Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Have you ever read Dawkins?

Options
13567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


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

    Indeed.
    You should Google "book burning" you'd be in good company.
    <snip>


  • Options
    #63
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    You are talking about Robespierre, right? He wasn't to fond of those religious folks and their books.


  • Options
    #64
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    You are talking about Robespierre, right? He wasn't to fond of those religious folks and their books.

    The French Revolution guy? what is?


  • Options
    #65
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    You are talking about Robespierre, right? He wasn't to fond of those religious folks and their books.

    Alas, no one side or ideology has a monopoly on book burning.

    In the last Century alone we have had Soviet atheists burning Jewish and Christian books, Christian fundamentalists burning books they deem to be immoral, and to this day Israeli authorities burn New Testaments.


  • Options
    #66
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Indeed, weren't some Harry Potter books burnt over in America because a few Christians felt they promoted the occult? Silly people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    I think we are all agreed that it's a despicable practice. Today though it's more of a protest.

    I wonder how different our discussions here would be right now, had not some of the worlds ancient libraries been burned and lost.


  • Options
    #68
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    studiorat wrote: »
    I think we are all agreed that it's a despicable practice. Today though it's more of a protest.

    I wonder how different our discussions here would be right now, had not some of the worlds ancient libraries been burned and lost.

    So your against a little bit of book burning.

    I dont like Squalkin Dick Dawkins "God Blues" one bit.

    Its just a bit bleak for me. Plenty of his stuff is derivative and the memes idea is not new and dates from the 1920s - it was referenced in something I read some years back on Aldous Huxley. Very 60s and now that Strange Days by the Doors is reissued again a bit contemporary.

    Short of calling Dawkins a twit. I think some of his writings are the kind of stuff that would have attracted a crowd in the 60s. Bit like Leary sans LSD.In fact the similarity is a bit more then passing.

    The Who should write a song about him - a My Generation update. Zager and Evans In the year 2525 is strangely appropriate.

    OH well, he was probably too Nerdy in the 60s to get with the summer of love the first time. Hasnt had John Lydon around to tea.All that fighting against the "man" from the inside the establishment is dated.He cant sell out cos he is always in. Now Blairs gone he probably wont get a Knighthood.

    AS George Harrison said in the Simpsons " Its been done before" - only better.


  • Options
    #69
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    CDfm wrote: »
    So your against a little bit of book burning.

    I dont like Squalkin Dick Dawkins "God Blues" one bit.

    Its just a bit bleak for me. Plenty of his stuff is derivative and the memes idea is not new and dates from the 1920s - it was referenced in something I read some years back on Aldous Huxley. Very 60s and now that Strange Days by the Doors is reissued again a bit contemporary.

    Short of calling Dawkins a twit. I think some of his writings are the kind of stuff that would have attracted a crowd in the 60s. Bit like Leary sans LSD.In fact the similarity is a bit more then passing.

    The Who should write a song about him - a My Generation update. Zager and Evans In the year 2525 is strangely appropriate.

    OH well, he was probably too Nerdy in the 60s to get with the summer of love the first time. Hasnt had John Lydon around to tea.All that fighting against the "man" from the inside the establishment is dated.He cant sell out cos he is always in. Now Blairs gone he probably wont get a Knighthood.

    AS George Harrison said in the Simpsons " Its been done before" - only better.

    ?


  • Options
    #70
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    studiorat wrote: »
    ?

    I was being a bit tongue in cheek.

    I am not a Dawkins fan. I think he is derivative and a lot of his material is not original -and he puts a very bleak spin on things.

    The meme/virus idea dates from 1904 and the originator was Richard Semon a German biologist.

    What I really dislike about Dawkins is that he uses his media presence to court publicity - I often liken him to Jade Goody but Timothy Leary is more appropriate.So he wants to be a trendy outhere professor.

    By that I mean his writings themselves are not contoversial or very original to anyone who has an interest in psychology , culture, philosophy and religion.The controversy is created by his soundbites etc give it more style than substance.Its from these he derives his fame and his reputation as a bad boy and a scientist.You may correct me.

    I dont doubt he is clever but then I would expect an Oxford Proffessor to be literate. His dismissal of God is not a total dismissal but something he says is unlikely on the basis he cannot conduct clinical trials or something.

    On his serious work in genetics and biology- I dont know if he is outstanding or world class in his field or not. The only stuff I know about his science is that he has an on-going feud with creationists (God knows why) and not the predominant Christian religions Anglican and RC.


    So he is an Atheist Scientist who thinks God is unlikely-known for a spat with some Creationist Scientists over Darwin. Thats not much of a legacy.

    It leaves me wondering whether outside this he actually rates as a real scientist among academics?.


  • Options
    #71
    Mal-Adjusted
    Registered Users Posts: 3,585 ✭✭✭Mal-Adjusted


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    You're essentially saying he might be right, but you don't care and aren't going to listen to him because you don't like him!

    That's kinda right. i'm really saying that on leaving a seminar, people may be distracted by the fact that he's a pretentious (sp.) [EMAIL="di@k"]di@k[/EMAIL] to take in what he's actuall saying


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Mal-Adjusted wrote: »
    That's kinda right. i'm really saying that on leaving a seminar, people may be distracted by the fact that he's a pretentious (sp.) [EMAIL="di@k"]di@k[/EMAIL] to take in what he's actuall saying
    thats a very valid reason.Trust is either 0 or 100%

    Mal-Adjusted dont listen to her. Chocolate Sauce isnt her real name.


  • Options
    #73
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    I think his attacks on mainstream religion are unhelpful. But I do agree with him that atheists should not be apologetic, and I applaud him for the message that non-theists can have a positive contribution to society in general. Consider just as an example filling in a job application school teacher for instance and putting atheist on it!
    He's also a keen supporter of "the Brights".

    He never did attribute the term "meme" to himself btw. I think his notoriety is however an indication of the rise in the popularity of blatantly atheistic literature. He seems to have his fair share awards for his scientific work and recieves both criticism and acclaim, alot of the time for "over-simplyfing" and on one occasion of turning evolution into a religion itself. (see David Stove)

    The God Delusion is a populist book, I don't think I came across a single idea or concept that was new to me - I'm no philosopher or theologian, but do have a passing interest. I do think it could be a good introduction to the area for some starting out though. His inclusion of footnotes and references has pointed me in a couple of useful directions.

    So while there's nothing particularly new or ground breaking in his argument, it's helpful and a good introduction for some in trying to confirm their non-theistic beliefs.


  • Options
    #74
    Mal-Adjusted
    Registered Users Posts: 3,585 ✭✭✭Mal-Adjusted


    CDfm wrote: »
    Chocolate Sauce isnt her real name.

    :eek: Shock!:eek: Horror!:eek: LOL
    Say it isn't so!
    Say it isn't so!:D


  • Options
    #75
    Climate Expert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    From the outset he is trying to prove a negative, ie something doesn't exist always onto a downer there. No one can say for sure that there is or isn't a god, I mean 100% proof, empirical like
    You obviously didn't read and undserstand the book very well, like most people here I suppose.

    He talks about the existence of God in term of probabilities and he doesn't discount 100% himself the existence of God.
    I think his attacks on mainstream religion are unhelpful
    Of course they are unhelpful to mainstream religion.


  • Options
    #76
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Climate Expert wrote: »
    You obviously didn't read and undserstand the book very well, like most people here I suppose.

    Cue 'arrogant atheist' tirade of posts.
    Climate Expert wrote: »
    He talks about the existence of God in term of probabilities and he doesn't discount 100% himself the existence of God.

    I knew that.

    Climate Expert wrote: »
    Of course they are unhelpful to mainstream religion.

    I think his use of "militant" atheisim is unhelpful. The reaction here and in other places to his arguments would suggest this.


  • Options
    #77
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Climate Expert wrote: »
    You obviously didn't read and undserstand the book very well, like most people here I suppose.

    He talks about the existence of God in term of probabilities and he doesn't discount 100% himself the existence of God.


    Of course they are unhelpful to mainstream religion.
    After looking deeper as people suggest a lot of Dawkins work I see as a genre of Anthropology. Edward Tylor and all that stuff.Primative to advanced societies.

    The more you look the less there is other than the four fold approach in which modern Anthropology divides itself. Its more sociology than science.

    I have always found that kind of analysis inherently colonial and I wondered why his approach just rubbed me up the wrong way.

    That its labeled science is a spin.He didnt empiracally test anything.

    Still dont like his stuff but am not in awe -very underwhelmed.


  • Options
    #78
    Climate Expert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    He didnt empiracally test anything.
    Again have you actually read the book. He shows the fallacy of this argument, 'prove he doesn't exist' in a very logical manner.


  • Options
    #79
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Climate Expert wrote: »
    Again have you actually read the book. He shows the fallacy of this argument, 'prove he doesn't exist' in a very logical manner.

    Ah now. He refutes 7 or 8 reasons why god exists, and theres a bit on why he certainly doesn't exist.

    I don't recall "prove he doesn't exist" coming into it, or not for very long anyway. Since you got me to get off me hoop and pick up the thing maybe you'd guide me to the said argument.

    Like I said "proving a negative" is the serious problem.

    hint: Reading the thread again might show you who's read it and not, it is mentioned in an earlir post.


  • Options
    #80
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Well its the self fullfilling prophesy bit from sociology but here its styled a self refuting argument. He guides you down the evolutionary path. But of course its his book.

    I am amazed that I found it so intimidating. Must be the hype.

    I have quite a wide book collection accross many disciplines.


  • Options
    #81
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    studiorat wrote: »
    Cue 'arrogant atheist' tirade of posts.



    I knew that.




    I think his use of "militant" atheisim is unhelpful. The reaction here and in other places to his arguments would suggest this.
    He treats all religion as a cult and I have a big problem with that.

    Leave me alone on Proffessor D.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Climate Expert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    studiorat wrote: »
    I don't recall "prove he doesn't exist" coming into it, or not for very long anyway. Since you got me to get off me hoop and pick up the thing maybe you'd guide me to the said argument.

    He mentions it when he talks about this guy. Its his rebuttal to that question.
    http://www.venganza.org/


  • Options
    #83
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CDfm wrote: »
    You may correct me.

    The difficultly is picking the best place to start ...


  • Options
    #84
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Climate Expert wrote: »
    He mentions it when he talks about this guy. Its his rebuttal to that question.
    http://www.venganza.org/
    But why bring creationism etc into it.

    Do you really need to go there?


  • Options
    #85
    Climate Expert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭Climate Expert


    CDfm wrote: »
    But why bring creationism etc into it.

    Do you really need to go there?
    Where did I bring creationism into it? You haven't read the book, I'm certain.


  • Options
    #86
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Never mind creationism, he's only brought up the bloody flying spagetti monster, nerds... ;)

    Which question?
    It's not really clear where that link is going btw.
    Is this about ID or the burden of proof?


  • Options
    #87
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    CDfm wrote: »
    After looking deeper as people suggest a lot of Dawkins work I see as a genre of Anthropology. Edward Tylor and all that stuff.Primative to advanced societies.

    The more you look the less there is other than the four fold approach in which modern Anthropology divides itself. Its more sociology than science.

    I have always found that kind of analysis inherently colonial and I wondered why his approach just rubbed me up the wrong way.

    That its labeled science is a spin.He didnt empiracally test anything.

    Still dont like his stuff but am not in awe -very underwhelmed.


    And you got all this from half reading the God delusion on a train?

    As for looking deeper, have you managed to read his other 6 or 7 books in the last few hours? Since you posted on the other thread earlier this evening that you are unfamiliar with his science.

    On what basis do you judge it as Anthropology exactly?


  • Options
    #88
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    marco_polo wrote: »
    And you got all this from half reading the God delusion on a train?

    As for looking deeper, have you managed to read his other 6 or 7 books in the last few hours? Since you posted on the other thread earlier this evening that you are unfamiliar with his science.

    On what basis do you judge it as Anthropology exactly?
    I havent read his six or seven books - Ive looked at one that Ive seen before.

    ffs Im not a masochist.

    Im not familiar with his science.

    All Im saying is it reads like Anthropology to me because it was a field I had an interest in.

    I read a bit - but it got me wondering what the fuss was about.


  • Options
    #89
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    studiorat wrote: »
    Never mind creationism, he's only brought up the bloody flying spagetti monster, nerds... ;)

    Which question?
    It's not really clear where that link is going btw.
    Is this about ID or the burden of proof?
    Anyway, will I have to watch that old Spenser Tracy movie on Darrow, Scopes and the Monkey Trial.


  • Options
    #90
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The difficultly is picking the best place to start ...
    Wicknight - your back.

    Still getting used to the fact that Evolutionary Trajectory isnt an episode of the Flintstones.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CDfm wrote: »
    Anyway, will I have to watch that old Spenser Tracy movie on Darrow, Scopes and the Monkey Trial.

    It's a good movie, providing it's entertainment rather than historical accuracy you're after.


Advertisement