Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

[fishbob]

numbered for my convenience:

1 - Has Dawkins recently presented an up to date position group selection?
2 - If so, I would like to know about it.
3 - If not, why the barbed comments about Sloan Wilson?

1 - irrelevant to this discussion
2 - also irrelevant to this discussion
3 -

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.

is irrelevant to Dawkins critique.

 

[andyandy]

Sure. Where is your location? I resurrected the thread and my position. If you are in the UK, you may not be aware of the insidiousness of religion in the US. read the OP first...because that is what the thread was originally about.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85338&page=13

cheers - i'll post in that a little later...

The geographical disjoint in opinions on religion is sometimes apparent on JREF - one's reality of course shapes one's judgments....

i can't speak for all English folk, but for me religion has no discernable detrimental impact on my life or on the lives of people around me, either on a societal level or on a personal level. A minority of people go to church, those that do are reticent to talk about their faith. The general reaction to someone who was openly religious and wanted to talk about it would be negative - such a person would be a bit "weird"...
most people are apathetic cultural christians or wooly deistists whose faith is no more relevant than their belief that their horoscope really does work
The church is co-opted by the state - and has little or no political impact - objections to laws it occasionally has are ignored or generally ridiculed in the press, and so for the most part it remains wholly apolitical.
This is my own impression - and whilst general and annecdotal it should give some illumination as to why some may find it difficult to share such strong general anti-religious zeal. I can appreciate from what i read on JREF that in America things are somewhat different - but to make a case for something like "religion is child abuse" one must consider religion as a broad entity.

 

[articulett]

cheers - i'll post in that a little later...

The geographical disjoint in opinions on religion is sometimes apparent on JREF - one's reality of course shapes one's judgments....

i can't speak for all English folk, but for me religion has no discernable detrimental impact on my life or on the lives of people around me, either on a societal level or on a personal level. A minority of people go to church, those that do are reticent to talk about their faith. The general reaction to someone who was openly religious and wanted to talk about it would be negative - such a person would be a bit "weird"...
most people are apathetic cultural christians or wooly deistists whose faith is no more relevant than their belief that their horoscope really does work
The church is co-opted by the state - and has little or no political impact - objections to laws it occasionally has are ignored or generally ridiculed in the press, and so for the most part it remains wholly apolitical.
This is my own impression - and whilst general and annecdotal it should give some illumination as to why some may find it difficult to share such strong general anti-religious zeal. I can appreciate from what i read on JREF that in America things are somewhat different - but to make a case for something like "religion is child abuse" one must consider religion as a broad entity.

Yes, Andy... I thought it was like that here, but things have been insidious and growing. Look at this:http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
and this: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1206,A-Look-at-Regent-University,Bill-Moyers-Journal

It's just gotten a bit backwards here in the crazy USA...the rednecks spawn a lot, you know...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_surrounded.php

I hope a creationist museum or tour guide would be laughed out of existence in the UK.

 

[John Hewitt]

1 - irrelevant to this discussion
2 - also irrelevant to this discussion
3 - is irrelevant to Dawkins critique.

But not irrelevant to this thread - in fact it is the topic of this thread,

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

cheers - i'll post in that a little later...

The geographical disjoint in opinions on religion is sometimes apparent on JREF - one's reality of course shapes one's judgments....

i can't speak for all English folk, but for me religion has no discernable detrimental impact on my life or on the lives of people around me, either on a societal level or on a personal level. A minority of people go to church, those that do are reticent to talk about their faith. The general reaction to someone who was openly religious and wanted to talk about it would be negative - such a person would be a bit "weird"...
most people are apathetic cultural christians or wooly deistists whose faith is no more relevant than their belief that their horoscope really does work
The church is co-opted by the state - and has little or no political impact - objections to laws it occasionally has are ignored or generally ridiculed in the press, and so for the most part it remains wholly apolitical.
This is my own impression - and whilst general and annecdotal it should give some illumination as to why some may find it difficult to share such strong general anti-religious zeal. I can appreciate from what i read on JREF that in America things are somewhat different - but to make a case for something like "religion is child abuse" one must consider religion as a broad entity.

Hmmm. What about the bloke* who's been running the country for the last 10 years? Faith schools? Peter Vardy? Plays being taken off the stage because they offend Sheiks? 7/7? Glasgow airport? All these and more pass you by?

Not forgetting my favorite subject: Muslims and Jews being allowed to circumcise their male children in the UK.

Religion is still given special attention and reverence in the UK, science is distrusted (e.g., mobile phones and WiFi) and new-age woo thinking abounds.

Even the science museum has a large display on current Ayurvedic medicine in the history of medicine section!

Are you sure you live in the same country as me, andyandy?

*Kinda funny a Christian (or Catholic??) is the new middle-east envoy who thinks he can mediate between warring Jews, Muslims and Muslims

ETA: I've just realized that the phrase "the bloke who's been running the country" may be confusing. I was referring to Tony Blair, not G.W. Bush!

 

[articulett]

But not irrelevant to this thread - in fact it is the topic of this thread,

John--you and Wilson miss the point. Dawkins was writing a book about whether there is evidence for god or not--just like Victor Stenger. Plenty of people have written about religion and group selection. Sure it promotes group survival--you kill your enemies and tell your women to go forth and multiply--what more group selection could you want. Any genes that help in group alliance building and functioning and reproducing in a society are selected because they make it more likely that such genes will live and spawn. Plus, humans trust authority figures...it's essential as children. Religion hijacks this and pretends to speak for some invisible authority figure. It's a great meme that has been invented again and again in all sorts of varieties to gain allegiances, cooperation, power, access to women, and money. It perpetuates itself just like a chain letter. Why should Dawkins care about evolutionary aspects of religion and group selection if it just isn't true --and gets it gets in the way of people understanding actual facts.

I know you think that you have a better theory for group selection--but submit it for peer review instead of taking Dawkins to task for not writing the book saying the stuff you want to challenge him on. Or read Wilson...that's his specialty isn't it. Why would you expect Dawkins to write such a book when there are more pressing things getting in the way of the "public understanding of science"--? Somehow, the book you and Sloan seem to think he should have written doesn't sound quite like the bestseller he has now.

 

[andyandy]

Hmmm. What about the bloke* who's been running the country for the last 10 years? Faith schools? Peter Vardy? Plays being taken off the stage because they offend Sheiks? 7/7? Glasgow airport? All these and more pass you by?

Not forgetting my favorite subject: Muslims and Jews being allowed to circumcise their male children in the UK.

Religion is still given special attention and reverence in the UK, science is distrusted (e.g., mobile phones and WiFi) and new-age woo thinking abounds.

Even the science museum has a large display on current Ayurvedic medicine in the history of medicine section!

Are you sure you live in the same country as me, andyandy?

*Kinda funny a Christian (or Catholic??) is the new middle-east envoy who thinks he can mediate between warring Jews, Muslims and Muslims

ETA: I've just realized that the phrase "the bloke who's been running the country" may be confusing. I was referring to Tony Blair, not G.W. Bush!

come on ivor,
1) What impact did christianity have upon TB's politics? Did you ever even hear him mention his belief? What policies resulted from it?
2) Faith schools so what? We've always had faith in school. The current policy is nothing new. In any case I think it's the best innoculation against religion there is. Nothing makes students dislike something more than forcing them to do it at school Much like in the drugs debate, regulation and control is far more preferable than unregulation. We have coopted religion into the state system, and from within it has been eaten away.
3) Peter Vardy? Who?
4) massively unrepresentative tabloid fodder - how many plays have been taken off due to religious unhappiness over the past decade? In any case I was specifically talking about Christianity as that is the overwhelming religious majority. What plays has Christianity pulled recently?
5) Again that there are a incredibly small muslim extremist fringe is secondary to the overwhelming religious majority to which i was refering.
6) Again not releveant to the overwhelming religious majority.
7) Religion is still given special attention and reverence in the UK..? Reverence? I'm not sure you are living in the same country as me How many people do you know that revere religion?
8) woo is general is of course prevalent - but we are talking about religion. One could broaden from "religion" to "irrationality" but then the subject is so dilute as to be practiaclly homeopathic.

