Dr Andy Thompson claims, in his new book, that the human mind generates religious beliefs as part of an evolutionary process. The recent revolution in cognitive science demonstrates the reasons why we create such myths, why we spread them and want other people to believe them too. His book shows the mechanisms in which the human mind constructs dogma, powers religious institutions and how irrational constructs can be harmful to society and its progression.
Every book bought contains a donation to the Richard Dawkins Foundation. The RDF finances research into the psychology of belief and religion, finances scientific education programs and materials, and publicises and supports secular charitable organisations.
It’s essential reading for all those who are interested in religious belief (whatever side of the fence you’re on), the way the mind works and gives an insight in to some of the recent breakthroughs in neuroscience and cognitive studies without being overly technical.
"
sounds a interesting read but will it stop people?
Not that there was a likely-hood of Christians and people of other belief systems to purchase and read this book anyway, but saying there’s a donation going to the Richard Dawkins foundation has definitely made those Christians decide they don’t want no deceptive devil information let alone to fund the devil/science!
Sorry to be a judgemental generalist
I’m getting tired of religious language & arguments being used to knock down religion & proseletyse for atheism. This is of that kind.
‘…harmful to society and its progression…’ – not it’s.
Apostrophe fiend!
Fascinating stuff though – thanks!
Sounded interesting until I saw the link to The Dawkins Foundation, then it lost all interest / credibility as far as I’m concerned.
And that’s nothing to do with being a Christian (I’m not one) or any other belief, and more of a general dislike of Dawkin’s smug arrogance.
@Andrew – Somebody has to do it. I’m getting tired of the systematic indoctrination of kids all over the world who get the ‘word’ of God shoved down their throats instead of being given the chance to work it out for themsleves. The scariest part about it all is that the very people feeding these lies to the kids actually beleive what they’re saying. If people like Dawkins and this Thomson guy can get a few well-meaning religious people to question themselves, then maybe more children will have a chance to make up their own minds.
That guy in the video seems very creepy. I wasnt won over at all. I consider myself ‘on the fence’ with religion but still very spiritual. Km interested to hear both sides but this guy turned me away from this book already.
I agree, the donation from every book sale was the nail in the coffin for me.
Maybe the book does have some enlightening insights into the human brain which I thought I was going to discover inthis blog and video.
@Andrew Denny
Yeah all that rationality and truth must make your brain hurt.
BTW you can’t proseletyse none belief. It’s called education.
@Dan
Yeah, he’s really not selling it well. He presents it much better on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
Unfortunately, presentation matters despite the validity of an assertion. Which is why charlatans of all kinds have gotten away with being psychics, priests, and magicians. If you can sell it, people will buy.
It’s great to know that a quick read of Dr/ Andy’s book will make me an instant expert of why people believe in God. I really don’t like to think all that hard to become an expert.
It will be easier than the 20 years or so I spent exploring the physical religious evidence scattered here and their like the Shroud of Turin, and the Aztec Tilma with the impression Our Lady of Guadalupe, and related events, artifacts , and anecdotes
It kind of blows a hole right through the many books and 40 years of studies of near death, and death experiences recorded by Dr. Elizabeth Kubler Ross, Dr. Raymond Moody, and many other doctors that have written papers and books on the experience.
It’s reassuring to know the god myth can be dispelled in a simple book which has not yet digested neuro research
He seems like a very reasonable man, even though he is a non-believer he seems to stick to the facts discovered. And he often gives references to actual work that has been done for people to dig deeper on by themselves.
‘We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers’ by Dr. Andy Thomson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpImeYCZKBk
‘Morality: From the Heavens or From Nature?’ by Dr. Andy Thomson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo
Why We Believe in Gods – Andy Thomson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
Bill: Interesting strawman argument. Where did it say that reading this book would make one an instant expert? Did one of those books on ‘near death and death experiences’ (how does one obtain a death experience, by the way — by interviewing a ghost?) make you an instant expert on the subject? I doubt it — no single book will do that.
