Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[IndiReloaded]

Even though an Absolute Creator God is absent in most forms of Buddhism, veneration and worship of Gautama Buddha (and other Buddhas) do play a major role in both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. In one of major branch of Mahayana Buddhism theololgy (yoga school) there is the notion of the Buddha as the omnipresent, omniscient, liberative essence of Reality, and the idea of the Buddhas as generators of vast "pure land", "Buddha lands" or Buddha Paradises, in which beings will unfailingly attain Nirvana.

Great example for those who question whether Buddhism is a religion, lol. Appeal to authority, right in what I bolded. You just forgot the 'belief' part, which is that those guys believe in karma & reincarnation.

Buddhism, combined with neo-Confucianism, provided standards of social behavior. Although not as powerful politically as it had been in the past, Buddhism was espoused by the upper classes. Proscriptions against Christianity benefited Buddhism in 1640 when the bakufu ordered everyone to register at a temple. The rigid separation of Tokugawa society into han, villages, wards, and households helped reaffirm local Shinto attachments. Shinto provided spiritual support to the political order and was an important tie between the individual and the community. Shinto also helped preserve a sense of national identity.

And this is a perfect example of religion being used to manipulate the masses. Terrific. Lol, Marx had it right afterall.

Do you have a link to that debate? I'd like to read it.

Try youtube or the science podcasts. BTW, have you seen cdk007's (he's a neuroscientist, fyi) vids on youtube. Also very good.

[Only-virgins]

Do you have a link to that debate? I'd like to read it.

Here in-fact is pretty much the debate we are having and while this isn't exactly the debate I was thinking off..this one has Richard Dawkins also make a theologist completely sound wrong even though at first the theologist sounds pretty convincing. You have to listen till the second set of people come out, the first person to speak(Hitchens) is the person who brings up that notion that "Religion is not necessary" He speaks and than a theist has his chance...they alternate. The second person to speak as an atheist is Richard Dawkins. The entire thing is worth listening too though hell even AC Grayling says some darn good things and oddly enough Hitchens who makes the notion doesn't really contribute as much as the others.. not bad though and at least bring up the notion which I agree. We don't need religion at all.

First theist comes out and says " My proof will be so great that I am afraid all of you will leave before this is over" ...than Dawkins has to come out and ruin his world haha.

[url]http://richarddawkins.net/article,861,Wed-be-better-off-without-Religion,Richard-Dawkins-Christopher-Hitchens-AC-Grayling[/url]

The victory notion went atheists with 1,205 to 778 votes. House was sold out at 2000 people. 3 vs 3 speakers.

" In London's Westminster Central Hall on March 27, some 2,000 people turned out to hear Hitchens, Dawkins and philosopher A.C. Grayling debate a trio of religious authorities on the question "We'd be better off without Religion." "


This is oddly more or less the debating we came down too.

[Mish]

Great example for those who question whether Buddhism is a religion, lol. Appeal to authority, right in what I bolded. You just forgot the 'belief' part, which is that those guys believe in karma & reincarnation.

Worship of God should not necessarily lead to appeal to authority. Many people worship from the comfort of their own homes without needing anyone in between.

And this is a perfect example of religion being used to manipulate the masses. Terrific. Lol, Marx had it right afterall.

That's one way to look at it I guess. Though if read the benefits it provided as well "Standards of social behaviour" (I.e. laws), ties between the "individual and community" and "preserved national identity" at the time that identity was under attack. I think lot of positive elements were provided by Religion in Edo period of Japan.

Try youtube or the science podcasts. BTW, have you seen cdk007's (he's a neuroscientist, fyi) vids on youtube. Also very good.

Thanks Indi. I followed OV's link (Thanks OV) but I don't have speakers here. I will listen to it later on it sounds interesting.

