Memes, viruses, faith and the gullibility of the mind

[BridgeTheGap]

Viruses of the Mind - Richard Dawkins

"The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes. The avenues for entry and departure are modified to suit local conditions, and strengthened by various artificial devices that enhance fidelity and prolixity of replication: native Chinese minds differ dramatically from native French minds, and literate minds differ from illiterate minds. What memes provide in return to the organisms in which they reside is an incalculable store of advantages --- with some Trojan horses thrown in for good measure. . ."

Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained
++++++++++++

Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it. Accepting that a virus might be difficult to detect in your own mind, what tell-tale signs might you look out for? I shall answer by imaging how a medical textbook might describe the typical symptoms of a sufferer (arbitrarily assumed to be male).

1. The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as ``faith.''

2. Patients typically make a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakable, in spite of not being based upon evidence. Indeed, they may feel that the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the belief (see below).

This paradoxical idea that lack of evidence is a positive virtue where faith is concerned has something of the quality of a program that is self-sustaining, because it is self-referential (see the chapter ``On Viral Sentences and Self-Replicating Structures'' in Hofstadter, 1985). Once the proposition is believed, it automatically undermines opposition to itself. The ``lack of evidence is a virtue'' idea could be an admirable sidekick, ganging up with faith itself in a clique of mutually supportive viral programs.

3. A related symptom, which a faith-sufferer may also present, is the conviction that ``mystery,'' per se, is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility.
>
Roman Catholics, whose belief in infallible authority compels them to accept that wine becomes physically transformed into blood despite all appearances, refer to the ``mystery'' of transubstantiation. Calling it a mystery makes everything OK, you see. At least, it works for a mind well prepared by background infection. Exactly the same trick is performed in the ``mystery'' of the Trinity. Mysteries are not meant to be solved, they are meant to strike awe. The ``mystery is a virtue'' idea comes to the aid of the Catholic, who would otherwise find intolerable the obligation to believe the obvious nonsense of the transubstantiation and the ``three-in-one.'' Again, the belief that ``mystery is a virtue'' has a self-referential ring. As Hofstadter might put it, the very mysteriousness of the belief moves the believer to perpetuate the mystery.

An extreme symptom of ``mystery is a virtue'' infection is Tertullian's ``Certum est quia impossibile est'' (It is certain because it is impossible''). That way madness lies. One is tempted to quote Lewis Carroll's White Queen, who, in response to Alice's ``One can't believe impossible things'' retorted ``I daresay you haven't had much practice... When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'' Or Douglas Adams' Electric Monk, a labor-saving device programmed to do your believing for you, which was capable of ``believing things they'd have difficulty believing in Salt Lake City'' and which, at the moment of being introduced to the reader, believed, contrary to all the evidence, that everything in the world was a uniform shade of pink. But White Queens and Electric Monks become less funny when you realize that these virtuoso believers are indistinguishable from revered theologians in real life. ``It is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd'' (Tertullian again). Sir Thomas Browne (1635) quotes Tertullian with approval, and goes further: ``Methinks there be not impossibilities enough in religion for an active faith.'' And ``I desire to exercise my faith in the difficultest point; for to credit ordinary and visible objects is not faith, but perswasion .''

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html

[struggle4progress]

1. This is clever polemics, I suppose, but in the end not very interesting: Dawkins wants

to reason (by analogy) that since there are viruses that hijack cell transcription machinery, and pieces of code (called "viruses") that hijack computer operations, there are similar little idea clusters (which he calls "memes") that can hijack minds

Now, "meme" may be a useful word: it may, for example, be a dandy shorthand for "an idea that is easily remembered and easily communicated" -- but words themselves, or the concepts they are intended to signify (even when useful) do not necessarily represent facts, and to confuse words with facts is a version of Platonism; it seems unbecoming in anyone who claims to be a scientist. I am unaware of any experimental evidence that some ideas hijack minds and spread like epidemics

Dawkins is deeply upset and even angered by Catholic belief in Transubstantiation (say) -- but it is not really clear why. Catholic hospitals, for example, are not transfusing patients who need blood with wine over which a priest has pronounced the Words of Institution; the Catholic churches and schools host ordinary blood drives, as anyone can learn by a quick search. I suspect Dawkins simply has no comprehension of what Transubstantiation might mean to Catholics; his desire to attack what he does not understand seems strange, and a more appropriate reaction from him (if he really does not want a deeper understanding) might be disinterest

St. Michael's Catholic to hold blood drive Oct. 3
News From Lisbon / Woodbine
410-442-1754
Posted 9/24/09
St. Michael's Catholic Church will be sponsoring a Red Cross Blood Drive Oct. 3 ... http://www.explorehoward.com/community/65552/st-michaels-catholic-hold-blood-drive-oct-3/

Catholic War Veterans will host a blood drive
By The Jersey Journal
November 12, 2009, 8:57AM
Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic War Veterans Post 1612, the Bayonne chapter of UNICO and the American Red Cross will host a blood drive on Nov. 21 from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. at the Post headquarters, 18 W. 23rd St., Bayonne ... http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2009/11/catholic_war_veterans_will_hos.html

Niagara Catholic High will hold blood drive
November 15, 2009, 8:17 AM
NIAGARA FALLS—Niagara Catholic High School’s Transplant Awareness Group will hold an Upstate New York Transplant Service blood drive on Thursday in the school chapel, at 520 66th St ... http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/niagaracounty/story/862478.html

Wednesday, November 25, 2009
St. Ann Catholic Church to Host Community Blood Drive
Contributed By Alecia Lipton | Hoxworth Blood Center |
On Saturday, November 28th St. Ann Catholic Church along with Rick & Lynne Merk will host a Community Blood Drive as well as the opportunity to sign up with the National Marrow Donor Program to become a Bone Marrow Donor. The blood drive will be held at the church located at 2900 W. Galbraith Road in Cincinnati between the hours of 9:30am and 3:30pm ... http://rodeo.cincinnati.com/getlocal/gpstory.aspx?id=100226&sid=158702

[darkstar3]

2. Wow,

that was quite a hijack. You managed to completely miss the point Dawkins was arguing, and in the process turn the thread into something that you could post more useless links into. I'd be impressed by your incredible ability to spin if not for the fact that you missed something so blatant I can't believe I need to point it out:

It's called an A-N-A-L-O-G-Y.

But don't let that stop you from your Dawkins hating...

[trotsky]

3. You fail in your attempt to analyze Dawkins. Not surprising.

Contrary to how you want to misrepresent him, it's not transubstantiation itself that "upsets" him, it's the willingness to swallow complete and utter bunk. Transubstantiation is just a convenient example that illustrates the point, which you miss entirely. Wine *actually* becomes blood? Really? And the "faith" to believe that (i.e., "mystery is a virtue") is a good thing? Truly?

And of course this very sentence clarifies the point Dawkins makes:

As Hofstadter might put it, the very mysteriousness of the belief moves the believer to perpetuate the mystery.

I.e., the more fucked up and unbelievable it is, the more holy and mysterious (and true!) it must be. The unbelievability of the meme actually strengthens it. Or, as Dawkins says: "This paradoxical idea that lack of evidence is a positive virtue where faith is concerned has something of the quality of a program that is self-sustaining, because it is self-referential..."

Meme theory isn't perfect, and it's not a direct analog to viruses and genes, but there's a lot of truth to it and Dawkins' understanding of the issue is quite thorough.

[struggle4progress]

4. I don't understand why you think Catholic belief in Transubstantiation hurts anyone -- or

who you think it hurts

Catholic doctors or scientists don't use study the Eucharist to determine medical or scientific facts about blood, for example: the Eucharist has a different sort of meaning to them

You are, of course, free to take the view that you are not very interested by such meanings -- but then why not devote your energies to something that does interest you?

[trotsky]

5. Nice abandonment of your failed attempt to strawman Dawkins.

Who does it hurt? I think it hurts humanity. Declaring something a mystery, proclaiming it off-limits to any kind of rational inquiry or analysis, harms us as a species and stunts our intellectual and moral growth.

[darkstar3]

6. +10! n/t

[struggle4progress]

7. Normal people will probably regard all manner of things off-limits for rational inquiry:

"How far can a person sprint after the carotid artery is severed?"
"What is the most effective way to surreptitiously addict your mother to heroin?"
"Does it take longer to puree a living puppy in a blender than a dead one?"

