I pray thee

Can we, please, stop fretting about which human vilenesses are, or are not, the product of religion? Neddie, as ever sensible (though not sensitive) gives Richard Dawkins full reign and allows him to explain the whole Devil's Chaplain bit. The Viscount Lacarte likewise. The point being that if suffering is your bent, look not to religion, look to natural selection. For sheer, needless death and destruction, the dear, sweet axioms of excess reproductive capacity, limited resources and heritability have no match among any number of apocalyptic horsemen.

My concern is why another idea oft laid at Dawkins’ door -- that religion, being all but universal among people, must have some sort of evolutionary function, must somehow have been selected for -- is not being given more of a soapbox. We can all sit in an armchair and wave our arms about to conjure the potential benefit (to an individual, mind, not his or her band) of blind faith in some leaderish figure. But does the leaderish figure also have to believe? Probably not. But is is useful to be able to bring hoi polloi along. And then there’s the whole Triversian argument about self-deception being the hardest, and finest, deception of all.

This was going to be a post about religion vs spirituality, but that will have to wait. Meanwhile, I take my comfort where I can find it, which includes not believing in fairies any more.