Have you ever read Dawkins?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Hating the sin but loving the sinner - a very biblical position to take.

Except that Dawkins doesn't believe that sin exists. Not so biblical after all...

AtomicHorror

Joe1919 wrote: »

Can Dawkins be beaten at his own game? Is his whole theory not self refuting? Does the fact that 'belief systems' or religions have survived indicate there usefulness or evolutionary 'goodness'. Although we cant really prove Gods existence or not (IMO), we can make judgements about the usefulness of religious beliefs in terms of bringing happiness, order and prosperity (e.g Weber's praise of the Protestant work ethic).

i.e. If religion has survival value, then surely, by Darwinian standards, religion is good.

Violent behaviour was also once a survival advantage. We've since changed such that the day to day need to violence is gone, but the instinct remains because evolution moves more slowly than human culture.

"Good" is not what evolution has made. "Good" is what we decide it is.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Violent behaviour was also once a survival advantage. We've since changed such that the day to day need to violence is gone, but the instinct remains because evolution moves more slowly than human culture.

It's arguable that violent behaviour remains a distinct survival advantage today. For example, the Russians annexed parts of Georgia. The result was that Russia, to all intense purposes, got a little bigger. On a smaller scale, the petty warlord or common criminal who uses violence and terror to gain an advantage over rivals and claw his way up the ladder. You could even argue that there is a type of clean-cut corporate 'violence'. As an example, the much maligned short sellers who gamble on (and possibly hasten) the demise of a company.

No, I think that violence is as much a part of today's life as it ever has been. We just happen to be in a purple patch in Europe at the moment.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Hating the sin but loving the sinner - a very biblical position to take.

A rather insulting misinterpretation there PDN

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's arguable that violent behaviour remains a distinct survival advantage today. For example, the Russians annexed parts of Georgia. The result was that Russia, to all intense purposes, got a little bigger. On a smaller scale, the petty warlord or common criminal who uses violence and terror to gain an advantage over rivals and claw his way up the ladder. You could even argue that there is a type of clean-cut corporate 'violence'. As an example, the much maligned short sellers who gamble on (and possibly hasten) the demise of a company.

No, I think that violence is as much a part of today's life as it ever has been. We just happen to be in a purple patch in Europe at the moment.

Joe1919 suggested that because we maintain that religion is an evolved trait, that is thus "good". I'm merely pointing out that this can be shown to be untrue for a variety of traits, unless you'd like to label violence as "good". Also I did specify the "day to day" need- I'm aware that violence still has a significant role on the larger scale.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, I think that violence is as much a part of today's life as it ever has been. We just happen to be in a purple patch in Europe at the moment.

Well your wrong, but this does seem to be a common theme on this forum, normally coupled with statements that we need Christianity more than ever.

We are in fact living in the most peaceful, by a very very long stretch, period in human history ever, even compared to 50 years ago. There was an interesting talk as part of the TED Conference about this, about why, despite this, people always seem to think things are much worse now than they were, or at least as bad. The explanation put forward was that it is useful, from an evolutionary point of view, to view the world in a more negative light as we get older for the protection of our children.

Joe1919

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Violent behaviour was also once a survival advantage. We've since changed such that the day to day need to violence is gone, but the instinct remains because evolution moves more slowly than human culture.

"Good" is not what evolution has made. "Good" is what we decide it is.

Voilence is not gone, its just that the state are the only people who can legitimately use voilence. Indeed Hobbenians would argue that all order is based ultimately on voilence. Try not paying your rent or morguage and you will ultimately be kicked out with force.
Interesting, the early Greeks assosiated 'good' with 'flourishing' i.e. what was 'good' for an organism made it flourish.
Re. Dawkins view that religion is 'parasitic', Marx had a broadly similar view on the whole capitalistic system. Consider nowadays how much time we waste been bombarded by advertisment, which has the negative effect on the human of creating wants and needs that previously did not exist.The modern human probably spends more time been exposed to 'nonsence' in this form, than medievals spent worshiping.
My view of Dawkins is that his ideas on science are good but his views on culture and the human need are poor. His attempts to reduce history and anthropology to scientific black and white answers are problematic.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

We are in fact living in the most peaceful, by a very very long stretch, period in human history ever, even compared to 50 years ago. There was an interesting talk as part of the TED Conference about this, about why, despite this, people always seem to think things are much worse now than they were, or at least as bad. The explanation put forward was that it is useful, from an evolutionary point of view, to view the world in a more negative light as we get older for the protection of our children.

If remember right, it's been shown in a number of counties that violence is generally declining but that media reporting of it is increasing. The States in particular.

AtomicHorror

Joe1919 wrote: »

Voilence is not gone, its just that the state are the only people who can legitimately use voilence. Indeed Hobbenians would argue that all order is based ultimately on voilence. Try not paying your rent or morguage and you will ultimately be kicked out with force.

Yes, but my point was that just because a behaviour is evolved does not mean that we can define it as "good" in any absolute sense.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Interesting, the early Greeks assosiated 'good' with 'flourishing' i.e. what was 'good' for an organism made it flourish.

Yes indeed, morality based on consequence or "master morality". But that particular moral theory is not accepted by Christians. Good is what God says it is.

Joe1919 wrote: »

Re. Dawkins view that religion is 'parasitic', Marx had a broadly similar view on the whole capitalistic system. Consider nowadays how much time we waste been bombarded by advertisment, which has the negative effect on the human of creating wants and needs that previously did not exist.The modern human probably spends more time been exposed to non-sence in this form, than medievals spent worshiping.

Dawkin's lack of an opinion on such influences has no bearing on his views regarding religion.

Joe1919 wrote: »

My view of Dawkins is that his ideas on science are good but his views on culture and the human need are poor. His attempts to reduce history and anthropology to scientific black and white answers are problematic.

But if we consider science to be the pursuit of truth without assumption, then science is exactly what we should be basing our moral and social decisions on. The specifics of Dawkins' beliefs may seem distasteful to you, but his core philosophy is sound.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If remember right, it's been shown in a number of counties that violence is generally declining but that media reporting of it is increasing. The States in particular.

It's a bit more subtle than that, but not much. Media reports of crime seem to be increasingly principally because of financial pressures on fact-based news outlets: it's dead cheap to pipe news straight from police press releases into the broadcast and print media. Take a look at the RTE news email for example: around 50% of the stories are consistently taken straight from police press reports -- assaults, deaths on the roads etc -- which, while they're awful for the people concerned, are of no importance to the wider population and aren't much more than verbal padding.

Also, people are generally increasingly trusting the police and the system of justice, so they tend to report crime more often, increasing stats that way too.

The US, though, is the only country I'm aware of whose Department of Justice carries out a large-scale country-wide phone survey every year and asks people a wide range of questions related to how much crime they've experienced in the previous year. By the latter stats, crime has been, on the whole, decreasing steadily for years in the US.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

It's a bit more subtle than that, but not much. Media reports of crime seem to be increasingly principally because of financial pressures on fact-based news outlets: it's dead cheap to pipe news straight from police press releases into the broadcast and print media. Take a look at the RTE news email for example: around 50% of the stories are consistently taken straight from police press reports -- assaults, deaths on the roads etc -- which, while they're awful for the people concerned, are of no importance to the wider population and aren't much more than verbal padding.

Also, people are generally increasingly trusting the police and the system of justice, so they tend to report crime more often, increasing stats that way too.

The US, though, is the only country I'm aware of whose Department of Justice carries out a large-scale country-wide phone survey every year and asks people a wide range of questions related to how much crime they've experienced in the previous year. By the latter stats, crime has been, on the whole, decreasing steadily for years in the US.

By parts quite encouraging and saddening. The media seems to be something of a curse in many respects. Their impact on scientific literacy and critical thinking has been profound too.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

A rather insulting misinterpretation there PDN

Not really Wicknight - very reserved I thought- I would be a teeny little less reserved.

Having had this misfortune of reading the God Delusion on a train to Cork and seen the reviews etc in the likes of the Sunday Times - I think of Dawkins as a media *****

He is light on the philosophy side and a bit more Maury/Joe Duffy then John Bowman. I would go further but its Sunday.

He does not address profound issues- I saw someone recently use Kant as an example and I used to enjoy reading stuff by him years back. Thats joined up thinking-heres a link. Dawkins is not even coat-tailing the guy.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Well your wrong, but this does seem to be a common theme on this forum, normally coupled with statements that we need Christianity more than ever.

I assume it is your intent to be condescending, Wick. Are you feeling a little rough today :pac:?

Wicknight wrote: »

We are in fact living in the most peaceful, by a very very long stretch, period in human history ever, even compared to 50 years ago. There was an interesting talk as part of the TED Conference about this, about why, despite this, people always seem to think things are much worse now than they were, or at least as bad. The explanation put forward was that it is useful, from an evolutionary point of view, to view the world in a more negative light as we get older for the protection of our children.

I would imaging that 60 years ago the world was a very dangerous place. We had the likes of Hitler and Stalin to thank for that. I haven't seen the talk (it sounds interesting yet I can't see how it has much to do with Christianity) but I would imagine that any incidences of violence pale in comparison to murderess excesses of those times.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

It's a bit more subtle than that,

Is subtle a new buzzword -cos Im often as subtle as a brick.

I prefer the words lying ,misrepresentation etc to just subtle.

And subtle humour is just being a smart arse.

So I prefer abortion to pro-choice and termination and death penalty to capital punishment, prostitute to sex worker and so on.

This framing and PC stuff just hides its true meaning - dont be subtle out with it.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Is subtle a new buzzword

Not to my knowledge. I was using the words "a bit more subtle" in the sense of "accurate, subject to mild change". You know, the normal meaning of the phrase.

CDfm wrote: »

dont be subtle out with it.

Er, did you make it past the fifth word of my post?

Joe1919

By the way, I like Dawkins commitment to rationality BUT
does not reducing all of humanity to science seem so......unromantic? Was this not the problem (or failure) of the enlightment. i.e. a reaction by the romantics, to the idea that people are rational and subject to the laws of science.

Perhaps this is what people hate most about Dawkins and Dennett, they break the spell and what are we left with once the spell is broken?

