Clip about Religious Fertility vs. Richard Dawkins
For a long time, "evolutionary" puns have been an almost exclusive domain of atheists and religious critics such as Richard Dawkins and his followers. But it seems that the tide may begin to turn. Here is a new YouTube-Clip, based on demographic findings published by Eric Kaufmann, contrasting the reproductive advantage of religious people with some "memetic" assumptions of Dawkins, who assumed religious memes to function as mind parasites. And as was to be expected, the clip prompted furious and highly emotional responses - this time predominantly by critics of religion. As human beings, we are ready to enjoy puns only so long as they are aimed at the worldviews of others.
If you are interested in data about the complex interactions of religiosity and fertility, here is a sample:
* Von
Hayek and the Amish Fertility
How religious communities manage
to be fruitful and multiply – A Case study
* "The Reproductive Benefits of Religious Affiliation", in: Voland, E.; Schiefenhövel, W.: "The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behaviour", Springer Frontiers Collection 2009.
And there are related blog posts available, e.g. on Eric Kaufmann, the high fertility of religious groups as e.g. the Amish and another clip by Tübingen biologists about the evolutionary relevance of reproductive advantages.
Printview
But it's only true if you believe that biological propagation is the only sort of propagation that matters. If religions believed that, there wouldn't be any such thing as missionaries or conversions.
The author of the video also tries to assert that his is a conclusion based on "SCIENCE". That assertion places all of scientific inquiry into the "hard" sciences, especially biology.
There is a science (multiple sciences) of the propagation of ideas, existing in a plane of engagement only with the human brain (and the various media through which information travels). Some see it as memetics, others believe it is simple cultural study.
Regardless, the idea that the only science worth referencing when it comes time to "prove" or "disprove" someone's philosophy is biology is complete logical fallacy.
And what Richard Dawkins is really getting at when he says that religion is a "parasite" is that it's an organism existing in the plane of ideas that hampers its host's ability to evaluate and generate new ideas.
Unfortunately, the massive protests and outright insults by the new atheists proved to be effective: The video is no longer accessible for review and discussion.
Looks like some (anti-)religious feelings got hurt...
Thanks for your sound post! Although we don't have the video any longer to discuss, I wanted to answer to a point you made:
But it's only true if you believe that biological propagation is the only sort of propagation that matters. If religions believed that, there wouldn't be any such thing as missionaries or conversions.
No, I would say that most successfull religions are trying to combine higher fertility with missionary outreach. And if you are having a dedicated group with many young peoples and families, it will be more easy to gain more followers than if you had an ageing group without much kids and (prospective) spouses.
There have been some "ideal" types as e.g. the Shakers - all-celibate and all-missionary - and the Amish - non-missionary, high fertility and high retention rates. While the former succumbed to cultural evolution, the latter are growing exponentially to this day:
http://www.scilogs.eu/...y-in-evolutionary-studies
The Mormons would constitute a contemporary case of a mixed strategy.
Best wishes!