RICHARD DAWKINS' "The ROOT OF ALL EVIL"

[kid-glove]

That statement in his piece is about what Dawkins seems to think of the situation "today" and not at that time

Gray writes about the book "The God delusion", and chapter "The roots of religion". The whole paragraph is on the book. And he writes pretty clearly 'if it were not inculcated in schools and families'. And a rubbish assertion to follow, of course.

Just to clarify, Thilak, Gray has used a present unreal conditional clause here. He's indeed talking about the present.

Dawkins never really manufactured a scenario that religion would not exist if it had been stopped in schools and families at "present".

The passages I quote is what Dawkins infers had been the reason why religious behavior had been propagated thus far, and that is a by-product.

Gray had got it wrong EVEN if he talked about "present". As I maintain, the bloke never got to read the book. And there are judgmental assertions spread across the article.

[kid-glove]

With so many arguments flying around, let me make clear what I mean. Among others, atheism is the ability to give up the belief in a set of rules or codes purportedly inherited from a divine source. So, there is nothing in atheism itself that drives anyone to mistreat fellow humans. It is a blank slate. Any other beliefs adopted by practitioners of atheism is solely due to their own failings as a human being and cannot be attributed to intepretation of any code (which cannot be said of religions). So, Lenin might have driven his comrades to loot the Orthodox Church during the Great Famine due to his hatred of religion, or Stalin might have embarked on a mission to wipe out 'Kulaks' or any of the following could have been comitted in the name of secularism, but they were all driven by personal hatred, power quest or other ideologies, perhaps political, but none of which can by no means be related to atheism). Murder of a religious man for his religious beliefs by any atheist corresponds to human nature in its barest form. Personality cults and allegiance to the state are examples of this barest form. Nothing can change that. There is no reason or set of codes to fall back on for the atheist to justify his behavior. Atheism, as I see it, is reasonable enough to change its sign on the London bus from "There is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" to "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".

Exactly. The italicized words especially. I believe we need to look across a more demeaning word if we were to frame such man-slayers on basis of religious belief. As you said, by grounds of atheism, it's human nature in its barest form, more in line with an "animal" so to speak, which by the way is an allusion to "Evolution" itself.

As Dawkins put it, such behavior could be attributed to "atheistic inclination" as it would to their moustache.

[equanimus]

Dawkins never really manufactured a scenario that religion would not exist if it had been stopped in schools and families at "present".

The passages I quote is what Dawkins infers had been the reason why religious behavior had been propagated thus far, and that is a by-product.

Gray had got it wrong EVEN if he talked about "present".

Oh, ok. Got it. I'd asked if you could clarify because you wrote, "Dawkins thinks of it a 'by-product' that might have been beneficial at the time," and in one of the passages you quoted, he does refer to religion as "an unfortunate by-product of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful."

[kid-glove]

The quotes which I put up here might have been singularly misleading . But when read in course of the full chapter, it is properly structured and arrives at a logical assertion - nothing like unfounded or fallacious as Gray would like to believe.

[kid-glove]

I concede being a bit guilty of not wording it properly. "beneficial at the time" does not fully texture the point "underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful".

In the book, it is explained further,

The idea of psychological by-products grows naturally out of the important and developing field of evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that, just as the eye is an evolved organ for seeing, and the wing an evolved organ for flying, so the brain is a collection of organs (or 'modules') for dealing with a set of specialist data-processing needs. There is a module for dealing with kinship, a module for dealing with reciprocal exchanges, a module for dealing with empathy, and so on. Religion can be seen as a by-product of the misfiring of several of these modules, for example the modules for forming theories of other minds, for forming coalitions, and for discriminating in favour of in-group members and against strangers. Any of these could serve as the human equivalent of the moths' celestial navigation, vulnerable to misfiring in the same kind of way as I suggested for childhood gullibility. The psychologist Paul Bloom, another advocate of the 'religion is a by-product' view, points out that children have a natural tendency towards a dualistic theory of mind. Religion, for him, is a by-product of such instinctive dualism. We humans, he suggests, and especially children, are natural born dualists. A dualist acknowledges a fundamental distinction between matter and mind. A monist, by contrast, believes that mind is a manifestation of matter - material in a brain or perhaps a computer

(and then he writes about intentional stance)

Not as if it's been "acquired" through generations, the origin of such thoughts/belief could be deduced from psychology. And remarkably enough, this explanation doesn't fully concede religious thoughts/inclinations being fully a "social construct" (Take note Mr.Gray), but also originated by some inherent psychological reaction in the brain, which would later be confounded, and latched-on by elders.

[harishkumar09]

Richard Dawkins books are awesome and thought provoking. A must read for atheists,theists and spiritualists.

[kannannn]

I think we are going around in circles. Nonetheless..

The Non-eastern religions clearly have it wrong in thinking that religion is about good and bad. That is simply not the point of it at all.

Anbu, the point of the debates, atleast from my perspective, is not to judge which religion is greatest, or if religion is the only way to spirituality. The arguments are if a belief in a supernatural being leads, down the line, to commit abhorent acts which we would not normally commit in the absence of such belief. Sufism, Hinduism and Buddhism may, or may not be ideal for spiritual reasons, but I would like to leave that debate for another time . I would, however, like to make this point.

In religion, concepts are not truth. A concept can at most be a pointer to Truth, and not anything else.

"When the sage points to the moon, all that the fool sees is the finger", said the Master . Unfortunately, for most of us the finger is all that is visible.

Nor does any ideology that seeks to propagate itself ideologically, rather than rationally. And every ideology has done this - including atheist ideologies (such as the Khmer Rouge, which sought to eradicate religion by force).

I have been meaning to say this before, but let us leave communism out of this. I am sure you will agree that the hatred to religion of communist governments you have quoted originates from the Marxist view that religion sustains class distinction. That view was first rooted in economics and later became political. That's a fascinating discussion in itself, but it is not very relevant to our arguments.

Dawkins says that when an atheist ideology uses means other than reason, it isn't the fault of atheism. Fine. But it does show that it isn't belief in God that makes an ideology susceptible to being used for evil. This isn't unique to religion - it's a lot more pervasive than that.

There is no such thing as atheist ideology. The ONLY belief in atheism is the belief in the absence of a God. Nothing more follows from that.

This is actually a sweeping statement and clearly relies more on a kind of faith than reason. What constitutes the "danger" that you're alluding to? Why exactly is any belief without reason "dangerous?" Or, to turn the tables, how exactly is any belief with reason good or even less "dangerous?" Note that I'm NOT arguing that belief with reason is dangerous, but merely questioning the opposite.

I think that is the root of our argument. Belief without reason can either be personal or communal. While personal irrational belief (I think we can agree to call belief without reason that) is not a threat to society, it could nonetheless lead the individual to commit acts which might harm him economically, physically or mentally. It is irrational belief, common to a group of people, I am more concerned with. It doesn't take long for such beliefs to morph into harmful acts detrimental to society. Examples can be given for both kinds of beliefs, but I will not do so, for fear of instigating a mud-slinging match. Belief with reason leads one to question that belief in light of new evidence. That ability to change one's belief stems from rationality and courage. Of course, there is always an element of chance that might lead to dangerous situations, but such chances are natural and beyond our control. I don't think the same can be said of irrational belief.

[podalangai]

There is no such thing as atheist ideology. The ONLY belief in atheism is the belief in the absence of a God. Nothing more follows from that.

If atheism is only belief in the absence of God, religion is only belief in God. If the trappings of communitarian ideologies which include belief in the absence of God say nothing about atheism, the trappings of communitarian ideologies which include belief in the existence of God also say nothing about religion.

Comparing the ideal of atheism with institutionalised religion is hardly a fair comparison, if the question is whether belief in God leads to evil (as Dawkins says it does). If the point is that religion as institutionalised belief leads to evil, I actually wouldn't argue with that - though, I would argue (and can elaborate, if there's a need) that the problem is institutionalisation, not belief.

[podalangai]

Great, thanks.

Apologies, this will be delayed. My library doesn't have two of the books I'd like to refer to (and I'm not going to rely on my fallible memory). I've ordered them, so give me a couple of weeks.

[podalangai]

While personal irrational belief (I think we can agree to call belief without reason that) is not a threat to society, it could nonetheless lead the individual to commit acts which might harm him economically

Apropos of which, a hasidic tale which I think you might like.

In Poland many years ago, a hasid was taking his son to heder [a type of Jewish primary school common in pre-Holocaust Europe]. As they walked across the village square, a grand carriage pulled by four magnificent white horses came down the road and drew to a halt in the square. Out stepped a man clad in rich furs trimmed with gold and wearing dazzling jewels.

The hasid turned to his son and said, "Look closely, my son. For unless you devote your life to God and his Torah, that is how you will end up."