I think I will take the view that proclaiming such topics off-limits to rational inquiry does not harm us as a species or stunt our moral growth

[trotsky]

8. Not interested in your red herrings.

I'd like to see you actually defend a position for once instead of trying to change the subject. Can you?

[Sal316]

9. That is....without a doubt.....

....just about the most ridiculous, self-serving bit of pseudoscience ever printed.

To equate faith with a "mind virus" is, quite honestly, asinine to begin with. However, let's look at some of the assumptions he makes in his polemic.

Dawkins makes statements here where he defines people of faith to be suicide bombers, kamikaze pilots, Voodoo, Jim Jones-esqe cult leaders, and radically insane fundamentalists. This is intellectually dishonest. These groups do not represent the majority of people of faith... by lumping these extremists with all people of faith, Dawkins exposes his bias.

He also states this "I have already alluded to the programmed-in gullibility of a child, so useful for learning language and traditional wisdom, and so easily subverted by nuns, Moonies and their ilk." Here the assumption is made that children either are not or cannot be "subverted" by militant atheists, radically insane chemists or physicists, or impressionist-only art fans.

No, subversion of a child's intellect is reserved strictly for religion.

One point he has correct is that it is statistically more likely that one will belong to the faith of their parents. However, his hypothesis of why people change faiths, again, shows his disdain. Let's go to the tape, shall we?

To be sure, it is possible that he dispassionately surveyed the world's faiths and chose the most convincing one. But it is statistically more probable that he has been exposed to a particularly potent infective agent --- a John Wesley, a Jim Jones or a St. Paul.

Note how he includes Jim Jones in with Wesley and St. Paul. Nice try, Dick, but that would be like tainting all the people of Chicago with Gacy or the people of New York with Berkowitz. I believe this qualifies as "poisoning the well" AND the composition fallacy (ex:Sodium and Chloride are both dangerous to humans. Therefore any combination of sodium and chloride will be dangerous to humans.)

Then, he finishes with this:

Happily, viruses don't win every time. Many children emerge unscathed from the worst that nuns and mullahs can throw at them.

There really isn't much to say about this.

See, people like Dawkins need religious extremists, and vice-versa, in order to self-justify their bigotry. Yes, it is bigotry, defined as:

1) Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.; and; 2)Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion

. In fact, it's much more of a parasitic relationship between these two groups than symbiotic. Hence, the more one group tries to subdue the other, the stronger the subdu-ee gets.

As long as there are religious extremists, there will be intellectually dishonest folks like Dawkins who paint ALL people of faith as religious extremists who are unthinking, illogical, terrified of science, and rigidly dogmatic. This also goes for extremists who will paint ALL non-believers, and people of other faiths, as misguided, hopeless, faithless, or heretics who are out to "get them" or "get rid of God".

Neither position is logically tenable as they are both predicated on hasty generalizations and stereotyping as their foundations.

[darkstar3]

10. Fail.

Dawkins makes statements here where he defines people of faith to be suicide bombers, kamikaze pilots, Voodoo, Jim Jones-esqe cult leaders, and radically insane fundamentalists. This is intellectually dishonest. These groups do not represent the majority of people of faith... by lumping these extremists with all people of faith, Dawkins exposes his bias.
Hey look, it's the No True Scotsman fallacy.

He also states this "I have already alluded to the programmed-in gullibility of a child, so useful for learning language and traditional wisdom, and so easily subverted by nuns, Moonies and their ilk." Here the assumption is made that children either are not or cannot be "subverted" by militant atheists, radically insane chemists or physicists, or impressionist-only art fans.
Please give a single example of any of your "subversions." :eyes:

And then you continue with NTS, until you start talking about bigotry and intellectual dishonesty. Here's a tip, intolerance of bigotry is not bigotry. And stop trying to call people on intellectual dishonesty when you engage in it so often.

[Sal316]

11. Yes, you did fail.

Hey look, it's the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I know this is your favorite retort, but if you read what I said, you'd see that I did NOT claim these people weren't true believers. What I pointed out, and you completely missed, is Dawkins' use of hasty generalization in representing all people of faith as extremists.

Here's a tip, intolerance of bigotry is not bigotry. And stop trying to call people on intellectual dishonesty when you engage in it so often.

If it were intolerance of bigotry, I'd agree with you. However, Dawkins has proved, over and over, that he is bigoted against people of faith, i.e., "1) Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.. When you speak of faith as a virus that corrupts peoples' minds and broad-brush all believers based on radical extremists, it goes way beyond "intolerance of bigotry" and well into classic bigotry. If Dawkins were intellectually honest, he'd differentiate between radicals and non-radicals.

He doesn't, however, rendering his position intellectually invalid.

Think about this for a minute. What if people took Hitchens as an example and used it to broad-brush all atheists? Now, you and I both know that wouldn't be fair or intellectually honest, but that's what Dawkins does. He takes the extreme example and extrapolates that to all believers.

So, really, is that me being guilty of using NTS or is it Dawkins' guilty of hasty generalizations?

[darkstar3]

15. You DID engage in the NTS fallacy.

To wit:
by lumping these extremists with all people of faith, Dawkins exposes his bias.

"Lumping them in" starts from the premise that these people aren't "people of faith" to begin with, and that Dawkins is simply treating them as "people of faith" out of rhetorical convenience. That's not true. These extremists ARE people of faith, they always have been, and your attempt at denial, even by premise, will not change that.

If Dawkins were intellectually honest, he'd differentiate between radicals and non-radicals.
Why should he? Radicals are running away with the faith, and non-radicals don't seem to be doing a damn thing to stop it. When YOU non-radicals find a way to differentiate YOURSELVES from the crowd of crazy, those people not of your faith will take notice.

You are constantly trying to force non-Christians to accept that you are somehow different from the extremists, but this false division you create is just another, softer version of NTS.

[Sal316]

17. It's obvious you don't understand the fallacy.

Never did I say that they didn't have faith or they weren't "true" people of faith. Quantitatively, they are. The NTS fallacy is based on making a qualitative, or value, judgment. They have faith, and whether or not I believe they're misguided didn't enter into the equation.

Dawkins, and you, are guilty of hasty generalization by absolutely refusing to distinguish between extremists and non-extremists. In your minds, there is no difference, which is intellectually indefensible.

As far as differentiating and Why should he?, the answer is simple. Reason, logic, and empirical evidence prove the premise that all people of faith are dangerous extremists to be absolutely false. In essence, it's a lie. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true.

Radicals are running away with the faith, and non-radicals don't seem to be doing a damn thing to stop it. When YOU non-radicals find a way to differentiate YOURSELVES from the crowd of crazy, those people not of your faith will take notice.

Nice try, but you've proven that you will view any differentiation as an example of NTS. Secondly us non-radicals ARE doing things to stop it. It's called education and discussion. Of course, it's also based on the premise that the other party is open to discussion and doesn't automatically dismiss such as a "softer version" of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

You are constantly trying to force non-Christians to accept that you are somehow different from the extremists, but this false division you create is just another, softer version of NTS.

See, again you contradict yourself. First you say "find a way to differentiate", and then when it's shown to you, you plug your ears and scream "No True Scotsman". Essentially you're choosing to remain a prisoner to your own prejudices despite ample evidence to the contrary. Your position is no different than any other extreme stereotype perpetuated out of fear, bigotry, racism, or ignorance.

Until you see beyond your own blindness, you're proving yourself to be as rigidly dogmatic, so to speak, as those you condemn.

[darkstar3]

18. The whole point of my post,

which you deliberately missed, is that you can't make ME define YOU.

I'm not going to arbitrarily differentiate between believers who quite frankly all seem to follow the same drummers. If you want ME to recognize YOU as a different party, then YOU have to find a way to differentiate yourself from them through ACTIONS.

Do you get that? You CAN get away from them, but not by telling ME what I should think. You can only do it by making sure that your actions and words keep you separate.

And at least for you, they don't. Your condescension and self-righteousness land you square in the middle of the people you'd like to be apart from.

[Sal316]

19. I'm not "making you define me".

You do well enough at defining me, and other non-extremists, all on your own, no matter the evidence to the contrary.

