Can religion fit into evolutionary theory?

Captain Kremmen

Captain Kremmen

All aboard, me Hearties!
Valued Senior Member
Richard Dawkin compared religious and similar cultural beliefs to a virus.

I think this was polemic viewpoint.
He chose a Virus because he is opposed to religious thought.

But how about if we looked at religion as a way to increase viability of an intellectual being, what if you see it as an antibody or a medicine?
 
story.jpg


Do you think science and religion are at odds?

No. I think it's only a small fraction of people who think that. Perhaps they have louder voices than the others.

What do you think of what Richard Dawkins is doing.

I think Richard Dawkins is doing a lot of damage. I disagree very strongly with the way he's going about it. I don't deny his right to be an atheist, but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. That simply turns young people away from science. He's convinced a lot of young people not to be scientists because they don't want to be atheists. I'm strongly against him on that question. It's simply not true what he's saying, and it's not only not true but also harmful. The fact is that many of my friends are much more religious than I am and are first-rate scientists. There's absolutely nothing that stops you from being both.

Dawkins calls religion as a virus.

I disagree totally. He has the arrogance to say that anyone who does not share his views is infected with a virus. No wonder he cannot coexist peacefully with them.
Click to expand...
Link
 
Indoctrination is a hereditary infection.

I can imagine Dawkins is pissed off. I would also be if I had to deal with religious liars every day of my life.
 
The reason Dawkins takes such a hard-line approach to religion is that his vocation is under attack by the religious. If Evangelicals weren't trying to get creationism taught in public schools, and Muslims weren't threatening to kill every European cartoonist, then people like Dawkins wouldn't have a reason to be on the offensive.

But how about if we looked at religion as a way to increase viability of an intellectual being, what if you see it as an antibody or a medicine?
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure what that means. Religion and science don't mesh, dude. They aren't talking about the same thing. There is no need to interbreed them. Anyway, the only side that needs to start embracing the other is religion of science. The evangelicals in this country are trying to push science out of the classroom, and that needs to stop.
 
This is memetics. The concept that a popular idea can easily spread, i.e. the idea is contagious.

Memes have no necessary correlation with truth, and as such there could be good memes and bad memes, where bad here means an idea has become widespread and accepted as a truth but has no factual basis, e.g. religion.

The parallel with a virus is that it also spreads rapidly and is equally unwanted in the same way we should not want to be convinced that an unsupported idea has no factual basis.

I don't see a positive aspect to your suggestion, that somehow being convinced that something incredulous and unsupported might be beneficial.
 
Freeman Dyson said:
but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist. That simply turns young people away from science. He's convinced a lot of young people not to be scientists because they don't want to be atheists.
Click to expand...

Heh, Dawkins turning people away from science because of his stringent atheism. Thats what I call poetic justice.
 
Some religions are obviously incompatable with evolutionary theory, for instance those that advocate a literal interpretation of the Bible. There could be some religions that are compatable, but for the most part, religion is the opposite of investigating something using the scientific method. Mostly, you are just supposed to accept religious tenets on faith.
 
Can religion fit into evolutionary theory?

Depends on how old they are and if they are willing to make revisions.
 
SAM,

"but I think he does a great deal of harm when he publicly says that in order to be a scientist, you have to be an atheist."
Click to expand...

Heh, Dawkins turning people away from science because of his stringent atheism. Thats what I call poetic justice.
Click to expand...
The problem here is that he has never said that. Can you find a document/book/video where he says that?

You are simply repeating an uninformed perspective as an atheist hater.

The issue though is that science is based on evidence and its takes a particular disciplined perspective to always question conclusions and the evidence that supports them.

Religions are based on an entirely different perspective - faith. This is the exact opposite of scientific discipline.

The principle objection to religions raised by atheists is the absence of evidence. That perspective is significantly closer to the scientific discipline than any religious viewpoint.

I don't think it is that one must be an atheist to be a scientist but that one cannot effectively use a faith based perspective and apply it to science.
 
Cris said:
The principle objection to religions raised by atheists is the absence of evidence.
Click to expand...

personally I would argue the oposite - my principal objection to religion and the existence of god is the fact that there is mountains of evidence tyhat supports the non existence of god and the fact that religion is an entirely human construct - take the fact that the Bible and the Quran exist simultaneously for example - what more evidence do you need?
 
The problem is that nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

BILLY PRESTON lyrics - Nothing From Nothing


(Billy Preston and Bruce Fisher)

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin'
If you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin'
If you wanna be with me

I'm not tryin' to be your hero
'Cause that zero is too cold for me, Brrr
I'm not tryin' to be your highness
'Cause that minus is too low to see, yeah

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
And I'm not stuffin'
Believe you me
Don't you remember I told ya
I'm a soldier in the war on poverty, yeah
Yes, I am

[Instrumental Interlude]

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin'
If you wanna be with me
Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'
You gotta have somethin'
If you wanna be with me

You gotta have somethin'
If you wanna be with me
You gotta bring me somethin' girl
If you wanna be with me
 
synth....,

That isn't so much evidence for non-existence but a call to the credibility of the claims. At what point do people agree - enough is enough - these ideas are just plain silly?

But I do see your point.
 
I am the voice inside your head
and I control you
I am the lover in your bed
and I control you
I am the sex that you provide
and I control you
I am the hate you try to hide
and I control you
I take you where you want to go
I give you all you need to know
I drag you down I use you up
Mr. Self-destruct
I speak religion's message clear
and I control you
I am denial guilt and fear
and I control you
I am the prayers of the naive
and I control you
I am the lie that you believe
and I control you
I take you where you want to go
I give you all you need to know
I drag you down I use you up
Mr. Self-destruct
I am the needle in your vein
and I control you
I am the high you can't sustain
and I control you
I am the pusher I'm a whore
and I control you
I am the need you have for more
and I control you
I am the bullet in the gun
and I control you
I am the truth from which you run
and I control you
I am the silencing machine
and I control you
I am the end of all your dreams
and I control you
I take you where you want to go
I give you all you need to know
I drag you down I use you up
Mr. Self-destruct

so there
 
Captain Kremmen said:
But how about if we looked at religion as a way to increase viability of an intellectual being, what if you see it as an antibody or a medicine?
Click to expand...

For example, religious laws regarding unclean foods and sexual behaviour may benefit the peoples who believe in them by making sure they do not get parasites and communicable diseases. Societies which had such beliefs would do better than those which hadn't.
 
Chris,

Things had to start somehow or somewhere. To say that space and the universe always existed is not really an answer. On the other hand if we say that there is a God, whatever or whoever it may be, then there had to be a beginning for it. Well then where did this God come from?

Questions like this cannot be answered.
 
John99 said:
Chris,

Things had to start somehow or somewhere. To say that space and the universe always existed is not really an answer. On the other hand if we say that there is a God, whatever or whoever it may be, then there had to be a beginning for it. Well then where did this God come from?

Questions like this cannot be answered.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with evolution as the origin of species.
 
Don't Catholics accept evolution? Anyway, if I didn't know Dawkins was an atheist, I'd think he was religious with the extremism he displays.
 
1. The fundamentalists are, indeed, a problem.
2. Many religions and many religious people do not have any difficulty with evolution in any shape or form. Nada. Zilch.
3.Science has a defined area of investigation. There are questions it does not ask.
4. Religion provides a social construct within which to express ones spiritual aspirations. Just because it does not work for you does not mean it does not work for others.
5. If religion and science are correctly applied then there is zero incompatibility between them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top