Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Richard Dawkins is a Fox.

Page: (1)2

16:00 / 21.11.06

I'm amazed I couldn't find an existing thread about him. Possibly I missed one.There are a couple misconceptions about Dr. Dawkins of which you may or may not be aware: Contrary to popular beleif, he has just turned 29 and is not married.

Anyway,
here is some text from The Blind Watchmaker:

A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.

*Swoon*

16:02 / 21.11.06

Interesting how demonstrably untrue that is.

16:04 / 21.11.06

Well, maybe I'm missing something from context. But evolution's "has" so much foresight that it knows you can't prepare for everything, so it "builds" a tremendous amount of redundancy into every system.

16:11 / 21.11.06

Dawkins is a bit of a knob, really.

16:20 / 21.11.06

Possibly something is missing in context.

I think he just means it's not a god that made everything; as described by the writing from which the title of the book originates. Paleys writing infers with the analogy of finding a watch upon a path, that things as complicated and diverse as animals must have a designer since they have characteristics suitable for specific environments.

that the watch must have had a maker:that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose...

etc

16:22 / 21.11.06

Oh you are shattering my fragile and naive girlish illusions.

I should weep.

16:30 / 21.11.06

Go on then Sheik Zed list your reasons?

I deserve it for bieng so flippant and silly. Really.

I don't know why it is whenever I like some guy and I think he's really nice that he is in fact the re-incarnation of Henry Miller.

16:39 / 21.11.06

Dawkins' Law = "Everything I say is correct. Nothing I say could ever be shown to be incorrect. Anybody who holds beliefs different to my own is wrong."

Eveything I've seen suggests to me that he's as unwilling to bend as any religious fundamentalist. That, in my book, doesn't make you somebody to be admired. It makes you a knob.

16:51 / 21.11.06

Dawkins is a knob, but I'm inclined to agree with him that the beauty of evolution is that it doesn't need intentionality to get shit done.

16:55 / 21.11.06

Oh. Thinking about it, I can't disagree.
He does come accross as a bit arrogant and self righteous.

Why doesn't that ever make a man less attractive? I don't know. Possibly it is a form of self loathing!

In all seriousness though, like or dislike, some of the details of natural history he writes about are really beautifully described. I'm really interested in entymology and am constantly awestruck now by any tale of miniscule complexity and variety in nature.

And I'm not an atheist. I have a concept of god, but the eloquence with which he logically undermines the argument for God as creator is also admirable. I wouldn't like to throw the the baby out with the bathwater as it were.

17:34 / 21.11.06

yeah.
i used to rate dawkins until i heard a lot of him speaking publicly.

he's a convincing orator, sure.
if you look carefully at how he deals with this QnA on youtube you get a clue as to how he manages to be at least some of the time.

look for the moment about 22 minutes in, where he ignores the body of a student's question, choosing instead to attack the lame joke he makes about the trinity, something dawkins has just spent some time taking apart in the body of the lecture.
that question is one i would like to have seen him tackle in depth, but he didnt even acknowledge it.

he has a good eye for barrel-fish, it seems.

17:42 / 21.11.06

Ahh, I put the shorter version of the q&A in the you tube thread - I guess I missed him at his most self absorbed.

17:47 / 21.11.06

He's smart as a whip and he's done a lot for evolutionary theory, but he's like any crotchety old scientist nowadays. Completely stuck on his own track.

I started losing respect for him when he tried to tell Robert Winston that he was only religious because of a sense of social duty.

Man's a prick.

Crux Is This City's Protector.

17:58 / 21.11.06

As it seems to me Dawkins's reply to the 'but your atheism is a kind of faith, just like theism,' and other accusations of fundamentalism runs along two lines:

1. I believe what I believe because of the overwhelming amount of multipally butressed evidence in favor of it. I believe it passionately, but do not confused passion with fundamentalism. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, believe what they believe out of faith, and _in spite of_ evidence.

