1. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169398 by Charlou on April 26, 2008 at 1:34 am

^^^ Ahem, lievemebe, the biblical version of a god is the image of men. Please do not refer to it as her/she. Thank you.

2. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169389 by Charlou on April 26, 2008 at 12:22 am

[quote] Comment #166267 by j s bach I am utterly mystified how a concentration camp survivor, not to speak of any Jew, can still believe in their yahweh god and that their faith should have provided the strength to get them through the unimaginably ghastly horrors of an extermination camp. I find it hard to believe that it wasn't the basic human instinct to survive but religion. If yahweh is out there - then surely it has been clear since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem that he's really gone off his "chosen" people.[/quote]

If yahweh is out there... Careful not to conflate faith and religion with actual deistic existence. ;)

Don't underestimate the placebo effect of a positive spin (seek the silver lining), no matter how irrational, on the human ability to emotionally, psychologically, even physically, overcome adversity. There should be more research on this in a religious belief context.

3. The Out Campaign

Comment #60943 by Charlou on August 3, 2007 at 6:51 am

Quoting Henri: "The reason that there is a men/women category distinction in sport championships is because men are better at sports."

No. The reason for separate men and women categories in most sport is purely down to physical difference, not ability.

Take boxing, for example, on a skill level, women can be equally good boxers. On a guts, determination, stamina and dedication level, women can be equally good boxers. It's the physical difference only which would give a male boxer an advantage over a female one.

There are many reasons why people have different aptitudes for skills. Physical strength differences aside, gender is the least of them. Or it would be if our cultural and social structures and attitudes were not reinforcing a contrary misconception.

4. The Out Campaign

Comment #60836 by Charlou on August 3, 2007 at 1:02 am

Quoting Steve99: "No disrespect intended, but I find it a bit odd for someone to post on the site of one of the most respected researchers into evolution that they don't see a need to explain homosexuality :) Just think about it - a significant proportion of the population of humans (and many, many other animal species) insists on having sex (often exclusively) that does not result in the propogation of their genes. Trying to explain this is not (at least for me) about trying to validate homosexuality as a valid way of life - it is about trying to explain what is an intriguing biological question."

Thankyou for your reply, Steve.

I certainly do see a place for understanding how homosexuality fits into the evolution theory, as I said in the same post you quoted from:
"...I can understand the various reasons why people feel the need to know how and why homosexuals exist."

I was also stating that from my personal perspective:
"Personally, I see no need to 'explain' homosexuality as I already accept it as a valid variation in humanity..."

And it was just a matter of speculation when I said:
"I just wonder if, in the case of some homosexuals themselves, the need to know is fueled, at least in part, by a perceived need to validate their own existence?"

I didn't mean any disprespect to you, any other homosexual person, nor indeed to the most respected researcher to whom we owe the privilege of having this conversation, here on his site. ;)

:)

5. The Out Campaign

Comment #60763 by Charlou on August 2, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Quoting Henri: "Utilitarianism is an unwitting form of Christianity."

I don't think so. If anything, the values of (particularly liberal) Christianity could more likely be considered an unwitting form of Utilitarianism. It's certainly based on recognised humanitarian morals.

6. The Out Campaign

Comment #60714 by Charlou on August 2, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Quoting Steve99: "One theory I have heard that seems possible to me is that humanity has such a strong and diverse sex drive that homosexuality is an inevitable outcome... it is at one end of the 'bell curve' of sexual behaviour. I am not really convinced, however, as it involves turning off reproduction in some people, and that should have a major selective disadvantage."

Reproduction isn't 'turned off' in homosexuals. Their biological ability to reproduce still exists, they're just not 'mating' with the right gender necessary for procreation.

From what I can gather, many homosexuals want to be parents. I wonder, is this an inherent desire, or a culturally manifested one?

Personally, I see no need to 'explain' homosexuality as I already accept it as a valid variation in humanity, but I can understand the various reasons why people feel the need to know how and why homosexuals exist. I just wonder if, in the case of some homosexuals themselves, the need to know is fueled, at least in part, by a perceived need to validate their own existence?

7. The Out Campaign

Comment #60704 by Charlou on August 2, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Watching five minutes of the ludicrous Ted Haggard has inoculated me against the irritation of fleas for life. These are not reasonable people, but it isn't their choice and all I feel is pity for them, and hope that one day they will see the light of reason. In the meantime I'll rigorously defend the maintenance of secularity in our society, and the separation of church and state.



Quoting Henri Bergson: "Why do you think there exists a stereotype that gay men cannot throw a ball well, and are [b]generally bad at sports like women?[/b]"

Speaking of stereotypes...

8. The Out Campaign

Comment #60075 by Charlou on July 31, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Quoting BAEOZ: "Cool, I have heamachromatosis (probably spelt wrong), does that make me more or less appetising?"

Ahhh, I see symbiotic potential here - you with too much iron, me who can't get enough...But, are you a smoker? ;)

9. The Out Campaign

Comment #60073 by Charlou on July 31, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Quoting BAEOZ: "Good post there Charlou. Is that a veil you're wearing in the photo?"

Thanky you. :) It's a gloved hand. In this context I guess it looks like some kind of religious female covering reminiscent of the hijab. I can assure you it is not.

Actually, I'm just hiding my vampiric fangs so as not to alarm all you good mortals. ;)

10. The Out Campaign

Comment #60065 by Charlou on July 31, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Quoting Wea Flea: "As regards the clarification on original sin - I bleive that all human beings are born with a sinful human nature and that that nature develops throughout the course of their lives. It is not that much different from those who argue that some people might have a gentic predisposition towards a bad temper but that other factors can also contribute - both in a negative and positive way."

People are products of their upbringing, their environment, and the most negative aspect of religion, the belief that humans are inherently sinful is self fulfilling and self perpetuating.
New people, children, are like blank canvases and susceptible to believe what they are told. If told they're sinful (naughty, wicked) often enough, and with strident conviction, is it any wonder their behaviour will eventually reflect that? Once started down that path, it's often difficult to undo the damage. We have a world full of people whose behaviour reflects exactly what it is they've always been told to accept about themselves: inherently sinful.
What is the best way to bring up a happy, confident, well behaved person with positive values? A positive, nurturing environment and positive reinforcement. Religious preoccupation with inherent sinfulness fundamentally undermines this. This is borne out by studies across countries which show the higher the density of religious belief the higher the rate of crime, both against society, and against humanity. I see religion as the root of very much evil.

It's our preoccupation with and emphasis on good and evil that gives both such prominence in our behaviour. From the cradle (even as early as during pregnancy) we are endowed with value laden labels, described as either good or bad (naughty), an angelic child or a little devil, depending on our demeanor and behaviour and how that is interpreted by those who bestow the labels, without consideration of the surrounding issues, of why we are the way we are or do the things we do, nor the effect that such attitudes and labeling has upon the psyche. We carry that baggage around with us throughout our lives, accumulating more and more along the way. In our quest to divest ourselves of such a burden we must acknowledge that we are neither inherently good or bad, and reconstruct our sense of self from a perspective of who we are in relation to the natural world, not who we are in relation to the imposed values and ideals of others.

11. The Out Campaign

Comment #59810 by Charlou on July 30, 2007 at 5:39 pm

The following comment to the article struck a chord and has made me ease up on my sweeping opposition to the idea of the T-shirt, and while I, as an already open atheist, am still not personally interested in the idea of supporting the T-shirt I'm willing to sit back and wish all those who feel it important in taking that step of 'coming out' all the best.

" 20. Comment #59794 by Jack Rawlinson on July 30, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Good to see Richard weigh in on this, and to see him do so with his customary clarity.

By nature I am not a "joiner". I am not a very clubbable chap. But I feel so strongly that atheists need to become more visible, more open, more exposed. Remember that chilling recent statistic which showed that atheists are amongst the most mistrusted people in America? That, right there, is why this is a worthwhile campaign. It's not about getting in people's faces in order to be provocative or aggressive; it's about being open, about showing all those people who so mistrust atheists that we're actually decent, moral, non-scary people. And it's about making it okay to be openly atheist in those many areas of the world where it is anything but that right now.

I've always been an extremely vocal and unapologetic atheist, but I've also always recognised that to be so isn't easy for everyone. The anti-atheist prejudice is real, and in some areas quite vicious. So I'll wear the shirt as an expression of solidarity with those people more than as a personal expression of belief (or lack of) And also because I agree with Richard when he says, "We need to stand up and be counted, so that the demographically savvy culture will come to reflect our tastes and our views. That in turn makes it easier for the next generation of atheists."

Those of us who grew up in the relatively enlightened post-war era, in which religion was very much in retreat in the west, have been complacent. That has allowed the madness to take root and thrive again. No more complacency. This is worth shouting about."

12. Come Out!

Comment #59613 by Charlou on July 29, 2007 at 11:47 pm

If it's just a T-shirt why the promotion by some as a call to atheists to unify against the religious like this is some kind of 'us and them' war, why the playground bully tactics by some to provoke those of us, who aren't interested for our own various ideological reasons, into feeling obliged to wear the T-shirt (or at least [i]buy[/i] one, for the cause), and why the vehement defensiveness in the face of our reasoned refusal to do so?

Humanity would be better served finding ways to identify and make use of our common ground, than by exploiting and thus perpetuating our differences.

13. Come Out!

Comment #59492 by Charlou on July 29, 2007 at 8:46 am

I'm one of the 'nay-sayers' commented on here as my post here: http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=301059#p301059 will attest.

Quote:"The nay-sayers who complain that this is too much like Christianity, it's a uniform, it's Dawkins trying to enforce conformity. How ridiculous. It's a freakin' t-shirt or bumper sticker, not the High Holy Cathedral of the Sacred Letter A. You can wear it or you can skip it. You can use it to wipe the sweat off after a workout. You might wear it to a barbecue at the park. Wear it while you're doing the dishes. It's ;em>casual wear. It's a nice shirt that sends a straightforward message about your willingness to be unafraid, nothing more, with no other deep significance. It will not be part of the dress code."

Afraid? Just what exactly are we atheists who'd rather not wear a symbol accused of being afraid of? Displaying our atheism? Or of wearing your symbol? Smacks of juvenile peer pressure to me. I don't hide my atheism, am open about it, and fear is certainly not the reason I won't be party to the symbolic gesture.
Interesting suggestions about uses for the t-shirt. Just so long as you make the sale, who cares what we do with it, huh?

14. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51787 by Charlou on June 25, 2007 at 12:12 am

Dr. Benway: reading back over the comments now, and apologies for the double up there.

Eric Blair: yes, I find food for much thought there, thankyou.

Originally posted by IQHQ:
"Another related point refers to your dismissal of religion's "carrot and stick" approach to coercing people into behaving in conformity with a certain moral code. You say, "isn't that a pretty abyssmal reason to be moral? I accept this point and also agree that morality has an evolutionary origin. Yet, my point centres not on how you and I (relatively intelligent men) respond morally to shedding our religion, but rather upon how less educated men and women may. We live in an age where we are surrounded by an anti-intellectualism of philistine proportions. Can you not see how nihilism may be a natural reaction to such people losing faith? Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good."

I trust your failure to include women among the 'relatively intelligent' was an unfortunate oversight in your eagerness to point out the slippery slope to anarchic nihilism for the faithless, uneducated and unwashed masses ;). Most of us here would agree that a good education, a sense of community and purpose in life does not necessitate a component of faithful deistic appeasement. Total debasement of the human ego is not the result of a lack of religious inspiration, but a symptom of the prevailing attitude which undermines our natural propensity toward goodness.

Back on topic, and I must say, I'm another who appreciated the sharp wit and humour to be found throughout The God Delusion. :)

15. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51728 by Charlou on June 24, 2007 at 11:14 am

Quoted from the article:
"The problem for ultra-Darwinians is that they have to assume that all things – including ideas, or memes as Dawkins calls them – progress via the animal narrative of natural selection (so religion, or rather the need for it, must serve some basic "positive" survival-enhancing purpose)"

This author is misunderstanding the concept here. Religion, itself, is not claimed to serve a positive survival-enhancing purpose, but is thought to be a likely by-product of the evolutionary development of heeding ones elders in order to survive. Adult humans developed superstitious belief (religion) for other reasons and passed the idea of it (transferal of memes) on to ensuing generations, and it's our naturally evolved propensity to heed our elders that has perpetuated the myth of religion. My understanding is that the transfer of memes, and evolutionary advantage are not necessarily mutually inclusive.