Why We Should Attack Moderate Religiosity

[classicchinadoll]

Fundamentalism is a logical conclusion to a faulty premise.

Fundamentalism could just as easily be the logical conclusion to a set of true premises.

 

... but as dawkins points out in god delusion it is most likely an evolutionary by product which gives humans a propensity to believe in the supernatural.

There is no empirical evidence for this claim.

 

if you really want to be completely logical you need to ask yourself why is the moral code of mankind superior today and more human rights focused than any moral code god set forth in the ot, permission to own slaves, permission to beat slaves, denial of any rights to women etc basically the only laws in the ot that have any resemblance to todays moral code is a few of the ten commandments, ignoring the commandments that were god focused which are pointless, there was do not kill do not steal, do not bear false witness. these laws had nothing to do with god as it is evident primitive tribes had similar laws with out hearing from god at all. as a result of natural selection we are tribal beings, evolution favours strong connections to your family and tribe as this is beneficial to promoting the continuation of your genes. that is why all over the world thousands and thousands of years ago ppl from all parts of the earth had laws to protect their own tribe, basically they would have died out if they didn't. It is evident in the ot that israelites shared this tribal mindset the laws established to protect their own kind did not extend to those outside their tribe or race.

None of your words had anything to do with Dawkins' claim that religion is an evolutionary byproduct of some other evolutionary advantageous trait. The whole idea behind a byproduct is that trait X has no direct advantage it just results from trait Y which does have advantage. This is all just empty talk on Dawkins' part.

 

dawkins does not claim his hypothesis is gospel truth and neither did i, i said dawkins states it's likely, inlight of evolution being a fact and observation of ppl's propensity to believe in the supernatural. it is a hypothesis based on empirical observation, so while it is not an established fact which nobody said it was, it is a reasonable hypothesis which can be studied. whereas stating something is likely without any empirical evidence is a completely stupid hypothesis, to go further and state it is fact is beyond stupid

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

Fundamentalism is a logical conclusion to a faulty premise.

Fundamentalism could just as easily be the logical conclusion to a set of true premises.

 

... but as dawkins points out in god delusion it is most likely an evolutionary by product which gives humans a propensity to believe in the supernatural.

There is no empirical evidence for this claim.

 

if you really want to be completely logical you need to ask yourself why is the moral code of mankind superior today and more human rights focused than any moral code god set forth in the ot, permission to own slaves, permission to beat slaves, denial of any rights to women etc basically the only laws in the ot that have any resemblance to todays moral code is a few of the ten commandments, ignoring the commandments that were god focused which are pointless, there was do not kill do not steal, do not bear false witness. these laws had nothing to do with god as it is evident primitive tribes had similar laws with out hearing from god at all. as a result of natural selection we are tribal beings, evolution favours strong connections to your family and tribe as this is beneficial to promoting the continuation of your genes. that is why all over the world thousands and thousands of years ago ppl from all parts of the earth had laws to protect their own tribe, basically they would have died out if they didn't. It is evident in the ot that israelites shared this tribal mindset the laws established to protect their own kind did not extend to those outside their tribe or race.

None of your words had anything to do with Dawkins' claim that religion is an evolutionary byproduct of some other evolutionary advantageous trait. The whole idea behind a byproduct is that trait X has no direct advantage it just results from trait Y which does have advantage. This is all just empty talk on Dawkins' part.

I don't know what Dawkin's said exactly so I can't truely comment directly. But I do think religion is a evolutionary byproduct. As are brains developed we grew to understand more, and therefore needed a answer, and that answer came in religion. These answers were are the time benifical for us, to accept, due to our advancing comprehension skills.

[oddbird1963]

None of your words had anything to do with Dawkins' claim that religion is an evolutionary byproduct of some other evolutionary advantageous trait. The whole idea behind a byproduct is that trait X has no direct advantage it just results from trait Y which does have advantage. This is all just empty talk on Dawkins' part.

 

So far, you've just given your opinion. Is Dawkins the only esteemed scientist who talks about evolutionary by-products? "Empty" talk? That sounds like an emotionally laden criticism with no support provided.

 

Me-thinks you protest too much.

[classicchinadoll]

 

I don't know what Dawkin's said exactly so I can't truely comment directly. But I do think religion is a evolutionary byproduct. As are brains developed we grew to understand more, and therefore needed a answer, and that answer came in religion. These answers were are the time benifical for us, to accept, due to our advancing comprehension skills.

 

I think it is a good hypothesis valkyrie and much more logical than believing our propensity to believe in the supernatural is because the supernatural is true. if this were the case we would have to question exactly which supernatural beliefs are true, ghosts, Zeus, fairies, if xtians aknowledge all supernatural entities beside's what is in their book is false then they should be able to see for themselves that we have a propensity to believe in spooky things because someone thought it up and told others or wrote it in a book.

[classicchinadoll]

dawkins hypothesis is just as scientific as the putting forth the germ hypothesis on empirical observation, we couldn't see germs at the time but that doesn't mean there wasn't empirical evidence that lead to the assumption of germs.

[Sconnor]

Fundamentalism is a logical conclusion to a faulty premise.

Fundamentalism could just as easily be the logical conclusion to a set of true premises.

 

... but as dawkins points out in god delusion it is most likely an evolutionary by product which gives humans a propensity to believe in the supernatural.

There is no empirical evidence for this claim.

 

You do NOT have empirical/objective evidence for ANY of your outlandish christian claims.

 

Come on OC, how about the staple of your beliefs: the resurrection?

 

Please provide objective evidence that Jesus is the crucified, resurrected son of god, savior of mankind, as opposed to a piece of fiction, orally told, written and embellished over a hundred years, based on perhaps a fallible human prophet and/or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths.

 

Still waiting................

 

--S.

[Shyone]

[T]here was do not kill do not steal, do not bear false witness. these laws had nothing to do with god as it is evident primitive tribes had similar laws with out hearing from god at all. as a result of natural selection we are tribal beings, evolution favours strong connections to your family and tribe as this is beneficial to promoting the continuation of your genes.

 

Code of Hammurabi:

If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried.

If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.

Code of Ur-Nammu:

1. "If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed."

2. "If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed."

28. If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver.

[classicchinadoll]

[T]here was do not kill do not steal, do not bear false witness. these laws had nothing to do with god as it is evident primitive tribes had similar laws with out hearing from god at all. as a result of natural selection we are tribal beings, evolution favours strong connections to your family and tribe as this is beneficial to promoting the continuation of your genes.

 

Code of Hammurabi:

If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried.

If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.

Code of Ur-Nammu:

1. "If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed."

2. "If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed."

28. If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver.

 

yes shyone thx for that unfortunately my wonderful argument based on evidence got pushed to the side.

[OrdinaryClay]

None of your words had anything to do with Dawkins' claim that religion is an evolutionary byproduct of some other evolutionary advantageous trait. The whole idea behind a byproduct is that trait X has no direct advantage it just results from trait Y which does have advantage. This is all just empty talk on Dawkins' part.

 

dawkins does not claim his hypothesis is gospel truth and neither did i, i said dawkins states it's likely, inlight of evolution being a fact and observation of ppl's propensity to believe in the supernatural. it is a hypothesis based on empirical observation, ...

No it is not. There is no empirical evidence suggesting anything of the sort else he would present it. He has not because there is none. The idea is just empty talk to woo his fans and sell books.

[OrdinaryClay]

None of your words had anything to do with Dawkins' claim that religion is an evolutionary byproduct of some other evolutionary advantageous trait. The whole idea behind a byproduct is that trait X has no direct advantage it just results from trait Y which does have advantage. This is all just empty talk on Dawkins' part.

 

So far, you've just given your opinion. Is Dawkins the only esteemed scientist who talks about evolutionary by-products? "Empty" talk? That sounds like an emotionally laden criticism with no support provided.

 

Me-thinks you protest too much.

The claim is not that there exist evolutionary byproducts. The claim is that religion and our propensity for a belief in the supernatural is a byproduct. The way science works is that the proponent of said "conjecture" presents the evidence.

[OrdinaryClay]

dawkins hypothesis is just as scientific as the putting forth the germ hypothesis on empirical observation, we couldn't see germs at the time but that doesn't mean there wasn't empirical evidence that lead to the assumption of germs.

Your analogy has no substance. The hypothesis that germs were the cause of disease was based on much more then some wild guess. There was empirical evidence showing that sterilization worked among other falsifiable evidence. None of this exists with Dawkins' byproduct idea. It is completely ad hoc.

 

I suppose spontaneous generation is "empirically based too".

[oddbird1963]

OC,

 

Surely you noted that 1) Dawkins announces clearly on p. 172 of God Delusion that he is engaging in speculation .

2) He supports his arguments quite extensively using the works of other noted scholars as well as his own observations as a noted biologist.

 

To me, what he says is not "empty." I think you probably have a self-serving definition of empty.

 

I don't know what you mean by empty. I would be careful with the definition of "empty" you provide as your own statements about the works of a biologist in the field can be treated by the same definition you provide.

[Vigile]

OC if you want to save us you need to stop quibbling over semantics and start dishing out some solid proof for your claims. It is you making the claims here that we are rejecting so the ball's in your court brother.

[OrdinaryClay]

OC,

 

Surely you noted that 1) Dawkins announces clearly on p. 172 of God Delusion that he is engaging in speculation .

2) He supports his arguments quite extensively using the works of other noted scholars as well as his own observations as a noted biologist.

 

To me, what he says is not "empty." I think you probably have a self-serving definition of empty.

 

I don't know what you mean by empty. I would be careful with the definition of "empty" you provide as your own statements about the works of a biologist in the field can be treated by the same definition you provide.

You have the book then please provide a citation he uses to support this claim. Just because N scholars agree to believe the same thing does not mean it has any substance. Science is not a democratic process. Science works based on evidence.

[classicchinadoll]

None of your words had anything to do with Dawkins' claim that religion is an evolutionary byproduct of some other evolutionary advantageous trait. The whole idea behind a byproduct is that trait X has no direct advantage it just results from trait Y which does have advantage. This is all just empty talk on Dawkins' part.

 

dawkins does not claim his hypothesis is gospel truth and neither did i, i said dawkins states it's likely, inlight of evolution being a fact and observation of ppl's propensity to believe in the supernatural. it is a hypothesis based on empirical observation, ...

No it is not. There is no empirical evidence suggesting anything of the sort else he would present it. He has not because there is none. The idea is just empty talk to woo his fans and sell books.

 

ordinary clay I have already stated how this hypothesis was formed on observable phenonema and drew on verifiable facts to form it, evolution is true, we observe belief structures in mankind universally the belief structures have no bearing on reality. the only way you can argue that this is not the case is to concede all past and present belief structures were grounded in reality. and please address my post regarding morality

[Shyone]

OC,

 

Surely you noted that 1) Dawkins announces clearly on p. 172 of God Delusion that he is engaging in speculation .

2) He supports his arguments quite extensively using the works of other noted scholars as well as his own observations as a noted biologist.

 

To me, what he says is not "empty." I think you probably have a self-serving definition of empty.

 

I don't know what you mean by empty. I would be careful with the definition of "empty" you provide as your own statements about the works of a biologist in the field can be treated by the same definition you provide.

You have the book then please provide a citation he uses to support this claim. Just because N scholars agree to believe the same thing does not mean it has any substance. Science is not a democratic process. Science works based on evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

 

Most of the evidence comes from anthropology and archeology.

 

As an aside, did you read about the "World's Oldest Temple"?

[OrdinaryClay]

OC,

 

Surely you noted that 1) Dawkins announces clearly on p. 172 of God Delusion that he is engaging in speculation .

2) He supports his arguments quite extensively using the works of other noted scholars as well as his own observations as a noted biologist.