2. If I were to be presented with science-class evidence (the criteria for which, I will say, he has defined rather well and defensibly) against evolution, I would without hesitation and with great joy abandon my belief in it. My opponents, the fundamentalist theists, would not, but rather claim that faith is more valid than reason, or perhaps refute it by begging the question.

Dawkins is a bit insensitive, sure, but I think the whole atheist-is-just-a-competing-belief trope is a sad one. There really are demonstrable difference between his beliefs and the ones he attacks.

cite: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20334_1.html

Crux Is This City's Protector.

18:03 / 21.11.06

To sum up: he's a dick, but he's not wrong.

18:26 / 21.11.06

he makes alot of sense, but i feel like he ignores some things.
has he ever covered magick in any of his works?
i wonder what he would think of will-working, with and without gods.

18:32 / 21.11.06

He may not be wrong inasfar as that point, but it serves a strawman argument. Dawkins's central contention is that, and I quote, "The essential claims of religion are scientific," which, for most religious people, is patent nonsense. Most of us understand religion and science to be, in Stephen Jay Gould's phrase, non-overlapping magisteria.

Of course it's fucking stupid to look to religion for answers to scientific questions; hell, I'm a believing Christian and I readily concede that point. But religion is uniquely equipped to answer certain questions on which science is silent, e.g. Who are we? Why are we here? How are we to behave?

Dawkins would have you believe that these are—and again I quote—"not questions worth asking."

Which seems to me to be a profoundly dick-y assertion.

18:47 / 21.11.06

that must be easy on the self esteem, eh.

"sure he can beat me. but he aint worth fighting anyway."

Ex

18:51 / 21.11.06

Has anyone had a decent dig through The God Delusion yet? My local theology library just purchased sixteen copies, but they've all been snapped up. The things I got from a quick flick were as follows:

- St Augustine's proofs aren't proof (fairly simple, they've been under attack since he wrote them several hundred years ago)
- Christianity doesn't make people nicer - look at all the malicious unfanmail I get

I'm not a theist, but found it a little unpersuasive - I suppose that as I don't understand his science, I was expecting a similar leevl of erudition in his theological debates, which I didn't see on first skimming.

I think I'd prefer to read one of the scrupulous theologians who feels a duty to pick holes in his own beliefs, like Vardy's The Puzzle of God, rather than an atheist who doesn't really believe that religion has a case to argue.

Anyway. He's married to one of the actresses who played Romana, y'know.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

19:08 / 21.11.06

He's married to one of the actresses who played Romana, y'know.

And he still thinks there's no God. Some people, eh?

19:12 / 21.11.06

Most of us understand religion and science to be, in Stephen Jay Gould's phrase, non-overlapping magisteria.

But this just isn't true, is it? I mean, I guess I could just about concede that my own personal experiences with the religious wouldn't be typical for other people but belief in miracles or creationism aren't unheard of. I'm always wary here of the No true Scotsman fallacy.

But religion is uniquely equipped to answer certain questions on which science is silent, e.g. Who are we? Why are we here? How are we to behave?

Why? Why is, for example, the catholic church better equipped to answer these questions than anyone else? Isn't this kind of like saying that Mystic Meg is uniquely equipped to advise me on my love life? You'd have to be stupidly credulous to take that at face value.

I don't really understand all the Dawkins hate, myself. I think he is simplistic and a touch dogmatic when it comes to religion, but the reaction he sometimes provokes makes me think that there probably is some value to challenging the level of respect everyone assumes religion should be paid.

19:33 / 21.11.06

I'm well aware that belief in miracles, or creationism, are depressingly widespread; I read the newspapers. All that proves, though, is that religious folk are just as prone as atheists to missing the point, and looking for specific truths in the wrong places.

19:34 / 21.11.06

i dont hate him.
i just feel he could do a lot better.
i think he is at the forefront of his field, but i dont think he pushes as hard as he could.

Tryphena Absent

19:36 / 21.11.06

eirdandfracar I don't see why you shouldn't have the hots for Dawkins. At least he isn't fickle and he's no more arrogant than the average actor and no one starts discussing the quality of their work when you have the hot stuff for them.

