|
|
|
|
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 3:16:27 PM | | Speaking of which, let's not forget The Selfish Gene. I had to read it for school. Good ideas, interesting things to say over all, but as I said above...boring writer. Amongst the oohs and ahhs there was a lot of dozing off. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 3:54:19 PM | To be honest, i only got half way through the god delusion. shhh
 | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 4:54:28 PM | Personally, I count myself among the agnostic. Maybe there's a God, maybe not. Not the point. One of the things I learn as I continue to read about science including astronomy, I'm amazed just how complex and elegant the universe is. I don't need to look for "God" there. The universe taken for itself is amazing with or without God in the picture.
Now, for those who believe in God, belief is a privilege that we all have access to. However, I can't think of a better way to learn to appreciate that "God" than to learn as much about the creation you give Him credit for. As far as I'm concerned, the best "churches" in the world are the laboratories, universities and observatories of the world. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 5:29:58 PM | | I never read any of his books and maybe I never will. I like what he has to say though, although he can be a little abrasive sometimes. I'd prefer he didn't stoop to the level of those religious nuts who oppose him. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 5:41:31 PM |
Is anyone else a fan of this lovely man? Although I do love his idea, talks and films, I have to admit I find his writing pretty boring :) shhh
He still teaches at Oxford right?
Has anyone ever come close to meeting him...or met him, or saw him speak?
I'm a fan. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 7:50:47 PM |
Dawkins interview with Ben Stein was particularly brilliant. When Stein asked him how the first self replicating molecule started, his answer was, "duhh, I dunno. Nobody knows."
Not a direct quote. However, his was an honest and correct response. No one knows. Which is why the answer is still being sought.
However, if you and Ben Stein prefer to stop at "Godidit," that's your choice. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 8:18:19 PM | The point is, the evidence for aliens is the same as for god - none. In either case, the strong evidence of evolution remains, making "ID" possible, but unsupported, redundant, and uninformative. It has no place in science, as it's a wholesale unscientific approach. Young Earth creationism however, apart from ID in general, is refuted by a pile of evidence.
As for Dawkins...meh. He doesn't interest me. He hasn't advanced anything I wasn't already familiar with or perceived on my own, so I'm not motivated to read anything by him. His public image however, I disagree with. Science doesn't need any dogmatic "faithfull" to preach and thereby confirm antiscience delusions. Perhaps he reaches some with his approach, but science isn't about dogma, and it certainly shouldn't be presented to appear that way. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 8:37:28 PM |
When exactly did Ben Stein say "Goddidit" in that interview? I must have missed that part.
Oh, please. Spare me the ham-handed attempts at prevarication.
So, the frequent references to God were, what? Indeed, the entire point of the movie was about ID a.k.a. Godidit. Stein's even been on various Christian television shows to promote it.
What Dawkins said...and I'll say it slowly...if any form of "intelligent" influence on human evolution is possible it would have to be from another external species that evolved in the classic way. That's far more likely than magic sky friend. However, since there is no evidence of either, we have to go with the standard model for how we got here which is evolution. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 9:22:59 PM | | Dawkins , Shermer , and Randi are three of the best hopes we have of putting a halt to the nonsense coming from the religious and pseudo-scientific communities. It would be great to meet them but more important that they're recognized and supported in their fight against what seems to be a rising tide of stupidity among the masses. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/10/2009 9:23:17 PM | Dawkins did cause a revolution in philosophy, even though he is a biologist. When I was studying philosophy in university, the 'linguistic paradigm' was the dominant model being studied. The idea there was that, by studying language a clearer idea of what thought is could be reached.
Dawkins and "The Selfish Gene" came on the scene near the end of my time at university. I clearly remember the uproar: the colloquiums, the discussion groups, the lecture series that ensued. It was almost bizarre, because one had the sense of something irrevocably unstoppable taking place. It was clearly not a "fad": it was a major paradigm shift, occurring with amazing rapidity, and it was clear to all who witnessed it that this was something which was not going away. This was a permanent shift in the fundamental emphasis which defined current philosophy, and it was occurring because those who had dedicated their lives to philosophy could see that his arguments could not be simply dismissed; not could they be effectively countered.
Aside from whether he was 'right' or not, he was consistent - and consistency is a major defining characteristic of philosophy. That is what made his arguments so compelling.
