Have you ever read Dawkins?

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So, amazingly "On Topic", I'm reading The Selfish Gene for the first time and really enjoying it. Extremely well-written and very clear. Rather shameful for a biologist to have left it so long to read this one...

On Topic would be a Christian to put their opinions down on the content of the book.

People might confused and think you believe in the flying spagetti monster if the read your other posts rather than being an atheist.:)

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

Have you read any of the other? The Blind Watch Maker is excellent.

MrP

Then Mr P- you are an atheist -of course you would like the book-is the topic not Christians opinions on Dawkins books or has it evolved:D

MrPudding

The thread is so old I forgot it was christian only. Apologies.

MrP

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

The thread is so old I forgot it was christian only. Apologies.

MrP

Mr P - thought youd seen the light.

Anyway if you want to give the nod on any blasphemy or underdeveloped or incomplete theories Im your man.

Heres one for you- is thread anonymity consistent with christianity?

CD

studiorat

CDfm wrote: »

the atheist thread stuff is not for me

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

On Topic would be a Christian to put their opinions down on the content of the book.

Ah, but "on topic" with quotes can be whatever I like it to be. Rather than admit that I'd forgotten that the original post was for Christians, I'm going to go ahead and claim I was being "ironic".

mountainyman

CDfm wrote: »

I was wrong about him he is a great scientist and a truly inspirational.

If he were a great scientist he would be doing science.
He is a great populariser of science.
These are quite different. However as most atheists are conformists who seek to align themselves with the dominant ideology of the day I do not expect you to understand the difference between research and writing.

mountainyman

MrPudding wrote: »

Have you read any of the other? The Blind Watch Maker is excellent.

MrP

All of his books on evolution with the exception of the selfish gene are excellent.

CDfm

mountainyman wrote: »

If he were a great scientist he would be doing science.
He is a great populariser of science.
These are quite different. However as most atheists are conformists who seek to align themselves with the dominant ideology of the day I do not expect you to understand the difference between research and writing.

I am not a scientist but I find his writtings very incomplete and meanandering and his explanations unsatisfactory.

Climate Expert

I am not a scientist but I find his writtings very incomplete and meanandering and his explanations unsatisfactory

You must have very poor comprehension then or maybe too strong a bias.

Dawkins arguments are always extremely logical and complete. He writes his books like a peer reviewed scientific publication.

MrPudding

Climate Expert wrote: »

You must have very poor comprehension then or maybe too strong a bias.

Dawkins arguments are always extremely logical and complete. He writes his books like a peer reviewed scientific publication.

If one has no intention of finding a book satisfactory it is unlikely that it will be saisfactory.

MrP

robindch

mountainyman wrote: »

All of his books on evolution with the exception of the selfish gene are excellent.

What exactly is wrong with it -- can you give a few examples of a few errors?

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

I am not a scientist but I find his writtings very incomplete and meanandering and his explanations unsatisfactory.

As with MM, can you give an example of something that's not explained in a satisfactory manner?

CDfm

An example - would be his meme hypotheses - a gene or a virus?

THats a bit Star Trekie for me.

In my beliefs people have free will and an individual chooses between right and wrong. There is not a mechanism and its not that contrived. A person may have faith but even a non believer or agnostic is still capable of being good or evil as is a believer and also has free will.

MrPudding

CDfm wrote: »

An example - would be his meme hypotheses - a gene or a virus?

THats a bit Star Trekie for me.

In my beliefs people have free will and an individual chooses between right and wrong. There is not a mechanism and its not that contrived. A person may have faith but even a non believer or agnostic is still capable of being good or evil as is a believer and also has free will.

I think a few Dawkins fans and believers in evolution have a problem with the meme hypothesis, or at least parts of it, so you are in good company there.

Aside from that, what leaps out at you as incomplete, meandering and unsatisfactory?

MrP

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

An example - would be his meme hypotheses - a gene or a virus?

THats a bit Star Trekie for me.

In my beliefs people have free will and an individual chooses between right and wrong. There is not a mechanism and its not that contrived. A person may have faith but even a non believer or agnostic is still capable of being good or evil as is a believer and also has free will.

What has that got to do with memes?

marco_polo

Wicknight wrote: »

What has that got to do with memes?

Although it must be said I can see how the whole concept could confuse someone who has not even read the book.

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

I think a few Dawkins fans and believers in evolution have a problem with the meme hypothesis, or at least parts of it, so you are in good company there.

Aside from that, what leaps out at you as incomplete, meandering and unsatisfactory?

MrP

I am using the memes hypotheses as an example and its a kind of overall criticism.WE all know that Dawkins has been anti religion since his early work. But the God Delusion goes further and is really hostile.

I also-see his dismissal of a pantheistic god as maybe twisting matters. Take for example, Einstein - his published works and speechs and the observations of his friends vary widely. The political environment when these were published was not very welcoming to people of his upbringing anywhere. Yet Dawkins cuts thru these or ignores them. ( An interesting aside was that on his seperation/divorce a clause in the agreement that his first wife would get the Nobel prize money if he won and she did)

So physicists and biographers disagree on this yet Dawkins can be certain?
Einstein never dismissed a pantheist god.

Furthermore and this is a biggie- is that he goes on to describe all religion as being negative and creationists and extremists are lumped in with moderate belivers. In that way he goes on to alienate people where otherwise their might be common ground. For example, earlier in this thread - I posted what a catholic view might be to genocide. This is common ground between most people.So I feel fans of Dawkins really want only so see radical and extreme forms of belief and ignore what is usual.

Then if we take say the development of the philosophy of religion. Or even the political develoopment of religion. He largely ignores the development of thoughts of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century who pondered such issues such as " do women have souls " and concluded they did. I am using this as an extreme example but am highlighting that I would expect a serious writer on religious matters to have a wide grasp of these mattters. He doesnt display it. Aquinas had a wide grasp -(a crescent shape had be be cut into the refectory table so he could join the other monks for meals). But nonetheless he had a very fine and rational mind and was a very influential thinker in his day and his works are still widely used.

So to dismiss the philosophy of religion as not being rational is to misinform.If these thoughts on morals and ethics were formed on a christan platform that does not make it any way invalidate their logic..

I put these anecdotes in just to show that I have read widely around the subject. I often feel that others dont feel that. You often get the teapot orbiting mars or dragons at the bottom of the garden comment thrown out. I feel the biggest tool Dawkins fans have is ridicule. Too portray Dawkins as unbiased in any form towards any form of belief is hogwash.

Dawkins cannot see any good in any religion. Yet his books while not explicitly saying this are sold on the basis "the stuff they dont want you to know". It cant be said that Darwin has not been accepted by the mainstream churches. Its not recent -the platoist reading of the Bible has been around for 2000years - yet Dawkins and his believers have us believe it is recent.

Many mainsream scientists currently profess a belief. But it is concievable that they wouldnt do so publically while the debate is current. Would you do so in any department in Oxford where Dawkins has an afilliation or any other college where a protege or believer in Dawkins holds a senior position. This undermines freedom of belief. It also excludes participation in areas such as ethics etc and causes polarisation of views along extreme viewpoints.

Zombrex

CDfm have you actually read "The God Delusion"?

And what have memes got to do with free will?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

CDfm have you actually read "The God Delusion"?

And what have memes got to do with free will?

i have actually read it and wont be rereading it for your benefit. I aint that deep.

The debate is not an obsession with me - I will equally post against believers- if I feel they give the wrong impression of mainstream beliefs.

What Im saying is that Dawkins does not do it for me.Thats not such a big deal.He doesnt offer satisfactory conclusions for lots of people.

Memes is an example of an underdeveloped theory.

Anyway -atheists are a humourless lot except of course for Mr P who may have a viral infection and is probably at home right now knitting a tea cosy. Am I right?:D

CDfm

MrPudding wrote: »

I think a few Dawkins fans and believers in evolution have a problem with the meme hypothesis, or at least parts of it, so you are in good company there.

Aside from that, what leaps out at you as incomplete, meandering and unsatisfactory?

MrP

I should have added that most of what gets posted here is irrelevant to ODCs (ordinary decent christians)

You cant really view Dawkins work in this area as original as its derivative or earth shattering as the ideas are undeveloped or hypothetical or incomplete.

The controversy lies within the hype and the product positioning/framing of it as controversial.

There is no real controversy or conspiracy to surpress Dawkins or Neo Darwinist by any mainstream grouping not that I can see. Its just good newspaper copy to allude to it and a Creationist conspiracy.

IF someone posts about dragons in the bottom of the garden or the teapot -I should equally be able to post media whore or whatever I want.THats only fair.

But ODCs and ordinary atheists get along and respect each others beliefs -Its only the extremists who insist we dont. IF anyone wants to define Dawkins and his fans/believers in that number let them.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

i have actually read it and wont be rereading it for your benefit. I aint that deep.

Well you might want to skim through it again considering the inaccuracies in your post above

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well you might want to skim through it again considering the inaccuracies in your post above

I think my copy was hidden by a teacosy wearing dragons that live in the bottom of the garden:eek:

but point out where you disagree with me overall on Dawkins and I will be happy to comment

mountainyman

robindch wrote: »

As with MM, can you give an example of something that's not explained in a satisfactory manner?

I am not seeking errors in the selfish gene however it is not as good as his either the ancestors tale, the blind watchmaker or the river out eden.

However if you are looking for errors in Dawkins the jump from gene or allele to 'meme' is abrupt.

I think that Dawkins should sticj to what he is good at - the explanation of the little question of evoltution and leave the big question to the big thinkers.

Dades

mountainyman wrote: »

I think that Dawkins should sticj to what he is good at - the explanation of the little question of evoltution and leave the big question to the big thinkers.

Who are these "big thinkers" and what are their qualifications? :pac:

mountainyman

robindch this thread is for Christians only please confirm that you are a christian.

mountainyman

MrPudding wrote: »

I think a few Dawkins fans and believers in evolution have a problem with the meme hypothesis, or at least parts of it, so you are in good company there.

Aside from that, what leaps out at you as incomplete, meandering and unsatisfactory?

MrP

Why does one need to go beyond that?
Dawkins is not a scienctist in the sense of one who formulates provable and disprovable hyotheses which are subjected to empirical experiment in order that they may be proved or disproved.

He is scientistic and the 'meme' hypothesis like his support for eugenics is indicative of that. He is engaged in in polemic clad as science.

The whole' selfish gene' angle is not provable or disprovable is a restatement of what was already known. HOWEVER
the most obvious mistake or error in the selfish gene is Dawkins' contention that because evolution acts only at the gentic level we cannot speak about species or group level selection as meaningful.

That is to say because (he says)species or group level selection is not meaningful therefore group level selection is not meaningful.
If A then A.




Incidentally this thread has been flagged as christian only.

DeVore

Wow.... Dawkins whole point in the Selfish Gene is that the little things ARE the answer to the big questions.

I dont like fanaticism and Dawkins does come off as being overly opposed to religion but I agree that fanatical religious dedication is one of the biggest threats on the planet and needs to be met with stern opposition at every quarter by all right thinking people. Otherwise we are going to find ourselves with schools full of ID nonsense.

Whats funny is that Dawkins later books are LESS revolutionary then The Selfish Gene. If TSG is read and fully understood, it's not just explosive, its nuclear.

The ideas put forward in TSG mostly escape people who read it, I doubt 10% of people really grasped what he was saying. I dont believe this "disproves" God (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=85829), in fact if you believe in a "something bigger" I'd be MORE impressed at the elegance of the solution then if "God" just snapped his fingers and the world appeared. Genetics is a really clever way to do it!

My main beef against the idea of religion is when it becomes organised into a political force (cf: Fatwa's, Bishops in Ireland, Oppression of sexual choice etc) or when it leaves the "club" and people start to insist that their superstitions are given equal respect with rigourous science and taught to my kids etc.

Thats the point that I stand behind Dawkins and draw a line.

Religion is exceeding its boundaries, as it is wont to do (look up "Proselytisation") and thats leading to a push back effect by non-religious people who feel (quite rightly) that they are not being afforded the respect to live their lives as they see fit without interference. Ironically the same respect that moderate religious people are asking for.

The more militant and insistent the far right gets about crowbarring their beliefs into the scientific stream of knowledge, the more militant the non-believers are going to get (and quite rightly too imho). This cant be a good thing and will lead to a three way "fight" between militant Christians (primaraily in the US but worryingly becoming a trend here and in the UK), hardline Muslims who see it as a good way to win recruits in their country because of the way the supposedly christian nations have acted there (primaraily the US but also the UK, both poster-kids for christianity on the world stage) and the atheists/agnostics who are fighting to maintain their space and rights.

Dawkins unfortunately waters down his real knock-out punch (The Selfish Gene) by muddying the water with the pseudo-political stuff.

DeV.

PDN

DeVore wrote: »

I dont like fanaticism and Dawkins does come off as being overly opposed to religion but I agree that fanatical religious dedication is one of the biggest threats on the planet and needs to be met with stern opposition at every quarter by all right thinking people. Otherwise we are going to find ourselves with schools full of ID nonsense.

One of the biggest threats on the planet? That's a bit dramatic isn't it? Millions of kids are starving because of a corrupt capitalist system, tribalism is causing untold slaughter in Africa etc. Compared to this a few crackpots ion schools is about as important as a pimple on my backside.

Religion is exceeding its boundaries, as it is wont to do (look up "Proselytisation") and thats leading to a push back effect by non-religious people who feel (quite rightly) that they are not being afforded the respect to live their lives as they see fit without interference. Ironically the same respect that moderate religious people are asking for.

I think such a quote can fairly be applied to militant Islam, but the last Century of human history contains far more persecution of believers by unbelievers than vice versa.

DeVore

I think a lot of the abused here would contend otherwise.

I'm not trying to bash any religion, I've made a clear distinction between fanatic (defined by extreme belief that everyone must share your opinion or be altered or destroyed) and moderate religous people who are willing to live and let live (those I can get along with just fine).

I said religious fanaticism is "one of the biggest threats" and I stand by that. Iran and the extremists seeking to nuke Israel, radicalisation of young, poor people, Al Queda and the on going, worldwide fight between the forces of extreme christianity (Bush etc) and those of extreme Islam. Unfortunately I could go on and on....

Yeah, I'd say one of the biggest.

DeV.