*ok so i had to google Reg Vardy - again that there is a tiny majority of religious loons does not detract from the general point.

some polls,

British Social Attitudes Survey, 1992
31% do not believe in God.
69% believe in God, but
80% do not believe God determines our lives,
79% do not believe God gives meaning to life,
72% do not believe in Heaven or Hell,
63% do not believe that God is personally concerned with human beings,
2% attend C of E services at Easter.
(C of E survey)

Populus poll, The Sun , June 2005
27% are atheists;
70% believe in "God or some form of higher power";
3% don't know;
35% never pray;
35% never attend a place of worship;
53% said it was not important for the nation's leader to have a strong religious belief;
23% think there is no afterlife.

hurch attendance 7.9%, 2002/3
Total church attendance in GB is 7.9% of adults for all denominations (England 7.4%, Wales 7.4%, Scotland 13.4%)
( Religious Trends, 2002/2003)

68% of marriages civil ceremonies in 2003
Since 1992, there have been more civil marriage ceremonies in England and Wales than religious ceremonies. In 2003, 68% of marriages were civil ceremonies.
Office of National Statistics

I don't see anything that runs contrary to my earlier post

A minority of people go to church, those that do are reticent to talk about their faith. The general reaction to someone who was openly religious and wanted to talk about it would be negative - such a person would be a bit "weird"...
most people are apathetic cultural christians or wooly deistists whose faith is no more relevant than their belief that their horoscope really does work
The church is co-opted by the state - and has little or no political impact - objections to laws it occasionally has are ignored or generally ridiculed in the press, and so for the most part it remains wholly apolitical

do you actually disagree with anything in it?

 

[John Hewitt]

John--you and Wilson miss the point. Dawkins was writing a book about whether there is evidence for god or not--just like Victor Stenger. Plenty of people have written about religion and group selection. Sure it promotes group survival--you kill your enemies and tell your women to go forth and multiply--what more group selection could you want. Any genes that help in group alliance building and functioning and reproducing in a society are selected because they make it more likely that such genes will live and spawn. Plus, humans trust authority figures...it's essential as children.
<snip>
Somehow, the book you and Sloan seem to think he should have written doesn't sound quite like the bestseller he has now.

No, you miss the point. It is true that I think my own interpretation of evolutionary theory is better than that of Dawkins but I also think it an improvement on Sloan Wilson's approach. That said, I do like Sloan Wilson (as a scientist, I don't actually know him) and I admire the way he has stood out for a sensible analysis about group selection but I really have no personal axe to grind between the two of them or between their works.

We are not actually talking about "The God Delusion" itself. This thread was introduced by Dawkins' reply to David Sloan Wilson. Neither of these men hold to any religious commitment, so your comments about religion are immaterial. This is a "dialogue," insofar as the level of Dawkins' comments can be called part of a dialogue, between professional scientists. Both have a viewpoint and both those viewpoints are supported by many other professional scientists. Yet, on the face of it, Dawkins does not try to reply Sloan Wilson. Instead, he refers to him as obsessing and to Assyrian woodwind instruments. Such comments just came over as rude mockery. They seemed to me entirely inappropriate and an entire disregard of the scientific points at issue.

It also seems to me that you exhibit an undue trust in Dawkins as an authority figure. I hope you will not build any shrines to him.

 

[andyandy]

This sums up my general sentiment...

When we first moved in [from America] I told my wife not to expect to sleep late on Sunday mornings. "I bet there's a lot of traffic," I said.
.
But the first Sunday came, and then the second, and now two months have gone by — and nary a car drove past. All was quiet on Church Lane.
.
I found out why from watching a fascinating 90-minute documentary on the BBC this week, called "What the World Thinks of God." The program polled 10,000 people in 10 countries and found Britain to be among the most godless societies in the world.
.
The British were near the bottom of the list on church attendance, with only 21 percent saying that they regularly go to church. That compared with 54 percent in the United States and 91 percent in the most church-going country, Nigeria. The only country that had lower church attendance than Britain was Russia, with 7 percent. The Russians, I figured, had a good excuse — 70 years of a godless ideology called Communism. What's with the British?
.
I turned to some of the other findings of the survey for answers. The British apparently don't go to church because they don't believe in God. Only 46 percent held theistic beliefs, compared with 79 percent in the United States and 98 percent in Nigeria. The only countries with fewer believers were, not surprisingly, Russia, with 42 percent, and South Korea with 31 percent. (Given that nearly half South Koreans practice Buddhism, a non-theistic religion, belief in God wasn't going to be high on the list there.)
.
The survey, conducted in December and January for the BBC by the pollster ICM, also found that the British don't put much stock in religion. Worldwide, 80 percent of respondents said that a belief in God makes people better. Among the British, only 56 percent agreed.
.
The BBC put together a panel of experts, some in the studio and some by satellite, to discuss the results. They were hooked into Johannesburg, Jerusalem, Paris and New York among other places. I was mostly interested in the contrast with the United States, since that remains my home. Everyone agreed that despite the fact that it has an official church, the Church of England, Britain is a very secular country.
.
America, with no official church, is a far more religious country — another example of the power of a free market. Competition is apparently good, both for business and for faith. People need to have choices. In America, if you don't like one church, go to another — or to a synagogue or mosque for that matter. It's not quite as simple in England, where one church dominates — or at least tries to.
.
But there was another lesson in all this, best articulated in the BBC program by Richard Land, a leading Southern Baptist in the United States who has close ties to President George W. Bush. Land said that Americans and British often get lulled into thinking they're the same. After all, we share the same language and, in recent years, similar foreign policy. But, he added, we don't share the same religious commitments.
.
In Britain, people don't talk about religion in polite conversation, while Americans, especially the growing body of evangelical Christians, are eager to talk.
.
I can't say I mind. We sleep a lot better now on Sunday mornings here on Church Lane.
.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/02/28/edari_ed3_.php

 

[andyandy]

A little more....

More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension - greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good.
The poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. It paints a picture of a sceptical nation with massive doubts about the effect religion has on society: 82% of those questioned say they see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16% disagree. The findings are at odds with attempts by some religious leaders to define the country as one made up of many faith communities.

Most people have no personal faith, the poll shows, with only 33% of those questioned describing themselves as "a religious person". A clear majority, 63%, say that they are not religious - including more than half of those who describe themselves as Christian.
Older people and women are the most likely to believe in a god, with 37% of women saying they are religious, compared with 29% of men.

The findings come at the end of a year in which multiculturalism and the role of different faiths in society has been at the heart of a divisive political debate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1978045,00.html

 

[Herzblut]

More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension - greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good.

I wonder how this compares to prior to 7/7. Thereby asserting a major impact of 7/7 on the Brits' belief sets, of course.

Herzblut

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

come on ivor,
1) What impact did christianity have upon TB's politics? Did you ever even hear him mention his belief? What policies resulted from it?

Only when he was tossing up whether or not to invade Iraq. Nothing important.

2) Faith schools so what? We've always had faith in school. The current policy is nothing new. In any case I think it's the best innoculation against religion there is. Nothing makes students dislike something more than forcing them to do it at school Much like in the drugs debate, regulation and control is far more preferable than unregulation. We have coopted religion into the state system, and from within it has been eaten away.

For middle class white children I'd tend to agree with you.

3) Peter Vardy? Who?

Try this.

4) massively unrepresentative tabloid fodder - how many plays have been taken off due to religious unhappiness over the past decade?

At least one

In any case I was specifically talking about Christianity as that is the overwhelming religious majority. What plays has Christianity pulled recently?

None that I'm aware of.

5) Again that there are a incredibly small muslim extremist fringe is secondary to the overwhelming religious majority to which i was refering.

