|
U-Know! Forum » Dawkins seems a bit *confused* here |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jul 03, 2009, 09:15
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: Well, I should know better than to go up against your impeccable debating skills, but I'll stick with what I feel I resent and reject the implication that you've got a valid point but I somehow make it look foolish by my amazing wily cunning ways. It does not take advance debating skills to rebut what you said. You made an outlandish slur against Dawkins (that he is motivated by desire for fame and money) and gave nothing whatsoever in support of that. You tried to back it up by making a claim that is demonstrably untrue and shows scant knowledge of what you were referring to (that Kurt Vonnegut was a christian). It isn't 'impeccable debating skills' to show someone's wrong when they blatantly are, it's actually the easiest thing to do in a discussion. When someone's shown to have no evidence for what they claim, it's good if they then concede it and change their position rather than stick with it on the basis that it isn't true but they want to 'stick with what they feel'.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Jul 03, 2009, 11:29
Jul 03, 2009, 11:04
|
||
|
Well, part of having good debating skills is having your facts straight, which you do, and so don't feel insulted that I concede to you on that point. OK, I slurred Dawkins. I'm not Catholic and he's not the Pope, if you know what I mean. I object to the irritating way he slurs billions of people by inferring that they are stupid for being religious.* If you feel personally slighted by my opinion, which by association of your atheism I get the sense you do, well, that's your problem. I respect you highly, Merrick, you're a man of great intelligence and conviction. Perhaps we should just close this up with my apologizing for any unfair disparagement I have cast on Mr. Dawkins. My utterances certainly are not infallible. *And maybe I'm off base here too, but that would be a matter for Dawkin's public relations machine to ponder, as it has become a widespread perception.
|
|||
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Jul 09, 2009, 00:40
|
||
|
fauny fergus wrote: I think the problem with Dawkins is that he's totally out of his depth when he steps beyond evolutionary biology and comes across as a bit clueless. Mary Midgley always used to provide a useful and informed counterbalance (as opposed to swivel-eyed evangelicals): Hopefully she has become informed since penning those articles, I could scarcely believe my eyes when reading that old fallacy yet again that has been put to bed long, long ago. Midgely does not grasp the metaphor of the selfish gene, Dawkins, Pinker, Dennett etc have all written widely read refutations of this red herring. Dawkins even included a whole chapter in subsequent editions of the selfish gene dedicated to pointing out the flawed anaylsis demonstrated by Midgely and others. Selfish genes do not specify selfish people, just as blue prints do not specify blue buildings (I think this is Pinker's neat phrase). Genes that favour the best survival tactic of the body that carries them are not literally selfish but the way they promote the survival of individuals (the only entity they can actually influence directly) resembles "behaviour" that our socially directed minds would identify perhaps as 'selfish'. There is no concious decision making by genes (they have no minds - duh!) they simply surive and thrive or don't. The tactics used by the bodies containing successful genes are in no way destined or designed to be 'selfish', perhaps the best survival tactic is to be merciful, just, loving and giving. Entities with genes for this behaviour will thrive in an enviornment where this kind of behaviour leads to more offspring surviving to reproduce. Genes for selfish, mean, unjust behaviour may thrive under different enviornmental or social conditions. Regardless of the tactics of the resulting being, genes can only act on the body they are in and can only have become part of that body if their ancestor genes promoted the optimum survival tactic in their predecessor, hence Dawkins sly labelling of them as 'selfish'. This is why Dawkins metaphor of 'selfish genes' is very useful, meaningful and allows our social brains to get to grips with evolution in the light of genetics. It says absolutely nothing however about the type of social behaviour tactics used by beings built in major part by genes. In the article about science and psychology she bizarely finishes her analysis just where behaviourism crashes and burns, whats with that? There's been massive inroads into human psychology and interaction between genes, enviornment and Dame Chance since then that don't even get a mention. Odd, very, very odd. On a side note, I didn't like Dawkins 'God Delusion', just because religious beliefs are ludicrous doesn't necessarily mean they are an anomalous part of our psychology. We are a bunch of apes on a damp rock and dont live our lives white coated in a lab. Trying to stamp out religion is possibly like trying to stamp out our sweet tooth. Dennett's 'Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon' was a much better effort if only those dreaded memes didn't keep cropping up. On the one hand, atheism does have a good point that our moral decisions are better in our own hands in a rational mode of thought rather than in foam-mouthed religious frenzy or irrational doctrines, but on the other these religions are massively successful and must have some accrued benefit for groups that use them that may only become fully apparent when our fairly dodgy grip on relatively peaceful, democratic and secular lifestyle is loosened.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jul 09, 2009, 04:26
|
||
|
"atheism does have a good point that our moral decisions are better in our own hands in a rational mode of thought rather than in foam-mouthed religious frenzy or irrational doctrines" Again, this fallacy that the only irrational doctrines are religious ones! It's very easy to use stereotypes about religion when constructing arguments against it, because the extreme examples of it are so comical. But what about the people who are not foam-mouthed or irrational? And what about that type that is divorced from religion, but finds all sorts of other irrational doctrines to advance? You don't need God to be irrational! How many people out there would call themselves spiritual, but not religious? Putting the whole world into two oversimplified camps of 'atheist' and 'faithful' may be correct, but only superficially. People are so much more!
|
|||
sanshee 1080 posts |
Edited Jul 09, 2009, 10:19
Jul 09, 2009, 10:19
|
||
|
See I don't think Dawkins is particularly obnoxious, unlike the other one, but as he's increasingly believing in his own celebrity he's maybe getting there. The 'there is no god, ya bas' doorstep-hardback brigade are difficult to take seriously. Religion, like anything else so pervasie, does need carefully and thoughtfully challenged at every turn, I think it's a healthy thing to do. I don't feel much on the way of duscursiveness from these people though. All barrages and mud slinging. As unedifying as the dangerous pricks who'll send you to damnation for your lack of faith. To win the good fight you gotta rise above. :-) x
|
|||
|
CianMcLiam 1067 posts |
Edited Jul 09, 2009, 10:58
Jul 09, 2009, 10:35
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: Again, this fallacy that the only irrational doctrines are religious ones! You would surely agree though that whatever about other doctrines, religious ones by their very nature come with irrational beliefs in supernatural intervention and guidance, thus guaranteed to have largely irrational doctrines built in. It's part of their spec. Other doctrines may or may not have irrational elements that can be evaluated and accepted or rejected. With religious doctrines though, if you are serious about them, you are welcoming irrationality as part of your moral guidance, maybe even insisting on it. This is what sets them apart. handofdave wrote: It's very easy to use stereotypes about religion when constructing arguments against it, because the extreme examples of it are so comical. But what about the people who are not foam-mouthed or irrational? And what about that type that is divorced from religion, but finds all sorts of other irrational doctrines to advance? You don't need God to be irrational! You're right of course that you don't need god to be irrational but believing in supernatural entities that intervene in human affairs and can suspend the physical laws of the universe when requested by us mortals requires irrational (or absence of) thought. That is what religions are based on. handofdave wrote: How many people out there would call themselves spiritual, but not religious? How many people call themselves football fans but not cricket fans? What Dawkins discusses is on organised religious systems that attempt to dictate a world view based on stuff people made up and which forms the basis of moral judgement. Spiritualism like I think you are describing is a personal choice of belief that people have found comfortable for themselves, there is no 'spiritual agenda' out there insisting that 'the spirits said we should burn you alive' or that schools should teach people that the world was created by a fluffy cloud fart (ok, extreme examples but you get the general idea). If there was then the same criticisms levelled by Dawkins and others would then apply equally to them also. handofdave wrote: Putting the whole world into two oversimplified camps of 'atheist' and 'faithful' may be correct, but only superficially. People are so much more! Yes, people are. It's a pity that most religions do not tolerate a diversity of personal belief or lifestyle, and those that do had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Jul 09, 2009, 14:18
Jul 09, 2009, 14:16
|
||
|
"It's a pity that most religions do not tolerate a diversity of personal belief or lifestyle, and those that do had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world." Who decides who is to be dragged kicking and screaming? That sounds very spookily like the Catholic Church when presented with 'heathen'. -- The worlds of religion and science are not mutually exclusive. They overlap all the time... there's not always two clearly defined camps. All observant people may not be deep thinkers, but they do feel a need to be part of something that is not just bigger than themselves, it's bigger than any single human being or even nation of them. That fundamental psychological need manifested in the form of religion. Seriously, a great deal of today's religious people already have embraced science without all this need for cathartic disavowals. Lots of them accept evolution. They still believe in God, anyway Why? Because that idea is second nature to billions of people. And it's not as irrational a concept as all that... our rational science is busy creating imaginary worlds based on hypothetical models of existence and nobody bats an eye. In a way, both religion and science are not so much concerned with stating the truth, but finding the truth. Religion is primarily concerned with ethical truths, and science is primarily concerned with observing and understanding and manipulating nature. The jury is still out on whether a godless society would unlock our potential, or take us in a terrifying new downward path of 'rational', morally uncoupled self interest. Most people really don't even think about theology, when you actually get right down to it. They do devotions out of ritual, tradition... the church becomes the meeting ground for a community's coming together. It's just what they know, what they grew up with. There's a return to that need for gathering being reconstructed in new forms among people that feel drawn to that shared energy. Whether it serves to nurture or harm is the only thing I am interested in. I'm a very live and let live person. If atheism intends to become a transformative movement it is going to fail, utterly, by casting scorn or acting imperious. I do not think you are seriously suggests that atheism could ever force the extinction of religion. Because that's just silly. A far more beneficial and achievable goal, simply improving people's lives by teaching them good science, and creating more tolerance and trust thru dialog. You might gradually help change some of the more egregious interpretations of religion, but you'll never kill them outright.
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
