1. Comment #91982 by home8896 on November 29, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Sheesh, I have trouble reading past the word "evolutionist" whenever I come across it. I do wonder if it didn't have the "uh-nist" sounds if people would have adopted it so readily. I can't help but feel these people that adopt it so easily feel that it can be related to Satanist when used. I can't take anyone who uses "evolutionist" seriously.

Other Comments by home8896

2. Comment #91991 by Janus on November 29, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Sloan's argument is based on the premise that we should base our beliefs (and our evaluation of other people's beliefs) on what is right from an evolutionary perspective, which is nothing more than the good old naturalistic fallacy.

That religious beliefs might benefit the ones who hold them doesn't mean they're above criticism and ridicule. It's only a description of reality; you can't derive 'ought' from 'is'.



Other Comments by Janus

3. Comment #91992 by Duff on November 29, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Home,
I don't have a clue what your talking about, but I think David Sloan Wilson is on the hunt for the next Templeton Prize. Suck up, David.

Other Comments by Duff

4. Comment #92002 by Russell Blackford on November 29, 2007 at 5:10 pm

If we were talking about laws or conventional moral norms, Wilson would have a point. We do in fact judge those things by whether they help the community function, or whether they are successful in preventing harms, or by some similar standard. But that can't apply to what beliefs people have, at least not in the simplistic way that Wilson says. I mean, there could, I suppose be circumstances where it's good to have some Noble Lies around. But most of us cringe at the idea and would hope that any such circumstances are rare. Perhaps we just do value the truth too much.

In any event, I'd be softer on religion if it didn't do so much actual harm.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

5. Comment #92005 by phil rimmer on November 29, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Or...

With apologies to Natalie, I think there's a kind of a silliness to banging away at people's capacity for murder, when in fact, if you're an evolutionist, the only way you would want to evaluate this is to examine what it causes people to do.

We have now reached a stage in our evolution where we can start to consider transcending our evolutionary heritage. From prehistory through to today we have managed to reduce murder rates by an order of magnitude.

Ah! But its not natural is it?

Other Comments by phil rimmer

6. Comment #92009 by Bonzai on November 29, 2007 at 5:19 pm

So what is the crime of David Sloan Wilson?

Is it because he thinks there is a social and anthropological dimension to religion other than its truth value and that it is an interesting scientific problem to understand why people believe by actually looking at anthropological data like a good scientist would do?

It seems obvious that religion does have some benefits, either social or emotional at some time in some places or it wouldn't have lasted.

But no. Anything that deviates from the script that religion is completely rubbish and should be nuked metaphorically would be heresy on this site.
According to some people here when it comes to religion there is no room for dispassionate scholarly inquiry. The only politically correct stance is being an atheist activist. Either you in the "movement" or you are out, either you are with us or against us. It is easy to be "against us", as long as you don't declare with a loud speaker that religion should be wiped off the face of the earth you must be a closet theist, some kind of counter revolutionary.

Sometimes the dogmatic atheists on this site really piss me off. These people would be fine material to run the inquisition if they live in the medieval time.

Other Comments by Bonzai

7. Comment #92012 by Bonzai on November 29, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Sloan's argument is based on the premise that we should base our beliefs on what is right from an evolutionary perspective, which is nothing more than the good old naturalistic fallacy.

Where does he say anything about how we "should" believe? He is saying that there is a utility logic (among other things)to why people believe in what they do and it is the job of science to investigate that instead of just saying these people are idiots because their beliefs are false, end of story.

As Dawkins often says science is about telling us what the world is, rather that how it should be. I would expect the fans to take their idol's own words more seriously.

Other Comments by Bonzai

8. Comment #92016 by Tomcat on November 29, 2007 at 5:38 pm

"Where does he say anything about how we "should" believe? He is saying that there is a utility logic (among other things)to why people believe in what they do and it is the job of science to investigate that instead of just saying these people are idiots because their beliefs are false, end of story. "

Exactly. There is a tremendous amount of overlooked mysteries waiting to be discovered in this area. We have such a dearth of knowledge here. I'd wager that study of religion in a more scientific sense would make tremendous contributions to solving many of the unknowns that the mind sciences are dealing with at present

Other Comments by Tomcat

9. Comment #92019 by cal_mertes on November 29, 2007 at 5:40 pm

I didn't bother to read most of the debate -- the debate is rehashing well worn ground.


After thinking about it for some time, I've defined fasit as religious belief as willing belief in make-believe.


The problem with religious believing is, IMO, that such belief leads to the believer then believing lots of other things without (adequate) evidence. And often considering what ever is or happens as proof of the religious belief.

Other Comments by cal_mertes

10. Comment #92027 by Bonzai on November 29, 2007 at 6:03 pm

The problem with religious believing is, IMO, that such belief leads to the believer then believing lots of other things without (adequate) evidence.

This is an assertion without any evidence. It proves that religion is not necessary for people to believe in things without evidence. Just because people believe in some deities it doesn't follow that they automatically undergo a lobotomy and are unable to be rational most of the time. Most believers are not deranged or the human civilization would not have survived til the scientific revolution.

I am amused by this often tossed about assertion. On the one hand, religious belief is irrational (I agree) but then the irrational believers are supposed to be consistent in their irrationality. So, hopelessly irrational yet 100% consistent, this is indeed a very peculiar model of the human mind.

Other Comments by Bonzai

11. Comment #92044 by Russell Blackford on November 29, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Bonzai, aren't you being a bit harsh? I for one am not saying that David Sloan Wilson is a bad person or that his research program is worthless, or anything like that. We just have to be careful in how much we assess truth claims for the utilitarian consequences of holding them, rather than for their actual truth.

I must admit, that I'm not entirely opposed to Wilson's way of thinking because I think that most people have incorrect beliefs about morality - I mean,in particular, that they are incorrect at the meta-ethical level - and I'm prepared to put up with this if their actual norms, dispositions of character, etc., lead to them to behave in ways that are not harmful to others. But it's not ideal.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

12. Comment #92045 by Bonzai on November 29, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Russell,

I didn't mean you.

I don't think David Sloan Wilson was saying anywhere that we should evaluate truth claims based on utility. In fact he said up front that he thought the truth claims were garbage but (in his view)the truth value was a rather trivial part of the religion phenomenon. What he meant was that we should assess religion not just as truth claims but take into account its actual functions in different context. I understand some people may disagree but it is important not to put words in his mouth.

Other Comments by Bonzai

13. Comment #92047 by monkey2 on November 29, 2007 at 6:40 pm

David Sloan Wilson said

If you have any knowledge of religious belief, you know that religious believers are always comparing their communities to single organisms and beehives.

I can't get that picture of religious communities as beehives out of my head. It really works well on so many levels.

Tomcat I agree. The scientific study of religion is in its infancy and David Sloan Wilson who is an atheist seems to be making an effort to understand it.

Audience Member: I'm teaching a course here at SUNY Albany on the ethnology of religion. I also have a Master's degree in religious studies from a Methodist seminary. I can see both scientific and theoretical approaches to religion.

Duff I'm sure this person was a theist, with his Master's degree in religious studies. If so, unlike David Sloan Wilson, he might be eligible for the Templeton prize,. He might even be able to make a contribution on the ethnology of religion but I would be wary of his opinions on the mind 'disorder' side of religion.

Bonzai The beehive analogy can explain how a member can be irrational and deranged yet still function. It doesn't matter what tosh the members believe as long as they all think they believe the same as each other and give up their individuality to the hive. If the hive thrives then the members are successful. If they are successful it must be because their beliefs are correct.

Other Comments by monkey2

14. Comment #92054 by Janus on November 29, 2007 at 7:20 pm

Bonzai:

Where does he say anything about how we "should" believe?

"With apologies to Natalie, I think there's a kind of a silliness to banging away at religious beliefs for their obvious falsehood, when in fact, if you're an evolutionist, the only way you would want to evaluate these beliefs is to examine what they cause people to do."

I also remember a quote from Sloan's book that was read by Daniel Dennett at AAI '07, which basically argued that it is more rational to believe something that is false if it makes you happy than to believe something that is true if it makes you miserable.

