The Belief Instinct
by Jesse Bering. W.W. Norton, 2010
Why do so many people believe in God? Evolutionary psychologist and Scientific American blogger Jesse Bering has a novel answer to this tired question. In The Belief Instinct, he explains that although the evolution of language was beneficial—allowing us to communicate easily and disseminate important information—it also brought with it a deeply troubling problem for early humans. Language allowed onlookers to report on someone else’s behavior long after the event had occurred. This meant that if you were caught doing something objectionable, such as stealing, you had “foolishly gambled away” your reputation and consequently your reproductive prospects. Thus, believing in a supernatural being who monitored and judged anyone at all times encouraged people to avoid acting on their immoral impulses, helping them survive, Bering says.
Gossiping, however, was not the only trait that prompted humans to believe in God. Bering argues that our ability to think about what others think, known as “theory of mind,” also played an important role. He writes that our “overzealous” theory of mind motivates us to get “into God’s head” and look for hidden meaning or messages embedded in any event, such as if your alarm clock fails to go off or a hurricane floods your basement. In fact, without this cognitive bias, “much of religion as we know it would never have gotten off the ground,” Bering asserts.
While building his case, Bering tells us about intriguing research, including studies that explored whether chimpanzees have a theory of mind (a definite answer remains elusive) and whether older children are more likely to be superstitious (surprisingly, Bering’s work shows that children six to seven years old see hidden messages in events for which those three to four years old find only rational explanations).
The book’s sharp humor is refreshing and entertaining, but one of its greatest strengths is its clarity. Bering does not use jargon or tiptoe around what he thinks. Of course, we may never know whether his theory is correct, but it certainly injects a breath of fresh air into what seems to have become a stale discussion.
See what we're tweeting about
37 Comments
Add Comment"This meant that if you were caught doing something objectionable, such as stealing, you had “foolishly gambled away” your reputation and consequently your reproductive prospects."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFoolish! This would not affect your ability to reproduce or your likelihood of reproduction. It would constrain you to reproducing with a subset of the population, or, more accurately, help define the subset you were constrained to, as all humans are constrained to some subset or another based on a variety of social and physical traits. If there was anything to this line of thought, why didn't stealing get bred out of the species?
"our “overzealous” theory of mind motivates us to get “into God’s head” and look for hidden meaning or messages embedded in any event, such as if your alarm clock fails to go off or a hurricane floods your basement."
Why are bad examples always used? The beauty, splendor and complexity of nature are just as likely to inspire thoughts of God. This "cognitive bias" is called curiosity and awe. These are the same traits which inspired science, so science and religion grew from the same seed.
"children six to seven years old see hidden messages in events for which those three to four years old find only rational explanations"
Interestingly, kids between 2 and 4 are the ones who report seeing "people" who aren't there, or at least their parents can't see. It takes until they are 6 or 7 before we can train them to not believe what they say they see, and oddly they stop seeing them. Anecdotal evidence abounds for this kind of experience, but it is impossible to study, since these "sightings" occur at random.
"Of course, we may never know whether his theory is correct"
Oh, look, an actual fact!
In real science, such as physics, the question of the existence of God is moot. Physics proves what physics prove whether God exists or not. Religious texts which contradict physics, therefore, are either false or misunderstood by the reader, otherwise, the believer must prove that God exists (impossible) and that they have perfect understanding of God (beyond impossible).
This article, however, requires the assertion that God does not exist. The onus of proof is on the one making the assertion, and non-existence can not be proven any more than existence can. The assertion becomes an assumption, and this is unscientific before it gets started. It is atheism trying to justify itself as science.
"This article, however, requires the assertion that God does not exist."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot really. The reason that people might believe in something is a separate question from what evidence supports the existence of that something. Since the objective evidence for a God is so gosh-darn poor, it's an interesting question why people are so inclined to believe in it, when they don't believe in things for which enormous amounts of evidence exists, such as evolution.
As for being able to prove the non-existence of something, it can surely be done in some instances. In others, you can make existence unlikely, although not impossible. This is the case for a God. If you can explain rationally all the things that the idea of God has been invoked to explain, this makes the existence of a God unnecessary and can be eliminated via Occam's razor.
