Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?"

[Loki]

6mmskXXetcg

[Beorn]

Typical atheist. Ask them a question and they present you with the double flip strawman.

[RoyBatty]

I'm suspicious of religious zealots pushing their beliefs on the rest of us. I include noisy atheists in this category. They're free to believe what they want of course but why are they so keen to spread their brand of gospel? What's the agenda? Surely they're not out there making publicity for themselves and their causes for altruistic reasons.

[Loki]

What's the agenda? Surely they're not out there making publicity for themselves and their causes for altruistic reasons.

Are the religious preachers?

I think Dawkins is doing a very good job, I'm thankful he is around. It's about time someone properly stands up to combat religious indoctrination. Rationality can do with charismatic people too.

[Lutiferre]

Rationality? It is not at all rational to compare an incorporeal transcendence which many of the greatest human minds, philosophers and scientists have purt forward actual reasons to believe exists, with FSM and similar things, which are just material, corporeal caricatures, and even made out of a material which is human artifice in this fantasy.

Obviously, Dawkins does not understand the ontological difference between what theists propose God to be (immaterial, nontemporal/eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent) and the reasons for that ontology (e.g. in pure actuality) and caricatures like FSM which do not fit the ontological characteristics of God in definition at all.

And as regards to different religions; what if we, religious, are "wrong", and some other religion is right?

The answer is that the question is a false exclusivity set up to create a false absolutism.

Even if say, Trinitarian Christians are closer to the truth about Gods ontology than Arian Christians, then Arian Christians are still significantly right, even though not absolutely so. And even if Christians were less correct in their beliefs than Muslims, they would still be significantly right, and the same is even the case with Greek or Germanic pagans, who certainly believe in a sort of transcending overdeity in some sense. And even with the religions of the far east, we share many beliefs about spiritual enlightenment and the detachment from worldliness, and the same with Stoics and Gnostics and so on and so on, all of which is a drive to transcendence, whether in the form of worshipping the transcendence, communing with it, or in taking part in the spiritual practice which leads to a transcending elevation.

So the point is not an absolute exclusive division that one religion is either simply totally right or totally wrong.

It is that all religions have truth and no matter how much, if they do have truth, they certainly have more of the truth than an irreligious person in any case.

[Loki]

And as regards to different religions; what if we, religious, are "wrong", and some other religion is right?

The answer is that the question is a false exclusivity set up to create a false absolutism.


Dawkins was merely using the argument that the Christians were using, and therefore showing it is a futile argument.

[Lutiferre]

Dawkins was merely using the argument that the Christians were using, and therefore showing it is a futile argument.
It is not. Because any religion at all, whether it be a Germanic pagan or Muslim or Buddhist, has a relationship with transcendence, an attempt to commune with the transcending reality, and an engagement in belief and practice determined towards transcendence and elevation of self.

So if Dawkins is wrong, it is not the same question as whether a Christian is wrong or a Germanic pagan is wrong, and speaking of "wrong" here may even be meaningless, because Dawkins denies not just "one religion more", but the basic drive toward transcendence in all religions and in each religion respectively, on the same time.

[Loki]

It is not. Because any religion at all, whether it be a Germanic pagan or Muslim or Buddhist, has a relationship with transcendence, an attempt to commune with the transcending reality, and an engagement in belief and practice determined towards transcendence and elevation of self.

So if Dawkins is wrong, it is not the same question as whether a Christian is wrong or a Germanic pagan is wrong, and speaking of "wrong" here may even be meaningless, because Dawkins denies not just "one religion more", but the basic will toward transcendence in all religions and in each religion respectively, on the same time.

You are of the belief then that "all religions are right"? That is not a very Christian point of view. Christianity in its purest form views itself as the exclusive way to God.

[Loyalist]

Dawkins was on The O'Reilly Factor last night and, as usual, was made to look like a total clown. He presented the argument that atheists and other proponents of a scientific origin for the universe and humanity are being shut out of schools in favour of creationism. When Bill O'Reilly pointed out that the situation is, in reality, the exact opposite, Dawkins became agitated, told him to "stop shouting", and started in with his usual rhetoric that everyone outside of the Godless minority ignores. He also failed to address the notion forwarded by the host that science and religion are not necessarily in conflict, and the possibility that he could be wrong. Again.

[Lutiferre]

You are of the belief then that "all religions are right"? That is not a very Christian point of view. Christianity in its purest form views itself as the exclusive way to God.
No, what I am proposing is far less crude than some kind of subjectivist indifference (which I do not subscribe to). It is that there is something that underlies every and each religion and that in denying all religions and each religion you don't just deny "one religon more" than the religious person affirms, but the entire foundation and truth on which any single religious profession and affirmation, and on the same time every single religious profession and affirmation, is built upon. And since religions are built on that, they are right insofar as they attempt to complete it and to the extent that they succeed in doing so in affirming some of the truth; but they are not all "equally succesful or true" in doing so, for that reason.

[Loki]

Dawkins was on The O'Reilly Factor last night and, as usual, was made to look like a total clown. He presented the argument that atheists and other proponents of a scientific origin for the universe and humanity are being shut out of schools in favour of creationism. When Bill O'Reilly pointed out that the situation is, in reality, the exact opposite, Dawkins became agitated, told him to "stop shouting", and started in with his usual rhetoric that everyone outside of the Godless minority ignores. He also failed to address the notion forwarded by the host that science and religion are not necessarily in conflict, and the possibility that he could be wrong. Again.

I posted that interview here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9259).

[Loki]

No, what I am proposing is far less crude than some kind of subjectivist indifference (which I do not subscribe to). It is that there is something that underlies every and each religion and that in denying all religions and each religion you don't just deny "one religon more" than the religious person affirms, but the entire foundation and truth on which any single religious profession and affirmation, and on the same time every single religious profession and affirmation, is built upon. And since religions are built on that, they are right insofar as they attempt to complete it and to the extent that they succeed in doing so in affirming some of the truth; but they are not all "equally succesful or true" in doing so, for that reason.

This religious-tree-hugging attitude is hippyish and relatively recent in origin. There is not much that binds a Christian, Hindu and animist together -- apart from the fact that they all regard superstition as more important than concrete facts/evidence.

[Lutiferre]

This religious-tree-hugging attitude is hippyish and relatively recent in origin.
What? I am not a religious treehugger. I am amazed how little you have learnt about my opinions so far if you can actually say that. You simply do not understand my point. It is not that all religions are equal.



There is not much that binds a Christian, Hindu and animist together -- apart from the fact that they all regard superstition as more important than concrete facts/evidence.
And what I was speaking about was exactly what does bind every religion and each religious profession and affirmation together, which is the common foundation for it. Namely that ... any religion at all, whether it be a Germanic pagan or Muslim or Buddhist, has a relationship with transcendence, an attempt to commune with the transcending reality, and an engagement in belief and practice determined towards transcendence and elevation of self.

So if Dawkins is wrong, it is not the same question as whether a Christian is wrong or a Germanic pagan is wrong, and speaking of "wrong" here may even be meaningless, because Dawkins denies not just "one religion more", but the underlying drive toward transcendence which makes religion even possible, in all religions and in each religion respectively, on the same time.

What I am saying is not a new thing, and has been affirmed by many of the Church Fathers in preaching to pagans.


The earliest Christian apologists not only recognized that the story and teachings of Jesus bore similarities to ancient mythological accounts, but even emphasized these similarities in an attempt to get pagans to understand more about Jesus and His mission. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) set forth an argument in his First Apology that was intended to put Christ at least on an equal playing field with earlier mythological gods.

"And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours.... And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Ferseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Æsculapius" (Chapter 22).

Tertullian (c. A.D. 160-220) observed that the story of Romulus, another character from ancient Greek mythology who was seen after his death, was quite similar to the story of Christ being seen after His death. However, Tertullian went on to note that the stories of Christ were much more certain because they were documented by historical evidence (Apology, 21).

[Loki]

And what I was speaking about was exactly what does bind every religion and each religious profession and affirmation together, which is the common foundation for it. Namely that ... any religion at all, whether it be a Germanic pagan or Muslim or Buddhist, has a relationship with transcendence, an attempt to commune with the transcending reality, and an engagement in belief and practice determined towards transcendence and elevation of self.


Why is transcendence so important? I don't get it. And to what end? If you say not all religions are equal, then in your view (as a Christian) ... what is the difference between a Hindu and an atheist? According to accepted Christian teaching, both are going to hell anyway.

As for elevation of self, atheism is more effective in that. Atheism frees you up to appreciate this life -- the only one you'll ever have -- and utilize it to the full. A belief in an afterlife can lead to negligence in this life.

[Lysander]

Sigh. Accident my ass.
What has it got to do with anything if she was born in India and was a Hindu. That doesn't answer the question he just went around it. Very political of him.

The correct answer would be if I'm wrong I'm sending people to hell, according to Christianity.
See how easy that was?

It's like people telling you their life story when you ask them how they are, annoying.



As for elevation of self, atheism is more effective in that. Atheism frees you up to appreciate this life -- the only one you'll ever have -- and utilize it to the full. A belief in an afterlife can lead to negligence in this life.
It can also lead to an unhealthy respect of death. In olden times elderly people were revered for their wisdom and knowledge of the past and seen as a link to the forefathers. In modern days they are "disgusting" as is old age itself. Which is why people want to look "young and beautiful".

Death is not the end, only the beginning of something new, it need not be feared.

Religion does not lead to apathy, the very history of Europe proves that Christianity does NOT lead to apathy.

[Loki]

Death is not the end, only the beginning of something new, it need not be feared.


There is no evidence at all for that though. It can only be believed. I'm sorry but blind faith is not good enough for me. According to everything we know, you start decomposing when your heart stopped pumping and your organs have failed. Eventually only bones are left. And far enough into the future, even the bones will wither away. Your consciousness ceases once the brain functions have stopped.

[Loyalist]

Pushing aside specifics, there is a more general case for religion among this community. One can fairly argue that Christianity is not a native European faith, but I will remind everyone that neither is atheism. Europeans have a deeply-rooted tradition of religious adherence, which stretches well beyond recorded history. Rejecting the existence of a higher power or powers is a concept entirely hostile to the heritage of all European groups.

[Cato]

Pallamedes: "Mr. Dorkins, how do you know that you're right?"

[Puddle of Mudd]

Pushing aside specifics, there is a more general case for religion among this community. One can fairly argue that Christianity is not a native European faith, but I will remind everyone that neither is atheism. Europeans have a deeply-rooted tradition of religious adherence, which stretches well beyond recorded history. Rejecting the existence of a higher power or powers is a concept entirely hostile to the heritage of all European groups.

History isn't a good excuse to continue living in ignorance.

[Loki]

Pushing aside specifics, there is a more general case for religion among this community. One can fairly argue that Christianity is not a native European faith, but I will remind everyone that neither is atheism. Europeans have a deeply-rooted tradition of religious adherence, which stretches well beyond recorded history. Rejecting the existence of a higher power or powers is a concept entirely hostile to the heritage of all European groups.

Sure, but what you are proposing here is supporting a religion because of community tradition. I'm fine with the concept of nominalism. :) I am nominally a Christian as well, as I appreciate Christian art, architecture, choral music and such. It's very much calming for me to go into a cathedral. By contrast, literally believing in the existence of God is a different matter.

[Lysander]

There is no evidence at all for that though. It can only be believed. I'm sorry but blind faith is not good enough for me. According to everything we know, you start decomposing when your heart stopped pumping and your organs have failed. Eventually only bones are left. And far enough into the future, even the bones will wither away. Your consciousness ceases once the brain functions have stopped.

That's what happens to the flesh and blood, yes.

And no you will never be able to prove religion, that would make God's creation pointless. We are created in His image and thus have a free will. There is a region why it's called belief and not fact.

[Loki]

That's what happens to the flesh and blood, yes.


That's all we are, unfortunately.



And no you will never be able to prove religion,


Which is why it is considered to be nothing more than superstition.

[Poltergeist]

Stupid question - stupid answer. That's it.

[Lysander]

That's all we are, unfortunately.
That's the visible part of us.



Which is why it is considered to be nothing more than superstition.

Nah, to me the changing of seasons is enough to see the divine work of God on earth. All this an accident? I think not.

[Loki]

That's the visible part of us.


As opposed to ... the invisible? :suspicious: You are quite right. I don't believe in things that only exist in imaginations and wishful thinking. Like ghosts, spirits, etc.



Nah, to me the changing of seasons is enough to see the divine work of God on earth. All this an accident? I think not.

Yes, you think not. Which means you cannot comprehend everything. Neither can I, after all we are only human. But that doesn't mean we have to fill the gap of the unknown with religion. That's a massive leap of faith which is not required. Rather, we can strive to understand more through factual and evidential scientific investigation and logical evaluation.

[Lutiferre]

Why is transcendence so important? I don't get it. And to what end?
Why transcendence is important? That was not what I was starting a debate about; I merely stated the obvious fact of religions which do value transcendence.

Why transcendence is important is obvious if you can imagine the viewpoint of any seeker of transcendence. Transcendence is what gives everything else it's meaning and importance, it's existence or non-existence, significance or non-significance; that which is greatest for you and everything and everyone else, and that which is the eternal good, right now and forever on, even if it is not the temporal good. As C.S. Lewis said, I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.


If you say not all religions are equal, then in your view (as a Christian) ... what is the difference between a Hindu and an atheist? According to accepted Christian teaching, both are going to hell anyway.
No. There is no accepted Christian teaching on who in general is going to hell or heaven, the only general teaching is that it depends on free will (which is why universal salvation cannot be true; it would violate human freedom if God forced us into heaven). Hindus can be saved if Christ wills it and if they freely will it to the extent they can, in their ignorance. But that doesn't mean Christianity isn't still the safest path to salvation. And salvation, by the way, doesn't mean just going to hell in some distant future; it means healing and wholeness in relation to God and creation and yourself in your entire life on earth, as well.


As for elevation of self, atheism is more effective in that. Atheism frees you up to appreciate this life -- the only one you'll ever have -- and utilize it to the full. A belief in an afterlife can lead to negligence in this life.
You don't even know what I meant with elevation. You are speaking about devaluation of self rather than elevation into transcendence, that which is eternally bigger than self, whereas you confine self to be eternally small, meaningless, non-existing and unable to progress beyond and detach from beastliness and mere materiality.

[Lutiferre]

There is no evidence at all for that though. It can only be believed. I'm sorry but blind faith is not good enough for me. According to everything we know, you start decomposing when your heart stopped pumping and your organs have failed. Eventually only bones are left. And far enough into the future, even the bones will wither away. Your consciousness ceases once the brain functions have stopped.
That the body decomposes only shows that your consciousness will stop changing, because matter is the potency for change. However, that the brain and body is necessary for consciousness, sensory input and change in consciousness, is obvious; but the modality of necessity for the ontogenesis of conscious being within the world is not the same as sufficiency or exclusivity.

Indeed, the Christian belief is that the consciousness remains in stasis at death because there will be no body (brain) attached to it, with which to alter the consciousness since matter is potency and time is the medium of change; and there will be no time, which is also why we can never change whether we are going to heaven or hell after we die since there can be no change by metaphysical necessity. The nature of this state is unknown, and whether it's actually truly conscious or not is unknown. Many believe it will be a soul-sleep until the soul regains a body.

We don't believe true consciousness can be actually disembodied; it requires a body (including brain) by modal necessity. Therefore, we will only ever regain true consciousness in the ressurrection with a body.

[Eldritch]

I think he just came across as a heartless bully culling off an easy scalp.

Yes, the person who asked the original question may have been uninformed and naive, and quite probably not intellectually prepared to engage Dawkins in a seriouis debate (I think the very simplistic forming of the original question is ample proof of that).

But still, imo he should have had the discipline of simply bypassing the question.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

It is that all religions have truth and no matter how much, if they do have truth, they certainly have more of the truth than an irreligious person in any case.

Could you quote some please

[Liffrea]

Dawkins is a fool who thinks you can hammer a nail in with a tea towel; he doesn’t understand the concept of using the correct tool for the right job as the ultimate reductionist reactionary he thinks he can use the same tool for every job.

More fool him.

Being blinded by science is just as foolish as being ignorant of it.

[Lysander]

As opposed to ... the invisible? :suspicious: You are quite right. I don't believe in things that only exist in imaginations and wishful thinking. Like ghosts, spirits, etc.
Yes. The soul is invisible. There is a lot that you cannot touch but exists very well, love and hate for an example. You can't explain it but it exists.




Yes, you think not. Which means you cannot comprehend everything. Neither can I, after all we are only human. But that doesn't mean we have to fill the gap of the unknown with religion. That's a massive leap of faith which is not required. Rather, we can strive to understand more through factual and evidential scientific investigation and logical evaluation.
We will never comprehend God's creation, it's too grand for the human mind. Logics cannot explain everything (coming from a mathematics student).

[Lulletje Rozewater]

God's Lightning-bolt at it again


As Bill was approaching mid-life, physically he was a mess. Not only was he going bald, but years of office work had given him a large pot belly. The last straw came when he asked a woman co-worker out on a date, and she all but laughed at him. That does it, he decided. I'm going to start a whole new regimen. He began attending aerobics classes. He started working out with weights. He changed his diet. And he got an expensive hair transplant. In six months, he was a different man. Again, he asked his female co-worker out, and this time she accepted.

There he was, all dressed up for the date, looking better than he ever had. He stood poised to ring the woman's doorbell, when a bolt of lightning struck him and knocked him off his feet. As he lay there dying, he turned his eyes toward the heavens and said, "Why, God, why now? After all I've been through, how could you do this to me?"

From up above, there came a voice, "Sorry. I didn't not recognize you."

[Puddle of Mudd]

Being blinded by science is just as foolish as being ignorant of it.

I'm not sure how one can be "blinded" by science. Please explain.

[Cato]

I'm not sure how one can be "blinded" by science. Please explain.

http://blogs.poz.com/paul/mad_scientist.gif

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Declara
Please explain.

If you believe that the scientific method can explain all of reality then you’re blind, not least to the reality of how science is really done and to what a scientific theory actually is, many of which aren’t even based on the scientific method (much of quantum mechanics qualifies there).

Indeed those who base their conceptual view of reality solely on the scientific method have no claim to make any definitive judgement on reality at all, they do well if they can explain nature well enough, an atheist who (by definition) doesn’t believe in God is, frankly, an oxymoron if he also claims to be a scientist, he certainly isn’t true to the scientific process, but then, in my experience, many atheists are worse than many preachers. They replace God with a test tube and think they have done something terribly clever.

Yet the scientific method is but a tool; treat it as such and it can perform remarkably well if never precisely as you want it. Science is one tool in the box, not all of them.

[Loki]

If you believe that the scientific method can explain all of reality then you’re blind, not least to the reality of how science is really done and to what a scientific theory actually is, many of which aren’t even based on the scientific method (much of quantum mechanics qualifies there).

Indeed those who base their conceptual view of reality solely on the scientific method have no claim to make any definitive judgement on reality at all, they do well if they can explain nature well enough, an atheist who (by definition) doesn’t believe in God is, frankly, an oxymoron if he also claims to be a scientist, he certainly isn’t true to the scientific process, but then, in my experience, many atheists are worse than many preachers. They replace God with a test tube and think they have done something terribly clever.

Yet the scientific method is but a tool; treat it as such and it can perform remarkably well if never precisely as you want it. Science is one tool in the box, not all of them.

So we need to fill the gap with God? That is completely irrational, since the teachings about God (the Biblical one) are completely made-up by ordinary humans like you and me. And, unlike science, there is absolutely no way of verification, apart from blind faith.

