3 ms·

I must preface this comment with a personal note: Dr. Dawkins is the reason I understand biology, evolution, and all living things. I have read all of his books

by FD3SA 15y ago

I must preface this comment with a personal note: Dr. Dawkins is the reason I understand biology, evolution, and all living things. I have read all of his books on evolution, including The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, and many others. This being said, I have always been appalled by Dawkins' deeply ironic crusade against religion. The simplest explanation for the widespread phenomenon of organized religion is best described by none other than Dawkins himself: Religion is a vestigial extended phenotype. Dawkins popularized the idea of an extended phenotype. This theory postulates that the phenotypic effects of genes are not restricted to a single organism. In effect, certain gene expressions could result in behaviours which affected the said gene's rate of survival. This is a profound theory, because it posits a very strong evolutionary foundation for human socialization and behaviour. As discussed in Robert Wright's "A Moral Animal", and Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen", among many other works, recent evidence has made Dawkins' extended phenotype theory extremely plausible. Thus, if we are to analyse religion from the view that it is a set of behaviours which maximizes a set of genes' reproductive success, everything begins making a great deal of sense. Paradoxically, if Dawkins used his his own theories to explain the phenotypic phenomenon that is organized religion, he'd have the vast support network of evolutionary scientists around the globe who would provide endless empirical examples[1] to validate his theory. Yet, Dawkins continues to treat religion as a philosophy, and attempts to tackle it philosophically. As many philosophers have pointed out, this is not Dawkins' strong point and he comes off sounding like an extremely misinformed amateur at best, and an inflammatory pundit at worst. Furthermore, it is the scientific explanation of religion which is likely to be the most useful and profound, and as Ridley, Wright, and many others have demonstrated, what we can learn from these insights are far more pertinent to the human condition than Dawkins' misplaced philosophical crusade. I sincerely hope Dr. Dawkins sees the unbelievable irony in his approach, and addresses it promptly. As one of the most popular scientists in media today, he could reverse a great deal of enmity that various religious groups have developed towards scientists and the scientific community. Scientific illiteracy is the greatest enemy of our time, and I do believe Dawkins is making the issue much worse by inflaming the public with his misinformed rhetoric. Science has explained every natural phenomena known to man, and its explanatory power is only growing as we gather new empirical evidence. There is a growing body of research which demonstrates that all human behaviour is guided by a deep evolutionary purpose. This is especially true of religious behaviours which are widespread and have severe fitness costs. Religious behaviours are thus best understood as a vestigial extended phenotype, and not as an ontological philosophy. [1]. http://evolution-of-religion.com/publications/ http://evolution-of-religion.com/publications/

robertk 15y ago
Dawkins is perfectly aware of this. In fact, he gives arguments of your flavor in The God Delusion. See also http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind... He is aware that his approach is not optimal in terms of changing people's minds, but I'm not so sure he cares. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik
- FD3SA 15y ago
  If Dawkins is aware of my points, his approach does not seem logical. The God Delusion approaches religion as a broken philosophy or a disease of the mind, not as an evolutionary phenomenon. He does not quote any of the plethora of papers written on this subject, such as can be found here: http://evolution-of-religion.com/publications/ http://evolution-of-religion.com/publications/ A scientific approach to religious behaviour would not invoke philosophical arguments such as NOMA, or dismissive arguments such as labelling behaviours practised by the majority of the human species as a "mass delusion".
  - robertk 15y ago
    It isn't. In terms of Eliezer-style rationality, a much more effective approach would be to study marketing and psychology techniques and take a more calculated approach to changing minds. But I think Dawkins is disinterested in this because of its artificial (albeit highly effective) nature, and would rather speak raw truth. For him, the goal is to get the scientific viewpoint out to as many people as possible, not change their minds. He would ideally like for them to realize on their own that the scientific viewpoint is more cogent. He knows there are more effective means, but perhaps it offends his notion of purity. I suppose that is ironic.
guygurari 15y ago
As pointed out by others, Dawkins does consider the evolutionary mechanisms behind evolution. In The God Delusion he offers additional possible mechanisms to the one you mention. But Dawkins' goal is not to understand the mechanism by which religion came about. Rather, it is to show people that religion is both wrong and harmful. You see, even if you find the spot in the brain that causes people to believe in God (if such a thing exists), it will not convince anyone that there is no God. The believers will simply say that God put it there. If you want to convince, logically, that there is no God, you have to do so at a philosophical level like Dawkins does. Having said that, I think it that there are more effective ways to achieve this goal than to ram people with the truth head-on like Dawkins does.

by FD3SA 15y ago

robertk 15y ago

Dawkins is perfectly aware of this. In fact, he gives arguments of your flavor in The God Delusion. See also http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind... He is aware that his approach is not optimal in terms of changing people's minds, but I'm not so sure he cares. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

FD3SA 15y ago
If Dawkins is aware of my points, his approach does not seem logical. The God Delusion approaches religion as a broken philosophy or a disease of the mind, not as an evolutionary phenomenon. He does not quote any of the plethora of papers written on this subject, such as can be found here: http://evolution-of-religion.com/publications/ http://evolution-of-religion.com/publications/ A scientific approach to religious behaviour would not invoke philosophical arguments such as NOMA, or dismissive arguments such as labelling behaviours practised by the majority of the human species as a "mass delusion".
- robertk 15y ago
  It isn't. In terms of Eliezer-style rationality, a much more effective approach would be to study marketing and psychology techniques and take a more calculated approach to changing minds. But I think Dawkins is disinterested in this because of its artificial (albeit highly effective) nature, and would rather speak raw truth. For him, the goal is to get the scientific viewpoint out to as many people as possible, not change their minds. He would ideally like for them to realize on their own that the scientific viewpoint is more cogent. He knows there are more effective means, but perhaps it offends his notion of purity. I suppose that is ironic.

guygurari 15y ago

As pointed out by others, Dawkins does consider the evolutionary mechanisms behind evolution. In The God Delusion he offers additional possible mechanisms to the one you mention. But Dawkins' goal is not to understand the mechanism by which religion came about. Rather, it is to show people that religion is both wrong and harmful. You see, even if you find the spot in the brain that causes people to believe in God (if such a thing exists), it will not convince anyone that there is no God. The believers will simply say that God put it there. If you want to convince, logically, that there is no God, you have to do so at a philosophical level like Dawkins does. Having said that, I think it that there are more effective ways to achieve this goal than to ram people with the truth head-on like Dawkins does.