Now, when one undertakes an overview of consciousness studies, one finds that a biological paradigm is firmly in ascendancy. Debating the nature of consciousness with reference to linguistic models has been completely superseded by a study of brain processes; linguistically defined studies which attempt to define consciousness have been replaced by clinical studies of how the brain works to produce both language and consciousness.
It could be argued that this would have happened without Dawkins but, the fact remains that it is Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" which made philosophers realize that a biological model of consciousness was on the verge of becoming the main point of focus for consciousness studies.
Having had my philosophic training during the days of the language paradigm, I certainly do still make a very great use of that academic resource; but I also find the biological paradigm immensely useful, in that it often clarifies areas which are quite nebulous within the linguistic paradigm. It also supplies a wealth of empirical data where once philosophic speculation held sway, allowing inquiries into the nature of consciousness to make immense leaps over endless morasses of speculative contingency.
Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" really was a turning point in modern philosophy, more so because of what he did, and how he did it, than because of what he said. The initial philosophic arguments raised by his book - centered around the concepts of freedom and determinism - have given way to a functional pragmaticism whereby biological considerations are now integral to philosophic concerns.
To my eye, the immense contribution of Dawkins wasn't a philosophy of "The Selfish Gene" - it was the dawning realization within philosophy that new forces were at work which could present arguments of a consistency and force that were indeed characteristic of what philosophy necessarily considers itself to be.
For a good example of this, have a look at David Chalmers’ listing for online papers on consciousness:
http://consc.net/online/
Note how papers related to a scientific approach to consciousness theory are already beginning to rival in quantity the more classical approaches to such questions. | |
|
| |
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 1:59:53 AM |
What came across very clearly though, was Dawkins admitting that Intelligent Design is possible, but only if ALIENS did it. Apparently he's not opposed to I.D. after all, he's just opposed to God doing it. lol.
Please give us a quote, in context, showing that Dawkins thinks ID is possible, except as a tongue in cheek admission that anything is possible but that not everything is both likely or neccessary to explain biological diversity? None of his books contain references to ID except insofar as he's demonstrating how it isn't needed to explain the various forms and functions of biota in the natural world. It seems to me totally obvious that time + replication + mutation = diversity (in the context of a changing environment). It's as obvious to me as 2 + 2 = 4! Indeed, it is inevitable.
To be honest I don't think you understand it and for that reason I'm not sure if you're really qualified to comment. And I'm pretty sure you haven't actually read any of his books, so are doubly unqualified to comment! | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 4:22:35 AM |
As for Dawkins...meh. He doesn't interest me. He hasn't advanced anything I wasn't already familiar with or perceived on my own, so I'm not motivated to read anything by him. His public image, however, I disagree with.
I think I've seen Dawkins speak, maybe once, and only after I'd read two of his books. I appreciated his writing far more than his interview skills. As someone else pointed out "The Selfish Gene" was more of a philosophical work than a traditional text in genetics and "The God Delusion" contains a lot of historical and biblical references, making it more than just an opinion piece.
On an aside, interesting word this "meh". Apparently it has recently been accepted into the Oxford English dictionary. My son has been saying it since he was tiny (to avoid providing any real answers) but he doesn't know where he picked it up from, so I figure he must have coined the term. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 4:54:19 AM |
What came across very clearly though, was Dawkins admitting that Intelligent Design is possible, but only if ALIENS did it. Apparently he's not opposed to I.D. after all, he's just opposed to God doing it. lol.
I don't know that Dawkins ever says intelligent design is impossible. He does say the probability of an omnipotent being creating everything is extremely, extremely low, and therefore no rational person can believe in it. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 5:46:23 AM | Good speaker and writer.
A little too "self-important" at times...
But then again,who isn't? | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 5:53:58 AM |
Is anyone else a fan of this lovely man?
I wouldn't say I was a fan. I admie his work, but I still treat everything he writes with the same scrutiny that i treat anyones evidnce or theories.
Dawkins happens to be verry good at gathering evidence and laying it out in a logical and orderly fasion so as to explain many things, but he is still just a man and faliable as such.
Although I do love his idea, talks and films, I have to admit I find his writing pretty boring :) shhh
Some of his books are very boring, but his papers are even more dry. Thats one of the problems with science, its very had to explain it and include the evidence, without being kust a little bit dull. Like when he talks about Genetics for example, there is very little by way of poetic or imaginative language that can be ussed to explain the expresion of genes, so he has to relly on ussing the dull and dry scientific language to explain things.