I'm not going to arbitrarily differentiate between believers who quite frankly all seem to follow the same drummers. If you want ME to recognize YOU as a different party, then YOU have to find a way to differentiate yourself from them through ACTIONS

It's not an arbitrary differentiation. One only has to look at DU to see that there IS a difference between the two. DU'ers aren't about executing gays, killing infidels, installing theocracy, converting the masses, or any other extremist position. The fact that you're unwilling to even admit this displays your intellectual dishonesty. There is ample evidence to support the fact that there is a difference between extremists and non-extremists. By choosing to ignore this or dismiss anything that is contrary to your prejudice as "No True Scotsman", you appear to be more interested in being anti-theist than anything else.

Like I've said a thousand times before....believe, don't believe, I really don't care. That's the thing about free will, we all have the ability to make our own choices.

[darkstar3]

20. And where are the Catholics against H8?

Or how about Episcopalians for Equality?

You see, here's the problem: The Christians who back progressive causes always seem to do so without the backing of their church. Meanwhile, the CHURCHES overwhelmingly back regressive and repressive politics.

Here's another problem we've talked about before: If you're going to continue to use the label Christian to define yourself, then you voluntarily choose the same label as the extremists, and I have no pity for you when you get painted the same shade they do. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you're a Christian and you accept that you've joined a group teeming with extremists and fundies, or you're something other than Christian.

ETA: and you ARE making atheists define you:
Dawkins, and you, are guilty of hasty generalization by absolutely refusing to distinguish between extremists and non-extremists. In your minds, there is no difference, which is intellectually indefensible.
You are putting the onus on Dawkins to differentiate you from the crowd, rather than letting your actions do the differentiating for you.

[Sal316]

22. You asked...here's your answer....

Catholics against H8?

According to a Pew Research study, Catholics are evenly divided on the issue, with 45% favoring same-sex marriage and 43% opposing it. link

In fact, according to the study, more black Protestants oppose gay marriage than Catholics (66% vs. 43%). When can we expect you to lump all African-Americans in with homophobes? Additionally, since not a single demographic is 100% opposed, it empirically PROVES that there is a factual difference between extremists/fundamentalists and non-extremists/fundamentalists.

Episcopalians for Equality? Oh, how about here? What do you think the split in the Episcopalian church was over?

Or how about this from the Boston Globe? Protestant churches shift slowly toward gay equality?

Presbyterians, too!

Here in Arizona, there was the Phoenix Declaration signed by over 150 Arizona clergy.

Just because you refuse to see the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[darkstar3]

24. Nice try,.

I see Integrity USA, a group founded by LGBT Episcopalians who wish to stop being excluded from their faith.
I see ELCA, (not Protestants as a group) accepting LGBT members, albeit quietly.
I see Presbyterians beginning to accept the idea of LGBT clergy.
I see a very small grassroots effort to include LGBT people in Arizona churches.

But you know what's MISSING from your links?

A single CHURCH that has gotten involved politically to stop constitutional amendments against same sex marriage, or parental notification laws, or any other example of hateful legislation pushed by the religious right.

I don't see a single Christian-led organization that is spearheading a fight to prevent another George Tiller.

"Oh we tolerate all people at our church" is not enough. These links you provide show only that the churches involved are far behind the times, and are JUST NOW, begrudgingly accepting that LGBT people can be Christians too. This doesn't impress me, and it certainly doesn't do a damn thing outside the Christian faith.

I don't see variation or differentiation here. I see black socks vs. navy blue.

ETA: And you still didn't answer the fact that you are trying to make OTHER PEOPLE define who YOU are. If you want to differentiate yourself from the pack, let your actions do so. That's the way it works in the workplace, in the marketplace, and in "the marketplace of ideas."

[Sal316]

26. I give.

You asked, I answered, and now you've changed the terms and conditions of what you'd accept.

You said "Where are the Catholics against H8"? I pointed you to a poll that says nearly 50% of all Catholics support SSM.

That wasn't good enough.

You said "Where are the Episcopalians?" I showed you.

That wasn't good enough.

I also pointed you to Presbyterians, shifts in the Protestant Churches, and the Phoenix Declaration, signed by over 150 clergy.

That, also, wasn't good enough.

You said "YOU have to find a way to differentiate yourself from them through ACTIONS." These people ARE differentiating themselves through their actions.

Again....that's not good enough for you.

It's become obvious you won't accept anything evidence that conflicts with your anti-theist outlook.
There are none so blind as those refuse to see.

[darkstar3]

27. Nice dodge.

I haven't moved the goalposts at all, and a careful reading of my posts will reveal that. I've never cared about what Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians or others do within the confines of their own churches, and that is all you've given me. If you have an example of a religious organization that is publicly involved in preventing further acts of religious terrorism and theocratic takeover, then post it.

If you can't, then you must understand why: when religious people stand up publicly for progressive causes, they stand away from their faith and their church. You're having your cake and eating it too, and damn near everybody lets you get away with it, so when somebody like me points that out, you get up on your huffy bike.

[Sal316]

28. It's your story...

...tell it like you own it. Just be sure you know that repeating it over and over ain't gonna make it true.

You have shifted goalposts, as most anti-theists are wont to do.

You initially said "When YOU non-radicals find a way to differentiate YOURSELVES from the crowd of crazy, those people not of your faith will take notice."

Guess what? People within the churches ARE differentiating themselves AND working to change the Church. Then, when shown, over and over, that people WITHIN the Church are differentiating themselves, your response?

You are constantly trying to force non-Christians to accept that you are somehow different from the extremists, but this false division you create is just another, softer version of NTS.

Then, that argument failing miserably, where did you go?

"But you know what's MISSING from your links? A single CHURCH that has gotten involved politically..."

So, we've gone from people (which with any differentiation you cling to the tired old NTS canard) to churches. I guess when it's 4th and 15 you've got nothing else to do but punt.

Then this one..."I don't see a single Christian-led organization that is spearheading a fight to prevent another George Tiller."

Do you not have Google? Perhaps you should start with thehttp://www.rcrc.org/pdf/We_affirm.pdf">Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, a big ol' list of Churches and Christian led organizations that are demonstrably pro-choice

Again... another one of your arguments down in flames, thanks to the 1,070,000 pages for christian pro-choice organizations Google found in 0.14 seconds.

[Amaya]

29. damn... what a douche you are

fuck me... i'm flabbergasted :wow:

what happened to you?

[darkstar3]

31. Divinity school. n/t

[Sal316]

32. So....in this forum...

People of faith, like me, are illogical, irrational, unintelligent, incapable of critical thinking, scared of science, homophobic, anti-choice, anti-woman, a danger to others, a danger to this country, etc., etc.......


....and I'm the douche?


Talk about flabbergasted.

[Amaya]

34. hey, I'm just a idiot militant atheist

why is it that you like to argue with atheists anyway?
who cares if an atheist like myself is critical of religion..?. you have the truth anyway... right??
the "truth" ... your view of christianity is the correct one... right? because you studied the bible the correct way.
you don't take the bible in a literal sense.. right? and you know EXACTLY what Jesus meant? and you believe the TRUE faith is christianity, Correct?


to me it seems you like to argue because you are trying to convince yourself of what you believe.

honestly, i don't have any interest in what or who you worship - but your arrogance is so strong i just had to say something.
maybe check you haughtiness at the door and act like the true christian you say you are.

[Sal316]

54. Why the hostility?

Here's what it comes down to:

1) If you start your argument with generalizations (All religious people are ______), the NTS fallacy (if you're not a fundy, you're not a true Christian, and refuse to acknowledge that there are extremists and non-extremists then you've built on a lousy foundation and the argument's credibility, and the credibility of the arguer, are shot. Repeating these arguments from others based on false premises is also credibility damaging.

2) Saying things like "I see no churches or Christian groups fighting for _____" is patently false. In fact, it's a bald faced lie. There are numerous churches, mainline denominations, clergy groups, Christian groups, and even clergy who are DUers that fight for things like marriage equality and pro-choice legislation/candidates.

3) So, when someone says things like It would help more if they told all their followers to stop breeding that's just supposed to be ignored? Hardly.

4) You would would trust climatologists for GW discussions, art majors for art, chemists for chemistry, psychologists for psychiatry, etc., correct? Why is theology different? Everyone can have an opinion on something, but that's not the same as knowledge.

