The chimp man's analogy isn't any good - Chimps are not 'primitive humans'; like giraffes, antelope, lions and all modern creatures they represent the same level of evolutionary sophistication as humans and while they share a common ancestor humans didn't 'evolve from chimps'. A better, and more compsci friendly analogy would be that Chimps are Windows XP and Humans are MacOS X.

What atheists cant seem to grasp is the fact that people have to believe in something greater than themselves. Richard speaks of this world as something great but for the vast majority of people it isn't its a neverending struggle and the only thing that keeps them going is the fact that there is something beyond. Another thing that i don't buy is the big bang theory or the beginning i believe in evolution but the theory that there was a bang and there was life i mean come on.

i believe in evolution but the theory that there was a bang and there was life i mean come on.

I think there might have been a year or two between the bang and life as we know it. It's called EVOLUTION.

I find that atheists are much braver and stronger people than the rest. To believe that there is no God, that there is no greater purpose to our lives, and that there is nothing beyond death and any good we do is for the sake of good itself, it takes a lot a strength and bravery. It was an extremely biased documentary, but it brought up many good points. I hope to see a counter-documentary sometime soon, trying to make valid points instead of just making fun of him.

I wonder if it is possible to prove, scientifically, the value of doing good. Or even what the definition of "good" is.

If not, perhaps secular humanists such as Dawkins should be less quick to criticise religion for not providing proof.

BT for the second part is at: http://www.demonoid.com/torrents/details/260698/

To me, IMHO, religion is OK until the proponents of the various "right" ones (not as in political leanings - but it does apply, hmmm - but as in "I am right and yours is wrong") want to force the rest of the planet to believe their way... I do not care which "faith" it is, when that transpires, I belive that spiritual blackmail and intimidation become the modus operandi. Take for example the relief efforts after the Boxing Day Tsunami a year ago last, when faith based workers entered a predominately Muslim community, they began preaching their particular brand of Jesus and had no respect for the people's beliefs - as well as providing assistance. If the people did not listen, the faith based workers moved on - leaving people in the lurch. What a wonderful example of being Christian.

When a war is started or fought or ended because someone's faith got in the way - it is deplorable.

Faith - blind or even eyes wide shut or a little cracked open - is a bane to this planet. It promotes prejudice and hatred.

When religionists say that God, G_d, god, Allah, Jack-In-The-Box wants the earth to be destroyed so that his son can return and that is part of the reason that they will not support environmental cleanup or the Kyoto Accord, then they are providing the impetus for self-fulfillng prophecy.

Dino - your comment about the big bang and then there was life indicates to me a lack of study - it was not instantaneous - if you actually believe any clear thinking scientist or individual would actually think that and not be a part of some Intelligent Design/ Creationist group, then there is somehting not right in Denmark.

From the result of primary coalescence to compression to the big bang was hundreds of billions of what we call years - but since there was no time - how could it really be measured? From the initial expansion to the combustion of various materials and gasses to form primitive stars took more billions of years.

How old is all of this (and by this I mean the entire Universe)? We really don't know. What we are now coming to understand is that we can only see the light from the various parts of the Universe in direct correlatin to the length of time that light has been travelling from and to this planet - about 14 billion years. So, some mistakenly suggest that the Universe is 14 billion years old. We really cannot calculate that figure - but we can guess. AND willingly be wrong later.

Some religionist say that all things - - EVERYTHING - are only a little over 5-6 thousand years. They need to let the Chinese know that the hard copy records that they have that indicate a history of over 25,000 years are wrong. As well as the ancient records of India which are over 13,000 years old. And the records of the Minoan Society - which are over 45,000 years old. Seems some people just didn't get the memo.

Is Faith a VIRUS? Similar to the blind faith that people have in MS Windows. There is a way to not have Viruses, Infectons, Trojan horses, Spyware, Adware on your computer (VISTA). But you have to think for your self - you have to think different. You have to step out from the crowd and no allow your self to become infected by consensus and con-spiritual BS. Or believe that because someone throws a chair across the stage or shouts imprecations about the opponents are evil and should not be associated with in any way. (A tongue-in-cheek comparison - but it is applicable).

I have former friends who will no longer associate with me because I will no longer buy into the bull shit that they profess and these same "caring" friends have condemned me to hell... as I have said before - I enjoy warm weather - so no worries.

Thanks, Norm, for posting this illuminating work by Dawkins. IIRC, it was a character in Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" who had committed murder who said this. The man's torment with guilt is so intense that he eventually confesses to the police. What Dostevsky may thereby be suggesting is the operation of an innate moral intuition, independent of the belief in the existence of God.

"i believe in evolution but the theory that there was a bang and there was life i mean come on."

You want to play the unflattering presentation game? You are saying you find the idea of nuclear fission implausible but have no problem with the idea that an invisible man in the sky created the universe from nothing on the basis of a book which describes this event and then goes on to explain that the suffering of human kind of because of a wicked talking snake. I think you've stopped using your head, old boy.

It is startlingly disingenuous to have an Anglican priest as the single representative of liberal religious views, especially when endorsing specific mythical events as fact. Truly liberal believers/thinkers don’t confuse mythos and logos and don’t want to do so. Instead of an engaging debate, we have a propaganda video presenting extremist and idiotic religious zealots against all rationality. The Anglican is thrown in as the silly and irrelevant outlier. (A tricky slight of hand.) Try pulling these punches against a Unitarian minister, or J. Campbell (if he were still alive), or K. Armstrong, for example, and they look quite silly.

Also, there is an important social function of religion from which we have all benefited that destroys many of Dawkins’ arguments of religion’s destructive path. Consider that MLK and the civil rights movement in the US was only possible when fought for and organized by Christian believers. Religion isn’t monolithically destructive; it has been a force of positive change against bigotry, racism, and for positive class struggle (think: South America).

Dawkins’ big brush approach isn’t sufficiently subtle to make his arguments compelling. By entirely sidestepping real and legitimate counterarguments about the functions and the ‘ur’ nature of religion, he avoids substantive debate. This is sad because, at a root level, there is an opportunity for an engaging discussion, but maybe that wouldn’t serve his propagandistic purposes.

I agree with Kevin. While it is silly to think that religion alone is the source of moral order in society, it is also wrong to locate the source of that order in our evolving genetic capacities for altruism, or the Lockean notion of mutually-beneficial cooperation, or any other of the ad hoc and reductionist explanations that Dawkins proposes. The incoherence of this position is revealed in Dawkins claim that as a society, we are less racist and less homophobic as we were 50 years ago, which while accurate, certainly cannot be explained in evolutionary terms (the natural selection of egalitarians over bigots?). The social movements and institutional changes that precipitated this development owe more to what Robert Bellah would call our changing civil religion than to empiricist and atomistic conceptions of an adapting, evolving "human nature".

I agree with Kevin. While it is silly to think that religion alone is the source of moral order in society, it is also wrong to locate the source of that order in our evolving genetic capacities for altruism, or the Lockean notion of mutually-beneficial cooperation, or any other of the ad hoc and reductionist explanations that Dawkins proposes. The incoherence of this position is revealed in Dawkins claim that as a society, we are less racist and less homophobic as we were 50 years ago, which while accurate, certainly cannot be explained in evolutionary terms (the natural selection of egalitarians over bigots?). The social movements and institutional changes that precipitated this development owe more to what Robert Bellah would call our changing civil religion than to empiricist and atomistic conceptions of an adapting, evolving "human nature".

I agree with Dawkins that humanist values, altruism or love are a biproduct of human evolution. But I think that is, sort of, a happy coincidence of the fact that these values are good in a fundamental way.

Because the problem is, that it could have been otherwise: that egotism, selfishness or hate would have been furthered by evolution (and many people still think that it is so). Would that have meant that these values had been "right"?

So, I agree with (some) religious people who think that there are "good" values, good in themselves, that aren't merely beneficient or useful. After all it is only 60 years ago that the crudest forms of social darwinism were considered to be necessary for human condition.

It seens to me that Dawkins is as reliogious as the people he is trying to critisize. In religion, the origin of all things is God, and what cannot be explained is called a "mistery" and can be only explained by revelation.

On the other hand, it looks that for Dawkins Science can explain everything, and what cannot be explained now will be some day as Science progresses. Besides, putting genes in the origin of everry and each human behaviour has the same strucuture that religious explanation.

Well, the true atheism is not in any of these two positions.

Atheism needs a solid foundation of ethical philosophy, and the more discussion and evaluation of this, the better. Perhaps Science has concentrated on who, what, when and where, but not enough on why.

Largely, isn't it the 'why' which brings people to faith?

Was it Dostoevsky who said "without God all is permissible."

The state motto of Ohio is: "With God all things are possible." Separation of Church and State is apparently not one of them.

Hitler and Stalin didn't use religion to justify what they did, and they're easily the two biggest tyrants of the last century. Why wasn't there some strongly ethical secular humanist ready to sacrifice his own life in order to take Hitler or Stalin out?

That being said, the ideologies of both Hitler and Stalin could be said to have been religions. Neither one focused very much on claims about supernatural entities, but they still had claims that one had to accept in order to be part of the group, whether it was "Germany must rule the world" or "Lenin's word must be fulfilled."

In response to jesseE, evolution IS a key factor in our changing culture. Altruism is one of several evolutionary traits that effect culture. Altruism is a trait that increases our chances of survival because it creates a stronger society. We all benefit from a stronger society.

Stephen McKenna,

That's interesting. Natural selection has produced genes for altruism in human beings over the course of 50 years?