20:29 / 21.11.06

I'm always wary here of the No true Scotsman fallacy.

Do tell me what this is, Lurid, it sounds geekycool.

I have read the God Delusion all the way through and can confirm it's...quite good, but basically mis-titled. He deals with God in the first few chapters. Basically: you can't prove that God exists; therefore, there is no reason to assume, from a scientific standpoint, that he does. Ta-da. But obviously a lot follows from that point - science being the best tool we have for understanding how the world works, after all...

As a defence of atheism it's rip-roaring. And I think it's certainly worth someone defending atheism in times such as these. Dawkins even provides a very good deconstruction of the Dutch Cartoon Furore which, while it may not make you lose faith in God, will probably make you lose all faith in the media (if you hadn't already).

Basically, Dawkins is like Churchill: bit of a twat but historically necessary. Although as far as I'm aware he isn't nearly as funny when he's drunk.

Readers looking for a more entertaining piece of debunking, however, are advised to read Derren Brown's Tricks of the Mind, which I picked up in an off-moment at the book shop I work in thinking, hmm, hypnotism, hey, and wound up loaning out and finishing off in twenty-four hours with nary a break to take sustenance. I have to say I've never watched any of Brown's shows all the way through, but on the basis of this book I'm convinced he's Hugo Rune. Honestly.

21:23 / 21.11.06

Sorry, yeah, the No true Scotsman fallacy,

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

And, with all due respect to Jack Fear, it is pretty much what he does above. You can't be attacking a straw man if the opinion you critique is widespread, can you?

21:26 / 21.11.06

Okay, can someone who's read the book tell me if he deals with what I'd call the "celebratory" aspect of religion - that is, the fact that it's absolutely gobsmackingly amazing and paradoxical strange to be here at all. Personally, I find ideas and metaphors for thinking about, and deepening my experience of, this much more commonly in religion than I do in science (though I certainly would concede that science can produce a sense of wonder).

I ask this as I read the first chapter - came free with a paper - and was heroically underimpressed. "God! Hah! It's just the same as when you see patterns in the wallpaper! do you see!" Thousands of years of human history and attempts at understanding down to a pattern recogntion error. No, I don't see actually. To go on that chapter alone, he seems to have an amazingly narrow and simplistic view of our subjectivity. Not surprising from a guy who came up with "The Selfish Gene" and meme theory. The latter at least, is not something that does anything to explain our sophistication as human beings. I've come up with better ideas in the bath.

This view on Dawkins is influenced by reading Unweaving the Rainbow - an otherwise great book is spolit by his huge hostility towrds the anything that smacks of the irrational. He compares the X-Files with a hypothetical racist TV programme. He says:

I am not saying that supernaturalist propoganda is as dangerous or as unpleasant as racist propoganda. But the X-Files systematically purveys an anti-rational view of the world which by virtue of it's recurrent persistence, is insidious.

If you're going to have the hots for a scientist, get stuck into Steven Rose. Science and socialism together! And he consistently argues for a more complex view of both issues of genetics, and science's nature as a social phenomena.

He gets a real swoon from me.

21:34 / 21.11.06

But religion is uniquely equipped to answer certain questions on which science is silent, e.g. Who are we? Why are we here? How are we to behave?

Hmmm. I wouldn't say "uniquely equipped". I think I'd say "consistently has more practice at" if I was attempting the comparision with science. Relgion's sphere is often what's meaningful on a personal and experiential level. Science's "project" such that it is, seems totally different.

I have to say I do like Dawkins for his singlemindness actually.

21:37 / 21.11.06

You can't be attacking a straw man if the opinion you critique is widespread, can you?

What if the opinion you critique is tangential to the actual question that you're claiming to tackle?

"Millions of people believe in a seven-day creation; seven-day creation is demonstrably false; therefore, religion in all its manifestations is worthless and despicable." Do you see the leap of logic there? It's like saying, "Millions of people believe that Bogart said 'Play it again, Sam'; Bogart demonstrably never said, 'Play it again, Sam'; therefore Casablanca is a shit film."

22:11 / 21.11.06

"Millions of people believe in a seven-day creation; seven-day creation is demonstrably false; therefore, religion in all its manifestations is worthless and despicable."

Do those quotation marks indicate that this is a quote from Dawkins, Jack? I haven't seen where he says that.

I'm only a third of the way through The God Delusion but I haven't encountered that argument yet. From what I've read so far, I would have expected the Dawkins argument to be that Bogart demonstrably never said, 'Play it again, Sam'; therefore Bogart never said "Play it again, Sam" and whether the film was a good one or a bad one would not be contingent upon belief that he did.

I'm enjoying the book hugely and the vituperous negative reviews indicate to me that he's striking the targets he intends, with some precision. But then I think Dawkins is a national treasure.

22:14 / 21.11.06

Seconding Steven Rose on moral grounds, but physically he does nothing for me. Tell you what, though, I'd shag that Susan Greenfield. Phwoar.

22:42 / 21.11.06

Only I don't think it is tangential, Jack. Its not just a few crazies, and the belief in a creator who intervenes in our daily lives, no matter how flawed the idea, is incredibly common, in my experience. Looking at the scientific observables in religion, and seeing the numerous flaws makes for legitimate criticism. Now I'd agree that there is more to religion and that there are more nuanced takes that people have. No question.

And I think Dawkins knows this as well but, I believe, he thinks that there is a sleight of hand at work. He thinks that the more sophisticated defences of religion rely on the more basic ones and vice versa. The crude, 'My God is bigger than yours' sentiment, and thousands like it is very satisfying emotionally, and the intellectual arguments which treat scripture as inspirational metaphor work well intellectually. But the power of belief is, in part, due to its popularity. So you need the crude, emotionally satisfying 'God saved my hamster' moments in order for the whole thing to work. If everyone accepted the metaphorical point of view, there wouldn't be organised widespread religion as we know it, and religion might not be accorded the same respect or influence. I think thats where Dawkins is, and I think thats why he goes for the easy target. Its a bit shallow and heavily influenced by his own many brushed with creationism, I suppose, but I'm glad that someone is there saying the things he says.

22:52 / 21.11.06

If everyone accepted the metaphorical point of view, there wouldn't be organised widespread religion as we know it

...and, with any luck, religion would be more like what I understand invocational magick to be - a way of relating to an entity who may or may not be real in order to secure some tangible benefit IRL...

The thing with Dawkins is he isn't full-on against the religions, per se. Several times in The God Delusion he praises religious individuals who have a more sophisticated understanding. It's the dumb believers that he's really gunning for.

Whisky Priestess

08:43 / 22.11.06

GUYZZZ!

I think we're totally straying from the WHOLE point of this thread with all this science/religion stuff. Behold teh HOTT:

"Hi, I'm Richard Dawkins. You may remember me from such books as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion!"

Rrrowr!

I got the pic from a Danish newspaper's list of 100 Hottest* Intellectuals of All Time. Noam Chomsky was #1.

(might have actually been "Most Influential")

P.S. eiranfracar, if you feel strangely drawn to our boyish hero, try and get hold of his series of Christmas lectures for the Royal Institution on DVD: it was first broadcast sometime between 1994 and 1997 and called (I seem to remember) "Climbing Mount Improbable". You will be pleased to hear that it's pure science sauce: about six hours of full-on Dawkins-on-Darwin (although Bryson(?) the lab assistant, gets to help out).

09:17 / 22.11.06

Well Dawkins won my vote for Big Ol' Berk of the Year when he fronted that awful God Delusion show on Channel 4. Talk about populist nonsense. The man marched round the world meeting and greeting religious fundamentalists from most of big faiths, allowed them to behave like arseholes in front of the camera, and then went on to claim that religious ideology was at the heart of most of worlds woes, and that if only we could do away with religion the world would be so, so, so much nicer.
Fucking crap, if you ask me. In fact I wish I could remember it in more detail 'cause it had me shouting at the screen.

I'm speaking as an atheist.

Page: (1)2