Hi Deric, Great blog. Just come across it, so cat...

2010-01-29T04:34:08.611-06:00

Hi Deric,

Great blog. Just come across it, so catching some older posts.

"For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors." - I don't see why this should be the case, if by atheists it means those people who default to atheism based on the rational interpretation of science and every day evidence (or lack of evidence for religious claims). I suppose it could be said of the dogmatic atheists (i.e the 'faith' atheists).

There's no need for detente between religion and science. Science should be able to account for religion one way or another eventually. Religion is just another topic to study and explain. The antagonism assumed in the article is between the currently religious and the currently non-religious, particular those of the latter who base their world view on a rational interpretation of scientific investigations and who resent having their behaviour dictated by those who claim religious authority.

"But perhaps it doesn’t deserve either blame or credit." - The religious are quick to make great claims and attribute credit to religion. It's reasonable for the non-religious to highlight the shortcomings of religion - to draw attention to or to blame religion for certain acts performed in its name. The fault with religion in this respect is not that any particular religion does inherently prescribe abhorrent acts (though some do), it's more that religion's claims for authority, prescription of obedience and general indoctrination of its followers makes them susceptible to persuasion to the extent that it's easier for manipulative leaders to prescribe abhorrent acts, whether the religion does or not.

Comments on Deric Bownds' MindBlog: Evolution of "the God gene"

Hi Deric, Great blog. Just come across it, so cat...