5) Criticism of religion is fine. If that's your bag.. go at it...I could care less. When it crosses the line into beliefs that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc., that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes and that manifests itself in actively campaigning that it be abandoned,and even supporting measures to suppress it. That's when it becomes bigotry. And just because it's something you could care less about doesn't make it any better.

If pointing out the bigotry, intolerance, and downright hatred based on stereotypes and generalizations displayed towards people of faith, and even other DUers makes me "haughty, arrogant, condescending", then I guess that's your opinion.

You see, I don't just randomly debate with atheists to convince myself what I believe. I stand up to bigotry and intolerance. Believe me, I spend plenty of time arguing with fundies, too.

Does this mean I have all the answers? Not even. Hell, I even have doubts. Its normal, natural, and, quite honestly, if I didn't then all those nasty things said about me would be true.

So, in conclusion......

6) Why don't you enlighten me as to what a "true Christian" is.

[darkstar3]

55. A "true Christian" is anyone who claims they are Christian.

To claim anything more or less, because there can be no external verification, is dishonest.

ETA: And while you may not like it, EVERY time you claim that someone ISN'T a Christian when they have claimed the label, you are engaging in that fallacy.

[Sal316]

58. Good thing I've never claimed that.

I'll leave that to Dawkins, Harris, and the plethora of RW fundamentalist Christians.

Oh... and saying someone's pimping bad theology or defining them as a fundamentalist/extremist isn't the same thing as making that "true/not-true" value judgment.

[darkstar3]

64. Now you're trying to split hairs.

Unfortunately for you, your posts speak for themselves. As I've said before, the premise of your starting argument, that Dawkins "lumps fundamentalists in", begins with the false assumption that the fundamentalists weren't people of faith to begin with.

Defining someone as a fundamentalist/extremist is a simple dismissive ad hom. It is an attempt to discredit that person as an untrue reflection of the faith, and state in the process that YOU have the true interpretation.

This arbitrary redefinition of what Christianity really means is the heart of the NTS fallacy. The only way to avoid the fallacy is to stop claiming that you have the truth (or proper interpretation) while other Christians do not.

[Sal316]

68. If you say so...

As I've said before, the premise of your starting argument, that Dawkins "lumps fundamentalists in", begins with the false assumption that the fundamentalists weren't people of faith to begin with.

Though I appreciate you telling me what my assumptions are and how I'm defining things, I'll stick with my definitions. I'll be glad to clarify for you if you ask. YOU are assuming that I'm saying fundamentalists aren't people of faith. In fact, I said Never did I say that they didn't have faith or they weren't "true" people of faith. Quantitatively, they are. They have faith, and whether or not I believe they're misguided didn't enter into the equation.

Defining someone as a fundamentalist/extremist is a simple dismissive ad hom. It is an attempt to discredit that person as an untrue reflection of the faith, and state in the process that YOU have the true interpretation.

No, it's not, it's defining degrees of ideology. Take DU for example. Are you saying the difference between progressive/moderate/right-leaning doesn't exist? That defining that person by the ideology that they hold is simply a "dismissive ad hom"?

There are liberal and conservative theologians.... is describing one or the other simply a "dismissive ad hom?"

There are Muslims who blow themselves up for Allah and those that preach peace... is distinguishing between one and the other simply using a "dismissive ad hom"?

Shoot, why bother making any distinctions in degree? Not just in ideology, but in trait as well?

Because we treat people and events on an individual basis, understanding that not everyone and everything is the same. When we start lumping people into amorphous groups, it's easy to lose their humanity. That's when it becomes nature to be discriminatory and dismissive to anyone perceived to belong to those groups....simply because its easier.

[darkstar3]

69. Your abuse of language is impressive,

but it in no way refutes what I said in #64. Rather, it ignores what I said and then sets up a straw man in an attempt to make me look "discriminatory and dismissive".

"Keep f***in' that chicken..."

[Sal316]

71. We ain't talkin' about me, junior.

You're the one who said defining someone as extremist/non-extremist is a "simple dismissive ad hom".

By saying so you are claiming there is no difference, since you say it is a logical fallacy to claim there is.

Ergo: President Obama, by your logic, is a homophobic bigot.

[darkstar3]

73. JUNIOR?!

Your condescension and arrogance truly know no bounds, huh?

You are deliberately creating a false dichotomy here, but at this point I don't expect you to understand/admit that. You are far too invested in being an asshole to anyone who doesn't agree with your non-literal and nebulous yet somehow perfectly valid interpretation of a translation of an ancient text.

If THIS is the result of a theology degree, I count myself infinitely lucky to have no friends who have obtained one.

[Sal316]

76. Ad hom, ad hom, ad hom....

It appears that facing the reality of your beliefs is making you uncomfortable. Just as uncomfortable as those who believe abortion should be outlawed when they're asked if they support sending women to death row over it.

You cannot ignore the natural consequences of believing there is no rational difference between extremists and non-extremists (or that it is illogical to delineate degrees of theological/ideological difference). The natural consequences of this is the creation of the amorphous group of "those people". In your case, your disdain for people of faith and propensity to put forward the idea that they're homophobic bigots leads to the conclusion that people of faith = fundamentalists/extremists. Therefore, using your own standards, people such as MLK, Mother Theresa, Jim Wallis, Shane Claiborne, Brian McClaren, and the President are homophobic bigots.

If you claim differently, or that there are exceptions to the rules you've put forward, then you've invalidated your own position because you, yourself, said that delineating degrees of ideology is the NTS logical fallacy.

You cannot claim I'm creating a false dichotomy at the same time you claim delineating degrees of difference in theology/ideology is NTS.

I've been through the entire spectra of belief..from practicing Catholic to agnostic to atheist to agnostic and back to believer. There really isn't an argument that I haven't heard, or used, before. So, calling me arrogant, condescending, or an asshole because of your frustration or inner conflict really doesn't bug me one bit. In fact, I find it quite humorous that the far superior, logical, rational mind of an atheist has resorted to that.

[darkstar3]

77. Oh you're just so clever.

You've painted me into a corner, haven't you?

You seem to be smugly enjoying that you've caught me in a catch 22, where I'm either a bigot or just supporting an untenable position.

There's only one problem: I never said what you're claiming, and you're full of shit.

Go back and read, and what you'll find is that I told you that Christians are guilty of engaging in the NTS fallacy when they call another Christian a fundamentalist. What I said there is in no way untrue, because the word fundamentalist (or the word literalist) is used by Christians to invalidate the views of the people they claim have the wrong interpretation. Throwing the fundamentalist label from one Christian to another is an ad hom, and you cannot deny this.

Yet you are SO intent on being able to throw that label at other Christians who disagree with you on the proper interpretation of the bible, that you have to find SOME way to invalidate my statement, so you've setup a false dichotomy: "If fundamentalist is an ad hom attack, then you believe there is no rational difference between extremists and non-extremists." That's bullshit, and you know it.

My point in this entire subthread has been simple: You cannot differentiate yourself to people outside of your faith from what you call extremists through mere words, especially when you have voluntarily taken their label to define yourself. If you want to differentiate yourself from these people, your actions and your attitude must do so. Martin Luther King Jr. differentiated himself. Jimmy Carter differentiated himself (and took a whole lot of shit from "real" Christians for it). You, on the other hand, have made it quite clear that you are no different from the people you wish to decry.

And if you'd like to avoid having words like "arrogant", "condescending", and "asshole" thrown at you, you may want to lose that massively superior smug little attitude that seems to worm its way into EVERY post you make.

[darkstar3]

30. Well, you're finally getting closer

to ACTUAL differentiation, so good for you.

Of course, you fail to understand the idea of differentiation from a point of view OUTSIDE Christianity, a failing of nearly everyone who lives inside the circle. Your line:
Guess what? People within the churches ARE differentiating themselves AND working to change the Church
is about INTERNAL change, change which people outside of your faith would never see, and change which frankly is DECADES overdue. You get no credit for that.

The RCRC is nice to see, and it's about time you actually posted what I was looking for. Of course, they've been around since 1973 and STILL haven't managed to get national, and I think that says something about the support they find in the liberal Christian community, but I suppose that's beside the point. You DID find a link to something I was asking for, so I have to give you that.

But then the fact remains that you're still condescending, self-righteous, and arrogant in EVERY post I see you make, whether to me or other people, so you personally haven't managed to differentiate yourself from a hateful fundie by one teeny little eyelash.

[skepticscott]

59. Dawkins DOES distinguish

between radicals and non-radicals, as you'd know if you actually read him thoroughly before lobbing spitballs, instead of engaging in even more intellectual dishonesty. I'd be happy to quote him for you, if you'd like to appear an even bigger fool than you already do...your choice.

[Shadrach]

61. Yes, he does distinguish.

And people try to say he doesn't in order to turn him into a bigot. Which is a pretty pathetic thing to do. That's how uncomfortable Dawkins make people feel that they have to change the nature of his arguments.

[Jim__]

12. I really don't get Dawkins point here.

A human child is shaped by evolution to soak up the culture of her people. Most obviously, she learns the essentials of their language in a matter of months. A large dictionary of words to speak, an encyclopedia of information to speak about, complicated syntactic and semantic rules to order the speaking, are all transferred from older brains into hers well before she reaches half her adult size. When you are pre-programmed to absorb useful information at a high rate, it is hard to shut out pernicious or damaging information at the same time. With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns. Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort.

Yes, it's been that way for millenia. A child's parents generally direct the child's growth and have the greatest influence on what the child believes. Religion has also been around for millenia, and children have been mostly accepting their parents religion for all that time. As Dawkins indicates, this appears to be part of our evolutionary heritage. It's not likely that we're going to undo our inherited traits anytime in the near future.

Another of our inherited traits is a tendency to anger, and a tendency toward war. I believe the danger that Dawkins attaches to religious memes actually belongs to our propensity toward violence, especially war. Of course, that's been with with us for millenia too, probably been with us from the first humans. I don't think we can address that problem directly. We are who we are. However, the danger is greater now because of the weapons we have, namely nuclear weapons that can wreak near-total destruction. If Dawkins is concerned about the danger the human race is facing, he could better spend his time addressing the threat of nuclear war than any imagined threat from "religious memes."

[Igel]

25. That's not how language is learned.

It's not downloaded. It's ascertained. Each child reconstructs the surrounding language according to general or built-in guidelines--call them principles and parameters, settings, cognitive universals, whatever your theory requires. The rules aren't transferred; they're not really deduced; 'abduced' is a better term for it.

They try things, and memorize bits and pieces and see how they work. Then they start figuring out rules to account for the data they see. My kid's still at the point where the rules he's figured out overproduce--"heared", "goed". Eventually he'll figure out that we don't allow them; he may want to say them his entire life. In fact, he may bend the rules (not a word I like, but I'll use it) to produce pretty much acceptable output--but when no longer required to do so follow what he thinks the real rule is.

The same works for vocabulary. Generally they get words sort of right and then refine them. Sometimes they miss the point of a word entirely.

It's most clear with kids around communication systems that utterly fail as complete, natural languages. Nicaraguan sign language is a nicely studied case--but it's fairly clear that numerous other languages popped up in the same way, from Cape Verde Creole to Copper Island Aleut to Sranan. Kids naturally learn a language to communicate what they want to communicate, and if all they have is a sort of communication systems and tools they will, nonetheless, learn a language. From a pidgin will pop out relativizers and quantifiers, ways to express tense and mood and aspect, ways to foreground and background information, to make text cohesive. Notice that there's nothing to be "downloaded"--what's available isn't what's downloaded, and what's "downloaded" isn't available.

It's a very nice analogy Dawkins goes for. But the thing about analogies is that they're only true to the extent they're true; they make for great exemplification and help to clarify what's going on. Strip out Dawkin's analogies and all you're left with is .

[groovedaddy]

13. I t seems to me that Dawkins is basically saying that ANY religious belief is a meme.

There is a good reason why "people of faith" don't want their beliefs subjected to scrutiny: they might have to give up their beliefs.
To me, it comes down to this question: can all faiths be true? Rationally, I would have to answer with a resounding "no." Can any of them be true? Possibly. But you can't find out through any rational means that I know of.
What Dawkins points to is the danger of these memes. There are many "people of faith" who are taught intolerance of other faiths. Wars have been fought over these differences, EVEN within a specific faith (i.e. christianity, islam). So, "People of Faith," does this happen because of an innate human propensity for violence or war -or- is it the meme itself which allows for atrocities to be committed against non-believers, people of different faiths or even members of the same faith with slight or large differences of belief within that faith?

[struggle4progress]

16. How can one reach any useful conclusions, if starting from stereotypes?

You say: "people of faith" don't want their beliefs subjected to scrutiny: they might have to give up their beliefs

You begin from the vague "people of faith," as if that were a scientific category; you then make a sweeping assertion about this ill-defined group ("they don't want their beliefs subjected to scrutiny"); and then you purport to explain this sweeping assertion by claiming "they might have to give up their beliefs." It is natural to suspect that if you could actually delineate (in any objective fashion) your original category "people of faith," the category would include such a wide swatch of humanity that almost any conclusion could be obtained by selectively sampling from it: over two-thirds of the world's population is either Christian, Hindu, or Muslim, for example, and it seems unlikely that one can make meaningful general statements about attitudes and motives in such a large group


Hindu Mission Hospital provides Free or Affordable Quality Medicare to the poor and needy, with focus on those from rural areas and in and around Tambaram
http://hindumissionhospital.org/

ICNA Relief USA is holding" Abraham's day" a day of giving all around USA on December 11,12,13 2009. ICNA Relief USA distributing winter clothes and having meat drive on Abraham's day
http://www.icnarelief.org/

[groovedaddy]

21. Granted, this may not apply to all "people of faith." But you jumped right on that point

and ignored my fundamental question: Are all faiths right in their beliefs?

[struggle4progress]

23. I don't think it's an interesting question, and I don't consider it to be fundamental

You've got terms ("faith" and "belief," for example) that are too ill-defined to admit definite material meanings, and from these terms you craft a grammatical sentence that, on the basis of common semantics, appears to force a particular answer. That sort of stunt might be amusing the first hundred or so times one sees it, but at the bottom it is a mere word game. There may be interesting things that can be done with word games, but word games cannot illuminate the world for us. Religion is practiced by concrete humans, in the context of their particular lives, and word games cannot shed light on that

[BridgeTheGap]

33. deleted

deleted

[groovedaddy]

35. Here are the definitions from the dictionary of Faith and Belief

Faith -
1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
2. unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc.
3. a religion or a system of religious beliefs
4. anything believed
5. complete trust, confidence, or reliance
6. allegiance to some person or thing; loyalty

http://www.yourdictionary.com/faith


Belief
1. the state of believing; conviction or acceptance that certain things are true or real
2. faith, esp. religious faith
3. trust or confidence I have belief in his ability
4. anything believed or accepted as true; esp., a creed, doctrine, or tenet
5. an opinion; expectation; judgment my belief is that he'll come

http://www.yourdictionary.com/belief

I know it's a tough one for you, BUT because people believe OR have faith in something, doesn't make it so. There are countless examples of this through history.
While you may believe your particular faith to be "the truth," there are people with radically different faiths/beliefs from yours who believe their faith to be "the truth."
Logic says you can't both be right. Simple enough?

