tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8387565930431161335..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Science, Religion, and Separate MagisteriaLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35328233737956425332008-09-02T13:31:00.000-04:002008-09-02T13:31:00.000-04:00This Anonymous agrees with Prof. Moran. God is a m...This Anonymous agrees with Prof. Moran. God is a mythical figure and religious doctrine (ideology, particular beliefs) is superstition. <BR/><BR/>But religious behaviour (and therefore religious expression) appear to be part of our extended phenotype with a basis in our genotype. Prof. Moran doesn't concede the phenotypical-genotypical nature of religious behaviour and expression. He argues that religion is simply a cultural phenomenon....<BR/><BR/>I say nature; he says nurture. Or rather, I say nature culturally expressed. I wonder what twin studies have to say on the subject. Twins, separated at birth, who both grow up in religious families to be non-believers? Twins who grow up in atheistical families to be priests? <BR/><BR/>AnonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66315315794591483672008-09-02T13:28:00.000-04:002008-09-02T13:28:00.000-04:00anonymous says,Religion certainly isn't going away...anonymous says,<BR/><BR/><I>Religion certainly isn't going away in our lifetime.</I><BR/><BR/>Been to Europe recently? Or Canada?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36220203361574105872008-09-02T10:21:00.000-04:002008-09-02T10:21:00.000-04:00The chief rules but who rules the chief? God both ...<I>The chief rules but who rules the chief? God both justifies and supports the dominance hierarchy.</I><BR/><BR/>Doesn't that make God an atheist? Whom does he serve? If Christians are denigrating atheists, then they are denigrating God.<BR/><BR/><I>We are simply abandoning our belief in superstition and learning to live productive lives without that crutch.</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe, maybe not. Religion certainly isn't going away in our lifetime. Maybe things will go the other way. It would be interesting to come back in a thousand or ten thousand years and check up on your prediction, but of course none of us can do that. So it's really just rhetoric, isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23425003300126037542008-09-02T10:03:00.000-04:002008-09-02T10:03:00.000-04:00anonymous says,The question becomes: what do you s...anonymous says,<BR/><BR/><I>The question becomes: what do you substitute for religion? The Constitution of the USA? Soccer? Hockey? My country right or wrong? Liberalism? Communism? Democracy? The Arts and Letters Club? Opera? The future? Our children? (Politicians are particularly fond of the last two).</I><BR/><BR/>I equate "religious behavior" with "superstition." The fight is between rationalism and superstition. So, what do you substitute for religion? The answer is rationalism.<BR/><BR/><I>How stable or beneficial are these substitutions?</I><BR/><BR/>Extremely, That's why we've been steadily moving in the direction of rationalism—and away from superstition—for several millennia.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I reject the notion that we are "substituting" anything to take the place of religion. We are simply abandoning our belief in superstition and learning to live productive lives without that crutch.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50037811617742874902008-09-02T08:31:00.000-04:002008-09-02T08:31:00.000-04:00I guess I would say, very tentatively, that we can...I guess I would say, very tentatively, that we can (and have) abandonned religions. No one worships Thor (as far as I know) today....<BR/><BR/>We can (and do) abandon religions but we can't necessarily abandon the behaviours that we characterize as religious. These behaviours appear to involve gathering in groups and engaging in various movements and vocalizations that are intended to address nature (in some way) -- to control it, or show awe or obedience, etc.<BR/><BR/>There would also seem to be a relationship between dominance and religious behaviour. The chief rules but who rules the chief? God both justifies and supports the dominance hierarchy.<BR/><BR/>"Religion" is a cultural term; "religious behaviours" is an anthropological or sociological one. You can alter the culture but you can only suppress the behaviours by draconian and coercive means and usually by a kind of simultanteous substitution of a "new God" for the old one -- see the advent of Roman Christianity, the spread of Islam and the Bolshevik revolution as examples of supression plus substitution. (Bolshevism suppressed religion itself and then substituted leader-worship and an ideology of the earthly utopia). Some forms of militant atheism may also qualify as a substitute for religion.<BR/><BR/>The question becomes: what do you substitute for religion? The Constitution of the USA? Soccer? Hockey? My country right or wrong? Liberalism? Communism? Democracy? The Arts and Letters Club? Opera? The future? Our children? (Politicians are particularly fond of the last two).<BR/><BR/>How stable or beneficial are these substitutions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82579979646568223132008-08-29T16:13:00.000-04:002008-08-29T16:13:00.000-04:00anonymous says,What do slavery and the subjection ...anonymous says,<BR/><BR/><I>What do slavery and the subjection of women have in common? They are extreme forms of domination; they are, if you like, "pathological" variations of the ordinary human dominance hierachy. Dominance is incribed in the human life cycle (adults control children) and in our social behaviour. It is exhibited in our closest living primate relatives in various forms as well. We are the dominant animal and we establish dominance hierarchies everywhere, from the kindergarten to the biochemistry department.</I><BR/><BR/>Why don't you reduce religion to such a fundamental? <BR/><BR/>You seem to agree that our society can abandon things like slavery but not dominance. Why can't we abandon religion as well?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24538792037242755552008-08-29T10:11:00.000-04:002008-08-29T10:11:00.000-04:00P.S. Apologies for the typos etc. in the previous ...P.S. Apologies for the typos etc. in the previous post: Writing too much too quickly.<BR/><BR/>The general point is simple: If we take (human) evolution seriously then we should think about human behaviour and its regulation in terms that are consistent with our nature as a species. Phenotypical plasticity is not without its limits.<BR/><BR/>The hypothesical on which this kind of thinking about religion is based is this: behaviours that are universals (found in all human cultures at all times) are inscribed in our brains and genes. They can assume different cultural forms but they cannot be eliminated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17966401687319070822008-08-29T09:56:00.000-04:002008-08-29T09:56:00.000-04:00Prof. Moran asks: "How do you feel about slavery, ...Prof. Moran asks: <BR/><BR/>"How do you feel about slavery, capital punishment, the treatment of women as inferiors, and monarchies? They've also been around for a very long time. Do you think they're going to be with us forever?"<BR/><BR/>Well, monarchies may have some redeeming features, although I tend to republicanism and won't be at all unhappy when the Queens ceases to be Canada's head of state.... Monarchy is a form of social dominance based (often) on birth. <BR/><BR/>What do slavery and the subjection of women have in common? They are extreme forms of domination; they are, if you like, "pathological" variations of the ordinary human dominance hierachy. Dominance is incribed in the human life cycle (adults control children) and in our social behaviour. It is exhibited in our closest living primate relatives in various forms as well. We are the dominant animal and we establish dominance hierarchies everywhere, from the kindergarten to the biochemistry department.<BR/><BR/>So, if you were to ask me a rather less tendencious question: Will dominance hierachies always be with us? I would say yes. Humans will always arrange their families, institutions, national and international affairs hierarchically. We are a hierarchical species. <BR/><BR/>The real issue is the culture and modalities of dominance. Will we selected our dominant females and males democratically or will we allow existing dominants to appoint their successors. Will we permit subjection? (Or, rather, how such subjection are we prepared to tolerate?) Our universities, for example, are authoritarian institutions in their internal organization (although they may play a democratic role in a broader social context). In our city halls, authoritarianism is still present, but it is regulated by democratic forms. Elites compete to "nominate" their mayoral candidates and then those candidates compete for votes. A similar thing happens at other levels of government and in some internally democratic institutions, like political parties and (indeed) some churches and other religious associations.<BR/>(Universities justify authoritarianism on scholarly grounds, but its real purpose is, in fact, broader and much less edifying).<BR/><BR/>Human hierarchies, we all agree, must exclude slavery and the subjection of women. They must also exclude other pathological and authoritarian forms of control. (As a democrat, I would argue for much greater democracy in the administration of the universities.) This effort to regulate the formation of hierarchies is part of the theory of democracy. <BR/><BR/>Capital punishment? In our hierarchies we define rules or limits. We write laws. We say those laws apply to everyone equally (at least in liberal democracies) although in practice they do not. Transgression is suppressed and, in part, suppressed by punishment. Does capital punishment fall within the reasonable bounds of this regulation? Is it just? Is it good policy? I would argue that capital punishment tends to be unjust and is, all things considered, bad policy. Therefore we should not execute transgressors. (But should we disallow all authorized killing by the state?)<BR/><BR/>Dominance hierarchies and the regulation of individual behaviour (social sanction) are indeed inscribed, at some level, in our biology, our brains and our genes. They will indeed be with us forever. The real issue is how to ascribe lawful, just and democratic boundaries to the imposition of authority on individuals and groups. Locke. Jefferson. Trudeau.<BR/><BR/>Prof. Moran's evolutionism seems restricted to the molecular level; he seems to reject a broader application of evolutionary principles to human behaviour and society, in a way the SJ Gould (say) did not. If we are an evolved social species, then oughtn't we to think about ourselves that way? <BR/>Ought's we to think about human universals (dominance hierarchies, religious behaviour, art) that way too?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55505423740146077922008-08-28T20:19:00.000-04:002008-08-28T20:19:00.000-04:00anonymous says,The thing about religion proper is ...anonymous says,<BR/><BR/><I>The thing about religion proper is that it has been with us, so the evidence suggests, from the dawn of the species, from the advent of language, and for all of recorded history. It will be with us, IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, forever. It is part of the human behavioural repertoire and it is culturally expressed. No amount of criticism or sound argument will eliminate it, just as no amount of criticism will eliminate sex, singing, sleep, game-playing among children, gambling and the use of drugs (also human universals), aggression and violence, etc. etc.</I><BR/><BR/>How do you feel about slavery, capital punishment, the treatment of women as inferiors, and monarchies? They've also been around for a very long time. Do you think they're going to be with us forever?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85041541651563790642008-08-28T09:27:00.000-04:002008-08-28T09:27:00.000-04:00I don't disagree, by and large.Of course atheism a...I don't disagree, by and large.<BR/><BR/>Of course atheism as "doctrine" is just an ideology; as an attitude it is skepticism. (It is also true, in my view.) But it is in the BEHAVIOUR of the adherants that atheism (like other ideologies) can become cult-like.<BR/><BR/>Religious behaviour should be distinguished from religious doctrine. Arguably the practices of political parties (ritual performance, intense focus on dominants [a.k.a. leaders], exclusion of outsiders, funny hats and t-shirts, etc. etc.) are examples of religious behaviour.<BR/><BR/>The thing about religion proper is that it has been with us, so the evidence suggests, from the dawn of the species, from the advent of language, and for all of recorded history. It will be with us, IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, forever. It is part of the human behavioural repertoire and it is culturally expressed. No amount of criticism or sound argument will eliminate it, just as no amount of criticism will eliminate sex, singing, sleep, game-playing among children, gambling and the use of drugs (also human universals), aggression and violence, etc. etc. We need to democratically manage some or all of these behaviours for the common good and for our health and well-being, but we will do MUCH MORE HARM THAN GOOD if we try to eliminate them.<BR/><BR/>God is a mythological figure that has evolved through cultural time and continues to evolve. God will always be with us. We should learn to live with our own mythology.<BR/><BR/>Religion is a cultural practice, like going to the theatre or movies or camping. Religions are associations--clubs--that people join because they enjoy the activities and the feelings they get. Religious behaviour stimulates parts of our brains, the way rock climbing does. There are many different clubs--Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. You can even leave one club and join another if you want. Some people really get into their religious clubs, the way some get into the book club or the movie club. They go to the clubhouse (Church, Mosque, Shul, etc.) three times a week the way others watch Star Trek every day and attend Star Trek conventions and learn Klingon. (Trekkies have invented their own very strange religion). <BR/><BR/>Atheists should state their case forcefully and resist the imposition of religion on their lives, but, as a political matter, they should also practice a pragmatic and enlightened accommodationism with religion BECAUSE IT IS MUCH MORE THAN A MYTHOLOGY, IT IS SOMETHING THAT HUMANS DO AND ENJOY.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-53004763876850442772008-08-27T16:12:00.000-04:002008-08-27T16:12:00.000-04:00Atheism is, in its militant form, just another rel...<I>Atheism is, in its militant form, just another religion, a cult. Just as interesting and just as dangerous.</I><BR/><BR/>What exactly does one have to take on faith in order to be an atheist? What does one have to believe based on insufficient evidence to reject the notion of god's existence? No one claims that disbelief in Thor is dangerous or militant.<BR/><BR/>There have been dangerous atheists, of course. But atheism is simply stating that there is no evidence for the existence of god. No more, no less. The gulags and the gas chambers were not the result of demanding too much evidence.<BR/><BR/>Atheists have been too quiet for too long; careful not to openly question religion. The recent surge in what some have called "militant" or "new" atheism is simply the result of the recognition that 21st century technology is incompatible with 1st century iconography and morality. We can no longer afford to let religious notions go unquestioned; not when fissile material is so readily available.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09297263039516044615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75444454642763650512008-08-27T15:53:00.000-04:002008-08-27T15:53:00.000-04:00Atheism is, in its militant form, just another rel...Atheism is, in its militant form, just another religion, a cult. Just as interesting and just as dangerous.<BR/><BR/>In its more relaxed form, atheism is nothing much in itself, just an attitude, a starting point, an opening....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19518611571521110022008-08-27T15:11:00.000-04:002008-08-27T15:11:00.000-04:00I think what I'm advocating is called Unitarianism...<I>I think what I'm advocating is called Unitarianism or, here in Canada, the United Church</I><BR/><BR/>I was, in fact, baptised in the United Church. I recognize that they are, in general, the most moderate, most accepting, most liberal of all of the Christian sects. Though I'm fairly sure that most practicing members believe that Jesus was the son of god. There are crucifixes hanging on the walls of every United Church I've ever been to.<BR/><BR/><I>In many reformed religious groups in several different traditions you aren't even required to believe in God (although you can if you want). Instead, you are freely associating with people who value and wish to sustain a particular textual or poetic tradition.</I><BR/><BR/>You're describing Secular Judaism (amongst others) to a tee, I think. What you're describing is retention of cultural values, and that's fantastic. Unfortunately, most cultural traditions are so intertwined with religious ones that it becomes difficult to untangle them. As I said, I think secular Judaism is probably the best example we have of shedding the religious baggage while retaining the important cultural ties that bind.<BR/><BR/><I>Most of these people (I think) would tell you that the universe began with a singularity and the life on earth is several billion years old and that humans are primates that evolved from a precursor species that we would recognize as a bipedal ape.</I><BR/><BR/>I have no doubt. That wasn't my point, however. My point was that according to many polls (including one released here in Canada earlier this month), the <B>majority</B> of all people do not believe in the biological fact of evolution. More than half of all Americans believe that Jesus will literally return to Earth some time in the next 50 years. This is not a straw-man of religion; it may not describe your granny, but, if you believe the polls, it describes MOST religious people.<BR/><BR/><I>As for me, I don't practice religion but I try to see it from a distance, as an anthropological phenomenon, a cultural practice, that is extremely interesting (and pretty dangerous).</I><BR/><BR/>And it is that last point that makes us rail against it; that makes us recognize, as Sam Harris has put it, that we cannot go on paying the price for the "ignorance of our iconography". The maintenance of cultural diversity is one thing (and it is a good thing), but the continued non-questioning of fundamentally bad (and, as you say, dangerous ideas) cannot be allowed to continue.<BR/><BR/><I>Engaged atheism lacks scientific objectivity. What it produces, therefore, is doctrine and ideology, not dispassionate analysis and understanding.</I><BR/><BR/>As an atheist, I ask only that the same standards of evidence we use for everything else be applied equally to questions pertaining to the existence of god or gods. "God exists" is a hypothesis about the universe; a hypothesis that brings with it a plethora of very bad things. If god really exists and really wants young engineers and architects to fly planes into buildings, then so be it (it would still, of course, be wrong). But I first ask, at the bare minimum, that the evidence be proffered to support this hypothesis.<BR/><BR/><I>Atheism is a form of extreme dissent, a kind of Ultra-Puritanism.</I><BR/><BR/>Atheism is no more a form of dissent than is disbelief in alchemy or that Elvis is alive. No atheist I've ever met or read has ever said that the cultural traditions that are often associated with religion are without value; quite the opposite, most say that these traditions are valuable and should be cherished, but should (and can) be stripped from their religious origins (again, in the tradition of secular Judaism).Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09297263039516044615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17990029267725686402008-08-27T14:20:00.000-04:002008-08-27T14:20:00.000-04:00I think what I'm advocating is called Unitarianism...I think what I'm advocating is called Unitarianism or, here in Canada, the United Church ... or various cognate styles of religion in Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other traditions.<BR/><BR/>In many reformed religious groups in several different traditions you aren't even required to believe in God (although you can if you want). Instead, you are freely associating with people who value and wish to sustain a particular textual or poetic tradition. It is almost an esthetic choice. Most of these people (I think) would tell you that the universe began with a singularity and the life on earth is several billion years old and that humans are primates that evolved from a precursor species that we would recognize as a bipedal ape. They would tell you that Jesus is a mythical figure, the hero of a narrative that provides insights and inspiration (as many narratives do). The end of the world will surely come, but not until the earth stops rotating or the sun goes nova (or humans poison the biosphere).<BR/><BR/>As for me, I don't practice religion but I try to see it from a distance, as an anthropological phenomenon, a cultural practice, that is extremely interesting (and pretty dangerous). <BR/><BR/>Engaged atheism lacks scientific objectivity. What it produces, therefore, is doctrine and ideology, not dispassionate analysis and understanding. Atheism is a form of extreme dissent, a kind of Ultra-Puritanism. To avoid becoming the thing you oppose, practice moderation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50665003645720950242008-08-27T13:56:00.000-04:002008-08-27T13:56:00.000-04:00But militant atheism seems to me to resemble a kin...<I>But militant atheism seems to me to resemble a kind of religious behaviour, a demand for Orthodoxy and the public rejection of Falsehood. A kind of Crusade or Revival. The mirror image of what it seeks to oppose.</I><BR/><BR/>No one is demanding orthodoxy. All of the vocal, well-known atheists I can think of and have read (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling, PZ, Larry, etc) are simply asking that religion be subjected to the same evidentiary standards as everything else. This is not a reaction to the "Golden Rule" or the "god is love" aspects of religion; a world in which religion took this form exclusively would be welcome.<BR/><BR/>No, these people are reacting to the <B>reality</B> of religion; to the notion that, whatever its origins may be, religion is inherently bad because it teaches people to value ignorance and to believe things that are manifestly false. They are reacting to real people whose real beliefs and actions threaten the safety and well-being of everyone else.<BR/><BR/>So if your plan is to neuter religion; to take what we can from it and dispose of the rest, then so be it. But the evidence suggests that this is not possible. You're asking for the drunkenness without the drink, so to speak.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09297263039516044615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28877522611318196672008-08-27T13:44:00.000-04:002008-08-27T13:44:00.000-04:00I suppose what I am suggesting is a more nuanced a...I suppose what I am suggesting is a more nuanced and diplomatic approach based on a recognition that religious behaviour is here to stay because it has been inscribed in our brains (and genes) by natural selection.<BR/><BR/>If so, then channeling and moulding religious expression would seem to be a better strategy than simply denouncing it. By denouncing it you only strengthen it as religious people "stick to their guns".<BR/><BR/>But maybe not: maybe militant atheism does force some people who would otherwise not consider the matter to actually think....<BR/><BR/>But militant atheism seems to me to resemble a kind of religious behaviour, a demand for Orthodoxy and the public rejection of Falsehood. A kind of Crusade or Revival. The mirror image of what it seeks to oppose.<BR/><BR/>As I say, religious behaviour emerges in all kinds of contexts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57355104451432008722008-08-27T12:40:00.000-04:002008-08-27T12:40:00.000-04:00Of course, religion, even if false, gives many peo...<I>Of course, religion, even if false, gives many people pleasure, the way listening to music gives pleasure. It gives them consolation, peace of mind, purpose, etc. etc.) If we could simply have "religion for pleasure" then what harm would it be?</I><BR/><BR/>And there's the rub. All of those things can be had WITHOUT presupposing anything on insufficient evidence. <BR/><BR/>I have no doubt that the communal aspects of religion are valuable to many. But in what way does that sense of community necessarily depend upon the belief that Jesus walked on water or that Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse?<BR/><BR/>Are religious people so void of intellect that they have to fool themselves into believing things that are clearly false in order to acheive the fringe benefits of religion? I would hope not. What we need is a concerted effort to show that all of these things (community, morality, a sense of purpose) can be had without the epistemological and theological baggage associated with religion.<BR/><BR/>Consider that the vast majority of people living in the United States believe that Jesus Christ will return to Earth <B>in their lifetimes</B>. That belief has serious consequences for the rest of us who know that it simply isn't true.<BR/><BR/>Even if religion and superstition are byproducts of our evolution (which I suspect it is, at least in part), we need not be slaves to them. Rape is also part of our evolutionary history, and we, for the most part, do not rape. <BR/><BR/>No one is advocating for the elimination of religion or the banning of religion or anything of the sort. What atheists are doing is (a) exposing the fact that religion is a hypothesis about the world, like any other, and that there is no evidence to support the truth of that hypothesis (the Sam Harris/Richard Dawkins approach), (b) exposing the ugly side of religion (the Chris Hitchens approach, as though it needed exposing), and (c) showing that what is good in religion is not unique to religion and can be had without the dreaming up the existence of an imaginary god.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09297263039516044615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31744639489489176522008-08-27T09:56:00.000-04:002008-08-27T09:56:00.000-04:00Yes, if religion is merely a cultural phenomenon f...Yes, if religion is merely a cultural phenomenon founded on a falsehood (the existence of a deity), then it may make some sense to try to eliminate it, if it is deemed to be pernicious. <BR/><BR/>Of course, religion, even if false, gives many people pleasure, the way listening to music gives pleasure. It gives them consolation, peace of mind, purpose, etc. etc.) If we could simply have "religion for pleasure" then what harm would it be?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps we need to make a distinction between "religious behaviour" and "Religion"; it could be that the former is an evolved part of the human phenotype, while the latter is its particular cultural expression at any given time. (Just as speech is phenotypical while language is learned). Thus, different times and places invent different Religions to regulate or provide a context for religious behaviour. If that is the case, then the key is not to attempt to suppress religious behaviour but to adapt existing Religions (or invent new ones) to meet human needs and satisfy innate religious behaviours without the odious ideological and behavioural "side effects". <BR/><BR/>This is the same kind of argument that evolutionists have used with respect to human aggression, male bonding and violence. Aggression, bonding and violence are things we do as humans; things we are in some way programmed to do; so we need to provide satisfying surrogates for them so that they don't get out of hand. Thus football and hockey. Hockey is to aggressive competition what Religion is to the impulse to worship and venerate.<BR/><BR/>A minor point: Millions abandon religion, yes, but how many people abandon religious behaviour? Rituals are the foundation of social life in the university and in the sciences. Nobel prizes are part of context of worship, for example. Think of graduation ceremonies; think of factionalism in departments. We don't so much abandon religious behaviour as transfer it to other domains. We worship founding fathers (ancestors) like Darwin and Newton. We seek new saviours...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59591015872802665902008-08-27T09:16:00.000-04:002008-08-27T09:16:00.000-04:00anonymous says,But if we take human evolution seri...anonymous says,<BR/><BR/><I>But if we take human evolution seriously and if we accept the argument that religious behaviour is a human universal (and so likely to have a basis in our brains and, ultimately, our genes), ...</I><BR/><BR/>I certainly don't believe that. If religion has such a genetic component then it's difficult to explain how so many millions can abandon it so easily. <BR/><BR/>Religion is a cultural phenomenon, just like belief in magic or extreme nationalism.<BR/><BR/><I> ... then it makes little sense to attempt to eliminate religion. Rather, we should attempt to influence religion so that it does no harm.</I><BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if religion is merely a cultural phenomenon and man invented God, then trying to get people to abandon this delusion is acceptable, right?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84273373011329167262008-08-27T09:09:00.000-04:002008-08-27T09:09:00.000-04:00anonymous says,I think evolutionists should see re...anonymous says,<BR/><BR/><I>I think evolutionists should see religion and religious behavior (individual and social) in evolutionary terms and understand that it is a deeply rooted part of the human behavioral repertoire.</I><BR/><BR/>At the risk of being offensive—a risk I frequently take—let's rephrease that statement. <BR/><BR/><I>I think evolutionists should see superstition and superstitious behavior (individual and social) in evolutionary terms and understand that it is a deeply rooted part of the human behavioral repertoire.</I><BR/><BR/>Now it looks quite different, doesn't it? Yes, we recognize that belief in things like astrology, predicting the future by looking at the entrails of chickens, and homeopathy are all part of human behavior. That doesn't mean we should ignore it and it doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to convince people to become more rational.<BR/><BR/>Was that the point? <BR/><BR/>People have believed silly things for as long as there have been people. Evolutionists understand that. What they don't do is use it as an excuse.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51453046143126449802008-08-27T08:45:00.000-04:002008-08-27T08:45:00.000-04:00But if we take human evolution seriously and if we...But if we take human evolution seriously and if we accept the argument that religious behaviour is a human universal (and so likely to have a basis in our brains and, ultimately, our genes), then it makes little sense to attempt to eliminate religion. Rather, we should attempt to influence religion so that it does no harm.<BR/><BR/>You can't eliminate religious behaviour any more than you can eliminate speech, bipedal locomotion, hanging out in groups, mating rituals or any other part of the human phenotype.<BR/><BR/>Instead of advocating atheism, evolutionists should be supportive of religious expression that is pro-science, non-extremist, respectful of liberties, etc.<BR/><BR/>The question, if you take human evolution seriously, isn't "religion yes or no?" but "what kind of religion?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30002002038998972412008-08-26T20:15:00.000-04:002008-08-26T20:15:00.000-04:00I think evolutionists should see religion and reli...<I>I think evolutionists should see religion and religious behavior (individual and social) in evolutionary terms and understand that it is a deeply rooted part of the human behavioral repertoire.</I><BR/><BR/>Amen to that.<BR/><BR/>What I dont see it as is 'true', or, in fact, as necessary. All that is good about religion can be had without religion.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09297263039516044615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33935776538844117042008-08-26T15:19:00.000-04:002008-08-26T15:19:00.000-04:00Historically religious faith has been an essential...Historically religious faith has been an essential MOTIVATION for many scientists, including Newton, who believed that he was describing God's works. <BR/><BR/>Much of the early work in natural history and, later, biology, was also done in this spirit. Mendel was a Catholic monk who believed that he had discerned God's pattern in nature; he may even have seen his ratios as an argument (in his own mind) against Godless evolutionism or against natural selection. Early Mendelians, after 1900, understood heredity as a lawful process of unfolding numbers--the very opposite of variation and selection. Or rather, they understood variation as a lawful and fixed mathematical process.<BR/><BR/>We live in a God-free universe and always have, but historically the religious motivation is very important to the development of science. We see vestiges of religion in the iconography of DNA. The double helix has become a kind of "symbol of the infinite" or of the ineffably beautiful--a spiritual symbol.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that religion is true, only that it is relevant to the history of science and, no doubt, in some instances, to its practice today.<BR/><BR/>I think evolutionists should see religion and religious behavior (individual and social) in evolutionary terms and understand that it is a deeply rooted part of the human behavioral repertoire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32225870458675224412008-08-26T14:10:00.000-04:002008-08-26T14:10:00.000-04:00The lab will again answer the pulpit and strike a ...<I>The lab will again answer the pulpit and strike a blow for science and secularism.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree, but "the pulpit" adds nothing to the discussion, irrespective of what science does or does not do. If Newton had not described gravity, "intelligent falling" would not be a suitable descriptor or anything, if only because it begs the question.<BR/><BR/>"The pulpit" has never done anything to enhance, even one iota, our knowledge of the physical world. If you think 'the Creator" is responsible for the origin of life, you'll need not only to show that this is the case (i.e. the Creator actually did create life), but also that "the Creator" exists at all.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09297263039516044615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64799133423025970612008-08-26T13:13:00.000-04:002008-08-26T13:13:00.000-04:00Mike,Evolution is a fact. Adaptive radiation is a ...Mike,<BR/><BR/>Evolution is a fact. Adaptive radiation is a theory of speciation. I only mention the finches because they are famous. I might have used cichlids, sticklebacks or drosopholids as examples. Or Miocene apes, for a paleontological example.<BR/><BR/>We have induced speciation in lab settings and have observed incipient species in the wild.<BR/><BR/>The issue isn't "the reality of evolution", it is answering an important (perhaps THE most important) big unanswered question in biology--How did life begin?--as best we can. We're not there yet. It will be a great step forward when we are. The lab will again answer the pulpit and strike a blow for science and secularism.<BR/><BR/>There was a time when many naturalists thought we would never really understand the origin of species. They were wrong. Today many biologists say we will never really understand the origin of life. I suspect that they're wrong too.<BR/><BR/>Anon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com