[Psychonaut]

So we need to fill the gap with God? That is completely irrational, since the teachings about God (the Biblical one) are completely made-up by ordinary humans like you and me. And, unlike science, there is absolutely no way of verification, apart from blind faith.

I think you're missing Liffrea's larger point that the scientific method is not the appropriate tool with which to tackle all ideas and problems. Not even touching on the religious angle, there are many types of questions for which the idea of forming and then testing a hypothesis is inapplicable. Most philosophical questions fall under this heading.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Loki
So we need to fill the gap with God?

Gap? Well the difference there is you see God as a place filler, I see God (in the Neo-Platonic sense, I'm not one for an immanent, theistic deity) as the entire point of the quest for knowledge. The gaps we have are gaps of the puzzle of creation and why man is the only earth bound species singled out to understand that.

I see science as adequate for the task of explaining the mechanics of nature and that’s it.

If you’re the sort of person that believes the physical universe is all there is, then you (perhaps) have no need for God(s), I, on the other hand, believe reality is multilayered, interesting that science seems to be working towards that conclusion as well, it's also interesting that science understands reality in ways often counter intuitive to man (just look at "time" certainly gave Einstein a few headaches!).


That is completely irrational,

For you, perhaps, if I make the assumption right that for you existence is purely a material concept.

For me, it’s rational to leave the scientific method at the boundary of the material realm. As I wrote above it a tool to be applied to the right job.

In fact it’s illogical to see logic as the only mode of thought, given that man is blessed with many modes of thought, few of which science can explain....


since the teachings about God (the Biblical one) are completely made-up by ordinary humans like you and me.

Were they? (made up I mean) I can’t claim to be smart enough to assume so.

What I will suggest, though, is that the Bible (like all mythology) contains far more wisdom than we know, if you refrain from seeing the literal in the symbolic.


And, unlike science, there is absolutely no way of verification, apart from blind faith.

Not all science is verified, perhaps not even verifiable.......

You would be surprised how much of science is actually taken on trust and the force of opinion. A dose of the outer limits of theoretical physics will be enough to show you that.

I would also leave you with the thought that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence and the interesting fact that whilst a geneticist can tell us how a man was built he can’t account for his form, and yet here we are typing away on our keyboards……Science doesn't even explain most of the physical realm we live in, I have hopes it may one day but we will need a shift in thought about science itself, reductionism for a start may not be the way after all......although I do like string theory it has a certain poetical feel about it.....

[Lutiferre]

So we need to fill the gap with God? That is completely irrational, since the teachings about God (the Biblical one) are completely made-up by ordinary humans like you and me. And, unlike science, there is absolutely no way of verification, apart from blind faith.
There is a way of "verification" in assessing the rational and empirical evidence put forth by theists for Gods existence. But even then, that kind of verification does not fit into any empirical scientific discipline, but into analytical metaphysics, because scientific methods first principle is that it confines it's investigations only to natural phenomena and natural causes, meaning that any transcendental phenomenon or claim a priori falls outside the realm of the scientific method. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, since an a priori exclusion from investigation doesn't pretend to preclude actuality. If that was so, I could a priori exclude your existence without investigating (a posteriori) it, and pretend to have proven anything, which the scientific method does not pretend to.

So naturalistic science conforms to the Christian principle of secondary causes/naturalism; that anything for which a secondary cause can be found is precluded from first cause, unlike for instance, the emergence of the cosmos.

[Loki]

There are quite a few posts here that need answering. I'll do it bit by bit ... much of it, of course, is overcomplication with the intention of making the whole issue vague. This is a necessary strategy of religionists. Without engaging the vague-fying (sorry, just created a word there ;) ) strategy, there is no way of rationalizing the religionist's point of view.

I try to keep my reasonings simple by way of Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) in this matter.



Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.


Religionists' arguments often enter into bizarre complications, in order to obscure what is clearly visible and real. It's almost like trying to convince yourself that yellow is in fact blue, by drawing out long argumentations and deliberations that, in the end, are just loads of bollocks that don't mean anything in reality.

[Lutiferre]

There are quite a few posts here that need answering. I'll do it bit by bit ... much of it, of course, is overcomplication with the intention of making the whole issue vague. This is a necessary strategy of religionists. Without engaging the vague-fying (sorry, just created a word there ;) ) strategy, there is no way of rationalizing the religionist's point of view.
That is not what I have done. I to the contrary, have defended what I think is the truth and rebuked various falsities of epistemological kinds and of purely human character in obscuring the actual difference between religiousity and irreligiousity, which lies not in "one religion more or less", but the underlying intuition and drive to transcendence of all religions more or less.


I try to keep my reasonings simple by way of Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) in this matter.
I did not multiply entities beyond necessity; I explained things not beyond necessity, but within it if one wants a clear understand of what is the fundamental psychological and motivational difference between say, religion and total irreligion, or say, the ontological difference between FSM and God.


Religionists' arguments often enter into bizarre complications, in order to obscure what is clearly visible and real. It's almost like trying to convince yourself that yellow is in fact blue, by drawing out long argumentations and deliberations that, in the end, are just loads of bollocks that don't mean anything in reality.
No. You are simply begging the question that your strawmen are accurate representations of the truth and that therefore, any rejection (mine) of your strawmen amounts to a complication, because it doesn't comply with your little boxed view of the world.

[Loki]

Gap? Well the difference there is you see God as a place filler, I see God (in the Neo-Platonic sense, I'm not one for an immanent, theistic deity) as the entire point of the quest for knowledge. The gaps we have are gaps of the puzzle of creation and why man is the only earth bound species singled out to understand that.


Fair enough, but this is only your personal opinion, and there is no evidence for the existence of God. You could just as well have mentioned The Force from Star Trek. It wouldn't have been any less "real".



I see science as adequate for the task of explaining the mechanics of nature and that’s it.


No argument there.



If you’re the sort of person that believes the physical universe is all there is,


What I believe, and know to be factual, are two different things. I could believe in the existence of bigfoot, but that would be separate from my knowledge about the existence of the known universe. (I don't believe in bigfoot, by the way ;) )

There could be alternate universes, for sure, but it remains speculation. And, even if there were, it would not be any pointer to the existence of God. That is another unwarranted leap of faith.



then you (perhaps) have no need for God(s),


No-one has a need for God. Religion can be a crutch and a comfort, yes. Ignorance is bliss. Fantasy can be more enjoyable than reality.



I, on the other hand, believe reality is multilayered, interesting that science seems to be working towards that conclusion as well, it's also interesting that science understands reality in ways often counter intuitive to man (just look at "time" certainly gave Einstein a few headaches!).


I actually believe that as well. But that doesn't say anything about the existence of God.



For you, perhaps, if I make the assumption right that for you existence is purely a material concept.

For me, it’s rational to leave the scientific method at the boundary of the material realm. As I wrote above it a tool to be applied to the right job.


I'm not a materialistic man. I value things like character, intelligence and knowledge higher than wealth, money and shiny cars. That's why I'm a socialist and not a capitalist.



Were they? (made up I mean) I can’t claim to be smart enough to assume so.


We must assume they were, unless evidence is seen to prove otherwise. Again, it would be a leap of faith to bring divine inspiration into the picture.



What I will suggest, though, is that the Bible (like all mythology) contains far more wisdom than we know, if you refrain from seeing the literal in the symbolic.


The Bible does contain a lot of wisdom. But so do other books. The Bible is not unique in that regard, and also contains many deceptions and falsities.



Not all science is verified, perhaps not even verifiable.......

You would be surprised how much of science is actually taken on trust and the force of opinion. A dose of the outer limits of theoretical physics will be enough to show you that.


No argument there. But that says nothing about the existence of God. Leap of faith.



I would also leave you with the thought that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence and the interesting fact that whilst a geneticist can tell us how a man was built he can’t account for his form, and yet here we are typing away on our keyboards……Science doesn't even explain most of the physical realm we live in, I have hopes it may one day but we will need a shift in thought about science itself, reductionism for a start may not be the way after all......although I do like string theory it has a certain poetical feel about it.....

Agreed! But says nothing about God.

[Lutiferre]

Fair enough, but this is only your personal opinion, and there is no evidence for the existence of God. You could just as well have mentioned The Force from Star Trek. It wouldn't have been any less "real".,
There is evidence for the existence of God. And there is certainly sufficient justification of a properly basic character in the epistemic structure of a Christian worldview.


No-one has a need for God. Religion can be a crutch and a comfort, yes. Ignorance is bliss. Fantasy can be more enjoyable than reality.
Yet again you commit the fallacy of begging the question:

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. Begging the question is related to circular argument, circulus in probando or circular reasoning.


I'm not a materialistic man. I value things like character, intelligence and knowledge higher than wealth, money and shiny cars. That's why I'm a socialist and not a capitalist.
Socialism is also called political materialism, in relation to the materialist dialectic of Marx; like materialism is called scientific socialism.

Both capitalism and socialism are materialistically oriented worldviews and interpretations of history and society.

[Loki]

No. You are simply begging the question that your strawmen are accurate representations of the truth and that therefore, any rejection (mine) of your strawmen amounts to a complication, because it doesn't comply with your little boxed view of the world.

It is not me who has a boxed view of the world. Religionists have, and especially Christians. Their world consists of God, Church and Bible. IMO all made-up without a shred of evidence. I don't even need to create strawmen in this argument, for "God" remains a figment of people's imagination. He doesn't exist, unless it can be proven that he does. It can't.

[Loki]

There is evidence for the existence of God.


No there isn't. If there were, every scientist on earth would have believed in God.



And there is certainly sufficient justification of a properly basic character in the epistemic structure of a Christian worldview.


Irrelevant.



Socialism is also called political materialism, in relation to the materialist dialectic of Marx; like materialism is called scientific socialism.

Both capitalism and socialism are materialistically oriented worldviews and interpretations of history and society.

This is another debate we can get into on another thread.

