Richard Dawkins

[FlaSoxxJim]

I always thought it was a shame that Gould's popular writings on evolutionary theory overshadowed those of Dawkins. In truth, I think Dawkins' stuff was more accessible for a lay audience. Dawkins also was able to see the selective value in "looking like half-a-turd" whereas the eternal punctuated equilibrium proponent Gould could not. The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker remain must reads for those interested in teh subject.

 

I'm very much looking forward to reading his new book, The God Delusion, possibly over the holidays or if the imminent threats to cut my depertment at work come to pass.

 

In the meantime, here's an engaging piece posted at Huffington where Dawkins shares his thoughts on "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God".

 

Long, but worth the time if you have an interest.

Edited October 26, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[BobDylan]

I have the audio book of this if anyone is interested in listening to it. PM me and we'll figure out a way to get it in your hands.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I have the audio book of this if anyone is interested in listening to it. PM me and we'll figure out a way to get it in your hands.

 

What was your impression of the book? Have you read any of his other stuff?

[mreye]

I always thought it was a shame that Gould's popular writings on evolutionary theory overshadowed those of Dawkins. In truth, I think Dawkins' stuff was more accessible for a lay audience. Dawkins also was able to see the selective value in "looking like half-a-turd" whereas the eternal punctuated equilibrium proponent Gould could not. The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker remain must reads for those interested in teh subject.

 

I'm very much looking forward to reading his new book, The God Delusion, possibly over the holidays or if the imminent threats to cut my depertment at work come to pass.

 

In the meantime, here's an engaging piece posted at Huffington where Dawkins shares his thoughts on "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God".

 

Long, but worth the time if you have an interest.

 

Sorry, Jim. I just thought it was ironic that you're going to read a book called "The God Delusion" over the "holidays."

[FlaSoxxJim]

Sorry, Jim. I just thought it was ironic that you're going to read a book called "The God Delusion" over the "holidays."

 

True enough. The. . . er. .. winter break will likely coincide with my being institutionally reorganized out of a job, so it seems like a good time to get some reading in.

 

Unless I go the audiobook route.

 

That linked piece I think is a good preamble to the book, settting the stage for the arguments for and against being a "Chamberlain" or a "Churchill" on the issue. In truth, I'm still a Chamberlain, and I do regularly invoke Gould's Nonoverlapping Magisteria as a way to not needlessly rile up religious moderates. I respect the fact that Dawkins is at the stage in his storied career that gives him the right to just speak his mind and not worry about who he agitates, but I'm not yet so brash.

 

For me, there is a real concern over whether those of us who consider ourselves Darwin's footsoldiers take on all spiritual sectors versus just fighting back the fundamentalists. And it's based on by absolute steadfast belief in the strength and elegance and intellectually unifying power of the theory of natural selection. If interested people cut through the hype and the popular misconceptions and the "debate" and really look at what the the theory says and the simplicity of the underlying mechanisms, and some of the ammassed supporting evidence then there will be a great number of converts to the cause. But if every Darwin soldier became radicalized in the mold of Richard Dawkins, we would end up closing many minds before they had a chance to be opened.

 

That's why I'm eager to read the book. Even if Gould's NOMA doesn't hold up if the goal is to focus the tools of science on ultimate origins of the universe, i still think it has a lot of merit as far as allowing some undecided people be open-minded enough to judge natural selection on its own merits rather than as the social powder keg people try to portray it as.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I really honestly completely 100% desire to keep an open mind about all of this. I wouldn't waste my time reading this stuff if I didn't. however...

 

'Dr Dawkins "probably single-handedly makes more converts to intelligent design than any of the leading intelligent design theorists".' This is not the first, not the second, not even the third time this plonkingly witless point has been made

 

It's not an invalid point, regardless of how "witless" you think it is. I would argue the inverse as well. Many aspects of Christianity, whether the Catholic Church or simply the actions of Christians themselves, send people packing for "something else". In other words, we're often our own worst enemy...especially when we're as proud as we so easily seem to be.

