Science is just one gene away from defeating religion - Colin Blakemore

[Bozita]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/22/genetics-religion

Science is just one gene away from defeating religion

Colin Blakemore
The Observer, Sunday 22 February 2009
Article history

-snip-

Throughout the love-hate relationship between science and Christianity, the idea that human rationality is a gift from God has frequently been used as a justification, or an excuse, for scientific inquiry. Pope Benedict XVI has gone further. In a speech read at La Sapienza University in Rome last year (in the face of opposition from the academic staff) he argued: "If, however, reason ... becomes deaf to the great message that comes from the Christian faith and its wisdom, it will wither like a tree whose roots no longer reach the waters that give it life." What on earth was the Pope saying? That only Christians can be good scientists? Sorry, Pythagoras; sorry, Galen; sorry, Einstein; sorry, Crick.

Science has rampaged over the landscape of divine explanation, provoking denial or surrender from the church. Christian leaders, even the Catholic church, have reluctantly accommodated the discoveries of scientists, with the odd burning at the stake and excommunication along the way.

But I was astounded to discover how topical the issue of Galileo's trial still is in the Vatican and how resistant many Christians are to scientific ideas that challenge scriptural accounts. More than half of Americans, even a third of Brits, still believe that God created humans in their present form.

The process of Christian accommodation is a bit like the fate of fieldmice confronted by a combine harvester, continuously retreating into the shrinking patch of uncut wheat.

Ten days ago, on Darwin's birthday, Richard Dawkins, Archbishop of Atheism, and Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford, conducted a public conversation in the Oxford University Museum, where Bishop Sam Wilberforce and Darwin's champion, Thomas Henry Huxley, had debated Darwin's ideas in 1860. The two Richards were more civilised. But inevitably, Richard H claimed for religion a territory that science can never invade, a totally safe sanctuary for Christian fieldmice. Science is brilliant at questions that start "how", but religion is the only approach to questions that start "why". Throughout history, human beings have asked those difficult "why" questions.

-snip-

more...

[anonymous171]

1. Because Christianity is the only religion in the world. nt

[Ladyhawk]

5. All religion is bunk.- Thomas Edison (nt)

[anonymous171]

8. What does that have to do with the article? nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. What did your reply #1 have to do with the article?

[pnwmom]

2. Science and religion operate in different spheres. Neither can defeat the other. nt

[NOW tense]

3. Agreed. n/t

[Ladyhawk]

6. Sorry, but that's ridiculous. The more we learn, the less religion makes sense.

To me, religion is completely without merit and completely ridiculous. I actually feel embarrassed on behalf of anyone who really believes that stuff, including my younger self.

If we survive, 2000 years from now, people will be making fun of religion the way they now make fun of alchemy and other "spheres of thought" trounced upon by reality.

Edit: clarity

[anonymous171]

9. Pagans are still around. nt

[Demeter]

16. Paganism Isn't a Religion

More a way of life compatible with science.

[DRoseDARs]

28. It doesn't help the discussion when you don't know what the words "pagan" or "paganism" mean.

They don't mean what you think they mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

[tama]

35. As a linguist

I'm well aware that word bear various notions and related meanings, which are NOT merely dictionary definitions. For example, no translator uses dictionary definitions and indentifications one to one, translator can only trust her/his experience, sense of language and the inpenetrable (to science) "black box" where the actual translation happens.

Now, as for "paganism" (Xian term for non-Xians (or rather, those of not Abrahamic religions) not being religion, let me quote a pagan, a member of Siberian tribe living the traditional "primitive" way when asked about religion: "Religion? That is something that Russians have. We have only our shamans."

So, religion is a Latin/European concept prototypically referring to Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc.) and not directly applicaple to other cultures and especially non-European cultures. Instead of "religion", modern (ethical) antropology and comparative study of "religions" speak rather about world views, study of world views.

[Mojorabbit]

73. I have to disagree with this

Ancient Rome and Greece from what I have read had a wonderful rich religious history with a plethora of Gods and Goddesses.

[pnwmom]

12. Non-fundamentalist religion doesn't make statements that can be proved or disproved by science.

And vice versa.

[skepticscott]

29. Oh?

What about the doctrine of the Catholic church that the host in the Eucharist is transformed into the actual body of Christ?

[bulloney]

33. Our priest will vehemently tell us that he changes wine into Christ's blood during mass.

I told him that if that's Christ's blood, I don't want to be riding in any car when he's driving.

Someone should conduct a test of the wine before and after it's blessed and allegedly changed into Christ's blood. Check the chemical composition before and after. Have people drink a quantity of the product before and after it's blessed to see if there's any difference in the peoples' blood alcohol count.

