Famed biologist:Religion is dragging us down and must be eliminated 'for the sake of human progress'

[rug]

David Edwards
28 Jan 2015 at 14:27 ET

Biologist E. O. Wilson, who is known as the “the father of sociobiology,” said recently that the Earth was suffering “the death of a thousand cuts” because of religion.

In the most recent issue of New Scientist, Wilson explained that his next book would look at the future of humans and the Earth.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning biologist warned that people had not yet realized that the “tribal structure” had been destroying the planet by “a thousand cuts,” according a partial transcript obtained by the International Business Times.

“All the ideologies and religions have their own answers for the big questions, but these are usually bound as a dogma to some kind of tribe,” he said. “Religions in particular feature supernatural elements that other tribes – other faiths – cannot accept … And every tribe, no matter how generous, benign, loving and charitable, nonetheless looks down on all other tribes. What’s dragging us down is religious faith.”

\\http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/famed-biologist-religion-is-dragging-us-down-and-must-be-eliminated-for-the-sake-of-human-progress/

Beware when you see the words "sociobiology" and "progress" in the same sentence.

The interview, behind a paywall, is here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530050.400-e-o-wilson-religious-faith-is-dragging-us-down.html?full=true

[Dont call me Shirley]

1. Ego also is a terrible detriment to humanity and the earth's living beings.

[TimeToEvolve]

52. the more ego one has, the less knowledge and vice versa

ego equals one over knowledge

[cbayer]

53. Something that might be even truer is

The more ego one has, the more one thinks they know.

[Cartoonist]

2. I only have a problem with

MUST BE ELIMINATED

Let's just work peacefully to enlighten people, not force them, like theists try to force their shit on the rest of us.

[cbayer]

5. Enlightenment is a two way street, so however you want to enlighten, you

must be prepared for others to enlighten you.

That is, of course, unless you know the "one way".

[Cartoonist]

8. They've got quite a hurdle

They have to prove that God exists.

My belief is simply "There is no proof that God exists"
That statement is rock solid, good luck trying to crack it.

[cbayer]

14. Yep, and all you have to do is prove god doesn't exist.

Easy peasy, right?

Your statement is absolutely accurate. There is no proof, pretty much everyone will agree with that and you have nothing to sell.

[Cartoonist]

21. No I don't

I stand by my statement. There is no proof that god exists. That is rock solid without a crack in it. It's a pretty firm foundation to stand on, unlike belief. I think it will eventually sell itself.

[cbayer]

44. And they can stand by theirs - there is not proof that god does not exist.

That is also rock solid without a crack in it and is about as firm a foundations as you have.

Neither will sell themselves unless someone is looking to buy. Your proselytizing is no more effective than theirs.

[edhopper]

43. Well

Hardly everyone.

[bvf]

9. I didn't see him calling

for jihad, crusade, re-education camps, eugenic measures, or whatever.

You can bet that certain elements hereabouts will pigeonhole him as "militant," though.

[cbayer]

50. "Certain elements"? Who would that be?

Last edited Thu Jan 29, 2015, 03:05 PM - Edit history (2)

I don't see that happening here. Is it just too soon? Or am I missing it?



I'm editing this, because I just did a search and got these really amusing results.

The word "militant" has been used in all of the groups under the Religion & Spirituality heading a total of 26 times in the last month.

It was used 17 times in the Atheist group.

It was used eight times in the Religion group. Seven of those times it was used by members who frequent the atheist group.

It was used once in the interfaith group.

So I guess those "certain elements" are not who you think they are.

Don't you just love data!

[bvf]

56. What's even more amusing

is that you took the trouble you did without bothering to think about what "pigeonhole" might mean.

[okasha]

57. A quantity of barium

pressed into a cylindrical shape and set upright.

[cbayer]

58. Do you then put a pigeon in there?

I've been thinking of taking up pigeon racing and wondered how I would store them.

[bvf]

3. ?

"Beware when you see the words 'sociobiology' and 'progress' in the same sentence."

Why?

[rug]

6. What do you know about sociobiology?

Among other things, it has been used by some, not all, to rationalize theories of racial inferiority.

However, non-human animal behavior was not the only subject addressed in Sociobiology; famously, the first and last chapters of the book addressed Wilson’s views about the amenability of human behavior to be studied by a similar sort of project. These were developed to some extent in his later book, On Human Nature (Wilson, 1978). For a variety of reasons, primarily because Wilson was perceived to be arguing that many problematic social behaviors were unchangeable, the contents of these two chapters provoked an extremely acrimonious debate sometimes referred to as the “sociobiology wars” (one well regarded discussion of the history and sociology of the “sociobiology wars” is Segerstrale, 2000). Because this debate attracted so much attention, the term “sociobiology” has come to be associated with this early proposed human project, or at least the description of it set up for attack by its critics (see, for example, Allen et al., 1975; Caplan, 1979; Gould, 1977, 251–259; 1978; Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People, 1976). Wilson’s proposed human project might be called “Pop Sociobiology” after Kitcher (1985). The critics claimed that “Pop Sociobiologists” were committed to a form of genetic determinism, an overly strong adaptationism and had a tendency to ignore the effects of learning and culture.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sociobiology/#Bib

There's a lot out there on the controversy.

