Sloan Reviews Dawkins
by MikeGeneIt's been four months since I posted an entry on Dawkins, so I decided that I better not disappoint any longer. Today, I bring you a truly thought-provoking review of Dawkins' book from biologist David Sloan Wilson. Sloan begins his lengthy review with:
When Dawkins' The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues.
and ends it with:
Time will tell where Dawkins sits on the bell curve of open-mindedness concerning group selection in general and religion in particular. At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.
For those of us interested in evolution and religion, I highly recommend the review to you (it provides balance to the religion-as-accident "theory" I discussed before). I will probably offer some brief comments, but wait until tomorrow so you can read the review without the filter of my words.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:43 am
I scanned this article yesterday and thought it would find interest here. Glad you posted about it. I have long thought that the persistance of religion in human life demonstrated it's survival value from an evolutionary point of view. Further, the idea of group selection is another way of saying that we stand stronger together than as isolated individuals-greater than the sum of the parts point of view. So, I hope further study is forthcoming.
As to Dawkins, the man is a religious bigot. The real question is why are some bigots tolerated and others not.
Comment by bj — July 12, 2007 @ 9:43 am
July 12th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Dawkins is mistaken on this aspect of human nature. Most people would choose a vibrant belief over a sterile rationality–even if you explain it to them really, really slowly. Religion and belief are important aspects of human existence.
No more so than most any other evangelist who thinks that they have the one true answer.
Comment by Zachriel — July 12, 2007 @ 10:18 am
July 12th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Hi Zachriel,
I wrote:
You responded:
That bigotry flows both ways in religion is undoubtedly true. Some theists toward atheists. Some atheists toward theists.
I don't know if belieiving in a 'one true way' necessarily makes one a bigot. Bigotry speaks of arrogance, intolerance, feelings of superiority, and a willingness to countenance oppressive actions against those you disagree with.
Certainly, those attitudes are tempting for anyone believing in 'the way'. But, I think you can hold that kind of belief and still be respectful of those who think otherwise, realizing that they may be more correct that you happen to be. I don't think that believing in 'the one true way' automatically makes one a bigot.
But, I do think Dawkins is a bigot.
Comment by bj — July 12, 2007 @ 10:45 am
July 12th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Hi Mike,
I agree this is a thought provoking review. For those who don't like to click links, I think this is a relevant quote from the article…
I am most comfortable when individuals are thinking for themselves. What makes me nervous is when Group Think kicks in and people start believing there is only one Truth for us all and they know what it is.
To that end, I am curious as to your (and other's) reaction to Sloan's suggestion "…that religions are fair game for criticism in a pluralistic society and that the stigma associated with atheism needs to be removed. "
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 12, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Hi TP,
Of course religions are fair game. They always have been. I can't imagine that any endeavour has been as heavily critiqued, from both inside and out - and probably from the beginning of time.
How do you think this would be accomplished? By decree?
Don't forget to do science.
Comment by Pez — July 12, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
From the last section of the article:
Funny, I bet Dawkins doesn't find the phenomenon quite as moving when someone responds the same way at a revival service…
Comment by Ken Brown — July 12, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Folks, as far as I know it's David (Dave) S. Wilson, not Sloan (his father was Sloan Wilson).
Or DS Wilson (as opposed to EO Wilson, the other well-known sociobiologist named Wilson).
Comment by Raevmo — July 12, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
TP,
Generally, I agree. In a pluralistic society, everything is open for critique. The crucial element is the spirit of the critique which flows from the character of the one doing criticism. There is this strange phenomenon when considering the internal effect of taking a faith position (most if not all metaphysics are ultimately faith positions). The certainty created within the faithful (atheist or theist) is far in excess of the probability of that belief system actually being true, in my opinion. We need to bring in the psychologists to help us understand this. What we're going to have to develop is a trait which I would call 'radical tolerance'. This does not mean that we believe that all belief systems are equal. It means that we do understand daily our position in actually having the ability to reach ultimate reality. We are ants in comparison to the deep realities around us. We should be humble. If, when approaching our fellows each day, we take a minute to muse about the fact that they have just as much chance as being right about these big picture issues as I do, I think it would help. If we occasionally thought, they probably are closer to reality than I happen to be, I think that would be more helpful. These are disciplines designed to keep ourselves in check so that we don't get too metaphysically uppity.