I argue that the whole ritual of changing wine into blood during mass is symbolism. Religion is loaded with symbolism. Christ wasn't born on December 25. Some Christian leaders set that date to coincide with the winter solstice. Easter jumps all over the calendar from one year to the next. Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox (first day of spring). These sound almost pagan, but we accept them. So, why can't we accept some of the other rituals of our faith as being symbolism?

[skepticscott]

42. That test has already been done on the host

People with wheat gluten allergies still have an allergic reaction after the bread has "transformed" Go figure. And of course everyone (including non-insane Catholics) just kind of winks and nods and says "yeah, we know this is silly" but if you say so too loud, the Catholic League whiners start playing the anti-Catholic bigotry card, and you can only stomach so much of that.

[truedelphi]

71. About December 25th

I was born on December 25th (though I cannot prove it, being adopted)

One of my more unfortunate Childhood Experiences was when a Catholic catechism teacher asked us third graders who had been born on Dec 25th.

My friend Nancy raised her hand and said "Carol was!"

The teacher walked over and smacked me!! (Better result than if I had been born during the time of the Inquisition. Babies born on December 25th were considered the spawn of Satan, and often were killed.)

[tama]

36. Are you implying that Catholics

are not "fundies"?

[veganlush]

58. non-fundamentalist religion isn't really religion......n/t

[veganlush]

57. I'm with you Ladyhawk...

We left behind the flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, witches, slavery, etc... religion is next to go..

[jody]

10. Science uses the scientific method to constantly reexamine every theory. Religion is based on

speculation about supernatural forces that operate in violation of the laws of nature.

I agree with you "Neither can defeat the other" in a contest between facts versus faith.

[pokercat999]

34. I think it was Mark Twain that said "Faith is what you call it

when you know what you believe isn't true" or words to that effect.

[FiveGoodMen]

39. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so," is the way I heard it.

[BobTheSubgenius]

59. My favourite definition of "faith" is.....

....fervent belief in spite of a total lack of evidence.

[Bill McBlueState]

15. "Sometimes dead people can be resurrected"

Into which sphere does that claim fall?

[onager]

24. That was only a metaphor.

Like the woman from a rib and the talking snake and the magic fruit. And Jonah in the belly of the big fish. And the ethnic cleansing of the Amalekites etc. etc. And the stuff about homosexuality/shellfish/cotton blends. And the Virgin Birth. And the loaves and fishes. And the Resurrection. And the apocalypse. And...

[Uncle Joe]

40. But observation and DNA evidence suggests we're continually resurrected.

I don't have all the answers, however I believe there is an underlying element of truth within all classic recurring myth.

Darwin's and structured religion's mistake was in losing faith to pride. "Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall," that's in the bible somewhere.

"Darwin agonised for more than 20 years before publishing On the Origin of Species, and another two before he could say, in The Descent of Man, that "Man must be included with other organic beings in any general conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on Earth". In the final words of that transcendent book, Darwin couldn't avoid the religious metaphor: "Man with all his noble qualities... with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system - with all these exalted powers - Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origins."

I contend there is nothing lowly about our origins, from the conception/explosion of the Big Bang, to the expansion of the universal uterus, to the formation of the barren egg rocky planets, to the fertilizing of those eggs with life giving compounds from being struck by untold multitudes of sperm type comets and asteroids, to the mysterious placenta of Dark Matter holding everything together while it develops. One thing apparent to me about life on Earth, life continually divides coming back in new forms all from the same basic material, in some ways as a fetus cell continually divides. So in that sense the beginning of life as we know it sprung from a Virginal Birth.

[crimsonblue]

61. Science is continually defeating religion.

Religion was created by ancient man as a means to explain the world he saw, including he stars, moon, and orbits of the planets around the sun. As science proves these superstitious fairy tales as wrong, religion has adapted to find space that science has not yet disproved. It was once believed by Christians that in each sperm was a tiny, wholly formed human, and that the woman was just the carrier for the little person.

Science is continuing to get closer to explaining the early events of our universe. The ONLY point I may concede to religion is that there had to be something to set off the Big Bang. Maybe it was a "creator", but anything that has happened since that moment is solely a product of physics and chemistry.

[sledgehammer]

65. Both have creation issues

Whether it's science and big bang, or religion and the creation of God.

But given that neither is explained fully yet (well, "yet" only in the case of science), and taking it from that point forward, religion offers absolutely nothing in comparison to science.

Was it Dawkins who talked about the God of the gaps? Basically, the larger the gaps in our understanding of life and the universe, the bigger the scope for God. As science closes those gaps, religion has to start adopting elements of science into existing dogma and pretend they are absolutely compatible. e.g. Vatican accepting Evolution as God's way of propagating humanity, but yet not challenging traditional creation from the Bible. Some serious cognitive dissonance here!

