"There's More Light Over Here"
Richard Dawkins would be more interesting if he would reach a different conclusion once in a while. He starts with a good question:Can natural selection explain the pervasiveness of religion? But he also starts with this statement:

As a Darwinian, the aspect of religion that catches my attention is its profligate wastefulness, its extravagant display of baroque uselessness.

He reminds me of the man who looks for his keys under the streetlamp, rather than over where he lost them, on the grounds that he can see better in the light.

Dawkins mentions a few intriguing solutions, only to cheat them of proper consideration. Could reassurance against death actually extend life?

"This could be true or it could be false....but I shall not pursue the matter."

Could religion be a case where group-selection works, in contradiction of Dawkins' noted hostility toward it?

"This is an interesting line of theory to pursue, but I shall not do so here."

He cheats this way because he has limited space and needs to get to the acceptable answer: religion is a pointless sham caused by a malfunctioning aspect of selected behavior - in this case, the "fact" that children "[o]bey without question" what adults tell them, and pass it to their own children. He has a nice explanation of why moths fly into candles on the way to explaining that religious people are also headed for the flames.

Granted, he's writing for Free Inquiry, so he knows his audience wants to hear that religious people are maladapted for long-term survival. It's always a pleasure to read that right thinking folks like yourself are the Chosen People, even if it's only natural selection that's doing the choosing. And it's so frequently the same sermon, no matter who the preacher is - they are wrong, evil, wasteful, and stupid, and we are destined to come out on top in the long run....
- posted by Scott @ 9:11 PM