.

Maybe, but you're using highly exaggerated examples!

In NW Europe for the last hundred or so years, yes. But try running that argument past an Iranian, the Pope or Oliver Cromwell….. For that matter try telling the Chinese or Russians that their parents/grandparents did not run a very real risk of execution if they refused to go along with the prevailing meme.

A collection of genes is required for any particular gene to replicate, but this is not necessarily so with memes. Why can't one meme displace another one?

Oh they can and do. My point was that our default belief system will be the belief system of our parents. Although some individuals can and will change their views, I would contend that this does not happen at a high enough rate to compensate for the higher birth rate of ‘believers’.

Religious people need to wake up and face the god-myth that they have created for themselves before their irrational beliefs destroy civilization itself.

I understand the frustration, but no…this is not going to happen. If you follow through the logic of my argument, you will conclude that to ‘save civilisation’ the choices are either eugenics-based, or increasing the rate by which believers loose faith. I prefer the latter mechanism myself, and very much admire the work Dawkins has done to further this.

[EthnAlln]

Fantastic. Thanks for the news about the new book.

Dawkins writes with his usual clarity and reasonableness. As a USAian, I appreciate the restraint of his anti-Bush polemics (much more restrained than my own, but then, I claim the right to engage in whatever extreme ranting I wish against this homicidal moron).

[finix]

Bear in mind als that religiosity may not necessarily be itself a selected trait but is a side effect of selection for some other trait. Here is an argument (http://evolutionanddesign.blogsome.com/2006/08/18/e-broaddus-on-the-detection-of-agency-and-intentionality/) to that effect.


But wouldn't religion itself be a beneficial trait, meme, whatever? Having some sort of morals or rules seems rather important for people to live and work together, and a group of humans would be more successful than a bunch of lone wolves.
Religion would not only provide absolute morals (which appears more efficient, especially in larger groups where not everybody is familiar with everybody else) but is also a means of efficaciously passing these rules on to the next generation, establishing continuity.

[LambdaCalculator]

But wouldn't religion itself be a beneficial trait, meme, whatever? Having some sort of morals or rules seems rather important for people to live and work together, and a group of humans would be more successful than a bunch of lone wolves.

In the small breeding groups our hunter-gatherer antecendants lived in that might have been the case. Mind you that this also most likely holds true for sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, rape, and tribalism.

[finix]

In the small breeding groups our hunter-gatherer antecendants lived in that might have been the case. Mind you that this also most likely holds true for sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, rape, and tribalism.

In case it wasn't clear enough, I was talking about our ancestors (much easier to spell than 'antecedents', isn't it?). And indeed, racism, xenophobia and tribalism are very related to what I had in mind.

I'm not sure, though, about sexism or homophobia, or rape especially. Would you care to enlighten me in this respect? Or did you just throw them into your enumeration for good measure, to illustrate that religion is unconditionally an element of the set of bad stuff, and your post had, yet again, nothing to do with my point ... senior?

[Converse02]

Richard Dawkins is awesome and is my favorite atheist. I can't want for my copy of God Delusion to come in the mail. I already own three of his books.

He calling it a delusion is perfect. When I was in medical school, we learned what the word delusion meant. But a patient who held nonsensical ridiculous beliefs in a cultural, religious sense could not be call delusional. How can any adult who literally believes in those Biblical stories not be called call delusional? I knew it was science bowing to religion.

Dawkins is not outspoken or virulent, he is simply telling it like it is, and that makes people uncomfortable. We live in a society were if someone speaks the truth and points out that the emperor has no clothes or says something about the white elephant in the room, he's "outspoken."

[dmarker]

Ok, but that's not been mentioned by any of the reviewers, hostile or friendly, and neither did I pick this up in his television series, but that was a few months ago. Yes, it is mentioned by other authors, but it's Dawkins' book we're discussing.

I've only read his books and articles. He doesn't give my examples or use my words but that's his general point.


That's true, if it were rational, but it isn't, which is my point about its evolutionary significance. Religion is good for you and extends your longevity. Praying is good for you and so is forgiveness.

Do you have evidence of that?



I agree with that. This is the danger of political correctness (and health and safety is not far behind).

My example of the pharmicist not dispensing the medication that he contractually agreed to dispense is not political correctness, it's abuse disguised as religion. The pharmicists desire to keep their jobs in the big chains but they want to force others to comply to their own moral code. So they abuse their patients and employers while the more moderate Christians sit idly by and say, "well, it is his concious".

