The Human Question

Darwin's definition of religion, as found in The Descent of Man (need to look this up online and copy it here. Can't do that now as I just heard it on audio thanks to vox libri), is so favorable (talks of loving relationship, etc.) that the new atheists would learn a thing or two from Darwin about fair-minded description of religion. No straw-man here.

In a debate with Alister McGrath, Dennet proposes that, far from being beneficial to humans, religion is a virus to which we adapt. It occurs to me that Dennet, like Dawkins recognizes that religion is part of the human condition but doesn't want to grant that it is beneficial. But if one can argue that religion is a virus, can't someone else argue that democracy is one as well? At which point, we need to drop meme talk and rely on an insightful discussion of the evidence for/against belief in God.

If I were to try to explain the origin of theism as naturalistically as possible, my starting point would not be trying to explain causes of natural phenomena (which D'Souza points out, is an anachronistic reading of history) but look at something like the communion of the saints as natural to human society. And that communion, as a community, has a leader: the Holy One. This theme is not utterly independent of seeking causes of nature. But an adequate explanation must include both. By "natural" I don't mean "non-supernatural," for nature itself points to God. Especially human nature: if there is freedom, then there is more to nature than an ontological-naturalist (as in anti-supernatralist) is willing to recognize; and there is more to nature than a methodological-naturalist (that is, one who as a matter of principle, when doing science admits only of materialistic explanations) is able to recognize.

Amazing how Atkins talks dismissively to McGrath about the latter's belief in God as wish fulfillment, and then makes a colossal faith-like act in the ability of science to know all that is. Amazing too how Atkins denies that the universe has a meaning or purpose, and then displays at every point in the discussion, a craving for unbounded knowledge of what is. That atheist is so purpose driven . Then again, Atkins also distinguishes between cosmic purpose (which he denies) and individual desires (which I think he would not deny having), such as the desire to know. But acknowledging the desire to know...(thanking Giussani for help in phrasing this)... reality in all of its factors is not really different from admitting that one has a purpose in life. A purpose that one has not chosen, and in that sense, a natural purpose. Humans see human purposes from the inside. We can suppose that only humans have natural goals, in which case on is engaging in exceptionalism--an ironic...