• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

Beausoleil said:
I am an uppity Brit. My "objection" to Dawkins is that his articles in the press and his recent tv programme are shallow, and for this reason I've never bothered reading his books.
Click to expand...

If you have never read his book, how can you in all honesty comment on it?

It seems you and Wilson make the same error. Neither knows what they are commenting on.

I think Wilson nailed it in his closing paragraph..."At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion." Exactly.
Click to expand...

I think one would truly have to severely twist what Dawkins says to see him as angry. Wilson seems to have joined the ranks of unknowns trying to build their reputation by riding Dawkins' coat tails.
 
The reason I thought it would be interesting to hear people's comments about this short commentary was that I found it rather poor.

There are really three things I disliked. The first was its tone, which I found rather rude. Sloan Wilson expected an evolutionary and it does seem to me natural to read Dawkins expecting an evolutionary commentary - evolution, after all, has been his field thus far. Of course, he is not obliged to continue in the evolutionary vein. However, those comments about Assyrian woodwind instruments look like deliberate mockery and seem to suggest that he (Dawkins) regards Sloan Wilson's views as beneath serious consideration.

That brings us to the second point I disliked. Dawkins chooses to insinuate that Sloan Wilson is some solitary loner obsessing about group selection for thirty years. The reality is very different. Many people take Wilson's views seriously and group selection is, today, a topic of active debate. One must presume either that Dawkins is unaware of this, or that he simply chooses not to debate Sloan Wilson, perhaps for the same reasons that he chooses not to debate creationism. Should I, or others, infer that he (Dawkins) places group selection into the same category as creationism?

Finally, the last point I am unhappy about, I am quite disappointed that Dawkins did not take an evolutionary view of religion. That leaves me wondering what "The God Delusion" does achieve. From objective criteria it is not hard to debunk religion, even comedians do it, for example, "The Life of Brian." Its no great achievement to debunk religion that way, so what is the point of the book? Is this work a social commentary, if so, how does it improve on Durkheim's "God is society" approach - which makes sense in terms of group selection. If it is an ethical approach to knowledge, how does he (Dawkins) add to Ghandi's "God is Truth." If the "God Delusion" is not about evolution, what area of knowledge does it actually move forward?
 
John Hewitt said:
The reason I thought it would be interesting to hear people's comments about this short commentary was that I found it rather poor.

There are really three things I disliked. The first was its tone, which I found rather rude. Sloan Wilson expected an evolutionary and it does seem to me natural to read Dawkins expecting an evolutionary commentary - evolution, after all, has been his field thus far. Of course, he is not obliged to continue in the evolutionary vein. However, those comments about Assyrian woodwind instruments look like deliberate mockery and seem to suggest that he (Dawkins) regards Sloan Wilson's views as beneath serious consideration.

That brings us to the second point I disliked. Dawkins chooses to insinuate that Sloan Wilson is some solitary loner obsessing about group selection for thirty years. The reality is very different. Many people take Wilson's views seriously and group selection is, today, a topic of active debate. One must presume either that Dawkins is unaware of this, or that he simply chooses not to debate Sloan Wilson, perhaps for the same reasons that he chooses not to debate creationism. Should I, or others, infer that he (Dawkins) places group selection into the same category as creationism?

Finally, the last point I am unhappy about, I am quite disappointed that Dawkins did not take an evolutionary view of religion. That leaves me wondering what "The God Delusion" does achieve. From objective criteria it is not hard to debunk religion, even comedians do it, for example, "The Life of Brian." Its no great achievement to debunk religion that way, so what is the point of the book? Is this work a social commentary, if so, how does it improve on Durkheim's "God is society" approach - which makes sense in terms of group selection. If it is an ethical approach to knowledge, how does he (Dawkins) add to Ghandi's "God is Truth." If the "God Delusion" is not about evolution, what area of knowledge does it actually move forward?
Click to expand...

I dislike your dislike. How does your dislike add to our knowledge? What part of your dislike improves on the Wilson's dislike? It is no great feat to dislike something... even little babies manage to dislike things.
 
qayak said:
No, the people who claim to be atheists but their actions betray them. It is easy to say it, always much harder to live it.
Click to expand...

So asking people to provided evidence of their assertions (e.g., religion is an evolutionary atavism, religion is child abuse) and then denouncing them as having an unsupportable position when they can't produce said evidence betrays those who claim to be atheists as not really being atheists?

Have you poisoned your well today?
 
John Hewitt said:
...I am quite disappointed that Dawkins did not take an evolutionary view of religion.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much my point. We are awash with chronological histories of the development of the idea of God; explanations, critiques and denunciations of the various religions in specific and general; catechisms, holy books and whatever; and even philosophical treatises (is that the correct plural?), but we seem to be woefully short of understanding why we found it necessary to invent God in the first place. So far, the concept of the need for God as a byproduct of our compulsion to adore something, which itself is a manifestation of our reproductive instinct, is the closest I've seen Dawkins come to a truly scientific explanation. I don't find the concept wholy satisfactory, mind, and think it's a bit of a reach, but it's the best I've seen to date. I wish there had been more in this vein.
 
