h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So you mean an actual physical viral/bacteriological thing?

Hmm. I *suspect* that may be playful speculation on Dennett's part. He wouldn't be so foolish as to propose a hypothetical virus acting upon the host's cortex unless such a virus had actually been observed.

I can think of a much more prosaic explanation for seemingly counter-survival behaviours: macro-reproduction is error prone. Our genes make mistakes. Some organisms are infertile, some homosexual, some suicidal. Evolution selects for successful behaviours *by-and-large*, not at the individual level.

But at least Dennett, unlike his pal Dawkins, is basing his premise on the idea that there might be reasons other than stupity for the prevalence of religion amongst humans.

Dennett gives the names of the particular viruses (viri?) but of course they're in that special form of Latin I call Latinsciencesque which my mind just blocks out, denying any attempt to understand them or remember them.

But I do recall that the rat one and the whale one were called (something) 'flukes'. I don't understand why they are called flukes but the word has two built in associations (whale flukes and oddities) that make it easier to remember; even hard to forget. All of these viruses have been scientifically recognised as being active (seemingly 'intelligent') neurological agents that produce specific behaviors.

In the case of the ant, which would normally be on the ground doing his daily hauling of scraps back to the anthill, he is compelled to divert from his tasks to climb up a stock of grass and sit wavering in the breeze until a sheep comes along and eats it and him. The virus thrives in the stomach of sheep which Dennet suggests is an 'indication' that it must somehow be manipulating the ants' behavior to its own ends.

And it occurred to me (although Dennet does not go on to suggest it, since it might blunt his argument) that sheep's manure would subsequently be attractive to ants, thus completing a 'natural' or 'god designed' cycle (a more comfortable and familiar and therefore acceptable concept than the notion that the virus actually manipulates the ant).

But the rat virus (one of the 'flukes') has been more reliably studied to explain the more often observable behavior of rats to expose themselves to cats. This seemingly inexplicable behavior is one of those well known mysteries that many more scientists have explored and the concensus seems to confirm a viral neurological agent that makes rats crazy enough to tease rats. Similar studies on beeched whales are now suggesting that a neurological agent is responsible for their suicidal beech landings - but no beneficial agent has yet been identified.

By coincidence (if you believe in such things) Dawkins was on Canadian TV last night. When, in the introduction, the interviewer suggested that he (Dawkins) had (among other things) claimed that viruses are involved in religious impulses he didn't blink. But then he didn't explain it either, focussing instead on the 'other things' spending most of his energies defending atheism in general as a 'scientific reality' and not merely a book-selling, rabble-rousing blasphemy.

I haven't yet read (I will) 'The God Delusion', but Dennett clearly implies that Dawkins has suggested as much in his theories of evolutionary 'memes' and 'free floating rationales'.

It has certainly been clear to me for several decades (since the 60s) that the human brain is subject to a wide variety of moods and seemingly counter-intuitive, and even counter-productive, thought processes and behaviors whenever dietary, pharmaceutical or biological agents are introduced into the equation.

The current X-treme behaviors of adrenalin junkies is living (hopefully) proof that we all enjoy a little change of consciousness. The so-called state of grace imbued by intense religious experience is a pharmacologically measurable event and obviously many are driven to it like surfers to the sea.


~jwf~

Well I know animals can be induced to change their behaviour by certain biological agents. For example there is a fungus which also gets ants to crawl up high so it can release it´s spores. But isn´t fluke a form of worm? Howver Dawkins always talked about mental viruses, not actual biological ones. His very famous "meme"-idea. I wanted to know if Dennett was talking about something similar or actual biological agents causing religion.

>> I wanted to know if Dennett was talking about something...<<

Yes both. And of course he is hedging his bet. On the one hand he says it's all based on Dawkin's idea but then reminds us that neither of them can be blamed if someone doesn't get out there and do the research that will prove or disprove the theory.

