The Wrath Posted October 12, 2006 Report Share Posted October 12, 2006 I might pick this up...sounds interesting. He also makes a few statements on individualism which sound very Objectivist-y. http://www.venganza.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 If I'm thinking about right guy, I saw an interview with him on the Charlie Rose show where he expressed that he is a determinist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathanar Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 If I'm thinking about right guy, I saw an interview with him on the Charlie Rose show where he expressed that he is a determinist. His selfish gene book pushed the primary purpose in life is reproduction and protection of the genes, your children and future generations are more important than you. I've heard it referenced often to back the arguments for altruism from a rational perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Berkov Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 His selfish gene book pushed the primary purpose in life is reproduction and protection of the genes, your children and future generations are more important than you. I've heard it referenced often to back the arguments for altruism from a rational perspective. From what I remember of Dawkins' book his thesis was essentially scientific, not philosophical. From the viewpoint of the propagation and continuation of genetic material, reproduction IS more important than the quality of life any one individual organism has. This is why many species die after mating or reproducing. The fact that humans have interests and goals outside of reproduction doesn't invalidate the purpose of genes or DNA, it simply means that humans are complex organisms with multiple goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Febod Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 I've heard it referenced often to back the arguments for altruism from a rational perspective. Dawkins never uses the world 'altruism' the same way that rand does. To dawkins, altruism is a win/win decision making process, like pursuing the profit motive. To dawkins, altruism was helping others by helping yourself. From what I remember of Dawkins' book his thesis was essentially scientific, not philosophical. From the viewpoint of the propagation and continuation of genetic material, reproduction IS more important than the quality of life any one individual organism has. This is why many species die after mating or reproducing. The fact that humans have interests and goals outside of reproduction doesn't invalidate the purpose of genes or DNA, it simply means that humans are complex organisms with multiple goals. Right, Dawkins was never deterministic. In fact, he became appalled when contemporaries tried to spin his theory of a selfish gene in such a way, and expressed so in The Extended Phenotype. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelical Capitalist Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 I'm somewhat familiar with Dawkins: I read The Blind Watchmaker about a year ago when Intelligent Design was in the news. (It was enlighting insofar as it bore little to no resemblence to the manner in which I learned evolution in high school biology.) I've also seen his "Root of All Evil" documentary from the BBC, which I believe is based on The God Delusion. It's available on YouTube here: Root of All Evil: Part 1 and here: Root of All Evil: Part 2. My impression of him is somewhat like Sam Harris (without the Eastern mysticism, of course.) What he has to say about religion is absolutely correct and needs to be said, loudly and often, but I'm not sure he has much to offer in terms of positive ideas to fill the void that would be left. My biggest concern is his denial of rational certainty, though I think his position is hardly unusual in scientific circles. In "Root of All Evil" he several times gives the impression that certainty as such is a great a problem as faith. In fact, I'm not even sure he uses the "R"-word at all, prefering the term "evidence", as though a collection of concrete facts is the extent of knowledge available to us. That said, overall I generally like Dawkins, and will definitely consider reading The God Delusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathanar Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 I didn't say his work was philosophical or that he backed altruism as Rand used it. I said I've heard it referenced often to back the arguments for altruism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted October 13, 2006 Report Share Posted October 13, 2006 I'm pretty sure it was Dawkins that I saw on the Charlie Rose show. He seemed like an all around likeable and rational guy, but when the topic of free will came up he said he didn't believe in it. So, he doesn't believe in biblical determinism, but in a sort of Skinnerian determinism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted October 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2006 I don't know what the rest of his philosophy is, but he makes some statements in that video about how each person makes his own purpose in life...sounded pretty good to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted November 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 Just finished the book. I heartily recommend it to everyone on this board. It's not perfect...he takes a few shots at the War on Terror, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwertz Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 Dawkins is the subject of the most recent South Park to air on Comedy Central. It's a two-parter, and it doesn't start well. The