The God Delusion - ongoing review

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by GeoffP, Feb 28, 2008.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    So you believe Dawkins memetics and extended phenotype have contributed to an understanding of science? e.g. how does a memetic genotype predict a memetic phenotype? And how does a memetic phenotype predict the survival of a memetic genotype in a separate organism? Is Wall Street an extended memetic phenotype?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Not in themselves, no. So?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I'm just wondering what you consider his contribution to the understanding of science to be. And how is it applicable to scientific theory and method?

    Do you believe that Francis Collins, as a theist and not a metaphorical naturalist, is a "real" scientist?
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2008
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    A drastic improvement in a few million people's understanding of Darwinian evolution and thus evolutionary approach or explanation in general, one of the cornerstones of modern science. For one.

    To the extent he is theistically invoking the supernatural to explain real phenomena, he is not doing science, and vice versa -

    and you can see that in his claims of divine mystery for the origin of morality and the human spirit, a matter which other scientists - many of them theists whose demarcation of the divine is somewhat different from Collins's - are investigating scientifically (and making considerable early progress).

    I doubt Collins would welcome the intrusion of Michael Behe's theism into his own genetics lab. But Behe is a real organic chemist, or whatever - his theism does not intrude into his own lab either.
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Frankly I don't see why you make this claim. From what I have seen on this site alone, people frequently confuse between memes and genes, using cultural analogs for genetic attributes while skipping the part that memetics itself is a field without rigor.

    In fact, based on some of Gould's critiques, it would appear that Dawkins had narrowed the view point that Darwin espoused by making it more exclusive.
    Do you not consider narrowing of thought to be detrimental rather than contributing to understanding?


    Does he claim that his theistic invocations are science? He was very clear in his demarcations when speaking face to face. But I admit, I haven't read his books.
    Does Collins practise Christianity in his own lab? Has his religious belief been directing his scientific accomplishments?
     
  9. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    /offtopic

    SAM, is that frog on XTC or something ? LOL
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    All glory to THE HYPNOTOAD :bugeye: :worship:
     
  11. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    LOL :m::worship:

    Edit: OH NO, I clicked the bead..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The kerfluffle around memetics, which is not strictly Dawkins's fault and not all bad anyway, is nothing compared with the fundamental gain in comprehension of Darwinian theory by millions of people from his early books on the subject.

    Dawkins's language and approach is, for example, useful for responding to some of the more naive meme enthusiasts.

    And that is not his only contribution.

    Collins's contributions,on the other hand, have been chiefly as cover credentials for completely irresponsible dismissals of scientific knowledge and the scientific approach, by others. His only contribution to the general understanding of science, that I can distinguish, has been as an example of an undeniably decent human being engaged in politically sensitive and otherwise easily demonized research.
    I think Gould was wrong about that (both the accusation of narrowing and the implications) and Dawkins right - Daniel Dennett writes well about that particular discussion,if you're interested (I'm more closely aligned with Dennett, in general, than with most of these guys).

    ? Now what ?
     
  13. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    The wonders of cognitive dissonance.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    SAM:

    This has nothing to do with The God Delusion of course. Anyway...

    You should be wary of reading Gould on Dawkins, and to some extent Dawkins on Gould. The two had an ongoing disagreement about evolutionary theory. Gould labelled Dawkins as an "ultra-adaptationist". Gould was a powerful and persuasive writer, but in my opinion (and I'm not alone on this) he misinterpreted Dawkins' position and ended up shooting down a straw man a lot of the time.

    As I understand it, Dawkins never said that natural selection was the exclusive means of modification, so this is the kind of straw man I'm talking about.

    I should also point out that the argument over the "level" at which selection occurs is an ongoing one in biology.

    There's no real evidence that Dawkins has ever "narrowed thought" in the way you seem to be implying.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    iceaura:

    So before Dawkins books, evolution was less well comprehended? Which is why its only now that they built a creation museum in the US and a creation park in the UK?

    James:

    Sounds reasonable if they were at it hammer and tongs.

    But I am still wondering how Dawkings contributed to an understanding of evolutionary biology.

    Anyway, back to the God Delusion.

    I find it interesting that even iceaura finds Collins theism as sufficient cause to consider him "not practising science all the time"

    Do atheists practice science all the time? Does Dawkins?
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    SAM:

    It has only been recently that huge amounts of money have been accumulated by creationist organisations such as the Discovery Institute.

    You need lots of money to build a modern museum, plus organisation.

    I'm not a biologist, so I can't really comment. All I can suggest is that you read his scientific papers if you're interested in his contributions to biology.

    Nobody practices science all the time. Science isn't life. It's just one part of life.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Yes.

    Furthermore, credit to his books is often given by people who do understand the theory better than the average layman.

    And continuing, they are almost always the first recommendation for someone with a beginning scientific background and a casual interest but confused about the basics of Darwinian theory.

    Where else would you send them ?
    Now what in hell are you talking about, or alluding to, or whatever ?
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Hmm thats true, there is a gap in the lay knowledge available. IMO, though, reading about selfish genes and extended phenotypes does not clarify the issue, though they are entertaining. e.g. addressing the criticisms of the selfish gene in the extended phenotype, he goes, in my opinion, more off base with paradigms where the behaviour of one animal is directed to saving the genes of another.

    Which is why I asked you, is Wall Street an extended phenotype?


    These statements:
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    If we disagree with nationalism, do we attack the concept of the nation-state or the chauvinism with which nationalism comports itself in the public realm? Religion as such may be a force for good or evil. What will you make of my case, a humanist and Catholic who has not been indoctrinated as a child in any religion - and, in point of fact, was forbidden to attend religious services?
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Thats another argument I have with Dawkins.

    He ignores facts:

     
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Whether faithful or fantastic, it still descends to the choice of common or multiple origin. The choice is dualistic, in this sense: does the one tradition (i.e. Luke) follow from the other (Mark) or is it independently arrived at via other previous tradition? Whether oral legend or written record, they must still obey common origin or multiple origin.

    Actually, the issue isn't terribly different from allelic identity by descent in genetics. Alleles of similar size or appearance either have a common origin or a different one via mutation. But the mutated "allele" must still come from one of the two sources - Mark or some proto-Luke - if it has been, as the graph insists, modified; this is the very essence of the comparison.

    He says "I am not going to pick on any one God", and then he does.

    Rebuttal? Ice - you still haven't responded to my question, and this is important: why is my "Clintonian example" above irrelevant? You must specify this.

    Innumerable. I was referring to the description of the infraction on your parking ticket. When it comes in the mail, does it come with a complete description of every related and unrelated law in the state on automotive issues? Or is it just a remonstrance concerned with your particular infraction? The latter, naturally. So why would you expect Paul to recount every miracle of Jesus in a letter remonstrating Roman Christians? It's an unreasonable expectation, and for that reason Paul's position on the chart at least should be removed; further, Paul serves as the starting point for the whole argument: "How come Paul didn't write about the Gospels, eh? Must not have happened then?" which has been used in past to justify the "telephone analogy".

    Not at all. The Gospels are histories meant to "prove" the greatness and miraculousness of Christianity. Paul's Epistles are a reminder to other believers to "smarten up", as you Americans might put it. This is not at all the same thing.

    Well then how can we debate anything about the chart from a scientific - if we can apply such to any theological issue - perspective? How about this: tell me what your hypothesis is (post hoc, but there's no way around that obviously) about the graph and we'll go from there.

    This presumes that the other side is nonsense, which, in a metaphysical issue, is hard to do. Or perhaps we should just cast aside the evidentiary issue on this?

    Thanks again for a great argument,

    Geoff
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Interesting points. I think his arguments look riddled with bias. It's an invective similar to what my father would use against religion; and no one ever doubted that his motivation was hate of religion, justified or not.
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I would say that sounds pretty abusive to me.:bugeye:

    I wonder how many athiests provide their children with alternatives to choose a belief system.

    How many of them impose their (lack of) belief on the children.

    That was my impression on hearing him speak.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2008

Share This Page