I hope this is as good as I think it will be.

[Teek]

"And why no mention of Hinduism? That's not exactly a fluffy religion, especially for women."

Tessa, there was no mention of Hindusim because Dawkins knows very little about the faith, as is evident in his writings. as i mentioned on the BadScience discussion on this subject (the link to it is broke at the minute, i'll post it later), most of the aspects of 'religion' that Dawkins finds repulsive are absent from Hindu"ism" (for an explanation of why the ism is in inverted commas, send me an e-mail, no time here...!!):

i.e. Dawkins hates intelligent design, which doesn't get a mention in Hindusim. Dawkins believes in evolution, which is EXPRESSLY TAUGHT as the explanation of how humans came to be. Dawkins detests the manipulation of the masses by preachers of hate, and although there are extremist Hindus around (many), the true Hindu faith and 99.5% of its followers believe in and practice progressive, tolerant and respectful behaviour towards other creeds and religions.

hence, he mentioned nothing about Hinduism because with knowledge of the Hindu scriptures comes the resounding defeat of his 'science defeats the dark, backwards, un-enlightened religious types' argument...!!

[Tessa K]

Janet - I agree that both religion and science started as ways of trying to explain the world. One was based on observation, the other was based on a mixture of fear and wishful thinking. Religion was the best guess at the time, but now there are more useful ways.

I also agree that there are people whose religious faith inspired them to do good things. The point I was making is just that faith is not a prerequisite for good deeds.

Teek - there are elements of Hinduism that Dawkins could look at - the supernatural element for example. But, as you say, perhaps he is avoiding it because he knows nothing about it. And, of course, Hindus are not likely to blow up the world any time soon.

[Max]

Perhaps a question one could ask is which has more potential to create human suffering: faith-based systems or evidence-based systems?

[Teek]

Max: good question!!

i just started to read Robert Winston's The Story of God, and having not seen the TV series I'm fascinated to find out how he tackles the 'religion from a scientist who's also a practising Jew' perspective...

one point he makes is that it's important to distinguish between God and religion, same as it is important to distinguish between science and technology. i.e. technology (weapons of mass destruction, some aspects of t'internet, constant information overload) can be seen to be damaging, whereas science (if defined as the objective pursuit of knowledge driven by evidence-based methods) can provide much in the way of enlightenment. similarly then, he argues, whilst a faith in God may have evolved to keep mankind sane, and so maight not be such a bad thing, religion (as defined by an organised hierachy of beliefs preached and enforced by unelected leaders) can be just as divisive.

i read on with interest...!!

[Max]

I agree that the emphasis of organised religion has probably shifted from its original function whatever that was - explanatory, moral, evolutionary. I think today it is as much about economics and power as about its original function. A blog on this social site asked a similar question:

http://www.lastthursday.net/node/4233

The problem with evolutionary artifacts is that while they were useful in a particular environment, they may become less useful and even harmful if that environment changes. So if religion did once have a useful function in keeping us sane in the cultural environment of the day, that same artifact in a different environment today may not be appropriate and may be harming us e.g. leading to blind faith-based adherence to the word of someone with malevolent intentions.

About the only use I can see for deities now days is to help people get over their fear of death. But I am sure there may be others.

[Tessa K]

While Winston's distinction between religion and god(s) is valid, there is no religion without belief in the supernatural. I read one of his earlier books where he admits to believing in ID – which devalued his opinions as a scientist for me.

Max: religion in the West is now considerably about power and economics. However, while its function in the West may be partly to do with fear of death, for a lot of people still living in terrible conditions in the develping world, it still serves some of its original function; life may be unbearable but you'll get your reward after/come back as something better.

There was an interesting programme on BBC2 last night where Jeremy Paxman traced his family roots. He discovered that several members of his family had been saved by the Salvation Army. That is, saved in the sense of rescued from abject poverty, disease and almost certain death. In our modern welfare state, some of this burden has been taken away by social security benefits but this doesn't apply in every country; religious organisations still help the poor. In an ideal world, the state would provide, but until it does, religion still has a way in.

[Max]

It feels funny for someone like Dawkins who values empirical evidence to make statements about the dangers of religion when measuring these dangers (relative to alternatives like secularism or no religion) is so difficult.

Making those kinds of statements leads to exactly the kind of debates we are having here where we have no basis to decide whether religion kills more people than it helps, or how much less suffering there would be without religion, or....etc.

I mean these are interesting philosophical discussions (I am loving them and would love more) but I doubt that anyone has substantive evidence to back up their arguments. And strange that it was started by one the "stars" of skepticism. Does anyone agree (or disagree)?

[Tessa K]

It feels funny for someone like Dawkins who values empirical evidence to make statements about the dangers of religion when measuring these dangers (relative to alternatives like secularism or no religion) is so difficult.

There is a roughly quantifiable element to what Dawkins in saying. Relgious fundamentalism is on the rise in the US and the president is overtly religious, compared with, say 50 years ago. The Cold War was Communism versus the West while now the major potential world conflict is shaping up to be Islam versus Christianity. This is not rigidly empirical but it is based on observation and historical analysis. However, religion is not the whole story, as underlying it is the struggle for control of oil resources.

The 'does religion do more harm than good' debate is much vaguer.

We've found a new way to divide the world into Us and Them. Or rather, we've revived an old way.

[Janet W]

Tessa, how is that quantifiable?

[Janet W]

I think it's interesting that we have 2 separate divisions identified here by Max..
a) faith-based/evidence-based
b) religious/non-religious
..which actually results in a sort of philosophical Battenburg cake.
Am amusing myself trying to work out what goes in the squares:

faith-based, religious:
good: Salvation Army social work
bad: Pope bans condoms

faith-based (or dogma-based, anyway), non-religious
good: literacy, mass mobilisation on health, hygiene etc in China
bad: cultural revolution, backyard steelworks

evidence-based, religious:
good: Kenneth Miller speaking against ID
bad: none?

evidence-based, non-religious:
good: lots, I imagine
bad: none?

[Tessa K]

Tessa, how is that quantifiable?

I did say it was only roughly quantifiable. But it is observable that fundie Christians are now more influential and vocal in the US than they once were. It's not science, but it is does raise questions about links between religion and conflict.

[Janet W]

... although I suppose if we are talking about political systems, the alternatives are dogma-based and pragmatism-based, and there's probably lots of nasties resulting from the latter....

[Janet W]

Tessa, I agree the rest of what you say, and I like
"We've found a new way to divide the world into Us and Them. Or rather, we've revived an old way."
- just took issue with the idea that it was quantifiable.
As you say, certain negative aspects of religion are undeniably having far more impact now than they used to, and are more worrying. But to get a full picture of "where is religion taking us in the 21st century" we'd also have to look at.. what's happening to other negative aspects of religion... and are the effects of the positive aspects on the increase. I tried to thinki this one out, but failed to find appropriate examples.... can anyone else help?

[Janet W]

And (to reply to your much earlier post) I think the appeal of religion goes a lot further than pie in the sky when you die. Even here in the comfy West. It's about your life being significant, the existence of perfection, the poetry of TS Eliot (even if I don't understand it), the possibility that one day after death the veil will be parted and you'll see it all, and it will all make sense.... makes me quite sad I'm an agnostic...

[Janet W]

...mind you, it also involves believing stuff you'd rather not and is, above all, incredibly demanding.