Another atheist evolutionary biologist critique of Dawkins

[Taraz]

I just found this really good piece by David Sloan Wilson that critiques The God Delusion. He talks a lot about natural selection and adaptation. He also gets kind of technical and really delves into the question of whether or not group selection actually occurs. It's a really interesting read for those of you who are interested.

He mentions some collaborative research he has done that deals with how religious thinking could have been selected for and how it is perhaps still advantageous. Basically he thinks that we need to stop all this 'armchair theorizing' and actually do some empirical work.

Here's a pertinent quote:
[ QUOTE ]
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. That is why Dawkins’ diatribe against religion, however well-intentioned, is so deeply misinformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
I just found this really good piece by David Sloan Wilson that critiques The God Delusion. He talks a lot about natural selection and adaptation. He also gets kind of technical and really delves into the question of whether or not group selection actually occurs. It's a really interesting read for those of you who are interested.

He mentions some collaborative research he has done that deals with how religious thinking could have been selected for and how it is perhaps still advantageous. Basically he thinks that we need to stop all this 'armchair theorizing' and actually do some empirical work.

Here's a pertinent quote:
[ QUOTE ]
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. That is why Dawkins’ diatribe against religion, however well-intentioned, is so deeply misinformed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think, to get a balanced view, it is illuminating to view religion from both a reductionistic and a holistic perspective.

From a reductionistic perspective, religion is a parasitic virus.

From a holistic perspective, religion is malignant culture-cancer.

[luckyme]

I think he's reading dawkins through his colored glasses ( his interest in group selection and religious evolution). Dawkins is writing that the house is burning and Wilson wants to examine the architecture.
[ QUOTE ]
In this context I share Dawkins’ concern that some religions are seeking to end the separation of church and state in America.
I also share Dawkins’ concern about other aspects of religions, even after they are understood as complex group-level adaptations. Religions can be ruthless in the way that they enforce conformity within groups. Most alarming for a scientist, religions can be wanton about distorting facts about the real world on their way toward motivating behaviors that are adaptive in the real world. We should be equally concerned about other distortions of factual reality, such as patriotic histories of nations and other non-religious ideologies that I call “stealth religions”in my most recent book, Evolution for Everyone. Finally, I agree with Dawkins that religions are fair game for criticism in a pluralistic society


[/ QUOTE ]

Dawkins is trying to wake the general population up and is out and about yelling 'fire', Wilson is keeping his lab coat on and wants to study religion from an evolutionary view. There is a role for both. Wilson's concerned that dawkins doesn't know whether religion is a wart or virus misses the point ... it's harmful, do something. We can study how we caught it along the way. We don't have to be concerned of the Black Hole effect. There are plenty of successful non-relgious societies.

good read on an interesting aspect, thanks, luckyme

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he's reading dawkins through his colored glasses ( his interest in group selection and religious evolution).

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt this is true.

[ QUOTE ]

Dawkins is trying to wake the general population up and is out and about yelling 'fire', Wilson is keeping his lab coat on and wants to study religion from an evolutionary view. There is a role for both. Wilson's concerned that dawkins doesn't know whether religion is a wart or virus misses the point ... it's harmful, do something. We can study how we caught it along the way. We don't have to be concerned of the Black Hole effect. There are plenty of successful non-relgious societies.


[/ QUOTE ]

It seemed to me that Wilson was more upset that Dawkins is claiming a scientific basis for many of his claims when there is none. That was one of my main problems with Dawkins, it's not entirely clear when he's expressing his opinion and when he's giving you facts.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I think, to get a balanced view, it is illuminating to view religion from both a reductionistic and a holistic perspective.

From a reductionistic perspective, religion is a parasitic virus.

From a holistic perspective, religion is malignant culture-cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Wilson was arguing that we are far from knowing whether or not religion is adaptive or not. He actually presented some evidence of the benefits of religious thinking. Obviously we have to do a cost-benefit analysis on the whole situation, but it's definitely not clear cut.

