The Atheism Tapes - Richard Dawkins - Religious Awakening

[sageclem]

It's repulsive how many people here in the states don't accept facts. Yes, you have the right to believe in whatever nonsense you'd like, but does that give you the right to obstruct the progression of research and understanding?

[gbrownstrat]

Design is a bad explanation mainly because, if it were true, it was done very poorly.

[XxFightinDirtyxX]

Design is a bad explaination of the beginning of life? Darwinism has no explaination of the beginning of life.

[sagitarian000028]

google astrotheology and jesus

[Wintblash]

google Doe's Account.

[armelix73]

It's interesting how the human mind works. When we do not understand something we turn to X, or god as we call it. We just have to force an answer no matter what. Human arrogance cannot allow the simple "I don't know". Ignorance, and the lack of understanding of the surroundings, is the culprit for religious sentiments as far as I can see. . .

[LJCampbell25]

So Dawkins was an ID believer and admits to the glorious design and complexity of the universe and life. Hmmm, have to favorite this one. =o)

[photojack53]

He was BRIEFLY an ID believer as a child between 8 and 16 years old. He overcame this mistake upon learning much more about science and Darwinian evolution. Listen to the whole video, read his book, "The God Delusion" and know beyond a shadow of doubt where he and other critically thinking people stand. Religious beliefs are declining globally, the trend is established and time will reduce ALL RELIGIONS TO INSIGNIFICANCE.

[photojack53]

"A wonderful, electrifyingly simple explanation for the complexities of life... Darwinian evolution!" While philosophers speculate, scientists postulate! I hope Dawkins is definitely seen as a scientist, first and foremost. Through "The God Delusion" he has put religion in its proper place, as an outmoded belief system doomed to ever decreasing influence over the affairs of mankind.  SCIENCE PREVAILS, RELIGION FAILS!

[justseanmusic]

lol, nice slogan =]

[paradirob]

Cultural evolution intersects with biological evolution. Exactly how is still unclear, but there are environmental parameters that seem to accumulate around a thick 'now.' Culture passes on replicated memes as brain to brain transmitted information. We can limit the influence our genetic predispositions have over our behaviors by choosing to act against our instinctual inclinations. Religion is a meme that co-operates with culture in order to assure cohesiveness throughout the culture, hence...

[paradirob]

See Dawkins' video entitled 'The Purpose of Purpose-Richard Dawkins (corrected). In this video he talks about 'the subversion of goals' and the difference between 'archeo-purpose' and 'neo-purpose.' The point is that evolution is responsible for archeo-purpose because it appears in evolution as 'purposeful' as we see it. Then there are man-made 'designed' artifacts that serve a neo-purpose as well as naturally evolved neo-purposes that have 'purpose' on the archeo-purpose level of understanding.

[procommenter]

It's time to stop claiming that theories are facts, and it's time to stop using "science" to promulgate the debunked claims of the charlatan Charles Darwin.

[VierasMarius]

And it's time to stop claiming that superstitions are theories.

[procommenter]

Darwinism is nothing without its brethren.

[goingtoeatpizza]

Procommenter: "Darwinism is nothing without its brethren"

How bizarre...

Im guessing by your comment that you dont "believe" in evolution? After 150 years of constant experimentation and attempts to debunk evolution it has been cemented as fact. The advancements we have today in molecular biology wouldnt be possible if evolution was not a fact. If you cant see that you are either ignorant or seriously misled.

[paradirob]

Dawkins is one of the greatest thinkers of all time. Is there a designer? No. This planet, this universe, cannot have had a watchmaker creation. It just seems to me, that once you get it, it becomes simple to understand. However, it would take a lifetime of serious erudition unless you were just born yesterday and are willing to take Dawkins' word for it. The bottom up explanation of creation is something that has come of age. Dawkins is to Biology what Einstein was to Physics.

[MikeLtheSoulChild]

You really need to do a whole lot more studying if you think he's one of the greatest of ALL TIME! and Dawkins is not even close to Einsteins position, he's a mainstream scientist, what you say is like saying Sartre is one of the greatest philosophers, or even thinkers of all time, simply because a lot of people read him! you need to do your homework, obviously you're a novice!

[paradirob]

You bring up interesting contrasts, for the love of Mike! Einstein had a religious streak, all right, when his friend died and he thought of him as still existing in some past time. Yes, Dawkins is mainstream and does not register on the scientific Richter Scale as prominently as Einstein does, but he has offered the curious reader of biology another way of looking at life. I'm not saying that it is preferable to other ways, but it is certainly considered by many to be a revolution in biology.

[paradirob]

I would be interested in knowing your opinion about Sartre's philosophy. How would you rate Sartre as a philosopher? As for Dawkins' qualification as a 'thinker,' I would argue that his prose is erudite and detailed in its logical precision. He may be using his abilities to argue unpleasant topics, but he is clear about what he says. I have read The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, and a few of his other writings.