But, there are attitudes that we all know are destructive. Bigotry is one of them and it must be identified and ostracized whenever encountered.
Comment by bj — July 12, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
What! A Darwinist making misrepresentations, not possible.
Actually, in all the time I have followed Dawkins, I seriously don't recall that I've had to object to him making a misrepresentation of the ideas of creationists or ID proponents. He has struck me as someone who is mistaken and bigoted, but who still had a sense of moral responsibility to represent the ideas of others accurately.
His critique of ID has usually been to shallow to have the crafty misrepresentations and falsehoods that Miller is a genius at weaving in.
His honesty in treatment of ID proponents arguments has been in contrast to the rather slimey behavior of Ken Miller. So I find this criticism by Wilson of Dawkins a bit surprising.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 12, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
That's a great description of the mindset of reductionistic materialism that pervades academia and its fellow believers.
Comment by mcromer — July 12, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I'm not sure I agree.
It's clear that in academia, the shoe is completely on the other foot. Atheism is the official position, and anyone who argues that nature shows otherwise is likely to be run out of town on a rail.
Since academia is part of the ruling class, I hardly feel that atheists are suffering under the boot of religious oppression any more than theists are being oppressed.
Comment by mcromer — July 12, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
I am glad to here that. BTW, do you live in the "One nation, under God" that has as its motto "In God We Trust"
To "…and that the stigma associated with atheism needs to be removed."
You asked…
For starters it could be accomplished by reversing unconstitutional decrees (see above) that encourage entities like the Dover school board to think it is appropriate to discourage atheism.
Of course not. Feel free to join the discussion on the Third Choice thread.
We have quantum mechanics and neuroscience in addition to evoluitionary biology. Loads of fun.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 12, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Sal:
DS Wilson might be a bit bitter over the way his scientific work has been received by his peers over the years. His group selection thinking has been trashed for years by the likes of Dawkins, but it's a bit more respectable nowadays. Wilson himself is not exactly above unfair representation of others' work in the scientific community (in particular proponents of Hamilton's kin selection theory). His review of Dawkins' book is mostly shameless (and embarrasing) self-promotion. Here's a hilarious extract of Robert Trivers' 1998 review in Skeptic of Wilson's book Unto Others:
Comment by Raevmo — July 12, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Hi Mcromer,
You wrote…
Academia only gets to pretend it is the "ruling class" when the true ruling class lets it. The true ruling class (government) appears to be very supportive of religion, especially lately. Did you hear about how the Supreme Court ruled that Bush's faith-based initiatives can't be challenged because they are executive decrees and not legislative actions?
How about how ex-president, G. H. Bush, doesn't think atheists should consider themselves citizens in this one nation, under God that trusts in God?
P.S. However, I will concede that possibility that scientists could accidentally destroy the Earth, if not the Universe, grants them a measure of power. link
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 12, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Hi TP,
No.
But you are wearing blinders if you think that nobody criticizes, ridicules, or challenges religions in the US.
Perhaps you are limited in your access to media?
You got me there.
What unconstitutional decree stigmatizes atheism and who made this decree?
What decree encouraged the Dover school board?
How did the board discourage atheism?
And how did that turn out, by the way? Did anyone challenge or criticize this so-called discouragement?
Comment by Pez — July 12, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
TP, "For starters it could be accomplished by reversing unconstitutional decrees"
Those are not unconstitutional.
In this country, atheists have the freedom to reject religion. They do not have the privilege of avoiding it, except on their own private property.
"One Nation Under God" accurately reflects the founders basis for the very existence of this country, as declared in the Declaration of Independence. Human rights flow from Divine Providence, not from government. "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"; "…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
If you are uncomfortable with this, you are living in the wrong country (assuming you live in the USA.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 12, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Hi Kornbelt888,
Thank you for making my point for me.