Professor Dawkins attempted to get more moderate religious figures to appear on the program and engage in conversation. They tried to get the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Cheif Rabbi, and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. All of them declined.

Jack,

Why would they accept? Richard Dawkins calls the religious people he interviews Nazis, attempts to ridicule them regardless of whether or not he actually has any compelling arguments for them to hear, and then declares victory once they've left. Not to mention the fact that he considers himself a great authority on philosophy, ethics, politics, etc. because he wrote a few biology books. Socrates had a thing or two to say about people like that.

Kevin,

What's K. Armstrong's first name?

To Stephen McKenna,

I second Anon's succinct (and I think devastating) question. If Dawkins wants to cite civil rights and other recent advances as examples of an evolutionary development in moral consensus, he simply cannot turn to traditional Darwinian theory, wherein changes of any significance take thousands if not millions of years. An alternative would be the more contemporary Darwin-esque theory of cultural or moral "memes" (as espoused by Dawkins himself, Dan Dennett or others), but this is an ad hoc theoretical twist that (for many reasons) lacks the logical coherence of Darwins' original model.

As for the claim that altruism "increases our chances of survival because it creates a stronger society"... This may accurately describe the consequences of altruistic action. But again, as an explanation of such action, it lacks theoretical coherence. In the same way that neoclassical economists and game theorists must reduce all non-rational normative orientations to either situational sanctions (i.e. signaling) or individual "revealed" preferences, evolutionary theory must ultimately explain the function of altruism within the individualistic logic of the selfish gene. As a consequence, such explanations are, by definition, logically tautologous.

(sorry if this all jumps around a bit, I just typed it as it came to me, so it might not be as clear and developed as I meant it to be)

Stephen: If you look at it more objectively, altruism is a middle-of-the-road trait. Yes, those who are alive and living in society at this moment benefit from altruism, but if you take Dawkins' idea of all the different possible people that could be alive and aren't, consider how many would benefit by being completely selfish and pass on their genes by preventing others from doing so.

Even in our world today, this idea is apparent. Yes, genes are passed on by people who barely eke out a living in Africa as well as millionares living in Malibu, but in the long run, a family who can provide an overabundance for its offspring will be more successful in passing on its genes. As time passes, a flourishing bloodline will continue to flourish, whereas a struggling one will continue to struggle. Eventually, a struggling bloodline reaches a point where it cannot survive and its genes will no longer be passed on.

Someone at the top only benefits by having others around that they can continue to take advantage of. If altruism improves the situation in the middle, they are no longer a benefit to the person at the top. Most people are only altruistic to the point that it doesn't hinder their own ability to survive.

I think altruism works more on a societal level rather than a genetic level. Altruism assures that a specific way of life will survive, because even if a group of individuals dies doing something altruistic, they are allowing for others to live. The dead individuals don't pass on their genetic traits, but the way of life survives. If a person lives selfishly, there is more of a chance of his way of life not surviving because he hasn't surrounded himself with like-minded individuals. If people behaved like lions, where an entire pride is ruled by one male, then altrusim would assure a certain set of genes to survive and selfish behavior would hinder the overall chances of those genes being passed on. But because we have expanded into societies, our altruistic behavior is less about specific genes and more about assuring the survival of the species.

(sorry if this all jumps around a bit, I just typed it as it came to me, so it might not be as clear and developed as I meant it to be)

Stephen: If you look at it more objectively, altruism is a middle-of-the-road trait. Yes, those who are alive and living in society at this moment benefit from altruism, but if you take Dawkins' idea of all the different possible people that could be alive and aren't, consider how many would benefit by being completely selfish and pass on their genes by preventing others from doing so.

Even in our world today, this idea is apparent. Yes, genes are passed on by people who barely eke out a living in Africa as well as millionares living in Malibu, but in the long run, a family who can provide an overabundance for its offspring will be more successful in passing on its genes. As time passes, a flourishing bloodline will continue to flourish, whereas a struggling one will continue to struggle. Eventually, a struggling bloodline reaches a point where it cannot survive and its genes will no longer be passed on.

Someone at the top only benefits by having others around that they can continue to take advantage of. If altruism improves the situation in the middle, they are no longer a benefit to the person at the top. Most people are only altruistic to the point that it doesn't hinder their own ability to survive.

I think altruism works more on a societal level rather than a genetic level. Altruism assures that a specific way of life will survive, because even if a group of individuals dies doing something altruistic, they are allowing for others to live. The dead individuals don't pass on their genetic traits, but the way of life survives. If a person lives selfishly, there is more of a chance of his way of life not surviving because he hasn't surrounded himself with like-minded individuals. If people behaved like lions, where an entire pride is ruled by one male, then altrusim would assure a certain set of genes to survive and selfish behavior would hinder the overall chances of those genes being passed on. But because we have expanded into societies, our altruistic behavior is less about specific genes and more about assuring the survival of the species.

Did anyone find this confusing? As Dawkins and McEwan are sitting starry eyed on the couch, conversing and basking in each others' brilliance, McEwan utters these words, "we are the very privileged owners of a brief spark of consciousness.......we have a marvelous gift and you see it in children." What?!? “Privileged owners” a “gift.” Wouldn’t that separate us from the rest of the animal world? Does that not imply that we are indeed spiritual beings? Why do we have this gift? Who is the gift giver? I think that here he clearly makes a point that there is indeed a God who gives us these things. And since there is recognition of our spirituality we should care for and foster that part of our lives just as we would other aspects of our lives. We work out for physical health; we maintain friendships for social health. Why then would we not have religion for our spiritual health? Just my $00.02

What Dawkins hints at, but does not explicitly state, is that science for him, is his spirituality. Talking about possible people and grains of sand in the sahara and how lucky it is for him to be alive is evidence for this. To those who need a higher power and something bigger than themselves, Dawkins believes he has it in the laws of physics. Never the less, I think his theory of altruistic genetics is more of a rationalization rather than rigorous scientific exploration, and whether he realizes it or not, his morality comes from his society, not his genes.

Mujah: "It was an extremely biased documentary, but it brought up many good points. I hope to see a counter-documentary sometime soon, trying to make valid points instead of just making fun of him."

Keep in mind that at no point are documentaries meant to be unbiased. Unbiased transmission of information is called "news". (Or at least it used to be...)

another link to the video, no registration required:

http://greylodge.org/gpc/?p=339

I find Prof. Dawkins' "Holier than thou" attitude to be hilarious (and inaccurate).

1) Dawkins said "It is surely more moral to do good things for their own sake rather than to suck up to some god." Sure, I agree with that, but that statement is inconsistent with Dawkin's worldview. As a theist, I believe that people have free will to choose evil or good. Dawkins views people simply as biochemical machines whose actions are directed soley by chemical reactions. Previously he said that people who behave immorally or amorally are simply 'broken machines' that need to be fixed rather than evil doers that need to be punished. If evil-doers aren't worthy of punishment, then neither are do-gooders worthy of praise.

2) Dawkins says "Religion can only provide facile, unsatisfying answers." Unsatisfying to some, to be sure. The world's 1.2 billion Christians, 1 billion muslims, and who knows how many other Jews, Shintos, Hindus, Buddhists, and whatever find answers that comfort, inspire, strengthen, and and satisfy. Since "does that satisfy you" is an inherently subjective question, the world's majority clearly disagrees.

3) Dawkins says "Athiesm is life affirming in a way religion never can be." Meaningless rhetoric unbecoming a person of Dawkins' intellect.

4) Dawkins says "By discounting the next life we [athiests] get more out of this one [than theists do]." More what? More sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll? More wine, women, and song? More of a sense of I'm-right-and-you're-a-stone-age- farmer-neener-neener? This is why people call him arrogant. There is an odd notion that because we believe in an afterlife, the urgency to do things now is somewhat less. Hogwash. "Hmm, it looks like I need to take the trash out. Oh well, maybe I'll wait till I die and take it out in Heaven." Or maybe "I'd love to see Paris before I die. Or if not, I'll visit Paris in heaven!" Clearly, almost no one's behavior reflects that belief. Believers and unbelievers alike both struggle to accomplish their life's goals before they die; it's just that they have different ideas about what is important. Dawkin's statement that accomplishing his life's work gets him 'more' out of life than, say, Mother Theresa, strikes me as snobby.

Regardless, I enjoyed listening to it. Thanks for posting it, Norm.

cure4pain The "gift" is that which sets us aside from the beasts in the fields. The ability to think. Whether one wishes to utilize this "gift" (a bit of a misnomer I will grant you that) and think rationaly, or to ignore this talent and join the flock. (pun intended)

It is frustrating that the response to Dawkins, concerning his lack of a belief in a "magical afterlife", is always, "wow that guy is so arrogant." It is undoubtably true that belief in an afterlife motivates people to do all sorts of bad, bad things. The talk of giving people comfort is all well and good, but when you got planes being slammed into buildings, by people who are suicidal precisely because they believe such actions will be rewarded in their magical post-mortum fairyland, those falicious beliefs become slightly less harmless.

People who are strongly convinced that the idea of a afterlife is baloney will never be persuaded to destroy their body in the name of any deity

Ok first about the big bang theory. Yes it took a million of years which doesn't change the fact that it states it all BEGAN with a bang. Possible. Of course its easier to believe this than the invisbile guy in the sky, but only if you treated science and religion the same. Science has a job to explain everything, religion doesn't it requires faith. I totaly agree with Mike Jensen about Dawkins and it seems to me that many atheists think of us as morons. Bill Maher springs to mind.

