Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Richard Dawkins has a better brain than most, but he has an ego to match, and a steel-clad preconceived personal opinion of all things which is so immovable that he makes the fundies on this forum seem reasonable.
Science is fairly accurate, but it's become a "religion" of it's own and can be just as rooted in dogma. Also, science is imperfect, in some cases outright wrong and slow to accept superior new concepts.
Certainly people 500 years in the future will look at our scientists with the same amusement as we look at little kids making baking soda volcanoes for the science fair today. "At least they were trying", they will say as they shake their heads in bemusement...
Of course. But, I do admire his courage to just flat-out say what he believes... even if it goes against the majority. I guess I'm enraptured at the moment because I consider myself an amateur biologist.
I like Richard Dawkins and have read most of his books but, I have to admit, I didn't have any problems reading them. I will say that the books are indeed written at a higher-level of reading than your average Christian theology book. Surprise! Surprise!
My biggest problem with The God Delusion was that it reminded me so much of Bertrand Russell's Why I'm Not A Christian that I essentially thought it was a re-write. It was not an extraordinarily original thought process but, rather, a re-popularization of older sentiments with a more modern day focal point. Still good. Still interesting. Just not the original work of art everyone made it out to be.
The Blind Watchmaker was a book that really opened my eyes to the simplicities of how evolution actually works, the awesome power of what natural selection is, and how multi-faceted and integral that particular line of thought can be. It is, in my opinion, his best work. If there's anything by Dawkins one should read, it's that one.
I like Richard Dawkins and have read most of his books but, I have to admit, I didn't have any problems reading them. I will say that the books are indeed written at a higher-level of reading than your average Christian theology book. Surprise! Surprise!
My biggest problem with The God Delusion was that it reminded me so much of Bertrand Russell's Why I'm Not A Christian that I essentially thought it was a re-write. It was not an extraordinarily original thought process but, rather, a re-popularization of older sentiments with a more modern day focal point. Still good. Still interesting. Just not the original work of art everyone made it out to be.
The Blind Watchmaker was a book that really opened my eyes to the simplicities of how evolution actually works, the awesome power of what natural selection is, and how multi-faceted and integral that particular line of thought can be. It is, in my opinion, his best work. If there's anything by Dawkins one should read, it's that one.
It's next on my list. If I had realized the order that the books had been written in to begin with, I probably would've started with "The Selfish Gene". But, whatever.
I'm glad you didn't struggle through the reading. I'm glad there are people out there who have the intellect to understand Dawkins' language. It is unfortunate that the "dumbing down" of America has made it to where the average person cannot read things like this. (Done on purpose, perhaps?) And, I am embarrassed and disappointed that I have been caught in that trap. I'm struggling through though!
One of these days, when I get rich and famous (yeah right), I want to start taking some Evolutionary Biology courses just so I can increase my understanding... but it's probably not going to happen for a while. (Teacher salary- yikes)
Ok- I'm about halfway through, and have already learned so much. As a Biology teacher, I love the way this guy is a Biologist and makes references to Darwinism all throughout his book. I can't wait to read "The Selfish Gene" and "Blind Watchmaker". I also think it would be incredibly awesome to hear him speak, but the chances of that happening in Oklahoma are slim to none.
Here's my problem with it...
This book makes me feel so incredibly stupid because there is so much in it that I don't have the foggiest notion of what he is talking about. He also uses big words and I realize that my American education is seriously lacking. I am struggling through though. I'm going to start taking notes of anything I'm clueless about so I can do a little research on things like memes, NOMA, etc.
I'm sure this has been discussed over and over and over on this forum, but hey, I'm new. What are your thoughts on the book? Those of you who are actually educated in Biological sciences, what is your take?
