Darwin's God

New York Times - by Robin Marantz Henig - Mar. 4, 2007 (Special Report)
Call it God; call it superstition; call it, as Atran does, "belief in hope beyond reason" -- whatever you call it, there seems an inherent human drive to believe in something transcendent, unfathomable and otherworldly, something beyond the reach or understanding of science. "Why do we cross our fingers during turbulence, even the most atheistic among us?" asked Atran when we spoke at his Upper West Side pied-à-terre in January. Atran, who is 55, is an ... More »
Review | Like | Submitted by Kaizar Campwala
Featured Reviews
N1126433387_2982_thumb
4.4
by Dale Penn - Mar. 4, 2007 - See Full Review (13 answers)
Notes: Practically tailor made for NewsTrust's Atheism and Faith discussion. This is an excellent article (and long - but fascinating if you have any interest in the current thinking of science on the matter of God) with depth to spare. It focuses primarily on two trains of thought within the field of evolutionary biology (adaptionists and byproduct theorists) and discusses how both of these fit within the context of the current religion/neo-atheist discussion (not NewsTrust's but society's).

Member_photo_thumb
4.5
by Mike LaBonte - Mar. 5, 2007 - See Full Review (11 answers)
Notes: Arguments are well developed and supported, with liberal use of examples. Makes it easy for me to understand complex subjects. Very neutral treatment of the people discussed.

Silhoutte_sml
4.6
by Oliver Jones - Mar. 5, 2007 - See Full Review (12 answers)
Notes: A good long piece on the thinking of one scholar (S. Atran). This article delves into adaptive evolutionary biology, considering cognitive adaptations. It poses the question whether the human susceptibility to faith ("the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen") is adaptive in itself, or merely a side-effect of other cognitive adaptations. The article, wisely, avoids picking sides in religion vs. atheism, but recounts some of the arguments. But it could have ... More »

Member_photo_thumb
3.4
by Lewyn Li - Mar. 4, 2007 - See Full Review (13 answers)
Notes: A detailed account of the views and work of Scott Atran, as well as numerous philosophical trends on the evolutionary origins of religion. It is well worth a read for the diverse information the writer provided. The piece would have been far more interesting and balanced if the writer has probed deeper into the evolutionary origins and advantages of atheism, which predated modern science in many cultures around the wordl and was the dominant ideology in some, such as Confuscianism in China.

More Reviews
Member_photo_thumb
4.5
by Kaizar Campwala - Mar. 5, 2007 - See Full Review (2 answers)
Kaizar submitted this story.

Silhoutte_sml
4.2
by Bob McInnis - Mar. 5, 2007 - See Full Review (12 answers)
Notes: ROBIN MARANTZ HENIG demonstrates that you can write an inquiring piece on religion without ad hominum arguments or other logical fallacies. A fair examination of religion, faith, and human belief in the hope beyond reason.

Silhoutte_sml
4.7
by Arjun Rajagopalan - Mar. 5, 2007 - See Full Review (13 answers)
Notes: This article is compulsory reading for those of us who have been watching the disputes that have erupted in the wake of Dawkins' recent book. Robin Henig has written an outstanding review of how and why religion, more importantly religiousness, evolved. Are we hardwired by evolution to be religious and believe in God? If so, what is the survival advantage that belief in God confers on us. The article does an exceptional job of going through the arguments, in clear and lucid prose. He ... More »

Tags Help
Topics Religion, Sci/Tech | Science and Religion
Research Help
Search Sites Google | Yahoo | Technorati | Wikipedia | del.icio.us
Stats Help
Editorial Help
Submitted by Submitted by Kaizar Campwala - Mar 4, 2007 - 6:51 PM PST
Reviewed by Lewyn Li (review), Dale Penn (review), Bob McInnis (review), Oliver Jones (review), Kaizar Campwala (review), Mike LaBonte (review), Arjun Rajagopalan (review)
No quotes yet. Please review this story to add some!
No comments yet. Please review this story to add yours!
Tools

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:


(Beta) Ratings
Our Rating
4.2
(very good)
7 reviews

Quality
4.3

Accuracy
3.8

Balance
3.5

Context
4.3

Facts
4.2

Fairness
4.0

Information
4.8

Sourcing
4.6

Style
4.5

Popularity
4.0

Recommendation
4.1

Credibility
4.3

# Reviews
3.5

# Views
3.8

# Likes
1.0

# Emails
1.0


How our ratings work