show is trying to draw a sharp distinction between religious nonesense on one side (represented by Ms. Garrison's refusal to teach evolution) and materialist nonesense on the other (represented by Dawkins). I'm not very familiar with Dawkins' work, so I don't know if the portrayal is accurate, but the show boiled the argument for atheism down to "you wouldn't believe in a flying spaghetti monster, would you?" which was really quite disheartening. The second part airs on Wednesday night. This is the second time South Park has depicted atheism in a very negative light; they previously equated atheism with 'crapping out of your mouth.' The show is really starting to worry me a lot more than it used to. -Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted November 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 It seemed to pretty accurately reflect his beliefs but I, too, am worried about where they're going with this one. I think it might end up with Mr. Garrison going overboard and becoming a militant (as in, literally militant) atheist and Dawkins being the more reasonable person. South Park may occasionally screw up in its messages, but I think that they are generally good ones. I'm not going to condemn the whole show based on its stance on a single issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 6, 2006 Report Share Posted November 6, 2006 From Wired: "I'm quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism," Dawkins says [...]"The number of nonreligious people in the US is something nearer to 30 million than 20 million," he says. "That's more than all the Jews in the world put together. I think we're in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people had the courage to come out. I think that's the case with atheists. They are more numerous than anybody realizes."(HT: Philo, posting on the FORUM) I think that at some point the Evangelists are going to push the "common sense" religious, the atheists and the agnostics into a real "second" revolt against religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted November 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2006 It seemed to pretty accurately reflect his beliefs but I, too, am worried about where they're going with this one. I think it might end up with Mr. Garrison going overboard and becoming a militant (as in, literally militant) atheist and Dawkins being the more reasonable person. South Park may occasionally screw up in its messages, but I think that they are generally good ones. I'm not going to condemn the whole show based on its stance on a single issue. I didn't approve of the way that episode was resolved. Although I must admit I laughed when that guy used "Science H. Logic" as an expletive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwertz Posted November 10, 2006 Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 "Maybe just believing in God makes him real." "We've learned to get rid of all the -isms in our time" "No one single answer is ever the answer." Typical. Actually, the conclusion seems more consistent with the real Dawkins' philosophy. -Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted November 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2006 It's not really typical...in fact, it's quite atypical of South Park, which usually has very rational and level-headed messages. And I don't see how that is consistent with Dawkins' philosophy. Dawkins' statements about "shades of gray" refer to epistemological uncertainty, rather than metaphysical ambiguity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejohngaltline Posted November 11, 2006 Report Share Posted November 11, 2006 I've recently been following Dawkins, too. Just picked up The God Delusion. I also found this on Dawkins' website, it's a great introduction made by David Cowan before one of Dawkins' lectures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intellectualammo Posted November 11, 2006 Report Share Posted November 11, 2006 (edited) The cover of the current issue of TIME magazine really grabbed ahold of my attention, but I was working so I wasn't able to read it's contents. Anyone read it? Edited November 11, 2006 by intellectualammo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 (edited) Well, my post got lost. I will repost it later. I apologize for the wasted space. Edited December 1, 2006 by DarkWaters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 Is The God Delusion more than just a collection of polemics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted December 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Not really, but it's still worth reading. The part that I found particularly valuable was how Dawkins deals with agnosticism. That was the only part that I thought really contained any original material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWaters Posted March 27, 2007 Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 So [Richard Dawkins believes] in a sort of Skinnerian determinism. To those of you who have read The God Delusion, does this assessment make sense to you? Is this apparent in this particular work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wrath Posted March 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2007 To those of you who have read The God Delusion, does this assessment make sense to you? Is this apparent in this particular work? I didn't think so. He makes some arguments (ones I agree with, btw) that attempt to explain religion in terms of evolutionary psychology. They may go against Objectivist thinking, but to equate them with Skinnerian determinism is absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.