In this regard, I really value this quote from the Dalai Lama:

If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own world view.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/contentfeeds/2009/02/dalai-lama-quote-for-tuesday-n-1.html

[crimsonblue]

66. That's why I stated the only possible existence of God...

could be in the initiation of the Big Bang (or Big Bounce, if you prefer that theory). Myself, I view the Universe in a cyclical manner: Our Big Bang was not the first Big Bang, and it will not be the last. If the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe can be proven to be slowing, then eventually the Universe will cease to expand. At that point, gravitational forces will become dominant and the Universe will collapse onto itself. I believe that eventually the Universe will collapse into a singularity, resulting in a Big Bounce (aka a new Big Bang). This cycle will continue in perpetuity. Now, the only area where I have some doubts relates to what initiated the first Big Bang. Was it the remnants of another Universe? Was it a creator setting off a chain of events? Or was it a computer program booting up for the first time (assuming we are within a computer program, but that's another topic for another time-- and no I'm not talking Matrix style BS)?

[AyanEva]

69. I agree with the cyclical model too

But with branes and strings. In which case, we have the answer to what started the big bang. Mostly. Of course it's just a theory but it's one that works pretty well, IMO.

[crimsonblue]

72. I'm not a big fan of string theory

I think the solutions string theory postulates are a bit too elegant. I've tried to wrap my head around it, but I can't buy the need for 11 dimensions to explain the laws of physics. I think that quantum theory being adapted to explain a unifying theory with 4 dimensions is the most realistic. The LHC will be an amazing tool is determining the thery; I think once the higgs boson is comfirmed, all of the old ideas will be thrown out in favor of a a gravity particle-wave focus. I think the graviton and anti-graviton are the ways to go.

[Bill McBlueState]

4. that's too optimistic

Whatever new understanding we gain about the world, religious believers are always ready to repackage their dogma in a way that's not too drastically at odds with that understanding.

[onager]

25. Yep. Mark Twain was all over that one...

"The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born."--Autobiography

A bonus rant, since we seem to be heading back to the Crusades:

"Man is a Religious Animal. Man is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them.

He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn´t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother´s path to happiness and heaven...

The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste."---Mark Twain and the Three R´s, by Maxwell Geismar, p.110, from Twain´s Bible Teaching and Religious Practice essay, in "Europe and Elsewhere", 1923

Lots more here:

http://cybermr.tripod.com/html/quotes/marktwain.html

[pauliedangerously]

30. So how do you account for this...

Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? The older version was more plausible. Whose understanding are we talking about? Theirs or ours? :rofl:

[and-justice-for-all]

32. Oh that Dinosaurs and jesus thing kills me...LOL!

It such nonsence its funny!!

[msongs]

7. papa joe's power depends on people going along with his superstitions nt

[Submariner]

11. You can't defeat the ever great Papa Maoi

[moobu2]

13. Science defeated it many years ago,

it just will not admit it and go away.

[adnelson60087]

17. Yes, science defeated superstition long ago

but the convulsing body isn't aware that its superstitious brain is dead...yet.

[Politicalboi]

14. I hope one day the Pope

Needs science to cure what ales him when prayers don't work and they deny him the help.

[anonymous171]

19. I hope one day you overcome your hatred. nt

[Politicalboi]

27. Maybe when the pope overcomes

His hatered we will all be better off.

[FiveGoodMen]

43. Just here to spoil it for you: I'll never overcome mine. And I'll never try.

Religion is bullshit.

No apology for saying so.

[Frisbee]

48. Amen, brother! n/t

[LeftishBrit]

26. I don't; I hope they give him the help.

And they will. Otherwise, they would be not objective scientists, but hate-filled fundies.

(I am by the way, 100% atheist, a scientist, and dislike the current Pope.)

[Fearless]

18. "Knowledge is the end of deism and deism is the end of knowledge."

[greymattermom]

21. Colin Blakemore

Hey, I know this guy. We even published a paper together years ago. He does a great job of explaining science, not so sure about religion.

[Joanne98]

22. The UFO's are Gawd!

[wuvuj]

23. Magical thinking...

...is WONDERFUL! :banghead:

"Science" could do research, genetic and otherwise...to find and try to minimize that part of the brain that goes to la la land. I can just hear the screaming now..... :nuke:

[tama]

38. "Magical thinking"

also when scientifically observed and analyzed, happens to be infinitely more complex than "scientific" thinking... :)

Or were you just attacking a strawman distortion of "magical thinking"?