Well, it depends what one was stilling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStilling other people wives didn't really reduce one's reproductive prospects, did it?!
Seriously, interesting but unnecessary stretch. At certain point humans started to try explain the word around them. Causes and effects, mechanisms. Some things were too complicated, so gods took place of unexplained, thunders, rains, earthquakes, tides, etc.... And it persists till now. The only "progress" was is the idea to reduce gods to one. Or approximately one like in Catholicism...
--
The evolution of the concept of a god is a result of natural selection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHomo sapiens were tribal animals with a leader. The strongest led the pack/tribe, but did not remain the strongest for very long. Result frequent changes in the leadership.
Like other animals humans have dreams and nightmares. A child screams in the night, parents rush to console the infant. Soon after language is developed, one of the members of the tribe explains what happened, and then claims he/she can control the evil entity that scared the child. We have the first idea of a devil, from this point on we can create gods etc.
Once these ideas were firmly established, the person who claims control or ability to communicate with spirits is now important. Leadership of the tribe moves from the strongest to the smartest.
Natural selection favors tribes controlled be the smart. The rest is history, the history of evolving gods and demons, and tribal control is firmly in the hands of the smartest.
Memes ensure the concept of god and demon are entrenched in human society. These concepts helped humans deal with the unknown, but in today's world they are the primary drivers of the sixth extinction, by advocating unbridled procreation.
Every species that develops intelligence, probably goes through similar development phases and eventually eliminates itself. A good explanation for why we encounter no alien intelligent species.
Why do people believe in God? Maybe because God exists and has revealed himself to us (see the Bible). And in any case, if God exists, we will each eventually know it, when we die. David L. Smith MD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is one of those questions for which there are too many answers!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan some evolutionary biologist explain to me why Jesse Bering's writing always leaves me with the feeling that I am listening to ancient Greek philosophers who are manufacturing plausible explanations based on insufficient data with little or no scientific basis?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, Bering is a prolific explainer, but there are opposing stories that are equally valid, and equally unprovable. Yes, his works are clearly written and plausible, as all good fiction must be clearly written and plausible. And of course, his astute observations on humanity always have the condescending tone of the philosopher who just knows that God does not exist, but he tolerates the mundane beliefs of lesser humans who haven't attained the vast knowledge of his school of thought. Please!
These stories are like creation myths, modern style. They can't be called theories, since theories must be falsifiable. The author of this review must agree, since she admits "... we may never know whether his theory is correct". So someone please tell me, why is this called science? Perhaps SciAm editors just like to promote science fiction writing.
It seems to me the existence for God is evident in the existence of the universe which is an effect requiring a cause. My rejection of evolution as nothing more than a false atheistic religious belief system puts me in some rather distinguished company:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.
[Prof. Loren Eisley. 1957. The Immense Journey. New York: Random House, p. 199]
Respect for authority is also a big cause of the god delusion; maybe the biggest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-utter stupidity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismythological, Western culture biased nonsense
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-a ramble of drivel... "why wasn't stealing bred out of the species"... brainwashed, ignorant jargon
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't help but agree. While I've always enjoyed the simplicity of the claims made by evolutionary psychologists, I feel that in some ways it is this simplicity which will be the downfall of the entire discipline. In science, evidence is typically accumulated in support of a hypothesis, or else is utilized to synthesize new claims. In evolutionary psychology, hypotheses are posited to explain other hypotheses. In effect, these claims offer little more than plausible explanations for psychological phenomena, absent any evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience requires more than parsimony to explain how the world works. As a result, evolutionary psychology fails the most basic test of scientific reasoning.
Religion should be private, and all else Humanism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@gesres - "Since the objective evidence for a God is so gosh-darn poor, it's an interesting question why people are so inclined to believe in it, when they don't believe in things for which enormous amounts of evidence exists, such as evolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe implication here is that things don't exist without objective evidence. There are still plenty of mysteries, even in science, and evolution is a good example. Evolutionary processes have been documented; one species of finch evolved into several, etc. But where is the evidence of an unbroken series of viable genetic mutations spanning the gap between different phyla or genera? Though logical and plausible, the evidence is all subjective, based on similarity of structure.
