Nice. Are they quoting Lennon on purpose?

Without religion all we'd have would be the atheist atrocities committed by the Chinese, the Cambodians, Russians, and the Nazis. The lack of a god doesn't give people any less reason to kill eachother.

That's true, Maya. To a point. Except that no one is killed in the name of atheism. Not every atrocity in the world has been perpetrated because of religion, but many have. None, however, have been perpetrated BECAUSE OF atheism.

As Steven Weinberg said, "With or without [religion], you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

Nazism was not a rational, scientific, humanist philosophy. It was dogma. Just because Hitler's dogma had no particular god does not mean that the Holocaust was perpetrated in the name of atheism.

Dogmatic hatred relies on the existence of an Other. Whether that Other is Jews, or Christians, or heathens, or redheads, or Republicans, or women, is inconsequential. If you can convince enough people to hate and fear the Other, there needs not be any reason behind it.

The very idea of an "atheist atrocity" is absurd. As though everyone who rejects your fantasy is responsible for the actions of every other person who also does so. There are infinite groups of people we can divide ourselves into. There are infinite Others. I may as well blame you for all the Non-Jain atrocities, since you are not a Jain, which makes you part of the group that includes all non-Jains. You may not realize it, but you and your non-Jain cohorts are respsonsible for every single murder that has ever occurred in the history of humanity. How do you live with yourself?

Sorry, maya. I read the "Posted by:" tag incorrectly. This should have been directed toward Micklewhite.

It's fine. Nicely said, by the way.

Few would hold that without religion no atrocity will be inflicted by humans. Abolishing a belief system that is immune to reason merely removes one of the justifications for the irrational and arbitrary exclusion and vilification of any particular group. Organized religion simply gets its fair share of blame as the most pervasive and successful forms of beliefs that claim absolute immunity from reason. Stalin was not an atheist innovator. He merely replaced the words "God" and "Heaven" with "Father Stalin" and "the Communist Party" (notice the patriarchal symbolism similar to some of the world religions - possibly a coincidence or simply a reiteration of tried and true by a misogynistic ruler). However, he had no qualms restoring to his religious competitors some of their former authority in order to mobilize the demoralized populace during WWII. Fortunately, the system was in its final throes of death by the time I went through its lower levels. However, I still remember performing of a patriotic song about crushing the enemy of the people that was hammered into us in the 1st grade music class. Mind that me performing any other song not dealing with the subject of loyalty to the party would've resulted in ridicule instead of a standing ovation (It's sad, but true, I never possessed a "heavenly voice").

Nobody has ever been able to name one Atheist who killed in the name of Atheism. Throughout history the largest slaughters have been committed by Christians. There's Hitler (Catholic), Stalin (Russian Orthodox), Taiping Rebellion (started by a guy who thought he was Jesus' brother), the Popes, George W. Bush, etc. You have nuts killing themselves because of a religious belief there's an UFO behind a comet, Jim Jones, the Inquisition, and Islamic jihad.

Considering the non-religious are supposed to be the ones without morals we have a pretty good track record. If we see a bunch of astronomers going on a killing spree because of a lack of a god then the fundies might have something. But there is no record of an Atheist killing in the name of Atheism, only stupid bible thumpers spreading lies about Atheists like Micklewhite has done.

Micklewhite, Christianity played a key role in causing the Jewish Holocaust, not atheism. < <

The Nazis were Christians, took power in largely Protestant areas adn were inspired by the teachings of Christian Social Party as well as the anti-Jewish writings of Martin Luther, the German who led the Protestant movement. Do read Martin's work on "The Jews and their lies" from 1543 where he adcoated the utter destruction of the Jewish people. The Nazis followed his teachings and even quoted them as a basis for the Final Solution i.e. Jewish Holocaust.

The Jewish Holocaust is the culmination of hundreds of years of Chrstian prosecution and ethnic cleansing of the Jews since the 4th AD. Only in 1965 did the Church renounce the eternal curse on the Jews for the killing of Christ.

And only in 1994 did the Luteran Church rejected Martin Luther's anti-semite teachings.

Micklewhite, Christianity played a key role in causing the Jewish Holocaust, not atheism. < <

The Nazis were Christians, took power in largely Protestant areas adn were inspired by the teachings of Christian Social Party as well as the anti-Jewish writings of Martin Luther, the German who led the Protestant movement. Do read Martin's work on "The Jews and their lies" from 1543 where he adcoated the utter destruction of the Jewish people. The Nazis followed his teachings and even quoted them as a basis for the Final Solution i.e. Jewish Holocaust.

The Jewish Holocaust is the culmination of hundreds of years of Chrstian prosecution and ethnic cleansing of the Jews since the 4th AD. Only in 1965 did the Church renounce the eternal curse on the Jews for the killing of Christ.

=========

Communism arose in Christian countries as a response to Western democracy and Christianity. Communism is as much a religion as anything else. Here are my points for making this case. < <

1) Communist doctrine rejected monotheism, pantheism, and polytheism, but had many supernatural beliefs. e.g. Lysenkoism

2) Communist doctrine rejected the supernatural, but did embrace a dogmatic belief system that was not subject to criticism, e.g. Mao's "Little Red Book" of quotations.

Those are the basic points. This is the key point that I want to make.

The problem with fascism and communism is not because of no belief or that they are too critical of religion. The problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the extent of allowing no dissent and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Or for that matter charismatic religious leaders i.e. Ted Haggard.

The genocidal activities of Communism did not happen when human beings reject religious dogma.

They happened because they are the result of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

In retrospect, it clear that atheism is not Communism. At the very basis, atheism is not a political philosophy nor does it instruct people on what they do or else...< <

Norm, what have we told you about posting pornography material on this site? ;)

Imagine an impossibility.

Imagine, perhaps, that there is a God.

If I may interject with my own opinion, I suggest every atheist take a good look at the definition of agnostic before comitting themselves to a label.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

To use a bad analogy, consider bigfoot. I would be insane to say that, I know as a matter of fact, based on my faith, that bigfoot exists. After all, fact and faith present an inherint condradiction. However, although no EVIDENCE exists that bigfoot exists, this does not mean that he does NOT exist. It is quite possible that a sasquach will one day roam from the forests of Oregon into Portland. Until it happens, the best EVIDENCE we have against bigfoot is that it hasn't happened yet, and that a humanoid primate native to North America is extremely unlikely, given our current understanding of biology (which changes every day).

Being that bigfoot is a hard matter to debate, being that most pro-bigfoot evidence is offered by total lunatics, I suggest you consider the real-world example of the giant squid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_squid#Timeline

For those not into Wikipedia, the short story is this: for hundreds of years sailors described seeing a giant squid out at sea, while landlubber called them crazy. Then, one day, a giant squid washed ashore.

What makes America great is our First Amendment, specifically our right to believe, or not believe, to read, or not to read whatever we choose.

Thank you for your consideration.

Zap

(conservative Libertarian, OGM fan and reader)

Zap

Check out this entry on agnosticism.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/10/agnosticism.html

Zap, that's an interesting turn of phrase.

What does being a conservative Libertarian entail? On values? Or form of governance?

Pardon my ignorance but my first impression at seeing this phrase is that it's an oxymoron : P

Micklewhite: You're concentrating on the least important aspect here, the belief in a god. Dawkins' overall point is to take steps to eliminate all irrational thought. This includes religion, nationalism, racism, etc.

The ultimate goal here to create a society where anybody can criticize any idea freely and out in the open (as long as it's legitimate criticism and not trolling) without fear and have all parties debate solely on the merits of the ideas and not on emotion, upholding an arbitrary belief, saying certain things are off topic because it's the word of god, are beliefs held by whatever famous person, or an enormous number of people, etc.

The examples you gave are exact opposites to that kind of worldview.

Zap,

It's entirely possible (and quite common) to be both an atheist and agnostic. To be agnostic is to hold that something, typically whether God exists, is in principle unknowable by humans. I think most atheists you'll find would agree with that statement, but that doesn't make them less atheistic. To be an atheist is to believe in no god, and typically to behave in accordance with that belief. It is not a claim to know there is no god. I've never met an atheist who said they knew there was no god -- most, when pressed, wouldn't even say they knew their dog existed, or something equally seemingly apparent.

This point has been raised before on this blog by a few people other than me -- it's nothing all that new. Though it is a common misconception that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive, and that atheism entails a profession of knowledge of the nonexistence of a god.

kes: I just recently found a site called Political Compass, and it brings forth the theory that economic conservative/liberal opinon and social libertarian/authoritarian opinion are mutually independant. My guess is that Zaphod2016 is an economic conservative yet a social libertarian.

As for the actual article: I surf the 'net instead of watching TV so I can avoid ads like the above, no matter what they're for. I'm disappointed that one is here as its own entry.

Nicely said, everyone (in your responses to Micklewhite). I'm glad to see the "atheist == hitler" myth debunked here so eloquently.

I would add only one thing. One thing religious people consistently ignore is the fact that the healthiest societies today are predominantly atheist, right now. Sweden, for example. They are not dogmatically forced to be atheist like with religions/hitler/stalin/etc. They are predominantly freethinkers by choice.

Increased atheism won't solve all our problems, but it will probably help solve a lot of them. :)

Kes, plenty of people are conservative libertarians. Libertarianism is essentially a belief in minimizing the role of government, a belief traditionally held by many conservatives. These days, the parties cut across libertarianism, with Republicans generally favoring deregulation of corporations, fewer social services, lower taxes, etc., while Democrats generally favor other libertarian things like the right to abortion, freedom of speech, the separation of church and state, etc., while favoring government support of social services, and regulation of corporations.

I would assume, by Zap's self-description, that his most important political positions have to do with economic libertarianism. But I don't mean to speak for him, that's just what "conservative libertarian" says to me...

James, thanks for the comment. It may be that I'm using the word "libertarian" somewhat incorrectly, conflating it with "conservative".

Zap,

As Dawkins has said (and written) numerous times, there are infinite ideas about which we are technically agnostic, but about which we can be functionally agnostic.