I think that he is a good writer, dealing with a very dificult subject.
He still teaches at Oxford right?
Has anyone ever come close to meeting him...or met him, or saw him speak?
No, and no.
 | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 9:23:08 AM | Or maybe it's not really Dawkins speaking in this interview? After all, he's not supposed to be an idiot. Maybe it's just a clever imposter hired by those subversives at the Discovery Institute to make him look and sound that way??
Actually, I did watch the interview. And I would say Dawkins is a lot less of an idiot than your favourite author and the followers of his line of "reasoning."
So, again and slowly....the point of his comment was that intelligent design by aliens is a lot more likely than an all-powerful God. And even those aliens would have had to evolve somewhere. So rather than being a "solution," it only shifts the issue of spontaneous evolution elsewhere.
In short, I don't think it was meant as a serious explanation for life on this planet. He was just responding to a question by Stein about intelligent design with a more likely out of a string of least likely options. One thing is for sure...he doesn't believe in Creation or Intelligent Design or even God. And that is a message he has held consistently.
Or, as Edward put it so succinctly...
I don't know that Dawkins ever says intelligent design is impossible. He does say the probability of an omnipotent being creating everything is extremely, extremely low, and therefore no rational person can believe in it. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 11:02:38 AM |
Nooo, of course not. People who don't believe in such things always qualify their assessment of such ridiculous ideas with the phrase, "intriguing possibility".
What? Did you actually read that statement before you hit "Post"?
So you're criticising Dawkins for calling - not advocating, mind you, just characterizing - alien intervention as an "intriquing" idea? Aren't you the one with the post supporting an author who proposes the appearance of humans 300 million years before their actual appearance? Do you think, perhaps, you could make up your mind please? I'm getting dizzy from your rapid direction changes.
E.T. phone Richard, he's still waiting.
Maybe you might want to pass on the message, then. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 1:08:44 PM |
Nooo, of course not. People who don't believe in such things always qualify their assessment of such ridiculous ideas with the phrase, "intriguing possibility".
I don't think you have a firm grasp of what "possibility" means. Possibility does not equate to probable or likely. He was asked if intelligent design was possible, and he said it was. It is ridiculous to claim that he believes aliens started life because of that statement. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 2:44:01 PM | | sign11 can you stop polluting every interesting scientific thread with your ridiculous "intelligent design" comments. I've honestly never seen anyone demonstrate such a complete lack of knowledge or understanding over what are now basic scientific principles, in my entire life. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 3:39:26 PM | RE Msg: 22 by hellgremlin:
It is NOT POSSIBLE to go to far in agonizing theists! If that is the only way of getting through their ignorance and letting a little slice of reality in, so be it! Moreover, since atheists declare it to be OK, then they have no reason to complain when they get a taste of their own medicine. Well, no, mate. We're merely tasting the same medicine we've been fed since the beginning of atheism. What you're witnessing is a backlash, as atheists begin to assert themselves, and move from atheism to active, militant antitheism.
We've been attacked and oppressed by religious fundamentalists for so long, that it's given rise to a fundamentalist atheist: an antitheist Have 6 million atheists been wiped out systematically?
Have thousands of atheists been crucified on crosses?
I don't think you even begin to understand the level of persecution religious people have endured.
The beautiful thing about it is, unlike any world religion, our "faith" is the end viewpoint, the omega conclusion You sound like the Germans in World War 2, or the Romans in the Roman Empire. Claiming that you have the answer just makes you sound like all other dictatorships.
Moreover, it denies the concept of evolution. You really think your ideas are the pinnacle of human civilisation? You really think you have achieved the best that humanity has to offer, that everyone else can never achieve what you have achieved? You are just one link in the chain. After you, will come others, and they will come up with more ideas. Who knows what the future may bring?
- I personally believe religion to be backward savagery; anyone who subscribes to religion deluded; and feel that these people should be broken of their delusions by force, if necessary. I realize this makes me no different from the religious fundies, but I'm tired of turning the other cheek or taking the moral high ground. If the religious fundamentalists won't live and let live, I see no bloody reason why I should, and I'll do my best to convert people of all these soon-to-be-obsolete religions to my frankly superior and correct viewpoint. No. You're just doing the same as the Germans in World War 2. You've come up with an unjustifiable viewpoint, and now you want to force everyone else to live that way.
