Is religion inherently dangerous?

[_Scottie]

[Mod Scottie: personal attack deleted.]

Why do you delight in making our jobs harder??

[_antishock8]

[Mod Scottie: personal attack deleted.]

Why do you delight in making our jobs harder??

[Mod Scottie: Literary genius of a personal attack deleted]

[_dartagnan]

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.

How the hell have I misrepresented him? I said he thinks religious beliefs are like viruses. This is a fact. I said he thinks memes leap from brain to brain. This is a fact because that is exactly how he described their mode of operation. That is about all I have said on this thread about it and both points are exactly his positions.

So what exactly is it that I don't understand about his concept? That it isn't merely metaphorical? I cited Dawkins who said it isn't just metaphorical.

Since there is no scientific evidence that such a thing even exists to begin with, there is no point in quibbling over what Dawkins thinks they consist of. The whole idea is a bigoted attempt to demean religious beliefs, period.

I'm more interested in the fact that don't have the slightest clue what you are disagreeing with.

Then demonstrate it and stop misrepresenting my position. I know exactly what I disagree with. His concept of meme is incoherent and idiotic. Hardly anyone accepts it.

He has no intellectual basis to say religious beliefs are viruses and scientific beliefs aren't. Hell, by his logic his entire belief in memes must be considered a virus too. It isn't based on science and there are plenty of idiots on his forum who accept it just because he says so.

If there is misunderstanding as to what the Dawkins concept of meme consists of, it is certainly no one's fault but Dawkins. The mans choice of words, descriptions and penchant for ambiguity leads to these inferences. Someone on his forum asked if memes were physical entities and nobody was able to answer him. It is almost as if they are silent on the matter because they don't want to rule it out.

In any event, my argument still stands. The entire concept of meme flies in the face of what psychologists already know. We know why people believe things. The answers are complex and cannot be fit into a neat little theory that makes certain beliefs viruses. It is not simply because they "expose" themselves to other ideas. I've exposed myself to many religious beliefs, yet somehow I've been immune. How does this fit Dawkins' virus theory?

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.

Uh huh, the same "Christian" apologetic site you're using: http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/fo ... etics.html

As to my question about evolution beliefs representing memes, you responded with an answer by Dawkins, but it was to a slightly different question:

No. Not unless all computer programs are viruses. Good, useful programs spread because people evaluate them, recommend them and pass them on.

What an idiot. Programs don't "spread" at all. That's one of the things that distinguishes a program from a virus. This guy invokes computer science, psychology, sociology and history as if he has any business speaking as an authority on any of them.

Computer viruses spread solely because they embody the coded instructions: ``Spread me.''

Computer viruses spread themselves. This is why his analogy suggests the meme is a literal living creature that moves itself. Regular programs don't move themselves from one computer to another and according to his "cultural transmission" argument, memes wouldn't really move themselves either.

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.

So they are "good" viruses? How the hell does he justify calling them anything but viruses? By judging the ones he thinks are good. And this is supposed to be based on a scientific method? His entire meme concept flies in the face of any scientific method. It is based strictly on his say so and his inner need to bash religion.

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.

That is ridiculous and arrogant. People everywhere tend to question the existence of deity, whether or not they've had any exposure to religious teachings. It is more reasonable to assume the world around us invokes such questions. Religion is just man's way of addressing those issues, and whether they are wrong or right in religious details, it has no bearing on the common denominator they all share: acknowledgment of God's existence. We perceive his existence through our perceptions of reality, not because religions begin with the spread of disease. Francis Collins was raised an atheist and only started to move towards theism while trying to argue for atheism. It had nothing to do with his continent or his religious upbringing. Sure, people tend to become products of their environment and will join whatever Church they like the most (obviously one they've been exposed to!) but this can't be explained by the meme theory. Theism and religious affiliation are not synonymous.

Testability, evidential support and the rest aren't even remotely considered.

Nor was it an issue for great scientists like Einstein. Evidential support comes in various forms, many of which are not verified by outside observers. This is where Dawkins' materialist paradigm puts a straitjacket on his mind. He doesn't have the freedom to explore other paradigms. Unless you consider that "good," then maybe his belief system is a virus after all.

For scientific belief, epidemiology merely comes along afterwards and describes the history of its acceptance. For religious belief, epidemiology is the root cause.

One of the most idiotic and arrogant statements coming from this bigot. No wonder his book made others embarrassed to be atheists.

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."

The way who desires? The person holding the belief?

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.

Hey, if you don't want to defend your bald assertions then that's your right. So long as we're clear, you haven't even begun to defend Dawkins' argument that religious beliefs are viruses in any objective way. It simply boils down to this:

1. Dawkins believes religious beliefs are bad. He believes viruses are bad. Religious beliefs spread. Viruses spread. Therefore, religious beliefs are viruses.

2. Scientific beliefs are also like viruses because they spread. But scientific beliefs are "good," so therefore they aren't really viruses.