I read a bit on Dawkins and although a lot of what he says does make sense, his points of view also have flaws and he's not without critics who also make valid points. I don't want to make a book, but I will put some that I found interesting on "God Delusion":


"Writing in Harper's, Pulitzer Prize winning novelist and essayist Marilynne Robinson criticises the "pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins's view of science," with particular reference to scientific eugenic theories and practices. She argues that Dawkins has a superficial knowledge of the Bible and accuses him of comparing only the best of science with the worst of religion: "if religion is to be blamed for the fraud done in its name, then what of science? Is it to be blamed for the Piltdown hoax, for the long-credited deceptions having to do with cloning in South Korea? If by 'science' is meant authentic science, then 'religion' must mean authentic religion, granting the difficulties in arriving at these definitions." Robinson suggests that Dawkins' arguments are not properly called scientific but are reminiscent of logical positivism, notwithstanding Dawkins' "simple-as-that, plain-as-day approach to the grandest questions, unencumbered by doubt, consistency, or countervailing information."

"Some reviewers were highly critical of Dawkins' lack of scholarship on theology and the philosophy of religion. Dawkins is explicitly dismissive of theology in the God Delusion, and in the words of John Cornwell "there is hardly a serious work of philosophy of religion cited in his extensive bibliography",[25] going so far as to suggest that "[Dawkins] would substitute a series of case-notes on senile dementia for King Lear."[26] This sentiment was echoed by other reviewers, from theologians, such as Alister McGrath,[27] to scientists otherwise sympathetic to Dawkins' position, such as H. Allen Orr.[28] One of the most emphatic formulations of this objection was by Marxist literary critic Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books: What, one wonders, are Dawkins's views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?"

Skeptic Michael Shermer, describes the book as "a powerful polemic against the infusion of religion into nearly every nook and cranny of public life. However he is not convinced by Dawkins' argument that without religion, there would be "no suicide bombings, no 9/11, ...", suggesting that many of the evils that atheists attribute to religion alone are primarily driven by political motives.

Michael Skapinker in the Financial Times, while finding that "Dawkins' attack on the creationists is devastatingly effective", considers him "maddeningly inconsistent." He argues that, since Dawkins accepts that current theories about the universe (such as quantum theory) may be "already knocking at the door of the unfathomable" and that the universe may be "not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose", "the thought of how limited our comprehension is should introduce a certain diffidence into our attempted refutations of those who think they have the answer".

"Marek Kohn in The Independent suggests that in this book "passions are running high, arguments are compressed and rhetoric inflated. The allusion to Chamberlain, implicitly comparing religion to the Nazi regime, is par for the course." He also argues that "another, perhaps simpler, explanation for the universality and antiquity of religion is that it has conferred evolutionary benefits on its practitioners that outweigh the costs."


I also found some flaws in Dawkin's logic, for example:

"Chapter 5 explores the roots of religion and why religion is ubiquitous across human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product – a misfiring of something useful"

Dawkin's holds this point of view without assessing the reasons why Religion was historically so effective and that Religion may in fact be an evolutionary tool that provides people with additional cultural/tribal adoptation capabilities over other groups, instead of being "an accidental by-product - a misfiring of something useful.

In chapter 6 the subject of morality is discussed, with Dawkins maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy. He asks, "would you commit murder, rape or robbery if you knew that no God existed?" He argues that very few people would answer "yes", undermining the claim that a God is needed to make us behave morally.

I view that Dawkin's intentionally provided an example of extremes to confuse the reader. Murder, rape and robbery are rare occurances by any standard when you compare the minority of population that participates in these acts over majority (Unless there is war). But had he asked instead ""would you be more selfish, greedy, lustful and prideful if you knew that no God existed, that survival of the fittest was the meaning of life and noone was keeping track of what you did?" Would the answer be different for many people? Personally I can see a lot of people saying "yes".

