Even atheists must recognise the importance of a sociological study of religion

[rug]

An apparent lack of interest in how religion propagates in society is odd coming from people who so deplore its prevalence

Philip Ball
guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 February 2012 14.22 EST

The research reported last week showing that American Christians adjust their concept of Jesus to match their own sociopolitical persuasion will surprise nobody. Liberals regard Christ primarily as someone who promoted fellowship and caring, say psychologist Lee Ross of Stanford University in California and his colleagues, while conservatives see him as a firm moralist. In other words, he's like me, only more so.

Yes, it's pointing out the blindingly obvious. Yet the work offers a timely reminder of how religious thinking operates that has so far been resolutely resisted by most noisy atheists.

Many atheists prefer to regard religion as a virus that jumps from one hapless individual to another, or a misdirection of evolutionary instincts, curable only with a strong shot of reason. These epidemiological and Darwinian models have an elegant simplicity that contamination with broader social and cultural factors would spoil. Yet the result is akin to imagining that, to solve Africa's Aids crisis, there is no point in trying to understand African societies.

Thus arch-atheist Sam Harris swatted away my suggestion that we might approach religious belief as a social construct with the contemptuous comment that I was saying something "either trivially true or obscurantist". I find it equally peculiar that chemist Harry Kroto should insist that "I am not interested in why religion continues" while so devoutly wishing that it would not.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/feb/10/atheists-importance-sociological-study-religion?newsfeed=true

Here's the abstract of the research he's talking about. You'll have to sign in or purchase the full study.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/26/1117557109.abstract?sid=da7b764b-2136-4a18-87bb-bf6cd9d9edde

[JackintheGreen]

1. People who ignore religion are idiots

There is no kinder way to put it. Whether or not you approve of religion, are religious, or just wish it would go away it shapes too much of how a huge segment of the world understands and interacts with the world.

Or, file under "doy comma no"

[edhopper]

2. Nice how he speaks for atheists.

How large a group is "many atheist" who don't think we should include religion in sociological studies?
Quoting Sam Harris out of conttext (who wrote a book about the sociological impact of religion) seems pretty silly to me.
Straw man anyone?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

4. I thought the attack on Harris was particularly out of place.

Considering that he has dedicated a large part of his intellectual work to the scientific study of religion, it seems silly. Further, while he's used the "trivially obvious or obscurantist" line a lot, I wonder if he has ever used it in direct reference to anything the author has ever written.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. It comes from an exchange the 2 had, following a piece by Ball in Nature

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090514/full/news.2009.476.html

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2009/05/whatever-you-do-dont-call-them-militant.html

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2009/06/debating-science-and-religion-with-sam.html

[ChadwickHenryWard]

3. It's funny.

As an atheist, I usually get "Why are you so obsessed with religion?" meme. This kind of goes goes in the opposite direction and suggests that maybe we atheists don't care *enough* about religion. It's a strange subversion.

At base, though, it's way off the mark when it suggests that a "mind-virus" or Darwinian view of religion is mutually exclusive or opposite to any consideration of sociological or anthropological factors. Remember that "Darwinian" refers not only to biological evolution as it happened but to the process of natural selection. When Dawkins suggested in 1976 that ideas may experience a kind of natural selection, religion was his central example. When we talk about the natural selection experienced by ideas, this includes sociological or anthropological factors.

[skepticscott]

5. It's been pointed out many times just on this board

that people create god in their own image. So yes, the author is ginning up straw men without a doubt.

And in any case, how religious thinking operates and spreads has ZERO to do with any actual evidence for the physical, objective existence of gods, so why would understanding that be necessary for rationally holding an atheistic worldview? For that matter, how does understanding how religious thinking operates and spreads provide an excuse for the many and egregious crimes and abuses of organized religion that lead people to an anti-theist attitude?

While understanding all of the details of what motivates certain forms of delusional thinking may be interesting to some, it certainly isn't necessary in order to recognize that the thinking IS delusional, or potential damaging and dangerous.

[NAO]

6. It must be studied so we can find a cure

regardless of what model explains it (virus of the mind, evolutionary adaptation, or subjective projection of self onto an imagined deity, etc) we must understand it so we can develop an effective intervention strategy and prevent the spread of this awful mental disease.

[rug]

7. By all means, contact CDC with whatever cured you.

[NAO]

8. Intense Bible study in preparation to be a Christian apologist,

combined with intellectual honesty and faith that God would safely guide me through "Satan's traps", led me to follow the evidence wherever it led.

Though I don't think that is the path for very many. Most people don't take their beliefs seriously enough to really study and understand them.

[spin]

12. The more I question Christianity, the more questions I have...

I still feel that the basic message of Christianity is to lead a good life and help others. Of course, many other religions have the same basic belief.

[edhopper]

9. Lost in the metaphor?