[phil89]

11. Religions have been

known to rationalize some pretty horrible things too.

[rug]

13. "too"

[bvf]

12. Enough to recognize anti-science bullshit.

"Among other things, it (sociobiology) has been used by some, not all, to rationalize theories of racial inferiority."

And genetics has been used by some, not all, to rationalize the same thing.

Do you have a point to make, or would you just prefer to bring genetic research to a screeching halt?

[rug]

15. Not hardly enough.

I have, though, seen enough of your posts to recognize a predisposition to anti-religion bullshit, whether it's couched in the name of science or any other handy banner.

Had you, in fact, enough to recognize "anti-science bullshit", you'd know that genetics has less to do with sociobiology than politics. Had you enough, you'd realize that sociobiology is the name of a best-selling science book and not a scientific discipline at all.

The proof that you do not have "enough" has been demonstrated by this magnificent non sequitur: "would you just prefer to bring genetic research to a screeching halt?

Go get some more before you pop off.

[bvf]

18. More than enough.

"Had you, in fact, enough to recognize 'anti-science bullshit,' you'd know that genetics has less to do with sociobiology than politics."

Simply because a field of study can be put to nefarious aims does not invalidate its potential for the betterment of the human race. Either you agree with that, or you'll have to explain your convenient dodge by saying "some, not all," as you did upthread.

Sheesh.

[Leontius]

41. Theologians around the world thank you for your support.

[bvf]

42. Here's to all success in their "studies"!

I'm right behind them, for now.

[cbayer]

4. I guess we could put them all in reeducation camps similar to the ant farms he so loves.

His upcoming book is called The Meaning of Human Existence, so I guess he's nailed it.

[rug]

7. Unless he's prepared to prove religion is a biological function,

I'm dubious of his competence on the subject.

[cbayer]

10. This kind of arrogance really puts me off.

He really has no standing in this area.

[bvf]

20. Who, in your humble opinion,

would have "standing in this area"?

[cbayer]

51. Someone who had some education, training and experience in the field of religion.

He has had some pretty interesting ideas about religion in the past.

The predisposition to religious belief is an ineradicable part of human behavior. Mankind has produced 100,000 religions. It is an illusion to think that scientific humanism and learning will dispel religious belief….

Though theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline, religion will endure for a long time to come and will not be replaced by scientific materialism.

http://mcgoodwin.net/pages/otherbooks/eow_humannature.html

But all of this becomes irrelevant because i think the title is a total misrepresentation of what he actually said.

What he actually said is that religion has lost it's way and has become more tribal than spiritual. He is actually not advocating for the elimination of religion at all but for the elimination of specific "faiths" that are focused on their particular tribe instead of on the earth or the universe.

This, I think, he is most likely correct about.

[bvf]

16. Oh, good.

Nobody is entitled to an opinion on religion if he/she is a noted expert in some particular field.

What "competence" are you looking for? Biblical "scholarship" perhaps?

[rug]

17. This biologist is as competent to declare the need to end religion

as a bishop is competent to declare the need to end abortion.

See how that works?

He is no more privileged to deference based on his science than a bishop is more privileged to deference based on his religion.

You know the saying about opinions. Everyone's got one . . . .

[bvf]

19. So religion is due as much deference

as science, in your view.

Again, I say, "Oh, good."

[rug]

22. Again, I say, "Non sequitur."

I understand that it is much easier for you to rebut what you prefer I say, but do try to respond to what I actually do say.

[bvf]

23. You don't really

understand what "non sequitur" means, do you?

[rug]

24. Indeed I do.

For example, unlike your two other posts, which are indeed non sequiturs, albeit wrapped in straw, this post is simply a garden variety ad hominem.

[bvf]

28. Seems not to be the case.

And don't you just hate it when people use adjectives as nouns?

It's definitely not an ad hominem argument to point out someone's misuse of language.

You know that, right?

[rug]

36. You don't do coy well.

[bvf]

37. Well enough, apparently.

[hrmjustin]

25. My religion is not hindering me or bringing me down at all.

[Brettongarcia]

45. prove it

[hrmjustin]

46. How would you proprose I prove it?

[Jim__]

26. Interesting subscription options.

Print + web - $25 for 12 issues.

Web only - $50 for 30 days.

I'll probably pick up the issue to read the article. I'm curious as to the full content of the interview.

[rug]

27. I bet that's so they can get better ad rates on the print version.

I'd like to see the whole interview too.

[mike_c]

29. +1

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. There are certainly a ton of folks who use religion as their excuse not to believe in

anthropogenic climate change, or not to do anything about it politically. In that 'cut' alone, we're seeing the Earth becoming far less supportive of advanced life forms that are adapted to specific biomes.

[DeSwiss]

31. K&R

[pinto]

32. What I've read of his theories is disturbing.

I'm gay and wonder how I would fit into some of the genetic, "socio biologic", evolutionary theories of human progress he and others espouse. I find them a stretch and, again, disturbing. It's worth a step back and a re-look at this.