[struggle4progress]

36. That, of course, is the "common semantics," to which I referred in "a grammatical sentence that, on

the basis of common semantics, appears to force a particular answer." The fact, that it is possible to craft sentences that appear to force a particular answer has been known for millennia. The paradox of Epimenides, for example, can be cast in the form Confining yourself to "Yes or No," answer: is your answer to this question truthful? and logic apparently forces the answer "Yes" (independent of whether one wants to tell the truth or to lie). But (in fact) one learns little or nothing about the world by answering that question; one might even doubt the question is meaningful

Let us summarize this idiotic conversation so far. You want to make a commonplace point: "Different people say they believe different things, so they cannot all be right." Feeling extra-clever, you cast this as a question, "If different people believe different things, can they all be right?" which (if one insists on a Yes or No answer) appears to force (under common semantics) a No answer -- which you eagerly anticipate, expecting to use my answer as a starting point for a tedious lecture about my supposed irrationality. I answer instead that I do not regard such questions with forced answers as very interesting, and that I doubt such techniques yield useful information. Convinced of your special wit, you respond by pointing out to me that my answer to the question would have been forced by common semantics (a fact I had just noted), and you gratuitously provide the semantics. My reaction will be that you read carelessly or unintelligently, since you give no indication of understanding what I said about your rhetorical gaming

A question is interesting only if the answer actually tells us something: "Do the slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe?" is uninteresting, as an answer is unlikely to inform, on account of the ill-definedness of the terms used. Nor is the simple declaration that "Slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe" more helpful: one still does not know what the apparent adjective signifies, to what the apparent nouns refer, or what the apparent verbs designate. The same problem arises if I ask insist you answer (yes or no), "Is she done there?" (since you will have no idea to who and where "she" and "there" refer); it will help little if I demand you to answer right now the more precise question, "Has Mary Smith finished at the mall?" (there being thousands named "Mary Smith" and many many malls). The situation, unfortunately, is entirely similar with "If different people believe different things, can they all be right?" If Jack believes a table really needs to have four legs, while Jill believes the periodic table really does not need to have four legs, it would be moronic to assert that they cannot both be right, since the different "beliefs" of Jack and Jill about tables and legs are not at all comparable: Jack says something (that we probably cannot doubt) about his taste in tables, whereas Jill's unquestionably true statement is just silly. If you insist on reasoning about vague generalities (such as the "beliefs" of "people of faith"), you can only fall into a meaninglessness never-never land: your terms are too ill-defined to have a definite meaning

[groovedaddy]

37. Your verbosity is nothing short of amazing. It's relevance, however is another matter entirely.

Faith and belief are not uncommon terms. If there is no agreement on what terms/words mean, then rational discourse is futile.
If you don't understand or know that beliefs or faiths, when foisted upon the unwitting or unwilling, necessarily lead to violence, I would have to say that you demonstrate an appaling ignorance of human history.
You are demonstrating what Dawkins is talking about.

[struggle4progress]

38. I must completely disagree with you about meaning. In some circumstances, we

need no consensus whatsoever on "meanings" to be able to carry out a rational discourse: Hilbert made this point with respect to geometry (“One must be able to say at all times – instead of points, straight lines, and planes – tables, chairs, and beer mugs”), the point being that precise axioms and reasoning rules themselves in such a case completely governed the discourse. In other instances, the ultimate "meanings" are obtained because one can actually point to something concrete: definitions, in such cases, are not determined by dictionaries but by phenomena; one exhibits real definite material examples to show exactly what one "means" in the discourse. Note both these ways, for obtaining meaning, require considerable discipline: in one case, one must explain precisely what sentences are assumed and how they may be combined and transformed; in the other, one must be careful to ensure that at every step the sentences used can be decoded to point to material facts

If one omits such discipline, there is the danger of producing perfectly grammatical sentences that signify nothing definite, as in Chomsky's famous example: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Of course, there are attractive uses of language that are not precisely logical: one can craft poetry that is quite evocative and produces definite reactions from readers without following any precise logic or pointing to anything specific in the world, for example

Your "reasoning" about the "beliefs" of "people of faith" does not follow careful structural rules, nor is it carefully grounded in an ability to point to definite phenomena: it is clearly evocative for you, but (of course) what is evocative for one person is not necessarily so for another. The intellectual problem here is your conviction that (1) what is evocative for you must be rational and true, and (2) what is evocative for some other people, but not evocative for you, must correspondingly be false and irrational

[darkstar3]

39. You are venturing DANGEROUSLY close to solipsism.

If we all followed your reasoning on language to the letter, there would be no way for any of us to effectively communicate.

Which in fact is fairly well proven by much of your word salad.

[groovedaddy]

41. Amen! I think it was meant to rattle the brain. n.t

[groovedaddy]

62. Here is a definite phenomena, already pointed out:

There are people who site their faith in carrying out acts of violence.

[struggle4progress]

72. Wow

Criminal Justice Series: Homicide in Scotland, 2006-07
... Main motive of main accused ...
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/12/14114316/22

http://www.aic.gov.au.nyud.net:8090/upload%5C%5Caic%5Cpublications%5Ccfi%5Cfi110.gif
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/101-120/cfi110.aspx


http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2000/apr/wk2/art03.htm

[BridgeTheGap]

14. Here's why I lean toward buddhism

"Believe nothing, O monks, merely because you have been told it or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide."
-- Buddha

[Jim__]

40. Can we educate away an evolutionary trait?

Here, Dawkins answers a question about whether or not religion is an evolutionary trait. His answer is, "Yes." Now, he tries to qualify that "yes" away by saying that it need not confer an evolutionary advantage, may be a by-product of some set of other beneficial psychological traits, etc, etc. But, if religion is an evolutionary trait, can education eliminate it? And, should we try to eliminate it without understanding whether or not it does confer an evolutionary advantage? Or, is Dawkins "belief" that it doesn't confer an advantage sufficient?

[darkstar3]

42. You're missing Dawkins' point about the evolutionary trait.

Don't worry, you're not the first.

What Dawkins has said many times in the past is that there IS an evolutionary trait within the human race for children to trust whatever their elders tell them. The reason for this is clear: In a world full of dangerous animals and other ecological hazards, ignorance can kill quickly. Since we are all born ignorant of the world around us, we MUST trust what we are told by those with experience, or suffer the consequences, which usually include death.

This trait has led to the trusting of origin myths, which have no verifiable source or evolutionary benefit, but they're existence simply piggybacks on the evolutionary benefit of elder trust.

Education CAN and DOES change this. As we grow older, we learn (as we absolutely should) to differentiate between what is myth, and what is truth. "Santa Claus does not exist and there's no Easter Bunny. You'll find out when you grow up that Big Bird isn't funny...(funny, funny)" (Thank you Dennis Leary.)

[Jim__]

43. Ummmm, no. Listen to his answer from about 3:50 to the end.

First, at the beginning of his answer he says that, yes, he thinks religion is a product of evolution. Then, when he gets back to describing it in detail, he says he suspects (note: suspects, doesn't know) that religion is a complicated by-product of several psychological processes that are evolutionarily advantageous. He gives the example of the child listening to its parents. But that's an exaple of one process, and he suspects there are several. He also admits that he does not know that if religion is an evolutionary trait whether or not it is offers a survival advantage.

[darkstar3]

44. I don't care.

He got flummoxed trying to relate what he wrote in his book "The God Delusion," and I understand that completely since I am also someone who communicates much more fluidly in writing than in speech.

This entire topic is beautifully covered in "The God Delusion", and I think he said everything he needed to there.

[groovedaddy]

45. i.e. The Jungian archetypes. Someone else writing on this subject contended that one

of the archetypes (The Wanderer) works their way back into society via organized religion, probably the only social group willing to accept them. There are many examples of this. But then I also know many people who forsake their families BECAUSE of religion and the family's insistance on their participation.
The Dalai Llama states in one his books that, ultimately, the need of organized religion falls away.
It can't happen a minute too soon!

[Jim__]

47. He said the same thing in his book.

In his book he even goes further and names other people (both biologists and archeologists) who have different theories about what evolutionary traits may have led to religion. He also mentions the same thing he mentions in the video, namely, a concurrence of various psychological effects that may have led to religion.

And the caveat on all these ideas is that it is only an assumption that religion is not a advantageous evolutionary trait.

[darkstar3]

48. You're conflating again.

Dawkins NEVER claimed that religion was an evolutionary trait, either advantageous or otherwise. What he said is that religion is a SIDE EFFECT of certain evolutionary traits.

And of course he has to use the word "may". Evolutionary psychology is one of the most difficult fields in which to gain an absolute answer, since we have only the minds of a few generations to study, and only the SURVIVING writings of past generations. Nevertheless, Dawkins' hypothesis of religion as a side effect sure seems to fit in nicely with the data we have.

[Jim__]

49. Question from the audience: Do you think religious belief evolved in humans and does it have an ...

... evolutionary advantage?

Answer from Richard Dawkins - not an exact quote: As a Darwinian I believe that anything that is very wide spread in a species, in some sense has an evolutionary advantage. So, I would say yes it does have some sort of an evolutionary advantage.

The he goes on to qualify his answer by saying that we may be asking the wrong question and it may be some sort of a by-product of something that has an evolutionary advantage.



Now the book. My copy is the hard copy houghton mifflin. In the book, Dawkins drags out his argument across a number of pages, but the thrust is clear. We have to stongly suspect that religion has evolved.

Title page for chapter 5 - Quote from Marek Kohn: To an evolutionary psychologist, the universal extravagance of religious rituals with their costs in time, resources, pain and privation, should suggest as vivdly as a mandril's bottom that religion may be adaptive.

Of course, you can claim that Dawkins is not agreeing with this. But then, if he doesn't, the quote for chapter 5 is the only quote from the heads of 10 chapters that he doesn't agree with. IOW, Dawkins agrees with this quote. So, we begin the chapter with the strong suggestion that religion may be adaptive.

Then, from page 163:

Knowing that we are products of Darwinian evolution, we should ask what pressure or pressures exerted by natural selection originally favored the impulse to religion. The question gains urgency from standard Darwinian considerations of economy. Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste. Nature is a miserly accountant, grudging the pennies, watching the clock, ...

So, the expense of religion argues for a Darwinian component.

Continuing on page 166:

Though the details differ across the world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking ritual;s, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion. ... Universal features of a species demand a Darwinian solution.

So, according to Dawkins, the universality of religion demands a Darwinian solution.

I could go on with more quotes; but there's really no point. Dawkins says that religion demands a Darwinian solution. Yes, he argues that religion is a byproduct of other advantageous evolutionary traits. But, his certainty that religion demands a Darwinian solution is much stronger than his belief that it is not directly advantageous.

[darkstar3]

50. You're trying to build a bridge over an unbridgable gap.

The gap is this:

Evolution by natural selection has created human traits which allow for the byproduct or side effect of religion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion evolved, and is therefore evolutionarily advantageous.

Religion is not a DIRECT result of evolution by natural selection, but rather an indirect result, spawning from various DIRECT results of evolution such as the instinct to trust our elders. This statement is borne out by both of your pulled quotes from The God Delusion.

Further, you're missing the point of the chapter. If you recall, the main argument FOR religion that Dawkins is trying to debunk here is the argument of pervasiveness. An example statement:
"Religion is so pervasive, so worldwide and widespread, that it can't possibly be an accident. An external force must have created this religion, and it is reasonable to assume that this external force is God."
Dawkins is showing here that, just like so many other claims made by Christians, this phenomenon is easily explained by evolution.

But nowhere does Dawkins claim that RELIGION ITSELF evolved. Nowhere does Dawkins claim that religion is somehow an advantageous human trait. Rather, he is claiming simply that religion is the byproduct of OTHER advantageous human traits, brought into our species through the evolutionary process of natural selection.

It is a subtle difference between direct and indirect results, but it is wildly important. An example of why:
Stereotypes are the evolutionary byproduct of our brain taking shortcuts in order to determine whether we should trust someone in a split second. The ability to determine in a moment whether someone intends to hurt you is obviously advantageous, but unfortunately, this same thought process makes it easy for us to make snap character judgments that have nothing to do with our safety, like the stereotype that all black people like watermelon. No one in their right mind would argue that stereotyping is an advantageous or desirable human trait, and that is because it is NOT an advantageous DIRECT result of evolution, but rather a disadvantageous INDIRECT result of evolution. But since it doesn't kill anyone, it continues to thrive in a world of natural selection.

Religion is the sickle-cell anemia of the evolution of trust.

[Jim__]

51. You're just making stuff up.

This is a direct quote from Dawkins:

Though the details differ across the world, no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion. ... Universal features of a species demand a Darwinian solution.

At his presentation, when asked if he thought religious belief is evolutionary, he said yes.

He's merely stating what evolutionary theory teaches us. Universal traits (e.g. religion - again, direct from Dawkins book) demand a Darwinian solution.

He doesn't know, he can't know, whether or not religion confers an evolutionary advantage. He doesn't think it does. That answer does not come out of evolutionary theory. It's speculation on his part because he doesn't see selection advantages to religion. His speculation about religion not conferring a selection advantage is not science. His claim that universal features of a species demand a Darwinian solution is science.

[darkstar3]

53. I'm not making up a damn thing,

and if you'd actually read and understood The God Delusion and what I wrote above, you'd know that.

You're jumping on one sentence of Dawkins' overall hypothesis on religion and evolutionary psychology, and deliberately ignoring the subtle but wildly important difference that I talked about above and that Dawkins spent quite a while detailing. You're doing this in an obviously desperate attempt to discredit Dawkins' overall argument, and also to claim that religion could be advantageous. No surprise there. If you can show that religion might be advantageous, and gain bonus points by making it look like your argument comes from the venerated Dawkins, you can claim that us mean old atheists should leave religion alone.

But of course, no matter how much you ignore Dawkins' meaning, you're wrong.

[Silent3]

52. Don't confuse "evolutionarily advantageous" with "correct" or "of lasting value".

You can tell a small child that if he doesn't do his homework Santa won't bring him any Christmas presents. If the child responds to this, does his homework, and gets Christmas presents, believing the story about Santa Claus was advantageous to him and to his parents. That wouldn't make Santa Claus real, however.

In a philosophical discussion, my concern is not the mere efficacy of believing in a thing for whatever benefits might follow as side effects, my concern is with factual truth. There is little to recommend much of what falls under the banner of "religion" as factual truth, at least the parts of religion that can't be extracted from it and stand alone, free from supernatural trappings.

Growing heavy fur is an advantage when the climate gets colder, or a niche opens up in a colder climate that you can move into, but if the climate then warms and there are no available cooler environment to move into, the heavy fur becomes a disadvantage, possible a fatal one.

If religion has been advantageous, there's no guarantee it will remain advantageous. Then again, intelligence faces the same problem. We wouldn't be the first species to turn an advantage into a disadvantage. More than one species of saber tooth tiger may have gone extinct simply by being too good at hunting their prey, until they devastated their own food supply through over hunting.

[Jim__]

60. I'm not confusing anything.

My opening post here began with 4 questions:

• Can we educate away an evolutionary trait?
  
• if religion is an evolutionary trait, can education eliminate it?
  
• should we try to eliminate it without understanding whether or not it does confer an evolutionary advantage?
  
• is Dawkins "belief" that it doesn't confer an advantage sufficient?
  

I'm still waiting for an answer. ds3 after making all kinds of claims about me not getting the point, and not getting the subtlety, has so far been unable to rebut any of the, very clear, Dawkins quotes that I cited; nor to provide any answer to my questions.

Your concern with factual truth has nothing to do with a discussion about evolution and natural selection. Nietzsche pointed out over 100 years ago that life requires error. That applies to human life, Nietzsche was especially concerned with human life. Whether or not religion represents "factual truth," is completely irrelevant. The question is, does religion provide an evolutionary advantage?

Dawkins arguments that it doesn't are amazingly shallow. After acknowledging that it is universal among human groups he cites a few instances where religion has led to atrocities. Study some history. Human history is full of atrocities and Dawkins does nothing to demonstrate that religion is any kind of leading contributor to these atrocities. IOW, he hasn't even made the argument that religion is anything but incidental. He certainly hasn't made the case that religion is likely to lead to the extinction of man.

Before we try to change a trait that must be Darwinian (Dawkins claim), we should be sure we know how it is playing into human survival. We should not assume that it's not advantageous.

[darkstar3]

63. You keep clinging to a false premise.

Your questions start from a false premise, so there is no reason for anyone here to answer them. I have shown you why it is a false premise, but you either do not understand what I have written, or you do not care.

All four of your bullet point questions are worthless, and until and unless you see that, you and I will just be talking in circles.

[Silent3]

65. Can we educate away racial prejudice? Murder?

These things are endemic to the human condition as well, and it's quite likely that both of these have made "positive" contributions to the survival of the human species, or at least to the self-perpetuation of any genetic basis for these traits.

As for your questions "Can we educate away an evolutionary trait?" and "if religion is an evolutionary trait, can education eliminate it?", simply apply the same questions to murder and racial prejudice. The obvious answer is that you can influence the frequency and intensity of the manifestations of these traits, but you're highly unlikely to be able to eliminate them.

