These people have developed their own religion composed of trendy-left political,social and cultural fads and an unjustified sense of intellectual and moral superiority.

They have deified themselves.
They alone know the one true way to salvation and have a moral duty bring it to us all,by any means necessary.

This is the same mentality that brought us the Islamic Jihads,the Crusades,the Inqisition and the communist genocides of the 20th century.

The future will be very interesting,won't it?

M.:

What's wrong with crusades?

Let's see......hhmm.....mass slaughter,oppression and persecution of unbelivers,cultural and moral debasement?
And of course,what constitutes disbelief can change abruptly,just look how hard it is to remain PC.What's acceptble monday is a thought crime on thursday.

Crusades,like mobs,tend to get way out of hand.

M:

When? Where? The Crusades were a simple attempt to retake the Holy Lands from Islam, not much different than our current attempt to liberate the Middle East from Islamicism. That you approve of us now but oppose what we did then seems based more on fashionable PC theories than on events.

The capacity for religion is ingrained in humanity. He may as well try to eradicate the opposable thumb.

"When? Where?"

You choose one example out of many,tsk.

The first Jihad ,bringing Allah to the infidels,the french revolution,bringing liberte,egalite and fraternite to Europe,the communist genocides,to bring the social utopia forth on earth,etc.

I'm simply pointing out,as a good conservative should,that good intentions aren't enough,especially when those intentions are married to a self-rightous belief and sense of infallibilty in the "cause",whatever it might be.

As I said,crusades,even those with the very best of intentions,tend to get out of hand.

oops.

To continue:

I'm not denying the causes of "The Crusade",I was using crusade in it's broader sense.
As for our crusade today,I hope for the best,fear the worst and expect we'll probably get something between.

P.S:If I were PC,I certainly wouldn't use the communist mass murders as an example of what happens when humans get caught up in utopian delusions.I'm not a subjectivist.

WWII, or the Crusade in Europe, as Ike called it.

The Conquest of the Americas.

etc.

"WWII, or the Crusade in Europe, as Ike called it"....was not a utopian delusion,and fought more as a matter of realpolitic in any event.We have always regraded any power strong enough to dominate eurasia as a threat to us.

"The Conquest of the Americas."

True,but not really one of our civilizations shinier moments in history.

(and this we'll teach me not post comments sunday morning following saturday nite)

I understand your point,but at least acknowledge mine.

It is a little hard to take seriously the liberation theology of the Crusades, since they were not pursued very diligently. The notion that at least a good part of the motivation was to export turbulent and unmanageble soldiers to another district seems to have a lot of merit.

M:

Of course WWII was a utopian delusion, it made Eastern Europe free for Communist domination instead of Nazi.

It's a natural human reaction to see the wars you like as justified and reasonable and all others as brutal and stupid.

'Inerviewer:You seem to agree with E.O. Wilson that science can be a satisfying replacement for religion."

Dawkins: Yes, I've written a book to that effect: "Unweaving the Rainbow."'

This is the fatal flaw with people like Dawkins. Science can serve as a replacement for religion for only a few: those fascinated by it and with the time and capacity to understand it. The idea that it could serve as such for the masses is truly silly. Parochialism indeed.

Harry,that's somewhat factual,but as simplistic as stating the Civil War was only about slavery.That was a major issue,but there were more issues than that.

OJ,WW2 was a utopian fantasy for the Nazis,a war of survival for the Soviets and a war of strategic gamesmanship for the US.
We encoureged the reds and browns to bleed each other white,we secured a long term policy goal of eliminating European empires from the new world(first france,then Spain,then UK),displaced UK as Canada's protector and left no one power strong enough to dominate eurasia.The empires were undermined and the Soviets left exhausted and surrouned with no allies and the US Army holding half of Europe.
This didn't happen by hoping for the best,but by planning and opportunism.I'm happy that we've been such a force for good,but we've never been an altruistic force for good.Everything we've done has served our self interest and I don't disapprove of that.

M:

As a result of leaving the USSR in place, we wasted tens of thousands of American lives, expended trillions of dollars, tore our own society apart, kept the Welfare State long after we'd recognized it to be counterproductive, propped up Europe at a point where it could have radically retrenched its own welfare states, endorsed dictatorships all across the globe, etc., etc, etc. That was too high a price to pay when we could have settled the issue by the end of '46 to everyone's benefit.

Science as a replacement for religion? Perhaps. When I think of all the sublime art and music quantum physics has given us, how germ theory gives me and my family strength and hope in the face of adversity, how relativity guides me morally in my relationship with my fellow man, how Freudianism binds me inexorably to the fate of my loved ones, how eugenics instills tolerance in me, how random natural selection makes me wondrously thankful for the gift of life and how climate change allows me to face death with serenity, I think, why not?