Some things are simply unknowable (at least as far as we know), like the thoughts that occur in other people's heads. I can never know what you see when you look at a stop sign. It might look exactly like what it looks like to me, or it might look completely different, because your brain is wired in an entirely different way that interprets reality in a way that makes sense to you, but would be utterly incomprehensible to me. But I can operate on the assumption that we both see the same thing when we look at a stop sign.

Technically, I am agnostic about your perception of the world, but I can make certain assumptions based on what I know for sure and functionally I can treat certain things about your perception of the world as true or false.

Dawkins posits a similar situation, which you may be familiar with, called the Celestial Teapot.

God is not impossible, just highly improbable, and there is no reason to believe in God, any more than there is a reason to believe in another fantastical character about whom there exists no proof of existence or non-existence.

It's okay to not know things. That's how we learn.

Great conversation all. To respond in turn:

Norm: great link. I would place myself at 51% on the 'ole Dawkins Agnosto-Meter.

Kes: funny enough, I once said the exact same thing to a liberal Liberatarian friend of mine, in reverse. Consider Barry Goldwater's stance on civil rights for a better example of my views:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrygoldwater#Centristandlibertarianviews

Simply stated, I am socially liberal (pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights, pro-drug legalization). I find the NSA, Gonzalez, Cheney and W absolutley horrifying, and eagerly await the day they all pass into the "ash heap of history".

Where we may disagree: I oppose socialism, such as social security or socialized healthcare (although I accept that I am fighting a losing battle on that issue).

However, I think it is interesting that classic Liberal and classic Conservative seem to meet in the middle at some form of moderate Libertarianism. Of course, the balance between freedom and personal responsibility is imperfect at best, and so the debate of Government's role (How big is too big?) rages on. My personal belief is that personal freedom trumps all else, and I accept that this view requires an equally extreme view of personal responsibilty (as soon as I infringe on society, society must infringe back on me).

Colin: I agree with you 100%, aitheism and agnosticism are complimentary ideals, not necessary in oposition. I think any serious-minded person retains some degree of agnosticism. In my opinion, die-hard aitheists who "know" that God does not exist are often as irrational as those who "know" God does exist- it is a belief in either case.

Alex wrote: God is not impossible, just highly improbable [ephasis mine]. When I read that, I smiled, and Douglas Adams and the HHGTTG were both fresh in my mind. Clearly, both I and Dawkins are big fans of Adams' work. More fascinating to me is current quantum theory, which shows that absurd concepts such as an "improbability drive" may in fact be closer to the truth than the author ever realized.

To anyone still reading my rambling nonsense: I myself do not define God as a thing, so much as a force. To me the remaining debate is this: did conciousness arise from biology, or (as suggested by Deepak Chopra) did biology arise to express some pre-existing conciousness?

James:

I missed your post, which hit the nail on the head. It is none of my business what you smoke, who you hump or what you believe. I just hate watching Government waste trillions of dollars while people continue to starve, children remain uneducated and quality of life stagnates for millions of Americans. If I thought for a moment that more socialism would solve these issues, I would happily accept a higher level of taxation without a second thought.

James, Colin and Zap, thank you all for responding with your valuable insights.

Then even though I'm conservative, I'm also a Liberatarian in the sense that I am totally against a Big Brother government, which is what you have in US right now. I'm also for minimising the role of government in everyday life. And I'm also all for the social aspects of libertarian.

Btw, conservative values do not include oppressing minorities and most especially the rights and freedoms of women. For the latter, you have my mum to thank for she sacrificed her happiness for the good of the family and I will always honour a woman's right to choose. < <

So I guess that makes me a conservative libertarian as well.

Zap, in support of the sentiments in your last post, a recent study showed that most Americans are willing to pay higher taxes for better health insurance. < <

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/05/most-americans-support-guaranteed-health-care-even-if-it-means-gasp-higher-taxes/

I had the most interesting unexpected conversation with my family on the weekend. We were having brunch talking about the Iraqi War and Jesus' supposed tomb and my uncle turns to me and says "Do you believe in god?" I thought for second whether I should be wishy washy and decided instead to say "Actually, no, I don't."

Sorry the rest was cut off....my Uncle replied: "Actually, I dont either" and then my mother piped in and said "yeah, me neither."

Mickle White Man:

"without religion all we'd have is..."

Without Cancer all we'd have is malaria, schistomiasis, influenza, warts, guinea worms, tapeworms, flesh-eating strep, staph, c. dificilis, heartburn, a.i.d.s., tuberculosis, gambling addiction, bulimia, herpes, ...

A cure for Cancer is no Pan-acea...therefore it is..

Worthless? What?

The lack of Cancer never gave people any less reason to trip and fall and break a bone or have a heart attack. So? And? That is screwy reasoning. Fool yourself, Mickle White Man.

