1. Comment #180273 by cyris8400 on May 14, 2008 at 1:22 pm

The PDF links don't work for me, they only send me to a blank white page.

(First post)

Other Comments by cyris8400

2. Comment #180275 by Alastor on May 14, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Works fine for me from Safari.

Other Comments by Alastor

3. Comment #180277 by Tezcatlipoca on May 14, 2008 at 1:30 pm

I got it okay from windows exploder

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

4. Comment #180282 by Szymanowski on May 14, 2008 at 1:36 pm

I think it's a good chapter. The "Dawkins Effect" bit seems a little counter-intuitive but the development of Dacey's argument is quite logical - remember to read it in context!

The Dawkins Effect: The presence of messages of science-religion conflict makes messages of science-religion harmony better known and more palatable to religious believers.

Other Comments by Szymanowski

5. Comment #180283 by cyris8400 on May 14, 2008 at 1:40 pm

I'm using Firefox. PDF links have never worked for me, btw. Always with the blank white page.

Other Comments by cyris8400

6. Comment #180284 by Cartomancer on May 14, 2008 at 1:40 pm

I think that Dacey's "Dawkins Effect" thesis sounds like a very interesting idea. Effectively that, by being so direct in underlining the incompatibility of science and religion, Richard is changing the way the average person percieves the spectrum of positions one might take on the issue, and therefore the position one of the middle-of-the-road majority is naturally drawn to.

Or, more succinctly, it's framing the issue so that the mid-point is not somewhere between the outright rejection of science and the accomodation of science and religion, but somewhere between the outright rejection of science and the outright rejection of religion.

I await the studies done to investigate the communications issue with some enthusiasm.

Of course, none of this has the slightest bearing on the fact that what Richard says about the falsehood of religious claims is demonstrably accurate. Someone should probably point that out here I feel, obvious though it be.

In my more naive moments I would like to think that such recourse to the manipulation of human psychology would be unnecessary in publicising academic questions, and people would just make up their minds based on a good understanding of the evidence rather than the promptings of unrelated mental phenomena such as the need for group solidarity with their co-religionists. Such a wish would be ignoring the realities of our evolved brains however, and so must ultimately be dismissed as unscientific.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

7. Comment #180286 by Devolution on May 14, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Nisbet and Mooney are both sanctimonious douchebags. I don't even know why scienceblogs keeps them around.

Other Comments by Devolution

8. Comment #180290 by Peacebeuponme on May 14, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Fucking awesome that we have someone like Dawkins. We need great scientists, intelligent human beings, to stand up and shout about this, and not pussy-foot around. Its important goddamit

I'm not black, or American, but I want to give a shout out to him.

(The usefullness content of the above comment has been rated at - 0)

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

9. Comment #180293 by designsoda on May 14, 2008 at 1:56 pm

So Dawkins as "bad cop" might be having a positive effect? Good deal!

Other Comments by designsoda

10. Comment #180297 by CambrianExplosion on May 14, 2008 at 2:05 pm

What he describes is pretty much what happened to me. I was a weak atheist for pretty much forever, but after watching Dawkins in Lynchburg, the recent explosion of the ID movement, and reading the God Delusion, I've become much more involved. In fact, I'm studying right now to perhaps change my career into some form of science outreach.

Other Comments by CambrianExplosion

11. Comment #180302 by plastictowel on May 14, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Devolution, you have a right to an opinion, but I must impugn....Why or how is Chris Mooney a douche bag? His book "The Republican War on Science" is a political treasure, in my opinion.

Other Comments by plastictowel

12. Comment #180303 by Szymanowski on May 14, 2008 at 2:29 pm

designsoda:

So Dawkins as "bad cop" might be having a positive effect?

You accurately summarised a 17-page article in 11 words :D

Other Comments by Szymanowski

13. Comment #180306 by qomak on May 14, 2008 at 2:32 pm

... as Dawkins is perhaps the most prominent authority on evolutionary biology in the world.

Since when? Since when someone can be a prominent authority on such a broad topic? I was immediately turned off by this.

Other Comments by qomak

14. Comment #180309 by Devolution on May 14, 2008 at 2:37 pm

plastictowel, I haven't read Mooney's book, but his knee jerk reactions to people critical of religion and his ultra politically correct statements award him the title of douchebag in my book. Just an opinion :)

Other Comments by Devolution

15. Comment #180313 by Barry Pearson on May 14, 2008 at 2:46 pm

I like the analysis in that article.

