Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion

[lilithu]

That is the secondary-title of a relatively recent essay written by David Sloane Wilson, critiquing Dawkins' evolutionary analysis of religion. The gist of Wilson's argument is that Dawkins fails to take into account (or prematurely dismisses) group selection. As a result, his analysis centers on the effects of religious memes on the individual, without looking at their effects on the group. By not viewing the full picture, he comes to the wrong concusion.

Some of you may know that I dislike Dawkins' virulent attacks on religion, so of course this article caught my attention. But what may be less obvious is that I also dislike the extreme emphasis on individualism that permeates society today. I think it warps our perspectives. Reality in my perspective is continuous, not discrete. Interdependent, not independent. Systemic and organismal, not particulate and autonomous. So Wilson's article is even more interesting to me. And it is of little surprise that his analysis is much more in keeping with my views.

Anyway, enjoy!
Skeptic: eSkeptic: Wednesday, July 4th, 2007

 

[Smoke]

I'm not sure I like discussing cultural evolution as if it were governed by the same processes as biological evolution; that's one of my reservations about Dawkins and about this article.

However, I can't help noticing that Wilson's opinion of religion is about the same as Dawkins'; they really only differ on the processes by which religions develop and evolve.

 

[lilithu]

I'm not sure I like discussing cultural evolution as if it were governed by the same processes as biological evolution; that's one of my reservations about Dawkins and about this article.

However, I can't help noticing that Wilson's opinion of religion is about the same as Dawkins'; they really only differ on the processes by which religions develop and evolve.

I don't see Wilson's opinion of religion as the same. What's similar is that neither approach religion from the viewpoint of a believer, and therefore they both look from the "outside" to try to explain its existence. That is to be expected from any decent scientist.

But I don't see Wilson coming to the conclusion that "religion is a demonic meme." He leaves that open as a possibility, yes, but says that there is no real evidence to support it, and that it reflects Dawkins' personal biases more than anything else.

Addendum:
I was rereading the essay this morning and this bit summarizes it nicely:

"Finally, I agree with Dawkins that religions are fair game for criticism in a pluralistic society and that the stigma associated with atheism needs to be removed. The problem with Dawkins’ analysis, however, is that if he doesn’t get the facts about religion right, his diagnosis of the problems and proffered solutions won’t be right either. If the bump on the shark’s nose is an organ, you won’t get very far by thinking of it as a wart."

 

[YmirGF]

Some of you may know that I dislike Dawkins' virulent attacks on religion, so of course this article caught my attention. But what may be less obvious is that I also dislike the extreme emphasis on individualism that permeates society today. I think it warps our perspectives. Reality in my perspective is continuous, not discrete. Interdependent, not independent. Systemic and organismal, not particulate and autonomous. So Wilson's article is even more interesting to me. And it is of little surprise that his analysis is much more in keeping with my views.

Anyway, enjoy!
Skeptic: eSkeptic: Wednesday, July 4th, 2007

From my standpoint Lilithu the focus on individualism is a natural progression and should be looked at as a transitional phase. To my thinking, which is simply based on my own experience and nothing more, for the life of me I don't understand why it cannot be a combination of the two. Why can't it be part systemic and organismal AS WELL AS particulate and autonomous? You are a proponent of diversity, so why can't it be both?

 

[lilithu]

From my standpoint Lilithu the focus on individualism is a natural progression and should be looked at as a transitional phase. To my thinking, which is simply based on my own experience and nothing more, for the life of me I don't understand why it cannot be a combination of the two. Why can't it be part systemic and organismal AS WELL AS particulate and autonomous? You are a proponent of diversity, so why can't it be both?

Of course it's both, but right now our social perception is too much skewed towards the individual. Everyone already believes that so saying it only reinforces the imbalance.

At the time when the Enlightenment thinkers wrote, the social context was that individuals were oppressed, forced to conform to the whole. So they wrote about the individual, and they were right to do so. When Emerson wrote about "self-reliance," he was prophetic. But now we are too much on that side. Preaching individualism in today's context is not prophetic; it's herdish actually. And it's harmful.

 

[YmirGF]

Of course it's both, but right now our social perception is too much skewed towards the individual. Everyone already believes that so saying it only reinforces the imbalance.

At the time when the Enlightenment thinkers wrote, the social context was that individuals were oppressed, forced to conform to the whole. So they wrote about the individual, and they were right to do so. When Emerson wrote about "self-reliance," he was prophetic. But now we are too much on that side. Preaching individualism in today's context is not prophetic; it's herdish actually. And it's harmful.

Agreed, but as I say, I believe that is only a phase. I've just moved to an island paradise (Gabriola Island, Gulf Islands, British Columbia) and the reason for doing so was the sense of community I have discovered during my prior visits. Here, as opposed to the major metropolis mentality of Vancouver people are actually interested in each other and there is a deep sense of commeraderie/community and very little of that ol' competative spirit found in my former home (as in all large cities, I suspect.)

Any ideas on how to develop this sense of community elsewhere and "the whole is greater than the parts" idea? Ideally I would like to see folks in the fullness of individuality pulling together. Now that would be awesome. I wonder... do we have to kill the concepts of "competition" and "every person for themselves"?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I wonder... do we have to kill the concepts of "competition" and "every person for themselves"?

No! There is danger in removing competition and "every person for themselves." A sense of community is important. But so isn't a sense of individualization. Individual/group may be an arbitrary distinction, but important from our perspective.

We should see the forest and the trees.

