Have you ever read Dawkins?

robindch

mountainyman wrote: »

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

You know very well that like Tim who started this thread, I am not.

I'm almost feeling persecuted, but not quite. Must be my irreligious self

Fanny Cradock

DeVore wrote: »

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....

DeV.

Well, I think that a potential conflict between Israel and Iran can't be reduced to religious hatred. For that matter, Bush's war on terror can't be pinned on his religious belief. There are so many other factors at play. For example, nationalism, fear and revenge.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There are so many other factors at play. For example, nationalism, fear and revenge.

A lot of those things tie back to religion though.

Fanny Cradock

Or used as a handy excuse.

I often think that the North is a good example of a conflict that was often portrayed or misunderstood (certainly outside Ireland) as a religious war (Sam Harris seem to think so).

Fanny Cradock

mountainyman wrote: »

Incidentally this thread has been flagged as christian only.

Don't worry about it. The 'Christian only' thread is simply a request made to non-Christians if the subject matter is likely to be sincerely answerable only by Christians. We try not to use the request too often. There was no need for it in the case of this thread, IMO.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For that matter, Bush's war on terror can't be pinned on his religious belief.

That depends on whether you base your belief on facts or urban legends.

There are some people out there who think that George Bush is a radical Christian zealot whose invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with oil and everything to do with God. They don't tend to post too much in this forum as they're too busy taking photographs of flying saucers and trying to spot Elvis in Pizza Hut.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

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.

Nothing wrong with that -- a world which gives every appearance of being constructed by chemicals to maximize their design lifetimes isn't one which is going to appeal to many people, or even a significant minority.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that this is exactly what the world appears to be, and that claims that it's otherwise seem to be little more than carefully-crafted illusions.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I often think that the North is a good example of a conflict that was often portrayed or misunderstood (certainly outside Ireland) as a religious war (Sam Harris seem to think so).

I'd certainly agree the NI "Troubles" are far removed from religion (I think Dawkins misjudges this situation too), but where territorial conflict and Islam are concerned, religion is the incendiary factor.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Nothing wrong with that -- a world which gives every appearance of being constructed by chemicals to maximize their design lifetimes isn't one which is going to appeal to many people, or even a significant minority.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that this is exactly what the world appears to be, and that claims that it's otherwise seem to be little more than carefully-crafted illusions.

Aha Robin so you are a craftily designed chemical now and not an ape:pac:

So not a million miles from "ye come from dust and to dust ye shall return" (I dont know the exact passage in the bible) but others no doubt do if they still post.

Of course the world is composed of minerals,chemicals and lots of other stuff. I have never said it wasnt. I have never said there wasnt evolution.These are things we see and accept and this has always been so - thats not moderate or modern belief thats the way it is.

The bible is allegorical.Was written in its time so if some people put a literalist spin on it - I dont know why.

I would question their motives as lots of things are done in the name of religion.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Or used as a handy excuse.

Well yes, that is the point. Religion is a form of manipulation. It is used by the few to manipulate the many into doing things like wars. It is a "handy excuse", that is the problem with it.

I sometimes thing that religious people don't quite get the object to religion in terms of things like wars. The argument isn't that every war was started by a particular person because of a particular religious belief they had. A lot of wars were, but that isn't how I would classify a religious war.

For example, since you mentioned it, the issue in the North wasn't started all those years ago because William was strongly theologically opposed to Catholicism. It was started because William wanted the thrown.

The Ulster plantations of Protestant Scots replacing Catholic Irish was not done because Elizebeth had strong objections to the Catholic Irish (though she did). It was done for political reasons to stop rebellion.

But a single man does not a war make.

The reason they are religious conflicts is because the people on the ground who actually do the fighting are doing it based on religious motivation.

Religious motivation that is manipulated and controlled by the few on top, but then that is ultimately the problem with religion, it allows for this manipulation.

Even the most fundamentalist Christians here who object to the very idea that they follow a religion and go back only to the original Greek Bible are following for religious/theological reasons, the wishes and instructions of a group of men who sat around deciding this stuff.

Yes you guys believe that what they decided was the will of God, but the followers ALWAYS believe what is decided is the will of God. That is the point.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, that is the point. Religion is a form of manipulation. It is used by the few to manipulate the many into doing things like wars. It is a "handy excuse", that is the problem with it.

Any motivational force can be used to manipulate. Undesirable elements can attach themselves to an organisation and begin to dominate it, or at least, become the main association with it. In this regard, football hooliganism could be used as an example. And during the 80's and 90's a small and violent element became synonymous with the game.

Wicknight wrote: »

Religious motivation that is manipulated and controlled by the few on top, but then that is ultimately the problem with religion, it allows for this manipulation.

This can happen with any organisation or ideological movement, religious or otherwise.

Wicknight wrote: »

The reason they are religious conflicts is because the people on the ground who actually do the fighting are doing it based on religious motivation.

As you were talking about NI in your prior paragraph, presumably you must then think that the IRA, for example, were bombing, killing, smuggling arms and selling drugs because of their love for Jesus.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes you guys believe that what they decided was the will of God, but the followers ALWAYS believe what is decided is the will of God. That is the point.

This has little to do with the conversation we are having, and It only exposes the innate prejudice at the heart of your position.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well yes, that is the point. Religion is a form of manipulation. It is used by the few to manipulate the many into doing things like wars. It is a "handy excuse", that is the problem with it.

The Ulster plantations of Protestant Scots replacing Catholic Irish was not done because Elizebeth had strong objections to the Catholic Irish (though she did). It was done for political reasons to stop rebellion.

Religious motivation that is manipulated and controlled by the few on top, but then that is ultimately the problem with religion, it allows for this manipulation.

Wicknight - thats hardly the point.

Many wars and conflicts are based on political or material objectives. What antropoligists and sociologists call the power of the limited good. That is "goods" which means that its done to acquire wealth or greed as there is not enough to go round. Saddams wars were about acquiring oil wealth from Kuwait etc. AS he had mortgaged the next 10 years oil revenues fighting Iran.

In the Northern Ireland situation originally that would have happened to with plantations as there was a limited around of land to go around.

It morphed into institutionalised sectarianism as there was religion based access for education housing and employment.

In the deep south in the USA you had intitutionalised racism up to the 1960s and beyond.

So from a western point of view our motivation to fight wars has moved on to economic reasons rather than ideological. However we justify them in other ways.

The core issues are economic political and relate to spheres of influence or to protect "our" interests and religion is a secondary part of it.

While you do get some overlap - Christians would say that secular and religious structures differ.

Would you say that the Church of England is political and causes war surely by your arguments as the Prime Minister sends nominations to the Queen on appointments of Bishops it must be ? Does that make the British position on Iraq religious. Does Dawkins friendship with the Bishop of Oxford make his views political. Probably not as the decisions made were secular and the links are tenuous.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Any motivational force can be used to manipulate.

Well yes. Religion just happens to be a very strong motivational force since it promises so much.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This can happen with any organisation or ideological movement, religious or otherwise.

It certainly can. That isn't a reason to ignore religion. It happens a lot with religion. In fact it is basically what religion is.

It also happens with other organisations, for example Communism. And I am as opposed to them as I am to religion.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As you were talking about NI in your prior paragraph, presumably you must then think that the IRA, for example, were bombing, killing, smuggling arms and selling drugs because of their love for Jesus.

I wouldn't say "their love of Jesus", but certainly due to strong theological disagreements with Protestants over various issues.

When discussing N.I in these rather secular times people tend to forget two important things

1) Up until relatively recently there was a significant difference in Ireland in every day life between the Protestant churches and Catholics, that seeped down to nearly every level of social structure.

2) The objection to British rule originated not with a nationalist movement but with a Catholic movement. It isn't that they didn't want to be ruled by Britain (Irish Catholics fought with James remember, who was an English King), it was that they did not wish to be ruled by a non-Catholic.



This has little to do with the conversation we are having, and It only exposes the innate prejudice at the heart of your position.[/QUOTE]

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

In the Northern Ireland situation originally that would have happened to with plantations as there was a limited around of land to go around.

It morphed into institutionalised sectarianism as there was religion based access for education housing and employment.

No, the plantations were done on religious pretext, Protestant Scots displacing Catholic Irish, precisely because the Protestant throne under James (James I) was concerned about Catholic unrest in Ireland.

It was sectarian from the very start.

CDfm

You say it here it was a pretext- some of the catholic landowners held on to land legally with the conivance of Protestant branches of the family and quite openly. The Plunkets of which Oliver Plunkett was a member were one such family but there were others who were also lived openly wealthy lives around the country after the plantations.

You could say it was a mechanism used to distribute land and reward people and create a sence of community.

So yes it was sectarian but before that it was political.

mountainyman

Sorry DeVore you may misunderstand me.

what is the point of the Selfish Gene
[1] That evolution acts by selecting for beneficial characteristics
[2] That these different characteristics are the result of different genes
[3] That those genes which benefit their host (or bottleneck he also says) are disproportionately copied.

SO WHAT?
That is just a truism. It is obvious and it has been obvious since Mendel.
If genes exist and external characterictics are the expression of genes then it is logical that different genetic copying is the reason for differences in characterstics

OR
If phenotype is the expression of genotype than a different phenotype => a different genotype??


SO WHAT?

Then he goes on to say that given what he says species level or group level evolution does not take place.

Yes GIVEN what he says, but there is now or so I am told (and I use the word TOLD) evidence (arising in part from a desire to explore the paths that Dawkins laid out in SG) that group level evolution does take place.

And so we come circuitously to my complaint about dawkins
[1] In the SG he advances a hypothesis which is either trite or unoriginal but at any rate [NOT] disprovable
[2] He does not present rebuttable hypotheses
[3] He is now a science populariser not a scientist

[4] Dawkisn and (even more) his fans are being scientistic not scientific. Science is about the scientific method.

That said I have enjoyed all his books and would especially recommend the Ancestors Tale and River Out of Eden. Though come to think of it even in that first paragraph of River Out of Eden he makes a total fool of himself.

I will say (to give the Devil his due) that my father listened to the ancestors tale on CD largely because of the controversy about the God Delusion. I doubt if he ever read ab book about science before except for stuff about the Space Race.

Edit: I did not enjoy the God delusion

Galvasean

mountainyman wrote: »

Though come to think of it even in that first paragraph of River Out of Eden he makes a total fool of himself.

I will say (to give the Devil his due) that my father listened to the ancestors tale on CD largely because of the controversy about the God Delusion. I doubt if he ever read ab book about science before except for stuff about the Space Race.

How is that making a fool of himself?

mountainyman

The bit about cultural relativsm and the moon being an old calabash.
Why engage in polemic in a proper sceince book?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't say "their love of Jesus", but certainly due to strong theological disagreements with Protestants over various issues.

When discussing N.I in these rather secular times people tend to forget two important things

1) Up until relatively recently there was a significant difference in Ireland in every day life between the Protestant churches and Catholics, that seeped down to nearly every level of social structure.

2) The objection to British rule originated not with a nationalist movement but with a Catholic movement. It isn't that they didn't want to be ruled by Britain (Irish Catholics fought with James remember, who was an English King), it was that they did not wish to be ruled by a non-Catholic.

[/QUOTE]

So how many IRA members have you discussed theology with in order to reach this conclusion? I have had a number of such discussions and none of them support your argument. Over half of the terrorists I have spoken to (both loyalist & republican) were either agnostic or atheist.

Your argument about King James is very selective. The rebellion of 1798 was nationalist rather than Catholic, with a significant Presbyterian involvement.

For what its worth my own experience of growing up in Belfast convinced me that the conflict there was neither religious nor nationalist - it was good old-fashioned tribalism.

mountainyman

marco_polo wrote: »

also Dawkins would have a much more Gene centered view on evolution than Rose or Gould for example.

What's that supposed to mean? Stephen Gould didn't believe in genes?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

For what its worth my own experience of growing up in Belfast convinced me that the conflict there was neither religious nor nationalist - it was good old-fashioned tribalism.

And explain to me PDN the lines the tribes in Northern Ireland are divided along ... umm, let me think

bring up the modern IRA as evidence that the conflict in the North has nothing to do with religion is ridiculous. The conflict now (as I already said) may have very little to do with religion but extending that backwards in time as evidence that it isn't a religious conflict is selectively re-writing history.

If based on a religious belief someone kills my brother, so in revenge I then kill them and in retaliation their brother kills me, so my father kills their brother and so on, based on your logic if you wait long enough one can say the conflict between are two families has nothing to do with religion, ignoring that it actually has everything to do with religion

CDfm

PDN wrote :Your argument about King James is very selective. The rebellion of 1798 was nationalist rather than Catholic, with a significant Presbyterian involvement.
[/quote]


I agree -James was known in Ireland by the Irish as Seamas a chaca - translation is James the sh*t

The presbyterian invovlement in Nationalist politics continued thru the 19th Century. Its not wrong or insulting to them to suggest they pursued self interest.

Christian teaching says revenge is not something to be done or condoned- you leave it to the secular authorities.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

And explain to me PDN the lines the tribes in Northern Ireland are divided along ... umm, let me think

bring up the modern IRA as evidence that the conflict in the North has nothing to do with religion is ridiculous. The conflict now (as I already said) may have very little to do with religion but extending that backwards in time as evidence that it isn't a religious conflict is selectively re-writing history.

If based on a religious belief someone kills my brother, so in revenge I then kill them and in retaliation their brother kills me, so my father kills their brother and so on, based on your logic if you wait long enough one can say the conflict between are two families has nothing to do with religion, ignoring that it actually has everything to do with religion

It began as a conflict between Scots-Irish settlers and the Irish inhabitants who were displaced. Tribalism.

In Tennessee they still talk about the famous blood feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys - both descendants of (Protestant) Scots-Irish settlers who perpetuated a similar tit-for-tat conflict. It was tribalism, just like the Northern Irish conflict.

However, no doubt you will continue to blame religion since the 'religion as the root of all evil' has become a familiar comfort blanket to help prop up your faith system.

Mena

PDN wrote: »

prop up your faith system.

Sorry to barge into the middle of the discussion but I thought it important I point out that we do not, actually, have a faith system.

Thanks

Carry on.

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

It began as a conflict between Scots-Irish settlers and the Irish inhabitants who were displaced. Tribalism.

In Tennessee they still talk about the famous blood feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys - both descendants of (Protestant) Scots-Irish settlers who perpetuated a similar tit-for-tat conflict. It was tribalism, just like the Northern Irish conflict.

However, no doubt you will continue to blame religion since the 'religion as the root of all evil' has become a familiar comfort blanket to help prop up your faith system.

Coincidentaly - in Newfoundland Canada both traditions co-existed and it wasnt uncommon in the 20s certainly for the local priest to bless the parade on the Glorious 12th

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote: »

Sorry DeVore you may misunderstand me.

what is the point of the Selfish Gene
[1] That evolution acts by selecting for beneficial characteristics
[2] That these different characteristics are the result of different genes
[3] That those genes which benefit their host (or bottleneck he also says) are disproportionately copied.

SO WHAT?
That is just a truism.

That wasn't the point of The Selfish Gene

The point of it was the argument that the main unit of replication in a biological ecosystem that is evolving is not the species, not the individual organisms, but the genes themselves. The organisms are carrier of genes.

It was a shift in how someone views evolution, not as organisms competing with each other, but genes manipulating organisms. This is the origin of the title, The Selfish Gene. The gene is using the organism to propagate itself.

While this idea did not originate with Dawkins, he expanded up on it and his book and the work behind it really demonstrated this in a clear and understandable manner so that for most biologists this concept "clicked" with them. It was this gene-centric way of looking at evolution that was the point of the book.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It began as a conflict between Scots-Irish settlers and the Irish inhabitants who were displaced. Tribalism.

No it didn't. Again you are selectively choosing when to apply "it began" to support your argument. Using my analogy above if you decide to say the conflict started when my father killed the brother then yes it is easy to say "Ah, look, it has nothing to do with religion!" :rolleyes:

Why were the Scots in Ulster, and what religion were they. And who put them there and what religion were they.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

That wasn't the point of The Selfish Gene

The point of it was the argument that the main unit of replication in a biological ecosystem that is evolving is not the species, not the individual organisms, but the genes themselves. The organisms are carrier of genes.

It was a shift in how someone views evolution, not as organisms competing with each other, but genes manipulating organisms. This is the origin of the title, The Selfish Gene. The gene is using the organism to propagate itself.

While this idea did not originate with Dawkins, he expanded up on it and his book and the work behind it really demonstrated this in a clear and understandable manner so that for most biologists this concept "clicked" with them. It was this gene-centric way of looking at evolution that was the point of the book.

it might be rational and logical to biologists but that doesnt make it right and by my reading he had loads of dissenters in the scientific community.

they think his theories can explain simpler life forms but not man.

it does not explain it the way Law of Gravity does gravity. So its obscure and is just on of a number of possible theories.

PDN

Mena wrote: »

Sorry to barge into the middle of the discussion but I thought it important I point out that we do not, actually, have a faith system.

Thanks

Carry on.

I'm not sure who the 'we' stands for. Whether you, Mena, have a faith system or not is surely unrelated to Wicknight's beliefs. Unless, of course, you are using 'we' to apply to all atheists - but then such a use of the first person plural would imply that you see all atheists as sharing a set of common beliefs. Now, let me see, what do we call it when a group of people subscribe to the same set of commonly held beliefs? Oops!

studiorat

CDfm wrote: »

it does not explain it the way Law of Gravity does gravity. So its obscure and is just on of a number of possibleplausable theories.

there ya go!