3 ms·
I had the impression that precise arguments for each hypothesis are completely not important, and it looks more like being about politics than science. If we a
by st4lz 15y ago
I had the impression that precise arguments for each hypothesis are completely not important, and it looks more like being about politics than science.
If we assume that groups of cooperators can out-compete groups of non-cooperators (called 'heresy') as complete and true, we challenge Dawkin's atheism.
- al-king 15y agoNot sure I follow your last comment. Atheism is not implicitly uncooperative, and regardless Dawkins contends that atheism is correct, not that it's an optimal strategy.
- st4lz 15y agoFollowing the assumption above if you take more benefits belonging to a group, it doesn't matter what you think is correct, in evolutionary sense at least. I didn't try to say that atheism is uncooperative, rather there are attempts to put some theories in favor of religion in evolutionary biology.