Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post Reply
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

If you've read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" (which I have not) You may be interested in this little exchange between Dawkins and David Sloan Wilson, Author of "Darwin's Cathedral" and "Evolution for Everyone" (of which I have read both).

Its good to see members of the science community who are also both evolutionists as well as atheists have this debate I think. First Wilson's critique of Dawkins' "The Gods Delusion." It's the more lengthy of the two, but thats because Dawkins put the book and his ideas out there.

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, July 4th, 2007

A small excerpt:

Richard Dawkins and I share much in common. We are both biologists by training who have written widely about evolutionary theory. We share an interest in culture as an evolutionary process in its own right. We are both atheists in our personal convictions who have written books on religion. In Darwin’s Cathedral I attempted to contribute to the relatively new field of evolutionary religious studies. When Dawkins’ The God Delusion was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. He has not done any original work on the subject and he has not fairly represented the work of his colleagues. Hence this critique of The God Delusion and the larger issues at stake.


And Dawkins' reply;

Skeptic eSkeptic Wednesday, July 11th, 2007
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Omni_Skittles
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Omni_Skittles »

lol Dawkins is a joke.
Smoke signals ftw!
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

Omni_Skittles;1290485 wrote: lol Dawkins is a joke.Actually hes a pretty smart guy.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by gmc »

Omni_Skittles;1290485 wrote: lol Dawkins is a joke.


Why do you think that?

Mind you I haven't read the god delusion either. keep meaning to.

YouTube - hitchenschannel's Channel

posted by ahso

Actually hes a pretty smart guy.


so are many religious people
User avatar
Omni_Skittles
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Omni_Skittles »

Ahso!;1290488 wrote: Actually hes a pretty smart guy.Yea, and I'll also say that a lot of religious people are jokes... and smart... so what?
Smoke signals ftw!
User avatar
Snowfire
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:34 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Snowfire »

I'm half way through Dawkins book. I'm finding it extremely thought provoking and a little easier to read than Christopher Hitchens book. I find myself nodding like a donkey in agreement. But then I'm an uneducated buffoon and I need a dictionary by my side when reading Hitchens.

Thank you Ahso. I'm not in the right state of mind to give this the respect it deserves so I shall return to it tomorow and read the whole thing
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."

Winston Churchill
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

Snowfire;1290500 wrote: I'm half way through Dawkins book. I'm finding it extremely thought provoking and a little easier to read than Christopher Hitchens book. I find myself nodding like a donkey in agreement. But then I'm an uneducated buffoon and I need a dictionary by my side when reading Hitchens.

Thank you Ahso. I'm not in the right state of mind to give this the respect it deserves so I shall return to it tomorow and read the whole thingYW! In Darwin's Cathedral, Wilson takes a pragmatic, scientific approach to the subject while I understand Dawkins approach to be more confrontational, and hard hitting. But again, I haven't read Dawkins work.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by LarsMac »

Dawkins did some fine work, years ago, and his "The Selfish Gene" was fascinating.

The God Delusion is not his best work. It starts out rather nicely, and he makes some good points in early chapters. But then he begins to make some huge leaps of logic, slams down his conclusions and defends them by assaulting all who might question them.

The last couple of chapters are anticlimactic diatribe against God, any god, and anyone who might entertain the notion that there is one or ever has been one.



I really think that all the fundamentalists folks attacking his work drove him quite batty.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

LarsMac;1290599 wrote: Dawkins did some fine work, years ago, and his "The Selfish Gene" was fascinating.

The God Delusion is not his best work. It starts out rather nicely, and he makes some good points in early chapters. But then he begins to make some huge leaps of logic, slams down his conclusions and defends them by assaulting all who might question them.

The last couple of chapters are anticlimactic diatribe against God, any god, and anyone who might entertain the notion that there is one or ever has been one.



I really think that all the fundamentalists folks attacking his work drove him quite batty.I think you may be right from what I've read about Dawkins and seen in interviews. He seems to have taken a militant approach to religion perhaps because that is how fundamentalists approach evolution and atheism. I can see some doing that. Many of Dawkins followers are very confrontational, some of the comments I've read just from what Wilson has written in lightly criticizing his work is nasty. Fight fire with fire I guess.

I like Wilsons approach and I think his work is brilliant. He's definitely the voice of reason coming out of the evolutionary corner.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by gmc »

LarsMac;1290599 wrote: Dawkins did some fine work, years ago, and his "The Selfish Gene" was fascinating.

The God Delusion is not his best work. It starts out rather nicely, and he makes some good points in early chapters. But then he begins to make some huge leaps of logic, slams down his conclusions and defends them by assaulting all who might question them.