The reason why I say that the floodgates are opened for everybody who wants to use their "concious" to abuse is that in the US, the law says that an exception made for religion must be made for everything else and an exception made for everything else must be made for religion. So if those pharmicists can deny birth control because of religious feelings, then someone with a zero population growth philosophy can use their "concious" to abuse those who have prescriptions for fertility drugs. This is not political correctness, this is US law and there are precedents in place that are over 100 years old.

[ashaktur]

From the preface of The God Delusion, "Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Isaraeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers', no Northern Ireland 'troubles', no 'honour killings', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts'). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it."


Dawkins is a simpleton if he really believes what he is preaching. Does he honestly think that religion is responsible for wars and terrorist acts? These things are based in economics, religion is only a justification. If it wasn't religion being used as a justification, it would be something else. WMDs come to mind as an excuse for a recent war that was actually about securing the economic lifeblood of the US.

[PyramidHead]

Dawkins is a simpleton if he really believes what he is preaching. Does he honestly think that religion is responsible for wars and terrorist acts? These things are based in economics, religion is only a justification. If it wasn't religion being used as a justification, it would be something else. WMDs come to mind as an excuse for a recent war that was actually about securing the economic lifeblood of the US.

Which of the events he quoted would you say were based in economics? Was it the Crusades? I bet it was the Crusades.

[ashaktur]

Which of the events he quoted would you say were based in economics?

All of them.


Was it the Crusades? I bet it was the Crusades

See above.

[ashaktur]

He calling it a delusion is perfect. When I was in medical school, we learned what the word delusion meant. But a patient who held nonsensical ridiculous beliefs in a cultural, religious sense could not be call delusional. How can any adult who literally believes in those Biblical stories not be called call delusional? I knew it was science bowing to religion.


Not being religious myself I have no real interest in the religion vs atheism debate. But Converse's comment is all too typical of the "black and white" attack on religion that Dawkins is guilty of. While religion may be anachronistic today, it hasn't always been that way - it served a legitimate purpose. Plenty who are atheists today would have been religious if they had been born in an earlier age. Therefore religion is not delusional, it is perfectly rational. Sure it is not based on any concrete evidence, but there are plenty of people who believe scientific ideas and concepts that have no concrete basis in evidence. Memes are a good example.

So, before you go in to attack the "delusion" of religion, make sure you have your own house in order.

[ninewands]

All of them.



See above.

suicide bombers
Radical Islam attacking infidels

9/11
Radical Islam attacking infidels

7/7
Radical Islam attacking infidels

Crusades
Roman Catholic Church attacking Islam, unless you mean the European Crusades in whihc the Roman Catholic Church was attacking heretical (according to them) Christians

witch-hunts
The Inquisition in action

Gunpowder Plot
Gunpowder Plot

Indian partition
A previously unified British colony was granted independence as two separate nations because Hindus and Muslims did not seem to be capable of living together in peace

Isaraeli/Palestinian wars
Okay, possibly some economic factors, but a LARGE religious component too.

Serb/Croat/Muslim "ethnic cleansing"
Possibly influenced by economics, but justified on the basis of religion

no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers'
You think this was a matter of economics?

Northern Ireland 'troubles'
See, Isaraeli/Palestinian wars, above

'honour killings'
Pure patriarchal tribalism supported by religion

shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it hurts').
Using religion to attain economic goals

Taliban blowing up ancient statues
Purely religious. The economic effect of destroying the infidel temples and sculptures was negative since no one would come to Afghanistan to see them after they were destroyed.

public beheadings of blasphemers
Purely religious

flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it.
Purely patriarchal religion

Religion has caused or been used to justify probably 90% of the most heinous crimes humans have ever perpetrated against humanity. Like the song says ... "Imagine ... "

[SophistiCat]

I am not sure everything can be completely reduced to economics, but like ahkatur, it seems to me that religion is rather a justification, a symptom rather than the prime cause. There have been plenty of wars and massacres that had little or nothing to do with religion, yet in every other way they resembled religious attrocities. All sorts of national, ethnic, racial, and idological conflicts come to mind.

[Eric H]

Hello ninewands;
Religion has caused or been used to justify probably 90% of the most heinous crimes humans have ever perpetrated against humanity. Like the song says ... "Imagine ...

Some years ago there was a serial killer who killed a number of prostitutes. He was caught and during his trial his defence was; ‘God told him to do this’

If God really told him to kill then it would not be his fault; and he would be innocent.

But did God really tell him to kill?…..Imagine.

peace

Eric

[RBH]

Religion has caused or been used to justify probably 90% of the most heinous crimes humans have ever perpetrated against humanity. Like the song says ... "Imagine ...Some years ago there was a serial killer who killed a number of prostitutes. He was caught and during his trial his defence was; ‘God told him to do this’

If God really told him to kill then it would not be his fault; and he would be innocent.

But did God really tell him to kill?…..Imagine.How could one possibly know? The God of Christianity has sanctioned people doing worse than that on occasion -- remember the 32,000 Midianite virgins?

RBH

[llanitedave]

A collection of genes is required for any particular gene to replicate, but this is not necessarily so with memes. Why can't one meme displace another one?

Don't memes. like genes, come in packages? Most memes wouldn't stand alone, but be supported by other meme patterns. The meme that says "sagging trousers that your underwear sticks out of the top of are cool" isn't going to last very long without other memes, such as "I need to be just as ridiculous as my friends are in order to be accepted by them" to bolster it.

[judanne]

As I understand it most conflicts have multiple "causes" and I don't think they can be boiled down to a simple, single "religion is responsible" or "economic reasons only" explanation. Economics, politics, social organization, religion and other components of human cultures are very much interconnected.

[RBH]

Don't memes. like genes, come in packages? Most memes wouldn't stand alone, but be supported by other meme patterns. The meme that says "sagging trousers that your underwear sticks out of the top of are cool" isn't going to last very long without other memes, such as "I need to be just as ridiculous as my friends are in order to be accepted by them" to bolster it.Yeah, that's why I used "memeplex", which I think I stole from Susan Blackmore, whose book I read some years ago.

RBH

[Eric H]

Hello RBH;
The God of Christianity has sanctioned people doing worse than that on occasion -- remember the 32,000 Midianite virgins?
Hello RBH,

I feel mankind has always caused each other and God huge problems, we do not really seem to understand justice.

What would God have to do today to put all the troubles in the world right?

It might not be enough for God to say, don’t kill, steal, lie, or commit adultery anymore. He might have to do something far more severe for us to take any notice at all.

Peace

Eric

[Mike Elphick]

Belief in the efficacy of sorcery has been very common in many places and times. In some societies, It was believed that all sickness and death is due to malicious sorcery -- even when they are aware of "rational" explanations, like being attacked by an elephant that one is trying to hunt. Should we believe that?I meant to answer that one, lpetrich, but forgot. Sorcery can certainly be effective and can even lead to death. See Voodoo Death (http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/19/3/182.pdf).

Psychognic death: individual effect of sorcery and taboo violation (http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(q3zeh4455um2s355rf2fs445)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,1,10;journal,15,24;linkingpublicationresults,1:104639,1).
Can social causes directly effect physiological processes? In many parts of the world, there are reports that those who have broken a ritual prohibition or hold that they are victims of sorcery give up and die, a phenomenon labelled by anthropologists as voodoo death. The mechanisms for this remain controversial. The features include: lethargy, lack of motivation, extreme guilt, social withdrawal, reduced appetite and thirst, and ultimately death. Although a belief in the power of sorcery is rare among indigenous white British people, it is not uncommon among ethnic minorities and may be diagnosed as a delusion. The author reports two cases from his own clinical experience in a Western setting that raise the question as to whether the phenomenon is similar to depression and what can be done about it. In one case, the victim made a rapid recovery once the curse was removed. Is death really an individual or a social phenomenon?There is also the placebo effect (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HARPLA.html?show=reviews), which explains the healing powers of certain people.

You see, the mind has a powerful effect over the body, something that many scientists don't seem to appreciate.

[Wads4]

I've obviously not expressed myself very well. I agree with what you say, but I was trying to point out that the mode of transmission of morals to children is identical to that used for religion, which Dawkins calls 'mental child abuse'.

OK, but then I suppose we could call any education of reluctant schoolchildren "child abuse". We have to (somehow) distinguish good education from indoctrination,--and that depends which side you stand on in the "culture war". A Christian will see religious instruction as good education, and an atheist will see it as brainwashing. It all depends on what is seen as the prevailing "norm".

[Wads4]

Dawkins is a simpleton if he really believes what he is preaching. Does he honestly think that religion is responsible for wars and terrorist acts? These things are based in economics, religion is only a justification. If it wasn't religion being used as a justification, it would be something else. WMDs come to mind as an excuse for a recent war that was actually about securing the economic lifeblood of the US.

Wars are waged for all sorts of reasons. One can equally well assert that economics is used as a justification for religious wars. Even the Iraq war, ostensibly about WMDs, was described in its earliest phase by Bush as a "crusade". The fact is that Bush distrusts the Iraqis possessing WMDs simply because they are Muslims rather than Christians,--and so the motivation for war is as much religious as strategic or economic.

[Wads4]

Not being religious myself I have no real interest in the religion vs atheism debate. But Converse's comment is all too typical of the "black and white" attack on religion that Dawkins is guilty of. While religion may be anachronistic today, it hasn't always been that way - it served a legitimate purpose. Plenty who are atheists today would have been religious if they had been born in an earlier age. Therefore religion is not delusional, it is perfectly rational. Sure it is not based on any concrete evidence, but there are plenty of people who believe scientific ideas and concepts that have no concrete basis in evidence. Memes are a good example.

So, before you go in to attack the "delusion" of religion, make sure you have your own house in order.

Lies can serve a purpose (whether legitimate or not depends upon the current "norm")-- as Goebbels knew well; I think it was he who said "the bigger the lie the more likely it is to be believed".

[Mike Elphick]

Do you have evidence of that [practicing religion enhances longevity and health]?For a review of the literature see here (http://www.theannals.com/cgi/reprint/36/6/1090?ijkey=cace7c7aad2fb6b751cb1955c9956f19d5b53806&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha): -
Longitudinal studies published during the past 30 years have found significant associations between frequent attendance at religious services and reduced risk of early mortality among community populations and in some patient populations such as those undergoing surgery. Since 1997, studies investigating the relationship between religious attendance and mortality have substantially improved methodologically. These studies control for a wide range of confounding variables such as sociodemographics and initial physical and mental health status and Mortality and Religion/Spirituality physical functioning and also adjust for potentially explanatory factors...

[snip]

...The findings in these mortality studies are notable. A meta-analysis summing the results of 42 study samples totaling nearly 126 000 people found active religious involvement increased the odds of living longer by 29%.The relationship was so strong it would take 1418 new studies showing no association between religious involvement and living longer to overturn the significance of the findings. There's even a book about Religion and Health (http://www.amazon.com/Link-between-Religion-Health-sychoneuroimmunology/dp/0195143604): -
This book is the first to present new medical research establishing a connection between religion and health and to examine the implications for Eastern and Western religious traditions and for society and culture.

The distinguished list of contributors examine a series of psychoneuroimmunology (PNI) topics that relate to religious faith and behavior. PNI studies the relationships between mental states and the nervous, endocrine, and immune systems. Among the issues it focuses upon are how mental states, in general, and belief states, in particular, affect physical health. The contributors argue that religious involvement and belief can affect certain neuroendocrine and immune mechanisms, and that these mechanisms, in turn, susceptibility to cancer and recovery following surgery. This volume is essential reading for those interested in the relationship between religion and health.Practicing some sort of religion seems to be beneficial for the individual. Although I've not read the book, this is something that Dawkins seems to totally ignore.

[Mike Elphick]

OK, but then I suppose we could call any education of reluctant schoolchildren "child abuse". We have to (somehow) distinguish good education from indoctrination,--and that depends which side you stand on in the "culture war". A Christian will see religious instruction as good education, and an atheist will see it as brainwashing. It all depends on what is seen as the prevailing "norm".Absolutely! That's why kids rebel when they get older. Most atheists (I'm just guessing) are brought up in some sort of religious environment, but later reject it. Not too much harm done then.

[David B]

For a review of the literature see here (http://www.theannals.com/cgi/reprint/36/6/1090?ijkey=cace7c7aad2fb6b751cb1955c9956f19d5b53806&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha): -
There's even a book about Religion and Health (http://www.amazon.com/Link-between-Religion-Health-sychoneuroimmunology/dp/0195143604): -
Practicing some sort of religion seems to be beneficial for the individual. Although I've not read the book, this is something that Dawkins seems to totally ignore.

I have vague memories of reading in various places claims that having a pet, having a spouse, having some sort of fellowship, and having interests are good for longevity.

Religion can fit some of these factors. But then, so can militant atheism, and, I imagine, even the sort of vicarious fellowship one can get from frequenting forums like this one.

Unless religion is divorced from other sorts of interests or fellowship, then I find the case for its benefits not proven.

But I'm not prepared to plough through the methodologies of 42 studies to find out how well this is done, in order to see how good they are.

David B

[ninewands]

Wars are waged for all sorts of reasons. One can equally well assert that economics is used as a justification for religious wars. Even the Iraq war, ostensibly about WMDs, was described in its earliest phase by Bush as a "crusade". The fact is that Bush distrusts the Iraqis possessing WMDs simply because they are Muslims rather than Christians,--and so the motivation for war is as much religious as strategic or economic.
Please, let's don't go into specific current cases like this. You have your theories about the fundamental causes of the current situation, I have mine (they don't agree, BTW*), and I'm sure that others have their own ideas. This discussion will degenerate quickly if we start to vent about those.

* - and my theories don't have a damned thing to do with religion, despite what I said above.

[ninewands]

I'm not so sure that Dawkins' reference to mental child abuse' is meant to apply to mode of transmission. It's my impression (I haven't read that particular piece of Dawkins for some time) that he was referring to the content. I could be wrong.

RBH
Dawkins's reference is specifically to the mode of transmission. It is one thing to teach a child that things are moral because they are "the right thing to do," and another thing entirely to teach them that "Mad Daddy <insert name of $DEITY here> is going to burn you forever if you make the wrong choice. Teaching moral decision-making on the basis of fear of the outcome is what Dawkins is referring to.

BTW, I happen to know a fairly large number of young people who were raised with the former type of moral teaching in my UU congregation and I don't think you could meet a similar number of teens and young adults who were happier, more well-adjusted and/or more morally mature. Not a one of them, to the best of my knowledge, believes in Hell, although some of them self-identify as Christians.

[ashaktur]

suicide bombers
Radical Islam attacking infidels

Ninewands, you come up with an impressive list of events you think are caused by religion rather than economics (I mean here material interests). Unfortunately for you, all of them have an economic or material cause, religion is only the superficial veneer. I will not bore everyone with a point by point refutation, but a few comments will suffice.


Crusades
Roman Catholic Church attacking Islam, unless you mean the European Crusades in whihc the Roman Catholic Church was attacking heretical (according to them) Christians

The Crusades were started for economic reasons but covered in a veneer of religion. They were waged for the benefit of the papacy and for the benefit of the crusaders themselves some of who became very rich. Especially the fourth crusade which involved sacking a Christian Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire). The point which you appear to be missing is that people do not risk life and limb (except some of the more misguided or desparate cf. suicide bombers) without at least the promise of significant economic return. That much of human nature has not changed over time. If the Crusaders had thought that there was no material gain to be had, they would not have gone on crusade.


Gunpowder Plot
Gunpowder Plot

Again, economic motivation. Henry VIII economically persecuted the Catholics in England following his creation of the Anglican Church and the Catholics suffered for it economically. The gunpowder plot was an attempt by Catholics to cause a revolution in their favour. Purely economic.


no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers'
You think this was a matter of economics?

Absolutely. The jews had a big part in Medieval Europe in the money lending business. This led to jealousy and hatred on the part of those who owed money (you know, the "its not my fault I am poor, it has to be someone else's" mentality) and so again it was economics masquerading under the cover of religion that resulted in the persecution of the jews. After all, if you were a borderline psychopath and owed a lot of money, you could make an economic killing (figuratively speaking) by making a real killing - i.e. of your credit provider.


Northern Ireland 'troubles'

Interesting how the 'troubles' started evaporating when Ireland became one of the fastest growing and most well off economies in Europe.


Religion has caused or been used to justify probably 90% of the most heinous crimes humans have ever perpetrated against humanity.

Well, I doubt that. But I am not saying that religion is not used as a justification, that is in fact exactly what I am saying. But if it wasn't religion it would be something else - because the underlying cause of the vast majority of events you have listed are purely economic. This is where Dawkins has gone wrong. He only sees the superficial and ignores the fundamental.

[flashbaby]

James the sixth was king not henry 8 re gunpowder plot

[JamesBannon]

ashaktur,

One could of course argue that most conflict is derived from economics (as Marx does for instance) but this I think misses something even more fundamental: "not me"; "alien".

Group identity is fundamental to humans - we are social animals. The individual finds his / her purpose in the group, after all an individual life is somewhat meaningless in the grand scheme of things. How do we then identify ourselves? The only way we can by identifying with a group whether it be tribe, movement or what not. Anything that threatens the stability of that group therefore threatens individual identity within the group. This is why things like religious belief are so difficult to shift.

[Flint]

RBH:

I'm not sure I fully understand the notion of the "false positives" in detecting purpose, intent, and motivation. Yes, I can understand that everything people do, they do for some purpose. I can understand that this is by observation also true of other people, prey, predators, and critters large enough to notice. So detecting intent becomes valuable, and (as the autism proposal illustrates) inability to detect intent, or even missing intent where it exists, can be pretty damn crippling.

But I'm not comfortable with the idea of an "agency-detecting module" sensitive enough not to miss any inten