Is religion inherently dangerous?

[_Scottie]

I think it makes more sense to suppose humans have historically perceived the existence of the divine, and therefore they seek to learn more about what they already know: that a divine entity exists. Religion is humanitys failed attempt to grasp what they do not understand, but what the know to be true.

I don't beleive this is the case.

Mankind is an extremely social creature. We form very strong bonds with our family members and social units. Coupled with the fact that we are aware of death, humans have a strong desire to want to believe that we will be re-united with our loved ones after we die. So some concept of an afterlife is created.

Mankind also has a need to explain everything. Those things that can't be explained are often attributed to a divine god or gods.

I believe this is how religions are started. Then, as stories and fables are passed from generation to generation, they become more grand and awe inspiring. Gods become more and more powerful.

If the LDS version of a God really does exist, why is He doing such a piss poor job of getting the message out that mankind should worship Him?

[_dartagnan]

Einstein is on record several times as saying that he doesn't believe in a personal God.

Well I don' believe in one either. Nobody is disputing Eistein's rejection of a "personal" or "anthropomorphic" God.

This is enough to say that he was not a theist (and therefore sort of "weak" atheist - he had no active belief in God, but couldn't affirm the claim "there is no God").

Only if you insist on struggling with the English language. The definition for theism doesn't require anthropomorphism.

Here's a nice comprehensive statement from the man himself:

You're simply regurgitating the classic atheistic argument as presented in Dawkins' chapter one. But Max Jammer has set this matter in its proper context, highlighting the fact that Einsten really wasn't all that familiar with Spinoza's philosophy. And the difference between strict Pantheism and the God of Einstein are clear and cannot be ignored unless you really want to. For Einstein, God is an intelligence responsible for writing the laws of the universe. That doesn't work in for pantheism or Spinoza.

This is what I posted back in May:

=======

Many atheists like Dawkins have tried to equate Einstein's theism with Spinoza, based on a few context-free citations. But according to Jammer, Einstein's knowledge of Spinoza was rather limited, having only read Ethics and turned down repeated requests to write about Spinoza's philosophy: "I do not have the professional knowledge to write a scholarly article about Spinoza." Jammer said they shared the same belief in determinism but the similarity was "articificial and unwarranted" to assume Spinoza influenced Einstein's science. Jammer said Einstein felt a sense of brotherhood with Spinoza but that it had more to do with the fact that they "shared a need for solitude as well as the fate of having been reared within the Jewish heritage but having become subsequently alienated from its religious heritage." Atheists today wishing to claim Einstein as one of their own, continually ignore his explicit statement that he isn't one of them.

========

According to EInstein:

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infintely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God...Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

I am not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist (I.e. Spinoza). We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of those books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God. We see the universe marvelously aranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.

I agree with this entirely. It is the heart of my belief system which I prefer to call natural theology. From a scientific point of view, it must be rejected as science, same as ID. But Dawkins won't even come close to telling you that Einstein accepted the above. Since Einstein, the anthropic principle has done plenty to bolster this position too. It submits that all the numerous constants in the universe serve one common purpose: the existence of human life. The once popular "random universe" is suffering and will eventually be obsolete.

Jammer wrote, "Einstein always protested against being regarded as an atheist. In a conversation with Prince Hubertus of Lowensteing, for example, he declared, 'what really makes me angry is that they [atheists like Dawkins!] quote me for support of their views.' Einstein renounced atheism because he never considered his denial of a personal God as a denial of God." Despite this, atheists try to use citations about a personal God, as evidence for his rejection of any God.

Like Spinoza, Einstein rejected an anthropomorphic view of God. But unlike Spinoza, Einstein believed God manifests himself, "in the laws of the universe as a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." Einstein believed the "mind of God" was the great mystery, and that is what he wanted to discover. God is the great mathematician behind the laws of the universe. Dawkins chalks this all up as poetic metaphor so he can continue to justify his lie that Einstein was an atheist.
Here is an article talking about Dawkins' sloppy scholarship on this matter: http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/1 ... eve-in-god

[_dartagnan]

I don't why people are being hardcore empiricists in this thread, but I'll come out and reject the notion that something needs to be based on observable fact to be reasonable.

Of course you would. That would render much of the current science unreasonable.

Take a proposition like, "My senses are a reliable guide to reality." Is this reasonable to hold? Can it be established through observation without begging the question?

The problem is that without your senses, you have no observation. To consider the senses unreliable is to consider all observation unreliable, and therefore, anything attributed to reality.

Otherwise, yeah, religious beliefs like, "God exists" aren't reasonable. I'm certainly willing to defend such a statement.

Using a relatively recent method devised by Popper. But for those who reject this standard, the arguments hold no sway.

It starts simply with pointing out the standard offered means of theistic justification aren't reasonable

You're going in circles here. By what standard are you calling them unreasonable?