One thing missing: I believe one of the most important strategic effects of TGD and similar books is the effect on the next generation. I believe it will cause many young people to make up their minds at an earlier age.

Instead of leaving school/college as undecided or agnostic (like me), many of them will leave as atheists. Their children will then be brought up in atheist households.

Remember Monique D. Davis, (Democratic member of the Illinois House of Representatives), who recently said "It's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists" (to atheist activist Rob Sherman)? Well, they WILL know it exists!

NCSE is tactical. They put out fires, and they know better than to invite Richard Dawkins into the courtroom. But we also need strategic changes as well, with effects measured in decades and generations.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

16. Comment #180321 by Apathy personified on May 14, 2008 at 3:09 pm

I think that one of Richard Dawkins bigger achievements is to actually wrestle the debate into centre stage. This has lead the churches to respond in irrational and silly ways (c.f. Cardinal Whatsit in Westminster) and has got people talking about religions place in society.
This is something that i doubt would have happened had he used a softly softly approach, he's the first intellectual since Bertrand Russell to have caused such a stir internationally with his writings.

OF course there have been many famous athiests since Russell, but none have taken religion on head to head, so publicly.

Keep it up Richard

Other Comments by Apathy personified

17. Comment #180328 by jaytee_555 on May 14, 2008 at 3:33 pm

If Richard and scientists like him lose their appetite for truth and 'telling it the way it is' and begin to employ political cunning as a means to an end, I for one would feel betrayed. I could never be certain that what was being said was factual, or just clever 'framing'.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

18. Comment #180329 by troodon on May 14, 2008 at 3:34 pm

I'm using Firefox. PDF links have never worked for me, btw. Always with the blank white page.

Try upgrading to the latest PDF reader. It worked for me.

Other Comments by troodon

19. Comment #180330 by Elles on May 14, 2008 at 3:36 pm

I am proud to say that I am friends with Austin Dacey... on Facebook.

He's just cool.

Other Comments by Elles

20. Comment #180332 by Szymanowski on May 14, 2008 at 3:41 pm

What the hell? Why is there so much spam at the beginning of the audio? (about "audible.com") Does Point of Inquiry always do that?

Other Comments by Szymanowski

21. Comment #180340 by designsoda on May 14, 2008 at 4:05 pm

You accurately summarised a 17-page article in 11 words :D

My simple mind is yielding dividends at last! :)

If Richard and scientists like him lose their appetite for truth and 'telling it the way it is' and begin to employ political cunning as a means to an end, I for one would feel betrayed. I could never be certain that what was being said was factual, or just clever 'framing'.

I'm with you, jaytee. I pointed out this article and its conclusions to a liberal muslim friend of mine and he immediately asked me whether I thought Prof. Dawkins' militancy was genuine or merely tactical. I answered, "Genuine. He believes what he writes. Otherwise why would he write it?" This immediately made me think of the negative effects that political "positioning" and "framing" may have to one's reputation.

Other Comments by designsoda

22. Comment #180346 by Spinoza on May 14, 2008 at 4:22 pm

The comments made in this talk about egoism and subjectivism are all bullshit... just terrible.

Leave that talk to the philosophers please. Or at least try to understand the dialectic before you jump in.

Other Comments by Spinoza

23. Comment #180349 by sane1 on May 14, 2008 at 4:32 pm

yes, Szymanowski , there is always the same stuff at the beginning of all of their podcasts, after a while you get good at fast forwarding tot he start ofthe conversation. there are so many good interviews there.

Other Comments by sane1

24. Comment #180356 by troodon on May 14, 2008 at 4:40 pm

jaytee_555, #17.

I completely agree that maintaining intellectual integrity is essential, as it separates us from the creationists, who continue to astonish me with the scale of their blatant dishonesty. Maybe Dawkins' honest approach won't win over many middle-aged religiolites who are now comfortable with the brainwashing they've endured for 40 years, but frankly they aren't the ones that matter. The battleground is for the hearts and minds of young people - kids, young adults and parents concerned about the kind of world their young children will inherit. For those people, keep the arguments sound, show how absurd and dangerous religion can be and inspire them with the wonders of the natural world.

Some people suggest that scientists should adopt another word for "theory" to prevent creationists from fooling the public with "evolution is just a theory, not a fact". I disagree with that approach. Instead we should use this to our advantage and challenge the IDiots every time those words leave their mouths. They are either being deliberately dishonest or are simply ignorant of what "theory" means in science and we should make that perfectly clear to anyone listening whether we're at a public meeting, a debate, or just writing a letter to the editor in response to a creationist public figure.

I do sometimes take the following approach and I don't really think it's framing: "Yes, Dawkins' understanding of evolution led to his atheism, but my path was different as I was an atheist at age 7 or 8, long before I knew about evolution. There are also very good scientists like Ken Miller who fully accept evolution, but keep their religion."

Personally I can't wrap my head around how Ken Miller is able to understand evolution as well as he does, yet still remain a Catholic. A deist I could understand better, but a Catholic? Oh well.

While I disagree with framing, that doesn't mean we can't form strategic alliances with liberal churches over issues like science education. For example, the United Church in Canada is frequently on our side as is shown in their current sponsorship of the Darwin exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum and their support for gay rights. Kudos to them.

Other Comments by troodon

25. Comment #180372 by Spinoza on May 14, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Personally I can't wrap my head around how Ken Miller is able to understand evolution as well as he does, yet still remain a Catholic. A deist I could understand better, but a Catholic? Oh well.

There's the famous story of the ATHEIST Orthodox Jewish Rabbi. When asked why he remained religious, he replied that it was as good a way as any TO LIVE (for HIM).

It is absurd of atheists to think that religious people will suddenly drop their familial traditions, historical connection, community, etcetera just because they are smart enough to realize there is no God.

Most Catholics ignore most of the rules anyway, but like any religion, it has the perks of a pre-established community to immerse oneself in for cultural events, etc... it gives one a sense of identity (based on historicity) etc...

People on both sides need to learn to separate religion and the PRACTICE of a religion from belief in God.

I could TOTALLY see myself "practicing" many aspects of a religion (and identifying myself thusly, attending services, etcetera), while remaining fully "atheist".

It's really not so remarkable.

Ken probably has a similar view.

Other Comments by Spinoza

26. Comment #180375 by AmericanGodless on May 14, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Page 7: "But of course the question of how best to win converts to atheism or irreligion is not identical to the question of how to bolster evolution teaching."

And neither of those questions is identical to the question of whether we are dealing with cranes or skyhooks: will further research be better served by a theory that takes intelligence to be the source of life on earth, or one that takes life on earth to be the source of intelligence?

Page 8: "The stronger version [of the accommodationist complaint] is that the mere presence of agonism in public discourse is detrimental to attempts to ensure excellent evolution education."

If it actually happens to be the case that intelligence is a product of evolving life, rather than vice-versa, then how can leaving this out of a presentation of evolutionary theory, and even discouraging public discussion of this logical consequence of the theory, serve to "ensure excellent evolution education?

What is seems to be missing here is the ethic of science: how to act in such a way that what happens to be true might at some point come to be known to be true. Excellence in evolution education is moot where it does not exist at all; but to the extent evolution becomes stripped of its context in naturalism, its ability to guide fruitful research will be seriously compromised (unless it is really true that a divine skyhook is out there somewhere, in which case science is itself moot, because it has already failed).

While it is important that the accommodationists do their distasteful job of dumbing down evolution enough to get some of it taught in public schools, it is even more essential that Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and others continue to do their job of making sure that the logical case for naturalistic material evolution is available to the few who will be able and willing to absorb it, and eventually to improve upon it.

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

27. Comment #180389 by Layla Nasreddin on May 14, 2008 at 7:12 pm

I, for one, can testify (ha! love that word in this context!) to the effectiveness of the "Dawkins approach" to the science/religion "war." I suspect that the mere fact that such a "ruckus" is caused means that more people become aware of the issues involved, which means that more people may become open to new ideas, or perhaps simply allow the unconscious doubts or problems that they've always had rise to the surface. Who knows?

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

28. Comment #180481 by notsobad on May 15, 2008 at 4:36 am

Nisbet and Mooney are both sanctimonious douchebags. I don't even know why scienceblogs keeps them around.

See my avatar.

Other Comments by notsobad

29. Comment #180489 by RationalSheep on May 15, 2008 at 5:18 am

I'm really quite sick of the "ad-men" Nisbet, Mooney, Dacey, et al., and their deconstruction of science. Good ideas and facts should prevail on their own, unframed, without rhetoric or prettying-up for the general public. The public needs to catch up to the 21st century, we need not slow down on their account. If the U.S. falls behind because most of our citizens want to believe in fairies, then so be it. I think that framing is pandering, and soon we'll end up like that movie "Idiocracy" where all is superficiality, and ideologies and facts are both reduced to mere catch-phrases.

Other Comments by RationalSheep

30. Comment #180496 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 15, 2008 at 5:40 am

I think that framing is pandering, and soon we'll end up like that movie "Idiocracy" where all is superficiality, and ideologies and facts are both reduced to mere catch-phrases.

In what way is that not a perfect description of the state of affairs at present?

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

31. Comment #180506 by nalfeshnee on May 15, 2008 at 6:12 am

I ploughed through the PDF and thought he took a long time to state the fairly obvious.

But I found the astonishing claim made on Page 2 that 40% of America's scientists support some form of "theistic evolution" far more interesting.

While the survey only had a 60% response rate, the figure of 40% is still incredible.

And this isn't "cultural" religiosity - this is the actual belief that "God started evolution" or some such similar idea.

Link from NCSE to original article here: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

32. Comment #180509 by Henri Bergson on May 15, 2008 at 6:17 am

--Regarding Dacey's updated interview (link at top):

Dacey's secular ethical theory is complete and utter rubbish.

It's an example of the classic is-ought fallacy: it is a fact that we may have evolved altruism, therefore we ought to be altruistic. Foolish error. He cannot provide prescriptive (ought) morality, though he says he can, without stating how.

Americans just cannot get away from their Christian morality, it's so ingrained within their psyche. American atheists are generally very left-wing moral, whereas atheism does not taint Europeans' politics.

"Secular conscience" - idiot. "Consequentialism" - idiot (assumes welfare of all is a value in order to prove that all should fare well: 'begging the question': another logical fallacy).

---

He should read Kant's deontology on secular ethics based on universal human reason, and then the criticisms of that. I doubt he is well-educated where he needs to be.

---

Morality is a delusion as is religion. Dacey sounds like a retarded, stuttering theologian trying to defend something which just is not there.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

33. Comment #180536 by samratpathania on May 15, 2008 at 7:11 am

I'm using Firefox. PDF links have never worked for me, btw. Always with the blank white page.

cyris8400 : please download and install the Firefox addon called "PDF Download".
Your troubles shall cease forever :)

Other Comments by samratpathania

34. Comment #180612 by Apeseed on May 15, 2008 at 10:29 am

Comment #180509 by Henri Bergson on May 15, 2008 at 6:17 am
it is a fact that we may have evolved altruism

You cannot write 'it is a fact' and then follow it with 'that we may have'. A fact is something known to be true. 'we may have evolved' expresses possibility.

Other Comments by Apeseed

35. Comment #180615 by Janus on May 15, 2008 at 11:06 am

Sure he can write that.
It is a fact that there is a possibility. As opposed to saying, "It is a fact that there is no possibility".


The content of Henri's post is just as correct, btw.

Other Comments by Janus

36. Comment #180631 by Apeseed on May 15, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Once something is known to be true or to have happened it doesn't make sense to talk about it as a possibility.

Other Comments by Apeseed

37. Comment #180634 by RationalSheep on May 15, 2008 at 12:28 pm

All knowledge is contingent in science, and prone to falsifiability. Henri's statement is logically correct, and scientifically safe, and as Janus points out, the rest is not altered by this semantic quibble. He's on target. Dacey's problem is the problem of all ethical inquiry by philosophers, as the logical positivists pointed out, it amounts to pure poetry.

Other Comments by RationalSheep

38. Comment #180746 by ivo on May 15, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Henri and Janus,

did you actually listen to the interview? Dacey was pretty damn clear: IF you [like, as it happens, most other non-sociopath human beings] actually care about other individuals' well being besides your own, then [by open debate we should painstakingly build the tentative know-how telling you that] you should act so-and-so.

If you think this is "ought from is", than so is the theory saying that, if you ARE hungry, then you SHOULD eat something because it's well known that that usually helps.

Actually, I think it's been some time since I have listened to someone speaking so clearly and reasonably about ethics (since I've read The End of Faith, come to think of it)

Other Comments by ivo

39. Comment #180798 by robotaholic on May 15, 2008 at 8:17 pm

if you heard the point of inquiry from the week before, then you'll understand what this one is about - the guy the week before this was a total jerk, sooo fulll of himself-

Other Comments by robotaholic

40. Comment #180847 by BW022 on May 16, 2008 at 12:47 am

In other words, we have to lie and sugar coat things?

We have to say that nothing in science prevents belief in religion, while trying to teach the scientific method? We need to discuss reason, logic, and evidence and then pretent that nothing bad with happen to religious beliefs even if they apply logic to say Jesus walking on water or Mohammad riding a flying horse, or Mormons discussing ancient Jewish cities in North America?

Has it every occured to these folks that if you follow the sciencific method, you need to reject religion? They are completely unprovable and in many cases disprovable.

Why is it sciences job to sugar coat the truth such that folks can accept it? If American's want to reject science and go live like Quakers while the rest of the world continues into the 21st century so? If it takes Canadians to find a cure for cancer, the French to discover fusion, the Germans to discover an AIDs cure, or the Japanese to discover rice crops that mature in three days... so? If the rest of the world is willing to buy into science without sugar coating it as "not harming your religion" and America isn't so?

Other Comments by BW022

41. Comment #180865 by Henri Bergson on May 16, 2008 at 1:48 am

Ivo,

Of course I listened to the whole interview.

If you ARE hungry (and want to satisfy that), then you OUGHT to eat. If you ARE NOT hungry, then you ought not eat. The choice is not based on fact but on desire â€" i.e. ethics are not prescriptive.

Your little snide remark about 'sociopaths' is the most revealing. It amounts to this circular argument: if you are not immoral then you ought to be moral!

Words like that unwittingly create the norm â€" what you're supposed to be â€" which underlie prescriptions of behaviour from a non-factual method. It fails as it gives to humans a purpose (final cause) where there is none. It is a throwback to Aristotelianism in science (that everything has a purpose, including us).

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

42. Comment #180893 by Barry Pearson on May 16, 2008 at 3:23 am

BW022 said: Why is it sciences job to sugar coat the truth such that folks can accept it? If American's want to reject science and go live like Quakers while the rest of the world continues into the 21st century so?

Different science-oriented people/organisations have different objectives. Sometimes those objectives require care with the way they cover the topic. That is common sense.

For example, NCSE in the US wants evolution taught in science classes, and religion, especially Creationism/ID, kept out. To achieve that, they work with the local people, including parents, many (perhaps most) of whom are religious. If those parents thought that evolution was actually incompatible with their religious beliefs, would they be as determined to take action against schools that tried to corrupt the teaching of evolution?

I guess NCSE see a choice between the following, with NO 3rd option:

1. Encourage and assist (often religious) local people to take action against schools, (perhaps by taking them court), if necessary pointing out that many religious people do not see a conflict betwen their religion and evolution.

2. State an opinion that science contradicts belief in God/gods, and that many people have the opinion that evolution logically leads to atheism, thence discouraging those (often religious) people from taking such action.

The following are FACTS: some scientists working in the field of evolution are openly religious; some religious organisations openly accept evolution; many clergy openly accept evolution. It isn't lying to exploit those facts. It is a sensible tactic to help achieve their worthy aims.

AmericanGodless said: While it is important that the accommodationists do their distasteful job of dumbing down evolution enough to get some of it taught in public schools....

IS it true that the level of evolution that is taught in schools HAS to be dumbed down for this purpose?

I'm currently reading an undergraduate textbook on Evolution (by Mark Ridley). While he refutes Creationsism/ID, I see no evidence that he has to refute God/gods and religious beliefs in general. I believe that even at undergraduate level the conflicts that many see between science and belief in God/gods don't have to be covered.

I believe that trying to inject atheism into the teaching of evolution is worse than useless. Just as religion belongs outside the science classroom, so does atheism. Teach the Theory of Evolution, and let people come to their own informed decisions on other matters.

I am an atheist, see below. I have a life-long interest in science. But I avoid head-banging.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

43. Comment #181222 by ivo on May 16, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Henri,

I don't understand what you're saying.

"Your little snide remark about 'sociopaths' is the most revealing. It amounts to this circular argument: if you are not immoral then you ought to be moral!"

It's no snide remark of mine, it's what Dacey said. And he's right. Imagine that we evolved from some shark-like animal, say, and that homicidal cannibalism were the way. Then we'd have pretty different ethical systems, don't you think? The few "tender heart good guys" among us would be anomalies. But we're not like that: we are highly social apes, we have BUILT IN a tendency to empathy and cooperation (except for the few sociopath among us-- and this is just a fact, not a snide remark), and our common values and goals reflect that. More cooperation and widespread well-being is just what we want, roughly speaking. I want that, you want that. So we try and build (more or less efficiently) prescriptive ethical guidelines with those common goals in mind. The only questions left are: which rules/systems are more efficient in furthering those goals. And this creates the ethical problems we endlessly talk about.

Now I don't even think this is controversial. It just astonishes me that you can say:

"Words like that unwittingly create the norm â€" what you're supposed to be â€" which underlie prescriptions of behaviour from a non-factual method. It fails as it gives to humans a purpose (final cause) where there is none."

Of course we have goals and desires, and that's what matters to us. "Final cause"? What are you talking about?

Other Comments by ivo

44. Comment #181303 by Janus on May 16, 2008 at 9:39 pm

The only questions left are: which rules/systems are more efficient in furthering those goals. And this creates the ethical problems we endlessly talk about.

No, those aren't the only questions left, because you haven't yet established that all humans share these goals (they don't), nor have you explained why those humans who don't share these goals should share them (and you never will, because it's not logically possible to do so).

You're right that given a certain shared set of moral premises, moral problems become questions about objective reality that can therefore be solved, eventually. The real problem, of course, is getting everyone to share the same moral premises. That goal may be achievable, but not by evidence- and reason-based discourse, because evidence and reason don't apply to subjective preferences.

That our brains have built-in moral urges doesn't alter this fact. To use your analogy, it does NOT follow from the fact that I am hungry that therefore I should eat. What if I want to kill myself through starvation? It is only correct to say that if I want to eat, then I should eat. That is the difference between an urge and a desire. An urge is what "is", a desire is what "ought" to be. And as Henri has said so well, you can't derive ought from is.

Other Comments by Janus

45. Comment #181391 by Henri Bergson on May 17, 2008 at 6:02 am

Janus,

Excellent logical rebuttal.

Ivo,

'Final Cause' is one of Aristotle's four general causes. It means purpose.

You write,
"we have BUILT IN a tendency to empathy and cooperation".

We have also built in a tendency of aggression and selfishness. Should we therefore also build morals upon that? The fact that you choose some traits over others is therefore not an evolutionary choice but must be based on something else (Christianity).

Study some history. The Spartans, Vikings, Samurai, Imperial Romans, et al, did not share your sentimentalist morals. They were also evolved humans.

"The welfare of the majority and the welfare of the few are opposing value viewpoints" (Nietzsche - Genealogy of Morality, T1§17).

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

46. Comment #181516 by Apeseed on May 17, 2008 at 10:40 am

Study some history. The Spartans, Vikings, Samurai, Imperial Romans, et al, did not share your sentimentalist morals. They were also evolved humans.

Could it be that one of the reasons Christianity superseded most of these ways of being is because it was evolutionarily more viable?

Other Comments by Apeseed

47. Comment #182522 by windfall on May 20, 2008 at 10:23 am

Enjoyable.

Can't help wondering: why was the POI Chris Hedges interview not posted here?

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/chris_hedges_i_dont_believe_in_atheists/

It's certainly relevant. Moderator?

Can't say I agree with him on all points, and I know Sam Harris has torn him to shreds on occasion, but he does seem to make some intelligent points (in between his continuous reminders of how much time he's spent in the Middle East). I'm considering reading his book now. (I'm referring to Hedges, not Dacey).

Other Comments by windfall

48. Comment #186006 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on May 29, 2008 at 10:49 am

Comment #181516 by Apeseed on May 17, 2008 at 10:40 am

[Could it be that one of the reasons Christianity superseded most of these ways of being is because it was evolutionarily more viable?]

Christianity was evolutionarily more viable than Bushido and Buddhism? or perhaps did that fact that those at war with those Japanese who could still be called samurai in the 19th century also happened to have firearms? I'm not sure that one can assert that Christianity leads to more advanced technology... in fact, that sounds rather silly.

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

49. Comment #186011 by black wolf on May 29, 2008 at 10:56 am

windfall,
it was, on March 14th:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2359,I-dont-believe-in-atheists,Salon

Other Comments by black wolf

50. Comment #188702 by Ascaphus on June 4, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Henri said:

"...We have also built in a tendency of aggression and selfishness. Should we therefore also build morals upon that? The fact that you choose some traits over others is therefore not an evolutionary choice but must be based on something else (Christianity)..."

Where does that come from? Nature furnishes us with both good and bad impulses, therefore ethics are based upon Christianity? What bible are _you_ reading?

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus