The God Delusion (1 Viewer)

[1000smurfs]

I see Dawkins latest is number one in hoggis figgis,
Can't be all atheists buying it
I'm about half way through and loving it.
Even if you're already converted it's a great read.

 

[magicbastarder]

i like dawkins when he's on about evolution, but i've yet to meet anyone who liked his TV show about religion.

 

[Rogue]

That TV show was a bit of a miscalculation, i'd like to get the new book though. Anyone fancy scanning it for me...?

 

[1000smurfs]

I loved the tv show, there was a big debate about it here on thumped

He admits in the book that the title of the program, 'the root of all evil'
was silly.

I would have perferred 'Down with God, careful now'

but apart from that i thought it was kick ass display of ass kicking
by the reason hawk of rudemath

 

[pavlos]

The show that he was interviewed for about the Dover, Pennsylvania case was very good... he made some good points there...

 

[HMD]

what was the TV show called?

 

[pavlos]

A War on Science - you should be able to pick it up handy enough on Mininova.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/war.shtml

 

[HMD]

found it on www.bitme.org wasn't on any of the others

 

[flashback]

If you want to read some elegant reasoning on evolutionary theory, look at Daniel Dennet's Dangerous Idea book. That is some nice thinking right there.


Ok... See... the thing about Dawkins... he is sort of a one horse race, preaching to the converted, not very original thinking, yet articulate PR person.


He is not a real scientist. He is not doing science. He is doing PR. He...grrr, ok, ok, he didnt even come up with this "Selfish Gene" idea, which he flogged the everliving shit out of, by himself.

The Seflish gene... is *not* Dawkins idea. It is not his work. He doesnt even claim that it is. He just goes on and on about it so much now, some people think... sure Jaysus, isnt he fierce clever with all those ideas. However, they are not his ideas. In the original Selfish gene he didnt reff or talk about the author of the work. This gets right on my tits. Seriously. Dawkins has not had an original idea... well... as far as I know, ever. EVER. ALL HE DID WAS WRITE A SYNOPSIS OF HAMILTONS PhD Thesis!!!!!! That's it. Thats the Selfish Gene.

I am not really a scientist. Maybe i am. I dunno. I get paid to be one, and I am drunk, but thats another story. ANYWAY... it is not Dawkins idea. It it HAMILTONS. Mother fucking Bill Hamilton. Please... please remember Hamilton, and not Dawkins.


Ok... I am still drunk, so, can I just get this clear.... the selfish gene is Bill Hamiltons idea. Not... NOT Dawkin's. Dawkins can just talk the talk, but he flogs the same horse year after year, and... its not even his own horse.
Hamilton was a great thinker. A great evolutionary biologist. Dawkins is a mouth piece. He is a good mouth piece... he can shite on with the best of them, but he is not a great scientist. Not.

This post is getting out of control now. It just pisses me right off. I work with better scientists than Dawkins. Day in day out. Actuall thinkers. I do what they tell me to. Yet... like, ok, so, you are there, and you are saying, hmm, I really like Stiff Little Fingers, and then some dude comes over, and says "oh right, MUSIC, I know music, yeah, music is great... "HIT ME BABY ONE MORE TIME" yeahhh. Stiff little fingers? thats... the same right?


Sorry. Shit post. But, less of the Dawkins fan boi please. If you want ideas, read ideas. Dont read the same mother fucking idea 40 billion times in a row.

That is all for today. Sermon over.

 

[flashback]

One more thing... right... if you believe in God.. thats cool. Cool and the fucking Gang. Dont go shoving it down everyones throats... dont go killing people cause they dont believe in your god, and generally shut the fuck up about it.

Its your belief, for you. If it makes you happy, and you actually think its true, sound.

I dont. I think its a total cop out. Every time I have almost died my mind has not changed. I dont believe. But... I am sorry richard, who the fuck are you to run around and tell people they are wrong, if it makes them happy and content.

I personally hate and despise the Catholic church, and most religions. I have nothing to do with them. But, I dont go about wrecking everyones buzz about them. If my mate Tamer is a devout follower of Islam, who the fuck am I to say its all a load of shite. I respect Tamer, I respect my cousin who is a Jesuit, I respect the mental chick up the road who is a born again Christian. And, I dont go telling them everything they know is wrong, just because *I* think it is.

What does it matter... as long as they dont mess with others, who cares. None of them try and convert me, as far as I can see.

I know Dawkins idea... yadda yadda, religion is holding back humanity. Well.. how about this... how about it makes loads of people happy and content. How about all these people havnt got much else to hold on to.

And how about being happy is a grand way to be. You play a nice chord, and you are happy. You pray to Allah, you are happy. You solve Fermats Last Therom, you are happy.



What is the problem with this. What else matters, other than being happy and content with your life. Forcing everyone to believe in not God is not really any better than forcing everyone to believe IN god.



(Totally hammered. Sorry.)

 

[1000smurfs]

In the original Selfish gene he didnt reff or talk about the author of the work. .

dude i'm going to have to beat you with my fanboy stick. I'll make it a gentle
beating since you were drunk at the time.

a quote from the selfish gene:

"..Hamilton whose name has cropped up on so many pages of this book.."

Hamilton is one of four giants whose work is synopsized,
popularised and synthesised im the selfish gene so well that it inspired every evolutionary biologist since and is regarded as a classic by all the big shots including your buddy Daniel Dennet:

"The illumination of Dawkins' incisive thinking on the intellectual world extends far beyond biology. What a treat to see so clearly how matter and meaning fit together, from fiction to philosophy to molecular biology, all in one unified vision!"

"What he does," the biologist Sir John Krebs writes "is to reanalyze or reinterpret the findings of others with such excoriating rigor, depth and clarity that he uncovers new ideas and ways of thinking."


Dawkins wrote a great many original papers himself has won loads of awards like the cosmos prize awarded for:

"research work that has achieved excellence and is recognized as contributing to a significant understanding of the relationships among living organisms, the interdependence of life and the global environment and the common nature integrating these inter-relationships"

so your assertion that he's not a real scientist is bollox.

Hamilton was also a hero of Dawkins and he gave the eulogy at his funeral

From Hamiltons obituary by Dawkins:

" W D Hamilton is a good candidate for the title of most distinguished Darwinian since Darwin.... I suspect that, of all his twentieth century successors, Darwin would most have enjoyed talking to Hamilton. Partly because they could have swapped jungle tales and beetle lore, partly because both were gentle and deep, but mostly because Hamilton the theorist was responsible for clearing up so many of the very problems that had intrigued and tantalised Darwin."

Not really the actions of an arrogant self promoter you make him out to be.
Dawkins is into PR sure, PR for the public understanding of science and lately for raising awareness about the dangers of religion.. next post...

 

[1000smurfs]

One more thing... right... if you believe in God.. thats cool. Cool and the fucking Gang. Dont go shoving it down everyones throats... dont go killing people cause they dont believe in your god, and generally shut the fuck up about it.

Its your belief, for you. If it makes you happy, and you actually think its true, sound.

If that was how everybody behaved then I don't think Dawkins would have bothered writing book. The problem is, and this is where i think his argument is stongest, is that it is shoved down everyone's throats, not just by extemists but by moderates raising (brain washing) their kids
into their particular faith. It's unintentional child abuse.

We all know many moderates, (the 7/7 bombers were moderates who enjoyed cricket), and i think you make a fair point that it seems direspectful to them to be criticsing their core beliefs especially if it makes
them happy. I think this is why so many people hate dawkins even if they are atheists themselves because they take offence to him wrecking their
friends buzzes.

But it's for this reason that religion gets way too much respect, gets away with murder,literally.

I wouldn't bother arguing with my granny telling her she's not going to heaven. But that aint going to make me back down in the public arena.

Some people are so badly infected by religion that they will be immune
to anything Dawkins has to say, but it's moral cowardice not to present your case to those who have doubts, especially since you are not asking anything of them other than to explore their doubts and see where they lead.

I'm all for being happy, if it's not the meaning of life, then it's a prerequisite for finding it out. But the only way to fight religion, a source of
unhappiness and a barrier to greater happiness (by enjoying your life now to the max), is to try and dispel the delusion with reasoned arguments. I don't think Dawkins is doing anymore than this. His only crime as far as i can see is to be passionate about it.

Atheisim needs PR and needs to be more vocal, it's a tough job
but i think Dawkins is the dude that can succede in raising awarness
( a stated aim of his book) among the silent majority of moderates
about the dangers of faith and belief in the supernatural.

I know you are already areligious but i reckon you would get a lot out of the later chapters especially: 'What's wrong with religion'

 

[magicbastarder]

so why didn't hamilton write the selfish gene, so?

 

[1000smurfs]

he's on ryan turbobody now
I was dissapointed with his website, http://richarddawkins.net/ It does seem a bit arrogant

 

[1000smurfs]

sorry it was an interview with an unbearably smug david quinn with a cameo by richard dawkins.

 

[flashback]

Hows it going smurf.
Sober now... more or less. Emm... yeah, I mean, there were definately elements of "your fuggin crap you are Dawkins... I'll BURST ye" *points vaugely in some direction*. I dunno why, but I seem to talk some shite whenst locked.


ANYWAY. What did I say.
Yeah.
Alright. Dawkins, by implication, takes credit for some of the idea of the Selfish gene.

Now, I am talking more about the first version here. (The version that made Dawkins.) As a proper scientist, you will make it *painfully* clear at all times when you use or reffer to some one elses work. At the vary least, Dawkins did not do this. There were some references to Hamilton, but, there was also lots of "I shall argue" this and that.
I am being pedantic... but. I just feel that the way he should have introduce the book (originally) was by saying "I am going to explain the theory put forward by Bill Hamilton regarding gene-centric evolution". He didnt. He is meant to be a man of science, and in science you stand by convention.

ok.

Not a proper scientist. Hmm. Yeah, this is a dubious claim. He is not well published (in peer review journals). And, what has been published by him has not been "new science" it has been opinion pieces. Emmm, does this disqualify him from being a real scientist... nah, not really. He is not a scientifically distinguished scientist maybe. Although, he is distinguished in other arenas. But, I will give you that one... that was a bit bolloxy of me.

Right.

Finally... The God shite.
Hmmm. Ok, first off, I am not religious. I am not even a little bit religious. I do not believe that God exists. But... but, I do not believe that I am right all the time.
I feel that you can believe whatever you like, as long as you dont believe that you are incabable of being wrong. This is where people step over the line, where they start evangelising ideas beyond a certain point. Ie, by knocking at your door trying to convert you to such and such cult / religion.
I think... even though I agree with him that Dawkins has stepped over this line. He has moved past the place where he was simply saying the reasons for not believing in God are strong, over to you should not believe in God.

I know its a fine line. But, there is an implicit arogance that comes with this. There is this feeling that "I know better and I am right". This is exactly the same feeling that some backwoods dickhead priest has looking over his peasant congrugation.
I dont like religion. I think it is nothing but trouble. But, I know that I might be wrong, God might exist, everything that Mohammad said and did was true, and maybe only Jews will get into heaven. I dont know.
But, if you believe this, and this idea makes you happy and content, then go for it mate. Who am I, or Dawkins, to tell you otherwise.
Thier job is to point out where religions fall down. Dawkins is commiting the same sin as the people he is so angry with.

Sigh. Long rambing post...

 

[flashback]

Having said all that... I should add... I sort of admire Dawkins. And, I am sort of glad he is doing at least most of what he does.

I just feel uncomfortable with him now. In much the same way as I admire Michael Moore... its just that both of these dudes are sort of characatures of themselves at this point, banging on about the same tired story. !zed


You have to know when you can damage other peoples peoples ideas, and when to let them damage their own ideas.

 

[1000smurfs]

evenin flashback

I still have to take issue with a lot of what you say about
dawkins as a scientist, you dont get to be a professor of zoology at berkely for nuthin!

As a proper scientist, you will make it *painfully* clear at all times when you use or reffer to some one elses work. At the vary least, Dawkins did not do this.

Sure, when you are writing a paper. A book is a different story.
But matters of style aside he still makes copious references to hamilton,

and here they are courtesy of amazon :refs

i find it hard to believe
that the 'first version' you keep refering to is much different besides prefaces etc ?

If he had been trying to pass off the ideas of others as his own
he would long ago been called on his shit by his peers.

He is not well published (in peer review journals). And, what has been published by him has not been "new science" it has been opinion pieces.

Dawkins, R. & Dawkins, M. Decisions and the uncertainty of behaviour. Behaviour 45, 83-103. (1973)
Dawkins, R. & Carlisle, T. R. Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy. Nature 161, 131-133. (1976)
Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J. R. Animal signals: information or manipulation? In Behavioural Ecology (eds J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies), pp. 282--309. (Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1978)
Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J.R. Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 205: 489-511 (1979)
Dawkins, R. & H. Jane Brockman, Joint Nesting in a Digger Wasp as an Evolutionarily Stable Preadaptation to Social Life, Behaviour, 71, pp. 203-245 (1979).
Dawkins, R. & Brockmann, H. J. Do digger wasps commit the Concorde fallacy? Animal Behaviour 28, 892-896. (1980)
Oliver R. Goodenough & Dawkins, The "St Jude" mind virus. Nature, Vol.371, No.6492, pp.23-24 (1994)

to list just a few
I think he was well known among his peers for his digger wasp stuff.

