Dave,
Religion is culturally constructed as a part of language, thinking, expression, etc. But, as you have admitted in the past, you are tone deaf to the different forms of religious movements here in the US. Hence religion to you is pretty clearly not what many, or even most, people over here have currently constructed religion to be.

I think your suggestion that "Of course such a view of religion would reject the idea of a once and for all revelation in the form of a sacred text (but only extreme forms of protestantism do that anyway)." demonstrates a continental viewpoint not necessarily shared (or commonly constructed) with folks on our side of the Atlantic who, unfortunately, have a lot of guns, bombs, nukes, and an amazing apocalyptic vision that would keep me awake at night, were I the type to worry about that sort of stuff.

You define religion in a way that a priori makes all people religious. But this makes the term essentially meaningless. If I were to take the word "religion" from Dawkins, Harris, etc. writings and replace it with "organized entities regarded as religious movements", would it make their arguments more or less tenable?

Wayne

Whoa. As a former practitioner of extreme protestantism, I must, er, protest the following:
"...revelation in the form of a sacred text (but only extreme forms of protestantism do that anyway)."

What of the RC teachings that "Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition have equal authority?" What of the followers of the Quran?

Perhaps off-topic, but my knee has to jerk once in a while. I'm not trying to open a religious thread here.

Well that post produced some rapid reactions! JB- yes the traditions (and the evolving traditions of the church have equal authority, so it is not dependent on a single absolute text. The Quran is also contextually interpreted by most Muslim theologians. So I will defend my statement but agree that it was biased. :-)

Wayne, I sort of anticipated that response and did think about a qualification but decided to wait and see if the response came.

I am saying that religion has been a part of our evolutionary heritage, which does not make all people a prior religious. To say one does not necessitate the other.

It is also possible for an evolutionary process to become perverted (I would argue that the American Taliban come into that category). Just as evolutionary developments for protectiveness can result in war. Once a pervert structure is in place it is difficult to dislodge. Hence my final comment that we have to take responsibility

Dave,
So aren't people like Harris, et al, taking responsibility for our past by arguing to eliminate what they view as a significant source of the injustice? How is their rabid opposition to religion significantly different from the abolitionists position in New England in the early 19th century? At that time many argued that slavery was natural and that it was acceptable and, to be honest, the pro-slavery ministers certainly had the upper hand scripturally.

I don't disagree that there is 'something' in us that makes us vulnerable to supernatural leanings, but I also wouldn't reject the neo-athiest argument simply because it is put forward in an unpleasant, to you, at least, and aggressive manner.

Lastly, the perversion of an evolutionary process suggests intent or direction. I would think the neo-athiest would argue that by it's very nature religion will become perverted, no matter how many perfectly "nice" religious people are out there. Sort of like Russian Roulette, just because you get away with it the first few times doesn't suggest that it is a smart game to play.

Wayne

Ummm
OK if we say that religion is a part of our evolutionary heritage (which I think it is in cognitive/linguistic terms), it does not follow, that I have to take a view that all forms of religion are therefore valid. I reference my points on free will and responsibility. Slavery I think we can argue is a moral wrong and that it should be opposed.

Dawkins to my mind opposes a patriarchal and primitive version of religion (which I would also oppose) but then uses that straw man to encompass all religion. He also seeks to establish a new belief system/ideology with all the trappings of religion(hence my earlier accusation of hypocrisy). Awareness of something other than ourselves can be interpreted as supernatural, or it can be interpreted as a basic impulse to go beyond selfishness. I prefer the latter interpretation.

As to the issue of necessary perversion, well you could argue that all systems are inclined that way. Politics, religion etc etc. The state of nature alternative was suitably handled by Golding in Lord of the Flies. It does not mean that they all have to me. The fact that most human systems can lapse into perversion argues for greater moral education, awareness and monitoring.

All of this is living with the reality of being human. If we remove religion war will not cease .....

I am eventually going to go blue in the face saying this Dave but I don't actually believe we disagree as much as you think. Replace the word religion with spirituality and I'd agree with most of what you say. What I am against is the institutionalization of the instinct to be spiritual and the mess that ensues thereafter.

Ok Euan, fair cop. I am guilty of letting a mischievous sense of humor run away with me.

I think in God Delusion, Dawkins discussed in one total chapeter about the roots of the religion. He agreed with Dennett about the intentional stance as the source of the imagination of a Universal Creator - called God. And, B doesn't contradict C directly, since not every Biological heritage is not a Science, religion and Science are indeed mutually exclusive tenets.

I think B does contradict C and I am afraid I don't buy the necessity (or the actuality) of C