1. Comment #55550 by sane1 on July 11, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Rock on, Richard! Your books are excellent, you are 99% right, and you are personally responsible for stoking the fires of my atheism. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Other Comments by sane1

2. Comment #55551 by bwana ndege on July 11, 2007 at 1:53 pm

RD must have the patience of a saint having to deal with all these supposedly intelligent people who just don't get it.

Sorry couldn't think of anything else with lots of patience. A hospital maybe?

Other Comments by bwana ndege

3. Comment #55556 by danceswithanxiety on July 11, 2007 at 2:18 pm

I appreciate RD's generous and patient reply but I also relate to the exasperation. I read Wilson's criticism of Dawkins and found it a study in missing the point; also it had the feel of something written by someone paid by the word.

Other Comments by danceswithanxiety

4. Comment #55560 by kurtdenke on July 11, 2007 at 2:28 pm

I suspect that what Wilson was getting at is one of the oldest silly tricks in the theist debate book: "I'm a theologian, so I'm an expert in God, religion and morals; you're a biologist, so you're an expert in biology (unimportant stuff, which tells us nothing about "ultimate questions"); so, of course, if you have anything at all to say about God, religion, or morals, it's not really worth listening to unless it's about the biological perspective thereon." Ignoring, of course, the fact that, since theology is largely the science of angel-on-head-of-pin-counting and other such worthy endeavors, there really is no such thing as having expertise in it. As Mr. Dawkins has suggested, it's not even a subject.

Other Comments by kurtdenke

5. Comment #55561 by Eric Blair on July 11, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Prof. Dawkins' response notwithstanding, Sloan Wilson's article is worth a read, overly long as it is. He has little to say about the existence of God (he is an atheist) but much about the existence of religion. Explaining the role and persistence of this and other counter-intuitive phenomena (in the context of evolutionary theory) remains a controversial and interesting challenge.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

6. Comment #55569 by hightrekker on July 11, 2007 at 2:45 pm

When ever invisible friends are involved, we are playing tennis with the net down, and everything is traveling through Fantasyland--
The problem is, the waco religious delusionist demand the net up on the return volley--
Carp fishing on valium!

Other Comments by hightrekker

7. Comment #55603 by DeLan on July 11, 2007 at 4:40 pm

I agree with Eric Blair - Sloan Wilson's article is worth reading. RD writes, "Why would Wilson 'naturally assume' any such thing?" and then immediately answers his own question by saying that it would be reasonable to assume just what Wilson assumes.
I don't quite understand why RD thinks he must be always on the attack. Matter of style, I naturally assume.

Other Comments by DeLan

8. Comment #55607 by NormanDoering on July 11, 2007 at 4:50 pm

I've got a blog post on it here: http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/07/atheist-vs-atheist.html

A little taste:

Mr. Wilson is also taking money from the Templeton Foundation. This fact might distort Mr. Wilson's conclusions. Just because religion is adaptive doesn't mean it is good for us. If it really is putting blinders on delusional believers then they'll suffer too for their lack of contact with, and understanding of, the real world. Truth matters and the Templeton Foundation is committed to finding some kind of metaphysical truth in religion. Remember what kind of world we are adapting to, a world of continual war and predation.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

9. Comment #55615 by upsidedawn on July 11, 2007 at 5:38 pm

DeLan writes:

RD writes, "Why would Wilson 'naturally assume' any such thing?" and then immediately answers his own question by saying that it would be reasonable to assume just what Wilson assumes.

No, he doesn't. Rather than suggesting you reread that section, here it is (emphasis mine):
"Reasonable, perhaps, to assume that I would pay some attention to the evolution of religion, but why base a critique on an evolutionary perspective, any more than on Assyrian woodwind instruments or the burrowing behaviour of aardvarks? The God Delusion does, as it happens, have a chapter on the evolutionary origins of religion. But to say that this chapter is peripheral to my main critique would be an understatement."

Other Comments by upsidedawn

10. Comment #55629 by foxfire on July 11, 2007 at 6:48 pm

No, he doesn't.

Exactly! I posted a reply that didn't seem to "take" (using the same reasons) and yours is much more succinct. Kudos to you upsidedawn.

Other Comments by foxfire

11. Comment #55637 by kmr214 on July 11, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Why is religion a treated as "special case" given "sympathetic" pages anyway?

Religion is no more special than, say, the military chain of command or executive authority in corporations.

It's a management system.

In any group that has them, the alphas in charge always have to deal with debate, dissent, mutiny, regime change and revolution. In short, they are driven to maintain power. (Who was it said that the greatest thing George Washington did was step down at the end of his term?)

Religion happens to have a very powerful psychological grip on those managed--maybe that's what makes it special.

But secular military command uses much of the same tactics as religion: absolute authority of those above, a shared sense of duty, a common cause (like the nation or the race) among those ruled. Lots of ceremony, pledging and need-to-know basis stuff.

Sure, debate whether religion is adaptive or by-product, that's fine. But take it off its pedestal and lump it in with the rest of the "management structures" animals create.

kmr

Other Comments by kmr214

12. Comment #55639 by Luis_Cayetano on July 11, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Does anyone here think, though, that Dawkins perhaps hasn't paid sufficient attention to the resurgence of group selection? Is there a respectable case to be made on behalf of it? Wilson cites some studies conducted on micro-organisms, suggesting that group-as-vehicle selection can and does occur, that it is powerful enough to overcome within group selection and thus maintain an otherwise deliterious allele.

Other Comments by Luis_Cayetano

13. Comment #55645 by joe72 on July 11, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Even if religion is adaptive, even if it is part of our evolution - it doesn't make God exist. Which is what the book is really about.

A politician may think something is right even if it isn't true. A scientist only thinks something is right when it can't be proven wrong.

Other Comments by joe72

14. Comment #55648 by MrEmpirical on July 11, 2007 at 9:31 pm

I'm glad Prof Dawkins has rejoined to Prof Wilson.

I have but one word: ownage.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

15. Comment #55654 by Dr Benway on July 11, 2007 at 10:07 pm

MrEmpirical, "ownage" and "pwned" are so last year.

Get with the meme bus! Time to move on to: the best 5 seconds on the net.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

16. Comment #55659 by DNAtheist on July 11, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Richard Dawkins wrote:
I thought it a generous gesture at the time, and I see no reason now to regret my choice to write my own book rather than his.

But I think he does regret it. Since you weren't kind enough to put your name on his work, he has put your name on it himself by publicly attacking you as a fundamentalist. The repeated invocations of your name will certainly garner him more attention that repetitions of his own would, and any attack on you will certainly endear himself to the large liberal religious community who work so hard to convince themselves that their faith isn't dogmatic, but requiring evidence is. Perhaps most importantly, attacking your positions doesn't require him to support his own.

Good grief. If even scientists use these sort of tactics to ride your coat-tails, I can understand why you don't want to debate creationists.

Other Comments by DNAtheist

17. Comment #55670 by SteveN on July 12, 2007 at 12:31 am

Luis Cayetano said in post #13

Wilson cites some studies conducted on micro-organisms, suggesting that group-as-vehicle selection can and does occur, that it is powerful enough to overcome within group selection and thus maintain an otherwise deliterious allele.

I'm not so sure that this is true.

In the forum thread I started here (http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18460) I said...

Now, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I am a virologist/immunologist and I find the best example Wilson can give for a modern example of group selection (an experiment published in Nature in which bacteriophages of reduced virulence survived better that virulent variants because their bacterial 'prey' were not wiped out) to be quite logically explained by a 'selfish gene' point of view - I see no need for group selection as an explanation here. Indeed, the authors of the paper cited do not themselves mention group selection or altruism at all so I'm somewhat skeptical of the relevance of Wilson's 'prime example'.

I get the impression that Wilson is trying to reinterpret other people's data to fit his own, largely discredited, theories. Note also that the second piece of evidence offered by Wilson is a theoretical 'Science' paper written by an economist - hardly vigorous scientific evidence in my (admittedly science-biased) opinion.

Other Comments by SteveN

18. Comment #55682 by gcdavis on July 12, 2007 at 1:30 am

By treating belief as worthy of consideration I think we are in danger of losing the plot.

Like most families mine kept up the pretence of Father Christmas/Santa Claus until one day I said to my parents, "it was you wasn't it", they duly acknowledged that it was they who were responsible for my Christmas presents. For a few years prior to that moment I was still prepared to suspend disbelief even though I thought it likely that it was indeed my parents who had left my presents.

A few years later I underwent the same process with god. It was simply that there were better explanations to the questions that I had begun to ask myself. God was as silly as Father Christmas, simple as that. Aged 11 I was an atheist, aged 61 I still am, no big deal.