Now, don't take me out of context here, I believe in evolution, but nobody studies why I believe something for which the evidence is lacking at the macro level. I believe these assumptions to be accurate, despite the lack of proof.
I believe in the big bang theory, too, but science can't tell me conclusively whether there was just one, or several, or many; neither can science tell me what CAUSED the big bang(s). I believe in string theory, but science cannot prove or disprove the theory, nor tell me what CAUSES one string to vibrate this way and another that way. EVERYBODY believes in gravity, but NO ONE knows how or why it works.
"If you can explain rationally all the things that the idea of God has been invoked to explain, this makes the existence of a God unnecessary and can be eliminated via Occam's razor."
Occam's Razor favors the hypothesis which makes the least assumptions. A no-God hypothesis makes one assumption, everything in the universe happened by chance. A God hypothesis makes one assumption, there was a higher power that caused it. The odds against each hypothesis are beyond calculation. Occam's Razor does not apply.
The existence of God does not refute science, no matter how many dogmatic believers wish otherwise. No matter how many dogmatic religious concepts are proven false by science, they do not, singly or colletively, disprove God.
In the end, any study of why people believe things they can't prove is as subjective as the beliefs themselves. Therefore, I stand by my point. This article is not about science. It is about atheism masquerading as science.
@TobyNSaunders - "-a ramble of drivel... "why wasn't stealing bred out of the species"... brainwashed, ignorant jargon"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article asserts that belief in God was the result of natural selection, that such belief prevented behaviors like theft because getting caught interfered with the chance to breed. Yet, after countless generations, believers and non-believers persist, thieves and non-thieves exist, and there is no genetic correlation between belief and non-belief, belief and thievery, etc., etc. The natural selection benefit of belief in God is the brainwashed, ignorant jargon; it is a flimsy attempt to "explain away" belief.
The assumption that God does not exist is a clear assumption here, otherwise the writer would understand that God Himself put in every man and woman the inclination to believe in deity and to search for deity. Science has made an agreement with itself that whether or not God exists is never taken into the scientific investigation. The writer is clearly taking a different path that the scientific method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as believe is concerned. I do not believe that a true atheist exists. I have searched, but never found one. To a true atheist I could prove that God exists when following true scientific logic. To an agnosticist it is impossible to prove any deity that remains unseen. To a real searcher I believe he or she will find the true God when they search with all their heart, as the true God will reveal Himself to him or her.
I wish someone at SCIAM would reconsider the postings of this writer as they are clearly in violation with acceptable scientific methods.
@SkepticalKen or is that BlindBeliefKen is at it again. He expects the world to believe everything he says without question and leave the hard questions for things he doesn't like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The implication here is that things don't exist without objective evidence." this has been explained to you many times. It seems your head is too thick for anything to get through. The implication is that things are not assumed to exist if there is no evidence to support them. That does not mean that they are assumed not to exist.
"But where is the evidence of an unbroken series of viable genetic mutations spanning the gap between different phyla or genera?" where is the evidence of an unbroken series of proofs that you are who you claim to be? I am sure there aren't photos of you taken every second of every day of your life. I'm sure there are times where you cannot account for your whereabouts. At any one of those moments you could have been replaced by an imposter. Should we put you in prison until you can prove who you are using the same criteria you demand of evolution?
"Occam's Razor favors the hypothesis which makes the least assumptions. A no-God hypothesis makes one assumption, everything in the universe happened by chance. A God hypothesis makes one assumption, there was a higher power that caused it. The odds against each hypothesis are beyond calculation. Occam's Razor does not apply." man you are clueless. A god hypothesis requires proof of god which requires proof of how it came to be which is much more complex than the natural laws for which we do have evidence by the way. That statement is one of the most idiotic you have ever made and that is saying something. It is like saying one could explain the falling of a rock by using either gravity or magic invisible fairies. They are both equally valid theories. You really need to get yourself educated. You are making a complete fool of yourself.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, you are completely irrational, yet you expect to vent your B.S. on a science site and be taken seriously. I don't know why you just don't do this in a church where blind faith, complete ignorance and the inability to think for yourself is esteemed.
