3. For some yet unknown reason, Dawkins misrepresented the thesis in his book, turning a work on altruism into a book on the selfishness of genes. — Olivier5
↪Kenosha Kid why the title, do you think? Why this conclusion? ("We are born selfish") You've read the book, right? It didn't strike you as odd? — Olivier5
The Selfish Gene itself takes the view that humans are altruistic, not circumstantially but genetically. — Kenosha Kid
Dawkins's message is basically that we are social animals on an evolutionary trajectory to ever more rational and therefore higher moral standards, but that the process has been derailed somewhere along the line by the appearance of religion. It had looked until recently as though we were shaking off religion and entering an Age of Reason. But now, with the rise of religious fundamentalism, there is a relapse which accounts for the world's present troubles. Nevertheless, thanks to the enlightenment Science brings, we can root out religion and get back on track.
Yes. It is at odds with the thesis of the book. In his forward to the second edition he expresses his regret for making that particular statement. — flaco
yet 'the altruistic gene' doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? — Wayfarer
Dawkins and his ilk are generally tone-deaf to the existential plight of h. sapiens. Indeed, they show no awareness of what an existential plight might consist of. — Wayfarer
They ridicule religion as 'failed empirical hypothesis' but it was never intended as that to begin with. And for those who never thought that the Bible was literally true in the first place, the fact that it's *not* literally true doesn't have the devastating philosophical implications that Dawkins hopes for. — Wayfarer
Or rather, to the genes of Toxoplasma gondii. — Banno
Evolutionary biologists are not in the business of existential plights, nor should they be — Kenosha Kid
The poorly named 'militant atheism' movement is not a reaction against people finding meaning by going to church. It's a reaction against people trying to ban scientific education in schools and replace it with creationism claiming to be science. I'm sure you'll agree that is not a good thing. — Kenosha Kid
In that case they should stick to their knitting and not write books which end up in the Religion section of the bookstore. — Wayfarer
hat is Richard Dawkins allowed to write about?
What sorts of things is he allowed to write about what he is allowed to write about? — Srap Tasmaner
Evolutionary biologists are not in the business of existential plights, nor should they be. — Kenosha Kid
But none of this is a threat to your views, so why do you care what he says? — Srap Tasmaner
In a broader sense, it's also a discussion of the influence of evolutionary biology on society and culture. — Wayfarer
In that case they should stick to their knitting and not write books which end up in the Religion section of the bookstore. — Wayfarer
That said, while we are an animal evolved in one environment now living in another, we are still that animal, — Kenosha Kid
Of course they can participate in the subject, they're principle stakeholders. But Richard Dawkins was one of the so-called 'New Atheists', the others being Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, who launched a series of anti-religious polemical books in the early 2000's. None of those books were informed by evolutionary biology so much as by a visceral hatred of anything religious and weaponising biological theory to attack it. That was what Mary Midgely - who was also not a religious apologist of any stripe - was criticising. And she was right on the money, in my view.Which you would prefer evolutionary biologists not participate in. Cool. — Srap Tasmaner
:up:None of those books were informed by evolutionary biology so much as by a visceral hatred of anything religious and weaponising biological theory to attack it. That was what Mary Midgely - who was also not a religious apologist of any stripe - was criticising. And she was right on the money, in my view. — Wayfarer
Isn't this just the central dogma? Just because we call it a "dogma" doesn't mean there's any idolatry or superstition here. — Srap Tasmaner
Our knowledge of the structure and function of the genetic material has outgrown the terminology traditionally used to describe it. It is arguable that the old term gene, essential at an earlier stage of the analysis, is no longer useful.
But Richard Dawkins was one of the so-called 'New Atheists', the others being Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, who launched a series of anti-religious polemical books in the early 2000's. None of those books were informed by evolutionary biology so much as by a visceral hatred of anything religious and weaponising biological theory to attack it. That was what Mary Midgely - who was also not a religious apologist of any stripe - was criticising. And she was right on the money, in my view. — Wayfarer
Oh , Tully, you missed the point. Can't you see the plasmoids clearly emblazoned in the guts of your cat etching? — Banno
We're the rational animal, and that's a difference that makes a difference. — Wayfarer
Do you think the principles that reason recognises - the law of the excluded middle, and so on - are 'the product' of evolutionary biology? — Wayfarer
H. sapiens evolved, no doubt whatever, but at the point of being able to realise such abstract truths, escaped the bounds of biological evolution, became something more than what biological evolution can explain — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.