"...I totaly agree with Mike Jensen about Dawkins and it seems to me that many atheists think of us as morons. Bill Maher springs to mind"

Well, if you believe in the "big man in the sky" thing, then you are a moron. Sorry, but that is the reality of the matter. That fact that people are hurt by such opinions does not make it any less true.

The good thing about being human is that we can consciously choose to change our behavior. Like the idea of accepting things as truth based off of evidence, and not just because "its the way its always been done" and "everyone else thinks this way." People are able to learn, and I strongly suggest theists of all flavors abandon flawed beliefs, and instead "seek out the light"

A ticket to the christian heaven requires faith that, while I have no idea how difficult, is become increasingly difficult to maintain. A "true believer" will hold-on to their obviously untrue beliefs because, in most cases, they have passed the point of no return. They have a life built around the concept of god and heaven, so any attempt to disuade them from that path is met with an inspiration to label the person trying to help as arrogant, or in some cases "the devil."

potshot. The Islamic sect that the 911 terrorists belonged to, ( forgive if it doesn't spring to mind) have the belief that as long as they invoke the name of Allah in all that they do, then it's all fine and dandy. What an incredible getout for cruelty that defies belief.

One thing I admire about Richard Dawkins is his unfailing civility. Maybe it's because he's British. He's able to convey "I think this is a bad idea" without coming out and saying "you're an idiot."

PotShot says: "... so any attempt to disuade them from that path is met with an inspiration to label the person trying to help as arrogant, or in some cases 'the devil.'"

PotShot, a sincere effort to help doesn't get you labelled as arrogant. You get labelled as arrogant when you say things like "...then you are a moron. Sorry, but that is the reality of the matter." It is the difference between being ignorant and being stupid. It leads me to suspect that you are in fact NOT sincerely trying to disuade Dino from his path but merely flinging poo.

You also say "...we can consciously choose to change our behavior." Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that gay people can choose to be straight? That people suffering depression can choose to be happy?

This argument that altruistic behaviour arose from Natural Selection makes very little sense to me.

In order for the characteristic that causes altruistic behaviour to have a selective advantage, there already has to be a characteristic in other organisms that causes a positive response to altruistic behaviour. Otherwise I could help my fellow monkey out and he might turn around and eat me.

But how would a characteristic that causes a positive response to altruistic behaviour evolve? Without the altruistic behaviour there to respond to in the first place, it cannot confer a selective advantage.

Tim.

That is a slight missunderstanding of the matter, in any givin population before altruistic behaviour became dominant there was a variety of genes. So we could cut this population into the genes for non-altruistic behaviour and those for altruistic behaviour. From this it is easy to understand that those that cooperate would out compete those that dont thus the genes the code for non-cooperation would be weeded out.

To understand how the genes got there in the first place you just need to look at the genetic code of modern man, in modern man there are huge varieties of genes for everything. So it makes sence that in the future we could hypathetically all be black if the world was struck by some thing that caused blacks to have a selective advantage. Genes are constantly mutated and there is constant variety, from this variety new changes can pop up, but because of population size genes that are benificial will pop up more often that those that are detrimental.

I'm bad at explaining this... anyone else got a better explanation?

The "Brights" will repeat the mistakes of the past, just as mystics, fundamentalists, atheists, agnostics and deists have. The scientific method does not need, righteous defenders. Humility, intellectual honesty, can be beneficial in all facets of the world. There are parts of Catholicism that are good, from my perspective and parts that are awful, the Nazi Popes bad, the Liberation Theologists who fought for freedom throughout the world are good.

There are parts of rationalism that are good and bad. Nazi Scientists, bad, Discovering cures for Polio, treatment of Cancer, good.

The perspective is important. As Robert Anton Wilson and the Discordians once said.(paraphrased) "I don't believe in dogmas, received beliefs of traditions. I believe in catmas, relative metabeliefs." My use of good and bad are a possible contradiction of this metabelief, but well I ain’t Einstein.

Sorry I am not giving my e-mail, but I look forward to other posts.

Mike Jensen. Deftly put, Manners maketh man. or as my namesake once said, "manners before morals" Dawkins and I are close to being contempory, and we are that generation that hold manners dear. Someone once commented on my good manners, and all I could say in reply, "you may thank my mother them" Whether you agree with corpral punishement or not, woe be tired any boy who booed at a sporting event or the like, to this day if I hear a boo go out I cringe, not because of corpral punishemet, purely the fact it is something gentlemen do not do.

That is a slight missunderstanding of the matter, in any givin population before altruistic behaviour became dominant there was a variety of genes. So we could cut this population into the genes for non-altruistic behaviour and those for altruistic behaviour.

Hi again Ben :). My point was that until another organism decides to behave altruistically, the "altruism gene" confers a selective disadvantage on an organism. So you would expect it to be weeded out. This is because altruism is a risk. If I behave altruistically to someone, there's nothing to stop that person from taking advantage of it at my expense. They also need to have the "altruism gene". But why would they? It doesn't have any way of conferring a selective advantage on them.

BTW, if you want to discuss this by email - talltim@gmail.com.

Well in a population there would be a number of organisms that are alturistic and a number that are not altruistic. Through random mating and a significant population size over time the entire population will tend to have the same number of genes and since they have the same number of genes, and on these genes there will be a significant number of varring versions of each gene. And though there would be many genetic codes of behaviour the altruistic code would be most past on. Even if not all altruistic bearing individuals encouter other altruistic individuals if the population is large enough their will still be enough interaction between altruistic individuals to create small populations of cooperation within the overall population. Since the individuals that do not cooperate will be more likely to die prematurly they will not be as likely pass on their genes to offspring. Mates would start to look for those that cooperate as those are most guaranteed to get ones genes passed on, so over time the non-altruistic genes would be weeded out.

You are correct, if only one individual was altruistic to start this off it would confer a dissadvantage. But when there is a significantly large population the occurance of the mutant altruistic gene will be common enough that it would be selected for.

hope that was explained right.

lataz

(mabey later do the email thing)

Genetics apart, don't confuse altruism with the safety of the pack. Initialy the pack allowed us to grow in relative safety, perhaps in this environment the altruistic gene developed. It is noted in history that once the pack became too large that individuals failed to recognize each other then there were problems with social harmony. Notwithstanding I still believe the altruistic gene endured, but by no means prevalent. Does this make sense?

Hi Ben,

It seems to me that your argument hinges on the assumption that there will be a sufficient concentration of "spontaneously altruistic" organisms in a population - i.e. organisms which are altruistic solely as a result of spontaneous mutation. Since cooperation requires a large number of complex behaviour traits to be present - the ability to understand another organism's need, the ability to respond to that need, the ability to recognise when another organism is trying to help you out, the ability to respond to that help etc. - I would expect that this would be rather unlikely. I don't know what research has been done into this though.

Oscar Wilde Yeah thats kinda what I'm trying to get at, I was trying to demonstrate how genes are selected for but yeah, I get what your saying. And again its not prevalent as we can see by those who are quite content to not help others and those that seem to enjoy hurting others.

thanks for adding more info :)

Lataz

To Tim

Its quite demonstratable that there enough spontaneous genes for any behavior or gene. If you look at any gene, it doesnt have to be altruism it can be anything the genetics are the same, if a gene confers an advantage it is passed, also if it doesnt confer a disadvantage and is neutral it is passed on. In early man it is likely that there were genes for altruism and non-altruism, to say that non-altruism is default is simply to assume that the first men were non-cooperative, in fact it is more likely that the default was neither and that early man started to get better at surviving by cooperating and through cooperation there was the introduction of altruistic behavior (Cooperation and altruism are not the same thing and cooperation can be seen to predate altruism as man is not biologically capable enough to survive on his own for long, we are a pack animal.) Anyway I'm really babling here but back on topic. Look in a cooperative pack altruism would not confer an advantage but it would also not confer a disadvantage since the selfless actions would not likely be returned with anger since in a pack actions that help that pack would be considered good by other members of the pack. There are many cooperative animals today that can be observed and seen to behave in such a way.

As an example of non-helpful or lethal genes look at anything that doesnt affect survival. If you look at height it doesnt affect survival thus we have a range of hieght in humans, same with eye colour. And in fact humans are also not required to be as strong as in the past when strength was more required. Thus we can actually see more weak people surviving past birth to pass on their genes and thus an increse in the genetic variety of the population.

Hope that made some sence...

Lataz :)

I think my saying"by no means prevalent" does a discourtesy to whatever percentage of people that practice altruism. I believe for the most part it is inherent in the goodly majority, wheather life knocks it out of some would be understandable, but it must remain in a reasonable large percentage of the population. For it cannot be said that adherance to the rule of law gives us the society we live in today.

If you look at height it doesnt affect survival thus we have a range of hieght in humans

Actually, greater height is a selective advantage up to a point. The taller you are the further you can see. However, beyond a certain point you're more likely to fracture your skull when you fall over so you don't see many people over 6ft6in tall.

As far as altruism goes, I think that in the absence of any scientific evidence we're not going to be able to make much progress on this subject. I still think that you're relying on the pre-existence of a complicated trait that would not have a selective advantage on its own. But anyway. I'll keep my eyes peeled for news on this subject.

Sorry to butt in on this bit about altruism, but I am responding to what Dino last said.

