World's foremost atheist televangelist to attack children's literature!

I've read it and if you look back in my posts, you'll find I had issues with it before I ever discussed Dawkins on this board

That most lay people who read The Selfish Gene are not biologists and already have a definition for selfish. That Dawkins flips between "metaphorical" and literal meanings of selfish without adequate explanations, thus leading many people to ascribe anthropomorhic qualities to genes and that Dawkins has done more to create opposition to science than interest in it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fair enough. I'd have to wonder, then,why you still rely on the quoted critiques of others rather than formulating and synthesizing your own in this thread. Perhaps an appeal to authority, which might not be a bad idea if you doubt your ability to synthesize critique of your own.

I read the book as a lay person, and didn't get that sense. I understood the any "switch" between metaphor and literal -indeed, I found several passages where Dawkins went to great care to explain or demonstrate the metaphorical nature. In the forward of the book, he discusses it, for instance.

I've also recommended the text to several lay-persons who voiced no such issue. Nor have I ever read of any lay-person who was genuinely interested in biology and not already critical of science and evolution even mention such an alleged confusion.

No, what's happening is that the anti-science, post-modernist nut crowd is picking up on Dawkins' metaphorical use of terms like "selfish" and insinuating that popular audiences are too stupid to tell the difference.

You're correct in that Midgley has "proven" something, but it isn't that Dawkins has any real problem. What she's proven is that she's willing to insult the average reader and scientific lay person in order to further her own anti-science and post-modernist agenda and to fuel her discontent to scientists like Dawkins in general. She's proven that she's a dishonest and intellectually immoral.

I can see how she appeals to you.

EDIT: when you say she's "prove" that "most people" misunderstand Dawkins, what are the data that she uses to "prove" this? Let's put numbers to it. How many people were polled and what was the methodology of her study? What was the sample size? What was the sample population? How was this sample population chosen?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The following might be valid, which is a very sad thought.

If the number of people with training in science, mathematics, and critical thinking falls too low, civilization will fail. We are unlikely to fall as far as the Dark Ages, but it could get very bad.

For 5000 or so years, religion did not argue against slavery and other abusive behavior by various monarchies. Prayer and a hope for a better existence in the afterlife were advocated as a method of enduring almost intolerable conditions: Back breaking labor, disease, poverty, et cetera. Theistic beliefs & organized religon has done next to nothing to improve the lot of the ordinary person.

Godless science and ingenious inventors plus the efforts of entrepreneurs and bankers brought an end to slavery (it became economically inefficient). Science & capitalism also extended the life span of the average man as well as improving the quality of his life.

I agree with Dawkins about the teaching of religion to those too young to understand. Calling it abuse is slightly extreme, but it is brain washing. I still remember the reaction to some of my questions:

I did not understand what blasphemy meant, but the sense of horror in the tone of the voice told me that asking a question was some terrible act. Fortunately for me, that attitude was on the part of Uncles & Aunts rather than my parents.

I am convinced that theistic beliefs would almost die out if children were taught only reading, writing, mathematics, history, science, literature, et cetera until about age 12-15, with religious education being left for later. Of course, this is the reason that various theists want to home school and/or advocate prayer & religious instruction in our public schools.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm guessing you don't know much about Mary Midgeley.

Kudos on your ability to synthesise The Selfish Gene. However, as an atheist, you're part of the choir. Dawkins has alienated his religious audience and as such, it really does not matter how fascinating his ability to describe nonscientific phenomena in scientific terms or vice versa happens to be. What he has done is singlehandedly convinced a lot of people that science and religion cannot co-exist and created an atmosphere where people will be forced to choose one over the other.

I would say, based on human nature alone, they would go with their beliefs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/oct/25/richard-dawkins-religion-science-books

 

I apparently know enough. I've read her work and of her work previously. Some of it is interesting but she has an intellectual ax to grind. The very criticism you level at Dawkins, so the irony that you quote her so handily doesn't escape me.

Kudos on your ability to synthesise The Selfish Gene. However, as an atheist, you're part of the choir.

