A friend's reply to Dawkins

And I am still adamant that human desire for power, wealth, and sex are the fundamental reasons why we do anything not in keeping with religion. Here is my line of thinking: 1) Either everything we do has been formed by genetics and evolution and in that sense religion is merely a "proper and natural" expression of our evolution somehow. And as Dawkins so often points out, there is no such thing as evil in nature, everything is merely our need to replicate our DNA. If this is the case there is no friction between religion and our nature, and he has no argument based on his own fundamental position. 2) If religion somehow defies our inherent dna and evolutionary position then it is somehow not related to our genetic evolutionary path. If that is the case, and Dawkins whole tirade against religion seems to indicate that he feels it is, then any activities justified by religion have an inherent friction based on the contrast between the religious instruction that goes against our inherent dna, and our inherent evolution. 3) If there is a friction between religious instruction and inherent evolution, which is the cause of murder, rape, pillage, genocide, desire for power, anger, animosity and hatred? 4) Religion itself sets out against all of these things: Though shalt not kill. Not covet anothers wife. It places emphasis on living simply. It places emphasis on generosity. It places emphasis on sacrifice, tolerance, renunciation, self-control, and ultimately it idealises celibacy. 5) What does our evolutionary DNA propose? It proposes that man should spread his seed into as many women as possible. It proposes that women should find the most powerful man to protect her offspring. It supposes that might makes right as the flow of DNA is primary, and success is its own marker of rightness. It is our fundamental material nature to be greedy, to seek power, to have little control over ourselves etc. Of course there are social instincts as well since human's are social creatures. But Religion idealises the very best of humanities qualities and seeks to emphasise and encourage them. 6) Therefore if there is any failure in humanity to follow the instructions of religion, is this due to religion itself or due to a failure in humanity to abide by the instructions of religion? It is quite obvious our failure to abide by any moral code (whether it is religious or not) comes from our inherent material natures. Our greed and desire for power and sex which emanates fundamentally from our material natures is only contested by our ability to think and reason beyond our own basic selves. Whether the moral code you aspire to comes from religion or is conceptualised without a God, that moral code is at odds with the very idea of our simple evolutionary source. Evolution and the spread of DNA cannot have a moral code, and especially cannot explain how humans are sentient, and can exercise thought, reason, and self control. 7) The fact that religions vue celibacy as the final mastery of self control is because religion teaches us to go against our fundamental material natures. It is in direct conflict with the very nature which evolution proposes. There is nothing worse than false renunciation, but actual renunciation, without the hypocrasy that is rife within religion (as people discover power, sex, and greed through manipulation of the realm of religion), is trully the most liberating force. It frees the soul and our spiritual being from our material conditions. 8) Dawkins must attack religion on this issue precisely because it is it's greatest merit, and he is trying to hide the paucity of explanation of human psychology found in evolution. Evolution has no clue why we are even capable of higher thought, or why God evokes such strong feeling in us. That is because evolution deals only with our material conditioning. It has no answers. That is why religion's strongest point is its deep understanding of the meta-psychological. And here I am not talking about stupid and simplistic rituals or superstitions. 9) Religion is torn between removing itself from the world around it (and hiding away from the material conditions in isolatation where the trully virtuous can live by the principles of religion), or it must make some compromise with the forces of material conditioning. If it must make compromise with the forces of material conditioning, then it must confront greed, power, wealth, desire, hatred, murder, theft, and violence. It must therefore either choose pure idealism and be slaughtered and or made irrelevant, or it must practice defence and match the violence of the materially conditioned. The need to match the violence of the materially conditioned ensures that a successful religion will seek to understand, and maintain god consciousness whilst holding a firm line against the non-virtuous. Virtue and Vice then vie for the balance of humanity. But when religion losses its essence in the fight, it becomes merely another tool of oppression, devoid of all its aspirations. 10) the way to discover if someone is manipulating religion for the sake of material conditioning or if someone is trully religious fighting against the weakness of material conditioning is to measure their tolerance, inspiration, and their own personal practice. If they practice their beliefs in detail, if the society is exemplary and inspires god consciousness in a peaceful and tolerant fashion, if it is strong against the forces of material conditioning, then it's leadership is fighting a good fight. If in proclaiming religious principles the leadership encourages intolerance and denigrates the idea of faith and of God, then it is merely utilising the forces of religion for the purpose of material conditioning. The more people abide simply by ritual in force, the less love for God they will feel. Thus many of the most religiously ideal societies were and are the very least religious.