 

To me, what he says is not "empty." I think you probably have a self-serving definition of empty.

 

I don't know what you mean by empty. I would be careful with the definition of "empty" you provide as your own statements about the works of a biologist in the field can be treated by the same definition you provide.

You have the book then please provide a citation he uses to support this claim. Just because N scholars agree to believe the same thing does not mean it has any substance. Science is not a democratic process. Science works based on evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

 

Most of the evidence comes from anthropology and archeology.

 

As an aside, did you read about the "World's Oldest Temple"?

As I stated, just because N scholars agree to believe the same thing does not mean it has any substance. Science is not a democratic process. Science works based on evidence. Not only is there no evidence for these ideas, but the claims are untestable, unfalsifiable and unreproducible. When it comes time for an atheist to ridicule ID they clamor for such characteristics of the claims. When an atheist mega-star such as Dawkins makes a claim all such requirements are put aside and the idea is bought hook, line and sinker.

 

A byproduct Y requires 1) an X (with selective advantage) that has a demonstrable causative link from X to Y, and 2) Y be of no selective advantage. That is the idea behind a byproduct. The evangelical atheists can demonstrate neither. Where is the science demonstrating either of these two. It is no where to be found.

[par4dcourse]

As I stated, just because N scholars agree to believe the same thing does not mean it has any substance. Science is not a democratic process. Science works based on evidence. Not only is there no evidence for these ideas, but the claims are untestable, unfalsifiable and unreproducible. When it comes time for an atheist to ridicule ID they clamor for such characteristics of the claims. When an atheist mega-star such as Dawkins makes a claim all such requirements are put aside and the idea is bought hook, line and sinker.

 

A byproduct Y requires 1) an X (with selective advantage) that has a demonstrable causative link from X to Y, and 2) Y be of no selective advantage. That is the idea behind a byproduct. The evangelical atheists can demonstrate neither. Where is the science demonstrating either of these two. It is no where to be found.

 

Now Clay is lecturing us on how science works. A xian wants verifiable evidence. That's rich. Made my day.

[Shyone]

OC,

 

Surely you noted that 1) Dawkins announces clearly on p. 172 of God Delusion that he is engaging in speculation .

2) He supports his arguments quite extensively using the works of other noted scholars as well as his own observations as a noted biologist.

 

To me, what he says is not "empty." I think you probably have a self-serving definition of empty.

 

I don't know what you mean by empty. I would be careful with the definition of "empty" you provide as your own statements about the works of a biologist in the field can be treated by the same definition you provide.

You have the book then please provide a citation he uses to support this claim. Just because N scholars agree to believe the same thing does not mean it has any substance. Science is not a democratic process. Science works based on evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

 

Most of the evidence comes from anthropology and archeology.

 

As an aside, did you read about the "World's Oldest Temple"?

As I stated, just because N scholars agree to believe the same thing does not mean it has any substance. Science is not a democratic process. Science works based on evidence. Not only is there no evidence for these ideas, but the claims are untestable, unfalsifiable and unreproducible. When it comes time for an atheist to ridicule ID they clamor for such characteristics of the claims. When an atheist mega-star such as Dawkins makes a claim all such requirements are put aside and the idea is bought hook, line and sinker.

 

A byproduct Y requires 1) an X (with selective advantage) that has a demonstrable causative link from X to Y, and 2) Y be of no selective advantage. That is the idea behind a byproduct. The evangelical atheists can demonstrate neither. Where is the science demonstrating either of these two. It is no where to be found.

I didn't post the above to list "N" scholars, but to give you an idea of the fields of research that have a bearing on the idea of the evolution of religion.

 

There is evidence from several fields including archeology, anthropology and comparative social studies in animals. Cognitive neuroscience also has some anatomic and developmental discoveries that support the idea of religion as a byproduct of the evolution of society.

 

You are not willing to even seriously consider the matter. For you, we are ridiculing you, and are "evangelical atheists." Your defenses are overpowering your rational mind.

 

The basic idea is that there is a connection between causative agent and uncaused event.

