Religion as a virus – 60 Second Adventures in Religion (4/4)

Religion as a virus - 60 Second Adventures in Religion (4/4)

60-second adventures in religion number for religion as a virus Richard Dawkins is an atheist evolutionary biologist and probably not someone you should ask to be a godfather he said that religion and science can't sit side-by-side because belief in God doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny but religion is still so popular because it's like a virus with an innate desire to spread itself and its various symptoms like believing in things without any scientific evidence and judging people with different beliefs like a successful gene this cultural phenomenon or mean has features that made it likely to be passed on like being adopted by music and art or threatening that non-believers will be put to death Dawkins his ideas have been pretty successful at spreading themselves nowadays he's more widely known for his views on atheism that his work on evolution although for book sales he's got a long way to go to catch up on religion maybe he should drive a viral marketing you

So first of all, Kudos for including Dawkins' idea in a university course on religion, after all his thoughts on the origins of religion are actually quite interesting. However, it's evident that he is being portrayed as a greedy grimace and not really the controversial public intellectual that he has become, and that based on negative atheist stereotypes, which is quite unfortunate for a university course.
His views on religion as a virus are kind of of course a judgement of religion itself, however it is true that religion is a collection of specific stories, beliefs and behaviours that are spread by exploiting weaknesses in the human train of thought. Religion tends to be forced down on people in weak situations, either those who are too young to resist it or people who are depressed and in need of psychological help and who then end up being recruited by cults, like a bacteria that infects people with weak immune systems. That's why the analogy is actually quite appropriate, even though it might seem offensive to some.
However his most interesting idea of religion is actually the origin of it, as an unintended consequence of evolutionary adaptation for pattern-seeking, religion using patterns and stories mostly instead of real-life evidence.

This video talks about Dawkins as if his points about atheism were somehow notable in the history of philosophy. They aren't. The last time atheism did anything notable was when logical positivism was rejected in the 20th century. Or, arguably, Ayn Rand if she gets to count as a political philosopher. 21st century atheists haven't done anything yet. It's all repeats of earlier stuff.

I don't know why people listen to Dawkins when it comes to religion. He really does not seem to know that much. As a religious person, I trust him much more as a biologist than as a religious philosopher, since he just seems to target strawmen about religion, and tears down people for believing in things without evidence, while he himself does not believe in God without evidence to back himself up.

Not putting Abrahamic religions is is really an absence, even if you don't believe that just put it, man. The series is really short for religion, I hope there are other series

"Probably not someone you should ask to be a godfather"??? O.o
Not sure what they were going for, if it was a poor reference to the deity in that term… But it just sounds like he's not a very kind or nurturing person! What the hell? o.o

If you remove religions all people may become atheist, but the percentage of critical thinkers and skeptics will remain about the same. So we will still have most people believing all sorts of nonsense ideologies.

Just because an idea is popular that does not hold it true. It's like saying segregation or facism were true due to their popularity in the past times. And you describe religion being like a virus by describing it through evolution? Evolution is about passing dominant traits that ensure better chances of survival against natural selection via reproduction. We aren't born with religion were indoctrinated into it

There's a big difference between believing in God and believing in religion. I agree that religion in most cases contradicts with science, but believing in God doesn't. If we define a "believer" as a person who believes in things he/she cannot prove, then a person who BELIEVES that God doesn't exist is just as a believer as a person who believes God does exist. Neither of those contradicts with science. Why is believing in God "unscientificly" then? 

Of course how religion spreads has little or nothing to do with its truth value. And the same can be said of atheism, or agnosticism. Is that also a …. "virus", which has been selected for because of hendonism and sexual promiscuity? 🙂


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *