[fit2rule]

I didn't get that impression at all. What I walked away from was a feeling of dire unease at the popularity of Dawkins' opinion that human beings are machines that can be broken and manipulated by their environment, and that social scientists can exploit this fact to their own ends, in industry, culture and war. It may be 'true' inasmuch as the fact that applying his theories give predictable results, but even the most heinous oppressors of humankind were capable of such truth. When you remove the human spirit as a factor, eventually all you get is a pile of dirt. That, to me, was ultimately degrading in the end. I don't think modern science is as close to a solution of what makes life, life, as it thinks it is - but probably that's just my genetics, which has predisposed me for an interest in the metaphysical beyond test tubes and beakers ..

[scottlocklin]

Read the philosopher of science David Stove's "Darwinian fairytales." You'll realize that Dawkins book is

1) Not orthodox science in any sense of the word, nor really philosophy of science (though it is a popularization of the work of people like William Hamilton)

2) Philosophically bonkers; it's essentially medieval demonology repackaged where the demons are called "genes."

3) Not written by an actual scientist.

It's also a hilarious takedown, as are most of David Stove's essays and books. I liked Dawkin's fairytale when I first read it, for the same reason I liked death metal music and fedora tier atheism arguments on usenet. But it's horse shit. FWIIW another nail in its coffin; Dawkin's ideology originates in part from a guy named George Price: have a look at part 3 of the Adam Curtis documentary "all watched over by machines of loving grace" for more on what became of him.

[fit2rule]

Thank you for the excellent references - indeed, I have added these to my queue and will enjoy catching up with you on the subject.

[oosh9Shi]

I don't know this author, and I feel this discussion may turn to a flame, so sorry to put oil on the fire, but I'm quite perplexed by your argument. For all I know, maybe you're right, but it sounds a lot like you're rejecting a scientific argument because you don't like the result, which is what science has always had to fight against from the beginning.

Maybe you could articulate your objection based on science rather than feelings?

[fit2rule]

Maybe feelings are enough evidence that the science is still out on the existence of a human soul.

An authoritarian hell bent on altering culture to suit his own will is never going to convince me otherwise.

[abdullahkhalids]

Just because someone writes a long analysis of camera work, color correction and sound recording in Shawshank Redemption, doesn't mean that they don't believe that there are emotional and philosophical aspects to the movie also. Just that the object of that work was a particular kind of analysis.

[fit2rule]

In this case, it is dangerous since a lot of the moral fibre that prevents Dawkins from calling for an all-out eradication of any human being that has the "belief in God" gene, simply won't be there for future generations' benefit.

And that is why I find his crusade against religions he despises so dangerous. Culture devolves unless it is replenished with enlightenment - Dawkins takes no responsibility for that, since the typical means of its occurring (religious faith) is abhorrent to him.

People too easily forget that organised atheism is responsible for the massacre of millions of people, too.

[smolder]

I'd say organised atheists are responsible, rather than organised atheism. Minor difference, maybe, but the latter implies some inextricable link where there isn't one.

[GlennS]

I really genuinely think you have misunderstood the book, and Dawkins' philosophy in general.

Dawkins isn't a social darwinist (and nor was Darwin for that matter). He doesn't believe that nature red in tooth and claw is the right way for people to behave. He's argued in many places that, as self-aware thinkers, we have the capacity and moral duty to rise above it.

If you want a target for your arguments, you should pick on an actual social darwinist like Nietzsche.

[joeberon]

Of course it's degrading, but it's true and it's the world we live in. It's okay if you want to put your hands over your ears and keep your eyes closed, but don't expect others to do the same, and don't be surprised when they have a better grip of reality.

[braythwayt]

Certain things are so true they're tautological.

Science is observational. It doesn't give us rules we must follow, it describes the behaviour of things in the universe.

So if someone* says, "People do selfish things, that's science," true!

But if they also say, "Therefore, it's ok to kill your neighbour and take their house, see all of recorded history, colonialism, &c." I stop them. Science teaches us that people kill each other and take their land.

But science also teaches us that people coöperate and build rockets to Mars. Science is not prescriptive, and with respect to morality and ethics, science teaches us that there are many different strategies that people use to accomplish their goals, some of which may result in the replication of the information encoded in their genes.

Selfishness "Just is?" Yes.

Therefore "______ is ok and we must accept it?" No.

---

* I am not putting these words in your mouth or arguing with you, just picking up where your statement left off.

[fit2rule]

Science has concluded that some human genotypes are, by scientific standards "lesser" than others. This can be - and has been - used by atheists and religionists alike to justify crimes against those people. Without a moral sense there is little holding back inhumanity from consuming itself. Science hasn't found a gene for morality, and doesn't seem to be on the hunt for it. So we therefore need our cultures to help us prevent calamity - which would require, by necessity, ignoring the scientists clamouring to explain from their pulpit that some humans are simply lesser than others, and "they have the science to prove it".

[braythwayt]

All I have to say about concluding that some genotypes are lesser by "scientific standards" can be summed up in the following HaHaOnlySerious joke that I have been telling my children from the time they could understand English:

"Humans are the greatest species of Life on Earth, according to all of the metrics that humans have chosen to measure greatness."

Science also tells me that insects are better than people, if I pick a different metric. I suspect we agree on this.

[joeberon]

“Science hasn't found a gene for morality”

No but the fact that we have morality (and the possibility that other animals do not) can be explained via evolution. In reality probably many genes contribute in a complicated way to making us social animals.

[fit2rule]

Ah, there you go, exhibiting precisely the moral authority I find repugnant in followers of the Dawkins cult.

What makes it true?

[fungiblecog]

What makes it true is the enormous weight of evidence.

[fit2rule]

Ignorance of counter-evidence is not truth.

[Eldt]

Feel free to share

[fit2rule]

I think the fact that Dawkins has become the very thing he so violently resists - a violent, intolerant fundamentalist who brooks no further questioning of his own authoritarian narrative - is evidence enough that there is still much, much to be discovered about the way life works. His is a cultural view, and we know for a fact that all culture is a lie which must be re-told in order to persist.

The more the human mind finds answers, the more questions it reveals - such is the nature of an infinite universe and our struggle to perceive it. If "God" doesn't exist we humans sure do spend a lot of time attempting to become one. "God" may not be a "he" sitting "on a cloud", but may indeed just be the New Question beyond every Old Answer. This fact seems to be rabidly overlooked by the Dawkins cult, which prefers to define God in its own, limited terms, in order to find fault in their chosen pariah cultures.

The jury is still out. On a scale of 1 to 7, 0.1 is just enough uncertainty to allow for yet more unanswered questions .. Dawkins, himself, has at least a little of the humility required to admit that.

[braythwayt]

I can't speak for what your parent poster is trying to say, but I can tell you what I mean when I say the same thing.

Let me use a specific example. I often say that capitalism is terrible for workers. Yet I work for a capitalist company that is--in my opinion--quite good to its workers.

Being a "realist" has told me that when looking for a job, I should be careful to avoid toxic cultures, exploitative management, and being underpaid relative to whatever I consider the fair market value of my labour.

But being a realist has also told me that toxicity, exploitation, and stinginess are unevenly distributed, and therefore it is a wise thing to shop around and negotiate for what I want.

I would NEVER say, "Toxicity is just how all businesses work. Demeaning and bullying people is just how company cultures are. Exploiting workers is what businesses do. If you can manipulate someone into working such long hours their health suffers, good for you. And negotiating is impossible, all companies push their workers around."

Being a realist means acknowledging what is in the universe, but it also means acknowledging that the universe contains variety and that almost everything is unevenly distributed.