Anyway Proto-Nazism started as a movement to revive the ancient German Gods, ever hear of Bayreuth? Check out the pseudo-Zarathustran Iranian insignia on the Nazi uniforms [Even the Hackenkreuz (swastika) is a profoundly religious symbol (more dynamic than the static Cross)], don't forget their Arche-typical "Aryan" Christ, their non-semitic Levites (Monica, Moses,..) , their anciently majestic Things, with candles (not German "Dings," bitte), their rallies, Munich, religiosity on steroids. Mega-churchs before the crystal cathedral.

As for Stalin's war on Science, his Republican-style Lysyenko-ism, his Cult of Personality, these are more akin to what we call religious fundamentalism than many actual "religions", such as buddhism. Mao too.

And all the Ils that plague mankind (2 so far).

Because we can't fix it all at once we shouldn't fix anything?

One step at a time, please.

By the way, how 'bout those Aztecs? Ten-thousand a day, just like Charlemagne in Saxonland.

Shamans are the root of, not all, but enough evil to not be ignored. Charles Manson is blameworthy, not Heinlein's Stranger, or L.'s Helter Skelter.

Don't confuse Lennon with Lenin.

A City on a Hill for a Fool on a Hill:

Fool who fools himself only !

one evil axis, if you are going to deride people for faulty logic, you should probably make an attempt to keep to logically fair statements yourself. I think it is slovenly logic to hijack the examples of Mao and Stalin, two totalitarian leaders of questionable religiosity, and call them examples of religion gone bad simply because their cult of personality apes certain patterns of religions.

Personally I believe that a larger problem than religion is humanity's tendancy toward blind obedience to a cause or person. And please don't even attempt to argue this can be ascribed wholly to religion; it cannot.

I've often thought Dawkins' focus on religion is a bit off in the sense that it should be more broadly applied to any ideology that's taken on faith, rather than facts. This would then include (of course) all religions, but also Stalinism, Nazism and Americanism (ie, "we're the best country in the world, ra, ra") for that matter.

^ In response to your comment on applying the concept more broadly, may I suggest this article which deals with what you are talking about.

Enjoy

Personally I believe that a larger problem than religion is humanity's tendancy toward blind obedience to a cause or person. And please don't even attempt to argue this can be ascribed wholly to religion; it cannot.

Agreed. I think Atheism and anti-religidiocy is simply more visible because it is more specific and participatory than "don't be blindly obedient".

It is kind of a David vs. Goliath sort of deal, and it invites people to pick a side (this isn't necessarily a good thing, but it sells).

In other words, Dawkins et al. have made Atheism a catchy brand for selling Reason, but it is somewhat watered down for the masses.

An added idea to my previous post, Religion is also special in that the blind obedience is to an invisible and nonexistent benefactor. And while Religion is easily manipulated by wannabe rulers and despots, its persistence is best attributed to memetics.

Some (Dawkins, probably) would argue that not only does this make Religion particularly interesting, it makes it particularly dangerous to humanity.

Oh, and interesting article you linked there, Erick. Thanks for posting it.

Hi Erick, that's a good article. Here's one that you may like.

From the section of origin of belief, it is said that "Very little evidence has yet appeared about how belief arose in humans."

Here's new evidence.

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior March 20, 2007 By NICHOLAS WADE

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are...

... Last year Marc Hauser, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, proposed in his book “Moral Minds” that the brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, a universal moral grammar similar to the neural machinery for learning language.

In another recent book, “Primates and Philosophers,” the primatologist Frans de Waal defends against philosopher critics his view that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes...

=============

This is a very important piece of evidence for Dawkins' claims that religion or morality was socially evolved.

I will be closely following the research of the philosophers and biologists who are names here.

=============

Catsby, I disagree with your comments on one evil axis.

Let me borrow your own words.

"I think it is slovenly logic to hijack the examples of Mao and Stalin, two totalitarian leaders of questionable ATHIEST LEANINGS, and call them examples of atheism gone bad simply because their cult of NON-BELIEF personality apes certain patterns of ATHIESM."

Micklewhite made this fraudlent observation in his first post here, second one from the top of the thread.

> one evil axis is merely calling attention to the fact that Nazism, Maoism and Communism have more religious underpinnings as compared to atheist undercurrents.

I have made the same points myself at this thread on March 19, 2007 10:30 PM.

Atheism is not Nazism or Communism in that it does not expose any form of government or personality cults, which are traits shared by religions such as Christianity.

If you want to debate further on this, you are free to do so, just as any one of us are free to debate from the other side of the fence.

Excellent article kes! Yes, if you discover new information regarding these subjects please share the wealth. :)

Hi Erick, you're welcome.

Do consider subscribing to www.sciencenow.org

They have daily updates on the latest research and white papers on all scientific topics and some new stuff on evolution that are not featured on any blog that I've been to.

Here's a recent example.

High on Speciation By John Simpson ScienceNOW Daily News 15 March 2007

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/315/2?etoc

It seems like a no-brainer: To find out where most new species arise, see where most of them live. Take the tropics, home of more than half the known organisms on the planet. For nearly a century, researchers have assumed that new species are constantly popping up here, while speciation is far more stagnant at Earth's relatively deserted poles. But a new study claims the opposite: Species evolve much more readily at higher latitudes. It's just that the new arrivals die off so fast that most of them never get counted...

