Josh Rosenau has a review of The God Delusion which is, I think, a little bit harder on Richard Dawkins than I. The comments are hopping, so you should check it out!
Let me reiterate my general position re: Dawkins & The God Delusion:
- My own personal assessment of the universe as it is resembles that of Dawkins
- My own assessment of the nature of religious belief is similar to that of Dawkins, insofar as I believe it is a byproduct of proximate cognitive features which have their ultimate origins in our evolutionary history
- My own attitude is one of general hostility toward religious fundamentalisms, particularly of the monotheistic stripe
- But, I differ with Dawkins in that I tend to put more weight on the reality that religion is here to stay in some form, and as a matter of tactics am not willing to endorse a wholesale attack on religion qua religion as anything but a quixotic quest
- Though I agree that religion is the necessary precondition for extremist religion, I see the difference between moderate and fundamentalist religion as less a difference of the magnitude of an essential religiosity as a modulation of underlying parameters which characterize the distribution of a religion. To use an analogy, I do not believe that democratic socialism is any less socialist that revolutionary socialism, it simply has a different attitude toward violence and democratic institutions as a means or barrier to social justice
- Though I agree that individuals like Dawkins are essential in the marketplace of ideas, I do not see any remote possibility that humans will ever exhibit a Dawkinsian attitude toward the world around us
- Unlike Dawkins I do not hold to the universal importance of truth for all humans. Unlike Christians I do not believe that all must know the Good News of scientific materialism, and I am not inclined toward giving a drowning man a life jacket
- I tend to think that the good and evil in the name of religion is not ascribable to religion per se. I get the sentiment from Dawkins that he wants to decouple the good from religion, and yet still pin the evil on religion. I don't think this is plausible, if religion increases the magnitude of negative behavior it seems as if it should also increase the magnitude of positive behavior (unless one tautologically defines religion as evil behavior axiomatically)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The Evil One recently talked to Paul Bloom, one of my favorite cognitive psychologists. Here is something I found of interest:
...and I brought up the issue that many researchers -- David Sloan Wilson being one that springs to mind -- have argued that religion is evolutionary but that it is also…
John Wilkins has a good post on religion, I tend to agree with its general thrust though I might quibble with details. Not being gifted with much marginal time right now, a few quick thoughts:
1) I believe that institutional organized religion, e.g., Christianity, Islam, etc., can increase the…
So I read The God Delusion. I wasn't going to. The reason is this: I didn't want to read an atheist manifesto. I'm an atheist, no need to strengthen my unfaith. I have read books on atheism before, so I have that under my belt. Now, I am interested in religion as a natural phenomenon, but that…
Paul Zed Myers comments on Alan MacNeill's contention:
To an evolutionary biologist, such pan-specificity combined with continuous variation strongly suggests that one is dealing with an evolutionary adaptation.
Myers sayeth:
For another example, people in the US largely speak English, with a…
Well perhaps. The acceptance of faith (defined as belief without evidence or rational justification) as a legitimate form of epistemology can encourage one to do evil that would not be done if the actions were help up to rational discussion. If God tells you to invade Iraq, who are you to question it?
I will say that I was not impressed with the quality of argumentation by Rosenau and his allies. Even after I provided a couple quotes establishing that Einstein was a typical atheist/agnostic who simply threw words around carelessly, he still went on about "Einsteinian religion". It's like he wasn't going to allow mere facts to get in the way of his argument.