|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dawkins | |||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
quote:Only about as cheap as they come. It still has nothing to do with the usefulness of gene selfishness as a tool for understanding natural selection. The Bible has been used to justify the slaughter of millions of innocent people throughout history. The Koran has been cited as well by murderers seeking legitimacy for their actions. Does that make them both invalid? I don't go around telling people that all Christians are witch-burners and Jew-killers, or that all Muslims are terrorists, because the perversion of a good idea does not make it a bad idea. Nor does that make its supporters (and founders) guilty of the same sins as those who have claimed kinship with them. Dawkins would probably be horrified if your scenario actually took place, because it has nothing to do with his intent. It is, therefore, irrelevant to this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
Have you read the entirety of SG? Most of the book simply offers a fresh perspective on the evidence for evolution without advocating anything beyond that. In the end, Dawkins briefly - but quite clearly - advocates rising above the "selfish" nature of evolved organisms and working for the good of all humanity. His intentions, as I deduce them from this book, are not all that different from the worldly aims of major religions. How you can compare him with fascists using Darwin to justify genocide is utterly beyond me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
If you're as familiar with the book as you claim, maybe you can point out a particular phrase or paragraph as hateful to religion. From what I recall, he seemed to say religion was perfectly acceptable to him as long as religious people didn't impose their values on others. Please tell me where he said otherwise. You're still clutching at straws by saying that the possibility of an extreme interpretation equates to the author encouraging that interpretation.
Do you seriously claim that nature is not red in tooth and claw? I find it an inescapable fact. Some of the most beautiful animals are the most vicious, and I still love them. I can view a shark as a remorseless killing machine and still remark upon its efficiency, sleek lines, singular purpose, and absolute effectiveness, not to mention its beauty (as I see it). Apex predators in general are some of the best examples of the "riches of nature." Who are these people you describe, and why do they think that nature cannot be appreciated once we realize it involves violence and killing? My appreciation is only deepened by this understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
I think it's a marvelous analogy. Not the only way of looking at it, but certainly informative. It's hard to deny the numbers of people that have been killed in the name of God throughout history. An ongoing tragedy, really. As I've been arguing, ideas can be used many different ways. One could hardly argue that the first Christians ever envisioned the Crusades and witch-burnings of Europe, the Spanish Inquisition, or any of the other atrocities perpetrated by those who followed them. Syamsu's reasoning would place them beside the guilty parties and condemn them by association.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
quote:What theory are you talking about? I thought we were comparing views of a semantic shift (and nothing more) regarding evolution, not the theory itself. quote:I don't recall when you successfully demonstrated this. I asked you for a quote that one could reasonably consider "hateful" to religion and you haven't provided it. That would seem to be the easiest way to support your label. quote:I said it was inescapable to me, and that I love nature in spite of it. As far as Dawkins, I think he knows the difference between poetry and science. He writes about the two extensively in Unweaving the Rainbow. Regardless, a few lines from TSG would back up your statement, right? So tell me where he called that a "science finding" or used a similar term. quote:Care to estimate how many animals are killed by others daily? The numbers would be staggering. More than the human population of the earth, probably by orders of magnitude. Even so, nature gives me life, and I must appreciate that. quote:LOL!!! So the fact that they spend most of their time looking for something to kill outweighs the amount of time they spend actually killing? Yes, they are wonderful when they're nurturing their young (for a few weeks at best) or whatever other touching things they do, and I acknowledge, appreciate, and enjoy those things. The other aspects of their nature still remain. In many species, the first shark to hatch will eat every last one of its siblings, thereby increasing its chances of survival. Please don't tell me this requires us to despise them. Nature doesn't have to be warm and fuzzy for me to appreciate it, and I see nothing perverse in that view. quote:Look, "killing machine" is just a common description, practically stereotypical. Did I say they were machines? I'm only saying that perceiving them in such a way is permissible and does not ruin one's view of life. They kill. They must kill to survive, and they do it extremely well. The frequency of the act is irrelevant, and whether they enjoy it is irrelevant. quote:I have no preconceived notions of nature, and plants simply compete in much more subtle ways. They fit just fine in my worldview. But they could just as easily be called selfish. Trees that reach high in the air to take sunlight from lower plants, vines that choke trees, and parasitic plants could all be called violent and selfish, regardless of the time scale on which they act and the less dramatic way in which they starve each other. It's semantics, and that is all it is. I ask again, how much of the book have you actually read? quote:I can't speak for him, but it's probably because being fit is not mostly about reproduction. An organism must survive to adulthood by feeding and competing with other animals, sometimes even its own siblings, before it has any chance of reproducing. For almost every animal that has ever lived, this requires killing many other animals (for a predator) or avoiding predators many times (for prey). quote:So it doesn't happen every time. Doesn't change the fact that the female has a better chance of passing on her genes when she eats the male. Many offspring are her reward for investing the only current available mate. If food is plentiful, the offspring are assured of survival and the investment is unnecessary. One could even view the male as a selfish insect, from a genetic perspective, because his death at the female's hands increases the chance of many offspring surviving to spread his genes. So you don't like calling these behaviors selfish. So you think the idea will be misused. It doesn't change the fact that the concept of selfishness can help explain behaviors that once seemed to contradict natural selection. It is a tool for understanding, and no more. quote:It's a dramatic statement intended to give the reader some perspective on science and evolutionary theory. It's not a theory in itself. Selfishness is a description, one of many ways to understand what we see, and not a call to serve oneself at the expense of others. Once again: show me where hatred is advocated, admitted, or in anyway given a place within the concept of the selfish gene. Show me in Dawkins' words or stop putting your own in his mouth. Bottom line: "altruistic" behaviors, in the long term, can be favored by natural selection. That's what The Selfish Gene is about. If you want to advance further interpretations, feel free, but you'll have to support your speculation with some quotations for it to carry weight. [This message has been edited by zephyr, 05-15-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Syamsu: If you haven't noticed this pattern in my previous posts, then you're going to be confused when I stop replying. Ignoring these requests precludes the continuation of substantial debate. As long as you fail to demonstrate that you're even informed about the subject at hand, while repeating your emotionally charged assertions, I cannot post constructively in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
Syamsu:
I am honored to discover that you now consider me worthy of the same misrepresentation and insults that you direct toward the author whom we have been discussing. I wish I could say that it has been a pleasure debating you, but the thread has degenerated beyond that point. Your paraphrasing is quite clearly not supported by an actual reading of the book (I have it at home) and since you will not debate in good faith, I am recusing myself from discussion. Please note that I have not questioned your credibility or thrown any insults in your direction, but have offered only simple requests for quotes to justify your claims. That's all it would take to revive this thread. Until then, I'm staying out.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024