The God / Dawkins Delusion

E

Eric

Mr Moraigero
one might argue that, at least on one understanding, some why questions are answerable by science: e.g. evolutionary biology seems to have something to say about why certain species have certain behaviors: just because they are adaptive. (as formalized in say maynard smith's game-theoretic work)

i once had an argument with a physicist who claimed biology was not a science, however, so perhaps this claim is ill-founded

also, i think that the how-question about the sky's blueness partly answers the why-question, in the sense: `why do we perceive the sky as being blue?' well maybe I am just being obtuse now
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I see what you mean, Eric, about questions as to "why" dogs have a good sense of smell, "why" certain animals have a poisonous sting, etc. - as you say, it's to give them an evolutionary advantage. So that's a purpose, of sorts. But unless you're a creationist, it's a blind, impersonal sort of purpose, which is different from the purpose behind the various components of a car or a computer, which have been designed because a human or humans thought "We need a device to do such-and-such, so we'd better invent one".

(Interesting that I should have chosen the example of a dog's sense of smell, actually, since the reason some breeds have such acute smelling abilities is that they've had it selectively bred into them by humans, so that comes under the second kind of "purpose". But I guess that's by-the-bye.)

(Edit: also, I'd take issue with someone claiming biology 'is not a science' - sounds like a case of scientific one-up-manship there.)
 
Last edited:
E

Eric

Mr Moraigero
yes it makes perfect sense. clearly created objects have a different kind of purpose than natural ones (you can see my religious noninclinations in this phrasing). this is really just a question of intentionality, don't you think? when we think about purposes we think `what object/function x is FOR.' probably purposes of created objects have this + `this function is put in place on purpose'. from this perspective creationism is just a kind of ontological fallacy.
 
E

Eric

Mr Moraigero
Mr. Tea said:
(Edit: also, I'd take issue with someone claiming biology 'is not a science' - sounds like a case of scientific one-up-manship there.)
Click to expand...

yeah I think he was just trying to get me worked up actually, in which he succeeded for a little while until I was satisfied that's what he was doing.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Sorry, just saw some things here I can't help but comment on:

DRMHCP said:
Isn't it accepted even by most evolutionary biologists that Dawkins is a complete charlatan...Stephen Jay Gould for instance making it obvious what he thought of him for instance
Click to expand...
Er - no? Obviously Dawkins has stirred up something of a hornet's nest with his broadside attack on religion, but I think he's regarded (in professional biology circles) as knowing what he's talking about when he talks science. Of course, he's so dogmatic he's naturally made a lot of enemies, some of whom are going to try and attack him on his professional work.
DRMHCP said:
And regarding his materialist fundamentalism isn't it very likely if he'd been born in the middle ages there's a good chance he would have been one of the most intransigent religious fundamentalists causing all the kind of problems he himself blames on religion.
Click to expand...
So he's a 'born' fanatic, and it just so happens that he's taken up the cause of rationalism and atheism rather than, say, Christianity? Purely because he was born in 20th-century Britain?
This sounds rather unlikely to me; in fact it seems to stem from the old falacious argument that people decide not to believe in God for the same reason others believe. Atheism is not a religion in the same way no ice-cream is not a flavour of ice-cream.
DRMHCP said:
Ironic that these two books are coming out now when at the cutting edge of certain scientific disciplines (quantum physics etc) there's more consideration for some kind of non-materialst explanation for certain phenomena than possibly at any any time since the early 19th century....
Click to expand...
Ahh, good old quantum mechanics: the ultimate conceptual Get Out Of Jail Free card. :)
All I'll say on this is that you're welcome to try and find God in the wave-function if you like - He's as likely to be there as anywhere - but all you'll succeed in doing is making yourself look foolish to both scientists and theologians.
 
Last edited:
Z

zhao

there are no accidents
actually just starting The Ancestor's Tale... so far so good as he points out the distorted views of evolution stemming from the ego and vanity of humans...
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
zhao said:
actually just starting The Ancestor's Tale... so far so good as he points out the distorted views of evolution stemming from the ego and vanity of humans...
Click to expand...

Which is precisely *why* I think it's so foolish to assume that humans don't come 'pre-loaded' with a whole set of instinctive behaviours just as all other animals do! (cf. the 'human nature' thread). :)
 
Z

zhao

there are no accidents
Mr. Tea said:
Which is precisely *why* I think it's so foolish to assume that humans don't come 'pre-loaded' with a whole set of instinctive behaviours just as all other animals do! (cf. the 'human nature' thread). :)
Click to expand...

in this sense of course there are sets of "instinctive behaviours". but it is a very different thing to say that humans are inherently "good" or "evil" or "selfish", etc.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh, of course - those concepts would only have come along long after humans evolved, and are of course highly culture-dependent.