Because the way I see it, if the meaning of life is "Survival of the fittest" and "Natural selection" as Dawkin's sees it, isn't it not only right to be; (selfish so you further your natural selection goals of being fitter than others, to be greedy so you acquire more than others to be in a better position from evolutionary persepctive, be lustful and spread the seed with your genes to secure the evolution of your progeny and be prideful of your fitness over those who are weak who basicly deserve anything what's coming to them due to but their evolutionary weakness), but the whole point of existance?" And if it is, then what kind of a society are we to have following these as moral standards?


In this regard I would like to post a couple of lines from another father of Atheism some of whose views I support and agree with.

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

– Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section

In his book "The Gay Science" Nietzsche discusses the paradox of not death of God as a deity but as a human kind cultural symbol of "absolute good" towards which people need to strive to be better people. He describes the paradox of elimnating a symbol of "Absolute good" without replacing it with something else as effective and as efficeint in turning people into better people. If God is eliminated from our culture, what symbol of absolute good should replace it? For what reason should people (out of their own free will) be virtuous instead of selfish? Should people not become Gods themselves to replace him?



While this God was the ultimate expression of other-worldly values and the instincts that gave birth to those values, belief in that God nevertheless did give life meaning for a time. The time has come when serious human beings can no longer believe in God, however — God is dead, meaning that the idea of God can no longer provide values. With the sole source of values no longer capable of providing those values, there is a real danger of nihilism and state of anomie.

– Nietzsche, Übermensch


These are the main questions that Atheism for me doesn't seem to answer.

[IndiReloaded]

No offense Mish, but I'm not even going to read that (in detail, I scanned the points). Dawkins easily explains away a lot of these criticisms in the foreward to his book.

I don't have much respect for ppl who quote other ppl without having actually read the book they are criticizing. So, at the moment, all you have said is that OTHER ppl don't like what Dawkins is saying.

As to the primary criticism, the response is blindingly obvious: you don't have to be an expert on Smurf Theory to conclude they don't exist, lol. You don't need to be a gourmet cook to know when the food is burnt... you get the idea.

And, since you seem resistant to actually reading his stuff from the source, Dawkins holds his own re: knowledge of religion quite well. He may not be a religious scholar, but he knows a LOT more than most ppl do.

[Mish]

No offense Mish, but I'm not even going to read that (in detail, I scanned the points). Dawkins easily explains away a lot of these criticisms in the foreward to his book.

Okay Indi

Once again you are going on defensive without listening. You know how I know that you are not listening? You said you are not even going to read what I posted in detail. The golden rule is to listen first, let the information posted sink in and then write a response, not respond first then listen later.

The criticisms weren't the main highlight of my post. They were just to identify the fact that Dawkins logic though has some very valid points is not perfect. The highlight was a discussion topic of "Survival of the fittest as the meaning of life and elimination of symbol of absolute good and its implications" with some interesting quotes from Nietzshe on the subject.


However, as far as criticisms go, I will simplify some of the key ones if you still want to read them, please don't dismiss them without reading them:

1. Dawkins is comparing the worst examples of Religion from history to the best examples from history of Science to make one seem superior to the other. If he is sincere in his attempts to compare the past examples, he needs to compare authentic Science (The good with the bad) with authentic Religion (The good with the bad) bearing in mind the difficulties of defining these.

2. He does not aknowledge the positive elements that Religion provides, nor the reason why most cultures developed Religion, nor necessity for faith. It seems like In Dawkins's mind Religion is completely unnecessary, useless and shouldn't have existed at all in the first place.

3. Dawkins does not appear to have sufficient understanding of the subject of Religion and its positive effect on world wide communities as well as cultures and uses only limited negative examples to justify his point of view of why Religion should not exist.

4. Dawkins attributes many of the evils of Religion to acts which were politically (Not Religiously) motivated.

5. Does not acknowledge the fact that our limited comprehension does not yet provide a sufficient provable answer to the idea of God. Dawkins reaches for a conclusion which is not yet available.

6. Dismisses moral and social standard implications of a World without Religion without deep considerations of the negative implications the World without Religion could have

As to the primary criticism, the response is blindingly obvious: you don't have to be an expert on Smurf Theory to conclude they don't exist, lol. You don't need to be a gourmet cook to know when the food is burnt... you get the idea.