[Lutiferre]

No there isn't. If there were, every scientist on earth would have believed in God.
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

3 does not follow from 1 or 2.

I could use it in the same form: most authories X in the world believe God exists. Therefore, God exists.

The problem is that the argument conflates what is believed to what is actually true on mere grounds of authority; while the authority can only increase the epistemic warrant for an ignorant non-authority.

On the other hand, it is also irrelevant what scientists believe, because the core principle of the scientific method is that science only investigates natural phenomena and causes (methodological naturalism) and makes no effort to investigate or make authoritative statements on anything else (if it does, it is not science), which a priori precludes the investigation of Gods existence or non-existence, but does not preclude his actuality. Just like it does not preclude the actuality of say, plant life or other unrelated notions and entities that quantum physics doesn't investigate them, it's instead a matter of the aims of a given discipline, and science's aim is naturalistic, not philosophical and metaphysical. Hence, science is not an authority on God's existence to begin with.

Therefore, the only discipline which is capable of investigating Gods existence, and hence, the only authority that exists on Gods existence is philosophy and metaphysics, and I can tell you that many of them believe in Gods existence, which nevertheless does not prove his existence to be true (since it is a mere matter of authority) but increases the epistemic warrant for believing it.

Irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant. This demonstrates your ignorance on epistemology. It is an intimately relevant epistemological fact to an epistemological question.


It is not me who has a boxed view of the world. Religionists have, and especially Christians. Their world consists of God, Church and Bible.
No. Now you are conflating several issues. I do not accuse someone else of multiplying entities beyond necessity just because they have a boxed view of the world; to the contrary, that amounts to reducing entities to less than necessary.


IMO all made-up without a shred of evidence. I don't even need to create strawmen in this argument, for "God" remains a figment of people's imagination. He doesn't exist, unless it can be proven that he does. It can't.

Yet again you commit the fallacy of begging the question:

"God does not exist unless it can be proven that he does. It cannot be proven. Therefore, God does not exist."

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. Begging the question is related to circular argument, circulus in probando or circular reasoning.

You beg the question it cannot be proven, which I explicitly disagree with.

And even if you were right that his existence cannot be affirmatively proven it does not follow that he does not exist. That is a conflation of episteme (knowledge) with ontos (naive verificationist realism). Instead, it would follow that you do not know he exists, which is epistemological in character, and not ontological. So the question again becomes one of warrant and probability; you do not have epistemic warrant for believing entity X exists (say, cars, or faires) when you are born, but if you were to see a car for the first time, you would suddenly have epistemic warrant for believing cars exist. Similarly, perhaps I do not have warrant for believing God exists because I have no clear evidence or personal selfrevelation which solidly convinces me; but if I were to experience such evidence or revelation, I would have warrant for it. Yet I have not encountered actual fairies, so I do not have epistemic warrant for believing they exist; I do not know them to exist.

[Loki]

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

3 does not follow from 1 or 2.

I could use it in the same form: most authories X in the world believe God exists. Therefore, God exists.


It is not the same, though. Scientists specialize in evaluating evidence. That is their job. "Most authorities" do not specialize in scrutinizing the alleged existence of God. Hence this is a false analogy.



On the other hand, it is also irrelevant what scientists believe, because the core principle of the scientific method is that science only investigates natural phenomena and causes (methodological naturalism) and makes no effort to investigate or make authoritative statements on anything else (if it does, it is not science), which a priori precludes the investigation of Gods existence or non-existence, but does not preclude his actuality. Just like it does not preclude the actuality of say, plant life or other unrelated notions and entities that quantum physics doesn't investigate them, it's instead a matter of the aims of a given discipline, and science's aim is naturalistic, not philosophical and metaphysical.


So what are these "non-natural phenomena"? I know. Matters that are made-up, don't exist in any reality other than people's brains filled with wishful thinking. Like God, ghosts, the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas.



Therefore, the only authority that exists on Gods existence or non-existence is philosophers and metaphysicians, and I can tell you that many of them believe in Gods existence, which nevertheless does not prove his existence to be true (since it is a mere matter of authority) but increases the epistemic warrant for believing it.


My point exactly. It may increase the epistemic warrant for believing it, but it still remains a leap of faith -- and the absence of belief would still be the preferred, rational option.



It is not irrelevant. This demonstrates your ignorance on epistemology. It is an intimately relevant epistemological fact to an epistemological question.


Epistemology is a theory of knowledge. It cannot prove the existence of God. It remains speculation.



Yet again you commit the fallacy of begging the question:

"God does not exist unless it can be proven that he does. It cannot be proven. Therefore, God does not exist."


Okay, so according to your logic, this would be "begging the question" as well:

"The Loch Ness Monster does not exist unless it can be proven that he does. It cannot be proven. Therefore, The Loch Ness Monster does not exist."

As you can see, this line of reasoning is meaningless in proving any point, or refuting what I am saying.



And even if you were right that his existence cannot be affirmatively proven it does not follow that he does not exist.


Sure enough, although the most reasonable position would still be non-belief in such a case. He may or may not exist, but there is no evidence to prove it.



That is a conflation of episteme (knowledge) with ontos (naive verificationist realism). Instead, it would follow that you do not know he exists, which is epistemological in character, and not ontological. So the question again becomes one of warrant and probability; you do not have epistemic warrant for believing entity X exists (say, cars, or faires) when you are born, but if you were to see a car for the first time, you would suddenly have epistemic warrant for believing cars exist. Similarly, perhaps I do not have warrant for believing God exists because I have no clear evidence or personal selfrevelation which solidly convinces me; but if I were to experience such evidence or revelation, I would have warrant for it.

Fair enough. I'll wait until that revelation has hit me then. Until then, I will work from the assumption that God is not real. ;)

[Lutiferre]

It is not the same, though. Scientists specialize in evaluating evidence. That is their job. "Most authorities" do not specialize in scrutinizing the alleged existence of God. Hence this is a false analogy.
Philosophers and metaphysicians do specialize in it; especially epistemologists, who specialize in understanding what evidence is and is not to begin with. That includes all the philosophers of science who have largely built up the scientific method of inquiry as we understand it today.




So what are these "non-natural phenomena"? I know. Matters that are made-up, don't exist in any reality other than people's brains filled with wishful thinking. Like God, ghosts, the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas.
Faires and Father Christmas and ghosts are not explicitly supernatural, but rather, paranormal in nature, whereas God is explicitly transcendent and supranatural.

On the other hand, there is also a metaphysical fallacy in defining nature as "everything that exists" and a priori excluding Gods existence for that reason; since then, God would be a part of nature definitionally for a theist, because it is contingent not on "nature", but on the theism or non-theism of the application of the definitional metaphysic of "everything that exists".

What science does is exactly not confine "everything that exists" to what we observe; but it only assumes that that which is part of our realm of reality (which we can observe according to our own empirical dispositions) exists, even though what this embodies constantly gets expanded as technology progresses, which is why science never claims to confine what exists according to what we observe according to our own disposition. It does not reduce reality to it.

But to say we reduce reality to nature, and define nature as "everything", is a truism and a synonym, not a reduction.


My point exactly. It may increase the epistemic warrant for believing it, but it still remains a leap of faith -- and the absence of belief would still be the preferred, rational option.
No, it is not a leap of faith when there is epistemic warrant. A leap of faith entails belief without warrant.


Epistemology is a theory of knowledge. It cannot prove the existence of God. It remains speculation.
It is not a theory, it is the study of knowledge. It cannot prove the existence of God, absolutely not. It can analyze the belief in the existence of God and the prerequisites for it's epistemic justification. It cannot satisfy those prerequisites, since they are relative to the knower.




Okay, so according to your logic, this would be "begging the question" as well:

"The Loch Ness Monster does not exist unless it can be proven that he does. It cannot be proven. Therefore, The Loch Ness Monster does not exist."
Yes, as a self-contained assertment and sentence it is. It is alright within a context of commonly accepted beliefs, but not as an argument.

Instead, as an argument, you have to be correct and say:

I have not seen evidence the Loch Ness mosnter exists. I cannot affirm the existence of that whose existence I have not seen evidence for. Therefore, the Loch Ness monster probably does not exist.


Sure enough, although the most reasonable position would still be non-belief in such a case. He may or may not exist, but there is no evidence to prove it.
In such a case, the most reasonable thing would be to go by probability and say he probably doesn't exist.

But I do not agree (and neither do most philosophers, metaphysicians and epistemologists) that we have such an epistemologically bleak and unclear case. Only strict agnostics do.


Fair enough. I'll wait until that revelation has hit me then. Until then, I will work from the assumption that God is not real. ;)
Epistemic warrant does not consist only in revelation, but just as much in evidence (which doesn't permit you to deny it by subjective predisposition).

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lutiferre http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=112912#post112912)
It is that all religions have truth and no matter how much, if they do have truth, they certainly have more of the truth than an irreligious person in any case.

Could you quote some please

I do not seem to see an answer on post 29

Thank you.

[Lutiferre]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lutiferre http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=112912#post112912)
It is that all religions have truth and no matter how much, if they do have truth, they certainly have more of the truth than an irreligious person in any case.

Could you quote some please

I do not seem to see an answer on post 29

Thank you. I didn't answer it because your question was a failure. Your question was irrelevant.

Quote what? Quote "some truth" from a religion? No, one does not "quote some truth". The kind of truth I am speaking about is not a kind of quantitative and measurable data record of facts we can classify binarily as true or false. The word "truth" has a much broader meaning than the sheerly quantifiable.

The truth I am talking of is truth of observation of existence and the world and human existence in particular. And the kind of truth that is true by virtue of it's instrumental entelechy when put into practice, just as well as it's accord with experience. Both metaphysical and phenomenological truth.

I am speaking of truth about existence, truth about man and God, truth about how to reach enlightenment, truth about how to reach inner harmony, and metaphysical truth. It's not something you take out of it's context but something you experience in a religious framework, like Buddhism or Hinduism or Christianity. The only kind of person who would ask me to quantify and quote religious truth in this sense, is most likely an atheist who has a narrow concept of truth to begin with, and won't accept anything as truth which doesn't fit his definition and preconceived worldview.