There were also 2 recent editorials on evolution and Darwin.

A Toast to Evolvability and Its Promise of Surprise

6 Mar 07 By NATALIE ANGIER

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/science/06angi.html?th&emc=th

...“The standard Darwinian view always sounds like a better theory for making improvements than for making inventions,” said Dr. Marc W. Kirschner, a professor of systems biology at Harvard Medical School. If incremental, additive genetic changes were responsible for all the boggling biodiversity we see around us, he said, how can it be that humans have hardly more genes than a microscopic nematode, and that many of those genes are nearly identical in roundworms and humans besides?

In their recently published book, “The Plausibility of Life,” Dr. Kirschner and Dr. John C. Gerhart of the University of California, Berkeley, offer a fresh look at the origins of novelty. They argue that many of the basic components and systems of the body possess the quality of what they call “evolvability” — that is, the components can be altered without wreaking havoc on the parts and systems that connect to them, and can even produce a reasonably functional organ or body part in their modified configuration. For example, if a genetic mutation ends up lengthening a limb bone, said Dr. Kirschner, the other parts that attach to and interact with that bone needn’t also be genetically altered in order to yield a perfectly serviceable limb. The nerves, muscles, blood vessels, ligaments and skin are all inherently plastic and adaptable enough to stretch and accommodate the longer bone during embryogenesis and thus, as a team, develop into a notably, even globally, transformed limb with just a single mutation at its base. And if, with that lengthened leg, the lucky recipient gets a jump on its competitors, well, g’day to you, baby kangaroo.

Dr. Kirschner also observes that cells and bodies are extremely modular, and parts can be moved around with ease. A relatively simple molecular switch that in one setting allows a cell to respond to sugar can, in a different context, help guide the maturation of a nerve cell. In each case, the activation of the switch initiates a tumbling cascade of complex events with a very distinctive outcome, yet the switch itself is just your basic on-off protein device. By all appearances, evolution has flipped and shuffled and retrofitted and duct-taped together a comparatively small set of starter parts to build a dazzling variety of botanic and bestial bodies...

=============

> This was featured in onegoodmove but surprisingly no one wanted to discuss the experiment on non-believers.

Darwin’s God March 4, 2007 By ROBIN MARANTZ HENIG

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?th&emc=th

God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. When he was 10 years old, he scrawled a plaintive message on the wall of his bedroom in Baltimore. “God exists,” he wrote in black and orange paint, “or if he doesn’t, we’re in trouble.” Atran has been struggling with questions about religion ever since — why he himself no longer believes in God and why so many other people, everywhere in the world, apparently do.

...Atran, who is 55, is an anthropologist at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, with joint appointments at the University of Michigan and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. His research interests include cognitive science and evolutionary biology, and sometimes he presents students with a wooden box that he pretends is an African relic. “If you have negative sentiments toward religion,” he tells them, “the box will destroy whatever you put inside it.” Many of his students say they doubt the existence of God, but in this demonstration they act as if they believe in something. Put your pencil into the magic box, he tells them, and the nonbelievers do so blithely. Put in your driver’s license, he says, and most do, but only after significant hesitation. And when he tells them to put in their hands, few will.

If they don’t believe in God, what exactly are they afraid of? ...

> Do read on if you are interested in the “God of the gaps” view of religion.

I will quote the writer of the article in the following:

The presumption was that as science was able to answer more questions about the natural world, God would be invoked to answer fewer, and religion would eventually recede. Research about the evolution of religion suggests otherwise. No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural. The drive to satisfy that yearning, according to both adaptationists and byproduct theorists, might be an inevitable and eternal part of what Atran calls the tragedy of human cognition.

Btw, Atran was already doing research on why humans might have evolved to be religious, something few people were doing back in the ’80s.

Dawkins is only the latest advocate for an evolutionary impulse for a belief in God.

Sorry for not making this clear.

Atran takes the opposite view of Dawkins who claims that “Religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate byproduct of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful,”

Great, Catsby.

Khmer- rougism, Mao-, Stalinism, etc. are not religions, per se, granted, BUT, they are akin in that true believing followers mass together in mindless movements of awesome consequence.

Be that as it may, my larger point was that one evil -ism at a time may be all we can deal with.

I am isolationist. Even New York City is far from my concerns. But here, and now, religion, in a most pernicious form is playing havoc with my country.

The Head of the Feds is an elected-or-non-elected retarded monkey who curls up his tail inside his suit during presidential debates: Incurious George yawns at Katrina and Global warming but shows intense curiosity about the interests of the Mega-churched, the Not-to-be-Left-Behinds, the Have-mores (because God WANTED them to have more, of course).

He believes that those on top are on top because GOD is in charge, and GOD wants it that way.

Those "on top" are on top of me. Here. Now. In this place, this time. I have no beef with anyone in Korea, Iran, Old or New Europe, Panama. Grenada, Viet-Nam, Okinawa, Philippines, Cuba, Djibouti, ....

..Israelites, Babylonians, Philistines, Canaanites, Moabites...

Moabites? Come to think those damn Jeeps are a problem in Moab.

Moab, Utah.

And Lake Powell, Glen Canyon, Damn the Dam! Bring back the canyon.

When are the Monkey Wrench Gangs going to get hip to Improvised Devices?

MWGs with WMDs?

I like it.

But back to religion. Maybe if so many fools didn't expect a miracle they would come back down to Earth.

After all was said and done, Religiosity went out of fashion in the British Empire when they woke up after the party to find the Sun setting on it.

The Divine Emperor of Japan brought down very real, actual, nuclear bombs upon His True Believers. The Japanese woke up, rubbed their eyes. The most ardent Nazis, lost Faith, and gained... Reality.

We can too. Here, Now.

We are not Chosen.

To rule over the Earth.

In God's name.

To bring it on.

What ever "it" is (Armageddon, maybe?).

Let's loose the religion before it loses us, making us the world's next big losers in the process.

One evil -ism at a time.

I vote fundamentalism.

At Home.

And for the next evil -ism, when that's done?

Shamanism, shamefully, even closer to home.

"Without religion all we'd have would be the atheist atrocities committed by the Chinese, the Cambodians, Russians, and the Nazis. The lack of a god doesn't give people any less reason to kill eachother." yes it does. No one kills in the name of atheist. nazism and the other ideologies you had in mind were the symbol for which killing was made, just like religion.

Kes, you distorted my argument out of context. I'm not making any assertions about atheism in that post.

Now, do you really debate my logic in questioning the validity of using seemingly irreligious people to launch an argument against religion?

Now here's an interesting thought. If, as some of what kes posted would suggest, religion is the by-product of evolutionary psychology gone haywire, who is to say it can be dispensed with, even if that was what we all wanted? If it's hardwired into us we may be stuck with it, for better or for worse.

In any case, since religion tends to be something people hold in the same realm as their political leanings, one must realize that neither rhetoric nor empirical proof of its vices will change it. In my opinion we must combat the use of religion as a tool for control and absolutism. It is probably unwise as well as ethically troublesome to crusade against religion as a whole, since such a pursuit would stray into the realm of absolutism- the very thing it would seek to root out.

Catsby, I did not distort your argument beyond pointing out that your argument can apply to Christians who "hijack the examples of Mao and Stalin" and and call them examples of atheism gone bad.

I have articulated my points against your position clearly.

And please don't just quote Dawkins.

Atran has studied religion as an evolutionary process decades before Dawkins started.

And I differ him to his expertise as sumed up here:

No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural. The drive to satisfy that yearning, according to both adaptationists and byproduct theorists, might be an inevitable and eternal part of what Atran calls the tragedy of human cognition.

Dawkins was off-base when he claimed that religion was "an unfortunate byproduct of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful,”

>>Any student of ancient or military history will tell you that religion, especially fundamentalist movements, is one of the most effective means for mass mobilisation of people and resources in the past. And the present for that matter.

Just take a look and you can see that most, if not all, cultures and past civilisations boast of leaders who are divine, semi-divine or who were appointed by the Gods or were their heirs.

Without such a status, their people would be far less likely to obey their edicts such as mobilising for war or for mass construction projects like pyramids, the Great of China etc.

It is far easier to disobey a mere mortal or man as compared to the prospect of defying a godl-ike being.

Besides, religion serves a useful purpose in uniting the people of a far flung nation or empire by fostering loyalth and identity to a common ruler, government or even cult of personality.

It's a lot more cheaper than garrisoning every town and every hamlet with your troops to make sure people obey.

With that in mind, do consider the fact that Lord was a word never used in the original Bible and that Christ never claimed that he was a Lord or used the word as such.

As an English word from feudal times, the English translation “Lord” refers specifically to a male European land baron.

Thus the use of the term “Lord” may be due to the wish of the scribes and clergy to let Christian followers know that God and Jesus, who is their Lord, expect their full loyalty.

And it worked. They performed admirably their expected task as a flock of sheep at the beck and call of their shephard.

Catsby, I did not distort your argument beyond pointing out that your argument can apply to Christians who "hijack the examples of Mao and Stalin" and and call them examples of atheism gone bad.

That doesn't disprove what I said. It merely says that Christians use the same fallacious argument one evil axis was. That hardly makes it admissible.

Also, I didn't quote Dawkins.

And you seem to think I'm arguing against atheism somehow. I'm not. The only aspect of it I take issue with is the camp that seems to think "getting rid of" religion would be plausible and/or prudent.

If, as some of what kes posted would suggest, religion is the by-product of evolutionary psychology gone haywire, who is to say it can be dispensed with, even if that was what we all wanted? If it's hardwired into us we may be stuck with it, for better or for worse.

Are we programmed for faith? What difference does it make?

Harris v. Sullivan debate:

Dear Andrew -

Many thanks for your latest essay. I've got too much to say, so permit me to jump right in:

You write that "we are evolutionarily programmed for faith." While this claim seems debatable, let's just accept it as a given. What can we conclude from this? We certainly can't conclude that any specific religious doctrine is true (or likely to be true). Nor can we say that religious faith is desirable in the 21st century, or even compatible with our long-term survival as a species. Here is your quotation from Justin Barrett, with a few, minor edits:

"[Viking] theology teaches that people were crafted by [Odin] to [rape and pillage]. Why wouldn't [Odin], then, design us in such a way as to find [raping and pillaging] quite natural?