I'm reading a novel at the moment about an English sailor who gets washed up in 1600s Japan, and has all sorts of adventures - the total dissimilarity between his culture and theirs is one of the main themes of the book.
 
swears

swears

preppy-kei
Religion is good, because it's anti-imperialist or something and the only alternative to religion nowadays is mindless consumerism. Jeez... hadn't you heard?
 
subvert47

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
Mr. Tea said:
From whom?
Click to expand...

Good question. Going back and reading it again I guess this thread isn't so bad. I was just :eek: ed by the vehemence of the Dawkins is a moron, twat, complete fool type posts, accompanied by various counter-arguments, misconceptions and fallacies that Dawkins has already dealt with in the book... and it seems these are explained by other posters in this thread.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I don't consider Dawkins a "twat" or anything like that, but I think he might not be terribly politically or psychologically astute. I mean, I haven't read TGD but I'm already an atheist with a fairly negative opinion of religion in general, so I don't "need" to read it; clearly most religious people are unlikely even to consider reading it, so that leaves the agnostic, those with shaky or weakening religious beliefs and those you might call 'God-curious'. And I can't help but think that Dawkins' highly combative and hostile tone is more likely to make someone in this category seek solace in the religion he so relentlessly bashes, than to bring them over into the 'light'.

I should make it clear that I'm essentially on his side here, I'm just not sure he necessarily goes about it in the best way. What does piss me off though is people who aren't actually religious themselves but launch these great political and philosophical attacks on him, as Eagleton does in that review. So many of the typical attacks on him seem to follow the same misguided formula:
  • Dawkins is wrong because he attacks a personal God rather than some waffly Spinozan concept, which is what all the kewl right-on philosophers dig these days (let's ignore the vast majority of religious believers around the world who actually do believe in an old-skool personal God);
  • he's wrong because he "considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly" (aren't they, for the most part? The very word 'Islam' literally means 'submission', FFS! You don't question something you've submitted to, do you?);
  • he's wrong because he doesn't understand theology - to which see A. C. Grayling's excellent riposte that there's not much point trying to understand a system of thought if you reject the very premises it's based on, giving the example that it would be a waste of time learning about the distinctions between different schools of astrology if you have no truck with the idea that the chance distribution of stars and planets can influence the characters and lives of human beings.
Also, lol @ Gavin's "This is an excellent review of a book I haven't read and have no intention of reading..."
 
D

DannyL

Wild Horses
Mr. Tea said:
Which is precisely *why* I think it's so foolish to assume that humans don't come 'pre-loaded' with a whole set of instinctive behaviours just as all other animals do! (cf. the 'human nature' thread). :)
Click to expand...

This is a good book about that sort of thing. But will continue to fall on deaf ears as what she proposes goes against some of our current cultural practices.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
hes a publicity whore. loves it. dirty bastard. plaus he always looks like hes wearing powder and makeup like some jacobean ponce.
 
D

DannyL

Wild Horses
swears said:
Eagleton: "...one can be reasonably certain that he would not be Europe’s greatest enthusiast for Foucault, psychoanalysis, agitprop, Dadaism, anarchism or separatist feminism. All of these phenomena, one imagines, would be as distasteful to his brisk, bloodless rationality as the virgin birth. Yet one can of course be an atheist and a fervent fan of them all."

I can't imagine the sort of believer that would be a "fervent fan" of these "phenomena". All of them have their roots in atheism one way or another.
Click to expand...

Sorry to revive an old argument, but Dawkins does not like the expression of "irrationality" - the province of the surrealists/dada/unconscious etc - one jot irregardless whether it has it's roots in atheism.In his book Unweaving the Rainbow, he rails against the popularity of The X-FIles and says it's something like "propaganda for the irrational". He compares this to rascism - "What if there was a show every week which showed black people ...blah blah".

Which is, simply put, fucking nuts.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
DannyL said:
This is a good book about that sort of thing. But will continue to fall on deaf ears as what she proposes goes against some of our current cultural practices.
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting, though I think you forgot to link...?

Edit: agreed (with you, I mean) on Dawkins' comments on X-Files, that's ridiculous. I used to like that show, doesn't mean I think I've been implanted by aliens, FFS...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top