If you wanted to be mean you could say he's an ex - evolutionary biologist
in that most of his important research work was done
pre - the selfish gene. The selfish gene though is an important scientific work in a sense i expand on in the next paragraph, but he has long ago stopped doing pure research in favour of expounding evolution to the general public and done a dang good job it. the blind watchmaker is awesome.

He is not a scientifically distinguished scientist maybe.

I'm reminded of the Case of Freeman Dyson:

It's considered a bit of a disgrace by most physicists
that he didn't get the nobel prize along with Feynman, Schwinger and Tomanga for the theory of QED. he basically proved the equivalance of their three different versions , and formalized Feynman diagrams into something usable and useful.
This was a huge achievment, which has advandced fundamental physics no end.

This is a crucial part of science, original ideas are great and deservedly rewarded
but the review / survey papers really help to push things forward and enable new ideas.

in .|..| terms a killer riff is essential but without the rythm and the lyrics it aint a song

And this is what Dawkins did with the selfish gene,he made a great song out of 4 great riffs. This song has inspired many others even beyond the field of biology.
(Whatever you think about memetics it was dawkins who got the ball rolling)

Dawkins and Dyson both acheived a special kind of synthesis in their fields which had a hugely influential effect.

I think in Dawkins case most of his peers recognise this and do regard him as a great scientist ,scientifically speaking.

onto the god shite....

 

[1000smurfs]

i know what you mean about the micheal moore effect,
i like him too, but also find him annoying.
Noam Chomsky has been quietly banging on for years, presenting
unarguable facts, but things have gotten worse in america not better.
You need a passionate mouthpiece for a cause to penertrate the minds
of ordinary joe soaps. What Dawkins lacks in charisma he makes up for in
persuasive argument.


Dawkins writes blind watchmaker, becomes celebrated atheist, debates on and off
with religious types in the ivory towers of oxford.

911 , george bush, fundamentalism on the rise in America and poisoning the middle east

renewed threat to humanity by religion , sparks him into action

it is no longer accpetable to pussy foot around religious types trying
not to offend them, moderates , people capable of listening to reason, must be warned of the dangers
of religion. So he writes the God Delusion.

Religious apologists are always banging on about how he is as bad\same as the fundamentalists,
but this is bullshit motivated out of fear and uncomfortablness with his passion.

Dawkins admits that God is possible

Any true believer in God / fundamentalist will never admit that they could be wrong.

therefore Dawkins is not a fundamentalist QED.

Now most people aren't true believers, they have their moments of doubt, therefore they can be receptive
to debate, religious apologists hate this and condemn any attempts to weaken peoples faith as rude
and mean.

I don't see it as arrogant to attack someone's beliefs. (notice i do not mean attack them for having those beliefs, which
is the wrong end of the stick that is often grapsed) At the very least you are doing them a favour
by subjecting their beliefs to the scientific method. It would be arrogant to try and replace
their beliefs with beliefs of your own, but thats most definitely not the intention.
Criticisim is not conversion. Dawkins book is not 'i know better than you' it's honest criticism.

it's the other side who say 'i know better than you' . 'What business has science
enquiring into the meaning of existence thats a job for theologians'
As if theologians are any better qualified.
(they're making a right pigs ear out of limbo, they should have hired some string theorists to help them
tidy up the dimensions)


It is moderates, apologists ,appeasers and complacent atheists the book is aimed at.
people who really Believe aren't even going to bother reading it.

I think the ideal realistic outcome will be to convince as many people as possible that religion (even in the form of one individuals faith in something supernatural) is dangerous and
has no right to claim the undeserved respect it gets. This is a necessary,timely and urgent goal if you don't want
to world to fall into a new dark ages. I give you JESUS CAMP !

the light of reason must be kept shining bright and every now and then it
needs to pointed in peoples faces to wake them up. It's rude but necessary.

- richard dawkins a genuine bonifide electrified monorail, or "scientist"

 

[1000smurfs]

ps apologies if a lot of that is stuff you were obviously in agreement with already,
it was as much a doodle of my own thoughts as a response to your post

also apologies for the quotes on the "scientist", wasn't meant to be
sarcastic, i tried to edit it and replace it with a smiley face but the internet wouldn't let me.