Dawkins is a stereotypical arrogant, condescending intellectual trying to follow in the footsteps of his apparent heroes, Oscar Wilde, and Bertrand Russell; but more so Bertrand Russell because Russell actually had some claim to being a real scientist (mathematician) unlike Wilde. Like Russell Dawkins is trying to write a book that is written in a cryptic fashion, and in it Dawkins is grievously insulting to those who are honest in that they don't understand what he is ultimately trying to say (even if there is a chance they agree with him). His type of intellectualism breeds a kind of emperor's clothing (you know the story where everyone including the emperor pretends to see the emperors new clothing because some tricksters said only wise people could see them and fools could not?) type of scholar who actually have no clue what he is really saying, but pretend that they do to avoid being called a fool by Dawkins, and those who are duped by Dawkins and pretend to understand him fully. Dawkins is an adept in Biology, but his work in philosophy in general and religious philosophy in particular is almost below juvenile in his treatment of both subjects. My point is this: if you don't understand Dawkins its not your fault because he has purposely shrouded his simple message within an armor of polysyllabic, and/or obsolete words. His message is simple, God doesn't exist because he (Dawkins) doesn't like the idea of God. I know this departs from his supposed numbered points in the book, but when you get to bottom-line of what he is saying it is no more difficult than what I just wrote.
I want to point out something to you. Dawkins is writing to a general audience yet he chooses wording that is difficult for even the educated elite to understand (just as Bertrand Russell did with his work Principia Mathematica). This is a debating tactic so that no matter what you say that even remotely sounds like an objection, he (Dawkins) can claim, with his typical insulting manner, that you didn't really understand him, or you miquoted him if you don't use his obsolete words and phrases. Its an interesting tactic that usually works for intellectuals. A true professional can explain their subject and make it seem simple; just like a professional gymnast makes tumbling, and handstands look simple. In fact if you saw one struggling and shaking doing a handstand, you would think, ' that gymnast has a lot to learn.' The same goes for intellectuals. If you can't make it seem simple, then you don't truly understand your subject well.
Dawkins, following the Bertrand Russell method of intellectualism, takes something simple and turns it into something extraordinarily difficult. That's because Dawkins doesn't really know this subject very well. If you are confused about Dawkins meaning, believe me, you are not alone. Most people don't truly understand Dawkins either even if they pretend they do.
trounds2: I didn't have any trouble reading Dawkins' books. It seems to me that you had a big chip on your shoulder about "stereotypical arrogant, condescending intellectual[s]" going in. I admit that I had to think hard about them in places and re-read a few passages to gain full understanding, but it was well worth it.
Milleka, The Ancestor's Tale is my favorite and is all about evolutionary biology, a truly great book IMO. Give it a shot!
Ok- I'm about halfway through, and have already learned so much. As a Biology teacher, I love the way this guy is a Biologist and makes references to Darwinism all throughout his book.
(snipped for brevity)
This book makes me feel so incredibly stupid because there is so much in it that I don't have the foggiest notion of what he is talking about. He also uses big words and I realize that my American education is seriously lacking. I am struggling through though. I'm going to start taking notes of anything I'm clueless about so I can do a little research on things like memes, NOMA, etc.
I'm sure this has been discussed over and over and over on this forum, but hey, I'm new. What are your thoughts on the book? Those of you who are actually educated in Biological sciences, what is your take?
You are so right, Milleka. There's an information overload and explosion going on. This will continue to be a problem even with all man's existing knowledge base. I don't know if you also read my post from two days ago with the video presentation that Sony Corp. did in their most recent shareholder's meeting. Please check it out; it directly applies to your comments and questions:
This exponential growth in information, especially at the sub-micro-detailed level, requires a decent grounding in the basics of a technical subject to even turn the page on the more recent and far more detailed stuff. This problem highlights the "informational elephant" that now sits in the room, or like Mt. Everest looming in the hazy distance, haunting us all. But mostly, it truly haunts devout but scientifically uneducated and thus illiterate fundamentalist Christians.
To add to their problems, they generally choose to remain illiterate, preferring the far more simplistic Godly version, especially if they refuse to deal with the many biblical inconsistencies and contradictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djuna
I think almost everyone feels intellectually lacking when reading OR listening to Richard Dawkins. The man is a genius. He has won many awards and has Honorary Degrees from all kinds of Universities.
And his books are brilliant.
You're right of course, Djuna, and his "brilliance" can easily be verified on its technical merits alone, but I doubt that 1 in 1000 Christians will ever actually pick up and read this book or any others on the topic with an open mind . I'll also predict that you'll get quite the hostile responses here as well! .
Why? Because the threat such up-to-date and now-proven knowledge generates against the ancient Christian mythology must be stopped at all costs, including a willing sacrifice of personal honesty and integrity of the denialist. After all, that is of minor stature and sacrifice when Jesus' imagined integrity is in jeopardy!