He is saying that there is a utility logic (among other things)to why people believe in what they do and it is the job of science to investigate that instead of just saying these people are idiots because their beliefs are false, end of story.

He is also saying that, yes. That's not all he's saying.

Of course this particular statement doesn't contradict what Dawkins and Dennett say in any way.

As Dawkins often says science is about telling us what the world is, rather that how it should be.

Exactly. So why does Sloan tell us that "the only way you would want to evaluate these beliefs is to examine what they cause people to do"?

It seems obvious that religion does have some benefits, either social or emotional at some time in some places or it wouldn't have lasted.

It may seem obvious but it's not necessarily true. An idea is more likely to propagate itself if it influences the behavior of its believer in such a way that he is likely to propagate the idea, which may or may not translate into an advantage for the believer and/or his society. For example, the belief that God will reward you with eternal bliss if you spend your life preaching His Word is a belief that is extremely good at propagating itself, and yet it doesn't have any benefit for its believer. That's basic memetic theory.

Now, that doesn't mean there aren't religious beliefs that provide benefits; there are many that do. The point is that just because a meme has survived a long time and propagated itself successfully doesn't mean it's good for its believer, it only means it's good for itself.

Anything that deviates from the script that religion is completely rubbish and should be nuked metaphorically would be heresy on this site.
According to some people here when it comes to religion there is no room for dispassionate scholarly inquiry. The only politically correct stance is being an atheist activist. Either you in the "movement" or you are out, either you are with us or against us. It is easy to be "against us", as long as you don't declare with a loud speaker that religion should be wiped off the face of the earth you must be a closet theist, some kind of counter revolutionary.

Of course this is all a figment of your own imagination. I've never seen a single atheist on this website who even comes close to what you're describing. Actually, I've never seen such an atheist on any of the websites I frequent.
But perhaps there is one and I simply haven't noticed him or her, in which case I'd be grateful if you could post a link.

Frankly, I think you're just one more alarmist who sees "atheistic dogma" and "cultish tendencies" everywhere.

Other Comments by Janus

15. Comment #92064 by Bonzai on November 29, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Janus,

I also remember a quote from Sloan's book that was read by Daniel Dennett at AAI '07, which basically argued that it is more rational to believe something that is false if it makes you happy than to believe something that is true if it makes you miserable.

That depends on what you mean by "rational". If you take the economist's definition of rationality,--maximizing utility,--which seems to be the meaning intended without seeing the exact quote, the statement is a truism. I don't find anything remotely controversial about it.

Exactly. So why does Sloan tell us that "the only way you would want to evaluate these beliefs is to examine what they cause people to do"?

To evaluate a belief in a given context doesn't entail that you have to base your own belief on the evaluation. In your sentence that I quoted you seemed to be making the confusion (if I misread you, I apologize)

I can say that a criminal has shown great improvement after becoming religious based on some objective indicators such as incidents of violence, anti-social behaviour, drug abuse etc. So religiosity has a possible impact for this individual based on objective data.

That is an evaluation. But it doesn't follow that I think I should become religious or that you should. By interpreting my statement to imply that I endorse religion and recommend it and then chastising me for that you are implicitly saying I should base my evaluation on what you think the world should be instead of how the world is from the data. This is like some sociologists criticizing evolutionary theory for being too bloody aweful, promoting competition, male dominance yada yada. It has nothing to do with scientific merits at all. That is why my citation of Dawkins was relevant.

Now to change the direction a little.

I think even among the "New Atheists" leading lights only Dawkins is consistent in saying that truth value should be the sole criterion in judging religion. Not even Sam Harris.actually does that even though he sort of says that if you ask him point blank. If truth value is his only criterion to assess religion why does he speak so favorably of Tibetan Buddhism while expressing such loathing for Islam? If he indeed thinks that truth and evidence are the only bench mark then he should condemn both as dangerous brain diseases with equal vehemence because both Tibetan Buddhism and Islam are equally bull shit, without a shred of evidence in support of their truth claims.