Maybe my account doesn't amount to a bestselling book, but the problem is by engaging in debate about the holy books, the historical personalities and the global influence of religion gives it (them) an undeserved credence.

Perhaps we need a ridicule offensive not an intellectual one.

Other Comments by gcdavis

19. Comment #55684 by Rob A on July 12, 2007 at 1:34 am

Hmmm... It seems I am alone in thinking that what Sloan Wilson said was worth reading and that Dawkins retort is overly aggressive.
I don't usually find what Dawkins says and writes to be rottweileresque, but this time I was surprised at his tone. There are obviously 'issues' between these two academics that I'm unaware of...

Other Comments by Rob A

20. Comment #55688 by hungarianelephant on July 12, 2007 at 1:46 am

Religion is no more special than, say, the military chain of command or executive authority in corporations.

It's a management system.

True, but we can watch chimps, bees and meerkats, and usually even armies, from a distance. In normal life, we don't have that luxury. We live with our own management systems. Like it or not, we have had religion for thousands of years and it permeates our society.

On this forum we can probably all agree that the fact that a lot of people believe something does not make it true. Most people don't see it that way. So first, you have to make a convincing case about where religion came from. To me, this is not an interesting point but a fundamental one.

Secondly, it can't necessarily be assumed that the structures set up or maintained by the religious are wholly dispensable. They may serve a useful social purpose, for example as a focal point for the local community. In rural Ireland, where my in-laws live, Mass on Saturday evening is the highlight of the week - not surprisingly given how little human contact some people have. Maybe that's sad, but what would you have replace it? The pub? Nothing? If we're arguing that getting rid of religion would make a better world, don't we have to posit something to do its useful jobs?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

21. Comment #55692 by SteveN on July 12, 2007 at 2:01 am

gcdavis wrote in post #19

Maybe my account doesn't amount to a bestselling book, but the problem is by engaging in debate about the holy books, the historical personalities and the global influence of religion gives (them) an undeserved credence.

This is exactly my thinking. Again from the thread in the forum that I mentioned in post #18 I said in answer to the question "Was religion important to our ancestors?":

Although I think that [the] question...is a valid one to ask, I agree that it's probably giving too much respect to religion in the first place. I would think that our more distant ancestors had an extremely diverse and localised mixture of beliefs in the supernatural. During the vast majority of our time on this planet as humans, there have been no large scale organised religions - one tribe would believe in one set of gods or spirits and the next tribe along the valley would believe in another. If one replaces 'religion' in the above questions with 'belief in fairies' then they suddenly don't seem so profound, although they are probably in fact more relevant.

In some ways I think that the very act of spending time debating the role played by religion in anything other than a historical or social context is affording it undeserved status. Sometimes healthy ridicule of silly ideas is more appropriate than solemn debate.

Other Comments by SteveN

22. Comment #55693 by ridelo on July 12, 2007 at 2:09 am

I have to say that the discussion about benefits for the individuals or for the groups goes a little 'over my hat' (dutch expression for saying that it is a bit too difficult for me). Can someone tell me where I can read a good explanation for the layman?
Sloan's article wasn't much help.

Other Comments by ridelo

23. Comment #55710 by SteveN on July 12, 2007 at 3:52 am

(In answer to Ridelo, post #23...)

Speaking from memory as someone who finds the concept of group selection rather slippery, the hypothesis/theory postulates that genetic changes that give an advantage predominantly to the 'group' rather than to the individual (or gene, even) can be positively selected for and can drive evolution of the species. This is then used to explain the obvious altruism exhibited by many species. Richard has argued that any truly 'altruistic gene' would quickly disappear as the more selfish kinds reap the benefit without the expense. He has shown in some of his books how the 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' sort of activity can be explained just as well, if not better, at the level of the selfish gene rather than at the level of group selection.

I found this paper (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.endeavour.2004.11.003) which gives a sort of history of the popularity of group selection theory and is somewhat 'pro' in its approach, but as far as I can tell it offers no actual evidence from the real world for the validity of group selection. The paper implies that RD is a/the main opponent of group selection (or lat least the most vocal) amongst evolutionary biologists, quoting him in a couple of places:

It is true that there have been some recent so-called revivals of group selectionism, but I think they're talking about a different thing. It's not entirely clear what they're talking about, there's a certain amount of confusion

and

The holdout in the debate appears to be Richard Dawkins who was recently quoted regarding some of the experimental work of Wilson: 'They are interesting experiments, but have no connection with group selection. Enormous credit would accrue to anybody who could pull off the seemingly impossible and rehabilitate group selection, but actually, such rehabilitation cannot be achieved because the great heresy really is wrong'

My own opinion is that unless data from some real observations or experiments can be better explained by group selection than by 'selfish genes', the hypothesis just adds an unnecessary layer of complication. If anyone is aware of such data, I would be very interested to hear about it and to know whether RD has an answer. In the meantime, I prefer to stick with Occam's razor.

Cheers


Steve

Other Comments by SteveN

24. Comment #55711 by Giordano on July 12, 2007 at 3:54 am

I wonder if Prof Dawkins ever commented about Ervin Laszlo's work and his ideas of the 'spiritual' dimension of the universe which, he says, is missing in modern science? Thanks.

Other Comments by Giordano

25. Comment #55722 by Flavius_Josephus on July 12, 2007 at 4:29 am

I must say, that after reading RD's response and then all of the post thus far, that RD was quite polite in his response. Wilson completely missed the whole point. RD doesn't say religion doesn't exist; he doesn't say it contradicts evolutionary theory or that religion shouldn't have evolved or that it wasn't important to our ancestors; why would he if it isn't the point of the book? The crux of RD's book is that while it is true that the existence of the supernatural (or God if you like) can't be disproved, it can be put on the same level as fairies, Santa Claus, etc...

I thought RD was quite generous not to go into detail on some of the fallacies of group selection, I'm quite sure it could have been embarrassing for Wilson.

It must be painful for RD to keep responding to critics who completely miss the whole point of his book and probably only read one or two chapters out of it.

Other Comments by Flavius_Josephus

26. Comment #55766 by DeLan on July 12, 2007 at 7:18 am

In my earlier comment on the Wilson/Dawkins exchange I was thinking of the slight tendency towards arrogance exhibited by scientists when they enter into areas outside of their expertise. I realize that this forum is primarily a fan club and that any criticism of Dawkins is not welcome, but nevertheless,

In The Selfish Gene RD writes:

. . .it was Darwin who first put together a coherent and tenable account of why we exist. Darwin made it possible to give a sensible answer to the curious child whose question heads this chapter [Why are people?] We no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with the deep problems: Is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What is man? After posing the last of these questions, the eminent zoologist G. G. Simpson put it thus: 'The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely.'

Even if we accept Dawkins's scientific argument as a very persuasive account of the random mechanical processes at work in our biological history, we might argue that he has not come close to what is really worth knowing in the "Why" of human existence. We might assert, with Socrates, that if all you are going to tell me is the mechanical process by which I got here, you haven't addressed anything about those things I most want to know. You have told me about how the house came to be built, but you offer me nothing at all by way of insight into how I ought to live in the house or why I ought to live here rather than somewhere else. In fact, Dawkins' method makes clear that his explanation cannot, by its very nature, even begin to address such questions.

Other Comments by DeLan

27. Comment #55767 by ranjani on July 12, 2007 at 7:26 am

Many of the criticisms of TGD seem to be that he did not not go into sufficient depth and explore the evolutionary advantage of religion. Well, why would he want to write a clone of "Breaking the spell"? He is exploring the truth value of the existence of God ,a completely valid and relevant subject to explore since the whole edifice of religion is based on this supposition. Further, the personal attacks by Dr.Wilson ("angry atheist" etc.) are in very poor taste.

Other Comments by ranjani

28. Comment #55770 by ranjani on July 12, 2007 at 7:38 am

DeLan:
But your question about Dr.Dawkins not offering you why you came to be etc. is completely missing the point. All scientists do, are offer contingent descriptions of the world we see around us through the lens of their own discipline. I have never heard of a single one claim to acquire any metaphysical insight from or because of the science they do. Would it not be overweening arrogance on someone's part to tell you what and how you should think about the utility or futility of your own life? Surely that's for each one of us to decide for ourselves.

Other Comments by ranjani

29. Comment #55771 by upsidedawn on July 12, 2007 at 7:40 am

DeLan,
At the risk of being accused of being nothing so loathsome as a "fan" of Professor Dawkins, I offer you this excerpt from his book Unweaving the Rainbow:

"After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn't it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked—as I am surprisingly often—why I bother to get up in the mornings. To put it the other way round, isn't it sad to go to your grave without ever wondering why you were born? Who, with such a thought, would not spring from bed, eager to resume discovering the world and rejoicing to be a part of it?"

I appreciate his suggestion that the mysteries of our universe and our search for meaning in our own lives is a source of joy, not of distress.

Other Comments by upsidedawn

30. Comment #55778 by SteveN on July 12, 2007 at 8:33 am

ranjani, in post #29, probably wrote...

Would it not be overweening arrogance on someone's part to tell you what and how you should think about the utility or futility of your own life?

...with a cheeky smirk on his/her face, but just in case the irony was accidental:

Hmmm, let's see. What sort of person tries to "tell you what you should think about the utility or futility of your own life?" It's on the tip of my tongue....What was it?.....I know! I know! It's religious people, isn't it?! Am I right? Do I get a prize?

(Sorry if I'm restating the bleedin' obvious, ranjani)

Cheers,

Steve

Other Comments by SteveN

31. Comment #55785 by ranjani on July 12, 2007 at 9:07 am

SteveN:
Nah, no prizes. Just couldn't resist that, having had it pointed out to me by many "god fearing" people that my life was an exercise in futility if I did not produce a brood of children!!!

Other Comments by ranjani

32. Comment #55786 by Kakashi_monkey on July 12, 2007 at 9:16 am

I haven't read The God Delusion but would like to. Whatever RD writes, I'll read it.

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

33. Comment #55801 by Badrx on July 12, 2007 at 11:16 am

I am solidly behind Prof. Dawkins in his response to David Sloan Wilson, but I hope none of this will put people off reading Sloan Wilson's rather splendid book, Evolution For Everyone, which I think offers an illuminating view of evolution for the layperson.

Other Comments by Badrx

34. Comment #55808 by NormanDoering on July 12, 2007 at 12:27 pm

SteveN wrote:

My own opinion is that unless data from some real observations or experiments can be better explained by group selection than by 'selfish genes', the hypothesis just adds an unnecessary layer of complication.

Whoa... genes can't explain something like the difference between Christianity and Jainism -- that's memetic, not genetic. You don't genetically inherit your religion (I assume - maybe that should be tested).

Genes could be entirely selfish (but they're probably not, just mostly selfish) and you could still get group selection with "memes."

The conflict is artificial.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

35. Comment #55815 by SteveN on July 12, 2007 at 1:11 pm

NormanDoering wrote in post #35

Whoa... genes can't explain something like the difference between Christianity and Jainism -- that's memetic, not genetic. You don't genetically inherit your religion (I assume - maybe that should be tested).

Sorry, but I think you might have misunderstood me. I was referring to the standard debate about the role of group selection as a driving force in the actual evolution of a species, not with regard to religious beliefs in humans. I fully agree that religion is almost certainly memetic and not genetic but I'm not sure that group selection can be easily applied to memes either. Certainly a particular belief, or meme, might become established in a population or group and be of benefit to that group. However, that is one meme, the equivalent of a single gene. In order for the analogy with group selection at the genetic level to be vailid, a meme would have to benefit other memes in the population to its own detriment. Certainly, with their built-in intolerance to other, even closely-related memes, most religions seem to act more like a selfish gene than the altruistic product of group selection.

Then again, I could easily be totally wrong of course. I have trouble thinking about memes as 'entities'. Molecules are much easier.

Cheers,

Steve

Other Comments by SteveN

36. Comment #55818 by NormanDoering on July 12, 2007 at 1:25 pm

SteveN wrote:

Sorry, but I think you might have misunderstood me.

That's quite possible. However, I'm wondering if you understand yourself. My conception of group selection started with an unorthodox source: "The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History" by Howard Bloom.

Here are two sample chapters:
http://www.bookworld.com/lucifer/excerpt1.html
http://www.bookworld.com/lucifer/excerpt2.html

Other Comments by NormanDoering

37. Comment #55854 by 54321mls on July 12, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Hungarianelephant I feel somewhat misses the point. It is not our problem (or indeed RD's problem) whether or not organised religion has a purpose or what to replace it with. Why should we be worried about that?
All RD is saying is that, let's face it, when you really analyse any religious belief, whether literally or allegorically, what you end up with is a load of unscientific, ill-thought-out illogical nonsense. Whether or not religion fulfils any worthwhile role in human existence is not really a consequence that should concern us.
Let the Bible-bashers worry about their purpose, while we get on with enjoying our lives, free of any guilt that one woman eating an apple condemns us to eternal damnation.
Simply because we know that 2+2=4 should not lead us to consider the consequences that other possible outcomes of this equation could adversely affect the lives of those misguided individuals who may believe that the answer may be 3 or 5, and we have to accommodate their laughable fallacy.

Other Comments by 54321mls

38. Comment #55895 by Luis_Cayetano on July 12, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Comment 27 by DeLan:

"In fact, Dawkins' method makes clear that his explanation cannot, by its very nature, even begin to address such questions."

That's because such questions are bogus when it comes to the origin of humanity. Just because people yearn for such questions - or just because they can be asked - brings them no loser to being legitimate ones in the sense that they have an answer that the person asking the question would regard as emotionally satisfying. The closest we can come to a "why" explanation would be to understand the evolutionary underpinnings of intelligence i.e. what selection pressures favoured the development of an inordinately large neural processing unit. To think that we are entitled to "more" than that it to plead for a religious explanation, and that is something that science cannot corroborate and in fact has no need for, however much we may personally hanker for it. Personally, I find the Selfish Gene starkly beautiful as an explanation for our existence, and more amazing and haunting than any religious explanation. Of course, if it is your desire, you could subsume it under whatever "ultimate meaning" you like.

Comment 18 by SteveN:

"Now, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I am a virologist/immunologist and I find the best example Wilson can give for a modern example of group selection (an experiment published in Nature in which bacteriophages of reduced virulence survived better that virulent variants because their bacterial 'prey' were not wiped out) to be quite logically explained by a 'selfish gene' point of view - I see no need for group selection as an explanation here."

But you're presenting the issue as though group selection was a rival to gene selection (I think?). When we talk about group selection these days, aren't we talking about vehicle selection, and assuming (as I believe Wilson does) that genes are the only true replicators? Can't groups themselves be vehicles for selection?
I though the issue was simply that Dawkins is sceptical of such a possibility (ie. he thinks it unlikely that alleles can be maintained if they confer some advantage onto the group as a whole whilst having a negative affect on the individuals carrying them), and that Wilson is more willing to invoke it. I wish someone could clear this up for me, because so far everyone I ask has been presenting the issue as though the controversy was about groups as rivals to genes for the role of replicator (a controversy that was once more prevalent, and I think that both Wilson and Dawkins agree that is has been quenched). But the issue here (not the religion debate; I'm just talking about genes here) is really whether groups can act as rivals to individuals as vehicles. Am I right?

Other Comments by Luis_Cayetano

39. Comment #55904 by gr8hands on July 12, 2007 at 7:49 pm

I refuse to wear a paper seatbelt while in a car, regardless of how many people tell me it comforts them or makes them "feel safer." It is worthless.

I'd rather have the truth in every situation, so that I can make the appropriate decisions. False hope, false security, false information -- they really help no one, and are an insult.

If I'm dying of cancer, don't tell me you'll pray for me -- how about donating to a cancer research organization? Or volunteering at a cancer ward? Or donating blood (or being an organ donor)? Or spending time with me just talking, watching movies, or listening to good music -- helping improve the quality of my remaining life?

Those practical suggestions are infinitely better than prayer, because they will actually work and make a positive difference. I don't want or need the placebo affect.

All religion can offer is false hope, false security, wrong answers, and good music. Take the music and leave the other crap behind.

Other Comments by gr8hands

40. Comment #55909 by MrEmpirical on July 12, 2007 at 8:12 pm

I have yet to see a single piece of 'evidence' for group selection that cannot be explained from a gene-centred point of view. The examples given by Wilson can be easily understood in terms of the survival value of each individual gene.

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

41. Comment #55921 by Bizarro Dawkins on July 12, 2007 at 10:15 pm

"Hmmm, let's see. What sort of person tries to "tell you what you should think about the utility or futility of your own life?" It's on the tip of my tongue....What was it?.....I know! I know! It's religious people, isn't it?! Am I right? Do I get a prize?"

How hypocritical. I must ask, do you believe my life to be one of futility and ignorance? I'll save you the trouble of condemning yourself with your own argument by just asking you to not bother answering the question.

"Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests"."

-RD

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

42. Comment #55922 by Luis_Cayetano on July 12, 2007 at 10:53 pm

"The examples given by Wilson can be easily understood in terms of the survival value of each individual gene."

Yes, the survival value of each individual gene, but on what entity?

Other Comments by Luis_Cayetano

43. Comment #55924 by Bizarro Dawkins on July 12, 2007 at 11:14 pm

"If I'm dying of cancer, don't tell me you'll pray for me -- how about donating to a cancer research organization? Or volunteering at a cancer ward? Or donating blood (or being an organ donor)?"

How insulting. I happen to be an organ donor. I also give blood every time the American Red Cross association comes to Liberty, which happens so often that sometimes I cannot donate because I am still within the 60 day mandatory waiting period between donations. I also donate to the American Red Cross association. But I will also pray, because I believe that when we have done all we possibly can, it is then up to God to do what we cannot.

I am not saying this to brag about my good deeds, but rather to inform you that Christians aren't all talk. The Bible explicitly commands Christians to use their resources without regard to ourselves in order to help others and demonstrate the love of Christ.

Your claim is assumptive and poorly informed. I would advise that you do some research in the area of different philosophical demographics and how much they donate annually to various charities. You might not like what you find, but at least perhaps you'll stop making presumptuous accusations.

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

44. Comment #55926 by Lauregon on July 13, 2007 at 12:00 am

"But I will also pray, because I believe that when we have done all we possibly can, it is then up to God to do what we cannot." - Bizarro Dawkins


Does "God" really need directions and supplications from humans in order to know what people want done? Does "God" need to "prove" to humans how superior "he" is in being able to do what humans cannot?

Other Comments by Lauregon

45. Comment #55929 by SteveN on July 13, 2007 at 12:45 am

Bizarro Dawkins wrote in post #42...

I must ask, do you believe my life to be one of futility and ignorance? I'll save you the trouble of condemning yourself with your own argument by just asking you to not bother answering the question.

As much as I hate to waste my time interacting with the fundies, the one thing that'll make me do so is to ask me not to.

It appears that at Liberty University, they spend too much time teaching falsehoods and not enough teaching reading for comprehension. I never once suggested that your life or the life of any other supernaturalist is one of futility and ignorance. I was highlighting the irony (as it turns out, deliberate) in ranjani's sentence (post #29) "Would it not be overweening arrogance on ...[a scientist's].. part to tell you what and how you should think about the utility or futility of your own life?"

Now, not even you can deny that those of faith have for millennia made it a habit or even a life's quest to 'save' others from a 'futile' life (and an 'eternity of torment'), either through childhood indoctrination, proselytizing or the threat of torture and death. How many times have I heard phrases such as "without faith/god/jesus, life has no meaning" or "if you don't believe, why bother getting up in the morning?" Such questions reveal a level of ignorance and arrogance that I find simply astonishing.

Bizarro Dawkins wrote in posts #42 and #44

How hypocritical.
...

How insulting.

How pathetic.

Other Comments by SteveN

46. Comment #55932 by SteveN on July 13, 2007 at 12:52 am

Luis Cayetano wrote in post #37

I'm wondering if you understand yourself.

To be honest, I'm beginning to wonder that myself. I have the impression that we agree on everything apart from the semantics. I didn't mean to suggest that group selection is seen as a rival to selection at the gene level. I think that proponents view it as a supplemental 'layer' on top of the selfish gene that RD views as unnecessary. My simple concept of group selection, which is quite likely to be highly naive and even totally wrong, is that it hypothesises the selection of genetic mutations in individuals that result in a phenotype that benefits the group, even if the mutation does not directly benefit the individual gene-carrier or the gene itself. This appears superficially to make perfect sense: if an animal is part of a social group then enhanced survival of the group will also enhance the chances of individual survival. RD has spent some time in his books pointing out that such truly 'altruistic' genes are susceptible to being out-completed by those coding for behaviour of the 'take but don't give' variety. He carefully shows that what appears, on the surface, to be selection at the group level, can also be explained by straightforward selection at the level of the 'selfish' gene. As you said yourself (and I agree wholeheartedly) "Personally, I find the Selfish Gene starkly beautiful as an explanation for our existence..." and one reason I find the explanation beautiful is that I have a clear understanding (as far as it goes) of both the concept and the mechanisms involved. When it comes to thinking about group selection, however, things start to get very 'fuzzy' in my head and certainly the writing style and arguments used by proponents such as Sloan Wilson don't help. I mentioned before that until I see evidence to the contrary I will stick with RD's selfish genes. As McEmperical wrote in post #41…

I have yet to see a single piece of 'evidence' for group selection that cannot be explained from a gene-centred point of view. The examples given by Wilson can be easily understood in terms of the survival value of each individual gene.

…which is my stance entirely. I believe that RD's position is a similar one. If the data can be explained as well as or even better by 'selfish genes' alone then Occam's razor is applied and there is no need to invoke another level of selection. I expect that he would, as I would, fully accept group selection as a vehicle for genetic change if there was convincing supporting data that could not be explained at the level of the selfish gene.

Other Comments by SteveN

47. Comment #55933 by DNAtheist on July 13, 2007 at 12:59 am

Rob wrote:
Hmmm... It seems I am alone in thinking that what Sloan Wilson said was worth reading and that Dawkins retort is overly aggressive.

Well I don't agree with your evaluation of Dawkins' response, but I was interested in reading about Wilson's work. I think that what I found so frustrating about his article was that he spent so little time actually discussing his ideas because he was so busy listing the multitude of faults that he sees in Dawkins.

He could have taken a positive approach by pointing out that Dennett and Dawkins have exposed the public to the concept that evolutionary biology might explain some aspects of religious behavior, and then presenting his ideas as some early steps in exploring that possibility. Instead his article repeatedly presents the negative argument:

1.) Dawkins disagrees with me.
2.) But Dawkins is just mean, arrogant, rude, angry, and dogmatic.
3.) Therefore I'm right.

I found that extremely annoying as well as unhelpful. I found it especially obnoxious that he used the standard theistic tact of characterizing Dawkins in religious terminology.

-Dawkins turned group selection advocates into pariahs.
-Dawkins rejected group selection with zeal (read this as "Dawkins is a zealot.")
-Dawkins engages in fundamentalist rhetoric.
-Dawkins appropriates the deity (Darwin) for his own cause.
-Dawkins recites a mantra regarding group selection.

And then he ends by characterizing Dawkins as "just another angry atheist" who prostitutes his scientific reputation to "vent his personal opinions about religion." Do you really think that Dawkins' response to this sort of personal attack to be excessive?

Other Comments by DNAtheist

48. Comment #55940 by hungarianelephant on July 13, 2007 at 1:39 am

It is not our problem (or indeed RD's problem) whether or not organised religion has a purpose or what to replace it with. Why should we be worried about that?

(54321mls)

Because we live in a society in which religion is deeply ingrained, both in the structures and in people's personal world-views. Douglas Adams made this point much more eloquently in his speech "Is there an artificial God" (in The Salmon of Doubt).

In an ideal world, it should not concern us that some people believe that 2+2=5 and waste their Sunday mornings worshipping a non-existent God. But it doesn't stop there. Religion leaks out and inserts itself into the public sphere. It makes itself our problem. I'm not suggesting that we accommodate it: far from it. Rather, that we need to understand it properly to confront it effectively. Religious apologists are slippery characters, and "God doesn't exist" is an instrument that hasn't worked very well.

You're right, of course. This wasn't part of RD's purpose. Maybe my comment belongs in the Christopher Hitchens forum :)

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

49. Comment #55949 by gcdavis on July 13, 2007 at 2:42 am

To Bizarro Dawkins

Apologies in advance for what will seem arrogant and opinionated.

You are a student at Liberty "university". Being a student is an opportunity to open your mind, to explore ideas unfettered by intellectual constraints, to develop your potential and who knows, perhaps make a lasting contribution to your subject.

By joining Liberty you have abandoned all hope of doing those things. Its motto is "Challenge your mind... Build your faith". These concepts are mutually exclusive. Perhaps if it were "Challenge your faith..." you would then be able to "Build your mind".

In common with many atheists I view religious belief as absurd and deserving of ridicule not respect. Perhaps you would feel the same about my views if I said I believed in fairies or the god of thunder?

You may wonder why the tone of this post and many others is angry. The right to pursue your religious faith is not in question, but when that faith results in actions that are impervious to challenge, we must all be worried, look no further than 9/11. If you respond by saying that you are a christian not a moslem, I say to you that they are as fervent in their belief as you are in yours. Both cannot be true!

Religion is an infantile throwback to the prehistory of humankind and deserves no place in the modern world. In time, probably a very long time, I expect it to be replaced by secular rationalism, the ills of society may still be with us or maybe we will have developed a more just and equitable social order and in that god free world we will be able to express our true humanity towards each other without supernatural oversight..

Other Comments by gcdavis

50. Comment #55954 by BillySands on July 13, 2007 at 3:03 am

Hey bizzaro, we are still waiting to hear you explain chicken's teeth on the inferior design thread

Other Comments by BillySands