[Poltergeist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBModpRKNYM

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I didn't answer it because your question was a failure. Your question was irrelevant.

Quote what? Quote "some truth" from a religion? No, one does not "quote some truth". The kind of truth I am speaking about is not a kind of quantitative and measurable data record of facts we can classify binarily as true or false. The word "truth" has a much broader meaning than the sheerly quantifiable.

The truth I am talking of is truth of observation of existence and the world and human existence in particular. And the kind of truth that is true by virtue of it's instrumental entelechy when put into practice, just as well as it's accord with experience. Both metaphysical and phenomenological truth.

I am speaking of truth about existence, truth about man and God, truth about how to reach enlightenment, truth about how to reach inner harmony, and metaphysical truth. It's not something you take out of it's context but something you experience in a religious framework, like Buddhism or Hinduism or Christianity. The only kind of person who would ask me to quantify and quote religious truth in this sense, is most likely an atheist who has a narrow concept of truth to begin with, and won't accept anything as truth which doesn't fit his definition and preconceived worldview.

You sound like rambling Rose sitting on a cactus.
Answer my question or is this to much for you. READ your remark over again and do not evade with silly word-play.
You sound like a philosopher in the market place carrying your head in a basket,and crying aloud:"Wisdom! Wisdom for sale.Poor you,you have a need to sell your head to feed your heart.

There is hardly a difference between an orator and an auctioneer,talkative but the least intelligent,...... sonny-boy

[Lutiferre]

Answer my question or is this to much for you.

I did answer your question. Read what I said again if you are having problems understanding.

I did not answer your request, and so, you are unhappy because I don't play by your rules. Live with it. Your attitude merits nothing in return.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Loki
Fair enough, but this is only your personal opinion,

It’s a personal opinion to believe that science has the answer (or the only answer) to the nature of reality, it’s certainly not fact.


and there is no evidence for the existence of God.

And no evidence that there isn’t one either…….

It’s a circular argument.

As it happens I’m not a creationist nor do I believe in an immanent deity that gives half a damn about what I do. For the NeoPlatonists God “the One” “First principle/cause” just is, it’s the source of being, the emanation of life, of which everything else is an aspect there of. It doesn’t set fire to bushes, it doesn’t need sacrifice, it doesn’t care for love or worship, it just is. I don’t really worship any Gods, I’m pretty sure none would answer me.

As I see it their gift wasn’t to turn man into a grovelling worm scared of the dark but to make man, eventually, a God in his own right, they gave us the ability (raised us up) to do that, whether we will, or not, is a question of time and our own nature, perhaps the cosmos is littered with species who never quite made the grade all killed by their own personal Loki (no insult intended!).

I believe these “beings” raised man up from just another interesting carbon based life form to one capable of understanding purpose, not least that behind the only question that really matters….WHY? That question has propelled the human species forward through out history, science has been one of it’s weapons, but it’s not the only one.


You could just as well have mentioned The Force from Star Trek. It wouldn't have been any less "real".

“Life Force” was known to the Anglo-Saxon wizards/shamans…..

Interesting how these ideas still pervade our culture and psyche even in our “enlightened” age…..


What I believe, and know to be factual, are two different things.

Nobody in this world goes through life just on what they know to be fact or what they think they know to be fact, much of life is incapable of measure or analysis, look at love, more to the point prove the existence of it, get a loved one to actually prove they love you….not as easy as you think is it? Yet only a fool would claim that it isn’t there.

If you reduce reality to what you can observe under a microscope then 90% of human life would cease to have meaning. I’m not arguing against science, far from it, I use science pretty much daily in various activities, I used it yesterday to analyse the Ph of soil where I was working, I’ll be using it tomorrow to analyse plant seeds, I can deduce facts from both those activities but I don’t believe that all reality can be reduced to such a mechanistic approach, knowing the acidity of soil isn’t going to tell me about the reason for existence or whether that gleam in her eye really is love or a piece of dirt….


And, even if there were, it would not be any pointer to the existence of God.

True but it would be a fundamental re-writing of what man believes constitutes “reality” and if we are shocked by that…..


That is another unwarranted leap of faith.

I never claimed it would lead to proof of God(s), I have no doubt what so ever that science will never be able to provide any proof either way, science answers HOW not WHY.

Remember correct tool for the right job?


No-one has a need for God.

That’s an amazingly arrogant statement to make if I may say so!

I don’t personally have a need for God(s) I don’t ask them to make me better (I’ll go to the doctor) nor to smite my enemies (I’ll use law or non-legal methods as required) nor to win me love (when you’re as good looking, charming and as arrogant as me! You don’t need love potions). Personally I see all that as superstitious nonsense, I rely on men, and their good will and honour, not God(s). I’m not an Odinists because I’m afraid of the dark or need to believe in something because my life is dull, I’m an Odinist because it allows me to develop my spiritual aspect and to try to understand the purpose behind existence and why I (a slightly evolved monkey) have the ability to even ask these kinds of questions in the first place. I don’t need a God or Gods to look out for me but I would like to know why I am what I am, why I’m here and what all this means, and whilst science can help with that quest I don’t believe it answers all of it by any means.


I'm not a materialistic man. I value things like character, intelligence and knowledge higher than wealth, money and shiny cars. That's why I'm a socialist and not a capitalist.

I didn’t mean materialist in the sense of valuing only money or objects (I’m not character assessing you) I meant materialist as one who believes only in the existence of the physical universe.


Again, it would be a leap of faith to bring divine inspiration into the picture.

Personally I see sacred texts as guide books if you like. Think of it scientifically, many people (me included) aren’t smart enough to do real hard core science (we don’t have the mind for equations and long thought out experiments) so, instead, we rely on scientists to write “idiot guides” for people like me who are interested but to thick to understand the complex mathematics. I see mythology as the same, if you read mythology as literal it looks like so much contradictory nonsense with little sense, I remember the first time I studied the Eddas I thought WTF is all this! Then I began to understand that along with the ability to use reason in understanding the world man also works with another language, symbolism, the myths are (I believe) truths written in symbol for the ordinary person to understand.


The Bible does contain a lot of wisdom. But so do other books.

Sure, I’m not a Christian myself, I believe Jesus Christ was a teacher of divine truth but I don’t believe he is the only way or rather the only right way. I believe all texts have meaning within them.


The Bible is not unique in that regard, and also contains many deceptions and falsities.

I’m not sure any mythology guarantees 100% pleasant reading…

[Hrolf Kraki]

Are the religious preachers?

I think Dawkins is doing a very good job, I'm thankful he is around. It's about time someone properly stands up to combat religious indoctrination. Rationality can do with charismatic people too.

I've been procrastinating and have yet to buy his book. Now I gotta order it asap!!! That was great! Ownage on an extreme level. I'm off to half.com...

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I did answer your question.
I did not answer your request, What is it: To be or not to be a pedantrical bs. IE:you can not answer, I can live with that.

Lutiferre 's wisdom is sought by deities ...

Well so much for anal-retentive.
There is hope for you:

The anal stage in psychology is the term used by Sigmund Freud to describe the Child development during the second year of life, in which a child's pleasure and conflict centers are in the anal area....
is said to follow the oral stage of infant/early-childhood development.

Fare ye well Sonny, you too will soon be exposed as another blank page

[Fred]

Lutiferre is where I am now and Loki is where I was at 17 and it is what convinced me that arguing on behalf of nihilism doesn't provide for a Culture of Life, but accepts and even gives assent to the Culture of Death, by a lack of cultivation in the human spirit. Liffrea, I don't mean to hold out on praise for you, because I have a deep appreciation for Neo-Platonism and Odinism on a level that is philosophical and material rather than religious.

Wow, I'm so happy that there are those who share my beliefs in aggregate, unassuming truth, the very thing atheists claim science to be doing for them. Science of another kind increases the rationale for spirit, hope and praise.

God bless!!!

[Arrow Cross]

Does Richard Dawkins Exist? (http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html)

In The Beginning

As I thumbed my way through the pages of "The God Delusion", a question dropped into my head. Does Richard Dawkins really exist?

Being a scientific and rational person, I decided that I wasn't going to just accept any old theory on this question. If Richard Dawkins exists, then I would need to be shown the proper evidence for it. Others can have their own superstitious beliefs, based on who-knows-what, but I would only be convinced by empirical science. If there is a Dawkins, why hasn't he shown himself to me?

What Happened Next

As I pondered this, a man wearing a pointy hat wandered into the room. He erected a little box a few feet off the ground, climbed on to it, and began speaking to me.

As he talked he began, rather dogmatically, to insist on a number of things. Apparently, it was clear and obvious that Richard Dawkins existed. Did I not have his own book in my hands? Did it not have Dawkins' name on the front, and the imprints of his thoughts on every page? If I wanted to see evidence for Dawkins, was it not to be found throughout this little tome? Dawkins, he said, had shown himself to me everywhere. What could be a sufficient cause for such a book, if not a Dawkins? The alternatives were incredible. They required far more faith than simply to accept that the pages were the work of the said Richard.

Enter The Expert

As I pondered this idea, a man with a white coat suddenly appeared. He smiled warmly, showed me a piece of paper with a huge number of letters on it, and began to address me. As he did so, he drew my attention to a number of undeniable facts. The book that I was holding, you see, was made up of pages. And each of those pages could be shown to be composed from a certain type of paper, made from wood pulp. Upon the paper, were a number of very tiny dots, arranged in a kind of code. Everything about the book could be explained, and he had explained it.

I was impressed by the man in the white coat, because he did not point to uncertain theories, or dubious inferences. What he was talking about was plainly fact. I could see with my own eyes just what he meant! The book had an obvious explanation, and needed no magical theories of Dawkins to be invoked on its behalf. Furthermore, theories of Dawkins' existence had been responsible for a terrible amount of wrong-doing. All over the Internet there were to be found gaping non-sequitors, caricatures, allegations of child abuse and all kinds of evils - all being promoted in the name of said Dawkins! If Dawkins did exist, I reasoned, he's got a lot to answer for.