Since you're addressing Dawkins, and Dawkins has never advocated a program to eliminate religion, why do you chose to focus so much on this extreme word anyway?

"should we try to eliminate it without understanding whether or not it does confer an evolutionary advantage?"

If you could greatly reduce (since "eliminate" is an unreasonable goal when it comes to pretty much any human behavior) murder and racial prejudice, would you stop and worry about whether these traits were based in evolution? If they are based in evolution (and without making a big tangent to argue the case, I'd say clearly they are) would that give you pause before you considered acting to reduce these behaviors?

Dawkins arguments that it doesn't are amazingly shallow.

And what would constitute a "deep" argument for anything like this? It's not like we can run controlled experiments and take several batches of religious humans and a batches of religion-free humans, isolate them completely from each other, then take notes on their behavior and development over a few centuries.

Before we try to change a trait that must be Darwinian (Dawkins claim), we should be sure we know how it is playing into human survival. We should not assume that it's not advantageous.

I'm not completely answering your questions, but I am trying to get you to question your own questions. Why particularly worry about the evolutionary basis for religion, and whether or not that's a reason to preserve it (even promote it?), when I doubt you'd consistently express those same concerns over other traits that likely have an evolutionary basis?

[skepticscott]

66. If something is an evolutionary trait

we can, as you point out, modify or ameliorate its outward expression in a particular individual, through education or other means (providing glasses to people with bad eyes, or medication for genetic diseases, for example), but the trait itself is not "eliminated". It still resides in a person's genome, and can be passed on to succeeding generations. In fact, you can make a strong case that cultural accommodation of disadvantageous genetic traits can, in some cases, increase the likelihood of their propagation. Any genetic tendency towards nearsightedness would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool of eagles or hawks, but not so in humans, where culture provides assistance to such people in the form of corrective lenses, among other things.

[Jim__]

67. Rather than murder, we should talk about killing.

Killing, especially killing people from outside our group (tribe, clan, family, etc), seems to be an innate trait in humans (it also appears to be innate in chimpanzees - our nearest related species). It's easy to see why people have needed to kill people from other groups - resources are scarce and we're competing with other groups of humans for those scarce resource. So do I think we should try to educate people to not kill? Educate people not to go to war? Sure. But, given that it is an evolved trait, there really doesn't seem to be too much hope that we will succeed. I don't think we can afford to spend too much time or resources on the issue.

Time is the issue. Nuclear weapons are spreading to more and more nations, to less stable nations. The danger of nuclear war is increasing. If a nuclear war starts anywhere, we don't know where it will spread. To me, that is where we need to focus our time and energy, we need to focus on avoiding nuclear war. Obama has said that America's goal is to live in a world free of nuclear weapons. That's a goal worth working on. Non-nuclear wars are devastating to life in the locale where they occur. A nuclear war can be devastating to all human life. We can negotiate to reduce nuclear weapons while we have a brief time of stability. Succeeding at that negotiation can save the human race from near annihilation.

Yes, through education and law, we can greatly reduce the incidence of murder. Murder is the unlawul killing of another human. I believe that's a side effect of the evolutionary trait of killing other people for reasons of survival.

As to racial prejudice, it would seem to stem from the same survival traits as killing. Obviously, someone from another race is not a member of your tribe, clan, etc. In modern life, in daily life, we encounter people from other races all the time; and most of us don't react violently to these encounters. If we are close enough to people of another race, we do come to accept them as part of our group - I think widespread intermarriage is one way to overcome racial prejudice in a society. Obviously in the US, this is a large part of our history, and we are having a difficult time overcoming it.

Why do I raise the issue of religion? I didn't. Dawkins is raising this issue. Dawkins has a huge audience. He's wasting people's time on an issue that I believe is specious. Religion will follow its path. Dawkins is not going to have a big impact on that. If it's an evolutionary trait, he's probably not, in the long term, going to make a dent.

[Silent3]

70. I guess we should never bother with peace talks...

...because there will always be war, not bother talking about environmentalism, because there will always be pollution, etc.

Dawkins is not going to have a big impact on that. If it's an evolutionary trait, he's probably not, in the long term, going to make a dent.

I don't think Jim__ is going to have make a big dent in human culture either. So why are you still talking? :)

While religion, like many, MANY other human traits and behaviors has a likely basis in evolution, the degree to which it is expressed, and the form of that expression, are obviously highly variable and malleable.

Whether Dawkins, or any other human being like Silent3 or Jim__ who speaks his or her mind about a subject, ultimately has much effect in the world at large is pretty much beside the point. Individually or collectively we human beings clearly can effect the degree and form of the expression of religious tendencies, just like we can affect the degree and form of aggression, sexual competition, social domination, territorialism, xenophobia, etc.

What is it that so gets your goat about Dawkins having his own say in a personal attempt to reduce the appeal (not at all an impossible goal!) of acting on religious impulses in a way that leads to superstitious behavior and delusional thinking?

[Jim__]

74. Well, I'd say you should just keep on guessing.

After enough guesses, you're almost bound to hit upon a valid conclusion. :)

Of course, if you want to reach a valid conclusion quicker, you could read up on logical inference, and then you can base your conclusions on statements that have actually been made.

What is it that so gets your goat about Dawkins having his own say in a personal attempt to reduce the appeal (not at all an impossible goal!) of acting on religious impulses in a way that leads to superstitious behavior and delusional thinking?

Whoops. There you go again; that inability to draw a valid inference. Don't worry, just keep on guessing and sooner or later you're bound to reach a valid conclusion. :) :)

We can either discuss the issue, or proceed with the usual internet nonsense.

[Silent3]

75. Please do, tell me what the "issue" is.

I'm obviously not grasping the grand import of your insightful rhetoric. :eyes:

[Jim__]

78. See post #60.

But, my main point about internet nonsense is making assertions that are not apparently based on any previous statements, for instance:

What is it that so gets your goat about Dawkins ...

If you want to make such assertions, please state the basis from previous posts for making them. Otherwise, internet discussions tend to go off on completely unrelated, and often ridiculous, tangents. I get the impression that these tangents are deliberate efforts to avoid addressing an issue.

[Silent3]

79. I've read post 60 now, I read it before...

...and I still reach the same conclusions.

1) Your questions in post 60 aren't very meaningful unless you're willing to voice the exact same concerns about other behavioral traits based in evolution that we attempt to moderate or eliminate from our behavior. That you say Dawkins brought up religion, and that's your reason for focusing on religion and ignoring anything else, is not a good excuse.
2) Dawkins sure gets your goat.

And I'll now add a third conclusion:

3) You'll whimper and moan and blame others for "not understanding" and "not getting your point" and rather than deal with any of the above.

[Jim__]

80. Your inability to discuss the issue renders the discussion pointless.

From your last 3 posts:

What is it that so gets your goat about Dawkins having his own say in a personal attempt to reduce the appeal (not at all an impossible goal!) of acting on religious impulses in a way that leads to superstitious behavior and delusional thinking?

I'm obviously not grasping the grand import of your insightful rhetoric.

2) Dawkins sure gets your goat.

And I'll now add a third conclusion:

3) You'll whimper and moan and blame others for "not understanding" and "not getting your point" and rather than deal with any of the above.

These are the typical kinds of intellectually dishonest arguments that don't distinguish between discussing an issue and attacking someone who disagrees with you. Read through my posts. I have not attacked you (as close as I came was in post #74 which was an appeal to cut out the nonsense). I have been trying to discuss the issue. Do you just lack the knowledge to discuss the issue without throwing in gratuitous ad hominem's?

[Silent3]

81. I see you repeated points 2 and 3 from my last post, but not point 1.

1) Your questions in post 60 aren't very meaningful unless you're willing to voice the exact same concerns about other behavioral traits based in evolution that we attempt to moderate or eliminate from our behavior. That you say Dawkins brought up religion, and that's your reason for focusing on religion and ignoring anything else, is not a good excuse.

2 and 3 are just commentary on the first point, the most relevant. If you think you've dealt with it, I don't agree. Perhaps you suffer from an "inability to discuss the issue".

[Lost-in-FL]

57. +1

[Jim__]

46. delete.

[Lost-in-FL]

56. Memes, just like evolution and gravity are just theories.

YOU LIE!!!111!!