And PS, sir, I'm a man not an ant.

[bvf]

33. Here's a little thought experiment for you:

Suppose a predisposition to homophobia were found to have a genetic basis.

Would you support further research into such an area?

[pinto]

34. The only two innate fears we have, from what I know, are falling and loud noises.

Apparently all others are learned to some extent.

So, I don't get your point.

[bvf]

35. That's why

I deliberately couched the question in terms of a thought experiment.

What about the prospect of isolation? Doesn't that qualify as an innate fear, at least among neonates?

[pinto]

38. I've no clue about an innate fear of isolation among neonates.

But can see it as an extreme, fearful experience.

I think the difference we're talking about here is innate and experiential.

[bvf]

40. Fair enough, but do you regard

all animal (including human) behavioral predelictions to arise from experience, or is there possibly some genetic component to it in some circumstances?

[MisterP]

39. the guy who said the social sciences and humanities will inevitably be subsumed by sociobiology?

though something tells me he'd count developmentalism as a "religion," so all those forests leveled by Nkrumah, Mao, and the PRI were done so in the name of faith, natch!

[LeftishBrit]

47. 'must be eliminated' - OK, King Canute, tell us how?

Even if desirable, it's not practically possible; and I believe that Wilson himself has said that in the past, so I wonder if he's being misquoted.

[Jim__]

48. In the interview, the "thousand cuts" comment is not directly tied to religion.

I'm writing a trilogy. The first was The Social Conquest of Earth, which dealt with where we come from. The Meaning of Human Existence deals with where we are. And the final part, The End of the Anthropocene, will look at where we are going.

The major theme of that upcoming book will be that we are destroying earth in a way that people haven't appreciated enough, and that we are eroding away the biosphere through species extinction, like the death of a thousand cuts. I want to examine the new ideology of the anthropocene - namely those who believe that the fight for biodiversity is pretty much lost and we should just go on humanising earth until it is peopled from pole to pole; a planet by, of, and for humanity. It sounds good but it's suicidal.

...

Why does our species seem to ignore scientific warnings about Earth's future?

I think primarily it's our tribal structure.

...

That last answer then goes on to be approximately the last paragraph as described in the OP.

My guess is that this interview has been heavily edited (it's extremely short), or Wilson is speaking off the cuff. His arguments are not very convincing. If the primary problem is our tribal structure, I'm not sure how he can conclude that what's dragging us down is religion. Does he equate religion with tribal structure? That wouldn't be accurate. His book probably goes into some detail on these issues. I 'd take this interview with a large grain of salt.

[cbayer]

49. I find much of this really confusing.

He has an interesting history in regards to religion, but nothing I have seen is anything like this title.

The actual quote is this:

“Humans everywhere have a strong tendency to wonder about whether they’re being looked over by a god or not. Practically every person ponders whether they’re going to have another life,” Wilson continued. “These are the things that unite humanity.”

But he said that the “transcendent searching has been hijacked by the tribal religions.”

“So I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths. But certainly not eliminating the natural yearnings of our species or the asking of these great questions.”

He seems to be talking about how religion has taken a wrong turn and become too tribal. He isn't actually advocating for the elimination of religion, but for the elimination of "religious faiths" which I think means the tribal factions.

[Jim__]

54. "Their <the great religions> exquisitely human flaw is tribalism.”

From the Washington Post's review:

...

Ironically, the religious faiths that are the chief source of this skepticism are themselves a product of evolution, Wilson tells us in this slender volume, which has been short-listed for this year’s National Book Award in nonfiction. Following Darwin’s lead, he argues that natural selection operates not only at the individual level but also at the level of groups. Throughout our evolutionary history, those groups that bonded most firmly against outsiders enjoyed greater reproductive success — and religion is the most potent binding force that human cultures have produced.

Wilson acknowledges the benefits that arise from religious faith, including moral codes that instruct believers to relieve suffering and care for the vulnerable. One of his previous books, “The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth” (2006), took the form of a letter addressed to a Southern Baptist minister, seeking common ground in the effort to preserve biodiversity by invoking the stewardship ethic implicit in the Bible. In his new book, however, perhaps in response to the sectarian strife that engulfs so many nations, Wilson laments that “the great religions are also, and tragically, sources of ceaseless and unnecessary suffering. They are impediments to the grasp of reality needed to solve most social problems in the real world. Their exquisitely human flaw is tribalism.”

Tribalism is only one consequence of what Wilson calls the “Paleolithic Curse: genetic adaptations that worked very well for millions of years of hunter-gatherer existence but are increasingly a hindrance in a globally urban and technoscientific society.” Among other ways in which our genetic adaptations ill suit us for contemporary conditions, he notes our penchant for racism, our refusal to curb population growth, our failure to cooperate with one another on a scale commensurate with the challenges we face and our devastation of the natural environment.

...

I may wind up buying his book. It sounds interesting.

[cbayer]

55. Interesting and a much more complex and nuanced POV than this

click bait headline would indicate.

Thanks for that.