We probably do have a genetic proclivity for raping and pillaging. Clearly, rape is an excellent strategy for getting one's genes into the next generation, and a wide variety of species engage in it (orangutans are notorious; they've even raped humans.) But who is going to argue for the moral legitimacy of rape based on the fact that it has paid evolutionary dividends? The fact that we have a biological tendency to attribute agency to forces in nature does not suggest that it is wise (or moral) to nurture this disposition.

I am personally sick of the atheism vs theological debate so frequently posted on this site! I, and I suspect most of the readers are too. I am firmly in the atheist camp and have been for virtually my whole life. We are pulling ourselves down to their mired level of intelligence to engage in debating over the issue. We will never convince them to come around to our point of view. Some old southern proverb that Ross Perot once quoted involved the flawed wisdom of wrestling with a pig. "It only gets you covered with mud and it annoys the pig." Grow up!! Hearing learned scholars, like Dawkins, engaging in debate with creationists is comparable to hearing the team in-charge of the Apollo moon landing engaging in a debate with representatives of the flat earth society on the shape of the world. Stop wasting our brain power on this rubbish. We're certainly not going to bring them around to our point of view and they are certainly wrong. The proponderence of irrefutable scientific evidence supports this. You either believe science or you don't. This is not one of the great debates about the ethicacy of slavery in the USA at the time of the civil war. The two schools of thought are not even close. Science has a preponderance of evidence to support it's claims and we, as educated (and actual scientists in my case) are cheepening ourselves by pretending that this is an open issue that may be resolved through discussion. Do you really think that somebody is going to talk you into believing in creationism/intelligent design???? Switch it around; do you really think you are going to be able to talk a "fundi" into believing in natural selection and evolution? I know a lot of atheists grew up in torment by having to reject a theistic belief system that never made any sense and makes even less and less as they got older. Growing up trying to avoid having an 'innate' belief in God shoved down our throats could be compared to child abuse. Still, would a formerly abused child (now an adult)really gain any closure and healing if they went back and beat up their now aged and weak former parent/abuser? No. Let's grow up and move past this and let the bible thumpers rot in their ignorance. It might take another 2000 years but what we know is true today will gradually filter down. Making confrontation now only presents us as a lightening rod.

I’ve enjoyed reading your comments! I agree with those comments of religion’s responsibility for all the bloodshed down through the century’s. It’s really eye-opening to research the crusades of the middle ages and their responsibility of tens of thousands of deaths of those who didn’t believe the way they did. A far cry from what Jesus taught. He didn’t teach hate and killing. He said at John 13:34, 35 “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”—John 13:34, 35. During Jesus’ earthly ministry, he tried to persuade the people to the truth but if they choose not to accept it, he merely went his way to talk to others.

There so many different religions in the world, Christian and non-Christian, each has a slightly different take on what truth is. Why do we have so many different religions if Jesus taught only one truth and one means of salvation? Eph 4:5 tells us there is one God, one faith, one baptism. If you believe that Jesus taught the truth when on earth then you must agree that all religions are not approved by God since many of the things taught and practiced by Christendom are in direct opposition to what Jesus taught.

How did we get to this place that Richard Dawkins wrote about where so many evil things are being done in the name of religion?

The Scriptures foretold a great apostasy, or falling away from the true faith. At Matt 13:24-30, 36-43 Jesus’ parable of the symbolic weeds, that is, counterfeit Christians, would try to choke out the symbolic wheat, or true Christians, those anointed with God’s spirit. The parable reveals that the spread of false Christianity, promoted by God’s archenemy, the Devil, was about to begin. This took place after the death of Christ’s faithful apostles. (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43; 2 Thess 2: 6-8) As foretold by the apostles, many counterfeit Christians wormed their way into the fold. (Acts 20:29, 30; 1 Tim 4:1-3; 2 Tim 2:16-18; 2 Pet 2:1-3)

In the early 4th century, the pagan Roman emperor Constantine used the apostate ‘Christian’ religion to cement his disintegrating empire. To this end, he granted religious freedom and transferred some of the privileges of the Pagan Society to be won for the church. He convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., where the Nicene Creed spelling out the Trinity doctrine was adopted. With the alliance of religion and political power sealed by Roman emperor Constantine, Christendom lost her high moral level and accepted many practices and philosophies from Paganism, such as “the cult of Mary”, the adoration of the Saints and the concept of the trinity.

In the parable, Jesus said to let both the wheat and the weeds grow together until the harvest. Then he will tell the reapers to collect the weeds and burn them up and to gather the wheat into his storehouse. According to this parable, false religion will meet its end during the 'harvest’. He went on to say in verse 39 that the harvest is the end of the world. Most people agree that we are now living during the harvest.

It’s not religion that’s responsible for all the bad things that’s being done in the name of God. It’s FALSE religion! The good news of God’s kingdom (as mankind’s only hope for salvation) is being preached in all the inhabited earth for the purpose of a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matt. 24:14

Do you know of any religion that practices what Jesus taught? That has love among themselves and for their neighbor? Why not talk to them the next time they call at your door. Invite them in and allow them to share the ‘good news of God’s kingdom with you! If you just can’t wait, contact the local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Someone will be happy to share the grand hope of the Bible with you, free of charge.

Rape is an act of abuse against another individual. Religion is a set of personal convictions. Rape is always a hurtful and destructive act. Can you categorically say the same thing about religion? Do you really want to jump on the bandwagon with that inflammitory comparison?

More specious comparisons made to incite moral indignation, instead of leading a line of thought to an objective, reasonable conclusion.

By the way, Erick, I should point out that even if we're going to use that counterargument, which I find loathsome, it does not nullify my statement; have we managed to eradicate rape? Will we ever? Probably not. It goes without saying we are obligated to try, as we are obligated to fight the abuse and manipulation of religion.

(Now I'm done with that comparison. Say you "win" on that point if you want. I find using rape as a rhetorical device callous and disgusting.)

Overall I think it's reactionary and foolish for people to respond to destructive facets of religion by agitating for an end to all religion. Because in the process they just become another sect trying to ram a set of principles down peoples' throats.

Barbara, your comments on Emperor Constantine i.e "the pagan Roman emperor Constantine used the apostate ‘Christian’ religion to cement his disintegrating empire." The Pope also did the same thing i.e. calling for the Crusade to rally support and power to the previously powerless office of the Pope.

Hi Catsby, I'm glad that you agree that this reasoning is inadmissable when used by Christians: "your argument can apply to Christians who "hijack the examples of Mao and Stalin" and and call them examples of atheism gone bad."

> > However, Christians are far more likely to use this reasoning to attack atheism as compared to the other way around.

So why just mention that it's wrong when atheists use it? You certainly did not mention the propsentity of Christians to use this approacvh to critique atheism.

Second, you did quote Dawkins when you stated that "If, as some of what kes posted would suggest, religion is the by-product of evolutionary psychology gone haywire.." The by-product angle is a direct quote from Dawkins.

==========

> > Erick makes a good point in that if we are created by an Intelligent Designer with all sorts of impulses such as the propensity or need to worship, it certainly applies to the Designer programming unto us the ability to hate, commit violence and evil.

Hence, I find it odd why Catsby can say that: "By the way, Erick, I should point out that even if we're going to use that counterargument, which I find loathsome..." Why loathsome? Didn't Christians claim we were made in God's image?

That does mean that God is responsible for all the good things and bad things of human beings if he was our Creator.

Or is it that hidden Christian bias that atrribute all the good in man to God and blame all the evil on the dastardly nature of man? Shaky and wishful reasoning isn't it?

> > Good discussion, people!

I couldn’t agree with you more Kes. The first Crusade began around 1096 C.E. Many historians list eight major ones. They were accompanied by massacres and cruelty committed in the name of God and Christ. The last major Crusade began 174 years later, in 1270.

The declared motive for the Crusades was to take Jerusalem and the so-called holy sepulcher from the Muslims. But the causes ran deeper. An important factor that led to the Crusades was the turbulent political, economic, and religious climate that prevailed in Europe.

At the top of the social hierarchy were numerous feudal barons. These professional warlords wanted to take advantage of the political vacuum created by the breakup of Charlemagne’s empire and conquer new estates. The church of Rome was also experiencing a period of turmoil. In 1054 it lost control of the Eastern Church. In addition, many of the clergy were being accused of immorality and of meddling in politics.

In this climate the First Crusade was called by Pope Urban II. In his eyes military action to re-conquer Jerusalem and Palestine would serve several purposes. It would consolidate the unity of Western Christendom and reaffirm the primacy of the Roman Church. It would provide a vent for perpetual disputes among the upper classes. In exchange for religious and, above all, economic benefits, these would put their military expertise to work for a “noble” cause, becoming the armed wing of the church.

The Crusades and their failure should have taught that economic greed and desire for political prominence can lead to fanaticism and massacre. But the lesson has been ignored. The evidence lies in the many conflicts that have continued to stain many parts of our planet with blood. In these, religion often serves as a front for abominations.

Amazingly, even today little has changed. “Fighting and dying under religious flags go on with a violent persistence,” Time magazine reported. “Protestants and Roman Catholics in Ulster trade killings in a kind of perpetual motion of futility. Arabs and Israelis stand tensely at borders of territorial, cultural and religious dispute.” Furthermore, ethnic and religious differences have been responsible for horrible massacres in the former republics of Yugoslavia, as well as in Asian lands.

Incredibly, professed Christians often go to war against members of their own faith. Thus, Catholics kill Catholics, protestants kill protestants on battlefields. Catholic historian E. I. Watkin acknowledged: “Painful as the admission must be, we cannot in the interest of a false edification or dishonest loyalty deny or ignore the historical fact that Bishops have consistently supported all wars waged by the government of their country. I do not know in fact of a