However, I believe you need to have at least some sort of qualification in food preparation in order to write a book about preparation of food. Suppose you are writing a book for gorumet cooks which describes how Italian food is superior to French cousine. Shouldn't you be an expert in both to give a valid opinion? Don't being an expert in one and not the other give you biased opinion? If you don't have a sufficient understanding in one you run the risk of over simplification and over generalization along the lines of "How are their frogs better than our fine pasta?"


As far as the source goes, I'm not resisting the idea to read. So far I have read everything that had been provided for me. Including summaries of some of the books.

[IndiReloaded]

They were just to identify the fact that Dawkins logic though has some very valid points is not perfect.

You are just regurgitating OTHER ppl's opinions, Mish. Not your own thoughts from your own brain. That's why I don't lend much weight to your last post.

How can you know Dawkins has a problem w/his logic unless YOU have read his works yourself? And how do YOU know he isn't an expert on religion? He's pretty knowledgable, as I've already said. He doensn't discuss a work unless he's actually read it. Kind of like me, lol.

As for your Nietzsche quotes, yes, I understand those quotes & their context. The implication being that a lot of humanity seems to have a deep seated need for belief & what will they do w/o it.

However, you might want to also read up on the suggestions of another great atheist, Einstein (yes, he rejected the notion of a personal god), who suggested there is enough 'god' in the workings of a natural universe to more than satisfy the need for human hope & wonder.

[Only-virgins]

I agree with Indi, You can't just nit pick and pick and choose random quotes. There is more to his work. You have to read the book/work of someone to criticize it. Hey, I actually read the bible. There was a few certain parts I missed (because of many different translations) but I got through most of the old testament that is available as well as the new. All I found was contradiction after contradiction.

Mish, the way you quote something and than reply to it forces it to expand into multiple arguments. This will get no one anywhere. For example, Dawkins never claims that religion wasn't useful BEFORE, he says it is pointless now and we don't need it now. Like in the debate I posted..he says "Religion used the have a decent deck of card when it came to the answers but not anymore. Science holds all the cards now and all the answers...religion has none" ....Basically...religion can quit now, no longer in our culture is it needed. That is the main argument. Culture and humanity would be fine with out religion....and if you took it away what would be left? A world filled with atheists...so how can someone claim atheism is a religion? when it is clearly a default as it is the LACK of religion. That was the original point and thats it. How can a lack or religion be a religion? that sounds like a contradiction simply as a statement as it is and silly to add.

[Mish]

You are just regurgitating OTHER ppl's opinions, Mish. Not your own thoughts from your own brain. That's why I don't lend much weight to your last post.

No, those were my own thoughts with which others also agree. I think I know what my thoughts are better than you Indi

How can you know Dawkins has a problem w/his logic unless YOU have read his works yourself?

I told you I did

And how do YOU know he isn't an expert on religion?

He said it himself. He's not an expert on Religion he doesn't have any qualifications in theology. He said he doesn't need it to attack Religion.

He's pretty knowledgable, as I've already said. He doensn't discuss a work unless he's actually read it. Kind of like me, lol.

In that case he seems to differ from you Indi. That's the whole problem. He hasn't read a lot of theological work like the ones previously posted. Works that outline the purpose of Religion as well as statistics that demonstrate the positive effects of Religion. Since he doesn't know these things, it's logical that he thinks Religion is an "accident" and shouldn't have ever existed and is useless. His point of view in this context makes sense ofcourse. He is just blind to the good and accentuates the bad.

As for your Nietzsche quotes, yes, I understand those quotes & their context. The implication being that a lot of humanity seems to have a deep seated need for belief & what will they do w/o it.

However, you might want to also read up on the suggestions of another great atheist, Einstein (yes, he rejected the notion of a personal god), who suggested there is enough 'god' in the workings of a natural universe to more than satisfy the need for human hope & wonder.