- once a society goes atheist, it really doesn't go back to being stupid, superstitious and deluded, Russia went atheist. Now, many Russians are embracing religion in their thousands each year.
Already, the secularization of the West continues un-checked, with fewer and fewer identifying themselves as religious. In a few more generations, the religious in the West will be relegated to a minority, and despised by the rational majority for their ebbing attempts to impose their savage, barbaric rules on a society which has by then largely outgrown the need for such theologically inspired rigour. Let's be honest. You qualfied your claims by saying that they only apply to the West, which is the richest group in humanity by a wide margin/ History has shown us repeatedly that the rich tend to become decadent, thinking that they no longer need what their civilisations were built on, and in so doing, weaken the foundations of that civilisation more and more, until it falls apart.
We're already seeing that happen, with the multiple problems caused by industrial pollution, the problems in healthcare, the problems in education, the problems in the banking section of the financial system that caused massive economic destruction. Clearly, something has to give.
Either we stop hanging the fundamentals of our society on unjustified beliefs, and just start talking simple, practical views, like that if not everyone agrees with us, then there is a good chance that we are not right, and that we have to respect others views, or we suffer the same fate as every other civilisation since the dawn of man. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 3:39:54 PM | RE Msg: 25 by asgard1913:
I'm not sure if you've actually looked up his track record, or read much of anything beyond the God Delusion as far as Dawkins's work, Scorpio. He's one of the more renowned biologists in his field for a reason.
He really does know what he's talking about when it comes to evolutionary biology. Say what you will about his militant atheism, but I don't know that questioning his scientific credentials is called for.
Dawkins isn't a philosopher, he's a biologist. Yes, I have. He's featured on a good few interviews in the newspapers here, and he's presented a few TV programmes here too.
His main post was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. That amounts to being the guy who is the best at making science understandable for the majority of the population. But in the UK, people have known about evolution since the early 70s at the least, well before he put out the Selfish Gene. Frankly, most of us learned more about science from Sir David Attenborough than we ever did from Richard Dawkins.
He's an ethologist, which is the study of comparing and contrasting the behaviour of animal species. That's his expertise. We know of over 1 million different animal species. It's estimated that there are 10 times that number of species in the world. I think you'd agree that when you throw in species that have gone extinct, we're talking far more than that. So we're talking about way more species than any normal human could compare in his brain, certainly no-one less than someone with a brain like a super-computer. It would be only reasonable that any conclusions across millions of species would require a massive database, compared on a computer, and would rely heavily on statistics and other mathematical methods of comparing huge species that vary in many ways. Yet I see none of that kind of training in his education, and none of that sort of analysis in the proofs that he quotes, or in any proof quoted of his theories.
Moreover, I do know some top scientists do disagree with his theories, like Francis Collins, the former leader of the Human Genome Project, who Obama recently elected to be Director of the National Institutes of Health.
Dawkins' has got some interesting ideas, which is partly why I do watch him when he comes on TV. He makes me think. But his theories, that are the end result of those ideas, lack any solidity of clarity. What I find most ironic, is that the ideas that he has produced that are truly revolutionary, that do make sense, and that could really contribute much to the world, really get swallowed up in his theories, and so either people believe both, or believe none, and as those theories are highly questionable, that means his real contributions are currently ignored. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 4:19:49 PM | | ...I am definitely a fan of Richard Dawkins.......I could listen to his debates forever..but hmmm yes, I do say, I have yet to finish "The God Delusion" | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 4:41:20 PM |
But did he do so? Nope. He went on to describe a theory of his own:
Sign, again, you're not thinking rationally. He was asked how it could be that this is the case. Implicit in his answer is that it isn't very likely. That's the whole point isn't it? You have one theory that is plausible, likely and explains all of the facts (not just the fossil record, but biochemistry and molecular biological facts) and another that has no evidence in its favour, doesn't explain anything at all ("it just is") and is implausible. That you're blind to the obvious is perhaps the most intriguing thing of all. | |
|
| Richard Dawkins fans?
Posted: 7/11/2009 4:54:45 PM | The way I interpret that dialogue is "If aliens were responsible for planting an original seed resulting in our development on this planet, then their existence would have to be explained by evolution just as ours is. So, yes it's possible an intelligent designer was an alien from another planet, but their existence would follow the same rules of nature as our own and it does not prove that there is an intelligent designer of the universe."
So what's the argument, then? | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
