Books 49-56

[darthparadox]

49. Belle de Jour: The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl
50-52. The Night Angel Trilogy by Brent Weeks
53. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
54-55. Turn Coat and Changes (Dresden Files 11 and 12) by Jim Butcher
56. The Selfish Gene

And now, some discussion and a little bit of soapboxing!

Comments

[xaandria]

"Holy Shit" is about right for Changes. I texted Andrew right after I finished it because I knew he'd been sitting on that cliffhanger since the damn book came out.

[nevyn522]

I knew I was the only one who had read it; I couldn't spoil it for all the rest of you, but... AAAAAH! I was glad when you got to that point; Chris, now you can join our little "Write Faster Damnit" club.

[nightsinger]

successful genes are those that increase the likelihood of creating additional copies of themselves (within the context of their environment)

Or, as Heinlein put it:
A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes. This may be the purpose of the universe.

;)

No, I don't do this on purpose; the world does it for me. XD

[darthparadox]

That quote certainly came to mind when I was reading! The difference is that Dawkins' thesis doesn't apply at the gamete/zygote/organism level, but at the level of each individual gene. This is why we get genes for behavior that may actively hinder an individual's ability to reproduce; as long as that behavior increases the overall expected number of copies of that gene, it will still be "selected for" (in the natural-selection vocabulary).

Dawkins would probably rephrase it something like: "An organism is a gene's way of making more of itself. This may be the meaning of life." After all, he thinks that improving genes' abilities to make more of themselves is actually the only reason living organisms as we know them exist!

[harlenna]

I'm not sure if you are saying that religion that is passed down to children in any circumstance is not acceptable. Please clarify.

As someone who was raised to believe that God existed and whose love permeated through the world in a tangible way and could be personally experienced by me in terms of relationship (with God), I can only say I have reaped the benefits of the faith of my family and my community. I do hope to pass that kind of loving experience down to my children.

[darthparadox]

I'm intentionally and specifically using the term "indoctrination" as opposed to a more general term for religious education. Wikipedia's comment on the distinction between the two pretty well sums up my intent in using the term:
[Indoctrination] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
My wife and I intend to teach our children about a multitude of belief systems - atheism and agnosticism included - and guide them in making their own choices of faith or lack thereof. What I find unacceptable is presenting one's faith as unqualified truth to a child too young to know how to critically assess the propositions being offered, ask questions about it, and accept or reject them as part of their worldview

[harlenna]

If I didn't believe my religion was true, then I'd fall into a pluralist or Unitarian Universalist camp, not the Christian camp. So yes, there's a certain amount of, "this is true" that goes on

[darthparadox]

Respect is a huge part of the equation, and that's a big reason why I worry so much about people treating children as empty vessels into which to pour their own beliefs, rather than as persons that deserve the chance to develop their ability to reason about the world without the interference of dogma and indoctrination.

Again, not all religious education is indoctrination. But I think most of it tends to be, because most people see it as a matter of "passing on what I believe to my children" rather than "giving my children the opportunity to determine beliefs that work for them".