[MikeLtheSoulChild]

Hey Im sorry I called you a novice, I got a little carried away, but I still disagree with you, I may be able to accept if you said that he was one of the greatest thinkers present, but in comparison to people like Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Bohr, Darwin, Einstein etc. he is not really worth mentioning, I'd say in a 100 years he's probably forgotten, being able to lay out a discipline so that the mass understands it, or get interested doesn't necessarily make you a

[MikeLtheSoulChild]

great thinker, rather it makes you a great communicator, but there are many of those, Dawkins fame is first & foremost because of his style, and his "beef" with creationists, that attracted a lot of attention to him. As for Sartre he is, well not insignificant, but close too, when you read his main work being & nothingness you see how much he has stolen from Heidegger. Interesting Nietzsche isn't consider that great either, which really surprised me, but those are the ones laymen knows about

[MikeLtheSoulChild]

what Laymen does not know about is Kant, Hegel, Frege, Wittgenstein or Heidegger etc, cause they are a lot more complicated to read and understands, it wouldn't fair to any phiosophers to make a list but if I was to attempt one anyway, my top 5 goes:

1. Kant

2. Heidegger

3. Aristotle

4. Frege

5. Wittgenstein

But Sartre wouldn't be in my top 25 or maybe even top 50, but if you've read Sartre try read heidegger you see why the mass does not know about him!

[paradirob]

I wonder what the contemporaries of Newton thought about his laws of motion. No big thing, right? But in retrospect we appreciate that he knew more than anyone else did. Some of the authors who quote Dawkins have been David Deutsch, Julian Barbour, Dinesh D'Sousa, Lee Smolin, and Brian Greene. I believe that Dawkins has set off a revolution in biology that will be dearly remembered a hundred years from today. But he makes a better biologist than he does a philosopher. Negative publicity hurts.

[paradirob]

I like your top 5 list. Kant would have to be close to #1 on my list as well. I spent years on Sartre and wrote my masters pitting him against Dawkins. I understood Existentialism more than I understood the Selfish Gene. Later, I came to appreciate the depth of Dawkins'knowledge. His thinking boarders on speculation yet it is very creative and insightful. He is much more than just style. The detail of his knowledge is astounding. The Extended Phenotype, sequel to Selfish Gene, is a masterpiece.

[MikeLtheSoulChild]

Well I don't know what Newtons contemporaries thought of him, but that's a great point. But tell me more specific about the revolution you believe he had set off. I must admit that Im not too strong in biology. I have the "god delusion" but the argumentation in it was kind of primitive I thought, thinking too myself "duh, obviously" so I never finished it, and I know from Dennett his idea of mems which is interesting, but they seem more like a cultural matter to me than a biological one.

[MikeLtheSoulChild]

You say you've read sartre, have you then read Heidegger as well, I'm writting my bachelors dissertation on him right now!

[paradirob]

...memetic influence on behavior is biological because the brain is a biological entity. Memetics is a biological extension of genetics; therefore, a culture and its society are biological. We will need to engineer the management of memetic transmission of information in the future to prevent future wars. In an ever-growing world population, nano-technology and AI will be needed in order to avoid the self-annihilating tendencies of an over-crowded planet. I'm glad I won't be here in 2525 AD!(?)

[VierasMarius]

@paradirob: I've often thought of human evolution as accelerating via the development of societies - ie, stronger societies survive and pass on their practices to successive generations, assimilate other cultures, adapt to changing conditions, etc. But I think you've explained it far better than I could! I should probably study memetics further.

[paradirob]

The Romans assimilated the Greek culture. Rome then fell apart 400 years later and that plunged Europe into the Dark Ages. The Arabs had a vibrant and thriving culture during those times. Since the Renaissance in Europe, another 800 years later, the West reached the top. Since 1900, knowledge and technology has sky-rocketed. The last 120 years has seen the greatest acceleration in science and knowledge than ever before. Many factors outside of memetics contribute to epistemological acceleration.

[paradirob]

Memetics is a theoretical science that, rather than dealing with material bodies such as neurons or genes, deals with how they replicate patterns of images into ideas. Memes are chains of images that get themselves replicated and spread as they are copied by other individual minds. Hence, the spread is 'horizontal' throughout culture. Genes are passed on 'vertically' via inheritance. A meme resembles a gene insofar as it gets itself replicated. Memes use the human brain as their medium/hardware.

[paradirob]

Also, see: How The Mind Works, Steven Pinker, W.W. Norton & Co., 1997, Paperback, pp. 205-210. Pinker says that memes are not passed on in the same way genes are. The latter take generations and are naturally selected. The former are worked on by individual minds and are not simply copied. Lamarck had it wrong when he proposed that traits were acquired during life and passed on. Cultural evolutionists have it wrong if they believe that memes are acquired (a la Lamarck) and then spread around.

[paradirob]

Pinker, p. 210: 'The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously wrote that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. We can add that nothing in culture makes sense except in the light of psychology. Evolution created psychology, and that is how it explains culture. The most important relic of early humans is the modern mind.'

[paradirob]

When I was getting my MA in philosophy at San Jose State College in the late 70's I was the only Sartrean amidst a cadre of Heideggerians.

The Professor was also into Heidegger and I had to complete a course in Heidegger. It was a breeze because of my background in Sartre. I was going to write a thesis comparing Sartre with Heidegger but opted, instead, to compare Sartre's existentialism, my forte, with E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology. That is when I encountered Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.