Against Foxholes

A friend K.S. posted on her Google chat status

There are no atheists in fox holes.

I always thought that there was something inherently wrong in that statement. Glad that the inimitable Kurt Vonnegut Jr. came to the rescue. It's not so much about atheism or theism, but mainly about foxholes.

People say there are no atheists in foxholes. A lot of people think this is a good argument against atheism. Personally, I think it's a much better argument against foxholes.
— Kurt Vonnegut

Economics of God

From The Economist:

Religion cries out for a biological explanation. It is a ubiquitous phenomenon—arguably one of the species markers of Homo sapiens—but a puzzling one. It has none of the obvious benefits of that other marker of humanity, language. Nevertheless, it consumes huge amounts of resources. Moreover, unlike language, it is the subject of violent disagreements. Science has, however, made significant progress in understanding the biology of language, from where it is processed in the brain to exactly how it communicates meaning. Time, therefore, to put religion under the microscope as well.

Scientists in Europe have embarked on scientific quest for God. Even if religion or God are scientifically baseless, there can be numerous economic and social benefits. It is said that humans and chimpanzees are the only species that laugh; religion separates us from our cousins on the evolutionary tree. Really, a sticky 'meme' such as religion could not have survived if it did not confer any evolutionary benefits.

(the) long-term co-operative benefits of religion outweigh the short-term costs it imposes in the form of praying many times a day, avoiding certain foods, fasting and so on.

Indeed, research has shown the religion-based groups tend to survive longer as compared to secular groups, which are four times more likely to break up. The fear of the supernatural, or the after-life makes people cooperate. God is the ultimate stick and Heaven the ultimate carrot. We all know that incentives work!

As Dr. Wilson points out "... Secularism is very maladaptive biologically. We're the ones who at best are having only two kids. Religious people are the ones who aren't smoking and drinking, and are living longer and having the health benefits."

It is hard to separate religion from culture and group membership. Even there was a God, or not we want to belong to some group. Atheism can be intellectually and scientifically more honest, but can lead to impoverishment and even alienation in other ways.

Coexist

Saw a variation of this sticker, which wasn't half as decent. At least on this one they have science (with science's poster child) on there.

From their website:
Every letter has a symbol that represents a system of thought: The crescent and star for Islam; the pentagram for Wicca; the relativity formula for science; the star of David for Judaism; the Karma Wheel dotting the i for Buddhism; the Tao symbol for Taoism; the cross for Chrisitianity.

Wondering if I should support the notion or not.

From the Other Side

Francis Collins, head-honcho of the Human Genome Project, baffles me to no end. I have not read his books and I don't think he has much to offer as this interview in the February edition of the National Geographic indicates.

All he does in the interview is to offer apologies and excuses for God and religion, and pooh-pooh claims that science, including genetics, will eventually be able to answer questions that are currently the domain of religion. He does not have much faith in the power of prayer, except that through it we obtain fellowship (how?) with God; he knows that miracles are highly unlikely, yet believes that they may occur; suffering and evil in the world is not God's fault, but the result of human free-will.

Why only blame the uneducated and the ignorant for holding irrational beliefs?

State of Denial: The God Delusion

Once upon time, I was an agnostic. Being an agnostic doesn't affect your daily life. You could be friends with the religious folk and non-believers and they would all think that deep down you were on their side. Like a certain famous Frenchman, I thought that agnosticism was a good insurance policy, just in case G-O-D did exist. So, I remained comfortably agnostic till I read the Selfish Gene. By the end of the second chapter, I was pretty much convinced of the foolishness of my position and was turned on by the beauty of evolution. He shows how life can happen without any agent. My agnosticism was a euphemism for ignorance. It takes a book like the Selfish Gene to convince you inconvertibly. To deny the existence of something on basis of gut feeling is one thing, but to have it shown scientifically is quite another. I felt a sense of betrayal; I had been misled all my life. I considered the hours I had wasted in prayer and there was no one even listening. What seemed shocking was the fact that the book had already been in publication for decades and things had not changed. Apparently, the word had not got out. God, or the idea of God, was still omnipotent as in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

Armed with the powers of scientific method, Dawkins took on the Herculean task of trying to wrest control of the Word. Over the years, he has published numerous books on various aspects of evolution and has been a valiant soldier in the fight against creationism. With the God Delusion, his aims are more ambitious than any of his previous books - combating scientific ignorance; arguing that we are moral despite religion, not because of it; begging atheists to come out of the closet; and the mental torture of children by religious parents. "Children", he says, "should not be called Christian, Hindu, or Muslim, but children of Christian, Hindu, and Muslim parents." They should be taught not what to think but how to think.

He begins the book with the myth about Einstein believing in God. There are many interesting anecdotes and studies cited in the book, out of which I found Russell's teapot of great utility. He notes with irony in the first chapter that he might be preaching to the choir, but he hopes to at least convince the fence-sitters to re-evaluate their beliefs. Indifference is just as bad as ignorance, and he believes that is the moderates that give power to the extremists.

An important point that Dawkins brings up is the privileging religion. He asks why religion, which is like any other belief, is always given a place of privilege. Why is questioning belief in Jesus or Allah or Vishnu different from questioning belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden? Why is religion considered to be beyond the domain of scientific inquiry?

We humans always seem to have an anthropocentric view of the world, even though we are sensitive to only a limited part of the light spectrum, hear only a limited range of frequencies, live on a minor planet orbiting an average star. Science, he says, has a way of opening our eyes to a much bigger and wider universe around us.


Listen to Dawkins on Science Friday.

Religion: Caveat Emptor

In his remarkable book - Breaking the Spell, which I strongly recommend everyone to read (especially 'believers'), Daniel Dennett argued for the study of religion using principles of evolution. Leaving aside which flavour of religion you prefer, religion or faith has survived the test of time. Even in our modern age of science and reason, religious belief has not crumbled. Any organism or idea that has managed to survive for so long in humans has to confer some sort benefit or evolutionary advantage.

In my opinion, an easier and alternative way to look at religion is to treat it like a product. A product that satisfies and serves certain public needs.

Proving or disproving whether God exists is difficult (The quest itself does lead to more useful and tangible results as in the case of the Rev. Bayes). The priests, mullahs and rabbis who are the stewards of religion cannot but know that religion is nothing but a business enterprise. Belief of millions in the divine word of God is quite separate from the business of religion. Every religion, sect, cult is a product and needs good marketing and favorable advertising. But you have to come to America, the land of the free and home of the brave, to really appreciate how 'professional' religion and its marketing needs to be. There is much competition in the market to save people from damnation.

In my first semester, I often noticed flyers for a 'Free Fellowship dinner' or 'Come Dine with Us and practice English' and I am not one of those people who pass an opportunity for a free meal. The fine print below all these flyers always mentioned that the activity was sponsored by some church or the other. Oops! As it is November, I will have a few emails inviting me to a Thanksgiving Dinner with an American family. In the subtle guise of providing international students with a flavour of Americana, there is always some church behind it.

Truly speaking, Haggard should argue that as CEO of the New Life Church he has been exceptional in his professional duty towards Evangelism (a religious product) and his flock (clients) which should be separate from what he did in his personal life in his free time. He has made the Church popular (increased marketshare) in an increasingly competitive market and is a spiritual advisor to President Bush, so why should anyone complain? (See Ashutosh on Haggard).

Gaurav was surprised that he met a Mormon who knew about Hindi movies. Luckily or unluckily for him, she did not consider his soul worth redeeming as she did not thrust the Book of Mormon or take down his address to pay him a visit. I have had the unique opportunity to watch one of my Mormon colleagues in action and they are really smooth. In his own words: All of them are well-trained for their 1-2 year missions in foreign countries. They have crash courses in the language, culture and politics of the people whose souls they have to save. The moral is: If you have something hard to sell, which involves something like the person giving you his soul, you should do it slowly and gently. I see a very strong parallel to the strategies employed by them and the Amway folks (see: old post).

Like any medicine or product there are benefits to religion if taken in moderation. But religion can do you great harm and I wish it came with statutory warnings. Till then: Caveat Emptor.