So, in practice, Sam does rank religion basing a large part on what it causes people to do, even though he is not as up front as David Sloan Wilson. I happen to agree with him. Not all religions are equal even though they are equally false.

It may seem obvious but it's not necessarily true. An idea is more likely to propagate itself if it influences the behavior of its believer in such a way that he is likely to propagate the idea, which may or may not translate into an advantage for the believer and/or his society. For example, the belief that God will reward you with eternal bliss if you spend your life preaching His Word is a belief that is extremely good at propagating itself, and yet it doesn't have any benefit for its believer. That's basic memetic theory

This is a plausible guess, so let's find out if it is true. But how do you find out without looking at the data? From what I understand, meme "theory" is only a "paradigm". It is just a broad brush idea that seems to make sense but it doesn't have any scientific status until you can flesh it out into a testable hypothesis. For that I think David Sloan Wilson's kind of work which stands at the cross road of anthropology, evolutionary biology and macro history is very useful.

Frankly, I think you're just one more alarmist who sees "atheistic dogma" and "cultist tendencies" everywhere.

I am not the only one who sees that. Steve099 and Spinoza say as much. To say that DSW is vying for a Tampleton followed by "David, suck up" is completely uncalled for. I should add that Sloan is not the only person being viciously attacked by some atheists just because he has a somewhat different view from the party line. Paul Davies and Scott Atran come to mind. There are others, but these names just pop up.

Other Comments by Bonzai

16. Comment #92066 by monkey2 on November 29, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Bonzai I agree that 'to say that DSW is vying for a Templeton is uncalled for.' The same, however, cannot be said for Paul Davies.

Other Comments by monkey2

17. Comment #92092 by Janus on November 29, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Bonzai:

First, there is some confusion here. Not only in the conversation between the two of us, but also in the debate between Natalie Anger and David Sloan Wilson! I just re-read all of it, and it seems to me that what they're saying is 95% compatible, that in fact they aren't debating at all.

Anger is arguing that scientists should criticize religion more than they currently are, on account of its falsehood.
Sloan Wilson is arguing that religion is better explained if you hypothesize that it grants some benefits to groups and individuals.

But those two statements don't contradict each other in the slightest. Anger wants to act, politically, Sloan wants to explain; one doesn't preclude the other.

The only place where I detected a real disagreement is when Sloan Wilson says things like, "there's a kind of a silliness to banging away at religious beliefs for their obvious falsehood", and, "Do they help people function in their communities? Then this might be an explanation for why they exist. It also makes it unnecessary to criticize these ideas, again and again, because they depart from factual reality."

Here I took Sloan to mean what it looks like he means: Don't criticize false beliefs that have positive effects on individuals, groups, and societies. That's also the message I got from Dennett's quoting from Sloan's book.

Now I may be misinterpreting him, but if I am I have to wonder why he bothered to debate Anger. He should have debated someone who was actually interested in explanation, rather than political action, like Dawkins or Dennett.

But then I think he would have been disappointed, because as far as I know, neither Dawkins nor Dennett would have really disagreed with him. Sloan, and you, seem to think that Dawkins sees nothing good about religious beliefs, but I'm pretty sure he does. It's just that he also believes that despite these benefits, the negative effects of religion, and its falsehood make it worthy of criticism and ridicule.

To get back to Sloan, I of course do not think I'm misinterpreting him. I think he's being an apologist for religion, in an admittedly vague and relatively harmless kind of way. Of course he's not saying that religion is likely to be true, but he is saying that we shouldn't attack and ridicule it because it offers something of value that's not related to truth. In other words, I'm not putting Sloan in the opposite camp, as you've accused me of doing, he's putting himself there. I'm not telling him to shut up, he's telling us (the "new" atheists) to shut up, as does Scott Atran, as does Michael Shermer, as do Mooney and Nisbet.

But, as I said, this has nothing to do with the validity of his ideas about the correct explanation for religion. The two topics are completely disconnected. It could be demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that religion is immensely useful to encourage peace and harmony in a society, and it wouldn't change my opinion that it should be done away with, not because I would deny the evidence, but because I put truth ahead of pretty much everything else, except survival.

Another way of putting it is that the conflict, if I'm right in my interpretation of Sloan, is between people who value truth more than peace and harmony and things like that, and people who do the opposite.

Other Comments by Janus

18. Comment #92124 by Bonzai on November 29, 2007 at 10:48 pm

Janus,

Here I took Sloan to mean what it looks like he means: Don't criticize false beliefs that have positive effects on individuals, groups, and societies. That's also the message I got from Dennett's quoting from Sloan's book

I don't see why this is such an unreasonable position. It amounts to saying that if a little white lie keeps you happy why would I waste my time and energy to try to burst your bubble? We do that in real life all the time.

Suppose your neighbour is very ugly but he is under the delusion that he is a handsome prince. This belief allows him to have a healthy self image and a normal social life. Would you stick him in front of a mirror to lecture him what an ugly toad he really is and that he should wear a mask when he goes out? What good would it achieve if he finally comes around to the side of "truth" and decides that he should become a hermit or kill himself?

Dawkins says that the "atheist movement" is urgently needed because of 9/11, creationism, a revival of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. etc. In other words, this urgency is prompted exactly by what religion causes people to do, like David Sloan Wilson says, not some abstract notion of "truth"

The very fact that Dawkins allies himself with moderate Christians to fight against creationism indicates that even him, in practice, does not simply value truth above all else. I think Dawkins himself would agree that it is a waste of time and resources to devote equal energy in attacking John Spong and Pat Robertson simply because they both believe in Jesus.

As I wrote above, Sam Harris clearly doesn't believe that truth and evidence are all that matter in evaluating religion even though he may give that impression. If he truly believes that he would attack Islam and Tibetan Buddhism with the same vehemence.

I think he's being an apologist for religion, in an admittedly vague and relatively harmless kind of way. Of course he's not saying that religion is likely to be true, but he is saying that we shouldn't attack and ridicule it because it offers something of value that's not related to truth. In other words, I'm not putting Sloan in the opposite camp, as you've accused me of doing, he's putting himself there. I'm not telling him to shut up, he's telling us (the "new" atheists) to shut up, as does Scott Atran, as does Michael Shermer, as do Mooney and Nisbet.

To say that religion might have something to offer is not apologizing, it is again an empirical statement that can be verified or disproved by data.

DSW doesn't say we shouldn't attack religion, his quote has a caveat, which is "if it offers something in value" and I take it to mean net value, balancing all the pros and cons. This is not the same as saying that religion is positive and in fact he clearly says in the closing argument that there are times when it is not and we need to fight that, like the breaking down of the separation of the state and Church happening in the U.S.

This doesn't sound like a blanket "apologizing for religion" as you seem to think.

This thread is not about Atran or Shermer so I'll be brief. They certainly don't tell atheists to "shut up". Atran's main point is that the root causes of many apparently religiously driven conflicts actually lie elsewhere and it would be naive to see only the surface and wage war on a shadow. This is an empirical statement that can be verified or refuted by data. Atran does have a lot of data that appear to back up his position while his critics have none. Shermer's message is simply about tactics. If this is sufficient to castigate him as an "apologist" who belongs in "the opposite camp", it is indeed very easy to stray from the straight and narrow and end up in the wrong camp. It just proves my original point about the dogmatic atheists, their "with us or against us" mentality and their little inquisition. I don't know how you demarcate which camp is which, but if these camps are so narrowly defined it would not be a loss of rationalist honour for not being found in the same camp with the likes of the RRS.

Other Comments by Bonzai

19. Comment #92133 by Bonzai on November 29, 2007 at 11:22 pm

The title "God v.s science" is completely inaccurate. No one is arguing for "God".

Other Comments by Bonzai

20. Comment #92137 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 11:30 pm

I'm with Bonzai on this. There is way too much knee jerking going on in our alleged "rational" community.

People need to think carefully about what they consider "truth", and evaluate counter arguments equally carefully. The whole point is that skeptical critical thinking will get us out of the hole, not the wholesale embrace of yet another dogma.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

21. Comment #92191 by Ajuydog on November 30, 2007 at 3:03 am

Just to add my tuppence worth. The truth claims of religion and their cost/benefit ratios are two different things; the words "true" "false" and "beneficial" harmful" can occur in any combination. It is not irrational to deny the existence of gods and argue that there may well be benefits to (some) individuals groups or societies. We should not be guilty of the ecological fallacy.

I dont know whether the following will strike a chord but it did make me think a little differently about some of the bizarre churches I saw (some rather too cozy with those in power)when I worked in Central America and was struck by the incredible drunkenness among men. You could drive to villages on a sunday morning and see many many men lying in the gutter and on the pavements unconscious with drink. Now the point of this story is that one day a physician who was in no way religious said to me that he advises patients with alcohol problems to "become evangelicals" because they enforce abstinence from alcohol which is a major contributor to domestic violence and a financial drain on already poor families. Leaving aside all the usual criticisms of theses churches, I think that religious conviction combined with stong community (peer pressure!) can help some people to change behaviour for the better.

I find myself flabbergasted by the mindless drivel, "breathtaking inaninity" obvious falsehood of religion and feeling nothing but contempt these purveyors of lies while pussyfooting around doing my best not to rock the boat with individuals who seem to derive real comfort from their beliefs. I suppose what it boils down to is that the world is a complicated place, motives are always mixed and we need a little wisdom mixed with common humanity in discerning who to shoot down in flames and who to treat gently.

Other Comments by Ajuydog

22. Comment #92198 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 3:31 am

I am not the only one who sees that. Steve099 and Spinoza say as much.

I guess it is only to be expected for some kind of 'cultishness' to build up around an important idea put forward by good and clever people like Dawkins. However, we are supposed to be the rationalists; we are supposed to be a bit better, to step back and take a more considered look at things.

Anyway, regarding the discussion. I think Sloan Wilson makes interesting points. However, I am not sure I understand why studying the behavioral effects of religion would remove the necessity to criticise its factual incorrectness.

I think we are increasingly living in a world where factual correctness is important; where people need to understand issues such as climate change, evolution, stem cell research, nuclear power and so on.

Other Comments by steve99

23. Comment #92201 by bitbutter on November 30, 2007 at 3:37 am

Notice how much less kind was the response to a reader asking whether astronomers believe in astrology: "No, astronomers do not believe in astrology," said Dave Chernoff. "It is considered to be a ludicrous scam. There is no evidence that it works, and plenty of evidence to the contrary." He ended his dismissal with the assertion that in science "one does not need a reason not to believe in something. Skepticism is the default position and one requires proof if one is to be convinced of something's existence." In other words, for horoscope fans, the burden of proof is entirely on them—poor gullible gits. But for the multitude to believe that, in one way or another, religious divine intelligence guides the path of every leaping lepton …that's OK.

superb!

Other Comments by bitbutter

24. Comment #92216 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 4:28 am

Bonzai, we're not far apart - I am happy for DSW to carry out his research program, and I realise he's not making an egregious mistake such as confusing utility with truth. However, I think that his comment about "silliness" is a bit ... well, silly.

I'm more tolerant of religion than some here - I even kind of like the good old C of E - but I do think it's important to subject religious claims to sceptical scrutiny, not only because I think they are all false but also because the people who are supposedly the religious experts so often claim the authority to push views that are actually harmful. I know there have been some examples where political grandstanding by the Great Queen Spider cult hasn't worked, e.g. in Canada, but there are all too many cases where it has worked, or at least caused terrible headaches, or where some other Abrahamic strain has done real damage.

Ideally, I'd like to live in a world where people have abandoned any belief in religion as we've known it and fallen back - well, if not all the way to atheism at least to something vague like pantheism or deism. I'd even be content if they kept their precious theism and everything that goes with it if they held on to it with some healthy doubt, especially when the doctrines of their pet Abrahamic sect otherwise lead them to interfere with their lives of their neighbours.

For that reason, it's not at all silly to go on casting doubt on the truth-claims of religion.

Of course, there can be levels of fanaticism or mental inflexibility that really are silly. I'd hate to see the atheistic cultishness that some here have referred to ... but pace Janus I think I already have seen examples of it from time to time, including that very recent trainwreck over at Pharyngula when Steve got attacked bitterly by some commenters after raising a quite reasonable issue in a non-trollish way.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

25. Comment #92296 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 8:49 am

Bonzai:

I don't see why this is such an unreasonable position.

It's not unreasonable. As I said, it's ultimately a subjective question: Do you put truth ahead of harmony, or vice versa? And of course a subjective preference cannot be said to be more or less reasonable than another subjective preference.

However, it does put Sloan and I in opposite camps, at least for some things.

It amounts to saying that if a little white lie keeps you happy why would I waste my time and energy to try to burst your bubble? We do that in real life all the time.

Suppose your neighbour is very ugly but he is under the delusion that he is a handsome prince. This belief allows him to have a healthy self image and a normal social life. Would you stick him in front of a mirror to lecture him what an ugly toad he really is and that he should wear a mask when he goes out? What good would it achieve if he finally comes around to the side of "truth" and decides that he should become a hermit or kill himself?

Now this is just silly. First, I wouldn't go out of my way to convince this guy that he's ugly, but then I don't go out of my way to convince any particular religious person that s/he's credulous. However, if this ugly man starts telling me how lucky he is to be so handsome and all that, I certainly wouldn't refrain from bringing him back to reality, unless I had some good reason to think that this would plunge him in a depression from which he would never recover. Putting my respect for the truth as such aside, generally speaking I think it's better for people to face up to reality, harsh as it may be, rather than delude themselves.

Second, one ugly person believing he's handome can't be compared to religious beliefs, which are not only much larger in the scope of the delusion they inspire, but are also specifically designed to spread and propagate themselves.

Dawkins says that the "atheist movement" is urgently needed because of 9/11, creationism, a revival of Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. etc. In other words, this urgency is prompted exactly by what religion causes people to do, like David Sloan Wilson says, not some abstract notion of "truth"

The very fact that Dawkins allies himself with moderate Christians to fight against creationism indicates that even him, in practice, does not simply value truth above all else. I think Dawkins himself would agree that it is a waste of time and resources to devote equal energy in attacking John Spong and Pat Robertson simply because they both believe in Jesus.

Making a priority of criticizing falsehoods that are particularly harmful doesn't mean Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and I put any less value on truth.

Hell, I even think we should team up with Christian fundamentalists against Islam, but that doesn't keep me from criticizing Christianity! Why should it?

To say that religion might have something to offer is not apologizing, it is again an empirical statement that can be verified or disproved by data.

That's not apologizing, no, but then I never said it was. In fact I was very careful to say the exact opposite.

DSW doesn't say we shouldn't attack religion, his quote has a caveat, which is "if it offers something in value" and I take it to mean net value, balancing all the pros and cons.

This, however, is apologizing.

This is not the same as saying that religion is positive and in fact he clearly says in the closing argument that there are times when it is not and we need to fight that, like the breaking down of the separation of the state and Church happening in the U.S.

Yes, I know, I made it very clear in my previous post that I was aware of this. Why did you ignore that part of my post? Is that a sign of dogmatism on your part?

The title "God v.s science" is completely inaccurate. No one is arguing for "God".

They're debating what the "God v.s science" battle should look like, or if it should take place at all. Your repeated failure to understand the obvious reeks of dogmatism, don't you agree?

This thread is not about Atran or Shermer so I'll be brief. They certainly don't tell atheists to "shut up". Atran's main point is that the root causes of many apparently religiously driven conflicts actually lie elsewhere and it would be naive to see only the surface and wage war on a shadow. This is an empirical statement that can be verified or refuted by data. Atran does have a lot of data that appear to back up his position while his critics have none. Shermer's message is simply about tactics.

Atran also made the argument, at last year's Beyond Belief conference, that criticizing a religious person's beliefs isn't a good idea because "you'll wind up dead" (he seems to think that criticizing religion in a western society and criticizing religion in a hostage negotiation are analogous situations). He also said things like, "[Other scientists] insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that scientists have a keener or deeper appreciation than religious people of how to deal with personal or moral problems." Beside being a complete non sequitur, this statement of his shows that he's in the Sloan camp of "harmony > truth".

As for Shermer, he isn't just arguing for a different tactic, he wants us to stop using our tactic and confine ourselves to his.

The five people I mentioned (Sloan Wilson, Atran, Shermer, Mooney, and Nisbet) are all saying the same thing to the new atheists: "Shut up".

Sloan tells us we shouldn't criticize false beliefs that have a significant amount of benefits. Atran tells us we shouldn't criticize false beliefs if they help for dealing with personal and moral problems. Shermer tells us we shouldn't criticize religion because that won't help get rid of religion, and because people have the right to believe stupid things. Mooney and Nisbet tell us we shouldn't criticize religious beliefs because it might lead religious moderates to think that science is anti-faith.

Notice that we aren't telling them to shut up. You'll never hear Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, or Dennett tell Shermer that he shouldn't use his preferred tactic, or tell Mooney he shouldn't use "framing" to promote evolution, or tell Sloan that he should stop saying that religion may motivate people to do good.

There are more than two camps, you know. I don't think any of these five people are in the religious camp. Rather, they're in the camp of people who want to keep people like me from attacking ridiculous beliefs, for various reasons.

We aren't trying to silence them, but they are trying to silence us. That's what puts them in an opposite camp, not the fact that we disagree with them on a few points.

Other Comments by Janus

26. Comment #92584 by 7Fred7 on November 30, 2007 at 8:01 pm

steve99: "I think we are increasingly living in a world where factual correctness is important"

I would say that's the crux of the whole debate - whatever the ideology/religion/ism or absence thereof.

Trading off factual correctness in favour of religious faith and delusion, increasingly backed up by ruthlessness and bloodlust, is a threat to life and limb for each of us. It is a threat to science and civilisation. Ultimately - given current technology - it may be a threat to the existence of our species.

I see no "silliness", as DSW puts it, in "banging away at religious beliefs". One is reminded daily that it is far, far more serious than that.

Other Comments by 7Fred7

27. Comment #93054 by irate_atheist on December 2, 2007 at 4:24 am

As one sided as a punch-up between Mike Tyson and the Milky Bar Kid.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

28. Comment #93407 by villageidiot on December 3, 2007 at 5:14 am

20. Comment #92137 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 11:30 pm I'm with Bonzai on this. There is way too much knee jerking going on in our alleged "rational" community.

People need to think carefully about what they consider "truth", and evaluate counter arguments equally carefully. The whole point is that skeptical critical thinking will get us out of the hole, not the wholesale embrace of yet another dogma.

i agree to some extent with TheModestAgnostic 'cause he's Irish and just plain cool. :)

And i remember him apologizing to Logicel on one of the other threads. That was decent. You don't see a lot of that 'round here. (Unfortunately Logicel seems to have left because of the way-things-are here). Everyone's convinced that they are right (it looks like to me). If i may ask a question... does anyone change their mind about anything around here?

Other Comments by villageidiot

29. Comment #94010 by Eric Blair on December 4, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Trading off factual correctness in favour of religious faith and delusion, increasingly backed up by ruthlessness and bloodlust, is a threat to life and limb for each of us. It is a threat to science and civilisation. Ultimately - given current technology - it may be a threat to the existence of our species.

This sentiment, while it may reflect what many posters here are saying (Bonsai and Russell at least excepted), allows our fear of extremists to dismiss the value of studying religion in the way DSW suggests.

This value is two-fold: as an academic endeavour, to further our understanding of the evolution of human society, and to understand why people have religious faith, so as to better engage them (or defeat them, as need be).

To my mind, this is in no way an apology for religion but simply recognizes its reality as a perennial force in our world.

In the course of doing this, we may well discover, among other things, that differences between faiths are not necessarily trivial or inconsequential -- that some religions and sects are "better" or "worse" than others in terms of achieving a harmonious, secular society.

This prospect (as well as a distaste for examining religion for any purpose besides ridicule) may deter some atheists from seeking such understanding. But that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate thing to do.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair