Free blog week 1

I really identified with the spandrel theory after reading Monday's article.  This is probably because of the lack of evidence for adaptationist theory, but the concepts of voids that need filling was very comprehensive.  Before this class, I believed in the simple explanation for religion that it provided a set of answers for the unknown and a sense of security.  The staircase metaphor coincides with this very succinctly; we have survival skills that lead us to a better life, and what we do with "the underside of our staircase"  is our choice.  This allowed for a myriad of different religions over time, which of course yielded a myriad of different conflicts throughout the world as we discussed in class.  While I believe now that we cannot necessarily just "ditch" religion for biological reasons, the question I gather is this; can we fill that void with a similar belief in more scientifically established concepts?  We talked about how Harris and Dawkins were almost "fundamental atheists" in their thought processes, but I do not feel that is what they are trying to proselytize.  Their time is spent knocking down religion as a whole instead of providing an alternative.  I feel as modern social engineers they are looking to stir up trouble more than anything else, a stalemate which is proving itself a common phenomenon and the cause of much social unrest and a general lack of advancement.