To this, the pointy-hatted man took exception. I was, he said, denying the obvious. If there was no Dawkins, then there would never have been a book. The book was his handiwork, and had all the hall-marks of Dawkins' character, dispositions and ideas displayed on every page. If I wanted to see the evidence for Dawkins, it was staring me plain in the face.

All Easily Explained

But by now I knew that old funny-hat was just talking pure superstition. I could see that the book was a simple re-arrangement of only 26 letters. To be sure, I didn't understand the picture on the cover too well, but this doesn't mean we should invoke any kind of Dawkins. To do so would just be a "Dawkins-of-the-gaps" - a Dawkins who would vanish once science had made further progress.

Looking over to my shelf, and perusing the Internet, I was able to find that the book contained ideas and arguments that were hardly special or unique - they were but re-hashings of things said a thousand times in the past. As such, it was clear that the book had developed by a purely natural and unintelligent process. A little moving around of the a's, e's, i's, o's and u's, - shift this paragraph and shift that paragraph. Replace this argument with that one, and you can get from the most primitive forms of argument up to any book with no problems, just given enough time. No, hat-man was clearly some kind of fundamentalist, irrationally wedded to the idea that there was a Dawkins. If people like him are allowed to have their arguments heard, then sound logic proves we will all be killed by bearded mad-men, and reason insists that the world will be turned into a Dawkins-ocracy. I began to wonder if the whole Dawkins idea wasn't rather dangerous.

A New Twist

At this juncture, another man suddenly arrived in the room - I do not know where from. He was wearing glasses, and frankly looked a bit of a nerd. And it was to the a's, e's, i's, o's and u's that he drew my attention. He would prove, he said, that they were not the product of a random accident, for they were arranged in patterns. The little letters, taken together, spelt out complex codes, which were drawn together into sophisticated arguments. This, he said, was the clear mark of intelligence. It had not developed from a previous volume, for modifying letters from their inter-related arrangement turns a book into useless gibberish. Deliberate design was evident in the book, and simple science and reason proved it. What is more, some arguments which I had thought were quite redundant and evidence of missing intelligence, could be shown to have a real purpose.

As the nerdy man was saying this, I could see that the man in the white coat was turning into some kind of shade of beetroot. The nerd, he said, was a man he had seen outside the room, wearing a pointy hat. As such, he had nothing more to say than the other fellow, and should simply be ignored. His white coat was obviously bogus, for nobody had ever been seen wearing both a white coat and a pointy hat. What was more, were I to ask him whose was the intelligence behind the code, I would most likely find that it was none other than the discredited Dawkins.

Pointy Hat In A Tux!

As I looked hard at the third man's glasses, they did start to look a bit odd to me. And there was a clear cogency in white-coat's argument. This talk of intelligence was obviously but a poor disguise of the "dawkinsdidit" thesis. If a Dawkins designed the book, then who designed the Dawkins? This only moves - not solves - the problem; it is no answer at all. For it was clear that nobody would be able to explain just who was responsible for the Dawkins.

The nerd protested that he was merely using science to identify intelligence. His science, he said, was valid whether or not the author was Dawkins, and could not be denied using philosophy and sophistry. But such protests were an obvious violation of my own constitution, which clearly separates faith from reason. Moreover, as I pondered the book, I could see numerous violations of logic, arguments by mere assertion, and the like. If there was some kind of intelligence behind this book, then it was obviously a pretty poor one! And so, using my great powers of rational thinking, I concluded that there was no evidence of intelligence in it at all.

The Conclusion Of The Matter

No, Richard Dawkins does not exist. I have never seen him. Science has given a full and satisfying explanation of the book alleged to be his handiwork. It is but a collection of fortuitously ordered a's, b's and c's, recombined from previous patterns. There is the alphabet, there is a book of nursery rhymes and there is "The God Delusion" - and one developed from the other, though some of the details of which is the most primitive remain to be sorted out. The links between them may still be missing, but Science will have that worked out at any moment. Anyone who doubts this fact is either lying, mad or stupid (or wicked, but I'd rather not think about that possibility).

Having settled the case, I congratulated myself on my acute use of logic and reason. After lunch, I have another pressing question to tackle.

Do I exist?

[Loki]

I've seen Dawkins' ugly mug on the TV, so I guess he exists. By contrast God has never made an appearance on a talk show.

[Ulf]

I've seen Dawkins' ugly mug on the TV, so I guess he exists. By contrast God has never made an appearance on a talk show.

You have to squint through your Bible really hard, usually you can see Jesus making funny faces behind people when you do this.

Also, taking lots of acid before doing this helps.

[Lutiferre]

By contrast God has never made an appearance on a talk show.
Dawkins is actually the second incarnation of Jesus, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and you just said you had seen him on a TV show, so I'd have to say you contradict yourself.

[Loki]

Dawkins is actually the second incarnation of Jesus, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and you just said you had seen him on a TV show, so I'd have to say you contradict yourself.

Glad you've seen the light! :thumb001::D

[Lutiferre]

Glad you've seen the light! :thumb001::D

Indeed. Just look, I have a quote from Dawkins own mouth:

"I am Jesus. Worship me and make liturgies invoking my name." - Richard Dawkins

[Anthropos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBModpRKNYM

Hey people... you have to listen to the arguments spelled out in this video.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Indeed. Just look, I have a quote from Dawkins own mouth:

"I am Jesus. Worship me and make liturgies invoking my name." - Richard Dawkins

Please do show a source for the above

So, here are some Great quotes by the Great Richard Dawkins:
1.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
2.
“…when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”
3.
“There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”
4.
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
5.
“What has ‘theology’ ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has ‘theology’ ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?”
6.
“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born.”
7.
“…it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions.”
8.
“The universe is a strange and wondrous place. The truth is quite odd enough to need no help from pseudoscientific charlatans.”
9.
“There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”
10.
“We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes.”
11.
“Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won’t know it, and may even vigorously deny it.”
12.
“The essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale”
13.
“It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that if Darwinism was really a theory of chance, it could not work.”
14.
“With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns.”
15.
“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
16.
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
17.
“isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
18.
“Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.”
19.
“Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr’s death will send them straight to heaven.”
20.
“If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.”

Dawkins left-Jesus right

http://i38.tinypic.com/24qvkw1.jpg

[Lutiferre]

Please do show a source for the above
I will, when you have shown me the source for this quote (from your mom):

"I should have become a nun" - Your mom.


So, here are some Great quotes by the Great Richard Dawkins:
[..]
Thanks, but I own a copy of the Holy Bible of Dawkins myself.


Dawkins left-Jesus right

http://i38.tinypic.com/24qvkw1.jpg
I see you worship idols of Dawkins as well.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

I will, when you have shown me the source for this quote (from your mom):

"I should have become a nun" - Your mom.

Thanks, but I own a copy of the Holy Bible of Dawkins myself.

I see you worship idols of Dawkins as well.

My mom is the the Immaculate One, I was conceived in her wombat with divine sperm.
She vowed silence, but here is a photo from her
http://i38.tinypic.com/23m1ulj.jpg

Dawkins' Holy Bible has a follow up,with pictures included.
He has one of you too.
You want to see it.???? damn funny too.

I loooooove Dawkins especially the chapter in the follow up:"From the Nazarene to the wine connoisseur in 40 days

[Lutiferre]

My mom is the the Immaculate One, I was conceived in her wombat with divine sperm.
Indeed, if you consider street bums divine.


Dawkins' Holy Bible has a follow up,with pictures included.
I am sure he has a picture of the divine street bum who is your heavenly father.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Indeed, if you consider street bums divine.

I am sure he has a picture of the divine street bum who is your heavenly father.

Heavenly Father. and his divine street bum galore club,you at his left and who is that at his right.
Dash it,my mom at the top right

http://i33.tinypic.com/111sgpd.jpg

[Hrolf Kraki]

Hey people... you have to listen to the arguments spelled out in this video.

There's no argument in that video. It's childish and a waste of everyone's time.

[Anthropos]

There's no argument in that video. It's childish and a waste of everyone's time.

The arguments are borrowed from those books that have 'Dawkins' on them. :icon_cheesygrin: You don't even have a sense of humour, do you?

[Hrolf Kraki]

The arguments are borrowed from those books that have 'Dawkins' on them. :icon_cheesygrin: You don't even have a sense of humour, do you?

Sorry, I thought that was a serious argument. But it wasn't really funny either so I had no idea as to how to take it.

[Anthropos]

Sorry, I thought that was a serious argument. But it wasn't really funny either so I had no idea as to how to take it.

It is not argumentation, but as Dawkins's arguments are put in perspective I think that it goes to show quite well that some of them arguments are quite silly. And I think it is hilarious... one of the best jokes comes when you're way into that video... I say, if you have a few minutes to kill, why not?

[sturmwalkure]

May Allah bless Richard Dawkins. May he find the truth in Islam and in Allah!

[Arrow Cross]

May Allah bless Richard Dawkins. May he find the truth in Islam and in Allah!
PBUH.

[Vulpix]

PBUH.

Pig Be Upon Him :notworth:

[Lars]

Pig Be Upon Him :notworth:

The correct saying is police be upon him.

[Anthropos]

Oh, hahaha, very funny. You are sooo cool. The doxophobic West rocks! xD

[Cato]

Dawkins needs to fond Odin, then he'll know that there is a God.

[Osweo]

Oh, hahaha, very funny. You are sooo cool. The doxophobic West rocks! xD

Ha, I have close friends who are doxies! :disapproving


:confused:

[Cato]

Dawkins is a retard. His "I'm right because I say I'm right and you're wrong because you're not me" thought process differs little from that of the fundies that he maligns so much.

