Well, seems fair to say, "life" is quite chemical in design, where consciousness comes into the "mix", so life itself, is a "DRUG" .....  ((( language is drug induced too !       I AM no expert on any of this .... never done this "life" thing before .....  not that I can remember .....

Life is a drug. So everyone's real goal in life is just to score the next fix.

I'd say language in and of itself is not a drug. It's just a tool we use to get our next fix.

It's interesting to me how the religious addicts the same thing a marijuana addicts. We're not hurting anyone, so why should you care what we do.

Anything that produces a chemical change affecting our mood, thinking or actions. We are chemical beings. So isn't nearly everything we do in response to chemical inducement(hunger, thirst, sleep, sex, etc...) or wanting to produce a better mood(narcotics, alcohol, religion, music, etc...)? Are we doomed to be in constant conflict between our chemical bodies and our rational minds?

If everything is a drug. All humans should be viewed as junkies just all the time going from one fix to the next. Slaves to the chemistry in our bodies.

Should the goal of science and technology be to create better drugs to keep everyone high all the time? Or perhaps pull us out of our addictions and drug dependencies so we can be completely rational beings instead of slaves to our chemical bodies?

OK then, should we view rational thinking as a drug? Can science truly be objective or are the findings and results always going to be driven by whatever makes the scientists get high? We are atheist cause we get high being this way, just as the theists get high by believing.

Is Dawkins kind of a hypocrite for calling music a drug? Isn't figuring out and explaining how things work his 'drug'. Isn't 'Explaining Consciousness' Dennet's drug of choice? So can anyone be truly objective? If understanding is a drug, can anyone be objective, can there ever be an unbiased opinion?

If I look at the videos of the AAI convention, I am just seeing a bunch of science and understanding junkies getting their fix? Is it really any different than a religious convention, rock concert or a skid row drug street?

Is rational responding the drug of choice for the RRS? Do you get a high every time you rationally explain something?

Is cynical thinking my drug of choice?

Doesn't a totally rational brain require the removal of pleasure and pain? Pleasure and pain causes us to be dishonest. It would need to be a zombie to be a purely rational and 100% honest.

Wow.  Do you try to go off the deep end? 

No, we should redefine drug such that it doesn't include everything that ever happens to a human, internally or externally.

Yes, science can be objective.  That's why scientists have protocols and controls.  It's why we insist on sticking to the scientific method.  Are scientists sometimes biased?  Of course.  And most of the time, their bias is exposed in peer review.  That's why international peer review is so important.

Have you read Unweaving the Rainbow?  Dawkins writes extensively on the proper and improper use of poetry and metaphor in science, and deals with the question you just asked.

Do you mean to ask if it's what he feels rewarded for doing?  Yes.  Do you mean he has a chemical addiction to science?  Probably not in any meaningful sense of the word.

Haven't you followed any of the conversations about uncertainty and proof?  There have been dozens.  Nobody can ever be 100% sure of anything outside of basic philosophical axioms.  We can have a very, very high degree of certainty about many things.  Some subjects will always have political motivations.

There are those of us who read the books the scientists write.  From doing so, we gain a lot of insight into their personalities.  By comparing, say, Robert Wright, Matt Ridley and Geoffrey Miller, each of whom writes about sexual selection, game theory, and ethics, a reader can note inconsistencies between authors, or perhaps even internal inconsistencies within one author's work.  We can read the journal reviews of their books.  We can consult scientists.  We can compare what they say against our own knowledge.  In short, we can use our big brains to ferret out political agendas and personal bias.  That's the cool thing about bias.  It shows.

Not from one point of view.  It's a bunch of humans with a common interest getting together to promote their interest.  Do you really not see any other difference?  Do you still not get the fact that your definition of drug is overly broad but you're applying specific qualities of narcotic addiction to behaviors that don't qualify?

I'd say drama queen thinking, but that's just my opinion.  You seem to have a desire to find really broad, dramatic, and tragic interpretations of otherwise neutral or beneficial human activities.

No.

Pleasure and pain encourage us to be dishonest.

Let's just see if you lived up to my expectations...

check.

check.

I'm only giving you a half point for tragic.  "Hey, man... life's a real pisser, but at least we have this doob..."

No.  You're just going to have to climb a tree and find it for yourself.