 

Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.

 

anyone who is remotely religious would see the irony in a "scientific" experiment such as this. It proves nothing, and goes in the same category of misappropriation of funds as making police academy part 4.

 

 

It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ .

-sam harris

 

I don't discount the point he's making because I KNOW some of the crazy people that think this way, however, the saddest part of this whole article is that it seems there are two lines drawn. From the responses to this article:

 

Nitwits pimping sky fairies have done enough damage in human history - it's time for rational humanists everywhere to express skepticism whenever possible.

 

I think it has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that those who believe in an omnipotent being who presumably lives in outer space are usually the same people who find it utterly impossible to empathize with those of us on earth.

 

or the ironic:

 

Thank God for Richard Dawkins, all we need is another 4 or 5 billion like minded individuals and maybe this planet wouldn't be such a dangerous and horrifying place to live.

 

 

All this proves to me is that there are two types of people:

 

1) those who "think" to find their end belief

 

and

 

2) those who have "faith" to find their end belief

 

 

I'm not advocating one over the other, which unfortunately isn't the case for Mr Dawkins. Like the religious fundementalists who cry "turn or burn," I don't see Richard Dawkins any differently than them, but certainly on the opposite side of the continuum. More or less he makes the arguement that if you use any "faith" in your reasoning for believing something, you are his enemy. (he uses the war analogy, not me). He's so arrogant that he basically says, you're on my side if you use your brain and if you use your heart you're on the ignorant, brainless, witless side.

 

as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today

 

The only people I hear this from are extremist scientists, and it is ironic because:

 

Accepting, then, that the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence, what should be our best estimate of the probability that God exists, given the evidence now available? Pretty low I think

 

This is the exact line of arguement that creationists use.

 

 

the Argument for Design. It is the familiar 'watchmaker' argument, which is surely one of the most superficially plausible bad arguments ever discovered - and it is rediscovered by just about everybody until they are taught the logical fallacy and Darwin's brilliant alternative.

 

This is where i stopped being open to this guy, and it's not because he necessarily wrong or right, simply the arrogance of his writing is his biggest turn off. I fear anyone, religious or a-religous, who "has all the answers." To me, those are the people you must be the most skeptical of. I know a few "know it all" Christians and it's their hypocritical lives and self-assuredness that make me question my beliefs sometimes. (see arguement above re:coverts to the otherside)

 

 

so in the end, i think God is smiling on Richard Dawkins for using his brain to full potential. I think God is laughing at Richard Dawkins because Richard's tiny (in comparison) brain is, well, laughable (in comparison). and I think God is sad for Richard Dawkins because Dawkins has made his choice.

 

Regardless of your beliefs...in the end, being an arrogant ass never wins arguements nor friends.

 

 

 

I unfortunately have to add Richard Dawkins to the "people who are terribly misguided" like Marcus Borg section of my reading list.

[Flash Tizzle]

It's hilarious browsing through the comments listed in the link provided by Flasox.

 

I admire the foolishness of people who believe the world's problems would immediately disappear without religion. Sure, if such an unfathomable event were to occur-- completely discounting the evolutionary component of believing in God--there are still differences amongst humans which would influence war.

 

Haven't we learned there are always unforseen consequences to every perceived "perfect" solution? Instead of several thousand devote fundamentalists engaging in terrorist movements you'll have several thousand athiests replacing them.

 

I've always regarded religion with a "wait and see" approach. I'll live my life accordingly, without commandments or verses to guide my decisions, and when I die -- and there's a God -- I can tell him(her) I made a HUGE mistake. Surely the loving, forgiving, merciful overlord can understand my dilemma. I just don't need to devote time to the equivalent of spiritual gambling. And in this case, the odds aren't even posted.

[FlaSoxxJim]

PA, I appreciate your taking the time to read the piece and offer your commentary. And if you read my last post you see our takes on the prudence of Dawkins' in-your-face tactics are pretty similar. We differ in where we see that tactic evolving from – i.e., is it ignorance and arrogance or is it someone who thinks he's earned the right to be brutally honest in his opinions.