If you argue that unreasonable beliefs are inherently risky, as theists and atheists alike may and often do, then it is quite simple why an atheist holds that such religious beliefs are dangerous.

So belief is dangerous because it is risky, it is risky because it is unreasonable and it is unreasonable because you say so. The New Atheists today do not call religion dangerous because they are based on risky/unreasonable beliefs. That isn't their argument at all. Their argument is more along the lines of, religion causing more death, religion stunting progress in technology, science, etc.

A theist who thinks atheism is unreasonable because of some compelling theistic justification may do the same in reverse.

Exactly my point. My point is that the claim is rather pointless because it has no persuasive value, unlike other arguments from reason. In order to persuade, you have to convince someone that Popper's method of falsification should be the determining factor between what is science and nonscience, reasonable and unreasonable. I see no reason to adopt it. Atheists love to use it because it serves their agenda so well. And yes, evolution bothered Popper becuse so much of it is based on induction, hence he changed his paradigm so it could be called science. The rest of the scientific community just went along with it.

A theist might be able to appreciate this and simultaneously agree when the subject is some mutually agreed upon unreasonable thing, such as ghostly visitations.

Quite right.

Kevin may want to, in the words of non-drunk Gadianton, nerf truth by forwarding arguments that ultimately allow one to call essentially anything reasonable - or at least strip our ability to call something unreasonable away - but that's Ok.

That isn't what I am saying. I am not trying to strip your ability to say anything, nor am I saying everything is reasonable. I am simply pointing out the fact that it has no persuasive power nor is it grounded in objective truth. It is a conclusion generated from one's own carefully designed paradigm.

We can merrily go on our way understanding that there is some coherent notions of what is reasonable and not that are better and worse and can be applied to what people think and why they likely think it. I'm not sure if Kevin, in his effort to rescue religion, appreciates just how radical what he is forwarding is.

This isn't radical at all, but it is clear you don't understand what I am saying. I am directly refuting JSM's failed attempt to prove religion is unreasonable.The only standard you have to determine such nonsense is one that you've created for yourself. The simple fact is we all believe things that are not grounded in observable fact. Evolution scientists and cosmologists forward all sorts of things that are not grounded in observable fact. That doesn't make belief in them unreasonable. Therefore, belief in deity is not unreasonable.

What on earth?

1) Dawkins thinks there are very good reasons why natural selection might favor the development of faculties that lead to God-belief, such as our infamous hair-trigger for inferring anthropomorphic explanations for observations.

And his arguments are incoherent, scientifically unsupported and based strictly on his materialism. There is nothing reasonable about them.

2) You are referring to his concept of "meme" which is metaphorically similar to genes, but not literally genetic.

You don't understand his meme concept if that is what you think. From the Selfish Gene:
"Memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically.(3) When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme's propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn't just a way of talking -- the meme for, say, "belief in life after death" is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of individual men the world over.'

While I'm not a fan of the idea, a "meme" is a reproducing idea that propagates through humans through cultural exchange. It's supposed to behave similar to how genes do. Dawkins likens harmful self-replicating ideas, such as those who build into them the premise "don't question this," to biological viruses. He sees religious belief as filled with these "viruses of the mind."

If this is true, which seems unlikely give the citation above, then what makes belief in God a meme and belief in Evolution not a meme? They both transfer from brain to brain in the same ways you mentioned, culturally. So why is one a virus and the other not? The only clear answer is that Dawkins considers the "belief in God meme a virus because it is not just a metaphor. It is a virus, unlike other beliefs.

He just thinks it is more enlightened to not be religious. In a metaphoric sense, it is more "evolved," though Dawkins would be the first to tell you that evolution proper doesn't entail progress, just change.

It's amazing how much wrong you are able to pack in so few words.

[/quote]
All you have demonstrated is your own unfamiliarity with Dawkins' argument, along with the usual misrepresentation of my positions.

[_antishock8]

I think the problem that us homo sapiens have is the literal span, speed, and reality of our existence limits us to a very narrow understanding of the Universe, whatever it is in its totality. It's hard to be absolutist about anything because, as it stands now and for the foreseeable future, we literally lack the ability to comprehend total reality in any meaningful manner. Sure we see things within the spectrum of our speed of life, sight, gravity, dimension, etc... But that's a one trillionith slice of a huge pie.

However, assuming there must be a god, as we define it, seems more like a projection of our own insecurities rather than a sound postulation of a as of yet proven fact. Assuming that there must be a god to account for all of this and everything we don't understand is simply filling in the gaps. Can there be a god? Can the Universe itself be a god? Do gods exist in other dimensions? These are all fun questions, but lack usefulness to our condition as human beings. Religionists would be better served investigating politicians and government rather than the unknown. It would serve to advance everyone's betterment if we kept our heads on our shoulders rather than up in the clouds.

[_EAllusion]

You don't understand his meme concept if that is what you think. From the Selfish Gene:
"Memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically.(3) When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme's propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn't just a way of talking -- the meme for, say, "belief in life after death" is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of individual men the world over.'

Memes aren't genetic things. They aren't genes. (Read my quotation again). He thinks they are biological, because he thinks ideas are biological things. A meme, being an idea, represents some brain state. The comparison to genes is meant to be instructive. It's just not a literal virus in the same way, I don't know, HIV is a virus. While it's a real, biological thing to him, the link between the two is metaphorical. It's the same kind of relationship a computer virus has to a virus like influenza. In fact, Dawkins is fond of comparing his viruses of the mind to computer viruses just the same.

If this is true, which seems unlikely give the citation above, then what makes belief in God a meme and belief in Evolution not a meme?

A meme is just a fundamental unit of some cultural thought.
If you want Dawkins answer, here you go:

[Is scientific ideas like evolution a virus too?]

No. Not unless all computer programs are viruses. Good, useful programs spread because people evaluate them, recommend them and pass them on. Computer viruses spread solely because they embody the coded instructions: ``Spread me.'' Scientific ideas, like all memes, are subject to a kind of natural selection, and this might look superficially virus-like. But the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious. They are exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless self-serving behavior. They favor all the virtues laid out in textbooks of standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on. Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues.

You may find elements of epidemiology in the spread of scientific ideas, but it will be largely descriptive epidemiology. The rapid spread of a good idea through the scientific community may even look like a description of a measles epidemic. But when you examine the underlying reasons you find that they are good ones, satisfying the demanding standards of scientific method. In the history of the spread of faith you will find little else but epidemiology, and causal epidemiology at that. The reason why person A believes one thing and B believes another is simply and solely that A was born on one continent and B on another. Testability, evidential support and the rest aren't even remotely considered. For scientific belief, epidemiology merely comes along afterwards and describes the history of its acceptance. For religious belief, epidemiology is the root cause.

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Da ... -mind.html

Meh. Certainly not how you have represented him, however. You'll probably be tempted to respond to his reasoning here, but you can save your breath. I'm more interested in the fact that don't have the slightest clue what you are disagreeing with.

You haven't read The Selfish Gene, have you?

All you have demonstrated is your own unfamiliarity with Dawkins' argument, along with the usual misrepresentation of my positions.

Heh. Either you have read Dawkins and really don't understand what you are reading at all, or you've done your usual thing of reading Christian apologetic criticisms of some perceived enemy.

[Guest]

I'm not a Popperian falsificationist by any stretch and would not in any way rely "on a method developed by Popper" to argue that belief in God is unreasonable anymore than when attacking belief in telepathy.

(I should add that the idea atheists must rely on Karl Popper to argue against the reasonableness of religious belief is utterly bizarre.)

[_EAllusion]

So belief is dangerous because it is risky, it is risky because it is unreasonable and it is unreasonable because you say so.

No. A belief can be dangerous because our beliefs inform how we interact with reality. If a belief is unreasonable, it can lower the chance of us interacting with reality in a way we desire. Hence it is "risky." They also take up mental resources and thus carry with them an opportunity cost. When we spend our resources chasing and holding bad ideas to the detriment of good, we likewise carry the same danger through stunting our progress. I am saying that certain beliefs, like God existing, are unreasonable. It's an assertion. I'm not supporting it on the basis of my say so. I'm just choosing not to defend it because not every post I write ought to be a book. The problem I have with this reply is that I know we've gone over this in a great amount of detail before Kevin, and yet you blatantly misrepresent what we've already gone over in preference for laughably uncharitable readings of my posts.

The New Atheists today do not call religion dangerous because they are based on risky/unreasonable beliefs. That isn't their argument at all. Their argument is more along the lines of, religion causing more death, religion stunting progress in technology, science, etc.

I'm an atheist today. I argue that religious beliefs, qua religious beliefs, are dangerous due to them being unreasonable. Uh, Q.E.D.?

[_EAllusion]

Incidentally, I believe that belief in God is unreasonable (as opposed to one who might just think they personally lack justification) because I'm aware of the commonly expressed justifications for theistic belief including, but not limited to design arguments, first cause arguments, moral arguments, transcendental arguments, appeals to religious experience, appeals to miracles, ontological arguments, Pascal's Wager, proper basicality, etc. They are quite bad, often failing for similar reasons. In addition to that, I have reason to be skeptical that there are good reasons any given individual has, but has failed to share. Chances are, they are relying on one or more of the bad reasons. It's not really different in thinking belief in any number of dubious beliefs (say that aliens built the pyramids) are not reasonable.

[_Moniker]

Ah, never mind. Delete. Still weaning myself away...

[_antishock8]

[Mod Scottie: personal attack deleted.]