 

[Smoke]

At the time when the Enlightenment thinkers wrote, the social context was that individuals were oppressed, forced to conform to the whole. So they wrote about the individual, and they were right to do so. When Emerson wrote about "self-reliance," he was prophetic. But now we are too much on that side. Preaching individualism in today's context is not prophetic; it's herdish actually. And it's harmful.

That depends entirely on context, I think. There are still many parts of the world that have yet to have their Enlightenment, and as a gay man I'm very mindful that the justification for denying us equal rights is that to do so would supposedly harm the larger society.

 

[Runt]

The idea of equating the development of religious traditions to biological evolution intrigues me. I'm not unfamiliar with the concept, but the last time I encountered it (Frazer/Tylor and the idea of the progression from magic, to religion, to science) I was not at all convinced, mostly do to the overly-simplistic view of the aforementioned (and their armchair anthropology). However, it sounds as though the approach of these modern thinkers (who have a better background in evolutionary biology) is fits the phenomena far better. One of these days I'll have to pick up a couple of Wilson's books; I feel more drawn toward his argument than Dawkin's.

As I was reading the article, I couldn't help but think that the rise of Fundamentalism as a response to the rise of Modernism is a prime example of the adaptive quality of religions.

 

[lilithu]

As I was reading the article, I couldn't help but think that the rise of Fundamentalism as a response to the rise of Modernism is a prime example of the adaptive quality of religions.

:yes: And in the true spirit of evolutionary thinking, this is a statement made without judgment as to whether it is "good" or "bad." It just is.

 

[michel]

No! There is danger in removing competition and "every person for themselves." A sense of community is important. But so isn't a sense of individualization. Individual/group may be an arbitrary distinction, but important from our perspective.

Moderation is the word. I am old enough to have witnessed the teaching that children should do as they are told (and have no rights) - which was not right; however, I have seen the pendulum swing result where children are so full of their right of individualism that parents's advice, pleas, wisdom go unheeded..........

There must be a right mix; now, when you find that recipe, you let me know.......

Any ideas on how to develop this sense of community elsewhere and "the whole is greater than the parts" idea? Ideally I would like to see folks in the fullness of individuality pulling together. Now that would be awesome. I wonder... do we have to kill the concepts of "competition" and "every person for themselves"?

Any ideas ? yes; do they work - not so far.

A very well meaning guy I know is doing his best to try and "pull people" into a group, on a regular basis - his intention was to remove the social and cultural enclaves that seem to spring up naturally.

The trouble is that if you do manage to get in various groups, instead of them all mixing with others of other groups, they tend to gravitate to their own kind.

The focus is very much on Culture; culture seems to be the biggest block to people really "communing" with one another - and while you have separate groups, you will never get a "good community, all pulling in the same direction" result. Sad, but it is a fact of life.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Again, I stongly recommend Atran's In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion.

 

[YmirGF]

Again, I stongly recommend Atran's In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion.

Thanks Jay, I will definitely check that one out.

 

[doppelganger]

I've read both Dawkins' book and Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. While they deal with similar themes, Dennett's is the better of two, IMO, precisely because he gives more weight and thought to the operation of memes in group dynamics and approaches with a more open mind the advantages of religions in maintaining group identities, assuaging guilt, etc.

 

[Random]

Richard Dawkins needs to re-evaluate his religious conviction in Evolutionary Biology, IMO. :flirt: There are so many holes in the doctrine that I'm surprised he hasn't consented to a god to fill the gaps.

 

[Runt]

Again, I stongly recommend Atran's In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion.

*adds this to her ever-growing reading list*

 

[Buttercup]

Again, I stongly recommend Atran's In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion.

An exerpt from the front flap of Atran's book....

If naturally selected structures of cognition, emotion, and organization channel our thoughts and behaviors into cultural paths that include some kind of religious belief or commitment, he argues that secular ideologies attempting to replace religion will always be at a disadvantage in terms of cultural survival.

Now there's a great thread topic in the making.

 

[Buttons*]

From my standpoint Lilithu the focus on individualism is a natural progression and should be looked at as a transitional phase. To my thinking, which is simply based on my own experience and nothing more, for the life of me I don't understand why it cannot be a combination of the two. Why can't it be part systemic and organismal AS WELL AS particulate and autonomous? You are a proponent of diversity, so why can't it be both?

WINNER!

 

[Quiddity]

Addendum:
I was rereading the essay this morning and this bit summarizes it nicely:

"Finally, I agree with Dawkins that religions are fair game for criticism in a pluralistic society and that the stigma associated with atheism needs to be removed. The problem with Dawkins’ analysis, however, is that if he doesn’t get the facts about religion right, his diagnosis of the problems and proffered solutions won’t be right either. If the bump on the shark’s nose is an organ, you won’t get very far by thinking of it as a wart."

I'm coming to a very similar conclusion reading Sam Harris "The End of Faith". I paid particular attention to his criticisms of dogmatism. I can see why he would come to such conclusions (as I see here in the forum all the time), but his conclusions have holes due to his misunderstandings on how dogma is arrived at and developed in particular religions.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I'm coming to a very similar conclusion reading Sam Harris "The End of Faith". I paid particular attention to his criticisms of dogmatism. I can see why he would come to such conclusions (as I see here in the forum all the time), but his conclusions have holes due to his misunderstandings on how dogma is arrived at and developed in particular religions.

These holes being? I think you are onto something very interesting, but I am not quite sure where you are going with it.

B.