1. Sir John M. Templeton, Philanthropist, Dies at 95

Comment #206619 by jmdoran on July 8, 2008 at 2:53 pm

This thread is an excellent example of why there are plenty of human flaws that are unassociated with religion.

I am an atheist, and an academic who is professionally focused on the scientific study of religion. My field, and my work, is constantly assailed by religiously-minded academics and theologians, who would love to see all funding and inquiry into this subject cease. The Templeton foundation has been one of our only champions in this constant battle for legitimacy.

John Templeton was interested in furthering human understanding, and his foundation explicitly, and unashamedly supported secular, scientific inquiry into religion. The fact that he also rewarded religious moderates who made real, worldly impact on human society is a testament to his even-handedness and compassion. Two things that are severely lacking in the new atheist movement.

2. Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests

Comment #185297 by jmdoran on May 27, 2008 at 11:38 am

The journal article is available for free online, as is the program, so I suggest you all read it for yourselves before commenting about its content (since most of these comments seem to be very unrelated to the actual model.)

First of all, the NS article is pretty dreadful in its coverage. Dow is trying to work within the framework of one specific evolutionary theory of religion: commitment theory. I mean, it's up for debate how related his model actually is to this theory, but he's not saying this is the origin of religion all willy-nilly.

There are two real flaws with the model, which the New Scientist doesn't bring up. First, the capacity for understanding real and unreal information is programmed into the agents themselves. This is inappropriate because human agents don't have access to the "real" or "unreal" status of information; the "reality" of something is not frequently determinable. The second is that religion (as Dow defines it) arises in the model only in the presence of a greenbeard effect. Now, this is exactly what commitment theory is all about, so it prima facie supports Dow's hypothesis. However, all it really says is that "greenbeards allow fitness-reducing traits to arise through social selection." Well, yes: that's obviously true. But it has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with greenbeard effects.

Really though, read the article itself, it gives a great summary of evolutionary theories of religion.