Fifteen years after the Declaration of Independence a constitutional amendment was ratified, the first.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…"
Fifty years ago, two laws were passed that respected, and established, that this nation was under the Judeo-Christian God and trusted in that God.
I have the right, and the duty, as a U.S. Citizen to insist our government acts ethically.
Either change the constitution or change the law.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 12, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
TP, ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"¦"
Laws respecting any establishment of religion is quite a different matter than the idea and acknowledgement of the source and basis of the republic: Divine Providence. The first amendment did not overthrow the stated basis of the republic as contained in the Declaration.
The United States of America has never had a state church after the manner of the colonial state churches.
The courts have acknowledge that passing laws that put "In God We Trust" on the currency and having the clause "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience do not constitute making laws respecting an establishment of religion. And for good reason. An assent to the idea of a creator, higher power, or whatever, does not constitute a "religion."
"Either change the constitution or change the law."
You have the right to appeal to the authorities in the matter.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 12, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Hi kornbelt888,
Our government fell victim to the Red Scare at the time and rationalized a clear violation of the plain letter of the law. The problem is that what was clearly understood before they did that is now being questioned by people like you and others who suggest "love it or leave it". I am doing neither.
Either change the constitution or change the law.
In a democracy, we are supposed to be the authority. We should demand ethics in our government, or do you think we should look the other way under special circumstances?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 12, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
"In God We Trust" only replaced "E pluribus unum" as the motto of the United States during the height of the Cold War. It was officially condoned by the United States Supreme Court because it was religiously vacuous, the Court saying that "its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of religious exercise," and thereby making void the word of God by your tradition.
Comment by Zachriel — July 12, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Zechriel: "and thereby making void the word of God by your tradition."
?
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 12, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
TP, "now being questioned by people like you and others who suggest "love it or leave it"."
That's not my view. I simply point to the basis of the republic is God ordained rights. The first amendment pertains to religion, not the view that rights are ordained by God. Big difference. If that makes you uncomfortable this is probably the wrong country for you. Sure, you can try to change it. Knock yourself out. But I doubt you will overthrow the basis of the republic. I'm sure not ordering you to leave. Wouldn't dream of it.
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 12, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
kornbelt888: "and thereby making void the word of God by your tradition."
Mark 7:13, often interpreted as a slam by Jesus against the hair-splitting traditions of the Pharisees, and human nature generally.
The Supreme Court ruled that the use of the motto was ceremonial, like wearing a powdered wig, devoid of religious content.
Comment by Zachriel — July 12, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
TP,
I'm afraid you are wrong here. The constitution has not been violated. The mention of God does not equal the establishment of a religion. If all mention of God were illegal, not only would that indeed, as Kornbelt points out, void the basis of the republic, but it would be the establishment of a religion, i.e., atheism.
Nor do those phrases refer the Judeo-Christian or any particular type of God.
Comment by onething — July 12, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
If we want to discuss "˜political' agendas"¦ Surely we all are aware of the organizations in Darwin's day such as the "˜X-Club' and "˜Young Guard' who did not fully subscribe to Darwin's hypothesis but saw it as a means to promote a "˜naturalism' agenda thus ridding the colleges they taught at of the "˜theism' they loathed due to grants and pay they felt that they were denied. They had an agenda based on a theory that they disagreed with but used it for political gain in both the schools and the courts. These were defenders of a "˜world view"˜.
(Reference; Desmond. A The Politics of Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989., Barker, E. "Thus Spoke the Scientist. A Comparative account of the New Priesthoodand its organizational Cases. " Annual Review of the Social Sciences of Religion 3 (1979): 99.)