The guy wrote a book on the insights cognitive neuroscience provides into the religious experience. Reading it would, thus, provide you with some knowledge of these insights. Reading the sources he doubtlessly used would probably provide you with even more knowledge, but that’s what popular science books are for — to condense dry research papers into an enjoyable read.
I really don’t see what all your research has to do with that fact.
Not sure about anyone else, but religious and non-religious are incredibly simplistic categories to work with fellow human beings.
It seems the whole world is engaged in this type of power struggle, to enforce one doctrine or another. I told my dad I was going to attend a Jehovah s witness meeting, I have never heard him speak with so much prejudice. I explained to the family I have no religious background and was interested.
They do a good job of making an effort once a week to review their life ethically.
Society would benefit from this sought of effort, however some ethical questions that Jesus hadn’t given direction caused discomfort.
Nice example: Jesus has “freedom of speech”, and so can you, if you have experience but not addiction to the behaviour upon which you offer advice
Bill,
What do you mean by exploring the physical evidence? Did you have access to these artifacts? Were you able to carry out tests? Are you claiming expertise?
Berber Anna,
(how does one obtain a death experience, by the way — by interviewing a ghost?)
If you interview someone who has had a near-death experience they will say that they saw a bright light, had a sense of traveling down a tunnel, felt peaceful and met people who had been important in their personal lives and/or iconic figures from whatever religious culture they adhere to. Inexplicable, huh?
If you interview someone who has had a death experience, the most you will get from them is ‘Braaains’.
Wow, this guy sounds like a blast. I especially like the way he knows about all global politics and has managed to pin this all down to religion (just pick up a paper
, he clearly knows how to find reliable sources) – he must be a very busy man!
In all seriousness, he seems a bit narrow minded and claiming that he knows that all religions are entirely harmful is pretty bold, possible naive, and at worst very offensive.
Re: the pro Dawkins thing- logic and rationality are constructs existing within consciousness. When scientists describe their view of reality or try to represent the universe with “laws” based on “observations” it is only going to come up with a narrow-band provisional set of rules that appear to be true. These rules may appear universal or rational, but they are actually an expression of how an ego thinks that it is aware of enough of the universe to generalise about it..and to prove its own relevance and therefore existence: ” I think I am Dawkins, therefore I am”. Infinity is always going to be unobservable, because it contains the observer and shis means of observing. True philosophy/religion is the highest science..devising unlimited awareness through identifying the nature of things
Dear Smith,
Many of those words don’t mean what you think they mean. ‘True philosophy/religion is the highest science’; I think the only word in that phrase that can be taken seriously in any way is ‘the’. Every possible way of understanding the rest of those words and their combined meanings reveals your lack of understanding.
Regards
Dear AllanW. Thankyou for the reply. Whatever you think will appear true, and you will select whatever evidence that suits your view. The words indeed don’t mean what I think they meant..concepts have their own existence and the words mean whatever you want them to. You could choose to take the concept of the truest, highest science (or religion or philosophy since they would become the same thing) seriously rather your interpretation of my interpretation of them and my lack of understanding. All statements can show the understanding or otherwise of the speaker but also of the listener. When a lack of understanding is evident, it is incumbent on a true scientist or philosopher to educate those percieved as ignorant of the truth..and to percieve the reality, so please correct my error.
lol ok there is no god, everyone knows that.
NEXT.
if you analyse what knowing is or try to clarify what thought is…and its relationship to what appears to be an objectively viewed universe, it becomes apparent that scientific proof only correlates to an impression of the universe…an impression that it is easy to assume is the reality. its possible that consciousness is not limited to matter, since you only know that matter exists because you are conscious and all the scientific laws you are aware of are fabricated in your consciousness..or appear so. the reality is mysterious and to know it would involve not having preconceptions or placing human limits on an infinite reality of potentially unlimited awareness. the alternative is to worship the high priests of modern rationalism and assume they havent missed anything.