The paradox is not that there is "enough God" in the universe. The pardaox is in the fact that Atheism tries to take away the "Symbol" of absolute good from humanity without replacing it with anything as effective and worthy. Instead they try to replace the symbol of absolute good towards which one should strive with "Symbol of selfishness" such as Survival of the fittest. This was the main question from my post, why shouldn't people be slefish and do everything entirely for themselves if they believe that this is the sole purpose and meaning of life? For what reason should majority of people be good out of their free will in the absence of image of absolute good towards which they should move to? This was what my Nietzhe's quotes were aimed that (I think Einstein in many regards agreed with this notion as well). Atheism doesn't seem to have an answer for these questions and that's one of my main problems with it.

[Mish]

Indi and OV. There's an interesting book I'm reading by an English philosopher Mary Midgley "Called Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears" which discusses some of the pitfalls of fundametalistic and supernatural belief in evolution which is un supported by facts, but supported by atheistic perspective. This book is not a Creationist dogma, as it discredits Creationists as well, it simply states some of the facts behind some of the unsuported by facts thinking of the modern age.


Here is a quick review:

Midgley considers the question of evolution as religion. She explains how it is useful to speak of such things as Marxism as religion, and that no one argues that (alleged) non-theistic religions are in fact religions. Midgley then goes on to consider the so-called "Escalator Fallacy", showing how this fallacy lies at the heart of much of the prophesying made by scientists. Midgley begins by arguing that unlike Darwin's account of the theory of evolution (supposedly, although Darwin himself had elements of both of these in his account), two distinct fallacies have arisen in the interpretation of this account: the "Social Darwinist" distortion (perhaps best expressed in the phrase "survival of the fittest" invented by Herbert Spencer) and the Panglossian or "Escalator Fallacy" (the naïve belief in progress, first put into form by Lamarck). Midgley also comments on the underpinnings of Darwin's own writings (showing the influence of his extracurricular readings on his worldview). Midgley next considers the supposed competition between religion and science (showing how these alleged demarcation disputes actually arise from a fallacy made by both the overzealous religious and scientists). Midgley considers some of the problems involved in genetic engineering and quotes such Darwinians as E. O. Wilson to illustrate the "Escalator Fallacy" in their thinking. Midgley also shows how the ideal of the "superscientist" is maintained as the goal of human evolution. Following this, Midgley considers various remarks made by the physicist Steven Weinberg and the biochemist Jacques Monod, which amount to a form of existentialism, mimicking Sartre. For instance, Monod maintains that the universe is a meaningless and dangerous place in which man lives as an alien and that man's only solace is to be found in science (why science should provide a source of redemption is of course never adequately explained). Such remarks are certainly religious. Monod makes war against "animism" which is what he beliefs to be the fallacies of progress and Social Darwinism; however, his own statements retain traces of both. Midgley next considers some of the antitheses which are alleged to exist between science and other forms of thinking. She shows how much of this type of thinking is highly problematic. Following this Midgley turns to the fallacy of Social Darwinism. Obvious cases of this are to be found in the writings of Spencer, the American eugenicists, but Social Darwinism also continually creeps up in the writings of the sociobiologists. Social Darwinism amounts to an affirmation of the Hobbesian ideal, a view of nature as "red in tooth and claw", and support for the philosophy of selfishness. For example, there is the statement of noted sociobiologist M. T. Ghiselin, "Scratch an `altruist' watch a `hypocrite' bleed." Further, Social Darwinism has frequently been used as a justification for the most rampant excesses of individualism and laissez-faire capitalism. Midgley considers the question of selfishness in the writings of Dawkins (theorist of the "selfish gene") and Wilson (who claimed that life only existed so that DNA could make more DNA). Midgley shows how such claims regarding selfish genes are anthropomorphic and ill-founded. (A better demolition of Dawkins is provided in the work of David Stove.)