Anyhow, to your point and inquiry, I have three degrees in the biosciences(and one in engineering, with some additional post-grad stuff in specialized geology and hydrology...), including some specialties in toxicology, genetics and evolution. But I'm also aware that my most recent "educational uptake" was in the early '80s!, and my engineering studies were finished in the late '60s. We were not allowed to use handheld calculators back then, only slide rules ("Slide what?", mutter the kidz ere...)
What my background does support however, is an ongoing willingness to happily "go look it up!", coupled with a "no fear" attitude towards those otherwise intimidating and brand-new 0.75¢ techno-words, plus an endless enthusiasm to find the truth in an increasingly intricate technological world. I can therefore usually understand some new process or research technique since, in the end, it's always based on a simple hypothesis and usually employs an elegant design method to get to that right answer.
Such elegance in modern research design, when glimpsed by the more intransigent types, usually results in a vicious tirade of unrelated, disrespectful and erroneous insults and rebukes; claims that "such and such" technique "is grossly inaccurate and presumptive!"... (Well OK, it may have been way back in 1957 when the study they now quote ass proof was last done...).
So, the answer to your quandary?
1) Do not be afraid to spend a bit of time quickly reviewing [speed-reading?] some of the latest studies, or post an honest question here on C-D, even here in the R&P sub, if it applies to the topic under "debate".
2) You can always send a polite but brief e-mail to the various sites that Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking and others offer up Even if you disagree with their perspective, that's no problem, as long as it's logical [i.e.: no ""Well you're just stupid! Obviously, Goddunnit!"].
They will often graciously spend time with an honest inquirer as to the technical limits of their study, but also they will often elaborate on what it's special high points may be, and even on what newer techniques or improvements they might be working on. Good stuff to share with your class!
In fact, () it could be an interesting class project to get in touch with one of these techno-specialists and have him or her communicate, perhaps even live on web cam, to discuss (in appropriate levels of sophistication of coucrse...) such modern works. This can only enhance a student's interest in science and it's growing applications.
For instance, I spent some time e-mailing to Dr. Richard Lenski in regards to his landmark 2008 publication where he essentially captured, via DNA genome mapping, the significant genetic changes, due entirely to chaos and chance mutation, within a bacterial genome.
This change resulted, absolutely, in speciation at the recordable DNA level, making the new species able to utilize a resource that it's predecessor parents could not. In fact, that prior inability was one of the definers of the predecessor species, and therefore the offspring was, by definition, a new species.
Of course, then, just as predictably, this discovery was vehemently denied.... Dr. Lenski has received a lot of controversial communications since this study was published, including some very nasty hate mail (remember: such factual information must be summarily beheaded, or else!).
Just don't give up. As it's established in so many independent trials and applications, this information becomes more entrenched and accepted. Eventually, it becomes common knowledge to those who do not fear technology, factual information and truth in the education of our children.
Ok- YOU'RE awesome and if I had a picture of you, I would hang it on my wall alongside Darwin, Einstein, Sagan, and Dawkins.
But, yeah, I don't want to be the type of person who dismisses something just because I lack the understanding to appreciate it. I do not have an extensive background in Biology. I wish I did, but I ignorantly chose another path when I was 17. So, because of my poor decisions (or lack of knowledge to KNOW anything about ANYTHING) I have to learn things on my own. Part of this is because I grew up in an area that is highly Christian Fundamentalist. Nobody ever spoke of these topics where I'm from, so I didn't even know I COULD know about Evolutionary Biology. I mean, sure, my Dad sat us down in front of Nova every Tuesday night, but I still didn't quite grasp what was going on because it was the Devil, you know? And, SO true that science grows by leaps and bounds on a daily basis. It is almost impossible for anyone to keep up completely. I want to just start with the basics and work my way up then.
An alternate perspective, based in facts (IMHO....)
(rifleman's note: edited down to the points I want to discuss, and for brevity...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by trounds2
Dawkins is an adept in Biology, but his work in philosophy in general and religious philosophy in particular is almost below juvenile in his treatment of both subjects.
Welllllllll.... I'd like to see some specific references to this point in the general case, trounds2, rather than generalities. My experience with reading his (and others'...) works in science, or listening to his thoughtful debates, is that in fact he regularly goes out of his way to simplify concepts, coupling them with unarguable technical points to make an excellent and largely irrefutable point.
