Thanks for the clarification.  It makes more sense now that I have slept on it.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

Luke, I don't think that Dawkins...is even refuting the possibility that there could be a "religious gene".

But what both he and Hitchens were rejecting was the idea that we Humans have an inherent religious nature that we can no longer change and we must therefore passively accept it! In Dawkins brilliant rebuttal, "Speak for yourself!!!".

Marcus, I downloaded the debate and listened to the first part in my car on the way home today.  So I am pretty sure Dawkins rebukes the religious gene and not the cognitive search for meaning.  Spivey seemed to miss the cognitive role of both religion and philosophy in helping people to sort their experiences to assign them meaning.  I found the recounting of the creative growth of modern humans via art, etc. around 40,000 BC fascinating, however.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

I sure don't blame Sciabarra for Hitchens (who I prefer over most libertarians, btw) -- I just don't think that we should add to the confusion already so common out there.

Sure, let's meet in London for a beer. I will send you a mail next time.

"What sort people attend Intelligence Squared events? I have not been to one yet."

Most times these debates are dominated by journalist types. However this event was overwhelmed by 2000 people from both sides of the debate.

Usually they get an audience of about 600-700.

James...

Oh I see. You are laying the blame for this confusion with the US Libertarian party and Sciabarra. Surely they have not got to Hitchens yet though?

Drop me a line when you are in London and we can together for a beer, ideally with other SOLO UKers.

What sort people attend Intelligence Squared events? I have not been to one yet.

"Has Marxism become the new radical philosophy to adopt for intellectuals as a type of Libertarianism - seeing as it [Marxism] has become discredited as an economical model?"

Let's ask Dr. Sciabarra.

Meanwhile, let's avoid calling ourselves "libertarians" –– and let's do so before the category of "Marxist Libertarian" becomes a major caucus within the American Libertarian Party.

"I do not know why Dawkins would reject this proposition that humans naturally seek meaning. "

Dawkins didn't say that he did - and I do not know why you think that this summary says that he did? You read the link to a summary by a religious Journalist of the times. I didn't post it and I don't agree with her. You should listen to the deabte yourself.

Ross...

"I guess true Marxist believers still think that the state can just melt away..."

The puzzling thing about it was Hitchens was in another debate about a year ago and in that he praised Thomas Jefferson and said that the UK needed a similar US constitution.
How that doesn't conflict with being a "vibrating Marxist" - I am not sure.

Perhaps Linz with his knowledge of Marxism from the past can tell us where Hitchens is comming from?

"What is this new trend for Libertarian-type media types describing themselves as Marxists? Has Marxism become the new radical philosophy to adopt for intellectuals as a type of Libertarianism - seeing as it has become discredited as an economical model?"

Well, I guess true Marxist believers still think that the state can just melt away leaving them to romp around in some sort of unfettered nirvana with maximum wiggle-room... oh, wait, that's the anarcho-capitalists.

As you were.

From the debate summary:

... it was part of the human condition to search for meaning ...

I do not know why Dawkins would reject this proposition that humans naturally seek meaning.  He could have turned that back on his opponents to argue in favor of a fully rational methodology for seeking meaning in one's life.  Am I missing something here?  I assume he rejects the idea of a religious gene but not of man's search for meaning in life.

Luke Setzer -- Global Organizer -- PROPEL(TM)
http://www.PropelObjectivism.com

...at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/audio_video/podcasts/article1583399.ece

Also an article in the Times reports that:

"Debating in London on the subject: “Are we better off without religion?”, he [Dawkins] said religion was like “a child with a dummy in its mouth. I do not think it a very dignified or respect-worthy posture for an adult to go around sucking a dummy for comfort.”

When his opponents, who included Rabbi Julia Neuberger and philosopher Roger Scruton, argued that “the religious gene” is in all of us, and it was part of the human condition to search for meaning, Dawkins replied: “Speak for yourself. It is not a part of me. It is not a part of the great majority of my friends in universities in England and the US and elsewhere.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1583398.ece