Dawkins - Nature of Belief

"Is" and "Ought" are not synonyms, is why.

"Is.""Ought."They're not the same thing. Clear?No? Wikipedia:

quote:

---

In meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was raised by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711-1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. But there seems to be a big difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive statements (about what ought to be).

---

Is—ought problem - WikipediaIn other words - to say that something is is not to say that that's the way it ought to be.In other words, when you ask this:

quote:

---

I am curious to know why he is so passionately against religiosity when religious affinities, if we all were to agree they derive from some natural predilection, are as natural as any biological function.

---

you're committing the naturalistic fallacy - the implication that because religious belief exists, it's a good thing, and we should keep it around.Dawkins is against religiosity for the same reason he's against liver flukes and athlete's foot - even though they may all be natural, that's not to say that they're desirable."Is" is not "ought." Is it clear, yet?

Well, then, so what? Sure, religion is a natural thing. Why would that have anything to do with Dawkins' view that religion is harmful? ...wha? How or why what is? Why cancer is bad?I don't understand what you're trying to say. Human parasites and disease are also clearly in abundance, but they're not positive for humanity. I think your mistake here is the idea that everything nature selects for, it does on behalf of humanity's best interest.That's not the case. Religion exists, it's prevalence may have no effect on human evolution. It may be a perversion of an advantageous mental trait - like, perhaps, children accepting without question information from their parents, or arriving at conclusions based on limited evidence, or seeing obscure connections between events. (This is Dawkins' view, as I recall.)Or it might be an advantageous trait, as you suggest. I don't think we know. Nonetheless it's plain to see that religion is a net negative in today's society, regardless of whether or not being religious was a survival benefit for cavemen.I don't think there's "no sign of relenting." Books like Dawkins' were unheard of, not ten years ago. I really do think we're entering an age where the invulnerability of religion to criticism will be revoked.

Oh, for God's sake. Dawkins has written books on a wide variety of subjects.But the second he tackles religion, people like you act like he's been on a single-minded crusade his entire life. Could you be a little less oversensitive, please? Well, look. It's not like religion is a thing that would exist even if humans weren't around. It's not a material or a resource we're using, like oil or electricity.It's a human activity. There's nothing to religion except for what humans are doing with it. Claims that "religion is good but people make it bad" are pretty specious, as far as I can tell. Even if that's true - if humans can't use it responsibly - then better we should not have it around to misuse. I think maybe you have no idea what you're talking about, here. He's written one book about religious belief. His other books are about biology. It's just plain ignorant to say he's been writing books like The God Delusion for 20 years; that's not at all what his other books are like.

Right. Insensitive to others, oversensitive about yourself. It's called "narcissism." And I'm saying - you can't say "religion is ok; it's just what people do with it" because all religion is is what people are doing with it.I understood you the first time, NJ. You're just wrong. So that's one of three. The Blind Watchmaker is about bioinformatics. A Devil's Chaplain is about philosophy in biology. Neither one is really about religion. These are the essays he based The God Delusion on. We were talking about books, remember? "Viruses of the Mind" is about his meme idea; essays from 1998 hardly substantiate a "20 year" pattern of commenting on religion. Both of these works came out around or after TGD. Dawkins isn't even in "The God Who Wasn't There." Look, if you think I'm wrong, prove it. Two documentaries that both came out after or around The God Delusion - one of which Dawkins doesn't even appear in - hardly substantiate your claim of a lifelong obsession with overturning religion.I have to echo what Percy often wonders - when are you going to say something that's actually true?

Mother Theresa - 1 person.
KKK - estimated several thousand.Your making my point for me, NJ. You really need to be looking these materials up, NJ. Blind Watchmaker is about evolution and biological modelling, not religious belief.You gave three books. Only the most recent was about opposing religious belief.It's like you're not even trying. You're just typing in random titles and pretending like you've proven something. You should save that for yourself. I'm not the one who used a documentary Dawkins isn't even in as supposed evidence of his life-long commitment to opposing religion. In what way? Have you just forgotten what it was you set out to prove? Or is it just that you're not smart enough to understand how statements are supported by evidence?The mistakes you make are so fundamental it's amazing. How can someone be as old as you and not know how to think?

If Mother Theresa is the best you can do you're still making my point for me. Set against the evils of the KKK - and every other example of religion giving people an excuse to be assholes - she's a drop in the bucket.Honestly religion gives people an excuse to be bad far, far more often than it inspires them to be good. It's a net negative. Perhaps, but maybe it's Mother Theresa who misunderstands. For all you know, the better people are - the more charitable, forgiving, community-oriented - the worse they're living up to the obligations of their religion. The higher divorce rate in the ultra-religious South might support that.I'm just saying. But you're still not dealing with my basic point. You can't say that people are "misusing" religion when all that religion is is how people are using it. Do you understand yet? There's nothing in religion that exists beyond what humans are doing with it. In a world where all humans were gone, a gun might still exist. It's a thing.Religion is an activity. In the world with no humans, there's no religion, either. I think you're thinking of someone else. Try to resist the temptation to consider all of us over here on the other side to be just one mega-person. You're not paying attention, so let's recap. You gave one book that was actually about religion. You gave 5 essays; the four that were about religion were all written in 1998 or after. You gave two documentaries, one that just came out last year, and the other Dawkins isn't even in.That's not evidence for a "decades-long obsession." How could it be? I'm not denying it. I'm just saying that wholesale rejection of religion is kind of a new thing for him, at least in his public writing.I'm also saying you have no idea how to substantiate assertions with evidence. You keep proving it.