Beausoleil said:
I am an uppity Brit. My "objection" to Dawkins is that his articles in the press and his recent tv programme are shallow, and for this reason I've never bothered reading his books. I think one can see how far people have come in discarding the religious mindset in their no longer needing to treat Dawkins as a prophet and in their no longer needing to rehash the arguments by reading such books. It's ok, there is no God, let it go.

I think Wilson nailed it in his closing paragraph..."At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion." Exactly.
Click to expand...

Your paragraph reminds me a lot of an argument I got into with a Christian friend of mine recently. He walked into my room to borrow a calculator, and saw that I had been reading The God Delusion. The conversation went something like this:

HIM: What? You're reading The God Delusion?
ME: Yes, why?
HIM: Richard Dawkins is a wanker!
ME: Why do you say that?
HIM: He says that religion is the cause of all the wars in the world!
ME: No, he doesn't say that at all. Have you read the book?
HIM: No, I don't have to read the book.
ME: Then how can you know what he says?
HIM: I don't have to read the book because the book is crap!
ME: But you're attributing a position to Dawkins that he doesn't take! How can you criticize his argument when you don't know what his argument is?
HIM: I do know what his argument is!
[Repeat for a few minutes until he takes the calculator and storms off.]

You criticize Dawkins for a response to a critique of his book, which you haven't even read! If strawman construction were an Olympic sport, you'd be on the team for certain.
 
mijopaalmc said:
So asking people to provided evidence of their assertions (e.g., religion is an evolutionary atavism, religion is child abuse) and then denouncing them as having an unsupportable position when they can't produce said evidence betrays those who claim to be atheists as not really being atheists?
Click to expand...

To answer your question, no.

You can make so much out of so little. I guess it comes from fabricating most of the evidence that supports your argument. It would be interesting if you could cite a thread where the case that religion is child abuse has not been made.

Have you poisoned your well today?
Click to expand...

Have you pulled your head out of your butt since you were indoctrinated as a child?
 
qayak said:
No, the people who claim to be atheists but their actions betray them. It is easy to say it, always much harder to live it.
Click to expand...

hang on, since when did atheism become an ideology?

Since when did "I don't believe in God" necessitate any subscription to a set of beliefs about the relative impact of religion upon people's lives?

Since when did "I don't believe in God" require any subscription to how one lives their life?

Atheism is not an ideological creed that one signs up to - it is nothing more than a rejection of a concept. I don't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs. That statement is true regardless of how I choose to live my life.
 
JoeEllison said:
You're pulling our legs, right?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. It is quite pathetic. They insist they are atheists and yet they will not miss church, just to be on the safe side or because their children NEED religion!

They will speak out against religion and then vehemently defend the one they grew up with as being the one that is right, even though they claim to not believe.

They will point to islam as the reason they no longer believe in religions but they will defend christianity as if it is/was any different.

Maybe I meet these people because I live in a bible belt and will discuss religion or politics with anyone but I have run into several and a few I even see quite frequently.
 
andyandy said:
Atheism is not an ideological creed that one signs up to - it is nothing more than a rejection of a concept.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, they claim to reject the concept but in their actions they do not.
 
qayak said:
To answer your question, no.

You can make so much out of so little. I guess it comes from fabricating most of the evidence that supports your argument. It would be interesting if you could cite a thread where the case that religion is child abuse has not been made.
Click to expand...

I hardly think that an article such as Religion's Real Child Abuse, which is published on Dawkins' official website, is the "so little" you make it out to be; it is quite a strong statement of his personal belief that religion is child abuse regardless of its context

qayak said:
Have you pulled your head out of your butt since you were indoctrinated as a child?
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm talking about: since I stepped in and called you on your insistence that people defending religion against baseless attacks* are automatically indoctrinated, because the only people who could possibly have and interest in defending religion are those who practice.

*The attacks are essentially baseless seeing as religious upbringing simply does not result in the same psychopathology among all groups of children and across all forms of religion that child abuse does, a fact which has been amply demonstrated to you.
 
qayak said:
Absolutely, they claim to reject the concept but in their actions they do not.
Click to expand...

so you know what people really believe? When they say "I don't believe in God" but then don't subscribe to some subsiduary action which you deem that such a statement requires, then you know they were never a True Atheist (TM)?

I don't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs. That statement is true. Don't tell me it's false because I don't happen to fulfil an arbitrary ideological imposition.

I could actually have some good Homoerotica friends. I still wouldn't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs.

I could think that Homoerotica conferred some benefits upon its members. i still wouldn't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs.

I could let my son go to Simian Sunday School to keep my wife happy. I still wouldn't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs.

I could go on. :)
 
Last edited:
colin said:
Blasphemy! Heathen!:eek:
Ohhh… as soon as the Holy Bananas are ripe, you’ll get your comeuppance! :(
Click to expand...

all orangutans know that there is only one true Godall foretold by the mighty Prophet Pongo - a bodily hairless ape with a golden head and endless supply of figs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom