Re: Dawkins Tanner Lectures at Harvard

bivalve wrote:

> >> Dawkins allegedly argued that religion is not itself a direct evolutionary adaptation but rather is a by-product of cognitive faculties that are not any more subject to much in the way of selective pressure. Steven Pinker spoke about this at some length in his commentary.<<
>
> In conversation at the Geological Society of America meeting, Eugenie Scott pointed out that, if religion is to be treated as a gene-like entity, subject to selction, then its overwhelming abundance across cultures suggests that it is highly adaptive. Dawkins is not especially consistent.

What do expect, David? Dawkins is just an atheist. He knows nothing of the spiritual nature of man. Man is a three dimensional being -- body mind and spirit. All that Dawkins sees is a 2 dimensional projection -- a shadow cast on the mens-et-manus plane. Like other atheists, he good at
understanding this activity because he limits his kmowlege to exclude the most important part. When it comes to religion or spirit, Dawkins may as well be brain dead. He gets 2 out 3 correct which is a grade of 66.7%. That's passing, but just barely.

IMHO.

Walt

--
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================