Activity

Back to the Genus conversation. I agree with your objections Tee, it’s just not where I want to go. Convincing Genus that God doesn’t exist is about as likely as convincing Sherlock that whatever he is trying to say is messed up. The missing part of the conversation that I’ve recently been finding more about is kind of hard to describe, something like; when they are talking about God they aren’t really talking about God. I listened to a “Hidden Brain” podcast on religion with Azim Sharif, who is atheist, raised Muslim, and now studies the psychology of religion. The believers send him hate mail because he is providing a reason for God when they already have one, i.e. God is real. The non-believers also don’t care much for when he demonstrates a value or a meme or whatever that has helped society develop. I used to accept the Dawkins/Hitchens/Dillahunty response that anything that can be shown to be a good aspect of religion could also be shown to exist without religion. But I’m not so sure about that anymore. I’m back to Dennet’s question of what happens if we break the spell?