I'm not sure which "choir" I'm supposed to be a part of as an atheist. I read The Selfish Gene prior to self-identifying as such and, if there's a "choir" to which I'm a member, its one that includes rational and scientific investigation of life and the universe around me. One need not be an atheist to participate and this, I think, is part of you inability to genuinely reflect on Dawkins' work. You see him first as an atheist attempting to subvert theists and as a biologist last. Ironically, I think its that his arguments are hit so close to home for you that you are so offended and vehemently opposed to him writing much less being read. Are you, perhaps, afraid you might read a passage that switches off your theistic beliefs? Perhaps you theistic beliefs are already in question, maintained by stubbornness and pride and requiring only the right organization and arrangement of words to tip their scale.

I've yet to read where Dawkins has made any attempt to describe "non-scientific phenomena." If something occurs in the universe, in nature, then its natural and, thus, can be described in scientific terms since science is about describing the natural world.

I would agree with the conclusion of this statement, but not the premise that Dawkins "single-handedly convinced a lot of people. Religion clearly exists in the natural world: people organize and believe that they must appease one or more deities. The claims of religion, however, don't appear to exist in the real world. These claims impede and disrupt the scientific investigation of the universe. If no religionist had ever attempted to suppress scientific discovery, oppress scientific understanding, or introduce into public discourse complete and utter nonsense, then Dawkins would have had little reason to criticize religion.

when you say Midgley "proved" that "most people" misunderstand Dawkins, what are the data that she uses to "prove" this? Let's put numbers to it. How many people were polled and what was the methodology of her study? What was the sample size? What was the sample population? How was this sample population chosen?

 

Your ad hominems aside, I think Dawkins is a complete fool and has done much to damage the promotion of science to young people. I read the selfish gene before I was interested in Islam to the extent I am now and I thought he was a poor scientist then. However, he has promoted the cause of atheism, so perhaps we can have more atheistic idiots equating science with atheism with the resultant unintended consequences.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/mar/27/religion.schools


Perhaps before he dies, Dawkins can see evolution teaching being banned for schools because it is an atheistic tool. That would be pure irony.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

when you say Midgley "proved" that "most people" misunderstand Dawkins, what are the data that she uses to "prove" this? Let's put numbers to it. How many people were polled and what was the methodology of her study? What was the sample size? What was the sample population? How was this sample population chosen?

 

I think the above Darwinism=atheism is pretty good evidence.

 

I think perhaps I wasn't clear, let me re-phrase:

When you say Midgley "proved" that "most people" misunderstand Dawkins, what are the data that she uses to "prove" this? Let's put numbers to it. How many people were polled and what was the methodology of her study? What was the sample size? What was the sample population? How was this sample population chosen?

 

If you want to be precise about it, let me rephrase it. She predicted it. And I see an accumulating evidence that her prediction was sound. Though, since its all a book review, there is no requirement for absolute precision, is there? Its all opinion.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

btw: I said she's been proved right. She wrote her critique 20 years ago.

 

What are the data that comprise your "accumulating evidence?"

 

That he's called the number one recruiter for creationism by the NCSE. Unless you think that was his aim.

 

Right, but what are the data that comprise the evidence you say are accumulating?

 

The fact that the interest in science has dropped off, science is now equated with atheism, there is opposition to the study of science by religious groups. Data? If you mean "hard data" there is as much as there is for the origin of matter.

 

Err... such a stance seems decidedly NOT postmodern to me. Quite the opposite. I'd call it "classical" or even "prosaic," but definitely not "postmodern."

 

To the extent that any of those are true, they preceeded Dawkins' work (and even existence) by many years. This issue has been around since at least Copernicus, not to mention Darwin. That Dawkins gets you fired up about atheism doesn't mean the he is responsible for intellectual tension between certain religious believers and science.

 

Hmm you're right. The NCSE is clearly clueless. Okay, lets not worry about it, its not like its important or something.

 

IF thats true.. I propose a simple solution to these religio-idotic-nazis,
if they hate science so much let them go to church and pray when they get sick,
instead of using the evil science of modern medicine,
heck, take away their computers,cars, phones an everything that scientists atheists gave us to make our lives better!
if it wasnt for science these religious fucks would be gone like dinosaurs long time ago.

 

You're still confusing science with atheism.