His best arguments are actually reminders of the seductive states of peace and grace that make religions attractive. He suggests that there is in all of us an inherent desire for a 'calm and centered' state of mind and sense of belonging which organised religion promises and occassionally fulfills (usually thru a dictated communal concensus that such is the case).


~jwf~

>>By coincidence (if you believe in such things) Dawkins

Wouldn't life be so weird if there were never any coincidences?

I must read Dan D's book. I'm a major fan of his 'Consciousnes Explained' (aka 'Consciousness Explained Away'). I'm not convinced of this virus/flukes notion - but then, I don't need convincing of the silliness of religion.

btw - Christopher Hitchens' new 'God Is Not Good' sounds worth a read. He previously stuck the boot into Mother Theresa and represented the case against her, on a pro bono basis, at her Vatican canonisation hearing.

well this a fairly good case for why religion remains so popular and seductive to so many people . i have heard several people say to me ,when i have mentioned my atheism ,that we must be here for a reason . i have never undertood what they mean by this . when i have asked them to explain , it's clear that they don't know what they mean either . it seems to stem from a refusal to except that they are of no consequence in the grand scheem of things and that they are born alone and will die alone ,on a small planet in a very big universe in the blink of an eye . this is not a pleasant reality how much easyier would it be ,to do as your parents do , as your neighbours do , as most of the people in your community do and follow the local religion . it explains away all those troubling thoughts of whats the meaning of life ,the universe and generall mish mash of things ?
well i prefer reality to delusion even if it is hard to stomach at times.


best fishes......tod

>>i have heard several people say to me ,when i have mentioned my atheism ,that we must be here for a reason .

I suppose that this is an expression of ordinary human inquisitiveness: "Daddy...why is there a sky." Nevertheless, since the Darwinian revolution it has become clear that humanity *has* no special place. Evolution is not goal-directed. Even if evolution *were* a divine artefact, the hypothetical god didn't have us in mind.

So does the death of god leave a hole in the psyche? Is nihilism inescapable? Well...that's where humanism comes in. I've said on another thread that the best expression I've heard of this was reported by Kurt Vonnegut. His son suggested:
"We're here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is."

Or the other Vonnegut quote, which I love..

"We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anyone tell you any different."

>> Well...that's where humanism comes in. <<

Strangely as I read that line a number of subconcsious musical refrains competed for my attention:

"Love walked in and..."
"Send in the clowns..."
and several tunes by The Doors.

But my favourite so far is:
"Walk right in, sit right down, baby let your hair hang down
Walk right in, sit right down, baby let your hair hang down
Everybody's talking 'bout a new way of walking
Do you want to lose you mind
Walk right in, sit right down, baby let your hair hang down."

~jwf~

For the record: I have purchased "The God Delusion". The waiting lists at two different library systems (urban and rural) are several months long so I bit the bullet, cancelled my reservation and will donate the book to the rural library when I'm done.

So far I've only just glanced at it but do note with some mixed feeling that Daniel C Dennett is mentioned in the Bibliography and actually quoted (footnote) in one of the early chapters.

My overall first reaction (not a fair one) is that Dawkins is spoonfeeding the reader (the jacket blurbs say he is 'easy' to read and understand). And he definitely seems to be on a rather methodic Crusade to organise atheists into some sort of respectabilty, even institutionalise their belief system into some sort of satisfactory non-church.

There are several pages of 'athesist' associations listed in a separate index - even one in Canada. Hell, one of the greatest joys of being 'agnostic', with no experience of any organised religion, all my life has been the 'lone wolf' aspect of it. I can't say I'll be joining any atheist church anytime soon.

Last night I heard a Catholic scientist say he felt Dawkins was well and truly justified in de-demonising the philosophical postures of atheism but goes too far in suggesting (hinting) that athesits really ought to organise into groups and hold weekly services. Next thing you know there'll be an atheists hymn book. Oh... wait, the Rolling Stones (among others) have already done that.