The last couple of chapters are anticlimactic diatribe against God, any god, and anyone who might entertain the notion that there is one or ever has been one.



I really think that all the fundamentalists folks attacking his work drove him quite batty.


I'd skimmed through his book and decided it wasn't going to tell me anything i hadn't already sussed out for myself-not enough to want to buy it- but also like you I found his style of writing off-putting, same with a couple of his other books which may not be an entirely rational reason for not reading it. Makes a nice change to go on the forum, find a thread like this and not find and not the religious foaming at the mouth.

I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective.




How can you have a scientific study of something that has been made up? You can study the effects and draw conclusions about it's effect and why people follow them but religion itself?
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

gmc;1290629 wrote:

How can you have a scientific study of something that has been made up? You can study the effects and draw conclusions about it's effect and why people follow them but religion itself?Of course you can study behavior from a scientific evolutionary perspective. The study of behavior is done all the time. What make you think its not scientific? Ever hear of behavioral science? Just throw evolutionary either before or after "behavioral" and google it.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Amythest
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:28 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Amythest »

Omni_Skittles;1290485 wrote: lol Dawkins is a joke.


Always Learning??:yh_rotfl

When i watched Dawkins interview the televangelists in the south HE wasn't the one that appeared foolish.

I like how he keeps his cool, despite the ignorance and egos of those who he challenges.
Amythest
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:28 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Amythest »

I honestly haven't read Dawkins books but i have viewed quite a few of his videos.

"The God Delusion and Root of all Evil" series, in particular, are quite interesting, objective, and he allows his subject to speak for itself.

The Root of All Evil? Part 1: The God Delusion. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

Amythest;1290682 wrote: I honestly haven't read Dawkins books but i have viewed quite a few of his videos.

"The God Delusion and Root of all Evil" series, in particular, are quite interesting, objective, and he allows his subject to speak for itself.

The Root of All Evil? Part 1: The God Delusion. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)The videos are pretty informative, I watched them a couple of years ago when I first heard of RD on the internet. Hes very popular amongst younger, more combative atheists.

Since you've seen the video's, what is your take on Wilson's critique and RD's response? Same question to you, LarsMac and gmc!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Amythest
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:28 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Amythest »

Ahso!;1290684 wrote: The videos are pretty informative, I watched them a couple of years ago when I first heard of RD on the internet. Hes very popular amongst younger, more combative atheists.

Since you've seen the video's, what is your take on Wilson's critique and RD's response? Same question to you, LarsMac and gmc!


Oh gee Ahso! Making me do homework. I have to go back and review! I still have to watch the Wilsdon video.:-3



I'll need some time for a response that sticks to the subject.

The last few days have been filled with duties at home ( and i am taking in some much needed recreational time + watching the Olympics).

After i get some things outta the way here, I'll answer.

So MUCH PRESSURE!!:yh_rotfl
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

Amythest;1290690 wrote: Oh gee Ahso! Making me do homework. I have to go back and review! I still have to watch the Wilsdon video.:-3



I'll need some time for a response that sticks to the subject.

The last few days have been filled with duties at home ( and i am taking in some much needed recreational time + watching the Olympics).

After i get some things outta the way here, I'll answer.

So MUCH PRESSURE!!:yh_rotflSorry! But I value your opinion. Wilsons critique is in written form, not video, and I'm guessing once you begin to read the Wilson piece, much of RD's content will come back. I'd try it that way first, it may save some time.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by gmc »

Ahso!;1290650 wrote: Of course you can study behavior from a scientific evolutionary perspective. The study of behavior is done all the time. What make you think its not scientific? Ever hear of behavioral science? Just throw evolutionary either before or after "behavioral" and google it.


I wasn't referring to behaviour I was referring to talking to this comment.

I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective.


You can study behaviour yes indeed and also the effect religion has had on society and you can use scientific methods to do so and you can study why people believe in religion and put it in context that way but you can't study religious beliefs themselves scientifically since the beliefs have no actual basis in reality. As soon as you apply logic and reason you stop believing in it. That's why religious groups want to control scientific education and what is taught in the schools. You can only believe in a religion if you choose to suspend reason. A scientific approach to religion and religious belief or even applied common sense ends up concluding it is just made up to suit those who want power.



Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.

Martin Luther


I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth.

Martin Luther


Reason is the enemy of faith.

Martin Luther


It's as true now as it ever was and we're still fighting the same battles against bigotry hatred and superstition.

There are some that want to believe the development of religion and specifically monotheistic religion is an essential component in the development of society and in particular a moral society and as such ties in with darwin's theory somehow but they tend to be selective in what they choose as evidence not least the simple fact that most people in the world are neither christian or muslim and when you look at who has been committing the worst atrocities on their fellow men and do so from the smug perspective if it being their god given right to do so there is a pattern to it. Not that others did not do similar things but they didn't pretend it was for the betterment of humanity.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

gmc;1290758 wrote: I wasn't referring to behaviour I was referring to talking to to his comment.



You can study behaviour yes indeed and also the effect religion has had on society and you can use scientific methods to do so and you can study why people believe in religion and put it in context that way but you can't study religious beliefs themselves scientifically since the beliefs have no actual basis in reality. As soon as you apply logic and reason you stop believing in it. That's why religious groups want to control scientific education and what is taught in the schools. You can only believe in a religion if you choose to suspend reason. A scientific approach to religion and religious belief or even applied common sense ends up concluding it is just made up to suit those who want power.









It's as true now as it ever was and we're still fighting the same battles against bigotry hatred and superstition.

There are some that want to believe the development of religion and specifically monotheistic religion is an essential component in the development of society and in particular a moral society and as such ties in with darwin's theory somehow but they tend to be selective in what they choose as evidence not least the simple fact that most people in the world are neither christian or muslim and when you look at who has been committing the worst atrocities on their fellow men and do so from the smug perspective if it being their god given right to do so there is a pattern to it. Not that others did not do similar things but they didn't pretend it was for the betterment of humanity.we're talking about different things, gmc.

No one is suggesting that there is any scientific study of God. There is no God, we all know that. What Wilson is referring to, and what Dawkins obviously referred to in his book, which he cites, is the scientific study of religion itself and why people choose to believe and follow it.

If humans are a species and are studied from an evolutionary scientific view as such, then what humans do aa well as how they behave is also a subject of evolutionary scientific study.

You obviously have not read Wilson's critique, which is what this thread is meant to be about.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Omni_Skittles
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Omni_Skittles »

Amythest;1290681 wrote: Always Learning??:yh_rotfl

When i watched Dawkins interview the televangelists in the south HE wasn't the one that appeared foolish.

I like how he keeps his cool, despite the ignorance and egos of those who he challenges.oh wow, televangelists are jokes too... I don't know of a single person who doesn't laugh while watching televagelists... if they ever do...
Smoke signals ftw!
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

Omni_Skittles;1290774 wrote: oh wow, televangelists are jokes too... I don't know of a single person who doesn't laugh while watching televagelists... if they ever do...Back in the 80's thats all I watched except for shows likes Save The Children. I used to force myself to watch save the children because it was so depressing and I believed God was telling me I had a hard heart and I needed to softened it. So I would sit in front of the television all day long and cry. And I gave all my money to those type of organizations while I and my family lived in poverty because thats what I thought good christians did. Crazy!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Omni_Skittles
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Omni_Skittles »

Ahso!;1290776 wrote: Back in the 80's thats all I watched except for shows likes Save The Children. I used to force myself to watch save the children because it was so depressing and I believed God was telling me I had a hard heart and it needed to softened it. So I would sit in front of the television all day long and cry. And I gave all my money to those type of organizations while I and my family lived in poverty because thats what I thought good christians did. Crazy!That's simply your problem. If you read your bible then these televangelist would have looked like idiots to you. We're taught at my school how to read our bibles in its context and historically. and to be a good christian involves following Christ's teachings that were written throughout the bible, not some televangelist who warps the bible to mean what they want it to.
Smoke signals ftw!
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

Omni_Skittles;1290778 wrote: That's simply your problem. If you read your bible then these televangelist would have looked like idiots to you. We're taught at my school how to read our bibles in its context and historically. and to be a good christian involves following Christ's teachings that were written throughout the bible, not some televangelist who warps the bible to mean what they want it to.It was part of my journey through life, Skittles. I've made my share of good decisions as well as poor decisions.

Didn't Jesus live in poverty? Did he give everything to others?

I will not confront you on these issues as you're young and I certainly don't want to insult your intelligence.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by gmc »

Ahso!;1290764 wrote: we're talking about different things, gmc.

No one is suggesting that there is any scientific study of God. There is no God, we all know that. What Wilson is referring to, and what Dawkins obviously referred to in his book, which he cites, is the scientific study of religion itself and why people choose to believe and follow it.

If humans are a species and are studied from an evolutionary scientific view as such, then what humans do aa well as how they behave is also a subject of evolutionary scientific study.

You obviously have not read Wilson's critique, which is what this thread is meant to be about.


You're right I haven't read it all the way through. I'm splitting semantic hairs to no good purpose I think-you can study people's behaviour and how religion affects it but that's not the same as studying religion, theology is not a science. Come to that some say that psychology isn't a real science and sociology is doubtful as well. But it's a conversational dead end that does nothing for the evolution of the thread so I will forget I started it if you do as well:D

As to wilsons critique I'm inclined to agree with dawkins

The central theme of the book is the question of whether God exists. I agree that it is also interesting to ask whether religion has some kind of Darwinian survival value. But whatever the answer to that might turn out to be, it will make no difference to the central question of whether God exists. Religious belief might have a positive survival value and God might or might not exist. Religious belief might have a negative survival value and God might or might not exist. Moreover, other important aspects of my critique, dealt with in other chapters of The God Delusion, are also unaffected by religion’s possible evolutionary advantages.




It wasn't a book about religion per se was it? Haven't read it you see. When I skimmed through it I decided it wasn't going to tell me anything I hadn't worked out for myself. The debate whether religion has an evolutionary value is to my mind a separate one. I would say at this point in our history religion is likely to lead to the demise of us all if fundamentalists get their way. Also it could be argues that the belief that man was crated and put on earth and all things were made for him to use as he wishes has led to an enormous amount of harm, whether you can lay it all at the door of religion is another matter, certainly that religion is used cynically to get and keep power is beyond doubt. Are the pope, and the mullahs and the televangelists doing what they do because they want their reward in heaven or power in the here and now?

I think I prefer Christopher hitchens way of looking at things.

YouTube - hitchenschannel's Channel
User avatar
Omni_Skittles
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Omni_Skittles »

Ahso!;1290779 wrote: It was part of my journey through life, Skittles. I've made my share of good decisions as well as poor decisions.

Didn't Jesus live in poverty? Did he give everything to others?

I will not confront you on these issues as you're young and I certainly don't want to insult your intelligence.I don't recall the bible saying Jesus lived in poverty or not. He worked as a carpenter for his father.... Did he give everything to others, um yea he kind of gave his life and when he asked for people's money, such as the rich man that asked what should he do to earn eternal life and Christ said sell everything he owned and give it to the poor, it wasn't about the money that he asked for... what one should gain from that is that he wanted a relationship with people and sometimes money can be a hinderance for that relationship. The purpose of the church is to help the widows and and the poor and sometimes you will live in poverty, but God takes care of those people. I can tell you about many missionaries that i personally know that God has always provided for them financially or with food or shelter or sometimes even clothes. However, he also calls up businessmen to fortune 500 companies. I know of people like that too... they tithe and give 10 percent of the company profits to missionary efforts. Christ isn't just in the bible... he's real and shows himself through real live people serving him.... but yea... mainly the bible will show you that... over and over... not televangelist... or pastors even... That's the realization Luther came to, through reading the bible himself did he finally realize the "wizard of oz" through the catholic church.
Smoke signals ftw!
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

gmc;1290781 wrote: You're right I haven't read it all the way through. I'm splitting semantic hairs to no good purpose I think-you can study people's behaviour and how religion affects it but that's not the same as studying religion, theology is not a science. Come to that some say that psychology isn't a real science and sociology is doubtful as well. But it's a conversational dead end that does nothing for the evolution of the thread so I will forget I started it if you do as well:D

As to wilsons critique I'm inclined to agree with dawkins



It wasn't a book about religion per se was it? Haven't read it you see. When I skimmed through it I decided it wasn't going to tell me anything I hadn't worked out for myself. The debate whether religion has an evolutionary value is to my mind a separate one. I would say at this point in our history religion is likely to lead to the demise of us all if fundamentalists get their way. Also it could be argues that the belief that man was crated and put on earth and all things were made for him to use as he wishes has led to an enormous amount of harm, whether you can lay it all at the door of religion is another matter, certainly that religion is used cynically to get and keep power is beyond doubt. Are the pope, and the mullahs and the televangelists doing what they do because they want their reward in heaven or power in the here and now?

I think I prefer Christopher hitchens way of looking at things.

YouTube - hitchenschannel's ChannelI think the majority of those religious people of power actually believe what they say, and say what they believe. I think power is a consequence or manifestation or result of the dogma.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Omni_Skittles
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Omni_Skittles »

and please insult my intelligence… how else will I learn anything
Smoke signals ftw!
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

Omni_Skittles;1290787 wrote: and please insult my intelligence… how else will I learn anythingYou may want to consider a new thread or revival of another older one and carry on this conversation. I may contribute, but quite honestly, the bible holds no authority whatsoever for me and I'm completely uninterested in its meaning. So if I decide not to participate you may take that as a forfeit.