Now to the name calling or "˜labeling' as some like to call it (how very PC)"¦ A theistic evolutionist might just hold a belief that "˜God created evolution' which on the surface seems harmless enough - but unfortunately this would imply that evolution (the universe etc.) actually had/has an ultimate goal thus disqualifying the theistic evolutionist from playing within the confines of the "˜Current Consensus of Scientists Who Know Better Than You and Like to Call You Names for Not Believing as They Do' a.k.a. the CCSWKBTYLCYNNBTD (a subset of scientists who are above using acronyms because they believe they are another man made cause of global warming). Per Dawkins"¦
Simply put, a theistic evolutionist, or someone who observes a telic explanation, believes at some point "God (or some prime-mover) Did It" (with a purpose) and is now ridiculed for not believing the party line mantra that the CCSWKBTYLCYNNBTD believes which is "mindlessness caused intelligence". The line in the sandbox comes down to; "˜intelligence caused intelligence"˜ or "˜mindlessness caused intelligence"˜. So we are basically left with either atheism or ridicule for having any kind of theistic or basic telic belief within the current paradigm of science due to the politics of the X-Club and Young Guard (Methodological Naturalism).
Considering that we are now delving into this whole political 'thing' in regard to the USA"¦ and this 'line in the sandbox' has been drawn, why would anyone who might base his or her beliefs on any kind of theistic (or some basic telic belief) have a problem stating the following familiar words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "” That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"¦"
I don't think many people would have a problem with the statement above. Now, let us look at how "˜current science' might rewrite these words if they were to appear in a classroom or textbook setting:
"We hold no truths to be self-evident except as discovered via Methodological Naturalism, that all (men) are ultimately evolved based on chance, that they are endowed by a mindless chemical process from a mindless universal algorithm with uncertain unalienable illusions, that among these are a delusion of life, and the pursuit of happenstance. That to secure these illusions, governments are instituted among the chemical processes (called men), deriving their just powers from the happenstance of the governed"¦"
This is obviously put forth in jest but should be food for thought.
Comment by Good ID — July 12, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Hi onething,
You wrote…
I'm afraid I disagree with you on multiple levels.
1. "God" denotes a monotheistic religious preference to polytheism and atheism
2. "One nation, under Christ" is consistent with the basis of the republic
3. The amendment prohibition was respecting "religion" not "a religion"
4. There was no "God" in motto for 150 years without establishing Atheism
5. Intent was clearly due to Red Scare to discriminate AGAINST Atheism
6. Finally, read the words….
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"¦"
Either change the constitution or change the law.
It is rationalization to deny the unethical situation that currently exists.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 12, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
TP:
While I agree we need no god-motto on our money (what a blasphemy to Christianity THAT is!) and no god-oaths in our piece-of-cloth-oath (which is pretty silly all by itself), no one here has any more power to do anything about it than YOU do. If it bugs you, file suit. Again, I'm sure the ACLU would take it if you can demonstrate harm. And I expect the USSC would affirm.
I didn't make any laws about it and neither did anybody else here. Neither did any Congress of the United States that I am aware of. They issue lots of throw-away proclaimations, though. Like Grandparent's Day or Weird Tropical Disease Week (or god-motto or god-cloth grandstanding), and these occasions entertain rhetorical flourishes and get entered in the record. The only act of Congress that applies (again that I am aware of) empowers the US Treasury to scribe a "motto" on money. It didn't establish what that motto would be by an Act or law.
You too can look all this up on the US Treasury dot-gov site - or better yet, query an actual Constitutional Law 'expert' - and you can complain about it to the courts. Go for it. Complaining to us isn't going to change a thing.
Comment by Joy — July 12, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
This is my version of dualing metaphysics.
When Pez asked me if I would advocate atheism by decree, I thought it appropriate to point out that theism was being supported by decree in the US.
Then Onething felt obligated to righteously tell me I was "wrong".
IOW, I was just doing a little shield bashing of my own.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 12, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Why ignore the implications of a universe containing intelligent life - devoid of "˜any' design"¦
Again, for entertainment purposes only:
DAWKINS: (snip)""¦But yet we have this gathering together of genes into individual organisms. And that reminds me of the illusion of one mind, when actually there are lots of little mindlets in there, and the illusion of the soul of the white ant in the termite mound, where you have lots of little entities all pulling together to create an illusion of one. Am I right to think that the feeling that I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things, that this is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a kind of society of mind?"