[wuvuj]

46. Complex in what sense?

How can you observe it? A brain scan?

[tama]

49. How do you observe a thought?

What is that which observes thoughts? Another thought maybe, anything else? What is observing the process of thinking, when attention is directed to observing thoughts? Attention? What, how and why is attention and why a brain scan cannot catch it?

Complex in this sense, to begin with... :)

[bobthedrummer]

52. lol

[and-justice-for-all]

31. religion is crap nonsence..

has nothing to offer, only empty promises and false hope. Moving forward is a lot harder when you have dead weight like religion around your ankles.

[tama]

37. What is science

and why shoud (this or that - as there are many of those - so which of them?) scientific world view be preferable to all other world views?

[skepticscott]

45. Science is a process

by which we discover things about the physical universe. It is not an all-encompassing worldview (i.e. it doesn't claim to answer all questions, unlike fundamentalist Christianity) but it is preferable to all other methods we know of for doing what it does because it is demonstrably so much better at it.

[tama]

50. And as for the other methods

and processes that you don't know of (for example, because they are not measurable by scientific methodology - e.g. by definition multidimensional observables cannot be measured by 3D measuring devices but curiously, they can be observed by mathematicians imagination...) you cannot really say if scientific process of creating and amending world views is prererable to those others you don't or even cannot know about? This seems very simple logic, agreed?

[skepticscott]

51. As for the other methods, who cares?

I said that science "is preferable to all other methods we know of" If there are other methods out there that we can't know about, how in the world does that matter to anything or anybody? When we do know and can use these methods, then what you say may be relevant, but for now it's just idiotic babble, as is your claim that multidimensional observables are outside the realm of science.

Next time, try to make a least a modicum of sense.

[tama]

53. Those care who know other methods

that science does not know, cannot know or does not want to know, obviously. Your "we" is not inclusive of anybody and everybody, claiming so would be very stupid and hubristic, opposite of heuristic.

And I didn't say multidimensional observables are outside realm of science, just not measurable by 3D devises. If mind is just brain and brain is just 3D (or 4D) measuring devise, how can mind sense multidimensional observables?

[skepticscott]

54. Then it should be simple

for you to tell us what these "other methods" have accomplished in the way of understanding and explaining the natural world. What do you who claim these methods exist understand now as a result of them that you didn't understand 50, or 100, or 200 years ago? What can you accomplish now that you couldn't accomplish 50, 100, 200 years ago? What have these methods done that makes them superior to science? I'm sure you have a whole list of concrete examples to share with us to bolster your argument.

[tama]

55. Well, to begin with

what they have NOT accomplished? Destruction of natural environment and livelihood of coming generations, objectifying nature as mere resource for consumerism, supernatural attitude of putting man above nature ("supra natura") and outside objectified nature leading to hubristic alianation and shitload of all kinds of problems. Changes that science cannot deny responsibility of.

As for your request, I can tell a little story that I heard while ago. The hunters of a tribe were wandering why deers didn't show up when and where they were accustomed to - disturbed by the modern "development" is the answer to why. The shaman of the tribe told the hunters to go look from the next valley, and there they found the deer. An anthropologist asked the shaman, how did he know where the deer would be. Shaman replied: "How do you know where your arms are?"

So... what kind of "method" (gr. meta hodos - toghether with path/road/way/Tao) might this story be about? Description "The way of just knowing" suggests itself... :)

[skepticscott]

56. Only one possible response to that

:rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. Why would the view that the capital of Japan is Tokyo be preferable to the view that it is Hoboken?

[4lbs]

41. I enraged a very religious acquaintance one time by logically providing reasons why Noah's Ark

couldn't have possibly worked out how the Bible said it did. I then said since the Noah's Ark myth was greatly exaggerated, how much of the remaining Bible was pure exaggeration?

Also, I also provided simple, yet concrete, proof that humans and dinosaurs couldn't possibly have co-existed, thus shattering one of the legs of Creationism that believes that the Earth is only 5,000 to 10,000 years old.

They were upset to the point of telling me to STFU and wanting to take a swing at me.

It seems when you question their faith with sound, logical, reasoned arguments that are difficult to rebut, they become violent.

[FiveGoodMen]

44. "It seems when you question their faith...they become violent"

If only they'd direct their violence toward the people who lied to them.

[wuvuj]

47. Reminds me of a soldier....

...whoops...different symbol.