 

Such mechanisms may include

 

1. the ability to infer the presence of organisms that might do harm (agent detection),

2. the ability to come up with causal narratives for natural events (etiology), and

3. the ability to recognize that other people have minds of their own with their own beliefs, desires and intentions (theory of mind).

 

These three adaptations (among others) allow human beings to imagine purposeful agents behind many observations that could not readily be explained otherwise, e.g. thunder, lightning, movement of planets, complexity of life, etc.

[Antlerman]

Biblical literalists and fundamentalists are more akin to atheists than moderate bible believing christians in that the reason they choose to believe all of it and not just pick out the nice bits is because they want to believe what's true rather than make an emotional decision and base their beliefs on what they want to be true.

Yes, it has been said that literalism is responsible for fundamentalist thinking on both sides of the God issue. Either it is literally true, or literally false. I think that entire premise is deeply flawed. Systems of language humans use in not about binary equations of true/false. It's far more complex than that.

 

And now to the Sam Harris-derived lopsided view about moderates and their potential effects (which I consider, along with many other atheists as well, as well, political nonsense)....

 

I am sick of moderate christians blaming fundamentalists for their prejudices yet promoting the archaic source (the bible) that leads logical ppl to fundamentalism

Promoting their Bible how? As the inerrant, infallible, direct-dictation of God to man? Let's start there.

 

You, and countless other, misuse the term "cherry-picking" again and again, to the point it is more a political slam against anyone that they want to lump into the same pile without distinction, than any meaningful term. I've corrected this countless times here, and others have come to see it as accurate after themselves having been inappropriately using it as above. I'll try it again:

 

"

Cherry picking

is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position."

Hypothetically, if someone were to look at the Bible as a fallible book, written by humans who felt the inspiration of "God", expressing their thoughts, in their language, using their cultural symbols, in the contexts of their mythologies and understanding of society and values, then it could be rightly, academically called "inspired writing", just like one would in speaking of a work of music, or art, or poetry, etc. If this person who found that book to contain inspired parts that "spoke to them", used is as evoking feelings or thoughts about "God" for them, then I fail to see how it is being approached as a book of Authoritative Facts, to qualify their understanding as violating reason and rationality, to be "ignoring" anything that "contradicts that position". The position is never contradicted, because it is not a contradictory position. The position is that is has truth and error. Recognizing and accepting that is not "Cherry Picking". It is in fact only the literalist who has the position that it is without error and all perfect and delivered by God, that are the actual cherry pickers.

 

And on the flip side, it is my growing opinion that the literalists amongst the more modern atheists, such as Dawkins and Harris, are in fact vastly more promoting the religious fundamentalist by in fact validating the thought that the book is to be taken literally also, and rejected as literally false, lock, stock and barrel. To me that approach at understanding religion and the literature on that level, is itself Cherry Picking as much as Pat Robertson does in "ignoring the bad bits while cherry picking the good bits".

 

Why do I say they are promoting fundamentalism, and not the moderates (as Harris amazingly claimed, and the philosophically anti-religious love to latch onto)? Because it is my informed opinion that people in fact at the core of religious texts and groups, are not approaching it on a scientific, logical, fact-findings journey. These are systems of faith. And systems of faith use sets of symbols that go beyond just 'facts' on the ground, and they in fact do not operate that way in use. They are used to express that aspect of being human that is more 'intangible', like values, loves, hopes, etc.

 

Fundamentalism arose, not as logical conclusion of the Bible. If that were the case, then why did it only arise in the last 100 years in particular? You should have seen it from the outset, continually growing to this point where it would be the overwhelming state of religious affairs the world over, which is blatantly is not. Instead it arose as a complex response of a number of converging issues. A rise in fundamentalism is best understood as a symptom of the collapse of the middle, not the logical ends of it! You have to dig into what was happening in the religious world in a post-Enlightenment world.

 

Prior to the Enlightenment systems of myth were in fact the over-arching umbrella of everything human. It's sciences were understood through it, it's art was understood through it, its systems of religious belief, it's culture, was all filtered through that Framework of symbols and language. And it worked, not perfectly of course, but as a functional cohesive system it worked. This isn't to validate it as anything 'better', of course not. But for the time, during that stage of our evolution, it is what emerged to fill the bill. It was a functional system.

 

But as the natural pressures of Evolution occurred to a changing environment, a new level of consciousness was poised to emerge. And the cry "No More Myth!" went out, and the modern natural sciences were born and happily went about uncovering what may be learned beyond the yoke of the controlling Authority, the Guardians of the ancient all-encompassing Myth System. And so the natural world was a new vista of discovery, looking more fantastic and incomprehensible than any language of it in terms of a mythological point of view.

 

Not only this, not only a split from the religious institutions in the pursuit of the understanding the natural sciences, the "soft sciences" also left, the arts and ethics. Or put another way, Kant's "Big Three" Art (subjective truth); Morality (inter-subjective truth), Science (objective truth). It has been the struggle of Western societies and cultures ever since to have any sort of unifying umbrella, a worldview, a philosophy, a mythology under which these are united again. It is these 'Big Three', that the whole human operates, seeks expression and understanding, fulfillment, etc

 

Now comes your modern 'liberal' theologian and scholar. Enlightenment methodologies find there way into religious studies, and higher criticism is born. Neo-orthodoxies arise, examining the Biblical texts from critical methods, philosophies trying to find the place of religious thought in a modern world arise, and the schools of religious studies flourish with the new understandings, struggling to place that baby of human spirituality discarded with the bathwater of the mythological past. Young students sent out East in America to go to college and come back home to lead their religious communities, were coming back with heads filled with this new highfalutin talk. "Where is the traditional, good old talk of God and values??", was the cry. "Give me that old-time religion!!", was born. Fundamentalism was born.

 

And that, is the cause of fundamentalism. It's a response to social change that is unable to talk to the social and cultural values. It is not about scientific logic at all. It's birth was an emotional response to having its under-girding language, its myth system, shaken. And, here we come to why I say Dawkins and Harris do more to promote the fundamentalist response than any moderate would possibly come close to. What are they offering as a basis for society? Logic?? Science?? A mess of charged political rhetoric? Truth and meaning defined as the opposite of X?

 

No, what they are doing, unlike the true Atheist Philosophers of the past, like Sartre, Camus, Nietzsche, Marx, etc. who understood the complexities of removing the God symbol from society and spent volumes examining it, Dawkins and Harris blithely tread forth with anti-religious rhetoric, like calling it a Delusion for example, only looking at it from a single-sided perspective about Truth being about Fact alone. Where is the Big Three in this populist neo-atheism? Where is understanding the social and cultural forces, the force and complexities of language in the formation of the very experience of truth itself?

 

So what you have then with the religious fundamentalist is the same thing. They are not logical conclusions at all. They are in fact highly irrational conclusions, driven in reactionary mode to the threat of ones existential reality: The Beautiful, the Good, the True. To simply charge forth and rip and tear at the structures of this reality without a larger understanding of its complexities and interdependency, is as much an act of religious hostility as that which is associated with fundamentalism everywhere. It is reactionary. It is not a logical conclusion. And it is not created by voices of reason and moderation. It's created by ignorance and fear.

 

It is only those who bridge multiple points of view, that are moderate, who will be a voice a true reason to bring about understanding and a moving forward. If they are accused of being the cause of ones enemies on the opposite side of belief, and should just go away or take responsibility for their enemies existing, then you have nothing short of a one-sided idealistic totalitarianism in its place: Fundamentalism.

[The-Captain]

Yes, it has been said that literalism is responsible for fundamentalist thinking on both sides of the God issue. Either it is literally true, or literally false. I think that entire premise is deeply flawed. Systems of language humans use in not about binary equations of true/false. It's far more complex than that.

 

Only so many ways I can say I totally agree. I suspect many of us Ex-Cs tend to blithely accept that premise because we came out of fundamentalist church traditions ourselves.

[oddbird1963]

OC,

 

Surely you noted that 1) Dawkins announces clearly on p. 172 of God Delusion that he is engaging in speculation .

2) He supports his arguments quite extensively using the works of other noted scholars as well as his own observations as a noted biologist.

 

To me, what he says is not "empty." I think you probably have a self-serving definition of empty.

 

I don't know what you mean by empty. I would be careful with the definition of "empty" you provide as your own statements about the works of a biologist in the field can be treated by the same definition you provide.

You have the book then please provide a citation he uses to support this claim. Just because N scholars agree to believe the same thing does not mean it has any substance. Science is not a democratic process. Science works based on evidence.

 

Once again you are trying to apply your Teflon coating by taking the onus off of yourself. What do YOU mean when you say 'empty?' That's an awfully dismissive attitude to take against a person of Dawkins' status. Dawkins is a renowned scientist citing other renowned scientists and scholars to put forth his own admitted speculative opinion about something of substance. Is what he really says EMPTY?

 

Why is it what THEY say is empty and what YOU say should be given consideration?

 

True, he is not writing a biology paper, but that doesn't mean his opinion about religion as a by-product doesn't have merit?

 

So come on Ordinary Clay, what do you mean when you say "Empty?"

[Kuroikaze]

Your analogy has no substance. The hypothesis that germs were the cause of disease was based on much more then some wild guess. There was empirical evidence showing that sterilization worked among other falsifiable evidence. None of this exists with Dawkins' byproduct idea. It is completely ad hoc.

 

No, your accusations are false.

 

Look, assuming evolution is true, which it clearly is. There are only really two possibilities, our tendency to be religious has a genetic component or it is entirely social. Are you really arguing that religion has NO genetic component? I find it rather unlikely. Most behavior has a genetic component.

 

I suppose spontaneous generation is "empirically based too".

 

Uh, well you could argue that it WAS empirically based. It is not impossible to come to an incorrect conclusion using the empirical method when we do not have enough data. spontaneous generation was disproved when more data was gathered.

 

If you asked a person who believed in it back then they could, in fact, give you factual evidence to support the claim.

[Shyone]

Your analogy has no substance. The hypothesis that germs were the cause of disease was based on much more then some wild guess. There was empirical evidence showing that sterilization worked among other falsifiable evidence. None of this exists with Dawkins' byproduct idea. It is completely ad hoc.

 

No, your accusations are false.

 

Look, assuming evolution is true, which it clearly is. There are only really two possibilities, our tendency to be religious has a genetic component or it is entirely social. Are you really arguing that religion has NO genetic component? I find it rather unlikely. Most behavior has a genetic component.

I would go one step further and say that even if religion is entirely "social", it is still genetic. We are social animals and that is the greatest strength of our ability to cooperate. We are not alone in this, but the fact that some animals have defined social structures and others don't is largely related to genetic predispositions.

 

We are religious for reasons of heredity either way.

[Sconnor]

None of your words had anything to do with Dawkins' claim that religion is an evolutionary byproduct of some other evolutionary advantageous trait. The whole idea behind a byproduct is that trait X has no direct advantage it just results from trait Y which does have advantage. This is all just empty talk on Dawkins' part.

 

dawkins does not claim his hypothesis is gospel truth and neither did i, i said dawkins states it's likely, inlight of evolution being a fact and observation of ppl's propensity to believe in the supernatural. it is a hypothesis based on empirical observation, ...

No it is not. There is no empirical evidence suggesting anything of the sort else he would present it. He has not because there is none. The idea is just empty talk to woo his fans and sell books.

 

And you do NOT have ANY empirical/objective evidence for the main stay of your religion: the resurrection.

 

Please provide empirical/objective evidence for a person being resurrected -- good as new -- after being dead and buried for three days and then provide empirical/objective evidence that this action actually removes sin and saves.

 

But you do NOT have empirical/objective evidence suggesting anything of the sort, or else you would present it. You have not because there is none.

 

Time to put up or shut up because you are fast approaching troll status.

 

--S.