Dino, It is unfortunate that the theory of the expanding universe is called the Big Bang Theory (coined derisively by Fred Hoyle in 1950 because of Hoyle's rival Steady State theory). The theory is not that there was this sudden explosion, but that the universe was concentrated and at time=0 began to expand. I was going to try to explain more, but it is so complex, that you would be best to read about it, as there is no way that I or anyone else could explain it in a few sentences. This theory could be wrong, but so far, the observed facts support it and there have been no credible facts to disprove it that I am aware of. So what happened before this singularity, called the "big bang"? Well, because no one has yet come up with a unified theory to explain the contradictions between quantum theory and the theory of gravity, the answer to this question cannot yet be explained by physics. Physicists, including Einstein, Stephen Hawkings, and others, have been working on a unified theory since the 1830s. Some people have been tossing around String Theory, but there are no observable events which back up String Theory, that is, it has nothing in way of falisifiable results and in this respect, is very similar to a religious belief in my opinion.

I would recommend that you spend some time reading about all of this from a physicist's point of view. I am sure that you would find it very fascinating. By mixing religion with science, we do both a disservice.

There are some articles and probably lots of reasurch being done on the altruistic gene around but I have no links handy, I have a few articles in some science magazines at home but for now I need to go to class.

Nice chattin with you guys

lataz

Correction: I was reading what I wrote and it sounds like I am saying that Hawkings and Einstein have/had been working on the unified theory since the 1830's.. obviously not true! lol

Hello Shweetheart, you good?

Why, I am hanging in there, thank you. Sho nice of you to ashk.. and what admirable altruishm you dishplay by exhibiting shuch courteshy in my regard. ;)

Steady now Grommit, just because you make cracking toast there's no reason to take the micky.

I much preferred this installment to the first. I was particularly impressed that he managed to restrain himself from calling anyone a Nazi on-camera. In all seriousness, it was an improvement, but people are making a lot of valid criticisms here. Personally, I find it amusing that he'll say that "It is surely more moral to do good things for their own sake rather than to suck up to some god" -- and then go on to argue that we're moral simply because it's advantageous to our survival and social status. Some of Dawkins's own work (for example, The Selfish Gene) paints an even bleaker picture of how altruistic behavior arises. Similarly, it's disingenuous for him to vilify religion by calling it a virus when he made himself known in popular circles by arguing (in that same book) that all ideas are viruses. Or how he asks a priest to explain how he can selectively interpret the Bible -- something that all religions do; heck, that anyone assessing any large body of work must do -- only to cut him off as soon as he begins, narrating his opinion on the matter over the priest's. Stuff like that. Just a lot of little cheap tricks.

That said, he did raise some valid points. It would have been nicer if he'd explored them more in-depth, but it's understandable given that he only had an hour and a half to work with. And, on the whole, I really thought he did a much better job of treating his guests with respect -- challenging them, sometimes with rather difficult, pointed questions, but still with a generally courteous attitude. I particularly liked the fact that he hinted at an atheist spirituality. One of the reasons that people turn to religion is to gain a sense of context and to find some sense of belonging in the world. Atheism can offer that, but its popular image remains that of dour dead germans and angry marxists and impotent science geeks who simply reject spirituality on the technical grounds of religion, rather than offering something positive. It's nice to see a more positive portrayal of atheism.

In the end, I was surprised that he never really rose to tackle the question of whether religion is the root of all evil. I mean, it was the title of the program, it seemed to be the central thesis, it's (to my mind) certainly not a self-evident proposition, so I was surprised that he didn't address it more directly. For example, I might've thought that selfishness could be the root of all evil, or lack of empathy, but he barely addressed those, and certainly didn't make the case that they spring exclusively from religion. Still, he raised a lot of valid points and, given the time constraints, put forward a provocative argument. A little mixed, but all in all, interesting stuff.

It would be nice if he'd cool it with the cheap shots, though. They just make him look like a prick.

Fairly ho-hum, pedantic stuff until the very end where he describes quite perfectly the wonder of our existence. Thanks for posting this clip.

I have a question a bit off topic, but just curious. Why do people refer to genitalia when wanting to put someone down? NationElectric, after all that you say about being fair, it surprises me that you would use the word "prick" in this manner. Not that I am offended, but I do find curious people's use of phrases such as, what a pussy he is; what an asshole; what a prick; etc..

Oscar, what on earth, dear man, are you talking about? raises eyebrow and looks confused

Tim wrote

"I wonder if it is possible to prove, scientifically, the value of doing good. Or even what the definition of "good" is."

What if good simply doesn't exist outside of the human mind. How would you prove it? What if there isn't any good and it's just a subjective human experience? Then there would be nothing to prove would there?

I would say to my religous friends grow up and get over it!

Kevin says

"Consider that MLK and the civil rights movement in the US was only possible when fought for and organized by Christian believers. Religion isn’t monolithically destructive; it has been a force of positive change against bigotry, racism, and for positive class struggle (think: South America)."

Yes MLK was religious a Muslim if I am not mistaken, but because he was religious doesn't mean it had anything to do with the Civil right movement. I think those things happened DISPITE his religous persuasion. The same with the other examples you gives. Correlation isn't Causation it's a common logical fallacy.

Its just funny that you call 90% of the population morons (people who believe in the invisible man in the sky) and then wonder why they label you as arrogant.

Fortino Samano

"It seens to me that Dawkins is as reliogious as the people he is trying to critisize."

Ok define the opposite of religion. That is what Dawkins is. If you can define the exact opposite of relgion than you argument isn't valid is it. What you confusing here is that Dawkins has a set of values that isn't the same as religion look it up!

"It looks that for Dawkins Science can explain everything"

Your just wrong Dawkins doesn't believe science can explain everything he just thinks it's the best tool we humans have for discovering the truth. Your projecting your own religious ideals on to Dawkins. Religion is the one trying to explain everything not science. In fact that is why many religious people don't like science because unlike religion it doesn't have answers for everything!

"What's K. Armstrong's first name?" I know I am not Kevin but her full name is Karen Armstrong.

Dear Heart, does strike me that inspite of your obvious brilliant intellect, that if I may be so bold, perhaps your cultural education is in part unfulfilled by the smallest of amounts, insomuch that you fail to reckognize the imortal words of Wallace heaping praise on his ever faithful dog, Grommit. Perhaps you have yet to experience the pleasure of this world renown plastacine duo.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, a Muslim??? That is factually incorrect; he was an ordained Baptist minister.

MLK said: "I am many things to many people," King acknowledged in 1965, "but in the quiet recesses of my heart, I am fundamentally a clergyman, a Baptist preacher. This is my being and my heritage for I am also the son of a Baptist preacher, the grandson of a Baptist preacher and the great-grandson of a Baptist preacher."

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/additional_resources/articles/gospel.htm

"King affirmed his abiding faith in a God who was both a comforting personal presence and a powerful spiritual force acting in history for righteousness." (Or, as PotShot would put it, he was a moron.)

Dr. King's religion was a driving force behind the civil rights movement. From a 1954 sermon: "I'm here to say to you this morning that some things are right and some things are wrong. Eternally so, absolutely so. It's wrong to hate. It always has been wrong and it always will be wrong! It's wrong in America, it's wrong in Germany, it's wrong in Russia, it's wrong in China! It was wrong in two thousand BC, and it's wrong in nineteen-fifty-four AD! It always has been wrong, and it always will be wrong! ... Some things in this universe are absolute. The God of the universe has made it so."

To claim that Martin Luther King's devotion to human and civil rights was in SPITE of, not because of, his religion, is ridiculous.

Chronotis: You are mistaken. MLK was Christian. What he preached in terms of civil rights related directly to Christian principles of equality, so I don't understand how you can make the claim that he became a civil rights leader despite his religious persuasion. As far as your whole "Dawkins believes in nothing" claim, I think it is entirely impossible for humans to believe in nothing. Even a belief that there is no God is a belief and affects the behavior of the person who holds that belief. People may not be religious, but they still attach values to things and behave accordingly. Dawkins adheres to a system of beliefs that govern his behavior. I can tell you what that sounds like to me.

Tim: I think you missed the point on the height issue. We have a range because people are capable of surviving whether they be short or tall. I can't think of one instance where a person being able to see farther because of their height made any difference in their ability to survive. If we're talking giraffes, then height is a factor, but not in humans.

Correlation isn't Causation it's a common logical fallacy.

Yes....I seem to remember someone else making that mistake recently ;)

Being taller allowed men to spot the dinasours sorry mammoths easier.

Cure4pain , for me, it was the gift of common curiosity that made them warm and fuzzy on the couch. I don't want to replay the entire clip, but curiosity doesn't exclude any life form. Even gravity can be thought of as a form of curosity between inanimate objects...so much that they must mate;)

Strange, but have you ever considered the word, nihilism, atleast as an evolutionary biologist would use it to describe fundamentalist 'absolutist' religion? That such religions deny the 'memes' of their one-celled ancestry and give all to a holy book! It is remarkable that I cannot see the whole without it's parts but neither the parts without the whole. It's the religious part of science. It leads to modeling and remodeling. Approximations. Hypotheses and test. Observance of nature and attempted reenactment of nature. Our domain in nature is in hypothesis. We are all scientists. It's in the tenative explanation of the way things are. Any other kind of explanation ignores reality and has the feel of nihilism. Even god must evolve if we are to have personal faith along with mutual respect...otherwise, which version should we believe?! It's self-defeating to let others do our thinking. I see the meaning of god evolving here because the dialog questions. The closest definition of god I have in common with the two men on the couch is that it is 'chance' subject to the laws of nature that Socrates said we couldn't know but we now know better--better to cut the entrails of animals than state with certainty anthing without an error of margin. Simply put, I'm in awe of existence and unfounded religious cynicism/notions will not make headway--god is in the pollen we sniff. It smells different to us all but its veracity is in the notions we accept and its falseness, that which makes us sneeze.

A few thoughts:

Goodness me, I never realised Atheists were so middle class.

We really havn't had a continual moral improvement since the dawn of civilisation. Even the bible accounts for homosexuality being quite okay with the general public back in at least two places that are often mentioned (Sodom and G). I'm not seeing evolvements from anyones point of view - just shuffling round and a bit of narrow minded "our culture is greatest" like what would have existed just before Rome collapsed. (sure the West has evolved over the last 100 years but doesn't that cheapen this evolving concept a little?) In other places in the world you could argue the opposite.

How does Oliver Curry from the London school of Economics know that morality is older than religion? I thought it was just worth more LOL.

Fun anyway - I dislike religion intensely - it's counter to all I believe in - including my God "in the sky". Religion as he so aptly described it is Man trying to get to heaven (read selfish endeavour) - my understanding is that selfishness is the best translation for "sin". And it's the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" that encaptulates that the best. It's only when people forget themselves and helps someone "down the chain" from them for no selfish reason (it's called charity) that we as humans start to evolve...

Karen Armstrong

Norm - Thanks for posting this. I truly love it. {Have a degree in religious studies.}

I hate to break the news but much of what is commonly regarded as Christian morality was inherited from the pagan cultures that spawned it. Kenneth Dover puts it wonderfully in his book The Greeks: “No social creature can survive without a code of practice to which most members of a community, most of the time, conform when their wishes conflict; and that is morality.”

It seems to me that the reason why religion and specifically christianity is such and easy target is that no one truly follows its tenets. Christianity as it began in the first century has very little to do with the religions today who try to carry that title. I disagree with Dawkins conclusions that evolution is a more rational explanation of life but I do agree with his take on religion. Religion has blinded men with fear and ignorance throughout the ages. Religions have also become very wealthy and have gained enormous political and social power. They have created clergy classes who dispense their "truths" to a flock who seldom question it's veracity.

People belong to religions for many reasons. Often it is because of their families or to be a part of a greater community. Religion is really like a buffet. Where there is a lot variety and you can pick and choose what you want. People usually attach themselves to something that suits them. By doing this they effectively have created a god that is in their image or who they think he is.

Okay, that being said, here we are in 2006 and what can we see from man's history? Millions of different religions scattered all over the earth most claiming they are the truth. They have a history of violence, oppression, corruption, collusion with governments, racism, conquest and death. Sure, they do some good but if you want to attack another country, it's far more justifiable if you can get religions behind you. Even Hitler went to the Lutheran and Catholic churches to bolster support before the war and he was given it with few dissenters.

My point: Religion deserves to be judged. I do think it is evil because it teaches man's thoughts as God's. I do believe in God and consider myself a Christian. It is my feeling that God has been grossly misrepresented throughout history by those claiming to represent Him. Acts 17:30: “God has overlooked the times of such ignorance, yet now he is telling mankind that they should all everywhere repent.”

I realize this is a pretty tough crowd in here but I thought an alternate opinion might be permitted.

David W, Thank you for this well thought-out reasonable and heartfelt response.

With Dostoyevsky, it's always important to distinguish between what his characters say, and his own beliefs.

Mike Jensen, Ok, I will retract the whole moron thing... after all I did not bring it up. How about ignorant buffoon? Not matter what amount of pleasure a person gets from taking part in quacky traditions, or talking in tongues or whatever nonsense, it still does not change the fact that such energies could be better applied elsewhere. We are in VERY testing times as we are nearing the finish line of humanities technological progress. We can't let mornic religious regression snatch victory from our grasp at the very last moment...

I am sorry if I hurt any "true believers" precious feelings, but the stakes are far to high to risk so much for the sake of so much nonsense.

It used to be that faith--and god--were used as explanations for things mysterious to mankind. Our civilization has aquired much understanding once explained by god's will. Unfortunately, it seems that so much is now understand that it is beyond the grasp of the general populace. No... not beyond the grasp, people are quite capable of learning, it is just that it takes so much effort, and challenges such cherished beliefs that most just opt out of enlightenment, and instead choose to just accept whatever religious explanation they happened to "catch" from their parents(which is much easier to understand), and go on living their ho-hum life waiting to die so they can be whisked off to heaven.

And yes, an idea is like a virius. Ideas pass from mind to mind, and if valuable for some reason, it will spread like wildfire. This does not necessarily imply a negative connotation; religion once had its uses, but now the virius that is faith has become anything but beneficial.

Off topic, but:

I really do hope you post the video clip for Jon Stewart's 'taint' routine tonight. I was in tears. You post it, I'll link to it.

man, you can tell Dawkins isn't even listening, so ready to attack and tear based on his own predefined strawmen. he tears into Religion both as unnecessary due to pre-Religion "altruistic genes" and evolving out of it due to "education"; sorry it's not an aberration if it keeps happening again and again it's a social construct borne of your hard-wired monkey brains. Jesus said some good things and some people want group confirmation of a moral compass. ain't nothin' wrong with that. i don't need it, but i don't believe we must have all this all or nothing polarised shit that is surfacing in every area of our society. such venom everywhere! "altruistic genes" my aching arse. and WTF about that closing statement?!?!?! a masterpieceofshit of yellow journalism (not only viz message, but edit, music, etc techniques) Dawkins, please stay off my side, kthxbye.

All I get is the message "QuickTime is missing software...Unfortunately it is not available on the QT server."

So that means I can't see your video at all.

Don't you have something better like Real Networks?

John

Potshot said, "No... not beyond the grasp, people are quite capable of learning, it is just that it takes so much effort"

Yes, that is what is so irritating. All of these people refuting evolution and the big bang don't even bother to really study it and read about, except for what they read in religious blogs. I responded to Dino about the Big Bang. My response was not insulting, it was sincere, but he didn't bother to respond. Maybe if I had posted something emotional, he would have responded, I don't know.

I noted that in a previous thread, Norm posted some links to an excellant website exploring the creation/evolution controversy. here it is. Now, what are the odds that any of the people refuting evolution will even bother to take out the time to study and read this link? Well, not one person responded to Norm's link before, so I don't suppose that any of them will bother reading it now. How does someone expect to be respected if they do not even bother to study the topic which they are debating?

I try to be fair, but when people make claims about a topic such as evolution without even bothering to do their homework first, it is irritating.

And how can anyone discuss religion when there are so many different interpretations of the Bible and so many different religions with different belief systems. Religion is basically a private thing, and to discuss it logically is impossible.

And yes, please some Jon Stewart.. I need another fix.

Sigh...

I just read the following... if only...

LEWIS LAPHAM: I see Harper's as a journal for people who still read, who like to read, and who look upon reading as a pleasure, not as an acquisition of data. I assume the presence of intelligent readers, and so the magazine becomes a joint venture that depends on the participation of both writer and reader. The encounter requires imagination on each side of the page: the courage of the writer to try to tell the truth as he or she has seen it—or heard it, or felt it, or guessed at it—and the will of the reader to take seriously, to try to grasp imaginatively, what is being said. It's an active exchange, and Harper's addresses itself to people willing to do the work. To the best of my knowledge, the audience is not large, or maybe it is large but so difficult to locate that it becomes a fugitive audience. The readers don't conform to a standard demographic—age, income, zip code, years in graduate school, etc. Most of our subscribers live west of the Hudson River, many of them in California. A random assortment of individuals, all of whom like to read....

Video never loads. Audio display a broken QT symbol. Too bad as the topic sounded interesting and this happens often at this site.

JR

Thanks again for posting this, Norm.

Also, did you see The Daily Show tonight? Although it may have no real importance, you've GOT to post the "taint" thing with Ed Helms... I was dying!

Do those complaining about the video have Quicktime 7 installed?

Just a "thanks" to you people, for actually thinking and being critical.

PotShot-

"Well, if you believe in the "big man in the sky" thing, then you are a moron. Sorry, but that is the reality of the matter."

"How about ignorant buffoon?"

"taking part in quacky traditions, or talking in tongues or whatever nonsense"

"mornic religious regression"

"sorry if I hurt any "true believers" precious feelings"

Your arrogance and superiority is breathtaking. Can't people have civilized discourse anymore?

POLL for atheists:

Does being an atheist require ridiculing people for believing in God? Is this a form of proselytizing?

And what exactly does this accomplish? Have you ever actually convinced someone there is no God by telling them how stupid they are, etc. Does that work for you?

Theocracy looks fun ehh!

Religions are successful because they convey advantages to the members of their group. In general, all are welcome in a church, synagogue, mosque, or what-have-you. There is a sense of community, being part of a faith, that is otherwise lacking today in many people's lives. Many benefits to being a member of a religion have nothing to do with gods either. In some communities, business people will even join churches if only to network.

Most people in my experience accept the world simply and do not consider questioning or going beyond their current best understanding. For those, god may be or is the best answer. However, being learned or thoughtful is not a prerequisite for atheism or agnosticism. For those that have taken an interest and studied biology and evolution, we have had a glimpse behind the curtain if you will. That glimpse of reality - how the universe works - may be satisfying for us but it can be outright frightening too. Those who take the time to study history I suppose are equally at risk of finding that the church(but insert any religion) has holes, blemishes, or fabrications - that doesn't make it evil.

I studied biology in college and lost friends because of my newfound agnosticism/atheism(like another poster). Atheism or agnosticism are not satisfying alternatives to many who find comfort in their faiths. My views were poison to many I had considered friends and my enlightenment, if I may be so arrogant(jk) as to use that word, came through much effort to ask questions which for me had never been satisfyingly answered, study, and learn. However, not all religious people treat others poorly because of alternate beliefs or lack of any faith. I have personally experienced good and bad with regards to religion and know of evils committed in the name of religion but I still do not consider religions a root of evil.

It is true that religions may have been a key factor in many evils of today and history but so have governments and greed been responsible for evils AND no one can 'realistically' suggest that all government or money should be abolished. Do scientists denounce governments with as much vociferousness as they do religions - NO. Governments are as much a root of all evil if religions are to be considered as such.

SOME have used religious people to do evil. Eliminating religions is not a viable solution in any foreseeable future. A better way to confront the most egregious impacts of religion may be to teach more people to think and question. If that is an aim of Dawkins then he is succeeding despite some finding him repellant.

I very well see religions for what they are. I also see science for what it is. Religion is in no way a root of evil and for scientists to suggest it, is, to me, silly. Atheists and agnostics may want to pull back the curtain and expose reality to all but at least in the US, we have shown that we are not yet ready. I am uncertain if reality is ready yet either ; ) There is still so much to discover.

Religions are special types of tribes. Tribalism and group/tribe behavior is what needs to be questioned and better understood though it is not so 'sexy' a topic. How are leaders of any kind able to subvert the morals of a group to their own ends. How does the individual within a group or the group as a whole deal with leaders who are subversive. Religions are just as susceptible to being misled as any group or tribe (or maybe even more so).

Of course, I admit I am still very much a learner with regards to these matters and submit my thoughts for your consideration and/or amusement : )

And one other thing irt THE VIRUS OF FAITH.

If faith is a virus than it is more like common cold. In some instances it is as lethal as ebola but those cases are rare.

Interestingly scientists are working on 'taming' ebola in order to soon treat lung diseases and a former killer becomes medicine. Just makes me think that if scientists can see the good points of ebola then they can see that religion has had its good points too ; )

Hannah, "Your arrogance and superiority is breathtaking. Can't people have civilized discourse anymore?"

I would much prefer to get my message across, and if I must be blunt so be it. It is a matter of fact that if you believe in nonsense then you are some kind of fool. Be it a harmless fool, or a harmful fool.

Once again, just because I am sure of myself, and to some, may seem arrogant, this does not mean you can dismiss the truth out of hand. This applies to Dawkins, Maher, Sagan, or anyone else that has ever tried to save our species from misleading path of religious thought.

I am not special because of my beliefs. I do not consider my self entirely too important. There are some theists though(almost all of them) that believe that they are buddy-buddy with the creator of the cosmos, and as a result of chosen to live with him forever... after there "mortal body" dies of course. Although I dread uttering the word, I think such beliefs are the epitome of arrogance.

The atheist viewpoint, unlike the theist, stresses that the current arrangement of matter that makes up our body is all that is responsible for our consciousness. If this matter gets altered enough, our consciousness ends. Thus, it is very important that we make the most of the time we have.

To me this means scientific knowledge and progress, which should be divorced from foolish. While there are some redeeming qualities to some religious practices, fundamental belief is flawed, and hinders--now more than ever--our true knowledge of reality. From all that I have seen, heard, or read we are very close to conquering death(without the aid of any deity).

My frustration with childish beliefs becomes evident. I see that we can accomplish true immortality, not just from worthless theistic beliefs, but from an increased understanding of some basic rules about reality, and our bodies. We have learned much in the last century, and as a result our average life expectency has doubled. This has nothing to do with religion, which has often in the past subsituted "bad humors" for the germ theory.

Critical thinking, and a frank and honest look at reality is the true path to heaven. A heaven on earth, and elsewhere in the cosmos...

Does it make me arrogant that I believe we are capable of so much more?

Potshot -

As much as I like much of the rational thinking you bring up in your posts, Hannah has a point as well. If your goal really is to get your point across, being as blunt as possible is not the way to go. You're only going to turn people off to your message. Being blunt suceeds in rallying those that already agree with you, and irritating those that disagree. Lump sum of difference made from the manner in which you state your points? Zero.

I'd also like to toss a thought out there (for those keeping track, I'm one of those 'fence sitters' who believes in religion, doesn't take the bible literally, disagrees with some of the positions of his faith [why is that shocking?] and believes in the scientific method) - religions have survived as long as they have because they too evolve. Religions THEMSELVES are proof of evolution, and I hope they continue to do so, because I strongly disagree with any fellow Catholic who says our religion is perfect.

Dear Hannah,

I believe that civility is possible. While I am personally an atheist, my dearest friend in this world is a Christian minister with a doctorate in theology from a top university. He’s also brilliant and has a firm grasp of philosophy from Plato to present and a keen interest in world religions, liberation movements, the arts, the Lakers, and science. We respectfully disagree at many turns, but more importantly, the discussions are always inspirational. We’ve talked long hours about similar topics with the greatest respect for one another.

As a professional artist, I find that the arts and religion are formed from similar tapestries from which we seek reflection, solace, and understanding. The function is different from scientific understanding.

I find the idea of insulting the intelligence or intellectual curiosity of those interested in religion to be analogous to making similar statements about people interested in literature, the arts, rest of the humanities, and even science. At the end of the day, hanging one’s hat solely, even thinly on science is degrading to the human spirit, as it would be to do the same with religion. Yesterday, I was reading an article by non-other than Steven J. Gould who said in the course of an article arguing for scientific literacy (and I must paraphrase because the book isn’t with me) that people who have not read the bible are culturally illiterate. Maybe a little more intellectual curiosity on both sides would make the conversation more interesting.

Well, Kevin, it ain't on my reading list--the bible that is. I find it suffices to read bits and pieces and talk about it from a classical stand point--as a work of humanity and nothing more. And further, mustn't the Torah and the Koran and Bagvavita and all of Joseph Cambell be on the Literates resume? Not to mention all the Greek and Roman and European philosopy giants. It's hard to be literate by another's standard. It's wiser to be literate by one's own standard and means as long as there is some ambition and SOME open-mindedness. (there is no evidence of an afterlife accept in the input we have on our fellow humans and nature--ain't that enough!)

I tried to read the bible a few times. It doesn't work for me. Religions don't work. Talking to people does work. And some of them have read religious works. I don't try to convert them to my beliefs. I merely point out how their held beliefs contrast my own beliefs--steming from atheism and mother nature's surprises. If religion is evolving, Science is pushing the envolope. I will now hang my hat upon my thining head, but first thank you all for the good words and even the angry words--those evolutionary spurs that make folks think differently.

I go back and forth on this issue. On the one hand, I do believe that being civil is important if you care to accomplish anything with your words, so Hannah, I do understand what you are saying. You have always been civil and this is the first time that I have ever read an angry post from you. You accept the atheist point of view and you are open minded, so I understand why you are so annoyed when others are not civil and open minded. I have seen you come to the defense of atheists many times and chide other Christians for being so close minded. All of that I say in order to convey that I respect what you say. On the other hand, it does get very annoying to try to have a dialogue with someone who does not stay with the subject and responds with some oblique comment. If the exchange was with believers such as yourself, Because, Kevin's friend, then a more civil dialogue would be possible.

On the other hand, sometimes responses from atheists are not intended to change anyone's mind, but are uttered out of frustration. It may be difficult to express a view about Christianity and God on this blog, but it is the other way around everywhere else. Atheists are discriminated against because we do not believe in a god. I often heard harsh negative things said about atheists from the CEO and the COO where I used to work and I could not respond. Everyday at work, I would receive emails which went on and on about believing in God and faith and prayer etc etc. and I just had to bite my tongue. It is rare to find other atheists in the United States and atheists often don't know any other atheists except for those they meet online. I personally, in the flesh, have only met three other atheists where I live. I have to tolerate family members wanting to save my soul and praying for me that I accept the Lord. I have some Christian internet friends who know that I am an atheist. I never put them down for their beliefs, yet they insist on sending me email after email about the power of faith, yet I do not want to offend them and say anything. Note how they do not seem to have any problem about worrying about offending me. But here at OGM, there exists this little world where atheists are the majority, and this is an uncommon occurence. So if believers are offended, they are many places for them to go to not be offended, and many more places by far than an atheist can go to. Still, your point is well taken

As for reading the Bible, I have read it, and I even enjoy parts of the old testament, while the new testament I find boring. And because there are literary references to the Bible, sure it should be on anyone's reading list.

Dear Anon,

Remember, I was paraphrasing Steven J. Gould and not stating person conviction. So your frustration is better directed at him. That said, the attempts to introduce a classics education in the academic world (Victor Hanson) seems to me to be noble, and also doomed to fail because of our failure to agree upon what that might be, as you note. That failure also means, sadly, that we often don’t have a commonality upon which to base our conversations. But alas, “This above all: to thine own self be true.”

Kevin,

Well and good. Except that we are discussing people who, with a lack of evidence, genuinely and sincerely believe all the crap in all of the religious texts to be literal fact. And all of the texts are, to a greater or lesser degree, contradictory. Therefore, they can't all be right. You can ascribe to relativism, so all the religions can be "right" socioculturally, but then you have to say that there is no real absolute truth. But each of the religions, within their chief texts, strikes a claim on absolute truth.

