6 ms·

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-o

• 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.