@Bill Crofut, what does your appeal to authority have to do with this article? What people think is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what can be proven. That is what science is about. If you don't except those terms then perhaps you are in the wrong place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTobyNSaunders,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: comment 10
-snappy response
@solspot, part of the scientific process is hypothesis. It is not only about theories. Also, some areas of study are easy to isolate than others. Evolutionary psychology has a number of challenges; brain tissue does not fossilize, early hominids were not good at keeping journals, there can be many possible causes for one behaviour and many possible behavioural responses to a stimulus. Game theory is used extensively to support evolutionary psychology. It is not the smoking gun that one would prefer but it is a place to start. And there is some experimental support of predictions made by some of the game models. It is a very young field. I'm sure that you could have made similar claims about palaeontology back in the early 1800's but as a science matures so does its foundation. Remember, science is a process not a repository of knowledge. You sound like a kid stuck in the back seat during the family vacation whining, "are we there yet?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDSmith1204 MD: How can I know anything after I die? All my knowledge is stored in neurons and possibly some other glia cells that make up my brain. When I die these cells are the first to die, I can know nothing. I just don't exit no question of knowing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExpected better knowledge from an MD.
Andira: Just two answers. Yes or No.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDNA evidence favors a single origin for all life. Anatomical evidence suggest natural selection does a good job of covering for poor design as later species are forced to cope with features designed for previous species no longer relevant to the current species.
TobyNSaunders: Explain yourself. Abuse is not acceptable, except perhaps by the Taliban.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolspot: The theory of natural selection is falsifiable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll you have to do is find a fossil of a modern animal in era before science claims it existed. A human skeleton from the Cambrian will totally falsify evolution and support your creator theory.
@robert schmidt - "BlindBeliefKen is at it again"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is among your most hilarious assumptions. I reject dogma from both sides, and I reject far more religious dogma than scientific dogma...easy to do, there is more of it. I never accept anything because I heard it from someone smarter or better educated than I am. My one blind belief is that no one has absolute knowledge or insight.
"Should we put you in prison until you can prove who you are using the same criteria you demand of evolution?"
As usual, you read me with the bias of your assumption that I am some sort of stereotype. I do not demand proof of evolution, I merely point out that there are assumptions; I believe the assumptions are valid, but that does not make them facts. What you see as absolute truth, I see as sound theory.
"A god hypothesis requires proof of god..."
Are you saying that a hypothesis never makes assumptions? If so, then Occam's Razor is pointless, as it favors the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions. Unless, of course, you want the watered down, less accurate version of Occam's, that the simplest hypothesis is the right one, which would strongly favor God. However complex God would have to be, He makes for a very simple explanation.
That said, let me remind you that I do not find that explanation to be satisfactory, hence my interest in science. Science seeks to understand how the forces of nature work, and furthermore to control those forces when possible. The main point I always try to make is that our scientific understanding of those forces is not complete, not absolute, not perfect, and probably never will be. It is far more complete than our understanding of God, and always will be.
In the context of this article, the assumptions are rampant and the logic is flimsy. The assumption of belief in God being favored by natural selection is sophomoric. Moreover, it makes the additional assumption that the belief that "God is watching" must be coupled with the belief that God will tell on us, since social bias is asserted as the "fatal" pressure on the chance to reproduce.
I find your personal attacks to be quite amusing, as they seem to be based on the fact that I accept science with a grain of salt, rather than with the blind faith you accept science with.
@"Are you saying that a hypothesis never makes assumptions?" no a hypothesis does not make assumptions, it postulates based on existing evidence. That is not an assumption as it does not claim that the proposition is true only that it might be. You cannot hypothesis that the universe was created by god until you first prove that god exists. This is called, "assuming facts not in evidence". In a hypothesis, the proposition is obviously not proven but it must be based on fact otherwise it is not valid. Furthermore, a hypothesis must be falsifiable. Those of faith have conveniently defined god in such a way that he cannot be proven therefore he cannot be the basis of a hypothesis as the hypothesis would not be falsifiable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"However complex God would have to be, He makes for a very simple explanation." are you really that dense? How can inventing a complex being as the source of a phenomenon be a simple explanation? You just don't seem to understand that you must PROVE god exists before you can use him as an explanation and a complex being is much more difficult to prove than natural laws for which there is already a tremendous amount of proof. The fact that you do not understand this clearly demonstrates your scientific illiteracy, yet you seem to think you are an expert. Dunning-Kruger, you are the post child.
"In the context of this article, the assumptions are rampant and the logic is flimsy." typical hypocrisy coming from someone who assumes the existence of a being for which there is no evidence.
"I accept science with a grain of salt" no, you reject science with a fanatical religious bias, that is the basis of my "attack". You reject the rules of the game yet you keep coming to the pitch insisting on playing. You just don't get it. Your problem with science is because of your ignorance, nothing more. But I guess you think it is easier to try and convince people you are right rather than educate your own tightly closed mind.
"rather than with the blind faith you accept science with," please show me where I accept science with blind faith, or is that just another one of your lies intended to distract attention away from your own failures?
@robert schmidt - ""I accept science with a grain of salt" no, you reject science with a fanatical religious bias"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you read entire sentences in my posts, or just skim for keywords you can snipe at?
My mind is open. You are the one who asserts that I must accept everything said by science, and that if I don't I am against everything science says. The only science I attack is science which requires me to be an atheist.
The "science" article you are defending is psychology, the least exact of all sciences. Defending the natural selection arguments in the article shows a devotion to science so blind that it must accept even these childish assertions simply because they come from a trusted scientific source. Your ongoing assertion that science must be accepted lock, stock and barrel, and that the logic never be questioned is all the evidence I need of your blind faith. It is the same kind of dogma I reject in so many churches; believe it all or be condemned.
Those who read this article, and my comments, without your vehement anti-God bias see quite clearly that this natural selection argument to explain the (implied foolish) belief in God is childish and a poor example of science...or a good example of poor science. If Sci-Am did not relish arguments like these, they would not continue to publish articles like this which are clearly intended to cause such arguments.
As long as you defend psychology as an exact, unassailable science, you have no room to criticize others for being irrational.
So many theories on evolution today are being told as "fact".none whatsoever have been proven, some so called scientific proof have been faked in the past and many evolutionists do not agree with one another.Yes i believe in one true God as you need more faith to believe in evolution than God.WHY? Can you honestly say scientifically that everything just happened by chance?We're just the right distance from the sun the earth being the perfect size to sustain life and also just the perfect angle tilt to have the seasons which are important to our survival.Its a bit like going into a desert and finding a lovely home with heating and plumbing fridge full of food nicely decorated and someone telling you "nobody build this it all came about by chance."Where do i begin with living things and how complex they are.Evolution basically started by a man noticing a few very small mutations with a few finches beaks and questionable experiments,yet at the end of the day they are still creatures "according to their kind"and nothing has changed. Newton and even einstien acknowledged a higher being.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJustinDavies: There is just one theory of evolution. It has evolved over time. It is a proven hypothesis, hence it is called a theory:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn science a theory is defined as - An hypothesis that has been established by observation or experiment. It is a statement of laws and principles of something known or observed.
When it comes to fakes, the religious lot take the cake. Think of all the financial & sexual exploitation of children and young women since the church gained authority over European society. Very similar to the current Islamic mullahs hold over Islamic societies. Lucky for European society the church went too far, and lost their hold, which led to the Industrial revolution.
I am sure the god you believe in is not the same god as the Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups believe in. To believe in evolution you need a mind, to believe in a fairy you just need unquestioning acceptance of ancient myths.
If our planet was not suitable for life we would not be having this discussion, different lifeforms evolve in environments that suit that particular life.
If somebody built everything, we are talking about the most useless designer that anyone can come across. The human body is nothing but a total mess. Go take a look at an autopsy and see the mess of nerves, veins, arteries etc. Our eyes are wanting in every optical aspect. Our respiratory system designed to aid infections and respiratory problems, as are our moist eye sockets.
Newton would have been executed if he expressed any doubts about a god, as they almost did to Galileo. But Newton got away with his "Theory of Gravity" which amounts to "rules of nature", violently opposed by the church. Oh yes he did prove his hypothesis, which was later accepted by the scientific world as "Theory" as defined above.
Einstein was an atheist, but tried not to offend the majority of the citizenry who at that time had religious beliefs. Being nice is not seen as humanity but as weakness.
Sorry mate there is no god, and when you die you just don't exist anymore.
@SkepticalKen, "You are the one who asserts that I must accept everything said by science" please show me where I asserted that. "Defending the natural selection arguments in the article shows a devotion to science so blind," how is defending an argument the same as blind devotion? This is a common tactic for religious fanatics, accuse your opponent of the same ridiculous mindset that you have. I can think of nothing more damning. But like everything else you have said, it is based on nothing and is meaningless. "As long as you defend psychology as an exact, unassailable science" again, show me where I did that. "your vehement anti-God bias" is that what you call a lack of belief in something for which there is no proof? That statement says more about you than me. You religious nuts are so accustomed to lying to further your agenda that you can no longer distinguish fact from fantasy. You accused me things I've never done and invented conspiracies all in an effort to distract from the fact that your beliefs are based on absolutely nothing. If you want to live in a fantasy world, fine, that is your right. But, as I keep saying, this is the wrong forum to do that if you are looking for affirmation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe book reviewed here is apparently opinion, not science. Thanks for the heads up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@robert schmidt - "You are the one who asserts that I must accept everything said by science" please show me where I asserted that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you didn't. Perhaps it was just the impression I get from things like when I say that evolution, while reasonable, is not fully supported and you attack me as though I were an ACTUAL religious fanatic trying to say that evolution is wrong because God said so. I tell you repeatedly that I love science, despite the fact that sometimes I see things presented as science that I believe are a load of bull, and you repeatedly tell me that I don't understand ANYTHING about science.
"your vehement anti-God bias" is that what you call a lack of belief in something for which there is no proof?"
No, that's what I call the angry name-calling that ensues when I say that lack of evidence does not mean that one MUST assume non-existence, but that one MUST assume ambiguity. Physics does this. You cannot show me one thing in physics that REQUIRES that God does not exist. It is also what I call the angry name-calling ensues when some one "drags God" into the discussion of an article which opens with the question "Why do so many people believe in God?"
"You accused me things I've never done "
Much like you calling me a religious fanatic, when a REAL religious fanatic would condemn me to hell for saying that the question of God is ambiguous in a scientific context.
"If you want to live in a fantasy world, fine, that is your right. But, as I keep saying, this is the wrong forum to do that if you are looking for affirmation."
Lucky me, I'm not looking for affirmation. Are you? I'm just expressing my opinion.
Oddly enough, my biggest beef with this article has nothing to do with the whole "existence of God" question. It is that the natural selection argument presented is so flimsy. Perhaps the author is afraid that people of faith are starting to soften on the concept, and so presents this farcical argument to try to sustain the idiotic, illogical "war between religion and science". Science and belief in God are entirely seperate things, and it is only dogma from both sides that create the conflict.
It is a conflict that does not benefit science. In fact it harms science, driving away potential financial support...not me, of course, I'd be lucky to cover the cost of a toggle switch on a particle accelerator, but some believers are a lot better off than me.
At any rate, if my comments grieve you so badly, take your grievance to the author who invited me with her opening line.
Eh, I've seen "SkepticalKen's" comments elsewhere on this site too. I have to agree with robert schmidt and say I'm not impressed either. Comes across as a know it all that has to get the last word in. I admit I have not read this book so I can't comment on it specifically. Although there are reviews elsewhere excellent as well and it has been on my must-read list.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ c.harvey...interesting you replied to me but seemed to be talking to my twin, robert schmidt. By twin, of course, I mean the way we both come off as a bit pompous much of the time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill, I find it interesting that, outside of a few ad hominem attacks, no one has even tried to defend the natural selection arguments in this article.
If respect for authority causes the god delusion, are you saying that respect for scientific authority is equally delusional? This undermines science completely. We must assume that you did not complete your thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I ask you overly educated non believers how do you see your Mother,Father,Children,Spouse,Siblings? Do you think of them as simply an accident in the universe who upon dieing will rot away and never ever be again?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if you're correct what ill does it do to believe?
And more important if you're wrong what will it gain you to believe?