Richard Dawkins On Mormons.

[_Trevor]

Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek, but your comment was kind of odd. I mean, Dawkins is mostly critical of fundamentalist religion, but it's a stretch to say that it is the only kind of religion he acknowledges (if that's what you meant - I'm not really sure). Quite frankly, I'm curious what you did mean.

I was referring to the dogmatic view that religion is in itself the root cause of human evils in advance of the research and science that would justify that position. I continue to maintain that the root causes of these evils, e.g. fanaticism, are more fundamental than religion itself. To attack religion is merely to attack one area in which the more basic problems can be manifested. The conviction that religion is the appropriate target for attack on the basis of its epistemological shortcomings is, in my opinion, a kind of fundamentalism that harks back to the Enlightenment as does its religious counterpart.

[_Ray A]

I am seriously waiting for the science to back that speculation up.

What evolutionary purpose does a belief in Santa Claus serve?

What evolutionary purpose does a belief in David Koresh serve?

What evolutionary purpose does a belief in Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucious serve?

[_Trevor]

What evolutionary purpose does a belief in Santa Claus serve?

What evolutionary purpose does a belief in David Koresh serve?

What evolutionary purpose does a belief in Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucious serve?

Why am I expected to have the answer to this question?

Is my failure to explain all of this a fatal flaw to my view that we should wait for more work to be done?

[_Ray A]

Speculation seems to be the rule of the day.

In religion, yes. Does prayer really make a difference? Scientific studies say no. Can angels walk through walls? Can humans live for 2,000 years? Can humans have a "change of body" to allow them to live 2,000 years? Can fasting for three days cure any physical ills? Can God turn raw meat into delicious tender steak because people obey him? Does manna fall from heaven for Hebrews, but not Muslims? Is that the face of Jesus in those tea leaves? Does a fish caught on hook give change for five dollars? Is walking on water a natural phenomenon? Can axe-heads float and asses talk? Do righteous people fly into heaven on winged chariots? Does God appear in New York?

Have 2,000 years of religious superstition added anything to our understanding of the natural world?

How does believing in any of this contribute to human knowledge and advancement, Trev?

[_Ray A]

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Isn't this essentially what Dawkins says? But in less tactful ways?

[_Kevin Graham]

== Does prayer really make a difference? Scientific studies say no.

A difference in what? They clearly make a difference within the individual, but no difference to the external world.

== Can angels walk through walls?

Angels don`t exist.

== Can humans live for 2,000 years?

No.

== Can humans have a "change of body" to allow them to live 2,000 years?

No.

== Can fasting for three days cure any physical ills?

Is the phsycial illness obesity?

== Can God turn raw meat into delicious tender steak because people obey him?

Does he? No. Can he? I don`t see why not.

== Does manna fall from heaven for Hebrews, but not Muslims?
No.

== Is that the face of Jesus in those tea leaves?

No.

== Does a fish caught on hook give change for five dollars?

No.

== Is walking on water a natural phenomenon?

If it were possible, then it would be natural.

== Can axe-heads float and asses talk? Do righteous people fly into heaven on winged chariots? Does God appear in New York?

No.

== Have 2,000 years of religious superstition added anything to our understanding of the natural world?

Plenty. We`re part of the natural world aren`t we? Religious belief should tell us plenty about humans.

== How does believing in any of this contribute to human knowledge and advancement, Trev?

You`re lumping all religions into one category and equating it the with some of the most absurd beliefs. I`ve argued before that religious societies have generally been those who gave birth to scientific revolutions. Is there something about believing in something greater than yourself, that pushes people to question and search for more answers, in both the spiritual and natural realms? I think so.

And I think the point Trevor and I have been trying to make is that religion is so ubiquitous in human civilization, and has been since its beginning, that it is impossible to say what a world withought religion would look like. Some are eager to insist that the world would be a much better place (Dawkins), but this isn`t based on any scientific study.

One could very well argue that science has ruined the world in many ways. Atomic bombs, military technology, eugenics, biological weapons, the technological boom that has left millions of previously qualified employees, unqualified and jobless (damn near everything is automated nowadays). Television, escalators, fast food and motorized transports have left Americans lazy, miserable and fat. But I say we should focus on the good things about science.

[_Some Schmo]

I was referring to the dogmatic view that religion is in itself the root cause of human evils in advance of the research and science that would justify that position.

Well, this is tricky. I'm not convinced Dawkins thinks it's "the root cause of human evils." Based on what I've read, I don't think he thinks that at all. And you don't have to think that to conclude we'd be better off without it.

I continue to maintain that the root causes of these evils, e.g. fanaticism, are more fundamental than religion itself.

I can't argue with that. I don't think it absolves religion, however.

To attack religion is merely to attack one area in which the more basic problems can be manifested.

Sure. Still not seeing what's wrong with that.

The conviction that religion is the appropriate target for attack on the basis of its epistemological shortcomings is, in my opinion, a kind of fundamentalism that harks back to the Enlightenment as does its religious counterpart.

So anyone who criticizes religion "on the basis of its epistemological shortcomings" is a kind of fundamentalist? Now that's a stretch.

[_Trevor]

Have 2,000 years of religious superstition added anything to our understanding of the natural world?

How does believing in any of this contribute to human knowledge and advancement, Trev?

Scientific inquiry was born in ancient Greek religious thought. It is not as though religion has never contributed to science. At the same time, it would be arbitrary to divide religion in 600 BCE off from religion in 300 CE as completely different phenomena. Many of the great scientific thinkers of past ages were also persons of faith. While I can't isolate the relationship between their religious attitudes and their scientific work in such a way that it would prove its benefits, I am not prepared to utterly dismiss the possibility that such a benefit exists.

Would I claim that there is a direct relationship that makes believing in the virgin birth of Jesus somehow productive toward greater scientific understanding? Of course not. I would also challenge the view that every human thought or activity that does not contribute to our understanding of the natural world is not worthwhile. That would be patently stupid. If you would read Armstrong, she makes a fairly good case for the historical circumstances that bring about questions like yours, which, from one perspective, make very little sense.

Does falling in love with a woman and conceiving children in itself contribute to our understanding of the natural world? Does watching sports matches? Does contemplating the awesomeness of the cosmos in itself constitute an increase in such understanding? Why is it that religion, simply because it offers myths of origins, necessarily have to produce the same outcomes as science? Do myths of origins serve no other purpose than to describe actual events in the past? Was that ever really what one could expect from such myths?

I am really angry right now the the Republican Party has failed to provide a unified theory that explains the cosmos. In my mind, we should not have political parties if they fail to provide such insights into the workings of the natural world. They are useless if they fail to do so.

[_Trevor]

Isn't this essentially what Dawkins says? But in less tactful ways?

The important difference is that one decries particular myths that he thinks no longer apply, while granting the utility of religious community and practice (such that he dealt with them productively), while the other dismisses religion and faith almost completely.

Jefferson is much closer to Cicero than he is to Dawkins.

[_Some Schmo]

I am really angry right now the the Republican Party has failed to provide a unified theory that explains the cosmos. In my mind, we should not have political parties if they fail to provide such insights into the workings of the natural world. They are useless if they fail to do so.

The Republican Party doesn't assert it knows the truth of the cosmos, and it certainly doesn't state things about the natural world that are in direct opposition to what we know about it through science.





____