[Fred]

Where were Dawkins' parents when he needed attention? He seems to have lost his bearings by simply being born in Africa. Perhaps he takes the whole evolutionary process of social darwinism a little too seriously. Has he been to the Great Rift Valley? It must be his holy place.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Pallamedes
Dawkins is a retard. His "I'm right because I say I'm right and you're wrong because you're not me" thought process differs little from that of the fundies that he maligns so much.

I agree that he does have a somewhat fundamentalist attitude to his argument but I don’t agree he is a retard, a fool certainly (even the wisest can be fools) but his foolishness is arguing about something from a largely knee jerk emotional stand point, I could have written “The God Delusion” its not very original or even that well thought out. Anyone can take any text and cherry pick what they want to create an argument (which is essentially all that he does).

Yet his scientific works are excellent, The Blind Watch Maker is a personal favourite and so is The Selfish Gene. I haven’t got around to reading The Extended Phenotype yet.

[Cato]

I agree that he does have a somewhat fundamentalist attitude to his argument but I don’t agree he is a retard, a fool certainly (even the wisest can be fools) but his foolishness is arguing about something from a largely knee jerk emotional stand point, I could have written “The God Delusion” its not very original or even that well thought out. Anyone can take any text and cherry pick what they want to create an argument (which is essentially all that he does).

Yet his scientific works are excellent, The Blind Watch Maker is a personal favourite and so is The Selfish Gene. I haven’t got around to reading The Extended Phenotype yet.

Well, even if he is a adept at secular knowledge, does this make him an expert on sacred knowledge that the entire world ought to listen to? Just as a person doesn't go to a priest to get knowledge of astrophysics or chaos theory, so a person doesn't go to a scientist for knowledge of the divine.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Well, even if he is a adept at secular knowledge, does this make him an expert on sacred knowledge that the entire world ought to listen to? Just as a person doesn't go to a priest to get knowledge of astrophysics or chaos theory, so a person doesn't go to a scientist for knowledge of the divine.

I like him and his books,BUT you must have also read other writers like James Watson-Richard Leakey-Glen McBride-Douglas Palmer and also Teilhard de Jardin.de Chardin
The mere fact that we go to a priest for marriage counseling is stupid too.
What experience has he got on marriage problems????
In the end one should come to the conclusion that Evolution does not serve a purpose other than that life goes on-with or without the human being.

[Cato]

Priests often have the appropriate education and training to act as marriage counselers.

Teilhard de Chardin was a Catholic priest and a believer in evolution. His belief in a Christian singularity, with the upwards evolution of matter into humanity and humanity into the Christ is interesting to be sure, but it's just a theory.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Priests often have the appropriate education and training to act as marriage counselers.
I am a believer of Theoretical and Practical experience


Teilhard de Chardin was a Catholic priest and a believer in evolution. His belief in a Christian singularity, with the upwards evolution of matter into humanity and humanity into the Christ is interesting to be sure, but it's just a theory.Trust the Jesuits coming on top of Catholic intelligence.
The Phenomenon of Man was a difficult read

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Where were Dawkins' parents when he needed attention? He seems to have lost his bearings by simply being born in Africa. Perhaps he takes the whole evolutionary process of social darwinism a little too seriously. Has he been to the Great Rift Valley? It must be his holy place.

Was he not a friend of Richard Leakey, both are from Kenya.
Here an article on Social Darwinism and Dawkins

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=1

Misunderstanding Richard Dawkins



(http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/printer_friendly.php?num=1)

By Jeremy Stangroom

Introduction
Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene is the kind of book that changes the way that people look at the world. Its importance is that it articulates a gene’s-eye view of evolution. According to this view, all organisms, including human beings, are ‘survival machines’ which have been ‘blindly programmed’ to preserve their genes (see The Selfish Gene, p. v). Of course, extant survival machines take a myriad of different forms - for example, it is estimated that there are some three million different species of insect alone - but they all have in common that they have been built according to the instructions of successful genes; that is, genes whose replicas in previous generations managed to get themselves copied.
At the level of genes, things are competitive. Genes that contribute to making good bodies - bodies that stay alive and reproduce - come to dominate a gene pool (the whole set of genes in a breeding population). So, for example, if a gene emerges which has the effect of improving the camouflage of stick-insects, it will in time likely achieve a preponderance over alternative genes (alleles) which produce less effective camouflage. There are no such things as long-lived, altruistic genes. If a gene has the effect of increasing the welfare of its alleles to its own detriment, it will in the end perish. In this sense, then, all long-lived genes are ‘selfish’, concerned only with their own survival - and the world is necessarily full of genes which have successfully looked after their own interests.
There are good reasons for seeing evolution as operating at the level of genes. Alternative theories are either unworkable (group selectionism) or not as successful (individual selectionism). However, despite the fact that the central message of The Selfish Gene has become scientific orthodoxy, the book, and the ideas associated with it, have gained something of a reputation for extremism. In part, this is because they been subject to sustained criticism by a number of high profile, often media friendly, people working in the sciences and humanities. On the science side of things, critics have included Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould. On the humanities side, there have been, amongst others, David Stove, Hilary Rose and, perhaps most notoriously, Mary Midgley.
Midgley’s ‘Gene-Juggling’
Mary Midgley first turned her attention to Richard Dawkins’s ideas in her 1979 article ‘Gene Juggling’, published in the journal Philosophy. On the first page of the article, she had this to say about Dawkins and The Selfish Gene:
His central point is that the emotional nature of man is exclusively self-interested, and he argues this by claiming that all emotional nature is so. Since the emotional nature of animals clearly is not exclusively self-interested, nor based on any long-term calculation at all, he resorts to arguing from speculations about the emotional nature of genes, which he treats as the source and archetype of all emotional nature. (‘Gene Juggling’, pp. 439-440).
Unfortunately, as Andrew Brown - who, incidentally, is usually sympathetic to Midgley - points out in his book, The Darwin Wars, this is just about as wrong as it is possible to get about selfish gene theory.[1 (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=1#1)] It is wrong on a number of counts.
First: Dawkins makes it absolutely clear in The Selfish Gene that he is not using the word ‘selfishness’ - or its opposite ‘altruism’ - to refer to the psychological states, emotional or otherwise, of any entity. Rather, as he pointed out in his reply to Midgley (‘In Defence of Selfish Genes’), he gives the word an explicitly behaviouristic definition:
An entity…is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity’s welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behaviour has exactly the opposite effect. ‘Welfare’ is defined as ‘chances of survival’….It is important to realise that the…definitions of altruism and selfishness are behavioural, not subjective. I am not concerned here with the psychology of motives. (The Selfish Gene, p. 4)
There are no grounds, then, for supposing, as Midgley did, that the central message of The Selfish Gene has anything to do with the emotional natures of man, animals or genes.
Second: the very idea that Dawkins might think that genes have an emotional nature is so bizarre that it is hard to know what to make of it. One would be tempted to conclude that Midgley didn’t really mean it, except that she started her article in a similar fashion:
Genes cannot be selfish or unselfish, any more than atoms can be jealous, elephants abstract or biscuits teleological. This should not need mentioning, but…The Selfish Gene has succeeded in confusing a number of people about it… (‘Gene Juggling’, p. 439)
Whatever she meant, two things are clear: (a) no reputable biologist thinks that genes have an emotional nature; and (b) genes can be selfish in the sense that Dawkins - and other sociobiologists[2 (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=1#2)] - use the term.
Third: Midgley was confused about levels of analysis. It isn’t possible to make straightforward claims about the behaviour of organisms from the fact that their genes are selfish. There is no requirement for individual organisms to be selfish in the service of their genes. Indeed, one of the central messages of The Selfish Gene is precisely that it is possible to explain the altruistic behaviour of individual animals in terms of selfish gene theory.
These kinds of mistakes are typical of Midgley’s article as a whole. Dawkins, in his response, claimed that the article had ‘no good point to make’ and argued that the details of her criticisms were incorrect because they were based on a misunderstanding and misapplication of a technical language. This conclusion is echoed by Andrew Brown, who states: ‘It has to be said that by the end of Dawkins’s piece…any impartial reader will see that she misunderstood him.’ (Darwin Wars, p. 92) Indeed, Midgley herself has conceded that she should have expressed her objections to The Selfish Gene ‘more clearly and temperately’. (‘Selfish Genes and Social Darwinism’, p. 365).
What’s going on?
It is possible to tell a very complicated story in order to explain how it is that Dawkins’s ideas, and those of other sociobiologists, provoke the kinds of extreme reaction and misunderstanding characterised by Midgley’s ‘Gene Juggling’. At its most convoluted, this tale would include episodes dealing with: scientism; biological determinism; reductionism; metaphor; motives; moral theory; modes of explanation; levels of selection; and more. Happily, though, there is an alternative story to tell, less comprehensive, but with the advantage of clarity. It also gets to the heart of an important aspect of the worries that people have about sociobiological ideas. It is a story about moral and political commitments.
The proper starting point of this story is the constellation of ideas associated with what has become known as social Darwinism.[3 (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=1#3)] The most general claim of the social Darwinists was that it is possible to make use of Darwinian concepts in order to understand society and the relationships that people have with each other. Specifically, they argued that societies progress because people aggressively pursue their own self-interest in competition with other people doing the same thing. They are competing primarily for economic success, and the ‘fittest’ - those people most adapted to the demands of competition - deservedly rise to the top. If a person is not successful, it indicates a lack of ‘fitness’, and, by extension, that they are not deserving of the rewards that fitness brings.
The nineteenth century social theorist Herbert Spencer is probably the best known exponent of social Darwinist ideas. In his view, social Darwinism translated naturally into a celebration of the individualistic, competitive ethos of laissez-faire capitalism. Spencer thought it quite natural that there were economic winners and losers under capitalism. He opposed social reform and government intervention to help those disadvantaged by the system, on the grounds that there should be no interference in what was a natural mechanism for sorting out the fit from the unfit. Not surprisingly, Spencer’s ideas were enthusiastically adopted by many capitalists at the end of the nineteenth century, particularly in the United States, as a means to justify their wealth and resist the call for social reform.
This kind of crude social Darwinism was relatively short-lived. Indeed, even by the first decade of the twentieth century, Spencer’s ideas were beginning to fall into disrepute. Nevertheless, social Darwinism remains a factor in the way in which people think about sociobiological ideas. Perhaps the major reason for this lasting impact is that the history of social Darwinism is tarnished by its association with some of the more shameful episodes of the twentieth century. Not only, as we have seen, was it used to legitimate the painful consequences of untrammelled capitalism, it was also, for example: (a) implicated in the emergence of eugenics movements at the beginning of the century, something which led directly to compulsory sterilisation programmes in the United States and indirectly to Nazi concentration camps; (b) integral to ‘scientific racism’, which sought to ground racial discrimination in notions of biological superiority and inferiority; and (c) a contributor to an atmosphere of ‘war apologetics’ that was prevalent in Europe in the period leading up to the 1914-1918 war.
However, it is important to note that people tend now not to talk specifically about social Darwinism in relation to sociobiology. Rather, its impact is felt through people’s concern with a constellation of ideas which are linked by the fact that they are presupposed by social Darwinism. Of these, perhaps the most significant are: (a) the notion that the behaviour of human beings is solely determined by their biology (what is now called biological or genetic determinism); and (b) the idea that it is possible to invoke biology in order to justify particular social or political arrangements (as, for example, extreme right-wing political parties will, in order to justify their racist agendas).
Dawkins and social Darwinism
Is it the case, then, that Richard Dawkins’s ideas in The Selfish Gene amount to a kind of social Darwinism? The answer to this question is a simple no. There is nothing in Richard Dawkins’s work which remotely adds up to social Darwinism. There are three main reasons why this conclusion is easy to draw.
First: Dawkins says clearly that he is not, unlike the social Darwinists, advocating any particular way of living. He puts it this way in The Selfish Gene:
I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave.… My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. (The Selfish Gene, p. 2-3).
What Dawkins is doing here is flagging up the ‘is/ought gap’; that is, the fact that it is not possible to derive moral statements about how things ought to be from statements about how things stand in the world. For example, if it turns out that we are genetically disposed towards murder, it does not follow that we should, therefore, go around murdering people. Biological facts do not entail moral facts - a point, incidentally, which is ruinous for social Darwinism.
Second: Dawkins explicitly disavows irrevocable ‘genetic determinism’; indeed, he has called it ‘pernicious rubbish on an almost astrological scale’ (The Extended Phenotype, p. 13). Genes affect behaviour. If you want to do Darwinian theorising, then you’ve got to look at the effects of genes. But there are no grounds for thinking that these effects are any more inexorable than the effects of the environment. Inevitability is not part of the equation. This is how Dawkins puts it in The Extended Phenotype:
Genetic causes and environmental causes are in principle no different from each other. Some influences of both types may be hard to reverse; others may be easy to reverse. Some may be usually hard to reverse but easy if the right agent is applied. The important point is that there is no general reason for expecting genetic influences to be any more irrevocable than environmental ones. (The Extended Phenotype, p. 13).
Third: Dawkins’s work is rarely specifically about human beings. Rather, he is dealing with general questions to do with evolutionary theory, many of which are only marginally relevant for understanding human behaviour. Moreover, he is on record as saying that he has little interest in human ethics and does not know a great deal about human psychology. (‘In Defence of Selfish Genes’, p. 558) Of course, the argument here is not that Dawkins’s work never has implications for understanding human behaviour. Rather, it is that where it does, it is not usually because human beings are specifically his subject, but because humans are evolved animals, and evolution is his subject.
Politics, morals and biology
If the ideas of Richard Dawkins cannot be construed as a kind of social Darwinism, what has social Darwinism got to do with the extreme reactions and misunderstanding that his work provokes? The answer is that it is the measure against which many people assess the merits of those biological theories they judge to have implications for the understanding of human behaviour.[4 (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=1#4)] To appreciate the significance of this point, it is important to recall that social Darwinism remains a factor in people’s thinking because of its association with the horrors of things like racism, war and eugenics. Consequently, for many of those people whose political and moral inclinations are structured by notions of equality and common humanity, social Darwinism is a wickedness to be sought out and then vigorously contested wherever it might be found.
The consequence of this injunction to combat social Darwinism has been the emergence of a mindset amongst certain sectors of the educated public which undermines the proper examination of sociobiological arguments. It is a mindset which subjugates science to political and moral commitments. It results in sociobiological texts being read from a default position of suspicion. Any perception that the arguments they contain might conceivably be co-opted for the purposes of articulating a social Darwinist agenda - however this is construed - is taken as confirmation that this is where the sympathies of the author lie. And the scientific merit of sociobiological arguments is assessed in terms of the extent to which they fit with a political and moral agenda governed by notions of equality and common humanity.
It is easy to point to instances where this mindset prevails. For example, it is involved:


In Mary Midgley’s confusion about selfish genes and selfish individuals; in her accusation that Dawkins’s ‘crude, cheap, blurred genetics….is the kingpin of his crude, cheap, blurred psychology’ (‘Gene-Juggling’, p. 449); and her statement that her main aim is ‘to show people that they can use Darwin’s methods on human behaviour without being committed to a shoddy psychology and a bogus political morality’ (‘Selfish Genes and Social Darwinism’, p. 369).
In Steven Rose, Leon Kamin and Richard Lewontin’s claim that ‘Science is the ultimate legitimator of bourgeois ideology’ (Not In Our Genes); and their argument that ‘…universities serve as creators, propagators and legitimators of the ideology of biological determinism. If biological determinism is a weapon in the struggle between classes, then the universities are weapons factories, and their teaching and research faculties are the engineers, designers, and the production workers.’ (Not In Our Genes).
In Hilary Rose’s claims, in Red Pepper, that fundamental Darwinists, ‘with their talk of biological universals on matters of social difference are a political and cultural menace to feminists and others who care for justice and freedom’; that they are ‘obsessed by the desire to reduce organisms (including humans) to one determining entity - the gene’; and that sociobiology ‘has a history which varies from the dodgy to the disgusting on sexual difference’. (Red Pepper, Sept 1997, p. 23).
In the furious reaction that greeted the publication of Edward O. Wilson’s 1975 book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, which saw: the American Anthropological Association debating a motion to censure sociobiology; a group of Boston scientists - including Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin - forming ‘The Sociobiology Study Group’, and noting in The New York Review of Books that theories that attempted to establish a biological foundation to social behaviour provided an ‘important basis…for the eugenic policies which led to the establishment of Gas chambers in Nazi Germany’; and Wilson himself being drenched with water by protestors at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in early 1978.

Conclusion
Richard Dawkins’s ideas, and those of other sociobiologists, then, provoke extreme reactions and misunderstanding because their critics believe them to be in conflict with the moral and political commitments that they hold. This fact stands independently of any considerations about the merit of the kind of science that Dawkins, and his colleagues, are doing. Of course, it is not unusual for ideology to affect the judgements that people make about scientific theories, and where these theories have implications for understanding human beings it is especially commonplace.[5 (http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=1#5)] But what it has meant in the case of sociobiology is that the public space for the debate about evolutionary ideas has become polluted by the hyperbole that almost inevitably occurs when the politically engaged feel their baseline commitments to be under threat.
However, for those people who prefer their science to be driven by a desire to uncover the fundamental nature of things, and not by a desire to find spurious support for political and moral values, there is still some hope. For, according to Edward O. Wilson, the controversy surrounding sociobiology is essentially over. ‘The contrarians are ageing,’ he told Ed Douglas, in a recent Guardian interview. ‘No young scientists are joining. They are not handing on the torch but passing it around a smaller and smaller circle.’ If Wilson is right, perhaps there is hope for a future where articles like Mary Midgley’s ‘Gene Juggling’ don’t get published in reputable journals.

********************************
Endnotes
1 This is echoed by J. L. Mackie, whose original article in Philosophy, ‘The Law of the Jungle’, had motivated Midgley to write ‘Gene Juggling’. In a follow-up article he wrote: ‘Mary Midgley’s article is not merely intemperate but misconceived. Its errors must be corrected if readers of Philosophy are not to be left with false impressions, for it rests on a complete misunderstanding both of Dr Dawkins’s position and of mine.’ (‘Genes and Egoism’, p. 553).
2 It should be noted that Dawkins is on record as saying that he doesn’t much like the term ‘Sociobiologist’ (but he has also said that he is willing to stand up and be counted as one).
3 Social Darwinsim is something of a contested concept. Consequently, there will be those who disagree with the way in which I use the term in this article. There is also disagreement about the history of social Darwinism. For an alternative treatment of this phenomenon, see Robert Bannister’s Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought.
4 Mary Midgley makes the same point in her article ‘Selfish Genes and Social Darwinism’ (pp. 366-367).
5 In this regard, the whole Lysenkoism affair in the Soviet Union is instructive.

[Cato]

The Phenomenon of Man was a difficult read

All of Chardin's books were a hard read. The man was either ahead of his time or really off-the-wall.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

All of Chardin's books were a hard read. The man was either ahead of his time or really off-the-wall.

Gould thought he was of the wall,I am not so sure

[Cato]

Gould thought he was of the wall,I am not so sure

I don't think Chardin is batty, but I don't think he's right either.

[Fred]

Where were Dawkins' parents when he needed attention? He seems to have lost his bearings by simply being born in Africa. Perhaps he takes the whole evolutionary process of social darwinism a little too seriously. Has he been to the Great Rift Valley? It must be his holy place.


Was he not a friend of Richard Leakey, both are from Kenya.
Here an article on Social Darwinism and Dawkins

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=1Perhaps they knew Baracka Hussein Osama, Sr and son before the latter became the adopted Barry Soetero.

[Fred]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1012
http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1013