Andy Thomson at AAI 2007 Part 1 of 3 (old version)

[molecularman71]

What I find interesting is that this guy assumes upfront that natural selection is true, which puts an immediate hole is his theory. Also, his main topic is suicide, yet he uses examples of killing along the evolutionary tree to make his point. Killing and suicide are not the same thing. Good snow ball job, bad scientific reasoning.

[godfree4me]

This series illustrates the typical over-intellectualising and jargonising that elevates the obvious to 'a higher plane' for the self-agrandisement of white middle aged, middle class, male academics. A band of brothers indeed.

[HamerD]

What a ridiculous thing to say, anyone from any walk of life can be in the intelligentsia. I hope you were making that statement out of confusion.

[RodentSchmodent]

HamerD is right. If I am untangling your gibberish correctly, what you are complaining about can be rectified if people just use their public library cards.

[italianchappy]

terrific, wonderful speech !!

[LOGICISGOD]

THANKS RRS!

[1DangerMouse1]

I think that this video is a clear example of why atheists need to be open about their beliefs or lack thereof. Look at the productive research and knowledge gained from taking a reasonable and naturalistic approach to life and allying with others who do as well. Rather than some rally with atheists "preaching to the choir", here we see atheists sharing ideas in a forum that is only possible through organizations like Atheist Alliance. This is why I donate to these organizations:)

[sabeltann]

Fascinating presentation! Does Andy Thomson have any books on this subject?

[xJediHowieX]

Our selfish genes suck. Lets re-engineer them. :D

[kryptoknightmare]

I've always kind of rolled my eyes upon hearing evolutionary explanations for religion- I think it's much more intellectual and short-term than that. But I find his argument, that religions (probably unknowingly, I think) exploit pre-existing evolved behaviors to manipulate and control people very likely and fascinating.

[tieInterceptor]

-- I think it's much more intellectual and short-term than that.

more intellectual?? in what way?

[tacopylas]

I think he's refering to how common people usually think of religion: simple proofs/disproofs of religious claims, the immediate and obvious roles religion plays, which religious opinion is considered trendy and whether or not this matters, etc. But I think it's important to emphasize how religion got here to begin with so that we don't sound like we're saying religious people are stupid or crazy.

[kryptoknightmare]

Perhaps I chose the wrong word to convey what I meant. I simply mean that, to me, it seems that religion is too man-made, too invented, too obviously like other kinds of fiction to be linked with the extensive time periods we associate with evolution. Religions are made when people make them up- doesn't sound like anything evolved to me. Sorry for the mix up, I can see why you were confused.

[tieInterceptor]

no worries :)

well, If you read 'god is not great' you can see how the meme of religion did evolve, very fast compared to 'natural' evolution, but still, you can call it an evolution, the religious memes that better infect the minds of their hosts do propagate and therefore survive.

[tieInterceptor]

that is why, most religions share common ideas that worked, like punishing who wants to leave the cult, criticisms of other faiths, fear of hell, reward for believers, heaven, miracle stories, creation of the universe in a puf by an all powerfull fatherly god, who will torture you for eternity if you look at him funny. They where taken from old religions and incorporated to the new ones, just because they worked to convince the minds of the followers.

Evolution of an idea,

[tieInterceptor]

and finally, what they talk about most, is that we, humans, as a kids evolved naturally to believe authority figures when young.

this is an evolutionary advantage for survive if your parents tell you not to touch fire or not eat some mushroom that could be poisonous.

but it also has the problem that if your father tells you when young that if you do not sacrifice a goat, the rain will not come, you believe it unquestioningly too.

we evolved to believe our elders, and that is the problem.

[tieInterceptor]

shit, I hate there is no edit button! I forgot to edit the text, to much rewriting and now its all in engrish...

[kryptoknightmare]

Well, I have read "god is not great", and I do understand this argument, but I still reject it. Despite the fact that I find most of Richard Dawkins' arguments and ideas valid and fascinating, I have never really warmed to memetic theory. I won't argue that cultural diffusion isn't a real phenomenon, but to attempt to make it into a science with discernable laws and mechanisms seems more than a bit silly and futile to me.

[kryptoknightmare]

Although the analogy between genetics and memetics is a vivid one, everything I've read about memetic theory seems wishy-washy, unprovable, and a little bit unclear (in contrast to genetics, which is airtight). A gene is a thing- it exists, and can therefore be physically passed on. A meme is an idea- a non-entity without physical existence, which does nothing (people in fact choose which to accept or deny).

[kryptoknightmare]

Applying principles like mutation, variation, inheritance and so on just don't seem reasonable to me- it almost takes people out of the equation, when people are the most important thing. If there has to be a scientific analogue, then cultural diffusion reminds me more of Lamarckian evolution than of real evolution (but the exercise still seems pointless to me!).

[kryptoknightmare]

!). I don't think it stands up to the scientific standards of proof, like falsifiability or Occam's razor. In regard to your assertion that people have evolved to believe what their parents tell them, I'm convinced that that is true (in fact, I never argued against the religious exploitation of evolved genetic traits).

[tieInterceptor]

fair enough,

I think evolution of an idea, is an analogy that works, since religion are designed to propagate (in the minds of the flock and convert others) etc...

 but I never say that it's 100% identical or anything,

I see what you mean, but I think that today's religion seem to have changed to catter for the taste of people and discarded what does not appeal... very slowly,

[Scrapheap71]

RD didn't write "God is not great" genius!!! Cristopher Hitchens did.

[kryptoknightmare]

"RD didn't write "God is not great" genius!!! Cristopher Hitchens did."

Umm...clearly. Where did you get the idea that I thought that Richard Dawkins wrote that book? Did you not read the entirety of the conversation we had?

[KingKafir]

Comment, rate, comment, and rate. :D  5 stars!

[freemind303]

Brilliantly done. Wish I could have seen it live. Unfortunately, atheists have jobs too! God doesn't pay my bills...

[sackman11]

I attended this convention!

[JohnPseudonym]

I replied to this comment! (LOL, sorry)

[not4resale]

Wow, that was fascinating. It's amazing how an evolutionary trait is what accounts for what certain people who activly deny evolution do.

[nethius]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

[byetis]

Where's part 2?!

[tacopylas]

Patience, grasshopper. This was posted only an hour ago. More is on the way.

[tacopylas]

I know that the idea of young men preserving their genitals for (imaginary) virgins seems ridiculous to us, but laughter isn't really appropriate, considering that such absurdity is killing people on a daily basis.

Very good lecture, though.

[xJediHowieX]

"Only the genitals survive in-tact"

Wow. Sick bastards.

[tieInterceptor]

nice videos, please keep posting :)

favourite already.

[KingKafir]

Rate Rate Rate!!!!

[Truthiness231]

Rate it five stars (you have to be clearer with the average person :/)!

[KingKafir]

Who marked my comment as spam? lol

I repeat. Atheist gatherings rock!

[Durgeofcerberus]

first again