Another very interesting quote:

Evolution then is the creation myth of our age. By attempting to tell us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. It influences not just our thought, but feelings and actions too in a way that goes far beyond its official function as a biological theory. To call it a myth does not ofcourse mean that it is a false story. It means that it has a great symbolic power that is independant of its truths.

Quote on omnicompetence of Science:

On quote by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru advocated in some popular scientific circles - It is science alone that can solve the problems of hunger and poverty, of insanitation and illiteracy, of superstition and deadening custom and tradition, of vast resources running to waste, of a rich country inhabited by starving people. The future belongs to science and to those who make friends with science.

Midgley - Here science is, quite clearly, being identified with rationality generally. In this sense not only civil engineering and medicine, but also social policy and administration, law, architecture and in fact the whole sphere of organized practical life are implicitly included in 'science'. The failure to distinguish clearly between this somewhat metaphorical use of the word 'science' and the narrow and specialized one referring to the domain of controlled experiments and mathematical theories is one factor contributing to the emergence of 'scientism' - the view of science as 'omnicompetent' able to provide answers to all questions and solve all problems. Science becomes a kind of deity, able to bestow on us a miraculous salvation in which not only the large-scale evils referred to by Nehru, but all forms of ignorance and suffering even including mortality, are overcome through the application of science and technology. One of the principal virtues of science stressed by those who advocate it in the role of primary fount of wisdom for society is objectivity. But it oversteps the mark, and becomes dangerous, when accompanied by the failure to understand that there are other important kinds of thinking than purely factual ones. This is not to say that scientists are not entitled to express opinions on such matters, or even that they should not do so in the context of their scientific writings. But it should be acknowledged that in doing so they are doing theology or philosophy, not science, and that the relevant professional standards apply.The grandiose speculations which form the body of some of the scientific work could not conceivably be tested by observation; furthermore, though the authors seem unaware of it, both the motivation and much of the content of their ideas relate to judgements of value and metaphysical assumptions which are not empirical matters at all. - Examples of such are provided in the book.

How I understand this last paragraph on omnicompetence of Science is based on the fact that a good scientist who enters the field of philosophy with poor understanding of principals of philosophy becomes a poor philosopher, a good scientist who enters the filed of ethics and morality with poor understanding of both becomes a poor moralist and of course a good scientist who enters the field of theology and tries to prove that which is beyond proof or which is presently unprovable and make conclusions without a good understanding of principals of theology becomes a poor theologist.

[IndiReloaded]

Evolution then is the creation myth of our age. By attempting to tell us our origins it shapes our views of what we are. It influences not just our thought, but feelings and actions too in a way that goes far beyond its official function as a biological theory. To call it a myth does not ofcourse mean that it is a false story. It means that it has a great symbolic power that is independant of its truths.

This author has made a classic mistake, confusing abiogenesis and evolution theory. They are not the same. Sorry Mish, this person is just wrong. Evolution is NOT the same as the creation myth, there is TONS of data supporting it (evolution theory).

Creation/abiogenesis, yes, that is still an unknown (tho some good theories are out there). But evolution theory is pretty solid.

There are some other interesting ideas in the quotes. Unfortunately, also glaring errors like the one I mentioned already. Pity her readers didn't pick them up. Its important to be very clear in these kinds of discussion to avoid confusion.

There are actually ppl reproducing evolution artifically in the lab. Did you know this, Mish? Here, I happily provide this wiki link; lets just say I happen to personally know several of the authors in the citations & am personally familiar with the work. Lol.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis[/url]

Are you SURE you read The God Delusion? My mistake if so.

[IndiReloaded]

In that case he seems to differ from you Indi. That's the whole problem. He hasn't read a lot of theological work like the ones previously posted. Works that outline the purpose of Religion as well as statistics that demonstrate the positive effects of Religion. Since he doesn't know these things, it's logical that he thinks Religion is an "accident" and shouldn't have ever existed and is useless.