[struggle4progress]

63. You understand, of course, that biblical literalism is not the only religious mode of interpretation

of these old texts? These very old stories were presumably retold because people found something interesting and worthwhile in the tales

The account of Noah agrees at a number of points with the story of the flood-hero Utanapishtim in the Gilgamesh saga

The half-god Gilgamesh, seeking immortality, searches out Utanapishtim, an ordinary man become immortal because he heeded the call to Abandon wealth and seek living beings! Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings! at the time of a great flood. Gilgamesh has some difficulty finding any significance in the story and asks Utanapishtim directly how he, Gilgamesh, can become immortal; Utanapishtim tells him first not to sleep for a week, at which point Gilgamesh falls sound asleep

This is obviously moral parable cast in the form of epic, and it would be natural to expect any cousin of the Utanapishtim tale to serve a similar purpose. And, in fact, it is not difficult to find old examples of such non-literal interpretation: two millenia ago, Philo of Alexandria interprets paradise in Genesis as a symbol of virtues and the Ark as a symbol of the human body

See:
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book12.html

Where the US public apparently stands on these issues seems to depend on the polling

In April 2006, CBS asked 899 adults nationwide Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, and 43% of the respondents agreed while 54% disagreed. A month later, in May 2006, Gallup asked 1,002 adults nationwide Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible? The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. The Bible is the inspired word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally. OR, The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man: 28% of the respondents apparently thought the Bible should be taken "word for word", while 49% regarded the text as "inspired," and 19% regarded the text as "fable"

See:
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm

Pew issued a 200 pp report on such matters last summer:

Religion in America: Non-Dogmatic, Diverse and Politically Relevant
Religious Beliefs & Practices / Social & Political Views: Report 2
June 23, 2008
... Nearly two-thirds of the public (63%) takes the view that their faith's sacred texts are the word of God. But those who believe Scripture represents the word of God are roughly evenly divided between those who say it should be interpreted literally, word for word (33%), and those who say it should not be taken literally (27%). And more than a quarter of adults - including two-thirds of Buddhists (67%) and about half of Jews (53%) - say their faith's sacred texts are written by men and are not the word of God ... http://pewresearch.org/pubs/876/religion-america-part-two

You shouldn't assume that most religious people literally believe (say) a story such as that of Noah's ark

[struggle4progress]

60. Perhaps we could have some peer-reviewed evidence for Blakemore's claim that

religious belief is genetic in origin?

Blakemore essentially waves his hands while making this claim

[BirminghamExaminer]

62. Ehrm, what?

I read the entire article and kept looking for what single gene he was referring to as "defeating" religion and never could figure out what the hell he was on about.

I have an evolutionary biology background and in the first place, there is no single gene that is going to account for humans' tendency to invoke various aspects of their lives with superstition (ie., religion).

Secondly, if people can continue to believe Christianity after reading the bible, then there is nothing that is going to convince them that there isn't some big white guy in the sky.

I don't believe there is a single evolutionary incentive to be superstitious other than the typical innate cautiousness all species have about their surroundings and trying to understand and control them in order to better their chances of survival.

Better luck next time Colin but your article misses the mark.

[struggle4progress]

64. There are certainly mechanisms that can account for "superstition" -- but the term has

multiple meanings

First, there is the matter of personal superstitition: the my lucky underwear sort of thing. There is a general survival value in learning to identify environmental patterns and to respond to them -- but of course not all "patterns" are meaningful. Typical costs to an organism of identifying a few bogus patterns might be small, if organisms usually identify meaningful environmental patterns. BF Skinner did a very informative pigeon-earning experiment many years ago, showing that meaningless patterns might sometimes be reinforced:

'SUPERSTITION' IN THE PIGEON
B. F. Skinner
Indiana University
First published in Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 168-172
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/

Second, there is the matter of cultural superstitions -- bizarre ideas that propagate socially. There is some survival value associated with listening to other people, when they tell you what they think they know about the world: in fact, much of what I "know" I actually believe because somebody else told me. Especially in childhood, when the organism is relatively inexperienced and has limited grasp of the hazards of the world, there's a real advantage to deferring to the opinions of the most-experienced organisms. Again, the typical costs to a social being of believing a few bogus facts might be small if socially-conveyed information is usually reliable. That might explain the persistence of some folklore:

Common Superstitions
http://www.csicop.org/superstition/library/common.html

But you are, I think, mistaken to confuse "religion" with "superstition": "religion" is not always concerned with good or bad luck, or controlling spirits, or foretelling the future, or discerning people's characters from their physical features, or other such beliefs

[Enthusiast]

67. Not too fond of this particular Pope.

Just sayin', as a non-practicing Catholic. When are we going to get a liberal pope?

[Raster]

70. It'll be awhile. The tarot deck has been stacked, and not in progressive favor.

The last truly progressive pope met the Vatican version of the "questionable circumstances" demise.