 

And your reaction confirms my suspicions that it could turn a lot of people off of entertaining any openness whatsoever about evolution through natural selection if all of Darwin's footsoldiers opted for confrontation over gentle nudging.

 

I'm going to stick with the NOMA strategy for now. As long as the existence or non-existence of a divine agent remains untestable then faith and science operate within different realms and neither one can inform nor obviate the other.

[maggliopipe]

The Selfish Gene seriously changed my life. For the immediate 3-4 months after reading it I saw everything through the eyes of that book. I was already a molecular biology major in college but the book made me think of science in a much different manner. It also helped me immensely in grad school in committee meetings when asked questions of the biological significance of questions I was facing. It's really a great read for a layperson, and honestly, you only need to read the first few chapters; it gets pretty redundant.

 

Dawkins was on the Colbert Report plugging his book a couple weeks ago, which was a pretty entertaining exchange.

[sox4lifeinPA]

PA, I appreciate your taking the time to read the piece and offer your commentary. And if you read my last post you see our takes on the prudence of Dawkins' in-your-face tactics are pretty similar. We differ in where we see that tactic evolving from – i.e., is it ignorance and arrogance or is it someone who thinks he's earned the right to be brutally honest in his opinions.

 

And your reaction confirms my suspicions that it could turn a lot of people off of entertaining any openness whatsoever about evolution through natural selection if all of Darwin's footsoldiers opted for confrontation over gentle nudging.

 

I'm going to stick with the NOMA strategy for now. As long as the existence or non-existence of a divine agent remains untestable then faith and science operate within different realms and neither one can inform nor obviate the other.

 

I think your last paragraph sums it up for me. It seems to me from a macroperspective that science itself has some major holes in it, so for anyone to be so sure of their final answer, I just stop listening. (like I do to those who are so sure of their faith). Do we swim in some ambiguous ocean of doubt? no. but I think we can all appreciate that life isn't black and white.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think your last paragraph sums it up for me. It seems to me from a macroperspective that science itself has some major holes in it, so for anyone to be so sure of their final answer, I just stop listening. (like I do to those who are so sure of their faith). Do we swim in some ambiguous ocean of doubt? no. but I think we can all appreciate that life isn't black and white.

I think this is a very good synopsis, for my feelings as well. To wholesale write off any possible existence of "God" (whatever that may mean), or to do the same to well-documented scientific data about evolution, is a decision to be ignorant.

[BobDylan]

What was your impression of the book? Have you read any of his other stuff?

 

I've yet to give it a read, er, listen. As far as Dawkins, I've never read any of his stuff. I'm more of a fiction guy.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I've yet to give it a read, er, listen. As far as Dawkins, I've never read any of his stuff. I'm more of a fiction guy.

 

then you should love his stuff.... heh heh heh.

[FlaSoxxJim]

then you should love his stuff.... heh heh heh.

 

I was waiting for you to knock that 'tater out of the park, PA.

 

I mean

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

I was waiting for you to knock that 'tater out of the park, PA.

 

I mean

 

 

 

it was sitting right there....it would have been a crime to ignore it

[FlaSoxxJim]

NYT has the first chapter available online for anybody interested,

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/ch...amp;oref=slogin

[Flash Tizzle]

South Park had a relevant episode concerning this issue. It was rather good. I recommend everyone watches it.

 

Funny, too, that the ending of the episode was based off my exact belief that removing religion --a point which many argue the world would be better without -- would merely be substituted with athiests fighting one another.

Edited November 2, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[FlaSoxxJim]

South Park had a relevant episode concerning this issue. It was rather good. I recommend everyone watches it.

 

Funny, too, that the ending of the episode was based off my exact belief that removing religion --a point which many argue the world would be better without -- would merely be substituted with athiests fighting one another.

 

Where ethnic/societal/social differences remain, sure, many of the underlying conflicts that lead to war would remain. But erasing the further sociocultural subdivisions caused by religious differences would eliminate many of those differences.

 

Certainly it's only armchair speculation and will always remain so, as organized religion is not going anywhere. And your point that humans always seem to find something to kill each other over is well taken.

[Flash Tizzle]

Where ethnic/societal/social differences remain, sure, many of the underlying conflicts that lead to war would remain. But erasing the further sociocultural subdivisions caused by religious differences would eliminate many of those differences.

 

Certainly it's only armchair speculation and will always remain so, as organized religion is not going anywhere. And your point that humans always seem to find something to kill each other over is well taken.

I personally find the issue a focal point of an increasingly vocal group of athiests who seemingly regard themselves as superior to those who believe in organized religion. It's their condescending tone which I find unbearable to follow. To be fair, because I'm not a religious man myself, those who preach the gospel and reference it in everyday life deserve just as much criticism.

 

It's annoying to continually read the argument because first, it's completely unrealistic to expect; and second, it's within our genetics as any other personality trait. How else is it possible for countless cultures dating back thousands of years and equally great distances to each worship higher beings? Since the Neanderthals were first burying their dead and grasping an explanation for it there was probably an inclination to wonder whether they're in another place.

 

People will always kill other people is a rather simplistic belief, yes, but murder is no more primitive than anything else we engage in. It equals out in my mind because -- in such an imaginary 'utopia-- for every terrorist act not committed, or innocent person not murdered for praying to the wrong God, there's someone butchering another because they realize no one is watching over them. I'm sure there are individuals out there tttthhhiiiis close to committing and crime if it weren't for their religious beliefs.

 

Most likely, the closest we'll come to such an athiest-paradise is educatation advancements reaching those within impoverished nations. Perhaps by contacting people who are more willing to adopt religious beliefs (ie: poor, sickly), they'll eventually come to their own conclusions from reading textbooks. Whether to reinforce their current positions or adopt others.

Edited November 2, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[NorthSideSox72]

Religion in the modern world rarely causes wars. All religion does is give people an excuse, and a false moral high ground, for their own selfish agendas.

 

The only real religious wars are the ones where people are kept from practicing their faith - and while that happens in many countries, I can't think of many wars in recent times where that was a driving factor.

[Balta1701]

I personally find the issue a focal point of an increasingly vocal group of athiests who seemingly regard themselves as superior to those who believe in organized religion. It's their condescending tone which I find unbearable to follow. To be fair, because I'm not a religious man myself, those who preach the gospel and reference it in everyday life deserve just as much criticism.

Do you seriously find that it is only athiests who speak to the other side with any sort of condescention? As far as my experience goes, I've run into people from all walks of life who are 100% convinced that their beliefs are the right ones, and since I disagree, I'm a lesser person than they are (whether or not they think I'm going to hell).

 

Athiests just seem to wind up with more of the scorn, IMO, because there are fewer people who agree with them, making them the wierd "other" that you notice because they're not like the majority.

[Soxy]

Do you seriously find that it is only athiests who speak to the other side with any sort of condescention? As far as my experience goes, I've run into people from all walks of life who are 100% convinced that their beliefs are the right ones, and since I disagree, I'm a lesser person than they are (whether or not they think I'm going to hell).

 

Athiests just seem to wind up with more of the scorn, IMO, because there are fewer people who agree with them, making them the wierd "other" that you notice because they're not like the majority.

I think there is plenty (and equal) amounts of condescension on both sides. When I went to a Christian school I was sick of the condescending Christians, now that I'm in grad school, I'm sick to DEATH of condescending atheists. To be honest, in my mind there isn't a lot of difference between being told I'm going to hell or being told I'm in a cult.

 

I guess I'm just not a big fan of evangelicals--be they Christian, Atheist or whatever.

[NorthSideSox72]

I guess I'm just not a big fan of evangelicals--be they Christian, Atheist or whatever.

Sing it, sister.