See?

It's well and good to have religious associates and overlook their peculiarity. (Like the joke about the husband who thought he was a chicken, why not get him "cured", we need the eggs, har har har) but the simple fact remains that they sincerely believe in something that is insane. With no evidence.

Science is not religion, they may share a few characteristics, such as fervor of its adherents. But there are crucial differences.

"On the other hand, sometimes responses from atheists are not intended to change anyone's mind, but are uttered out of frustration."

A very good point, and one I sometimes forget. My apologies to anyone whose motives I misunderstand. If you can't vent on the internet, where can you?

One of the main reasons I post here (besides the Daily Show clips, which was my first attraction) is the fact that my view is in the minority. It's interesting to read other points of view to help challenge and refine my own. Posting in a room where everyone agrees with you is fun for about all of 6 seconds.

On what you all face as athiests in a highly theist society, I can only empathize. Being a theist doesn't make me immune to the apostlizing of others, but I doubt what I recieve is as intense and aggressive as what atheists receive. Reading these posts is a step in understanding better, so I'm happy for that opportunity.

Dear Daniel

Seeing as how you have no idea as to the beliefs of my friend, I’m surprised that you can say anything about them, let alone that they are, in your words, “insane.” In your first paragraph, I believe that you assume that all believers suffer from an inability to distinguish between mythos and logos and cannot have a transcendent understanding of their faith. I don’t believe this to be true. Furthermore, a concept of “absolute truth” is an area for broad debate on philosophical grounds. Scientists don’t believe that they are making absolute truth claims, do they? Lastly, no one would be so silly as to claim, using your words, that “science is religion.”

Cracking post Gromit, what's a coo?

Ok first Jo Ann. Im sorry i didn't answer your post but i live in Europe and i need sleep and u know food and i need to have fun work... Ok maybe not work but i can't answer your posts so quickly and there have already been a hundred. Ok now on to the discussion. I dunno Potshot you might have a point about having to be arrogant to get your point out but id rather be civil. The thing about religion for me is simple. U see this is all really just a discussion and your guess is as good as mine. I mean u might be a 100% certain that there is no God but are u telling me that in the course of your life you have never been certain in anything and been wrong? What im trying to say is that if you are right and i am wrong, when we die we will both be on the same level, eternal blackness. But on the off chance that you are wrong and i am right, slight as this chance might be, then you are in some deep... Well you get the point. As for all the ohh i got my feelings hurt i gotta tell mommy thats stupid everybody here is a grown up and can take it.

Ok first Jo Ann. Im sorry i didn't answer your post but i live in Europe and i need sleep and u know food and i need to have fun work... Ok maybe not work but i can't answer your posts so quickly and there have already been a hundred. Ok now on to the discussion. I dunno Potshot you might have a point about having to be arrogant to get your point out but id rather be civil. The thing about religion for me is simple. U see this is all really just a discussion and your guess is as good as mine. I mean u might be a 100% certain that there is no God but are u telling me that in the course of your life you have never been certain in anything and been wrong? What im trying to say is that if you are right and i am wrong, when we die we will both be on the same level, eternal blackness. But on the off chance that you are wrong and i am right, slight as this chance might be, then you are in some deep... Well you get the point. As for all the ohh i got my feelings hurt i gotta tell mommy thats stupid everybody here is a grown up and can take it.

Thanks to all who responded to my questions.

Let me attempt to explain where I am coming from (and why I was so frustrated). I am a Christian and many of you are Atheists, yet nevertheless, I view you guys as allies. To use two issues as examples, liberals fight for the separation of church and state and keeping religion out of science classrooms. In this I join you, yet as a religious person I bring arguments for this endeavor that are going to be more compelling to the 90% of Americans who are religious. If those 90% feel that separation of church and state is a concern for only atheists then we all will lose (especially in this political climate).

If we can agree to keep religion out of science, why isn't the reverse true? We can not hold scientific experiments and prove or disprove God. Science can not test the supernatural. Science is not Faith. They are two separate things. Science is agnostic and should remain so.

If your aim is to "enlighten" us religious idiots, good luck on that. While you're alienating religious liberals, right-wingers will thank you for helping to divide this nation further. That is the only way they win.

My beliefs and values are incredibly important to me. I can personally attest that my religion has had a positive impact on my life. I see the positive impact my church has on the community. So I have to assume that atheist liberals confuse religious liberals with the 700 Club. I agree that religion can be and is used to do evil things. So can science. Yet I do not propose we do away with science. How about we agree not to throw out the good with the bad.

If you're waiting for atheism to deliver us peace, compassion and goodwill towards man - I am afraid we will all be living in war, hatred and division among mankind for a long time to come. Meanwhile in the real world, a majority of people on earth believe in God. And will continue to do so, whether you like it or not. Why do us humans operate as though everyone must be exactly like us, to believe exactly as we do - in order for us to all get along. Can't we see that that day, where we are all exactly alike with the same beliefs, will never come? That we must learn to see the humanity in others who are so different from ourselves. To work towards a better world that respects all our differences. I fear that if that dialogue and alliance does not happen among liberals, we will fail.

I can understand why you do not want someone else's values shoved down your throat. If someone is to see your humanity, you may say, they can not compel you to proclaim belief in something you do not. You may argue and debate and concede on certain points but your fundamental beliefs and values remain the same and that is to be respected if you are remain acquaintances. To do otherwise, is to treat the other needlessly as an enemy and discount their humanity.

So how is it that you all are intelligent and perceptive enough to recognize the corrosiveness of division that Fox News spews out. Where name-calling is considered debating an issue.You can see how the shout-fests are hurting our country. Everyone is an enemy. Your either with us or against us. Friend or foe. Either or.

Lately, I have seen this attitude throughout our country. Conservatives and Liberals. From people who are normally not that way. More than anything else, this scares me. I see our country changing. We hate each other. And this is encouraged politically, it's promoted in the media. The drumbeat you hear, it is calling for civil war. Think ahead a couple of years, where does this divisiveness lead us? Perhaps, cooler heads will prevail. Perhaps not.

Part of that equation is up to us. It takes two to tango.

Public service announcement:

For those of you who have confused religious liberals with the 700 Club people, to show that people like me are not your enemy, here is a website I encourage you to visit and see for yourself. You'll probaly be suprised despite our differences, how much we do have in common and that we fight for alot of the same causes.

Hannah, Very well said. You Rock!!

I have Quicktime 7.0.4, and that audio link just doesn't work. The video is fine, and I've never had trouble with previous audio links on this site.

Hello Hannah. That you believe in what you do is not under attack from me. 'Tis your right to take your belief as undoubtably it is your right to exist. Speaking as an aetheist,my reaction to religions is one of weariness. Plain and simply I look at all religions in exactly the same way; they are not logical. And it is logic that is our, for want of a better word, god, small g. Consequently because it is not logical I see religion as a MAN MADE superstition, end of story. You can see Dawkins bristle when he interviews certain people, they are argueing for the illogical, nothing in the world will ever change our outlook. What you believe in is illogical, in our eyes and in the eyes of science. You gave a link to the site, what do I do? a quick look round without reading a thing. I look upon that site as I would look upon a right wing site, I would no more read their propaganda than yours, the reason being, I look at their dissinformation and I'm weary of it. What they say, given the known facts, is for the most part lies, consequntly I don't read the the right because it's not LOGICAL. I may have been able to put this better ,but here again the hour gets late this side of the pond. May your God go with you. Oscar.

~Chief Operations Officer ~Cracking post Gromit, you can talk!

Gromit, we have a problem!" (Cracking Contraptions). Well, I would suggest a bully proof vest. Well I think we got away with that, eh pooch?"

Ok, sorry Hannah, but I have been corrupted by Wilde man. Otherwise I would not be acting like this. He is a bad influence. ;)

Peace be with you Jo Ann

Jo Ann, did you find a clip from Cracking Contraptions or are you quoting from the stills. I shall have another trawl in the morn and see what else I can turn up. Have you gone modern (dvd) or do you still have vcr, I have three W&G films on tape. "You don't like cheese, not even Wenslydale" This is getting mad!

~I quoted from Wikipedia ~Oh, now that's just not cricket, Gromit! Anyone for tennis, perchance?"

~I have both dvd and vcr :) "All's well that ends well"

"Theres no use prevaracating about the bush"

Jo Ann, have a look in here, we have been having the craic in the comments. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013747.html#comments

Jo Ann, your point is well taken. Let's just say that, by adopting these kinds of tricks, I fear that Dawkins is unfairly burning his guests and undermining his own message.

Thank you for posting this Norm! Great stuff!!!

I would have never heard of it otherwise. Thanks.

Hannah,

"Good" behavior does not need to be married to religion, nor is necessarily divorced from critical thinking. People are essentially good, and do not need religious authority to tell them hurting others is a bad thing. Atheism may not directly deliver peace on earth. Religion never has, but critical thinking skills are becoming more and more necessary as we advance further down the road of technological progress. I am aware that 90% of humanity tends to believe in some sort of higher power. This is disheartening, hopefully it is something that can be worked on. But simply because the majority holds an opinion, does not make it the correct one.

I am glad to hear that your religious beliefs have helped you, and your religious organization to benefit the community around you. Of course, while they may be far more subtle, I believe that science, and the necessary critical thinking skills, have acheived far more for humanity.