PINKER: "It's a very interesting question. Yes, there is a sense in which the whole brain has interests in common in the way that say a whole body composed of genes with their own selfish motives has a single agenda. In the case of the genes the fact that their fates all depend on the survival of the body forces them to cooperate. In the case of the different parts of the brain, the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit, presumably in the frontal lobes, that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction. In How the Mind Works I alluded to a scene in the comedy movie All of Me in which Lily Tomlin's soul inhabits the left half of Steve Martin's body and he takes a few steps in one direction under his own control and then lurches in another direction with his pinkie extended while under the control of Lily Tomlin's spirit. That is what would happen if you had nothing but completely autonomous modules of the brain, each with its own goal. Since the body has to be in one place at one time, there might be a circuit that suppresses the conflicting motives"¦"(end snip)
(Reference; edge.org)
And with that, a good evening to all you mindlets out there"¦ Apparently, "All the world's a stage and life is just a metaphor for chemical acts".
(exit stage left field)
Comment by Good ID — July 12, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
TP,
1. "God" denotes a monotheistic religious preference to polytheism and atheism
OK, but that is not the Judeo-Christian God. And like I said, if all reference to God is forbidden to any and all aspects of society, then that is the establishment of atheism. Nobody ever intended to go that far, the founding fathers were deists for the most part, and the constitutional law against the establishment of religion referred to a state church or religion. You should know this.
Mention of polytheists is grasping at straws. There are hardly any in the world that I am aware of.
And by the way, if in a democracy "we are supposed to be the authority" then since atheists are the minority they can't expect to be catered to. Although as I understand, we are a republic, and that is supposed to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
2. "One nation, under Christ" is consistent with the basis of the republic.
No it is not! That is a very, very different statement. It restricts the establishment of the republic to one religion.
3. The amendment prohibition was respecting "religion" not "a religion"
So I would read that as "any religion." No laws regarding any religion. Mention of a God is not religion. It is quite possible to lead a spiritual life without religion. I've got a book called "God without religion."
4. There was no "God" in motto for 150 years without establishing Atheism.
That's true. The addition was unneccessary, but neither is it unconstitutional.
5. Intent was clearly due to Red Scare to discriminate AGAINST Atheism
Yes it was to create a wall against Soviet style atheistic communism, which was of course a state religion.
6. Finally, read the words"¦.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"¦"
Either change the constitution or change the law.
No religion has been established. That's why I said you were wrong.
It is rationalization to deny the unethical situation that currently exists.
I don't quite see it as unethical and I'm not sure why you do. I don't see persecution against atheists either. As for the garbage spoken by the Bushes, that's just blather for their voters and I agree it was way out of line.
Comment by onething — July 12, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
It is you who is grasping straws and making a strawman. There is a HUGE difference between forbidding references to God in "…any and all aspects of society" and government recognition and endorsement of God. The government doesn't forbid devil-worshipping but it doesn't endorse it either. That is what the plain english reading of the first amendment means.
Go ahead and abuse your megamajority to ignore the Taoists, devil worshippers, Pagans, Buddists, and plain-old atheists. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you aren't doing what you are doing.
I said "One nation, under Christ" is consistent with the basis of the republic.
You wrote…
The founding fathers weren't Christians? The point is, appealing to the monotheistic tendencies of the founding fathers isn't a just argument.
Now you are really rationalizing. Monothiesm isn't religion? Keep repeating it over and over and maybe it will become the truth, especially if you are in the majority.
I said… "Intent was clearly due to Red Scare to discriminate AGAINST Atheism."
And it was clearly discriminatory. It was discrimination then, it is discrimination now.
It was a Government endorsement of monotheism. If that wasn't establishment, then "one nation, under Christ" wouldn't be an establishment of Christianity either.
Of course your don't. You are in the majority and you have what you want. Why change an old injustice that only discriminates against Taoists, devil worshippers, Pagans, Buddists, and godless Communists.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 12, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Hi TP,
Actually, the quote you picked was one of the least relevant ones (IMO). I had hoped the article would spark a discussion of "religion-as-accident" vs. "religion-as-adaptation." But I'm afraid your choice/question has steered the discussion toward less interesting topics.
If you want to know my thoughts here, I will again go that extra mile. I have no problem with religion being criticized and I see no lack of such criticism. Dawkins et al. don't want to criticize; they want to demonize and ridicule (and we all know why). As for stigmatization, you might want to consider what people are famous for being Atheists. The American public was effectively introduced to Atheism by someone named Madalyn Murray O'Hair who used the courts to remove prayer from schools. Nice lady. Today, the most famous atheist is Richard Dawkins, who argues that religious parents are child abusers and religion is the root of all evil. Add it up.
As far as the Coming Theocracy threatiness goes, it ignores the context of recent history. It wasn't too long ago that they put "In God We Trust" on the paper money, during the time when prayers were said in public schools and government meetings, abortion was illegal, the C-word meant communist and not creationist, men and women couldn't be shown in the same bed on TV, divorce was taboo, you couldn't buy beer on Sundays, etc. That today you are left with only "˜God We Trust' on the money to complain about hardly signals a Coming Theocracy. It's just hyper-sensitive threatiness.
Comment by MikeGene — July 12, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Hi Mike,
For what it is worth, I feel badly about my role in getting this thread into a soap box shouting contest.
Hopefully it is not too late to bring it back to a dispassionate discussion about the origin of religion. I would be impressed if we could do that.
I thought DS Wilson's exploration of Jainism was good. I agree with the likelihood of the hypothesis…
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 12, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Mike,
The notion of cooperative units makes group selection ideas sensible in human affairs. Corporations, nations, prevail. Diverse traits are self-selected by these cooperative units. The group model does seem appropo to human affairs, maybe not so good in other affairs….
Even for the sake of argument, assume all religion is based on fiction. We would then be confronted with the phenomena that sensible rational empirically minded people have a fascination with fiction and are inspired by it. (i.e. Dawkins married the Dr. Who babe, Lala Ward).
Anesthesia has a role in medical practice. Fiction and religion may serve a similar role. Some of us however, do hold out hope our religious ideas which provide comfort to us are consistent with physical reality.
PS
I think Raevmo's comments have some bearing on this, with Wilson having a bit of an axe to grind. Allen Orr was critical of Dawkins too. Orr sided with Gould and Lewontin against Dawkins and Dennett in another realm…..
The explanation of spandrels by Wilson was as cogent a summary of Lewotin and Gould's famous essay as I've ever heard.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 12, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
July 12th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
You need to exercise a little more care in your reading there, TP.
I am not OneThing nor is she me.
Comment by Pez — July 12, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Hi TP,
I don't mind all that much, as we've all been there. Eventually, I'll try to put a post together about this. This is another topic where I don't feel much of a vested interest in the outcome of this battle, as either outcome is intriguing.
Comment by MikeGene — July 13, 2007 @ 12:05 am
July 13th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Hi Salvador,
I think you are probably right here and it is a mistake to use data from non-human populations to toss out group selection.
Comment by MikeGene — July 13, 2007 @ 12:08 am
July 13th, 2007 at 12:13 am
TP,
It was me who wrote that post, not Pez. It seems that nuances are lost on you. You see no difference between people acknowledging a creator of the universe, and putting "Christ" in the declaration of independence or on the nation's money. In that case, there's really little point in talking with you.
One nation under Christ is completely inconsistent with the basis of the republic and is the establishment of a religion.
No, TP, monotheism is not religion. I am a monotheist and I have no religion. I don't know in what sense you think I am a member of the majority except perhaps the majority who believe in God. I was married by a pagan priestess. Funnily enough, the one and only religion in which I sometimes claim membership is Taoism.
You need to learn to think more clearly. Monotheism is not a religion. Theism or deism are not religions. They are metaphysicals positions, as is atheism, but they are not religions. The whole point of the law was to prevent what had happened in England and other countries, in which there was a particular state religion. It was never intended to prevent the delicate sensibilities of atheists from ever having to be reminded that a lot of people believe in God. One nation under Christ would be the establishment of a state religion, albeit not a specific one, just Christianity, as opposed to, say Church of England.
Comment by onething — July 13, 2007 @ 12:13 am
July 13th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Hi again, Salvador,
Oh yeah. Keep it coming. I think we can begin to understand why Dawkins, a champion of adpatationism, suddenly abandons it when it comes to the evolution of religion (a trait unique to humans) (another point Sloan notes). We might be able to use our brains to grow out of a spandrel, but if it's really a successful adaptation?! The source of his intellectual fulfillment turns around and bites him in the ass, dooming him with the resurrected mocking of deep nihilism. His dreams of an atheistic utopia can never be anything more than a fantasy and delusion, all because evolution saw to that when it made us what we are - human. Ouch.
Ah, but maybe, just maybe there is a glimmer of hope. Eugenics.
Comment by MikeGene — July 13, 2007 @ 12:20 am
July 13th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Hi Onething,
Sorry about the mixup on the names.
We disagree on the term "religion" in the first amendment. IMO, the amendment isn't limited to "a religion" or even "any religion" it is "religion". Monotheism is religious. Endorsing monotheism is endorsing religion. It violates the plain letter of the amendment. It also violates its spirit in that it discriminates against minority religions (Taoism, Paganism, etc).
I am surprised you don't see that.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 13, 2007 @ 12:29 am
July 13th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Greetings Mike,
So delightful to hear from you.
But Wilson counters with empirical evidence contrary to Dawkins, arguing religion is powerfully adaptive and will cause religiously minded groups to be selectively favored over non-religiously minded groups, independent of the truthfulness of the beliefs. Dawkins abandoned the scientific method and caved in to his prejudices.
As you said:
Ouch, indeed!
As you said before, Evolution is Cruel to Dawkins and Dennett.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 13, 2007 @ 1:11 am
July 13th, 2007 at 1:56 am
TP,
But it isn't really a matter of disagreement. We know what they meant and what historic problem they were remedying.
See, there's this whole new world of people who find a lot of fault with religion and say that they are spiritual, but not religious. Saying that humans are endowed by a creator with inalienable rights is spiritual, but it isn't specifically religious.
You can claim that you would like the interpretation updated to a different one. Or you can claim that any reference to any spiritual or metaphysical foundation to our republic ought not to be done. But the founders of our republic never intended to 'not endorse religion.' What they intended was to not foster one religion at the expense of another. Freedom of religion. That was all it was intended to do.
Funny I've never heard a Buddhist, or Hindu, or Taoist or Wiccan or Pagan complain about the fact that our constitution guarantees that no law will be made in respect to their right to practice their religion.
Again, we know enough about the historical context and general writings and opinions of the authors to know that they did not intend it the way that you want them to have intended it.
How does it discriminate against them? It gives them the full right to practice their religions. How do you think the pagans fared under old Europe with their state established churches?
Comment by onething — July 13, 2007 @ 1:56 am
July 13th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Here's a thought. Regardless of whether or not its 'religion-as-accident' or 'religion-as-adaptation,' this strongly suggests that if ETI with human-like intelligence exists, it too is religious.
Comment by MikeGene — July 13, 2007 @ 9:58 am
July 13th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Thought Provoker wrote:
Not all monotheists are religious. Not all religious people are monotheists.
It's very difficult to say anything which does not involve some metaphysical presupposition or other. Equality, for instance, is not an empirical notion, but a normative philosophical one. For a long enough time, the Constitution was not interpreted to mean what I presume you now think it means in terms of equality between whites and blacks, or men and women, or rich and poor, or the born and the unborn. Perhaps in the future, 'person' will come to include, for constitutional purposes, certain types of manufactured computers.
The question then becomes: when is making a given metaphysical presupposition equivalent to establishing or endorsing a religion? Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance?
I don't think there's any doubt, given the history of the last century, that atheism can be promoted as a state religion complete with hymns, prophets, sacred tombs, pilgimages, statues, evangelists, icons, rituals, missionaries, sacred texts, indoctrination, worship sessions etc in a way that would clearly offend the US Constitution. We had all of that in the USSR, China, Romania, North Korea, Albania and elsewhere. Compared to what when on in those places, the Pledge of Allegiance is mild stuff indeed. And I venture to say it's milder than teaching in a publicly funded university that human life was not intelligently designed but instead resulted from a series of unintentional accidents.
Comment by stunney — July 13, 2007 @ 10:38 am
July 13th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Whoa! Yes indeed!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 13, 2007 @ 11:09 am
July 13th, 2007 at 11:27 am
It is an interesting thought, though it would depend crucially on what we mean by "human-like intelligence".
Such a definitive conclusion would be begging the question.
Comment by Zachriel — July 13, 2007 @ 11:27 am
July 13th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Mike wrote:
Mike,
Two points:
1. To say that religion is or isn't an adaptation may be overly broad. There may be components of religion which are adaptive, and others which are spandrels. As the adaptations evolve, the spandrels may evolve away.
2. Your conclusion of "doom" assumes that the selective environment remains essentially constant, but it has already changed radically in just a few thousand years — an instant of evolutionary time.
The obvious example is the fact that we humans evolved a craving for large amounts of sugar and fats and a tendency to overeat. In an environment of scarcity, this was adaptive. In many parts of the world, it's now a liability.
Even if eugenics and genetic engineering were not an option, an environment of plentiful food, if maintained over evolutionary timescales, would alter our dietary habits.
Religion must be evaluated in the same way. The question is thus not whether religion was adaptive in the past, but whether it will be adaptive going forward.
Comment by keiths — July 13, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Even within the field of artificial intelligence when dealing with ambiguous situations there are "static evaluations". That is, there are conclusions that are arrived at in the absence of data. In other words, presumption, in other words FAITH!
Religion (faith statements) are then inherent to intelligent systems (whether we recognize it or not). There is no getting around it.
Even on the presumption an intelligent system is based on math, it will still have an element of faith, hence, religion.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 13, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Static evaluation is a function that returns a value based on data. (Odd that you followed the word "FAITH" then the word "religion" with the icon for evil.) In any case, trying to draw a definitive conclusion from
remains begging the question, petitio principii. Mike proposed it to prod thought, and it causes us to consider exactly what we mean by "human-like intelligence". It would be interesting to consider how universal spirituality would be, but your conclusion is vacuous.
Comment by Zachriel — July 13, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Do you agree that this is an excellent criterion by which those outside a field can judge the credibility of an author?
Comment by JAM — July 13, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Static evaluations happen with the data at hand because of the absence of data or computation resource to make an exhaustive evaluation, if one is even possible. That's why they exist.
Example:
An intelligent agent is trying to find meaning for existence an perpetuation or the perpetuation of anything else in the agents life (this is ture of humans or computer intelligences). It can not find the answer by any empirical measurement of purely physical data. Chemistry and physics won't solve the problem of meaning. It is a faith statement. Hence Barrow's comment is relevent to the existence of religion (even a minimialist one) in intelligent systems. The system will function on a body of unprovable axioms.
Dawkins pretends he is rational and his decisions are driven by "science". There is a philosophical contradiction in his position because his nihilism precludes there being any meaning or notion of good in any activity. It is a purely faith based value system with no scientific grounding.
Mike is correct. I never thought of it till he said it.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 13, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
July 13th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Just a note to point out the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States… a few people here seem to be confused.
The Declaration was the instrument of political separation from Great Britain, but it is not the basis for our government or our laws. The U.S. is, technically, a constitutional republic, thus the Constitution is the sole basis for U.S. law.
So Kornblatt's assertion that the "basis of the republic is God ordained rights" is simply untrue, as there was no republic when the Declaration was made. Mobs may scream that those who disagree should "leave the country," but they certainly don't have the law on their side.
Comment by takuan — July 13, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
July 14th, 2007 at 8:35 am
In other words, they are based on data (at hand), making your previous statement false:
There is data. And it is evaluated as such.
Mathematics is not considered religion, but I guess if you literally (rather than figuratively) redefine the term, then anything is possible.
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog?
Comment by Zachriel — July 14, 2007 @ 8:35 am