1. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56258 by Stryker on July 14, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Zwartz does touch on a point that I agree with, which is the almost irrational disdain that Dawkins places directly on 'religion'. Personally, I think religion is simply a bi-product, a tip-of-the-iceberg, for underlying sociological and psychological issues. Religion is a cultural element that supports tribalism - it helps to define 'us' and 'them' (Shia's & Sunnis don't try to convert each other - they just want to kill each other for long-standing feuds like Hatfields & McCoys). In addition, we all realize that people use religion as a psychological crutch (guidebook to their lives, tell me what's right & wrong so I don't have to figure it out myself, etc) but even if I could wave a magic wand and make everyone stop believing in the supernatural, the vacuum would quickly fill with something else (like patriotism/nationalism). Perhaps Dawkins hopes to work his way down the iceberg - starting with religion - but I think that if we can address these more fundamental issues that modern religions would dissipate just like their forerunners but w/o some new religion/ideologies taking their place. Dawkins will never convert a true-believer with his arguments - it just serves to draw battle lines. This needs to be addressed more indirectly.

2. The US map of faith

Comment #55906 by Stryker on July 12, 2007 at 8:00 pm

What the map does show is that we're battling religious fundamentalists in the mid-east AND in the mid-west (they just have different names for their god).

3. The US map of faith

Comment #55905 by Stryker on July 12, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Wow, great to see so many other Oregonians on this site! As mentioned by several people, I tend to question how valid this data is relative to population density. I live in Portland which (according to beloved wikipedia) has 2 million people in the metro area compared to Oregon's total population of 3.7 million. What's odd is that according to this map Portland seems to have a higher % of people in church than outside the area (35~50% compared to <35%), yet I 'feel' that the rest of the state is generally quite RED compared to Portland. Either conservative voting and church attendance don't line up very well in Oregon, the data's skewed relative to density or perhaps I'm making incorrect assumptions towards people in the rest of my state. Hmm.