It may also be that an excellent but complex technical point (which makes an unambiguous point against your point of view) may thus be rejected by you on a subjective and subliminal level, because of how it may threaten or completely debunk an ancient biblical viewpoint, now dis-proven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trounds2
I want to point out something to you. Dawkins is writing to a general audience yet he chooses wording that is difficult for even the educated elite to understand (just as Bertrand Russell did with his work Principia Mathematica). This is a debating tactic so that no matter what you say that even remotely sounds like an objection, he (Dawkins) can claim, with his typical insulting manner, that you didn't really understand him, or you miquoted him if you don't use his obsolete words and phrases. Its an interesting tactic that usually works for intellectuals. A true professional can explain their subject and make it seem simple.
Dawkins, following the Bertrand Russell method of intellectualism, takes something simple and turns it into something extraordinarily difficult. That's because Dawkins doesn't really know this subject very well. If you are confused about Dawkins meaning, believe me, you are not alone. Most people don't truly understand Dawkins either even if they pretend they do.
Your statement, highlighted in blue above, is demonstrably incorrect, IMO. In fact, such mis-claims as you have made here are a strategic ploy utilized by fundamentalists who decry modern factual scientific information. I may well disagree with you, but then that's our individual prerogative here, right?
Another poster here, a somewhat verbally arrogant Christian who wears his high education levels on his sleeve, often utilizes $1.75¢ words to discuss 0.25¢ facts and thus he hides the appalling lack of any fundamental direction in his arguments. Instead, he chooses to camouflage his points in high-falutin' verbiage, in hopes of chasing potential debaters off the battle front.
Dawkin's information is, for the most part, highly organized, understandable and properly focused for the novice and non-scientist. Perhaps that treatment nonetheless presents a fundamentalist Christian mindset with an increasingly worsening taste in their mouths? v if such information takes root in the awakening mind, what hext?
At the very least, technically you'd be hard-pressed to dismiss all the claims that Dawkins, Hitchens and Hawking present. There's more than a just a few kernels of truth here, and even one or two of them can present a very real threat to the limited Creationist viewpoint.
Taken in total, these later-day science information officers represent a major philosophical threat to Christian hegemony. The increasing need for their content to be high-tech cannot be as easily reduced not understood as it was several decades ago, but this does not decrease it's importance or alidity. It just may be that the will be an ever-widening gap in scientific knowledge and understanding in the general population.
[Note: another truly accomplished scientific non-apologist is Dr. David Suzuki, a theoretical geneticist and evolutionist from our mutually shared time there at Western Canada's Univ. of B.C. And of course there's the late great loved/hated Carl Sagan. Oh, and also Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, the renowned and enjoyable astrophysicist, who specializes in explaining the complex in non-technical ways. Do check out YouTube for a few of these guys' varied, nifty and amusing scientific info-sessions! It's enlightening to be sure!
Oddly, all three of these eloquent speakers are regularly and vehemently discredited on their proven technical points. "To complex!"; "Too theoretical!"; "Too...wordy!"; "Too many notes!!" (Oh sorry; wrong movie... ) . Whenever any of these highly capable communicators appear on the national media, or in documentaries, they are predictably decried, hated and berated. Why is this, you may wonder...]
It's up to you science teachers to bridge that gaping info-gap, and to stamp out the wildfires of imposed ignorance! Good luck! You've got my backing and appreciation, folks! Ignore the slings and arrows or orchestrated ignorance: they're now officially dull!
(rifleman's note: edited down to the points I want to discuss, and for brevity...)
Welllllllll.... I'd like to see some specific references to this point in the general case, trounds2, rather than generalities. My experience with reading his (and others'...) works in science, or listening to his thoughtful debates, is that in fact he regularly goes out of his way to simplify concepts, coupling them with unarguable technical points to make an excellent and largely irrefutable point.
It may also be that an excellent but complex technical point (which makes an unambiguous point against your point of view) may thus be rejected by you on a subjective and subliminal level, because of how it may threaten or completely debunk an ancient biblical viewpoint, now dis-proven.
Your statement, highlighted in blue above, is demonstrably incorrect, IMO. In fact, such mis-claims as you have made here are a strategic ploy utilized by fundamentalists who decry modern factual scientific information. I may well disagree with you, but then that's our individual prerogative here, right?