First your logic doesn't follow (again). You are confusing past & present. Dawkins never said religion WAS useless. OV already covered this. You would know this if you read the book, Mish, and not just ppls summaries of it. Wiki just isn't the same as the original source, sorry babe.

Okay, you're just going to continue to argue pointlessly from a tenuous position. Thanks for the discussion Mish, its been interesting.

[Mish]

First your logic doesn't follow (again). You are confusing past & present. Dawkins never said religion WAS useless. OV already covered this. You would know this if you read the book, Mish, and not just ppls summaries of it. Wiki just isn't the same as the original source, sorry babe.

Okay, you're just going to continue to argue pointlessly from a tenuous position. Thanks for the discussion Mish, its been interesting.

God Delusion - Chapter five

"The general theory of religion as an accidental by-product - a misfiring of something useful - is the one I wish to advocate", page 188

Also appearing in


What Use is Religion?
Richard Dawkins

As a Darwinian, the aspect of religion that catches my attention is its profligate wastefulness, its extravagant display of baroque uselessness.

[url]http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_24_5.htm[/url]

I need to run, I will reply to your other post later on

[IndiReloaded]

[QUOTE=Mishanya;317717]God Delusion - Chapter five

"The general theory of religion as an accidental by-product - a misfiring of something useful - is the one I wish to advocate", page 188

Not page 188, not in my copy anyway... I'm having a hard time *believing* you actually read the book, lol.

Or you are deliberately misinterpreting him. You'll have to ask yourself why that might be. His comment is not the same as saying it was useless. Presently, perhaps, but not in the past. You don't understand his argument. He makes all kinds of comments about rapid-fire decision making gone awry & actually argues for a biological function. You didn't understand his points, I think.

You are just looking for arguments that support your belief. I can keep pointing out how they are wrong, but you will argue with anyone, and won't ever admit when you are wrong. You just neglect to mention those points and slide over to some other point. Selective arguing, lol, and quite expected under the circumstances. I wonder if this has caused you problems elsewhere.

Anyway, this will just go on endlessly. I just don't see the point in humoring you anymore. This has become too one-sided. I'm not learning anything from you & I don't sense you are truly interested in learning from me, just trying to 'win' an argument. Sorry, you'll have to find someone else's brain to pick.

[IndiReloaded]

This last I add for OV & anyone else who might find this interesting:

[url]http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/01/a_radical_violation_of_the_tru.html#c91612[/url]

And I got a msg today about how the pope has jumped on this bandwagon also. This is a lot like the behaviour of the creationists who got majorly owned when that gal did a content comparison search on their proposed ID textbook for schools (she correlated all the 'search/replaces' for ID & creationism & found almost 100% identity, lol). I think its sad that these groups need to resort to trickery and convoluted argument to get their message across. Ironic, really.

That much I agree with Mish. There is pretty clearly a need for belief that is so deep that groups will make up stuff & lie to keep their beliefs. There's a desperate psychology there that needs addressing. It feels like taking a security blanket from a child that isn't ready to face the world without it. Maybe there is some cruelty in that. Perhaps there are only relatively few psyches that can manage a purely rational existence? It seems like a 'nature/nurture' experiment that could be done w/twin studies (one religious upbringing, one non-), I guess.

Toodles everyone. This thread is becoming too much like work.

[Mish]

[quote=IndiReloaded;317721]

God Delusion - Chapter five

"The general theory of religion as an accidental by-product - a misfiring of something useful - is the one I wish to advocate", page 188

Not page 188, not in my copy anyway... I'm having a hard time *believing* you actually read the book, lol.

Or you are deliberately misinterpreting him. You'll have to ask yourself why that might be. His comment is not the same as saying it was useless. Presently, perhaps, but not in the past. You don't understand his argument. He makes all kinds of comments about rapid-fire decision making gone awry & actually argues for a biological function. You didn't understand his points, I think.

Indi. You will die canonizing Dawkins won't you? Did you even read the article I posted? The one Dawkins wrote "What use is Religion?"

Richard Dawkins in his own words:

if a wild animal habitually performs some useless activity, natural selection will favor rival individuals who instead devote time to surviving and reproducing. Nature cannot afford frivolous jeux desprits. Ruthless utilitarianism trumps, even if it does not always seem that way. “Anting” is the odd habit of birds such as jays of “bathing” in an ants’ nest and apparently inciting the ants to invade their feathers. Nobody knows for sure what the benefit of anting is: perhaps some kind of hygiene, cleansing the feathers of parasites. My point is that uncertainty as to the purpose does not, nor should it, stop Darwinians from believing, with great confidence, that anting must be good for something. Religious behavior in bipedal apes occupies large quantities of time. It devours huge resources. A medieval cathedral consumed hundreds of man-centuries in its building. Sacred music and devotional paintings largely monopolized medieval and Renaissance talent. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people have died, often accepting torture first, for loyalty to one religion against a scarcely distinguishable alternative. Devout people have died for their gods, killed for them, fasted for them, endured whipping, undertaken a lifetime of celibacy, and sworn themselves to asocial silence for the sake of religion. Though the details differ across cultures, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking, fecundity-forfeiting rituals of religion. All this presents a major puzzle to anyone who thinks in a Darwinian way. We guessed why jays ant. Isn’t religion a similar challenge, an a priori affront to Darwinism, demanding analogous explanation? Why do we pray and indulge in costly practices that, in many individual cases, more or less totally consume lives? What is religion good for? There is little evidence that Religious belief protects people from stress-related diseases. I find the placebo theory too meager to account for the massive and all-pervasive phenomenon of religion. I do not think we have religion because our religious ancestors reduced their stress levels and hence survived longer. I do not think that is a big enough theory for the job. Other theories miss the point of Darwinian explanations altogether. I refer to suggestions like, “Religion satisfies our curiosity about the universe and our place in it.” Or “Religion is consoling. People fear death and are drawn to religions which promise we’ll survive it.” There may be some psychological truth here, but it is not in itself a Darwinian explanation. As Steven Pinker has said in How the Mind Works (Penguin, 1997):

. . . It only raises the question of why a mind would evolve to find comfort in beliefs it can plainly see are false. A freezing person finds no comfort in believing he is warm; a person face-to-face with a lion is not put at ease by the conviction that it is a rabbit. (p. 555)

He goes on and on likes this demonstrating no purpose of Religion in the past or present what so ever, before concluding that

If I am right, religion has no survival value for individual human beings, or for the benefit of their genes. The benefit, if there is any, is to religion itself.

Religion is useless, was, is and has no survival factor in the future. This is what Dawkins is saying.

You are just looking for arguments that support your belief.

Oh, and you aren't?

I can keep pointing out how they are wrong, but you will argue with anyone, and won't ever admit when you are wrong. You just neglect to mention those points and slide over to some other point. Selective arguing, lol, and quite expected under the circumstances. I wonder if this has caused you problems elsewhere.

That's funny, because I don't wonder that even though you're displaying exactly the same traits as me. You know why Indi? Because I actually respect you as a person know that even though we disagree sometimes you are still great human being both on the forum and outside of it. I don't assume your worst habits by what you post here and I don't make any assumptions on what problems your behavior may cause you in your private life.

Anyway, this will just go on endlessly. I just don't see the point in humoring you anymore. This has become too one-sided. I'm not learning anything from you & I don't sense you are truly interested in learning from me, just trying to 'win' an argument.

Maybe your senses are wrong. If I wasn't interested you wouldn't be seeing me reply to you. We have two different points of view. They are challenging points of view. What, you think a debate that has been going on for decades could be settled by a few pages on an internet forum? If you are not interested to continue this debate anymore just say it, don't try to weasel your way out with some sort of accusation and defeatism that its not going anywhere. We have covered a lot of ground.