Perhaps there are two types of people after all, the rationalist and the romantics (who construct there own reality).

Mal-Adjusted

studiorat wrote: »

You could go to the library. Or I'll lend it to you if you like.

Now, now. You're not going to get very far trying to antagonise people

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well your wrong, but this does seem to be a common theme on this forum, normally coupled with statements that we need Christianity more than ever.

We are in fact living in the most peaceful, by a very very long stretch, period in human history ever, even compared to 50 years ago. There was an interesting talk as part of the TED Conference about this, about why, despite this, people always seem to think things are much worse now than they were, or at least as bad. The explanation put forward was that it is useful, from an evolutionary point of view, to view the world in a more negative light as we get older for the protection of our children.

It depends where you live, I guess. While low-level violence is indeed overegged by the media the really nasty stuff may fail to make the headlines (eg the Congo).

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It depends where you live, I guess.

Well no actually it doesn't, this is another think touched on in the TED talk. Rates of violence have been decreasing across the world.

I think one think people get confused about is that there are a lot more people alive today, so when a violent action like a war or genocide takes place a lot more people die than say 200 years ago. This gives people a slightly warped view of the chances of a say man alive today dying a violent death. But the actual chances that a random man or woman will die due to a violent action have been falling, often significantly, across the world in terms of decades.

That is of course not to say that violence is gone or anything like that. Saying to someone in an African war zone that they should be happy their chances of dying due to a violent action has decreased from 90% to 80% isn't going to be much comfort.

The point is not to say that death due to violence is low, or at an acceptable level. It clearly isn't. The point is the myth that things were some how better in the past. They weren't.

Mal-Adjusted

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no actually it doesn't,

Tell that to someone living in Iraq, Afghanastan, or Georgia

CDfm

studiorat wrote: »

You could go to the library. Or I'll lend it to you if you like.

ya wouldnt lend me your copy cos ya know it would be like an invitation for a bookburning

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Not to my knowledge. I was using the words "a bit more subtle" in the sense of "accurate, subject to mild change". You know, the normal meaning of the phrase.Er, did you make it past the fifth word of my post?

Uh- so its not atheist for doublespeak and superiority?

Could have fooled me.

But I defer to PDN on such matters - if youre out their help me understand the atheist meaning of subtle.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Uh- so its not atheist for doublespeak and superiority?

I think "subtle" is atheist for "subtle" ...

Zombrex

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Tell that to someone living in Iraq, Afghanastan, or Georgia

Ok

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Uh- so its not atheist for doublespeak and superiority?

Er, no. It means what I said it means

CDfm wrote: »

Could have fooled me.

Seems I did. More generally, if you're seeing "doublespeak and superiority" where is isn't (I had hoped reasonably obviously), then perhaps that's something that contributes your opinion of Dawkins?

Anyhow, I'll see if I can use less ambiguous words in future. Mea maxima culpa.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Er, no. It means what I said it means :)Seems I did. More generally, if you're seeing "doublespeak and superiority" where is isn't (I had hoped reasonably obviously), then perhaps that's something that contributes your opinion of Dawkins?

Anyhow, I'll see if I can use less ambiguous words in future. Mea maxima culpa.

Thank you - betcha had your fingers crossed - thats equivocation and amphibology and I dont like them either.

AtomicHorror

Joe1919 wrote: »

By the way, I like Dawkins commitment to rationality BUT
does not reducing all of humanity to science seem so......unromantic? Was this not the problem (or failure) of the enlightment. i.e. a reaction by the romantics, to the idea that people are rational and subject to the laws of science.

Perhaps this is what people hate most about Dawkins and Dennett, they break the spell and what are we left with once the spell is broken?

Perhaps there are two types of people after all, the rationalist and the romantics (who construct there own reality).

Perhaps the spell needs to be broken sometimes. Too often people are unwilling to question and dismantle the information given to them. What people like Dawkins are trying to push is a culture of curiosity and scepticism. That has practical applications. How many erroneous health and food scares could we have avoided if the media and the public were willing to look behind the curtain a bit?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Thank you - betcha had your fingers crossed - thats equivocation and amphibology and I dont like them either.

Seem to be quite a lot of things you don't like.

<whoosh>

Anyhow, that's the sound of my towel going in on this one. Best of luck.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Seem to be quite a lot of things you don't like.

<whoosh>

Anyhow, that's the sound of my towel going in on this one. Best of luck.

ouch. Not fair.

studiorat

robindch wrote: »

BTW, "good" isn't really the best word to use to describe an evolutionary trajectory. Take a look at the evolutionary adaptions of the amazing Lancet Fluke, as viewed from the point of view of their ant hosts

I came across a concept such as this in a 60's sci-fi anthology a few years back. As in the analogy that Dennett used it in in his TED talk.

That a similar "virus" or "symbiant" was responsible for humans belief and their acting in a certain way. The idea expanded from an ant just climbing a blade of grass to actually forming a whole lifestyle around the effect that this extra influence had on a person.

I warmed to the idea from the story. Funny to see a similar concept appear in real science (the memes/virus talk)...

Anyway, that was going somewhere but it's sorta late now...