Another poster here, a somewhat verbally arrogant Christian who wears his high education levels on his sleeve, often utilizes $1.75¢ words to discuss 0.25¢ facts and thus he hides the appalling lack of any fundamental direction in his arguments. Instead, he chooses to camouflage his points in high-falutin' verbiage, in hopes of chasing potential debaters off the battle front.
Dawkin's information is, for the most part, highly organized, understandable and properly focused for the novice and non-scientist. Perhaps that treatment nonetheless presents a fundamentalist Christian mindset with an increasingly worsening taste in their mouths? v if such information takes root in the awakening mind, what hext?
At the very least, technically you'd be hard-pressed to dismiss all the claims that Dawkins, Hitchens and Hawking present. There's more than a just a few kernels of truth here, and even one or two of them can present a very real threat to the limited Creationist viewpoint.
Taken in total, these later-day science information officers represent a major philosophical threat to Christian hegemony. The increasing need for their content to be high-tech cannot be as easily reduced not understood as it was several decades ago, but this does not decrease it's importance or alidity. It just may be that the will be an ever-widening gap in scientific knowledge and understanding in the general population.
[Note: another truly accomplished scientific non-apologist is Dr. David Suzuki, a theoretical geneticist and evolutionist from our mutually shared time there at Western Canada's Univ. of B.C. And of course there's the late great loved/hated Carl Sagan. Oh, and also Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, the renowned and enjoyable astrophysicist, who specializes in explaining the complex in non-technical ways. Do check out YouTube for a few of these guys' varied, nifty and amusing scientific info-sessions! It's enlightening to be sure!
Oddly, all three of these eloquent speakers are regularly and vehemently discredited on their proven technical points. "To complex!"; "Too theoretical!"; "Too...wordy!"; "Too many notes!!" (Oh sorry; wrong movie... ) . Whenever any of these highly capable communicators appear on the national media, or in documentaries, they are predictably decried, hated and berated. Why is this, you may wonder...]
It's up to you science teachers to bridge that gaping info-gap, and to stamp out the wildfires of imposed ignorance! Good luck! You've got my backing and appreciation, folks! Ignore the slings and arrows or orchestrated ignorance: they're now officially dull!
No, Dawkins is clearly not a philosopher. His basic premise is juvenile, and that cannot be dressed up with a million notes, and footnotes. If I say 'girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice,' even if I cited the leading gynecologists, feminist studies groups (who probably believe that statement), and any other 'expert,' the premise is still silly and juvenile. I could go through point by point what I mean, but from your post, I believe it would be a waste of space. I believe you could understand me if you wanted to, but it sounds like you are a fan of Dawkins, and will not listen to any criticism of the man's presentation. So I'll end with this: There are many, real philosophers who have made very damning indictments of religion which are pointed and not easily dismissed by Christians, but Dawkins is simply not one of them.
Ok- I'm about halfway through, and have already learned so much. As a Biology teacher, I love the way this guy is a Biologist and makes references to Darwinism all throughout his book. I can't wait to read "The Selfish Gene" and "Blind Watchmaker". I also think it would be incredibly awesome to hear him speak, but the chances of that happening in Oklahoma are slim to none.
Here's my problem with it...
This book makes me feel so incredibly stupid because there is so much in it that I don't have the foggiest notion of what he is talking about. He also uses big words and I realize that my American education is seriously lacking. I am struggling through though. I'm going to start taking notes of anything I'm clueless about so I can do a little research on things like memes, NOMA, etc.
I'm sure this has been discussed over and over and over on this forum, but hey, I'm new. What are your thoughts on the book? Those of you who are actually educated in Biological sciences, what is your take?
Neither NOMA or memes are science terms, why would biologists without an interest in philosophy have any clue about those terms?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And now a short message from our sponsor....
. I'll also predict that you'll get quite the hostile responses here as well! 
. 
) it could be an interesting class project to get in touch with one of these techno-specialists and have him or her communicate, perhaps even live on web cam, to discuss (in appropriate levels of sophistication of coucrse...) such modern works. This can only enhance a student's interest in science and it's growing applications.
Thank GOD, huh?)
An alternate perspective, based in facts (IMHO....)