6) Again not releveant to the overwhelming religious majority.

Where do you think extremists (of any faith) start out?

7) Religion is still given special attention and reverence in the UK..? Reverence? I'm not sure you are living in the same country as me How many people do you know that revere religion?

Most of the Muslims I know, some of the Catholics, many Christians of African or West Indian descent.

8) woo is general is of course prevalent - but we are talking about religion. One could broaden from "religion" to "irrationality" but then the subject is so dilute as to be practiaclly homeopathic.

Ok.

I don't see anything that runs contrary to my earlier post

A minority of people go to church, those that do are reticent to talk about their faith. The general reaction to someone who was openly religious and wanted to talk about it would be negative - such a person would be a bit "weird"...
most people are apathetic cultural christians or wooly deistists whose faith is no more relevant than their belief that their horoscope really does work
The church is co-opted by the state - and has little or no political impact - objections to laws it occasionally has are ignored or generally ridiculed in the press, and so for the most part it remains wholly apolitical

do you actually disagree with anything in it?

If you were referring just to the Christian faith then I largely agree; most British Christians are pretty apathetic. However, there are significant sized minority communities in the UK which take religion VERY seriously.

 

[andyandy]

Only when he was tossing up whether or not to invade Iraq. Nothing important.

Wasn't that story just that Blair said that his faith had helped him through his decisions or something equally wooly?

here it is...

Prime Minister Tony Blair has told how he prayed to God when deciding whether or not to send UK troops to Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4772142.stm

It's a pretty unremarkable statement - there's no suggestion that his religion actually affected his decision.

If you were referring just to the Christian faith then I largely agree; most British Christians are pretty apathetic. However, there are significant sized minority communities in the UK which take religion VERY seriously.

I was refering to the religous majority...I agree that amongst some minority communities religion is much more important - but even islam, by far the biggest minority religion only accounts for 2.7% of the population - after that you have Hinduism with 1% and the rest in decimals.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Wasn't that story just that Blair said that his faith had helped him through his decisions or something equally wooly?

What he said is here.

I was refering to the religous majority...I agree that amongst some minority communities religion is much more important - but even islam, by far the biggest minority religion only accounts for 2.7% of the population - after that you have Hinduism with 1% and the rest in decimals.

Seems more than that when you've lived and worked in places near Birmingham, Bradford and Leicester!

ETA: You found a better link than me!

 

[andyandy]

What he said is here.

you beat me to the edit I don't see anything especially remarkable about what he said....

prayer of the

"Dear God, please help me make the right decision"

type, would be implied rather than the

"Dear God, should I invade Iraq, if yes please make the next animal I see be a cat, if no make it a dog, if you are unsure make it a pigeon."

type....

Seems more than that when you've lived and worked in places near Birmingham, Bradford and Leicester!

quite possibly

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

you beat me to the edit I don't see anything especially remarkable about what he said....

prayer of the

"Dear God, please help me make the right decision"

type, would be implied rather than the

"Dear God, should I invade Iraq, if yes please make the next animal I see be a cat, if no make it a dog, if you are unsure make it a pigeon."

type....

...and then Cherie walked into the room.

"But God, I really think I should invade."

 

[andyandy]

...and then Cherie walked into the room.

"But God, I really think I should invade."

boom boom

 

[articulett]

you beat me to the edit I don't see anything especially remarkable about what he said....

prayer of the

"Dear God, please help me make the right decision"

type, would be implied rather than the

"Dear God, should I invade Iraq, if yes please make the next animal I see be a cat, if no make it a dog, if you are unsure make it a pigeon."

type....

Yes... but the Downing Street Memo...

TB was in league with a guy who flat out said "god told him to invade Iraq"


quite possibly

But in any case... enforced religion has helped make Brits rebellious about it--meanwhile it's been festering like a cancer in America and no one knew the power and money the nutters were accumulating... Really, Dawkins is a hero to many people in America for saying what many people think. All this endless flummery about whether religion is good or bad or why it evolved-- it's all to avoid the real question--

Is it true?

Any of it? Is there any reason we should defer to the faithful or faith or belief? Is it worthy of respect? Is it okay to teach opinions and beliefs as "higher truths"? Is it safe to encourage a populace where people think that what they believe is a key to their salvation.

Is it true?

All these nutty arguments about semantics and so forth just seem to be avoiding this very important question. Dawkins doesn't. That's why his book is a best seller.

 

[articulett]

It also seems to me that you exhibit an undue trust in Dawkins as an authority figure. I hope you will not build any shrines to him.

Creationists always say that. If it was Sagan or Newton or Einstein they wouldn't play this silly semantic game.

I don't care about the evolution of religion. I care about whether there is any reason to believe that it is true.

And Dawkins cares too. That's the real thing people want to know. Is it "safe" to not believe? What questions have we been avoiding because we were taught that it is arrogant to question god? I think all these semantic games are distractions to avoid the real question--

Is it true? Any of it? Is there any good reason to believe any of it?

 

[newlyfound]

I can agree that religion can be hugely harmful - but the generalisation that it is therefore child abuse does require some rigour.

If child abuse is "not telling the truth to children" then surely all parents are guilty
If child abuse is "telling your children something you believe to be true, (even though you have no empirical evidence for that belief)" then again most parents would be guilty
if child abuse is "telling your children something that you believe to be true, but others believe to be false" then all parents are guilty.

Lying to a child for any reason (religious included) on a consistant basis is being dishonest toward them. They in turn lie and practice dishonesty later on in life toward all including themselves. Some of the consequences of this is what you said about poor diet whether their parents teach them good dietary habits or not. Even knowing that some foods are not good for them they still might abuse them for reasons that might not be that bad at first sight, but the underlying one would be that they are simply being dishonest with themselves (as they have been taught and conditioned to) about how those foods are going to alter their health. This spreads to multiple areas such as drug and alcohol use, having toxic acquaintances even knowing those acquaintances are not in their interest, they still go ahead and maintain them etc. The consequences of child abuse do not have to manifest in one's early years.

I could dream up a hundred more examples....if "child abuse" simply means "does some harm to some children in some way" then of the thousands of decisions parents make which affect their children's lives, some will have to be classified as "child abuse"

True, but then religion will have to make the list and maybe as # 1. Religion and the matter of worshipping is an adult practice and subject. Children need to be kept out of it. If it is so good and healthful why then are we here? I have been brought up what I have brought up (not atheist) so have others, yet none of us still believe or practice the junk that have been shoved down our helpless tiny throats when we were little. What does that tell one? I don't want to touch the jews or muslims (simply because they are hopeless on the following platform) but for christians to be real christians they'd have to grasp the concept of unconditional love as Jesus taught. Unconditional love is loving one's child no matter what, and not only if they swallow the crap I tell about. If they really believe in how encampassing the holy spirit is, and how grand god is, what is so threatening about letting a child just grow and serenely develop on their own instead of telling them about how satan is out to get them and how if they don't listen they'd fright in hell? those 2 are some of the hard core basics of the 3 monotheistic religions. Why does a child have to worry and be frighted of having to go to a hell that doesn't exist if they don't do what mummy or daddy want then to? that is emotional and psychological abuse. Kids shouldn't have to fill their tiny heads with satan, hell and a sadistic god. They are children for humanity's sake, they shouldn't have to worry about this garbage. Parents mainly do that because they want to insure that the kids follow in their foots steps. They want them to believe what they believe whether it is real or not, whether it is good or not. They do that out of self-centeredness and pure egoism. And I'd add cruely as well.

*awaits the mudslinging and shrill cries of "apologist" for having the termerity not to subscribe to absolutely everything Dawkins says*

Dr. Dawkins is Humble Brilliant Man who works to find out specific facts about our condition, and them insures that the masses know about them, nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't think he is god (though in many ways he is) and neither do his readers. On the other hand the religious establishment is the one that seems to think it is above the law and that it is owed the Utmost Deference. And for what? for bs-ing people and cunning them.