[Subfallen]

Josh McDowell : Christian Apologetics :: Richard Dawkins : Atheist Apologetics. Neither will influence anyone who doesn't already have strong sympathies with the position being advanced.

[KipBond]

I found it:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html

Would be helpful if you would link to your source in the future. Thanks. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]

It seemed to me that Wilson was more upset that Dawkins is claiming a scientific basis for many of his claims when there is none. That was one of my main problems with Dawkins, it's not entirely clear when he's expressing his opinion and when he's giving you facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taraz,

Is your problem with what Dawkins is saying or the perspective he's coming from?

The reason I ask, is because I hold some fairly deep religious beliefs, yet I'm not too bothered by what Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, et al have to say. And, truth be told, the aforementioned have contributed more to my understanding and interpretation of physical reality than any religious studies or perspectives have.

I've found it next to impossible to discount the scientific perspective, while attempting to maintain any level of philosophical integrity, so I'm thinking it's more of perspective, than "absolute" truth.

Personally, I digest a portion of their respective opinions and facts, and then try to incorporate them with my worldview. I've found the, "nuts and bolts," of evolution to be pretty bland, and haven't pursued it to a deep enough level to argue about it, so I just accept as a hypothesis, the general consensus and opinions.

However, when it comes to religion, I feel I have a better understanding of its nature than its' critics, so I discount most of what they have to say about it. Of course, they could know more about religion, or understand it better than I do, but the point is - I don't see it that way - and that's my view of reality. So who's to say what's right or true? For me, it all comes down to perspective; how I see it, or how you see it.

The complaint I have against Dawkins is the same I have against a fundamentalist preacher: it's a person saying they have a concise and complete model of reality. But is that really a claim anyone can make?

I doubt the stupidest people on earth gravitate towards this particular forum, yet look at the opinions, views and perspectives. However, we're lead to believe that someone has it all figured out? Come on. I doubt anyone reading this post has any less brain power than the authors of the books they're reading.

Maybe I'm a little arrogant, but I'm guessing if I haven't figured it all out - neither has anyone else. And I really don't have a problem approaching with skepticism, anyone who proclaims to have all the answers - whether it's Dawkins or Aquinas.

Nearest I can figure is: we're born; we experience suffering; we experience joy; and we die. The rest is commentary.

-J

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically he thinks that we need to stop all this 'armchair theorizing' and actually do some empirical work.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'll go for empiricism too, and there, religion is manifestly, obviously, false in its claims.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
but the point is - I don't see it that way - and that's my view of reality. So who's to say what's right or true? For me, it all comes down to perspective; how I see it, or how you see it.

The complaint I have against Dawkins is the same I have against a fundamentalist preacher: it's a person saying they have a concise and complete model of reality. But is that really a claim anyone can make?

[/ QUOTE ]

"who's to say ........comes down to perspective" etc.
several problems arise from that philosophy

1) why complain against Dawkins for a view he doesn't hold. The only strong complaint against Dawkins is that he's irritating to some. There is no connection between stating a claim is wrong and claiming to know what the truth is.
I can say that the square root of 101 is not 20 without having the actual answer. The tacking on of "..so, they think they have the right answer" to people who are pointing out a wrong answer is merely a ploy, a misdirection in magicians arena.
2) it implies that every street corner or kool-aid peddling person has an equally valid claim on reality AND their views should be treated that way. Criticism can consist of pointing out competing claims on equivalent evidence and concluding "therefore no one of them has an once of credibility", for example.

The "who's to say what's true" just waves a hand and puts einstein in with Yuri Geller and charles manson. Yet, people who make that claim don't treat them as equal, they just claim they do so they can be keep their own Linus Blanket and not feel quilty.

when I run across somebody living by the claim they make, then I'll believe it isn't a weak rationalization.

luckyme