Unintended consequences,OJ.
Certainly we could have made better choices.
We clearly leave S. Korea outside our self-declared zone of interest,then engage in a 3 yr war over it.
No wonder the communists were confused.
Yes,we made mistakes,I'd never say otherwise.But the Soviets were expansionist with no provocation needed to justify it,they had a holy cause,which was the original point of this disscussion or wasn't it?

This discussion has certainly meandered,hasn't it?

Eric,one has only to observe the ritual beauty of a mass in a cathedral to understand why science can't replace religion.

M:

No, my point would be that neither Nazism nor Communism was a threat--we fought themn for theological reasons. You just happen to agree with that theological justification and not prior ones. But the victims of the wars are just as dead.

P.S.--we never meander here; we range far afield.

Peter:

That would make you one of the few - those fascinated by it and with the time and capacity to understand it. But many of those few with a less parochial view understand that science just isn't enough.

As for the impact that misaprehended relativity theory has had on modern moralizing, might I suggest you read the first chapter of Paul Johnson's excellent history 'Modern Times.'

M:

Concerning the ritual beauty of the mass: I agree completely.

Eric:

Um, er, am I missing something here? I think we are on the same team. The only difference between us is that I think the problem with scientists is they don't seem to have the time and capacity they need to think it through. Cheers.

Peter:

Yes, I realized that you were really joking shortly after I posted in haste. I thought you were serious long enough to get a little riled. You're right.

My point, perhaps not stated thoroughly enough, was that a professional thinker/scientist like Dawkins, who is obviously intelligent, though misguided, is so passionate about a complex topic that it comes to substitute for his religion, not in the sense that he derives guidance from it, but in the sense that it is his devotion and faith and provides for him a kind of satisfaction and euphoria in his quest that is similar to a spiritual quest. The average person, who has neither the desire nor the capacity to understand biochemistry or quantum physics (often even at a popular level) could not ever get the same sort of neo-spiritual satisfaction from science. It can't come close to meshing with their daily lives as it does for Dawkins. Yet Dawkins seems to think that everyone should be able to do as he does and is mystified as to why not. Thus the theory that traditional religion is a viurs that people will kill as soon as they open their eyes to the alternative.

My apologies. Cheers.

Eric:

Not at all. Your point is excellent. It is, I think, similar to the engineer enthralled by his creation or the lawyer by his original argument. Experts simply lose perspective of where their arcane knowledge and insight fits in the overall scheme of things, or who cares. I have tried to get our house evolutionists to address the significance of the inscrutability of their arguments, but so far in vain. It appears secularists have their cloistered high priests, too.

Dawkins' fulminating intensity bespeaks either a dangerous ego, serious doubt or a clever book-selling strategy.

Peter:
Don't I get at least a little credit for my remark above?

I'll go with a) and c), with an emphasis on c).

What's inscrutable about evolution? You go out and observe living things. Nothing is more scrutable.

Dawkins is an extreme reductionist, which makes him rather a sport among Darwinians. Mainstream Darwinism is not reductionist.

Religion is, it may be, a normal reaction to feeling s of immanence. Feelings of immanence are, probably, the result of the random construction of our brains.

If you assume those feelings are external and not generated internally, you could go look for some evidence of that. The search has been uniformly unproductive. Leading one to suspect that it's internal.

Jeff:

Definitely at least a B-. Keep trying. :-)

Harry:

"Feelings of immanence are, probably, the result of the random construction of our brains."

As I understand you to believe all of existence is random, that was a pretty easy call, no?

Evidence to the contrary would refute it.

Jeff:

Why? Evidence to the contrary doesn't seem to refute Darwinism?

Science can never be a substitute for religion, because science will never answer the "why" questions. Dawkins is foolish for thinking so. The feeling of wonder that he and others feel as the result of scientific discoveries is not of itself scientific or rational. It is an emotion. Science & reason will never supply the primary motivations that we all need to live our lives. They are only tools that can be put in service of those motivations.

I agree with OJ that Dawkins lacks a certain admiration for the evolutionary success of the religion virus. It undoubtedly has been very successful in propagating itself, and has shown remarkable adaptability in the way it has mutated throughout history. 500 years ago in the west it split into two competing varieties that nearly destroyed themselves, but since then they have evolved into less virulent, more tolerant strains, which has allowed a broader religious & philosophical freedom to thrive. The modern western strains of the religion virus are relatively benign, and should be left alone.

Dawkins is like a germ-o-phobe who uses anti-bacterial soaps on everything. I'm afraid that fundamentalist secularism of this sort will only breed reason-resistant super strains of religion which will kill off the tolerant strains. We all gotta get along.

Robert:

It's a struggle for survival and one side's gotta go.

Not anymore OJ, there are not two sides to the struggle, there are hundreds. The co-opetition among religious viruses that has taken root since the major Christian strains decided not to destroy each other out of self interest has made it impossible for any one strain to establish itself as the only one. It is not religion against secularism anymore, but hundreds of religions against each other. Any one strain that tries to kill off the others will find itself facing off against the majority. There is no monolithic Christianity anymore, there are hundreds of competing sects. The toothpaste is out of the tube on this one.

Robert:

"It is not religion against secularism anymore, but hundreds of religions against each other."

Actually, your fine, if somewhat cheeky post would tend to point to the opposite. Certainly in the West, the relationship among religious communities is good and generally respectful. As many (by no means all, but a growing number) secularists are developing an increasingly hostile animus to religion generally,(that seems to grow with their remoteness from, and ignorance about, it) I'm not sure the future on this one is as sunny as you intimate.

Robert:

there have always been many different faiths; secular rationalism is just one more. Using a Darwinian method, we'd have to judge Christianity the most fit faith found so far. It's competitors days would then seem to be numbered.

You can only use a Darwinian method if the selection involves reproduction. Since people can and do embrace a variety of religions over a lifetime, the effect of religion on inclusive fitness (even if we take this only as what society you choose to end up in, not whether you continue to be alive), the selective value of religion is pretty small.

It is true that religions go extinct. Nobody worships Inanna any more. But new ones arise either from the scrapheap of the past (Baha`i) or from nothing at all (Sekka Gakkai), so the final triumph of one, worldwide religion seems remote.

What makes you think that the evolution of religions is leading toward one dominant faith? I think the trend is in the opposite direction. Is evolution in viruses leading toward a single virus?

Harry:

Bravo! The point of the post was to finally get you to say that Jeff's continuous resort to economics, language, etc. as examples of Darwinian in action are completely absurd.

Robert:

The population implosion of the secular states of the West, two billion Christians, the assimilation of the Jews, the war on Islam, and the rapid conversion rates in the Third World. But, as noted above, it has nothing to do with viruses or natural selection.

OJ:
If you view languages and companies as organisms competing for resources, survival, and reproduction, then it all hangs together. In fact, the company I work for at the moment is having something of a fitness problem. But I am sure you can enlighten me as to how competition in a capitalist economy doesn't have anything to do with natural selection.

"...two billion Christians..." wasn't it you that just last week categorically claimed Hindus and Buddhists are wrong? Unfortunately, you failed to let the rest of us in on what you based that on. Soul, count, however, wouldn't seem to one of the reasons.

Jeff:

You'll have to take your errors on Darwinism up with Harry--he's the Grand Inquisitor of Evolution.

"The population implosion of the secular states of the West, two billion Christians, the assimilation of the Jews, the war on Islam, and the rapid conversion rates in the Third World. But, as noted above, it has nothing to do with viruses or natural selection."

As I mentioned in an earlier post, don't count on a linear extrapolation of current fertility rates to hold too far into the future. But memes are not genes, the children of Christians are not destined to remain Christians.

Christianity will undoubtedly remain a major religion for the forseeable future and beyond. My point was not to argue that it won't, but that there is no inexorable process, Darwinian or not, leading to a single world religion. Of course, it is the nature of religious faiths to encourage that belief.

"As many (by no means all, but a growing number) secularists are developing an increasingly hostile animus to religion generally,(that seems to grow with their remoteness from, and ignorance about, it) I'm not sure the future on this one is as sunny as you intimate."

Peter, I wouldn't deny that there is a vocal animus expressed toward religion from secularists, but you have to balance that against the widespread animus against secular people that has always been a constant feature of American life. For the most part, in America at least, it is a matter of sticks & stones. It has been much worse for secularists in the past. The extreme anti-religionists, like Dawkins, will get all the press and will be the face of secularism for religious people. It is worthwhile for everyone to see the culture wars from the other guy's perspective, neither side has the market cornered on animus.

Robert:

Tell that to the Supreme Court.

OJ:
You are the one who flagrantly mischaracterized Harry's point. That's why I'm asking you.

Chrysler is at risk of becoming extinct. Toyota is most certainly not. Perhaps you could explain that without using natural selection concepts.

How does Dawkins explain that a very educated, extremely well-reasoned man, an atheist in his earlier life, became Christianity's most literate and compelling witness of the 20th century?

The Invisible Hand argument was a good one, and I hadn't thought of it that way before.

Jeff sometimes conflates Darwinism in whole with natural selection, as do many people. But I get it.

Culling works on many fronts. You could even contend that replacing management in a company like, eg, Chrysler, is an analogue of a mutation in a reproducing organism. But replacing management is teleological, and Darwinism isn't, so you can pursue that metaphor only so far.

Interesting though the continual resort to teleology in discussing evolution, almost subconscious, maybe?

Jeff:

No, it can't be explained without the concept of the quality of decisions made influencing survival--that's Intelligent Design for the decisions and Natural Selection distributing the results.

Well, you keep trying to sneak teleology in the back door when I block the front. But I don't accept it.

OJ:
Your concept of intelligent requires an external agency working to a plan.

Adam Smith's invisible hand, which operates on both Chrysler and Toyota, requires no such agency outside the system for self organizing complexity to develop. Therefore, the economy as a whole changes over time despite having no goal and no plan.

That is the analog to evolution.

Your confusing intelligent design with endogenous decisions undercuts your argument completely.

Harry:
Apologies for those conflations--time is the enemy.

Harry:

Yet your examples, like dog breeding, are always teleological. There's a clue there.

Jeff:

Government would be the intelligence outside the closed Chrysler/Ford loop, and it shapes them considerably. But I'll accept just your version where evolution resembles every other thing intelligent humans do and is not guided by natural forces.

OJ:
Goverment contributes to creating the environment (as to all the competitors).

Your last sentence is completely wrong. Until you can identify the plan, or an outside agency, then using teleological arguments is wholly illogical.

In this analog, intelligence is the source of variation, and the means of inheritance. Just like DNA.

The analog only breaks down if you can identify an overarching plan and goal.

It is singularly odd that you adopt a position substantiating the Soviet Union's five year plan.

Jeff:

Are you doing the job now that you envisioned and planned for ten years ago? Is your life not the product of intelligent design?

Your Soviet analogy is apt--their plans didn't work the way they were siupposed to, but where they got to was a function of intelligent decision making (or unitelligent in their case).

But the Soviet planners were not all-knowing. They had to work within rules not of their own making, and over which they could exert little control. These excuses aren't available to god, if he is god.

One simple question about ID. What does the universe do? What is it's utility function? If something is designed, it has a clearly understandable utility function. You know what the designer's purpose was. What does the universe do?

Robert:

We don't know God's purposes--my personal guess is that the point of the Universe is that we have the opportunity to become God ourselves. But that's a guess.

OJ:
No. My life at the moment is the product of theocratic insanity.

The Soviet Union showed how well intelligent design worked against goalless, planless, natural selection. You cannot admire Adam Smith and denegrate Darwin at the same time.

Jeff:

Those are separable arguments. God's design may be a failure, as was the Soviet Union, but both are still the product of intelligence.

Try reading Adam Smith before you pretend to know what he said.

OJ:

I did.

Both describe complex, unplanned, goalless, self organizing systems that change over time without external guidance..

If you are going to admire a market economy, you had best be prepared to admire evolution.

Jeff:

I do admire evolution. I think it works exactly like a market economy. Set up by intelligent beings and dependent on their decisions, with success or failure winnowing out winners and losers, to some degree, but then humans stepping in to blunt the effects because natural selection is morally unacceptable.

I have offered you many, many examples -- like picture-wing fruit flies, silverswords and whales -- that are not teleological. You cannot afford to acknowledge the evidence, because your concept cannot withstand it.

Maybe we could argue about what, exactly, a whale with legs means, but it's got to mean something.

Harry:

Presumably it means whales once walked. So what? Men were once little more than monkeys.

OJ:
Finally, you agree. The factors driving evolutionary change are completely contained within the system, with completely non-deterministic results, and wholly unreliant upon God.

Welcome to the club. I knew you would get it sooner or later.

Of course, if they were wholly deterministic it would deny that God gave us Free Will.

Well, if you have to guess at what it does, you can't call it designed.

You don't have to guess, you just can't know exactly how it will work out. No one will deny that the Constitution represents a design for a nation, but the Founders wouldn't have predicted precisely this result. Still, their design worked.

That's not the point. We know that the Constitution is a designed thing, because we have knowledge of the designers and the intentions of their designs. Even if it failed utterly, it would still be a designed thing. Design assumes an intended purpose.

The Universe has amazing structure and complexity, but this does not imply design. What is the intended purpose? Don't ask what it does for us, we are not the designer. What purpose does the universe serve for the designer?

Anyone claiming ID has to answer that question. It can't be a guess, it has to be an inescapable conclusion.

It's purpose is for us to comprehend it and so become gods. Presumably you do believe it's ultimately comprehensible? And no one who's seen Man in action would argue that on the day we comprehend we won't create one of our own. The only hope is that it is designed in such a way that comprehension does not come until we've become "good" and so when we become the Creator we require our creations to strive to be "good" too.

I would like the Universe to be ultimately (I suppose you mean, in all its fundamentals) comprehensible, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence that it will be.

And since you can't figure it out it won't be figured out. Harry the measure of all things?

OJ:
I'm curious.

How did you get from "...I haven't seen a lot of evidence the it will be." to "And since you can't figure it out, it won't be figured out."

Other than by throwing all rules of logic, word meaning and syntax out the window, that is.

Jeff:

Context. It was Harry speaking.

Precisely what Dowd would say.

She knows Harry?