I am aware that science is a double-edged sword. Unlike any other time in human history we have the capability to destroy our entire species. In the past it was nuclear explosives, soon it will be bio-weapons. In the hands of religious fundamentalist, doing "god's" work, this could be a disasterous prospect.

Most of the popular religions have a "end game" situation where god claims the faithful, and destroys the unfaithful. While we still have somewhat of a quasi seperation of church and state, religious tensions are escalating none the less, as each side is preparing to bring about armogeddon. I will not be silent as the fools about me destroy our civilization.

Adding fire to some of my previous posts… Elaine Pagels has something profound to say about Dawkins here: http://www.edge.org/video/dsl/pagels.html

What on earth is her point? That ancient documents were found is always a wonderful thing, showing the mind set of those who wrote them at that period in history.Fantastic new material for anthropologists and theocrats to debate. My point being that they are the writings of men who no doubt were pushing their own agenda, as those that were trying to supress documents were pursuing an equal self interest. Ms Pagels readily admits this. That the documents might show a different genisis for the Christian religion, they are still MAN MADE writings of MAN MADE religions. I find nothing in her arguement that has any bearing on anything, other than academia.

What I found relevant from Pagels' talk (remembering that Dawkins’ show title is“The Root of All Evil?) were the following quotes:

“[Scientists] have no use for it, ridicule it, as R. Dawkins does…” “…and it is easy to do that when you have never studied anything about it, when religion is basically a subject that they knew about as children and basically quit, and therefore their awareness stops with that…” “It is important to look at religion as a function of the human brain, a manifestation of part of the way we think, and certainly a very important part of human culture…” “Many people think that Religion does have to do with social values and the way that groups function…”

What does god do? If "he" controls everything, why would "he" only speak to those that believe in him. Also, for every "miracle" he creates isn't their also some unlucky bastard starving or getting sick from some horrible disease.

Bible Question - How did Jesus die for our sins if he was arrested and crucified for rebellion against Roman authority? Every time I hear he died for our sins, I always say didn't the Roman's hang him up because he went against what they believed. Kind of ironic since some Christians think non-believers are evil.

Just some thoughts i would love some feedback.

Dawkins is surely well versed in religious thought.
The alternate teachings she is talking about is called Gnosticism. Thomas, as the twin to Jesus, was the base half of the christ, while Jesus was the higher self. Gnosticism says we are trapped in a body(thomas) and through gnosticism and understanding the christ(jesus) within us we can escape earth and ascend into heaven.

Required Reading: "The Jesus Mysteries."

PotShot, Your logic is essentialy flawed in the sense that people are "essentialy good" (your words). In all reality humans are essentialy selfish and bad. And that will never make a peacefull coexistance. Religion at least is an attempt to correct that.

Craig White, What makes you think some Christians think non-believers are evil? I don't think that blessings are just for those who kneel. You are in God's grace everyday. Whether or not you choose to acknowlege that is up to you. As far as Jesus is concerned, going against what someone else believes is not a sin. Or are you asking a different question?

"I look upon that site as I would look upon a right wing site, I would no more read their propaganda than yours, the reason being, I look at their dissinformation and I'm weary of it. What they say, given the known facts, is for the most part lies, consequently I don't read the the right because it's not LOGICAL."

This was taken from my earlier comment on this thread. I have just watched a clip over at C&L featuring a Ms Conway and Scarborough. What I've posted above doesn't come within a country mile of the shite I have just witnessed. It goes from the sublime to the ridicolous to the fucking Cor Blimey! In my heart of hearts I can't believe what I have just witnessed. It easy, and it can be a cheap shot to take the worst of another country and hold it to ridicule, but what I have just endured takes the biscuit. If this is main stream television, if this is popular, and it must be, if Americans watch this, and they must, I despair of it, what,as rational thinkers, must your emotions be when watching such overtly biassed drivel. And here I use words that from far express my emotions. The Brits as a race take far less interest in politics, the blogosphere is no where near as vibrant as what is found in the US, given our inactivity and our indifferece, we probably deservse being governed by what we have,BUT,for all our faults, for the great percentage of those of us that you might find hard to hold a conversation with, that you would walk away shaking your head, thinking are these the people that once put the "Great" in Britain. For all that, there is not one television station that would dream, in their wildest of moments, of insulting the people, of any social class, with the likes of what I have just witnessed tonight.

Oscar,

I'm a little confused as how you think the website I linkedto compares to the crap that comes out of Scarborough's mouth. I actually didn't get your propaganda and disinformation comment the first time around anyway.

The Sojouners website I linked to is a progressive website with a religious viewpoint. You know, they have "propaganda" and "disinformation" essays and speeches from people like Bill Moyers (eh gads!) and "propaganda" stories about the Peacemaker teams that were abducted in Iraq or the story about religious activists who were arrested protesting a morally bankrupt budget or the story about jubilee economics, etc.

My entire point of providing that link (and my whole earlier rant) was to show religious progressives are not your enemy. We are literally fighting against the right-wingers morally-bankrupt policies every day. Why write us off? We should be allies.

Geez.

Hannah. First let me paste this from my previos post.

You gave a link to the site, what do I do? a quick look round without reading a thing.

So whatever I'm accused of, you might include "closed minded" "blinkered" "unwilling to listen" "Dogmatic" Of these unenvyable traits I accuse myself, and in the wordsof the imortal George Washington, "I cannot tell a lie" totally guilty, Perhaps that I hold such preconceived faults I should dissbar myself from disscourse on the subject.

Totaly of topic, I do wish these things had a spell check, for all my years on this plannet, my spelling never improves, is it one ess or two, is it ems a plenty, or the one. The book of words sits close to my side, but Hannah,life finds me weary.

Oscar, my dear, I am relieved that you came around to admitting this error in your otherwise intelligent and kind person. (I mean the error of not actually taking a look at the site Hannah posted, for I care little about how many n's or t's that you use) Hannah is of a high intellect and I have seen her posts over the past months and she is a woman of the highest quality who is genuine and who is open minded about atheists.

As for Scarborough, that is nothing compared to some other ones such as Hannity and O'Reilly. The popularity of these shows is a sad reflection of the mentality of a large number of Americans (coughJoe**cough). I am certain than Hannah is as reviled by these shows as you and I are.

Top of day to both of you, Ocsar and Hannah

Lady, your kindness knows no bounds, your forgivenes, like pearls before swine, gentleness in your chastisement of this old sinner, be careful how you hold my heart, crush it not, for I would be lost, I remain by your grace, your most humble servant. Oscar.

Hey - No video. Just a stupid error message about QT missing software which is not available.

Is QT the only dumb format you support here?

Also audio is a broken link.

Originally Posted By Cure4Pain: "PotShot, Your logic is essentialy flawed in the sense that people are "essentialy good" (your words). In all reality humans are essentialy selfish and bad. And that will never make a peacefull coexistance. Religion at least is an attempt to correct that."

Right, religion inspires peace. Religion has been the cause, at least on the surface, for more wars than any other reason. It is a FACT that most people are "good" without any influence from religion. Yes, humans for the most part are selfish, but that does not mean by being selfish it is their own best interest to play ball with everyone else.

Religion is the source of all evil.

Suggested reading... http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

The Emotional Factor As I said before, I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. You know, of course, the parody of that argument in Samuel Butler's book, Erewhon Revisited. You will remember that in Erewhon there is a certain Higgs who arrives in a remote country, and after spending some time there he escapes from that country in a balloon. Twenty years later he comes back to that country and finds a new religion in which he is worshiped under the name of the "Sun Child," and it is said that he ascended into heaven. He finds that the Feast of the Ascension is about to be celebrated, and he hears Professors Hanky and Panky say to each other that they never set eyes on the man Higgs, and they hope they never will; but they are the high priests of the religion of the Sun Child. He is very indignant, and he comes up to them, and he says, "I am going to expose all this humbug and tell the people of Erewhon that it was only I, the man Higgs, and I went up in a balloon." He was told, "You must not do that, because all the morals of this country are bound round this myth, and if they once know that you did not ascend into Heaven they will all become wicked"; and so he is persuaded of that and he goes quietly away.

That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

How the Churches Have Retarded Progress You may think that I am going too far when I say that that is still so. I do not think that I am. Take one fact. You will bear with me if I mention it. It is not a pleasant fact, but the churches compel one to mention facts that are not pleasant. Supposing that in this world that we live in today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the Catholic Church says, "This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure celibacy or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth control to prevent the birth of syphilitic children." Nobody whose natural sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that that state of things should continue.

That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. "What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy."

PotShot rights, Right, religion inspires peace. Religion has been the cause, at least on the surface, for more wars than any other reason. It is a FACT that most people are "good" without any influence from religion. Yes, humans for the most part are selfish, but that does not mean by being selfish it is their own best interest to play ball with everyone else.

Religion has not been the cause for more wars than any other reason. That is a claim that has historically been unsubstantiated but propagated by fools who want to propel that idea. Now I will concede if you are lumping "greed" and "selfish ambition" as forms of religion. There have been studies, on the other hand, that show throughout our history that morality has only permeated cultures and civilizations only in consort with religion. You agree that humans are selfish, but what compels the person to "play ball?" Genes? That would seem to go contrary to "survival of the fittest."

i am happy to live in a country which is secular (UK) and thank god that i dont live in america where an inordinate amount of people still believe in a ridiculous superstition, testing the limit of their own constitution when it comes to the separation of state and church. I use the word 'god' as a figure of speech and not as some nonsensical entity conjured up by superstitious semi-educated fascists.