quote:

---

Professor Richard Dawkins

06 January 2006

Known as ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler’, Professor Richard Dawkins relishes controversy. In his new TV series he explains how religion is a form of abuse – and why God is man’s most destructive invention.

---

Read it here.

Frankly, you can no more disprove---or prove--God by looking through a telescope or microscope than you can by looking out a window.

same insistence, but complete rejection of the idea, common to both the Medieval "ontological proof" and the most recent psychological research (see The Atlantic, December 2005), that the idea of God is built-in and inevitable to human consciousness

for Dawkins, if you yell loud enough: There is no God!, suddenly people will snap "awake" somehow...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fed:
Frankly, you can no more disprove---or prove--God by looking through a telescope or microscope than you can by looking out a window.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
...that the idea of God is built-in and inevitable to human consciousness.

---

quote:

---

How could anyone not be angry at the unnecessary misery and ignorance that is spawned by religious faith?

---

That's a bit over the top, M. Spector.

The world owes a lot of good to religion over the last few thousand years. Jewish ethics underscore modern secular ideas of what justice is; Catholics pretty much invented the idea of hospitals and hospices; Muslim scholars preserved the writings of the ancient Greek philosphers and inspired much elegant architecture in the middle ages.

Religion is more like the source or inspiration for modern ideas of justice, mercy, and beauty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
This is highly controversial. If such a thing is "built-in", how did it get there? And why is it that I, as a conscious human being, do not possess this "inevitable" mind-virus called religion?

---

the most recent Harvard trendy psych news (I will find The Atlantic link), curiously, reaches the same conclusion, but from completely different premisses

oops, YALE trendy theory:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511u/paul-bloom

[Yale psychologist Paul] Bloom takes note when his children, or any other children, wax philosophical about the body and the soul. As a rationalist and a self-declared atheist, he rejects all notions of spirits, deities, and the afterlife. As a researcher, however, he has discovered that children are predisposed to divide the world into two categories: the physical and the immaterial. Five-month-old babies show clear signs of understanding the basic properties of objects; for example, that they are solid, will fall if dropped, and do not spontaneously disappear. These infants also show signs of responding to and understanding the world of emotions and personal relations—recognizing familiar voices, for instance, and responding to happiness or fear. As Bloom puts it, these two sets of abilities "can be seen as akin to two distinct computers, running separate programs."

With this kind of dual psychological wiring, he argues, it is no wonder that the majority of humans believe in the concept of souls as separate from bodies, which in turn leads to spirituality and faith in the afterlife. ...

[ 11 January 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

These infants also show signs of responding to and understanding the world of emotions and personal relations—recognizing familiar voices, for instance, and responding to happiness or fear. As Bloom puts it, these two sets of abilities "can be seen as akin to two distinct computers, running separate programs."

With this kind of dual psychological wiring, he argues, it is no wonder that the majority of humans believe in the concept of souls as separate from bodies, which in turn leads to spirituality and faith in the afterlife. ...

---

I read that article. But doesn't it just prove that infants and children tend to believe in God?

I don't recall any explanation in the article of how it is that atheists come to exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fed:
The world owes a lot of good to religion over the last few thousand years. Jewish ethics underscore modern secular ideas of what justice is; Catholics pretty much invented the idea of hospitals and hospices; Muslim scholars preserved the writings of the ancient Greek philosphers and inspired much elegant architecture in the middle ages.

---

While that may be so, the wider implication of most religions gravitates toward a form of mind-control, threatening those who do not believe 'in it' with eternal hell fire and suffering in 'the Lake of Fire'. It is cruel and abusive, and seeks to control the souls of men. The only religions I can respect are the onew who are void of this violence by which it seeks to maintain and keep its followers in line.

quote:

---

Religion is more like the source or inspiration for modern ideas of justice, mercy, and beauty.

---

No, it isn't. Ideas of justice were and are generally being promoted by Humanists, not [in our case the predominant] Christians. In fact, if the 'staunchest' Christians had their say, huge portions of the population would have no rights. Mercy is also not inspired by religion in general. Generally, the more religious/theorcratic a regime, the less mercy it has. Ask George Bush, or the Saudis, or The Israelis, or the Iranians about mercy. And beauty? well. That is an entirely different issue. Today most people countenance the beauty of the face, when the beauty of the heart is significantly more important. And most fundamentalists of any stripe are pretty ugly when judged by that measure.

quote:

---

Lack of religion on the other hand---well, there's only really been widespread atheism since the 20th century.

---

Because in the millenia before then, religion made people 'worship' by force.

quote:

---

Soviet forced famines in the Ukraine, Pol Pot's mass murders in Cambodia, untold opression during the Cultural Revolution and beyond in China, just to name three....methinks one could lay quite a lot more blame for "misery and ignorance" at the feet of militant atheism.

---

This is not a defense of murderers of any persuasion. If you want to confuse atheists with murderers, be my guest. But also know that no ideology has ever killed as many human beings as the Roman Church has killed throughout its history. Not even Hitler came close.

On the other hand, much good has been accomplished in the name of faith, and even atheists who do not believe in God have acted in the spirit of compassion and of will to achieve social justice.

quote:

---

posted by Fed in response to M. Spector: 'How could anyone not be angry at the unnecessary misery and ignorance that is spawned by religious faith? [b]That's a bit over the top ... The world owes a lot of good to religion over the last few thousand years. Jewish ethics underscore modern secular ideas of what justice is; Catholics pretty much invented the idea of hospitals and hospices; Muslim scholars preserved the writings of the ancient Greek philosphers and inspired much elegant architecture in the middle ages.

Religion is more like the source or inspiration for modern ideas of justice, mercy, and beauty.

Lack of religion on the other hand---well, there's only really been widespread atheism since the 20th century. Soviet forced famines in the Ukraine, Pol Pot's mass murders in Cambodia, untold opression during the Cultural Revolution and beyond in China, just to name three....methinks one could lay quite a lot more blame for "misery and ignorance" at the feet of militant atheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fed:
The world owes a lot of good to religion over the last few thousand years. Jewish ethics underscore modern secular ideas of what justice is; Catholics pretty much invented the idea of hospitals and hospices; Muslim scholars preserved the writings of the ancient Greek philosphers and inspired much elegant architecture in the middle ages.

Religion is more like the source or inspiration for modern ideas of justice, mercy, and beauty.

---

If religion were such a great source of morality and justice then the most desirable, utopian state would be a theocracy, like Afghanistan under the Taliban.

