dawkins is a liberal in a hurry. a misunderstood one. the freedom of thought argument bothers me when trotted out against religion, because it's such a system of enforced thought. the freedom to be exploited into conformity. hurray for hierarchy.

there's been a long debate on the place of religion in terms of it's use as propaganda on the left, but never any real idea of taking it seriously, until relatively recently. it's an unattractive characteristic of the modern left to take these really classically liberal views on religion. i'm really closer to nineteenth century leftist ideas about religion.

allowing religion to thrive is just opening up the opportunity for a parasitic weed to take root. which doesn't mean force is a good idea. sometimes ripping those nasty weeds out just makes things worse, sometimes you need something more subtle.

see, here's the thing: religion has managed to convince these millions of people that they should actually want to believe in it. sometimes the tactics have been shady. repressed guilt. maybe these aren't actually good models. but maybe the idea of occupying the benefit of the doubt, of being a basic instinct, is a position that is a pre-requisite for becoming a dominant pattern of thinking. maybe science needs that before all these grand liberal ideas of humanism and rationalism can operate, socially.

there's a problem, though. we've spent thousands of years evolving into religious creatures. i know, i'm pulling a rabbit out of a hat here, i agree. but it's hard to think there's been no movement, towards a religion (which is a superset of a morality) as an instinctual attitude. there might even be a definition there.

i've stated before that i like to hope we look back one day and realize dawkins was essentially correct, but i'm not sure that outcome is certain. there are group survival characteristics that religion acts as a mechanism for and they may, in the end, be superior in force to enlightenment rationalism. i've often wanted to read that text of porphyry with the curious title. alas.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2101256/Richard-Dawkins-How-man-high-IQ-low-views.html