~jwf~

>>he definitely seems to be on a rather methodic Crusade to organise atheists into some sort of respectabilty, even institutionalise their belief system into some sort of satisfactory non-church.

See http://www.brights.net Dawkins and Dennett are both...er...leading lights. DNA was also a professed Bright. Christopher Hitchens recently called the concept (i think it was) 'saccharine'. I don't think you have to do anything but profess, though, sort of "There is no god but...er, that's it." No circumcision or jumble sales involved.

Egads, yes, the 'brights'!
What a god-awful conceit!

As a lifelong agnostic I truly resent such an unenlightened attempt to compare the lot of atheists to gays. Or negroes or women or the physically and mentally challenged. All these others have a legitimate complaint; their condition is not of their choosing and they are/were unfairly treated by society.

So anyone who chooses not to believe should also be smart enough to choose not engaging against organised religion. We spend one third of our lives asleep so I will not waste more time in defending the obvious, championing the needful or promoting the cynical. I will not be party to rabble-rousing and theatrical displays of iconoclasm for their own sake.

I have never felt like an oppressed minority but always seen my self as a citadel of one, a prince on the Watchtowers of Reality. Anybody calls me a 'bright' is gonna let his lights punched out. Does this make me a 'protestant' Atheist?

~jwf~

<<"Egads, yes, the 'brights'! grr
What a god-awful conceit! ">>

Seconded. Horrible, horrible name. Reminds me of IDF: 'intelligent dance music', only an idiot could come up with such a clumsy term.

I can sort of understand anti-clerical organisations to make spirituality fair-game for criticism, to control its influence in education, and to remove the last vestiges of privilege which exist for the religious.

But an atheist organisation? Why bother? "I don't think there is a God," isn't much of a start to a life philosophy.

Yeah, 'The Brights' sounds like a cheesy sci-fi title.

At least The Church of Reality is charmingly silly: "We are Realists practicing Realism
Winning Souls for Darwin!"

Actually, this whole militant atheism thing is a bit of a turn-off. I'm really bored with the interminable, pointless 'athiest vs theist' so-called 'debates'

Although I would probably enjoy a watching one featuring Dawkins vs the pope

In fairness, it's a somewhat minimalist organisation. All it is is s statement in support of 'a naturalistic outlook'. And the name is a humourous provocation: Bright vs Dim. I don't think the intention is to develop a creed or a hierarchy or anything.

But, yes, I agree. A step too far, if only a tiny one.

Woo-hoo! I'm three chapters into Dawkins and loving every minute of it. I'd like to retract my earlier impression of 'spoonfeeding' which was based solely on scanning the table of contents and getting the feeling it looked almost as methodic as a school text book, suggesting a progressive advancement sometimes called a comfortable learning curve.

But now I see how he has organised his thoughts. And yes it is a comfortable learning curve; but yes I am learning and yes I am comfortable.

His humour and/or intolerance for foolishness is not unlike that of Douglas Adams. And I am particularly struck by his accuracy in the use of words; like fallacious and fatuous in his critiques of certain philosophical arguments. He uses them in their truest sense instead of just being thrown in to impress in the usual hyperbolic way simply for effect.


~jwf~

I'm still looking forward to getting Christopher Hitchens' 'God Is Not Great'. He's often said that he finds writing is easy. With this book, he said that the hardest part was ordering his thoughts with a collection of Post-It(tm) notes on a big bit of paper.

Hey...respect to anyone who's willing to have a go at Mother Theresa, the Dalai Lama and fluffy neo-pagans.

I have been interested to read the posts in this thread, but would anyone like to answer a previous point of mine which has had no response yet:

<>

Clearly we are not going to agree on the 'big' issue, but what about being fair to each other in our discussions? (I'm not saying any of you are being unfair here by the way!) Please excuse me for labouring this point, but I have observed it so often - even from people who ought to know better. One particular example was a philosophy lecturer who presented a whole range of ethical/philosophical views accurately, but completely misrepresented the ethical position of Jesus.

Best wishes,
Random Mood