All the mumbo jumbo about how they are transferred from one brain "leaping" to another, is based on his own flawed understanding of psychology. He thinks religious beliefs are adhered to because people don't evaluate them before accepting them (Like a victimized computer has no choice but to accept the invasion of outside viruses). He says this with bombastic certitude without proving it by engaging the scientific method he claims to appreciate. But if his premise is false, his entire theory crumbles.

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.

I was thinking the same thing about you. If you didn't want to engage the meat of this thread, then why even bother with your several posts above? It seems your quibble amounts to an objection that I misrepresent Dawkins' meme concept which you yourself aren't even fond of.

[_dartagnan]

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.

And yet you cannot refute any of them aside from calling them bad... because you don't want to write a book on the forum. I understand. Impressed, but not convinced. You're mind is not open, but rather hindered by a scientific method of your own preference. It forms your paradigm that is designed to allow some arguments to work and yet deny others to get off the ground. If people perceive God's existence, then they are deluded. Why? Because you don't perceive God's existence.

In any event, your rejection of these arguments is irrelevant to the fact that many scientists and intellectuals are finding these arguments to be quite persuasive. Even former atheists like Antony Flew, Patrick Glynn, Alister McGrath, etc. Roughly half of the scientific community accepts the existence of a divine creator. The survey information proves that this hasn't really changed much in over a century. Dawkins has his little internet cult that likes to exalt themselves as something growing by leaps and bounds because of intellectual achievement, but reality tells a different story.

[Guest]

[Mod Scottie: personal attack deleted.]

Hi, antishock8, apparently you got a bit riled that I deleted something. I did so because if anyone replied to me I'd feel compelled to reply to them. I'm having less and less time to spend here and less and less interest in posting here, so, I just deleted it after I posted. Yet, just for you here is my prior post.

I've been chomping at the bir over this thread... and I know I shouldn't reply, yet, I will. I read this by Dennett a few weeks ago and thought about creating a thread at MAD about the subject:

http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/r-Ch.10.html
Quote:
Some people hate Darwin's idea, but it often seems that even we who love it want to exempt ourselves from its dominion: "Darwin's theory is true of every living thing in the universe — except us human beings, of course." Darwin himself fully realized that unless he confronted head on the descent of man, and particularly man's mind, his account of the origin of the other species would be in jeopardy. His followers, from the outset, exhibited the same range of conflicts visible in today's controversies, and some of their most important contributions to the theory of evolution were made in spite of the philosophical and religious axes they were grinding.


The more I learn about evolution and sociobiology (I don't discount it, of course I have a degree in a field of social sciences...) the more arguments for God seem just patently absurd. I was going to approach (on MAD) the evolution of bacteria and see if there were any that objected to the scientific fact of bacteria evolving. Then, from there work my way up and ask why man is set aside as not being evolved, yet, created?

Something was mentioned that humans have always felt or sensed the divine, so, they sought it because somehow or another they knew the truth value of it. I think it's possible that evolution and cultural evolution can explain God belief. Was it advantageous for people to have spiritual experiences or is it just a leftover from a primitive mind? I have creases in my palms. I can stare into them and attempt to unravel the mysteries of my fate and past by tracing them and interpreting these lines. Interestingly enough many, many, many other cultures look to palms to unlock hidden "truths". Because many people through out history, and different cultures, sensed a "truth" is this something I, too, should look to?

Seems silly.

I hope my initial deletion didn't cause you too much stress.

~edit~ For those interested here is a paper on how sociobiology is impacting political science:

http://www.wepapers.com/Papers/2466/The ... al_Science

[_Ray A]

Even former atheists like Antony Flew,

I thought I'd throw in what the grossly deluded Flew had to say:

Atheist becomes Theist.

He's obviously one gullible cookie.

[Guest]

I see you responded to Dawkins' quote anyway. Even though whether his reasoning is good or not has nothing to do with the conversation at had. Even though I asked you not to.

The whole idea is a bigoted attempt to demean religious beliefs, period.

No it isn't. It was an effort to apply evolutionary principles to a different field. Perhaps that's why you asked why can't evolution be a meme. You seem to still be confusing the meme concept with what he means when he talks about religion as a virus. Oh well. You've already made it clear you're not particularly interested in getting the details right. Evolution is too complex to be a meme, but the ideas that make up evolutionary theory are memes (as far as the theory goes). I don't think you have a solid grasp on what you are disagreeing with, which is ironic given what you wrote above.

The way who desires? The person holding the belief?

Who else? Of course not all desires are good to have, which you may or may not argue. It's hard to tell what tangent you'll go off on.

--------------

All the mumbo jumbo about how they are transferred from one brain "leaping" to another, is based on his own flawed understanding of psychology.

[/quote]

Jesus. The patterns of neurons firing in my brain can cause an imitation of itself to form in your brain via the transmission of ideas through communication. There's nothing arcane or controversial there.

---------------

As for you final question Kevin, you make a lot of ridiculous assertions/arguments. I reply to some of them. The paragraph on Dawkins' memes was so absurdly wrong on so many levels, I replied. You weren't even half-right. You could've just said, instead, that Dawkins' thinks religion is a virus of the mind and that the non-religious are more enlightened than the religious, at least with respect to the topic of religion. Yet you said this, "Nehor, I don't think it can be shown that humans have evolved as creatures who are genetically designed to seek out the divine for no apparent reason. This is how Dawkns thinks and he has resorted to arguing that it is a genetic virus that just happens to be something only the more advanced humans have managed to evolve out of. What arrogance." That's so bloody wrong it's hard to know exactly what angle to correct it from. As I said, Dawkins doesn't think religious inclination evolved for "no apparent reason." You replied by saying his reasons suck. Come again? I point out that memes aren't genetic in nature, which in this paragraph is a key detail. You dispute the point, but only by switching "genetic" to more accurate descriptions like "biological" while not appreciating the difference. Then you say there is no point quibbling over what he thinks memes are, because they aren't real. Huh? Such is conversation with you. The problem of course is that what you thought there was clear enough. The idea of more "advanced" humans evolving out of a genetic defect is easy enough to understand. It's just really wrong when describing Dawkins.

[_EAllusion]

And yet you cannot refute any of them aside from calling them bad... because you don't want to write a book on the forum. I understand. Impressed, but not convinced.

I've spent tens, if not hundreds of thousands of words going into detail over what is wrong with specific attempts at theistic justification. Some of which I know you've read. Remember when you complained that I never replied to the fine-tuning argument, then I sent numerous links where I gave detailed replies to the fine-tuning argument, including some where you were actively participating? Yeah, this is like that only larger. I'm not sure if you really have that poor of a memory or you are just really dishonest, but neither speak well to your character.

You're mind is not open, but rather hindered by a scientific method of your own preference. It forms your paradigm that is designed to allow some arguments to work and yet deny others to get off the ground. If people perceive God's existence, then they are deluded. Why? Because you don't perceive God's existence.

I've never reasoned like that, and I challenge you to find any example where I have.

In any event, your rejection of these arguments is irrelevant to the fact that many scientists and intellectuals are finding these arguments to be quite persuasive.

Bully for them. On the plus side, in their native fields, each and every one of those class of arguments are rejected rather resoundingly. If some biologist buys into a moral argument that most moral philosophers think is a joke while a moral philosopher buys into an organismic design argument that most biologists think is a joke, it undercuts the point a bit. But again, that's not really that important. I'm actually quite capable of understanding these arguments and their merits on my own.

[_dartagnan]

The more I learn about evolution and sociobiology (I don't discount it, of course I have a degree in a field of social sciences...) the more arguments for God seem just patently absurd.

Since social science and evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the question of God, your attempt to connect these dots makes me wonder what it is you're studying.

I was going to approach (on MAD) the evolution of bacteria and see if there were any that objected to the scientific fact of bacteria evolving. Then, from there work my way up and ask why man is set aside as not being evolved, yet, created?

Evolution has nothing to do with the question of God. That's a myth, and most theists seem to have no problem with evolution. It might have something to say about some particular relgious beliefs regarding the origins of man, but the question of God is entirely reasonable, as is evidenced by the fact that many intelligent and reasonable people, even former devout atheists, have reached the same conclusion.

Something was mentioned that humans have always felt or sensed the divine, so, they sought it because somehow or another they knew the truth value of it.

This is more reasonable than Dawkins' disproved arguments that people simply become religious for the same reasons Muslims tend to be born on Muslm continents and children tend to accept belief in Santa Clause. His theory is decimated by the simple fact that intelligent adults from all corners of the world reason with the data throughout their lives and follow the evidence to the conclusion that a God exists.

I think it's possible that evolution and cultural evolution can explain God belief.

It can't, or at the least, it hasn't. Aggresive attempts by the New Atheists to prove that it does strike me as desperate because most of these rely on wild theories that are no more scientifically grounded than most religious beliefs.

Was it advantageous for people to have spiritual experiences or is it just a leftover from a primitive mind?

False dilemma, because it s neither. The best way to understand the reasons for belief is to listen to their reasons. The argument from design is perhaps the oldest. And this was popular long before the cosomological evidence started to support the existence of God. How did they come to think this way? Via exposure to the natural world.
In any event, these kinds of wild theories hoping evolution can explain modern beliefs, are untestable, so to accept them means to throw the scientific method out the window. Evolution doesn't explain "God belief," despite the wishful thinking from the New Atheists like Dennett and Dawkins.

I have creases in my palms. I can stare into them and attempt to unravel the mysteries of my fate and past by tracing them and interpreting these lines. Interestingly enough many, many, many other cultures look to palms to unlock hidden "truths".

Nothing to do with perceiving a divine creator of all that is.

Because many people through out history, and different cultures, sensed a "truth" is this something I, too, should look to?

No, and that isn't why people get into palm reading. They get into palm reading because they were exposed to its bull. On the other hand, acknolwedging the existence of a superior being responsible for all that is, requires exposure to nothing more the natural world.

[_Brackite]

Here is an article talking about Dawkins' sloppy scholarship on this matter:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/1 ... eve-in-god

Great Article! Thanks for the Link, Dart.