Good luck!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Omni_Skittles
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Omni_Skittles »

Ahso!;1290789 wrote: You may want to consider a new thread or revival of another older one and carry on this conversation. I may contribute, but quite honestly, the bible holds no authority whatsoever for me and I'm completely uninterested in its meaning. So if I decide not to participate you may take that as a forfeit.

Good luck!i was just stating that in general for future reference... lol but yea i don't care enough to...
Smoke signals ftw!
Amythest
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:28 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Amythest »

I read the Wilson article and it seems he is suggesting Dawkins scientific credibility begs him to consider the evolutionary aspects of religion.

Is religion a part of human evolution, develops for our well being cellularly and the manner of which religion presents itself to humans is necessary to survival?

Is that it?

How many dimensions religion can be considered from is what i think should be determined. A point of reference to begin.

How can you figure out the evolutionary aspects of religion when it is mainly sprouted from ideas and concepts.

Dawkins obviously focused on the Myths created by religions and used that as the hypothesis for God delusion. Trying to make facts from lies is unscientific, however is Wilsons claim that Dawkins doesn't include an evolutionary thesis in his views, indicates Dawkins is unscientific I'm not quite sure yet.

I think Wilsons POV would have merit if we could prove Noahs Ark, find the corpse of Christ, or have SOME solid item to study but unfortunately we don't.

The evotlution of an idea can be purely metaphysical and we all know how slippery that subject is.

One must study the evolution of a concept, and i think Dawkins does some of this.

However to deem evolution as worthy or ethical is another when it comes to concepts.



We give concepts life. Concepts aren't the same a a living thing with biological systems.

I guess this is what can become confusing since the religious believe "god" is a living Being.

For Wilson what are the Sociological standpoints of the religious evolution he ponders?? individual, familial, hierchical?

I'm still tryin to wrap my brain around what Wilson wrote. :confused:
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

Take your time with that, it comes slowly because its an old/new way of thinking. Thanks for the interest and conversation.

But Wilson is not saying religion itself and therefore God is worth considering from a scientific viewpoint. What he is saying is that we behave like any other organism but as a group, and religion has been invented by us to provide a common goal or thing or place to congregate and work toward - like cells in the body. Thats why religious people see themselves as part of "the body of christ". Can you see that? Since what we are made of is cells, we also behave the same as cells, so we want to interact with other people (cells). Its very interesting and it makes loads of sense.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Amythest
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:28 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Amythest »

Ahso!;1290891 wrote: Take your time with that, it comes slowly because its an old/new way of thinking. Thanks for the interest and conversation.

But Wilson is not saying religion itself and therefore God is worth considering from a scientific viewpoint. What he is saying is that we behave like any other organism but as a group, and religion has been invented by us to provide a common goal or thing or place to congregate and work toward - like cells in the body. Thats why religious people see themselves as part of "the body of christ". Can you see that? Since what we are made of is cells, we also behave the same as cells, so we want to interact with other people (cells). Its very interesting and it makes loads of sense.


Aw yes. Thanks for reminding me. Wilson was focusing on the community aspect of religion.

Religion causes a convergience of people that froms a group.

I think religion capitolizes on our instinctual need to be in groups and/or communities. The evolution isn't necessarily good or bad, just a part of who we are.

Teh standpoints are differnt. Dawkins views religion as wrong, and Wilson believes it is a part of us, right or wrong.

A cell can be healthy or not. All of a cells systems have to be working properly for the overall health of the cell and ultimately sustain an organism at it's peak.

Perhaps Dawkins take is of a organism that is diseased? Since religion is formed from concepts ( some based on truths that are altered to myth) spawned from the psyche of man, it warrants a right wrong approach?

Wilson thinks it is because it is so study WHY it is.

A Concept is different than a living organism though. This is where i don't agree with Wilsons view of how religion should be described or viewed as a necessary evolutionary adjustment or state of living.



I put religion in the category of concept or philosophy.

Just beleiving doesn't make something true, comfortable, the healthiest or justified. It's where religion meets with metaphysics in my view.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

Amythest;1290907 wrote: Aw yes. Thanks for reminding me. Wilson was focusing on the community aspect of religion.

Religion causes a convergience of people that froms a group.

I think religion capitolizes on our instinctual need to be in groups and/or communities. The evolution isn't necessarily good or bad, just a part of who we are.

Teh standpoints are differnt. Dawkins views religion as wrong, and Wilson believes it is a part of us, right or wrong.

A cell can be healthy or not. All of a cells systems have to be working properly for the overall health of the cell and ultimately sustain an organism at it's peak.

Perhaps Dawkins take is of a organism that is diseased? Since religion is formed from concepts ( some based on truths that are altered to myth) spawned from the psyche of man, it warrants a right wrong approach?

Wilson thinks it is because it is so study WHY it is.

A Concept is different than a living organism though. This is where i don't agree with Wilsons view of how religion should be described or viewed as a necessary evolutionary adjustment or state of living.



I put religion in the category of concept or philosophy.

Just believing doesn't make something true, comfortable, the healthiest or justified. It's where religion meets with metaphysics in my view.I don't see Wilson saying religion is necessary as much as it just is. Being atheist himself, the idea is why not a more secular grouping. Theres a video of a talk Wilson gave at the University of California. Its a great talk as far as talks go and the Q and A at the end is very good as well. If this subject interests you, you'll enjoy the talk.

Evolution for Everyone - UCTV - University of California Television
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by gmc »

Ahso!;1290786 wrote: I think the majority of those religious people of power actually believe what they say, and say what they believe. I think power is a consequence or manifestation or result of the dogma.


Perhaps they do but try disagreeing with them-challenge their authority and see what happens all too often the spiritual guiding hand has been in a mailed glove holding a dirty great big sword.

posted by ahso

Take your time with that, it comes slowly because its an old/new way of thinking. Thanks for the interest and conversation.

But Wilson is not saying religion itself and therefore God is worth considering from a scientific viewpoint. What he is saying is that we behave like any other organism but as a group, and religion has been invented by us to provide a common goal or thing or place to congregate and work toward - like cells in the body. Thats why religious people see themselves as part of "the body of christ". Can you see that? Since what we are made of is cells, we also behave the same as cells, so we want to interact with other people (cells). Its very interesting and it makes loads of sense.


No it was invented to explain the world around us and in desperation that some higher being might help us when we feel we can't help ourselves that some like the power it gives when they can't get it any other way and use it to manipulate for their own ends.

posted by amethyst

Religion causes a convergience of people that froms a group.

I think religion capitolizes on our instinctual need to be in groups and/or communities. The evolution isn't necessarily good or bad, just a part of who we are.

Teh standpoints are differnt. Dawkins views religion as wrong, and Wilson believes it is a part of us, right or wrong.


It may capitalise on that need to be in groups but I would dispute it causes a convergience. It also causes hate filled divisions, monotheism is a force for exclusion used to expel those who do not conform and and consolidate power in a few hands. At this point I am inclined to agree with dawkins that it is a baleful influence and societies where religion holds sway are oppressive. Although I haven't looked at what wilson has to say.
Amythest
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:28 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Amythest »

gmc;1290936 wrote:

It may capitalise on that need to be in groups but I would dispute it causes a convergence. It also causes hate filled divisions, monotheism is a force for exclusion used to expel those who do not conform and and consolidate power in a few hands. At this point I am inclined to agree with dawkins that it is a baleful influence and societies where religion holds sway are oppressive. Although I haven't looked at what wilson has to say.


Convergence is the act of coming closer. Closer to "god" and each other. The word itself doesn't denote right or wrong or cover the divisive aspects of the bible. It is what it is.

So religion capitalizes on our herd instinct, and presents us with a flawed dogma that is divisive. Yes i understand that. I also have done enough research to know that Roman Catholicism, and the factions formed from it's onset, were derived from Pagan religion. The pagan symbolism was changed from the onset of AD, going from

Pagans had a balanced polytheistic god system which balanced feminine and masculine, gave recognition to the various workings of the planet ( air, water, earth, fire) had a great understanding of astronomy, and how the movements of the sun and moon influenced the seasons , vegetation growth, animal migrations, and used this knowledge to prosper. They used that prosperity to thrive and had more control over their lives. All of these natural occurrences were given various symbolic labels.



However the Pagan belief systems of the Northern hemisphere, and Southern were quite different. ( this is a whole other area of discussion)

This is a video that illustrates the changes, and sources of Xtain belief.

Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ - LiveVideo.com

The book is Who Was Jesus_ Fingerprints of Christ D.M. Murdoch

With the imposition of a One God system the amount of loving scripture can be juxtaposed by brutal ones. The result IS intolerance toward unbelievers Mainly, and toward anyone who strays from a denomination. The degree of intolerance depends on the denominations. The splitting from RC illustrates how people revolt to the brutality or embrace it.

Either way i agree with Dawkins account that religion leaves people crippled mentally and entrapped.

Keep in mind the average person, worker or slave could not read or write when the onslaught of Roman Catholicism began. This was also a major tool used by the church to exert it's dogma onto others. Most information was shared orally and pictorially through symbols, structures and hieroglyphs and the Church ( Roman Army)set about destroying as much archaeological evidence as it could through conquests that spread across all of Europe. Pain, the administering of it, and the relief, is key to controlling people.

The symbolic nature of sharing information changed to the written language we have today. When people lose sight of the 3 dimensional aspects of symbolism, transferring to belief and complete understanding, they are easier to manipulate with One dimensional Language.

As for Wilson. Attaching evolutionary importance upon religion is basically saying there is no wrong or right. It just happens. I still beleive that may be the case with organic organisms, but placing the same evolutionary tags on Ideas created in the mind of man means morality shouldn't exist or be a factor?

I'm still tossing his opposition of Dawkins around in my head.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

Okay, so lets do this exercise Wilson does with his students. I'll list some terms that define good traits and evil traits that we can all probably agree with, and I will then follow that up with three questions.

Good.............................................................................Evil

altruism.........................................................................selfishness

honesty.........................................................................deceit

love................................................................................hatred

sacrifice.........................................................................avarice

bravery..........................................................................cowardice

loyalty............................................................................betrayal

forgiveness....................................................................spite

Now consider this question: What will happen if you put a good person and an evil person together on a deserted desert Island?

After you answer that question, consider this one: What will happen if you put a group of good people on one island and a group of evil people on another island with no way to travel between islands?

After you answer those two questions, I'll give you the third and final question.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Amythest
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:28 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Amythest »

What will happen if you put a good person and an evil person together on a deserted desert Island?

If you put a good person and an evil one on an island the evil one will dominate and prevail. Use the good one for his gain and survival. The good one, due to his qualities, will succumb eventually, or take on some evil traits to survive.

If the island has plenty of food and water they may seperate and have a psuh pull relationship. The good one will have to work harder, and drain his strength to survive due to the evil ones deciet betrayla and avarice. IMHO

What will happen if you put a group of good people on one island and a group of evil people on another island with no way to travel between islands?

The good people will live in relative harmony. They will share duties and eachother, care and resolve confict in a fair non-shaming manner. They would thrive and multiply like happy rodents!The submissive ones would allow their leaders to dominate and lead. Leaders will consider the well being of the group befor any major decision regarding the community will be made.

The evil will slowly erode all of their relationships into chaos, will be in constant conflict, have a broken community. THe dominant ones will be under attack constantly. Power struggles will reign. It would be hard almost impossible to reproduce under those circumstances. Anger will escalate and perhaps murders. I doubt they would live long.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by LarsMac »

Since most humans carry all those traits to some point or another, the questions are not totally valid.

However, the "good" person would attempt to cooperate in the spirit of common survival. The "evil" one would find ways to use this for his own gain, but until there was a point of contention, they would coexist.

When it finally came to a showdown, the more clever and quick-witted would gain the advantage.

As for the two groups, the "good" people would be happy on their island while the "evil" ones would hate each other and their island, and strive for a way to get over to the "good" island where it must be better.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
Amythest
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:28 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Amythest »

LarsMac;1291781 wrote: Since most humans carry all those traits to some point or another, the questions are not totally valid.




I just wanted to cooperate unquestioning for a change to get to the next question quicker.:yh_rotfl
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

It's pretty easy to figure out what would happen eventually. In the first scenario, it would more than likely be a matter of time before the good person became a meal. Its easier to make that choice when the "evil" traits are the driving force.

The second scenario is equally simple to figure. The good group will undoubtedly out survive the evil group.

Amythest;1291616 wrote:

As for Wilson. Attaching evolutionary importance upon religion is basically saying there is no wrong or right. It just happens. I still beleive that may be the case with organic organisms, but placing the same evolutionary tags on Ideas created in the mind of man means morality shouldn't exist or be a factor?

I'm still tossing his opposition of Dawkins around in my head.First thing worth noting here is we defined morality without the concept of religion. So we can see that Wilson is not saying morality shouldn't exist or be a factor, what he is saying is religion is not necessary for morality to exist.

And Wilson is not attaching evolutionary importance, but rather he is proving, like honey bees, we naturally, through the process of evolution, work as a group to survive when we share the same values ("values" being our honey comb).

Secondly, it becomes crystal clear at the individual level evil wins out, however, at the group level, goodness wins. This is an instinctive understanding we have and so Wilson says, due to that fact, grouping is an "adaptation" Because when speaking of evolution there are only two driving forces - survival and reproduction. Thus the need for the creation of stories to entice people to group (religion). Therefore religion is an adaptation.

So now we throw a wrench into the scenario: What will happen if one person from evil island makes it over to good island?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Ahso!;1291727 wrote: Okay, so lets do this exercise Wilson does with his students. I'll list some terms that define good traits and evil traits that we can all probably agree with, and I will then follow that up with three questions.