As far back as Aristotle it was recognized that our moral codes come from a thoughtful and sincere interpretation of the world around us, and a consideration of how the world can function to the good of all people. Reasonable people, whether they believe in God or not, usually arrive at essentially the same moral code. Non-religious people adhere to their own moral codes as strongly as the devoutly religious, and they do so out of personal choice, not fear of retribution from a deity.

Which do we honour more - the person who does good to escape punishment by a supposed supernatural agent, or the person who does good because she respects her fellow human? The former acts out of self-interest; the latter out of a genuine desire to do what is right as a human being.

Entire ethical theories have been propounded by philosophers like Mill and Kant, based entirely on secular, not religious principles. Modern ethical theories depend on the kind of secular, humanistic values championed in the 18th Century Enlightenment.

We place great importance on concern for the rights of people and animals, and the environment; we do so out of a recognition of their intrinsic dignity, worth and importance to us. We value freedom of action, the pursuit of knowledge, the cultivation of pleasures that don't harm others, the enjoyment of arts and letters, altruism, our personal relationships, and our sense of community.

Religious ethics, on the other hand, is based on a system of posthumous rewards and punishments. Religions devalue those who do not accept their dogmas; one of their worst moral offences is blasphemy. Religions value conformity, orthodoxy, obedience to authority, blind faith over rational inquiry, ignorance and superstition over knowledge and understanding. Religion is suspicious and hostile towards science, which is humankind's most formidable achievement.

What does religion have to offer us as a resource for thinking about moral issues? Tolerance? No, that wasn't invented by religion. Rationality? Um, not really. Recognition of the worth of the individual? I don't think so. Personal responsibility and autonomy? Not if you believe in the supreme religious value of obedience and submission to authority. Respect for the equality of the sexes? Nope. Sexual morality? Only if it's hetero and confined to married couples. Issues of war and peace? Onward Christian soldiers!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fed:
M. Spector wrote:

Lack of religion on the other hand---well, there's only really been widespread atheism since the 20th century. Soviet forced famines in the Ukraine, Pol Pot's mass murders in Cambodia, untold opression during the Cultural Revolution and beyond in China, just to name three....methinks one could lay quite a lot more blame for "misery and ignorance" at the feet of militant atheism.

---

quote:

---

But also know that no ideology has ever killed as many human beings as the Roman Church has killed throughout its history.

---

During Hitler's 12-year career as the dictator of one country, a whole lot of people killed a whole lot of other people. During the 1800 or so years of Roman Catholocism and Reformation, under hundreds of dictators of a dozen countries, a whole lot of people killed a whole lot of other people. Before Christianity, a whole lot of people killed a whole lot of other people. While Europe was largely Christian, a whole lot of people in other, non-Christian, parts of the world killed a whole lot of other people.

quote:

---

No ideology has ever killed anyone.

---

Much of what I've seen on this thread seems to be going back and forth between the "Religion is good, look at what has been done in its name" position and the "Religion is bad, look what has been done in its name" position. Brothers, sisters, come together!

There are good people who have done great things, all through history, and who have done so in part because they have been inspired by their beliefs. (Many of these great things have gone unseen, because we are obsessed with the horrible. I like to believe that part of the reason that we are obsessed with the horrible, rather than the good, is because the good is so commonplace.)

There are evil people who have done truly horrible things, and can claim the same sources as inspiration. (I wavered over using the word 'evil' here, but then I wondered, why would I waver over this word and not over the word 'good' to describe a person's general approach to life?)

What do we conclude from this? If one person gives a thirsty stranger a drink of water from the well, and another person drowns the stranger in the same water, we don't conclude that the water itself is the problem. We correctly see that it is the decisions that people make, and the actions that they take, that make the water an 'agent' for good or ill.

not the same thing, not at all

and Dawkins looks like an amateur sociologist in the article posted, when he assumes that religious "identities" in the disputes he cites are not simply fronts for ethnicity -- they certainly were in ex-Yugoslavia, and probably in Israel/Palestine, too

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

We place great importance on concern for the rights of people and animals, and the environment; we do so out of a recognition of their intrinsic dignity, worth and importance to us. We value freedom of action, the pursuit of knowledge, the cultivation of pleasures that don't harm others, the enjoyment of arts and letters, altruism, our personal relationships, and our sense of community.

Religious ethics, on the other hand, is based on a system of posthumous rewards and punishments. Religions devalue those who do not accept their dogmas; one of their worst moral offences is blasphemy. Religions value conformity, orthodoxy, obedience to authority, blind faith over rational inquiry, ignorance and superstition over knowledge and understanding. Religion is suspicious and hostile towards science, which is humankind's most formidable achievement.

---

My goodness.

I'm stunned.

For you have just described the wild, wonderful, jolly world of Catholicism----only you have attributed it's characteristics to humanism.

And you've described the authoritarian, punitive, ignorant, superstitious views I see in the writings of the militantly atheist Communists and ascribed it to religion! (e.g. what I've been reading over at www.marxist.com )

Something is backwards here.

I will speak of Catholic Christianity, the religion I know best and the most common form of Christianity on the planet: the ethical system of the religion (that which comes from the Sermon on the Mount in the early Chapters of Matthew) involves going beyond the letter of the law (Thou Shalt Not Kill) to the intent behind it (You shall not even be angry with your brother/sister) because "your brother/sister" is a child of the same God as yourself.

(Note: a religion HAS an ethical system; it is not identically equivalent to and ethical system. As you correctly pointed out, there are ethical systems which are not religiously based. You mention Humanism, but ancient Greek ethics (Aristotle & Co.) and (someone correct me if I'm wrong) Confucianism are also non-theistic.)

Sometimes one throws a stone in one direction and ends up breaking a window somewhere else entirely: Here is a case: when you get rid of the "Fatherhood of God" concept, it is all too easy to get rid of the "brotherhood of man" too. Appologies for sexist language---I was mangling an old metaphore). It doesn't happen all the time, but even in ancient Greece some people were more equal than others). Certainly Benthamite Utilitarianism sees anyone sick or old or disabled as being a non-human "burden on society". And, of course, the Communists were so cold and bloodthirsty in purging anyone who did not bow to the "party line." No love of God often equals no respect for human dignity.

But even with love of God, it took awhile to realise just how radical the implications were. It took quite some time for the Church's prolonged meditation on God to fully understant that slavery, that old universal of the ancient world, was not a "given" but was in fact unfit for human dignity.

BTW: See a brief biography of the Dominican Bartholomew de las Casas, who argued for the rights of First Nations (including the property rights---just 'cause they're Indians doesn't mean you can steal from them) during the Spanish involvement with the Americas 1500s and 1600s: http://www.op.org/domcentral/people/vocations/Bart.htm

Above, you spoke of "...place[ing] great importance on concern for the rights of people and animals, and the environment....out of a recognition of their intrinsic dignity, worth and importance to us." That is almost word-for-word out of the John Paul II's Encyclical "Evangelium Vitae!"

And also, you said: "We value freedom of action, the pursuit of knowledge, the cultivation of pleasures that don't harm others, the enjoyment of arts and letters, altruism, our personal relationships, and our sense of community."

WOW---Have you been reading G. K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc? These two British Catholic authors were saying the same thing (in almost the same words!) in the early 20th century. Inspired by the Papal Encyclical "Rerum Novarum" (which argued in favour of labour unions and against laissez-faire Capitalism now called neo-Conservatism----way back in the late 1800s), Chesterton and Belloc developed an economic system compatible with Catholic social teaching called Distributism. There was a Distributist Party in England in the pre-WWII era. Amazingly, because I doubt you realize it, you have articulated, almost item by item, the precise the vision Chesterton and Belloc were enunciating---inspired 100% by the Catholic Church:

- Freedom of action (instead of wage-slavery to Capitalism or intellectual slavery to Communism),

- the pursuit of knowledge (the first Universities in Europe were started by the Catholic Church),

- the cultivation of pleasures that don't harm others (they were fond of singing the praises of good beer and hearty food, against their perennial opponent G.B. Shaw with his "no fun" (in ChesterBelloc's view) teetolaling, non-smoking, vegtetariansim),

- the enjoyment of arts and letters (they suggested that this was much more important than any money-making venture),

- altruism (didn't I already say the Catholic Church invented hospitals?),

- our personal relationships (family and friendship were strongly lauded by Chesterton/Belloc),

- and our sense of community (Chesterton arguing with Rudyard Kipling said something to the effect of he loved England because of her people whilst Kipling loved England because of her Empire---the difference between patriotism and jingoism).

Distributism is one of the things that Dorothy Day (my personal hero to the nth degree) deliberately drew upon when developing the Catholic Worker Movement.

Some Distributist and CW links that may be of interest:

The Vincent McNabb Society (especially his book "The Church and the Land")
http://vincentmcnabb.org/

John Médaille's Distributism site (a cyber-friend of mine, very fond of Adbusters magazine, tries to drill some ethics in business students at the University of Dallas when he is not selling real estate)
http://www.medaille.com/distributivism.htm

Justpeace - website of Robert Waldrop, another cyber-friend who runs a food co-op and Catholic Worker house in Oklahoma. Not well organized, unfortunately, but very, very good ideas in there:
http://www.justpeace.org/

As I mentioned in this thread
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=001308&p=
the left/right political spectrum is useless when trying to look at the Catholic Church. Paradoxically, perhaps for some, the more orthodox (in the sense of faithful to the tradition) end of the spectrum ends up being (with the exception of abortion) much, much, more socially liberal---which is why John Paul II was such a consternation to the neo-conservatives.

When you talk about "Religions devalue those who do not accept their dogmas; one of their worst moral offences is blasphemy," I think that is just rhetoric, and I have to laugh. I mean, c'mon, really, who got it worse?---compare

(1) Liberation Theologians: who were told that they really should try and inject a little more God into their theology because they had become more like Liberation Politicians.

(2) Ordinary high school teachers in China who were tortured, killed, or "re-educated" in the Maoist Cultural Revolution.

Or compare the treatment Hans Kung or Charles Curran got at the hands of Catholic Church with the treatment Pol Pot's victims got in Cambodia, or the Ukranians got at the hands of the Soviets. Would you rather be told that you can't call yourself a "Catholic" theologian anymore (although you are welcome to continue teaching at our University), or be sent to a gulag in Siberia?

I think militant atheists punish their "blasphemers" much more than the Catholic Church does. Who valued "conformity, orthodoxy, obedience to authority, blind faith over rational inquiry, ignorance and superstition over knowledge and understanding" more---John Paul II or Joseph Stalin?

Whatever faults one can lay at the feet of the members of the Catholic Church, and there are many, other Catholics will lay them there as much as any non-Catholic or Humanist will. We have not always been compassionate---but we know we should be. We have not always been respectful---but we know we ought to have been. We have not been merciful---but that is our fault. Militant atheists in the Stalin/Pol Pot/Mao mold are not likely to realize anything similar.

No, you don't *require* belief in Jesus or Buddha or even the Flying Sphaghetti Monster, to develop ethics and compassion---but a lot of ethics and compassion were developed by people who did or do believe in a deity: a deity whom they love and whom they are trying to imitate in mercy and justice and truth. This ethical/moral/spiritual heritage is drawn upon even by the many decent agnostics and atheists one meets in day-to-day life.

A believer in Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinudism, Islam, Mormonism, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterism who is sincere in their beliefs and looking to be formed by the teachings of those faiths is a far less scary person than aggressively militant atheists in the mold of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao.

A person's sincere devotion to the all-encompassing love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all those arms to hug you with!) will lead them to self-sacrificial love of others.

It is not fear of hell that drove Dorothy Day---it was love of God and compassion for hurting individuals who were brothers and sisters of Jesus.

For these reasons, I still disagree with your statement:

quote:

---

How could anyone not be angry at the unnecessary misery and ignorance that is spawned by religious faith?

---

Anti-clericism went out of style with the French Revolution. I always thought that we finally grew past the concept that some people will have different ideas of the world - and rather than pissing on all of these peoples deeply held beliefs (seperate from politics and suchwith, which need criticism and debate - religion does too, but not moronic mudslinging). Why focus on the benign people like myself that respect other peoples beliefs...Attacking us like pitbulls that have been trained (emphasis on that concept of some people with deeply seated hatred for something being TRAINED). I thought that it was just common sense that dictated that those of us whose piety doesn't enforce whacky laws on society were chill with the mainstream - and that it was those that have whacky ideas and force them upon others through whacky laws that were bad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homes:
I find it amusing that in so many wars everyone believes that God is on their side and will lead them to victory. Would there be as many willing martyrs if society didn’t promote a belief in an afterlife?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fed:
I'm stunned.

---

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Then we're in total agreement.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

---

Ain't it the truth.

Geneva, you didn't read the article through. In fact Dawkins specifically differentiated between ethnicity and religious only conflicts.

Fed, you characterized Dawkins as a 'crackpot'.

Here is a list of the various awards and appointments conferred upon this 'crackpot'.

quote:

---

1987 Royal Society of Literature Award for The Blind Watchmaker

1987 Los Angeles Times Literary Prize, for The Blind Watchmaker

1987 Sci.Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programmme of the Year, for BBC Horizon Programme: The Blind Watchmaker

1988 Honorary Fellowship, Regent's College, London

1989 Zoological Society of London Silver Medal

1990 Royal Society of London, Michael Faraday Award

1994 Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science

1995 Honorary Doctor of Letters, St Andrews University

1996 Honorary Doctor of Letters, Australian National University, Canberra

1996 Humanist of the Year Award

1996 Vice-President of the British Humanist Association

1997 Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature

1997 International Cosmos Prize, Osaka, Japan.

1997 Hon. D.Sc. University of Westminster

2001 Elected Fellow of the Royal Society

2001 Hon. D.Sc. University of Hull

2001 Kistler Prize, USA

2001 Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic. Rimini. Italy

2002 Bicentennial Kelvin Medal, Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow

2003 Hon. Doctor of the University, Open University

2004 Hon. Fellow, Balliol College, Oxford University

2004 Honorary Patron, University Philosophical Society. Trinity College, Dublin

2005 Shakespeare Prize for Contribution to British Culture, Hamburg Germany

---

Some crackpot.

For a complete cv look here:

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
As far back as Aristotle it was recognized that our moral codes come from a thoughtful and sincere interpretation of the world around us, and a consideration of how the world can function to the good of all people. Reasonable people, whether they believe in God or not, usually arrive at essentially the same moral code. Non-religious people adhere to their own moral codes as strongly as the devoutly religious, and they do so out of personal choice, not fear of retribution from a deity.

---

if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pakistan, Serbo-Croatia, and various regions of Indonesia and Africa. Religion is today’s most divisive label of group identity and hostility.

I would contend that the ex-Yugoslav conflict, for example, was ethnic and territorial, and religion was a fig-leaf or secondary descriptor of today's groups there, arguably the same for Israel/Palestine

the more important contention, which he hammers at in the lede paragraphs with the Lennon stuff, is that religion is the primary divider of humanity, and we would be much less conflictual and more united without it;
I seriously doubt that, viz the ex-Yugoslavia, and all the merciless battles fought the length of its Peace and Brotherhood Highway

re psychologist Paul Bloom:
his conclusions are basically that humans -- young and old -- attribute "intentional" status to random patterns, conducts, outcomes;
hence the unwillingness to accept un-designed outcomes, like humans, our world and consciousness, even if explained by Darwinistic steady progression:

""The theory of natural selection is an empirically supported account of our existence. But almost nobody believes it. ... Our gut feeling is that a design requires a designer
[...]
Nobody was born with the idea that humanity was born in the Garden of Eden ... these ideas are learned. But the universal themes of religion are not learned. They are part of human nature.""

-- from The Atlantic monthly, December 2005
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511u/paul-bloom
.

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Funny, I don't recall having ever made such a declaration

---

quote:

---

Rigid adherence to any particular view will bring you into conflict with others.

---

Always? that's a little inflexible, isn't it?

It's probably wrong to say that militant antiesm killed a lot of people in this century. Stalinism and the Khamer Rouge may have been athiests, but they were "True Believers" as much as any religious fanatic ever was.

Most ahtiests today include modern skepticism, which makes being a "True Believer" difficult.

But not impossible.

Nonesuch point about people just wanting to kill people is valid. We don't need much of an excuse.

I think, anymore, that it isn't so instructive to go after religion specifically as it might be to just classify "True Believing" as a mental disorder.

quote:

---

RA:
This is not a defense of murderers of any persuasion. If you want to confuse atheists with murderers, be my guest. But also know that no ideology has ever killed as many human beings as the Roman Church has killed throughout its history. Not even Hitler came close.

I don't need religion to tell me how to live my life. What I do, I do not because I expect eternal reward. What I do, I do as a human unto humans, knowing that when I pass from this world, that is the end, and I will return to dust. No reward and no punishment awaits me. But I could not live with myself in this life, having the means and not doing what is in my power to lift other human beings out of poverty.

---

Well for one thing the religion of progress has not been around as long as the catholic church. However such things as the holocaust in one single epoch of human history outdid a number of things the catholics did in centuries. Also with the techniques that have been wielded by the "enlightened" fundamentalist we have the phenomena of ecocide, something unheard of under catholics. This does not so much say that one is inherently worse then the other as much as the evolution of techniques under one could prove to be extincting over time. I still say what the enlightened rational ones did in the 20th century was a warm up to what we may very well see this century.

quote:

---

Always? that's a little inflexible, isn't it?

---

Well, I suppose a conflict free zone might be two or more people sharing the same view.

He is commenting on viruses, and poses the question, 'what are viruses for'?

quote:

---

To make us better and stronger through triumphing over adversity? (Like the 'benefits' of Auschwitz as was suggested by a professor of theology with whom I shared a debating platform on British television.)

To kill enough of us to prevent the overpopulation of the world? (An especial boon in countries where effective contraception has been prohibited by theological authority.)

To punish us for our sins? (In the case of the AIDS virus, you will find plenty of enthusiasts to agree. One feels almost sorry for medieval theologians, that this admirably moralistic pathogen was not around in their time.)

Once again, these replies are too humancentred, albeit in a negative way.

Viruses, like everything else in nature, have no interest in humans, positive or negative. Viruses are coded program instructions written in DNA language, and they are for the good of the instructions themselves.

The instructions say 'Copy Me and Spread Me Around' and the ones that are obeyed are the ones we encounter. That is all.

---

Slightly earlier in the book:

quote:

---

What are flowers and bees, wasps and figs, elephants and bristlecone pines - what are all living things *really* for? What kind of an entity is whose 'benefit' will be served by a living body or a part of a living body?

The answer is DNA.

---

It seems his fundamental argument against religion is that it ascribes purpose to purposeless organisms, including our own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
the idea of God is built-in and inevitable to human consciousness

---

MR. DAWKINS: The word "virus" is used in various ways. The original way is the proper way like the influenza virus or the measles virus -- a bit of DNA which gets into the cell and programs it to its own end. Computer viruses are an analogy -- it's a very good analogy, because a computer virus is a piece of computer code written in computer language. It says, "Duplicate me and spread me around and maybe do some mischief on the way," and it works because computers obey the instructions written in computer language. If you write a program that says "duplicate me, spread me around," it will spread by the medium of floppy disks and so on.

Now, the human brain may be vulnerable to being parasitized in the same kind of way as the cell is by DNA viruses, and as computers are by computer viruses. An example would be the chain letter -- the letter that you get through the post and says, "Make 10 copies of me, and send me to 10 friends." And of course if everybody literally obeyed slavishly, like a computer would, then the world would soon be knee-deep in paper, because it's a very rapid exponential increase in bits of paper. Humans aren't quite that stupid. But they are sufficiently stupid to fall for certain kinds of inducements, such as, "If you don't believe this and pass it along you'll go to hell when you die." That's a threat. It's a threat that sufficient numbers of people believe to agree to pass on the equivalent of the chain letter --the message, the gospel, whatever it may be.

There's an added inducement, an added fact, which is that the brains of children, I think for probably very good Darwinian reasons, are especially susceptible for good reasons. A child, a young child, needs to learn a great deal -- not only a language, but lots of other things, from its culture -- from the elders of its society, from its parents. This means that children are going to be pre-programmed to believe whatever they're told at a certain tender, vulnerable age. And I use the word "vulnerable," because automatically like the computer they are then going to be vulnerable to parasitization by any other kind of information that is given them, which may not be good information. So the information, "Don't put your hand in the fire, because you'll be burned," or "Don't tread on yellow-and-black-striped snakes, because you'll be bitten" -- that's good information.

The child has no way of knowing what's good information. And so some other piece of information "X" -- it doesn't matter what it is -- it may be completely nonsensical. But if the child is told at a certain tender age, that when you grow up you must pass on the same X to your own children, then that X is going to get passed on from generation to generation, regardless of what it is. And you predict from this that what people believe in one part of the world will be arbitrarily different from what people believe in another part of the world -- nothing to do with difference in truth. There is no difference in the truth about the cosmos in Roman Catholic countries or Protestant countries or Islamic countries. Yet children in Islamic countries are told one thing and children in Catholic countries are told another thing, and they all believe what they are told. At least for a while some of them manage to shake it off later -- but many don't so the message gets passed down the generations indefinitely -- and I think that's one of the things that explain the existence of religion.

Source

[ 19 January 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

2. Are you suggesting the Church is torturing Dawkins the way a bullfighter torments a bull?

quote:

---

I'm puzzled because he wrote the book (literally!) on sociobiology.

---

That's sort of interesting, earlier on someone described Dawkins as an 'amateur' sociologist, and some posts later he is described as the person who 'wrote the book' on sociobiology.

I am a fan because he explains things in a way that makes them both understandable and engrossing.

However, I would say he was a biologist first, and everything else second.

He did write a book which developed the idea of the 'extended phenotype', and that is a central part of his understanding of evolution.

However, he is careful to not carry the phenotype idea too far, and is equally careful in his explanation of it.

Some have accused him of being a social Darwinist, but that is far off the mark. Having read most of his books (with the exception of 'The Extended Phenotype'), I don't see social Darwinism there at all.

I think his antipathy towards religion is driven by his belief that it interferes with our understanding of the world and the universe.

I think he also objects to the idea that there is a 'purpose' to life. As his writing makes abundantly clear, his belief is that the purpose of life is to make more life.

His belief is that the organisms on earth don't use DNA to propogate themselves, but that DNA uses a variety of organisms to propogate itself.

In that DNA arose naturally, and replicates naturally, the organisms we see around us are devices shaped by evolution for the continued replication of DNA.

It's hard to imagine a view more diametrically opposed to the view of most religions.

Besides which, it's not just a one way street. When the religious fundamentalists want to point to a evolutionary boogeyman, they almost always point straight to Dawkins.

Even though Stephen Jay Gould was as clear about evolution as Dawkins, he allowed the church their place in the 'magisteria'.

Was Gould right, and Dawkins wrong?

I personally favour Dawkins point of view simply because, having been raised in a religious household, I know how devious and pervasive religion can be.

When I was young I had to sit through church presentations showing how 'wrong' evolution was. My parents also impressed upon me how sinful evolution was.

Perhaps that wasn't such a bad thing. It may have been why I got interested in it in the first place, if for no other reason than to prove to myself the church presentation was all bs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
When I happen upon a happy face scrawled in the sand, I tend to think somebody did it, you know ?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Was Dawkins actually there to see it happen 3-4 billion years ago ?. I just read a Stanford U piece commenting that the only exercise Dawkins seems to get is jumping to conclusions. And you guys aren't so bad at preaching yourselves .

---

Believe it or not, science is able to tell us things that happened before we were born - in fact, before there were any humans around to observe them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I'm afraid the old "have you ever been to Cuba" gambit doesn't work in this case.

Believe it or not, science is able to tell us things that happened before we were born - in fact, before there were any humans around to observe them.

---

I've been to school. Please don't talk down to me.

quote:

---

Try reading some Dawkins, instead of just the sniping of disgruntled religious apologists.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't been to church since I was a little boy.

[ 22 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I've been to school. Please don't talk down to me.

---

Scientists are not so baffled by complexity that they have to throw up their hands and say, "there must be some great intelligence behind this."

[ 22 January 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Then you really ought to understand how science works.

Scientists are not so baffled by complexity that they have to throw up their hands and say, "there must be some great intelligence behind this."

---

I have an applied understanding of science as it relates to engineering technology and within a specific area. I'm not really a science buff though. That's a separate discipline. I'm not a true "egghead." And I'm always baffled by complex issues. I think there were scientists at the turn of the last century who said there were no more natural elements to discover after about a half a dozen known ones at the time. I think there's a lot more to be known, and I think Dawkins will make a lot of money from his book, and that's by design.

cheers M

ps: I've sent you a p.m., M.Spector

[ 22 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
QUESTION: You have called religion a virus. What do you mean by that?
The child has no way of knowing what's good information. And so some other piece of information "X" -- it doesn't matter what it is -- it may be completely nonsensical. But if the child is told at a certain tender age, that when you grow up you must pass on the same X to your own children, then that X is going to get passed on from generation to generation, regardless of what it is. And you predict from this that what people believe in one part of the world will be arbitrarily different from what people believe in another part of the world -- nothing to do with difference in truth. There is no difference in the truth about the cosmos in Roman Catholic countries or Protestant countries or Islamic countries. Yet children in Islamic countries are told one thing and children in Catholic countries are told another thing, and they all believe what they are told. At least for a while some of them manage to shake it off later -- but many don't so the message gets passed down the generations indefinitely -- and I think that's one of the things that explain the existence of religion.

Source

[ 19 January 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I think it was Arthur Clarke who described a somewhat primitive tribe in New Guinea? where the people had been worshipping a woven or grass model of what looked like a Cessna or Piper Cub airplane. I guess they saw this single engine plane fly overhead a few times and decided it was worthy of an effigy/altar.

---

Neither Christianity nor Communism are vicious in their origin, in their design, in their basic assumptions or in their fundamental laws.
What turned them vicious was not a religious process, but a political one, that can only happen in very large groups of people.
So, what is being judged?
The human desire for meaning and purpose, or the human tendency to behave badly in large, organized groups?

Here is an article he wrote in 1997 which sort of looks at the issue from a slightly different angle.

Is Science a Religion?

quote:

---

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion.

...Given the dangers of faith — and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science — I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices.

---

So it is not just the 'label' that is driving his antipathy towards religion. It is the reliance on faith that he sees as a bad thing.

Of course, the reliance on faith plays out in some of the bad ways you mention, and Dawkins brings those up as well. At the same time, he acknowledges that religion has virtues as well.

quote:

---

But the universal themes of religion are not learned. They are part of human nature.

---

Religion and science are adult concepts - closely related adult concepts, that were invented long after language. Human nature requires us to look for patterns; language allows us to describe and explain patterns - as well as we can, based on available information.

Faith is the product of experience with insufficient information. We don't know exactly how an airplane works, yet believe that we'll get to San Francisco; we don't know exactly how enzymes work, yet believe that broccoli will transmute into sexual energy. We travel and eat because we have faith in our experience.

Faith doesn't prevent reasoning; faith doesn't contradict observation; faith doesn't cause anyone to become irrational and destructive.
Dogma does those things. Dogma is not restricted to spiritual matters; it is present in science, in scholarship, in art, in etiquette, in law - in all organized human activities. Dogma is not religios but political: it is a tool used by those in power to keep their power.
Dogma may be labelled as religious - by those who do not believe and therefore dare to pervert religion for their own ends. It's not just religion: they also pervert love, loyalty and knowledge.

Why do you believe that they believe, just because they say so - when you know them to be liars on every other subject?

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

Religions provide structure to lives who need it. Unfortunately, religion tries to provide structure to lives that do not need it. Religion is the bureaucratization of the soul.(TM)

The funny thing is the way that the left tries to impose the bureauracy of the state while the right tries to impose its bureaucracy of the church. I guess they are two sides of the same coin. They thrive on dogma, whether religious or political.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlawBlaw:
Humans are the root of all evil,

---

quote:

---

Any given religion functions perfectly well if every one believes the same thing.

---

quote:

---

In conflict, people reveal their evil side.

---

quote:

---

Religions provide structure to lives who need it. Unfortunately, religion tries to provide structure to lives that do not need it.

---

quote:

---

Religion is the bureaucratization of the soul.(TM)

---

quote:

---

The funny thing is the way that the left tries to impose the bureauracy of the state while the right tries to impose its bureaucracy of the church.

---

quote:

---

They thrive on dogma, whether religious or political.

---

quote:

---

Science is not a religion.

---

quote:

---

Atheism is just as religious as Christianity.

---

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

nonesuch

I said nothing about science at all. Never have i accepted the artificial division - let alone the assumption of antitheseis - between science and religion. They are both human concepts - products of the same intelligence - which have (until quite recently) coexisted in the social life, emotional life, work and thought of many individuals, without causing their heads to explode.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the universal themes of religion are not learned. They are part of human nature.
--------------------------------------------------

That's just plain silly. (What - you think clever people can't say silly things?) No theme (or story or rule or idea) is part of human nature...

---

In that this post looks as though it was a response to me, I'll point out that the quote given re: 'universal themes' is not mine, nor is it Dawkins.

That quote came from a post by geneva which was apparently taken from an Atlantic Monthly article by Paul Bloom.

So whatever it may mean, it was not me that either said it, or posted it, and I will not take responsibility for it.

Further from the same (nonesuch) post:

quote:

---

Faith is the product of experience with insufficient information. We don't know exactly how an airplane works, yet believe that we'll get to San Francisco; we don't know exactly how enzymes work, yet believe that broccoli will transmute into sexual energy. We travel and eat because we have faith in our experience.

---

Uh, I think the faith part of air travel is that you will beat the odds. While the average citizen may not have a complete grasp of the details of how a airliner works, pretty much everyone knows the principle at work. Strangely enough, flight is not rocket science. I remember being told how they work in grade school.

At the same time, everyone knows, or should know, that occasionally airplanes crash. The belief that they'll make it to their destination is based on the fact that almost all flights arrive safely.

I'll admit I didn't know the broccoli/sex thing, so I couldn't possibly have faith that it works, or not. However, if it becomes generally known about the powers of broccoli, I suspect the makers of Viagra are going to go broke. That's all to the good.

In any case, eating broccoli is probably good for you regardless.

Of course one doesn't need faith in something to make it acceptable to eat. If that was the case, all the animals that eat, but have no faith (nor any means of having faith), would starve. The history of what we know to be acceptable food goes back a lot further than faith, or conciousness.

Further from your post:

quote:

---

Faith doesn't prevent reasoning; faith doesn't contradict observation; faith doesn't cause anyone to become irrational and destructive.

Dogma does those things. Dogma is not restricted to spiritual matters; it is present in science, in scholarship, in art, in etiquette, in law - in all organized human activities.

---

You're quite right, faith doesn't prevent reasoning. However, it is designed to preclude reasoning. As the Christian principle states, you can't get to heaven except by faith. If you try to apply reason to Christianity, the tenets of the religion state that you are already lost.

However, I can't agree that faith 'doesn't contradict observation'. That is precisely the argument at the core of the evolutionary debate. It was Darwin's observations that led him to the theory of evolution, and the church's faith that prevented them from accepting it, even to this day. So clearly faith can contradict observation, or at least make the faithful ignore observation.

The same goes for faith making people become irrational and destructive. I suppose we could get into a semantic argument about the meaning of 'makes'. True, faith cannot force anyone to do anything. However, faith can provide the basis from which further action is taken.

Those people who shot at and killed doctors who were known to perform abortions did so because their faith told them it was the right thing to do. That doesn't mean that it is *only* faith that can lead to destructive behaviour. Obviously there are a lot of different motives.

At the same time, some use 'faith' to excuse their behaviour, and we can't hold faith responsible for some other motive.

You say that dogma is present in science, and I believe that is true. However, science has a method of dealing with dogma. Reproducible results. You can be as dogmatic as you want, but until someone else can arrive at the same conclusion you do from your research, your dogma goes nowhere.

Science is littered with examples of fraud, where scientists tried to put one over on the general public and each other. Eventually they were found out, because science is *not* dogmatic.

In fact, it is almost a given in scientific disciplines that the way to make your name is by overthrowing some bit of percieved scientific wisdom.

After all, the most famous scientist of them all, Albert Einstein made his name by overthrowing some of Newton's work. At the time, Newton surely had a greater reputation than Einstein.

What worked for Einstein is that his theory was confirmed by observation, and ultimately had to be accepted by even the most dogmatic of scientists.

Further:

quote:

---

Dogma is not religios but political: it is a tool used by those in power to keep their power.
Dogma may be labelled as religious - by those who do not believe and therefore dare to pervert religion for their own ends. It's not just religion: they also pervert love, loyalty and knowledge.

Why do you believe that they believe, just because they say so - when you know them to be liars on every other subject?

---

I'll sure agree with you there. Dogma is used as a control mechanism, and it is used in a variety of disciplines, not restricted to religion.

However, as I've said, science has a built-in means of overcoming and overthrowing dogma. Results.

When church dogma says you cannot enter heaven except by faith, how do you overthrow that dogma? What can you point to that would convince even the most faithful that faith is not necessary to enter heaven?

Earlier you made a distinction between dogma and faith, and I accept that they are different.

But they are different sides of the same coin. Dogma is an opinion or tenet based on faith. An opinion that cannot be argued with because faith cannot accept reasoned argument.

I suppose in a sense it's a semantic distinction in that the defintion of faith is 'to trust'.

In science, trust doesn't form the basis of scientific knowledge, so in fact they are almost complete opposites.

Dawkins argument against religion is that it requires faith, and if you can accept a true thing by faith, you can also accept an untrue thing by faith.

Faith itself makes no distinction between truth and falsity. Science does.

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:

I'll sure agree with you there. Dogma is used as a control mechanism, and it is used in a variety of disciplines, not restricted to religion.

However, as I've said, science has a built-in means of overcoming and overthrowing dogma. Results.

When church dogma says you cannot enter heaven except by faith, how do you overthrow that dogma? What can you point to that would convince even the most faithful that faith is not necessary to enter heaven?

Earlier you made a distinction between dogma and faith, and I accept that they are different.

But they are different sides of the same coin. Dogma is an opinion or tenet based on faith. An opinion that cannot be argued with because faith cannot accept reasoned argument.

I suppose in a sense it's a semantic distinction in that the defintion of faith is 'to trust'.

In science, trust doesn't form the basis of scientific knowledge, so in fact they are almost complete opposites.

Dawkins argument against religion is that it requires faith, and if you can accept a true thing by faith, you can also accept an untrue thing by faith.

Faith itself makes no distinction between truth and falsity. Science does.

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]

---

But i kind of want to pick this apart:

quote:

---

When church dogma says you cannot enter heaven except by faith, how do you overthrow that dogma? What can you point to that would convince even the most faithful that faith is not necessary to enter heaven?

---

Of course, neither knows anything for sure: they're both guessing and gambling. More to the point, only the saviour and the utterly cynical can make these claims with any confidence. For the saviour, saying "... whosoever believeth on me..." is perfectly appropriate; for the faithful, it's perfectly obvious. For the cynical manipulator, it's dogma, which is usually taught at the business end of a belt to young children - in despite of the fact that the saviour wouldn't approve and might well kick the belt-wielder down a very steep incline: he has absolute faith that the saviour doesn't exist.

quote:

---

The idea that your mind is a sort of nest where replicating ideas reside until they can move on to other nests, from mind to mind, is a deeply unsettling perspective for most people. They’re using your brain, basically, as a temporary host until moving on to other brains.

Zoologist Richard Dawkins introduced the controversial term meme for such replicating ideas. There are some significant scientific problems with the concept of memes, but I think we can salvage at least the skeleton of the idea and put it to some rather unusual use in looking at the evolution of religions over a long period of time.

According to Dawkins, memes are analogous to genes, or to viruses. What’s a virus? A virus isn’t even alive, really — it’s a sort of naked gene, a string of nucleic acid with attitude. It gets inside a cell and provokes the cell to make more copies of itself. What’s a meme? It’s a packet of information with attitude. It is something that gets into a brain and provokes that brain to spread it along to somebody else.

---

The problem is when people accept dogma and deny part of their "essential humanity" in the process. Empathy is supressed and those who disagree or become obstacles to dogma are no longer human, but something else.

I participated in an ethics class and posed the question: "What is the word of God?" I badgered the other students who kept responding with more questions, in particular: which religion? I said told them it didn't matter and then put one student on the spot and demanded a response. He fidgeted in his seat and then said "love". I already had that printed on an overhead which I turned on to display; I knew what the answer should be.

Some people interpret religion to remove the empathy; remove the 'love' and others do not question it. You really have to read John Ralston Saul on his views regarding the moral power of doubt. Fanatics - left or right; religious or secular - have no doubt and therefore no morals. You get Jihad, Crusades, Pograms and Holocaust.

Religious belief, being based on faith rather than reason and testable evidence, is a barrier to rational thought and inquiry, without which no human progress would be possible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I don't need an invisible man in the sky to tell me what moral behaviour is. I can figure that out for myself.

---

Some people just don't know, and to the extent that their leaders are moral, then they will be as well. The question is whether secular or religious leaders are "more moral" than the others as a group.

quote:

---

Religious belief, being based on faith rather than reason and testable evidence, is a barrier to rational thought and inquiry, without which no human progress would be possible.

---

There are neccessary causes and sufficient causes. Rational thought may be necessary to true progree but it is not sufficient. I would suggest that "faith" has to take over where strict logic cannot provide answers to questions. When I say "faith" I do not mean blind faith but rather consistent, existentially comfortable belief.

quote:

---

Everyone is an atheist about most of the deities that humans have ever thought of. I just happen to be an atheist about one more god than you are.

---

Not exactly. I'm not religious.

While atheism may not have rituals and such, it is just as much an illogical leap as any unquestioning belief that God exists and the rituals that flow from that belief. There is no more empirical evidence to say that no god exists anywhere, as there is to suggest some god exists somewhere. Agnosticism is the only reasonable (if not rational or faith-based) conclusion.

And don't make fun of Agnostics:

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I don't need an invisible man in the sky to tell me what moral behaviour is. I can figure that out for myself.

---

[UOTE]Religious belief, being based on faith rather than reason and testable evidence, is a barrier to rational thought and inquiry, without which no human progress would be possible.[/QUOTE]
Therefore, no progress was made in the past 100,000 years, while religion has been integral to human societies.

quote:

---

Everyone is an atheist about most of the deities that humans have ever thought of.

---

[ 01 February 2006: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Therefore, no progress was made in the past 100,000 years, while religion has been integral to human societies.

---

Fair point. Progress that the Church approves of has been allowed. Any other progress has been quashed. Earth at the centre of the universe, anyone?

quote:

---

Not really. They're all the same idea with different names.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
Of course you don't need an invisible sky-man - because you have been taught by older humans, who were taught by older humans, etc. I doubt you would even have the concept of 'moral' behaviour without language and a structure of rules that comes (invisibly) with your culture.
They never give credit! Think they sprang, fully grown, from their own forehead.

---

If you're talking about religion being the source of morality, I disagree. I don't base the morality or immorality of any behaviour on asking myself what Jesus would do.

Why is it any more improbable that my own moral code could be the product of my own reflection and experience (not to mention my genetic and memetic heritage), than the idea that some holy "ghost" supplied "fully grown" moral commandments to a man on a mountain top?

In fact, there's no reason to believe that religious belief predates morality; whereas there is good reason to believe that humans invented religion as a vehicle for their own very down-to-earth content, including moral codes that they themselves had already known and accepted since time immemorial.

quote:

---

Then prove it by telling a Muslim that his God is really Yahweh (or Zeus) and telling a Christian that her God is really Allah. Mr Magoo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The cape is a sham, a diversion for the bull from the true target. Are you saying Dawkins is missing the real target? And if religion is the cape, who is the matador?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
If you're talking about memes, I agree with you.

---

quote:

---

It has nothing to do with commandments handed down from on high.

---

quote:

---

If you're talking about religion being the source of morality,

---

quote:

---

I don't base the morality or immorality of any behaviour on asking myself what Jesus would do.

---

quote:

---

Why is it any more improbable that my own moral code could be the product of my own reflection and experience (not to mention my genetic and memetic heritage), than the idea that some holy "ghost" supplied "fully grown" moral commandments to a man on a mountain top?

---

quote:

---

In fact, there's no reason to believe that religious belief predates morality; whereas there is good reason to believe that humans invented religion as a vehicle for their own very down-to-earth content, including moral codes that they themselves had already known and accepted since time immemorial.

---

quote:

---

Moreover, to suggest that I ought to "give credit" to the invisible old man upstairs for my moral views

---

quote:

---

is to suggest that everyone subscribes to those same moral views. After all, if we all got them from the same old man, we must all think alike, right? Unfortunately, as we all know, that doesn't conform with reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
I never talk about memes (or engrams)....

Your parents had parents and they had parents... and most of them were, in the not very distant past, influenced by some religion - which they, in turn, influenced.

---

quote:

---

Whether you are aware of it or not, the culture that gave you all of your language and information and assumptions also gave you the value-system by which you judge the value-system. You invent nothing: you merely choose and reject itmes from a menu written by countless generations before you.

---

quote:

---

Of-bloody-course humans invented religion - and science and literature and art (but not music or language).

---

quote:

---

No, silly! To your ancestors, who told the stories of invisible and visible and cloud-shaped and hawk-headed and many-armed deities over thousands of years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
If there's something to be said about the Catholic Church, it's that they were keepers of the written word outside of the Orient through the dark ages. They recorded historical events, laws, marriages, births and deaths and general written communications. The Huns were largely illiterate themselves. Of course, an insane king of England would later banish the Catholics for not allowing him to re-marry.

---

Insane, nonsense. It worked, didn't it? Got him a number of other policy objectives, too:
--General independence from the papacy, which at the time was increasingly obviously a bunch of grasping, power-hungry Italian nobility trying to control and extract money from as much of Europe as possible
--Control over the church
--Expropriation of the Catholic church's great wealth to bolster a sagging treasury
--Keeping future religious tithing in England
--Arguably, pre-emption/control of what otherwise might have emerged as a very dangerous reformist movement. This was an era when a lot of people were upset with the Catholic church, and change was happening throughout Europe. It could be considered a cunning move for king H. to overthrow the Catholic church *himself*, taking the wind out of Protestant sails. A couple of centuries later the Protestants did overthrow the monarchy, after all. It might have happened sooner.

quote:

---

Humans didn't invent music or language? What, did we get those from the apes, too?

---

quote:

---

But you are mistaken to suggest that religion is ultimately the only source of moral memes passed though the generations.

---

quote:

---

Those stories have nothing to do with what I think today.

---

(mememememe! If that's what you want to call shared ideas, go ahead. I don't subscribe.)

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

I'm glad to see you disown the suggestion that religion is ultimately the only source of moral memes passed though the generations. 'Cause religion was the only thread that ran through your explanation of where I got my own moral code. I quote you again:

quote:

---

Your parents had parents and they had parents... and most of them were, in the not very distant past, influenced by some religion - which they, in turn, influenced.

---

quote:

---

They have a great deal to do with what you think today - as do all the science and philosophy and tool-making and social organization - that went before. Our past is contained in our present. Nothing you can think is uninfluenced by your cultural heritage.

---

quote:

---

....I'm puzzled as to why, if that's what you meant to say, you would choose to focus on (out of all the billions of cultural inputs into my evolutionary heritage) "stories of invisible and visible and cloud-shaped and hawk-headed and many-armed deities" - and in a thread about religion

---

quote:

---

Somehow, I managed to get the wrong impression: silly me.

---

quote:

---

It's been a week of handling fallout from The Root of All Evil?, my TV documentary about religion. Of course religion is not the root of all evil. No single thing is the root of all anything. The question mark was supposed to turn an indefensible title into a debatable topic. Gratifyingly, title notwithstanding, the e-mails, letters and telephone calls to Channel 4 have been running two to one in favour. The pros mostly praise Channel 4's courage in finally saying what many people have been thinking for years. The antis complain that I failed to do justice to "both sides", and that I interviewed fundamentalist extremists rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury....

We don't judge Christians by Hitler's claim to be one, and it is equally irrelevant that many Christians, like many atheists, are nice people. The point is that faith, even moderate faith, is pernicious because it teaches that believing something without evidence is a virtue.

Moderates, as Sam Harris shows in his devastating book, The End of Faith, "provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed". Or, in Voltaire's words, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities".

---

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

steven weinberg

Some people, of course, trust in other things as much as or more than reason. Intuition etc. Them Dawkins won't reach: he'll seem to be 'missing something' -- people like Steven Gould with his 'Magisteria' stuff. As far as I can tell, this is just a matter of temperament -- friends & family whose intelligence I respect are in this group.

Oh, and nonesuch, religion might or might not be only cultural, but morality is definitely deeper than that. I don't think any linguist would agree with you about squirrels or even non-human primates having languages (as opposed to communication systems), but punishments and rewards for behavior, explicable by simple notions of just deserts and entitlement, do characterise ape & even monkey groups. You don't need any kind of faith for tit-for-tat to work, and reciprocal altruism doesn't even require intelligence -- and of these, morality has evolved as one human trait.

quote:

---

The point is that faith, even moderate faith, is pernicious because it teaches that believing something without evidence is a virtue.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But also know that no ideology has ever killed as many human beings as the Roman Church has killed throughout its history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I don't need an invisible man in the sky to tell me what moral behaviour is. I can figure that out for myself.

---