Good.............................................................................Evil

altruism.........................................................................selfishness

honesty.........................................................................deceit

love................................................................................hatred

sacrifice.........................................................................avarice

bravery..........................................................................cowardice

loyalty............................................................................betrayal

forgiveness....................................................................spite

Now consider this question: What will happen if you put a good person and an evil person together on a deserted desert Island?

After you answer that question, consider this one: What will happen if you put a group of good people on one island and a group of evil people on another island with no way to travel between islands?

After you answer those two questions, I'll give you the third and final question.


Very interesting questions ... IMO the qualities we consider 'good' are just the ones that enable group survival.

On an individual level, I think the "evil" guy would win the evolutionary contest.

In a group setting though, the selfish group would tend towards self-annihilation.

IMO Humans are somewhere in the middle, since they form small groups but tend to extend evil to everyone outside the tribe. I think the tension between "good and evil" is mostly about maintaining double standards across group boundaries. Evil is having a tribe of size = 1.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Ahso!;1291808 wrote: So now we throw a wrench into the scenario: What will happen if one person from evil island makes it over to good island?


I suspect the behaviours will spread like a disease, and push the group to the middle. People will only put up with getting stabbed in the middle of the night for so long :)
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by gmc »

posted by amethyst

As for Wilson. Attaching evolutionary importance upon religion is basically saying there is no wrong or right. It just happens. I still beleive that may be the case with organic organisms, but placing the same evolutionary tags on Ideas created in the mind of man means morality shouldn't exist or be a factor?

I'm still tossing his opposition of Dawkins around in my head.


Still haven't read wilson but seems to me it's almost like some writers don't like to say things to upset the religious and so to argue religion, and particularly monotheistic desert religions as being a necessary part of evolution is a cop out perhaps. That the vast majority of the worlds population managed to develop civilisation without the benefit of Christianity or islam and even now still manage to be civilised they seem to ignore

I'm inclined to agree with dawkins in that religion and it's present revival is something we should be concerned about. If it's in a backward country we can ignore it but the US doesn't really qualify as such. Since christian fundamentalists are mainly protestants and the number of catholics is increasing in the states there could be interesting conflicts to come. If they succeed in re-instating God at the centre of the US constitution which one will it be, catholic or protestant?

We have a Mormon chapel near where I live-the american missionaries that visit are completely flabbergasted when they came face to face with rabid sectarianism, tis a wonder to behold.

posted by ahso

So now we throw a wrench into the scenario: What will happen if one person from evil island makes it over to good island?




The good people will eventually twig what he is doing sit down together and draw up a body of laws to deal with the situation. Secular good people will discuss it rationally and come to a plan of action. Being brave and the evil person a coward he has no chance. Religious people will run around looking for the answer and some guidance and if the evil person happens to be a priest they are stuffed and will end up subservient to the church. this demonstrating that religion is inimical to the survival of a fair society and it's only when people start thinking for themselves mankind gets anywhere.

posted by ahso

Secondly, it becomes crystal clear at the individual level evil wins out, however, at the group level, goodness wins. This is an instinctive understanding we have and so Wilson says, due to that fact, grouping is an "adaptation" Because when speaking of evolution there are only two driving forces - survival and reproduction. Thus the need for the creation of stories to entice people to group (religion). Therefore religion is an adaptation.


It is also a potentially destructive one and possibly terminal for the society that doesn't continue adapting and take in new ideas.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

gmc;1292139 wrote:

The good people will eventually twig what he is doing sit down together and draw up a body of laws to deal with the situation. Secular good people will discuss it rationally and come to a plan of action. Being brave and the evil person a coward he has no chance. Religious people will run around looking for the answer and some guidance and if the evil person happens to be a priest they are stuffed and will end up subservient to the church. this demonstrating that religion is inimical to the survival of a fair society and it's only when people start thinking for themselves mankind gets anywhere.



It is also a potentially destructive one and possibly terminal for the society that doesn't continue adapting and take in new ideas.Religion does not exist here.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by gmc »

Ahso!;1292146 wrote: Religion does not exist here.


In that case the evil person has no chance of succeeding the rest will gang up on him and sort things out. It takes religion to make a good man do evil. :sneaky:

I really must read wilson I think.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Richard Dawkins verses David Sloan Wilson - On Religion

Post by Ahso! »

gmc;1292156 wrote: In that case the evil person has no chance of succeeding the rest will gang up on him and sort things out. It takes religion to make a good man do evil. :sneaky:

I really must read wilson I think.An excellent book is Evolution for everyone.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy”