Dawkins

If it was just rabid atheism, then I think people in general and religious folk particularly wouldn't mind so much. It's the "religious" emotionality injected into science that is found to be offensive, the "selifsh" genes you mention which explains "greed" etc.I should say though that I think Dawkins is easy picking for preachers. I've seen some argumentation from a preacher like: if you don't believe in God, then all you are left with is blind, pitiless indifference as Dawkins shows. Very effective preaching IMO, except that the people preached to would not likely know who Dawkins is.I've seen some criticism of paediatricians about his comment about people being born "selfish", and generally in science such commentary is frowned upon.You should remember that he hasn't published his work for peerreview, where criticism on his theories might have been more thorough. I think that formalizing his ideas into hypotheses submitting them for peerreview would show them to be without content. The late Gould said the selfish gene theory is false.As far as I know Dawkins helped foster the meme idea, contributing to a book by Susan Blackmore on it. That work carries the same moralistic tendencies as Dawkins own work does.Could there be a relationship between Dawkins lack of religion and him injecting emotionality into sciencetheories ? One substituting the other?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

If Dawkins seriously wished not to be misunderstood, he could have done things like present a formal hypothesis of his theory for peerreview that is not interpretative. His new theory being "selfishness" ( of genes and individuals), genic selection already having been invented before by other Darwinists, notably his own mentor. Natural Selection is also "just" a way of looking at things, it's just looking at reproductionrates in a comparitive way. Maybe we should consider Natural Selection as non-science then also, hmmm...Specially when Dawkins ties "selfishness" to "greed" it's clear that he himself causes the "misunderstanding". He makes no mention of a formal definition of greed. Dawkins expressely wants you to explain your own psychological make-up in terms of selfish genes. It's not like he wants you to simply ignore selfish genes in your daily life. To free yourself of the shackles of your selfish genes, is advocating a morality. I wish he would not advocate a morality.Right, everybody is religious IMO whether they like to or not, including communists. I'm pretty sure many people who accept Dawkins ideas, often think in terms of selfish genes and memes to understand their own motives, and the motives of others. This would make up part of their religious identity. Dawkins finding that there probably is no purpose involved in the ultimate fate of the cosmos is also religion, and not science. It seems Dawkins sees that probability of lack of purpose as being indicated by science though. It wouldn't surprise me if he has lots and lots of moments contemplating the "blind pitiless indifference" of the cosmos, in his personal life, where in a similar way other religionists contemplate the "universal love" of the cosmos in many moments.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dawkins presents "selfishness" as a technical term not as a metaphore, but then he convolutes his term by relating it to greed, genorisity, altruism, selfishness etc.When there is a formal treatment of his theory, then anybody who misinterprets could simply be pointed to the formal treatment for correction. His work is very interpretative, meaning different things to different people, one interpretation not neccessarily being more correct then the other, given the text.It's a freedom of religion issue. It doesn't matter what it says, it's just that he brings the morality as some kind of science finding. In my assesment to recast your morality in terms of selfish genes would lead to an ultra-rationalist morality. The people would tend to have less emotional intelligence I guess, knowing their emotions by formula's mainly.Darwinists already tried reinventing morality, absolutely nothing new here. The result was much benign materialist positivism, and also much not so benign superiority thinking. I'd take postmodernism over that any day, but reading Dawkins it seems eerily questionable if I have a meaningful right to choose one or the other.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So when Dawkins says that people are born selfish, what does that mean actually? He later gives a technical meaning for selfishness, could that be the meaning of selfish he is alluding to? But does he then want us also to be altruistic by a tecnicial meaning of altruism? How about before when he mentions greed etc. are those also meant to be understood technically? That's what I mean by it being convoluted/interpretative.The scientific paper should cut away the interpretative aspect. Besides, who are we kidding, Dawkins "selfishness" theory would simply be slaughtered in peerreview in a journal like Nature or Science, the theory would have no credibility left.I think generally what it means for science to step on religions turf is to try to let knowledge rule our lives, in stead of emotions.I'm not neccesarily calling the selfish gene theory superiority thinking, I was more referring to previous attempts by Darwinists to recast morality. I think the selfish gene theory, coupled with his blind pititless indifference doctrine is more akin to satanism. The earlier attempts by Darwinists had a much more significant veneer of respectability and civility. The few appeals to altruism Dawkins makes seem really very pathetic, compared to the charging hatered that follows from his main judgements.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I've also seen some science paper talk about Dawkins "selfish gene notion", I don't think this is even remotely the same as Dawkins submitting his work for peerreview. The selfish gene was published in 1976 AFAIK, all the things you mention are afterwards. Of course there isn't any science paper, otherwise what I said would have happened. People who "misunderstood" would be referred to the science paper. You could use the thing right now, since apparently I "misunderstand" what "selfishness" means.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Uh we haven't actually decided it was a misreading. My opinion, as before, is that the reading of the preacher and the peadiatrician is legitimate, given the interpretative nature of the text.You tell me then what Dawkins means when he writes that people are born selfish, and what consequences parents and paediatricians should take from this would be scientific finding.I'm pretty sure there are parents reading Dawkins book, who proceed to treat their children as being fundamentally selfish. I'm pretty sure Dawkins did that with his own child, seeing that he seems to be pretty fanatical about having the theory being implemented into psychology.There seems to have been a cultural trend in society to view children as selfish, different from how children were perceived in previous generations. Baby-boomers were tended to be perceived as innocent by their parents, and baby-boomers tend to perceive their children as selfish. It's a bit impossible to judge what kind of role Dawkins theory could have played in this shift of perception, but I think it's a pretty strong statement to make that children are born selfish as a scientific fact. I would tend to view the influence of such positions as potentially relatively large, due to the forcefulness by which such positions are held.Even the use by Nazi's like the British National Front of Dawkins texts is to some extent legitimate IMO.There has to be a peerreviewed article on a formalized version of the selfish gene theory, otherwise all those things have legitimacy, due to the highly interpretative nature of Dawkins text.When it really comes down to it, the requirement for peerreview is conveniently dismissed, no matter that on other occasions the same people would absolutely insist on peer-review because they don't like the theory in question.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well you didn't actually say what you think Dawkins means by saying that children are born selfish in the post you refer to.Now you ask me to define selfishness, while you let it be unclear what Dawkins means with children being born selfish. Yhat's not on of course, Dawkins use of selfishness is at issue here not mine.There are some anti-racist scientists trying to explain racism in terms of Dawkins selfish gene theory. There is just a little difference between that and actual racists using the theory to substantiate their racism. I don't think it's a cheap shot.To treat your children as selfish can have diverse consequences I guess. As before the point is more that Dawkins encroaches deeply on people's personal freedom, then what his theory actually consists of, or what effect it has.Dawkins didn't submit a paper for peerreview on the selfish gene theory. What was answered, amounted to undermining the rule for peerreview.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think it's worrying when people don't accept inquiry of this sort, also for Christianity and Islam. Dawkins and science generally, is not above moral criticism, because that would undermine the uncertainty of science theories. Dawkins intentions are unclear, as explained before. Considering the history of influential "nazi" darwinists like Konrad Lorenz, Ernst Haeckel, Galton etc. Dawkins knows better then to write an interpretative text like that. He may not be hateful to human races, but he seems intentionally hateful towards religion. Hate of religion communicates well with racial hate. It's not an innocent abstract science paper, as before, I wish it was.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well one of Dawkins scientific predeccossors Konrad Lorenz, was a "fascist using Darwinism to justify genocide." So it's not as if it is impossible that there would be a mainstream Darwinist who would do that. Again, Dawkins book is hateful towards religion, which is an odd thing for a supposedly important scientific text, for it to be hateful. It also has some simplistic political meandering about familyplanning. Many people reading his book find their view of Nature changed from being appreciative of the riches of nature, to a simplistic generalising judgement on Nature as fundamentally "red in tooth and claw". It is hate alround, and then the step from that hate towards racial hate is very small, as I've explained.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This is the most important theory in the world. If space-aliens come to visit the earth then they would want to know if we know this theory already, to see if we are civilized. This theory can explain our greed, our genorisity etc. I hope psychologists are going to use it.Who are you to complain about extremist interpretation when defending Dawkins? Dawkins is himself an extremist zealot.And you see there you go about some "inescapable" conclusion of Nature as "red in tooth and claw", imposing a value. This is not a science finding, although Dawkins makes it out as though it is. We cannot appreciate Nature, if Nature is about the violence and killing, unless we would want to become perverse. What Nature is about is anybodies guess, but by superficial quantitive measurements, Nature is very sedate and peaceful, and I would suppose that even sharks fit this description as peaceful most of the time. Sharks are not machines also. Plants are more like machines, but then they don't seem as fierce so then you and Dawkins disregard them largely, because they don't fit the preconceived notions.Dawkins conception of "Nature red in tooth and claw" is actually wrong, because Nature from the viewpoint of Natural Selection essentially is about reproduction, and not about the one killing the other. Based on Natural Selection, he should have told about reproduction which makes it so that the "cup of Nature" is always filled. About bountiful Nature overflowing with organisms. Why do you suppose he chose to define Natural Selection by "red in tooth and claw" (competition) in stead of something like "wet in penis and vagina" (reproduction)?He also made a mistake about the preying mantis, saying it is programmed to kill it's mate, after copulation. It has been found that this only occurs under stressful conditions, yet Dawkins uses it to show gene-selfishness.The mistakes of Dawkins writing about "selfish genes" are just like those of Lorenz when he writes about "innate aggression". It is prejudicial, improperly supposing scientific certainity over really very subjective observations, and very hateful.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The first part about space-aliens and psychology is a paraphrase from the book. That shows Dawkins extremism about Darwinism and selfish genes.He also says that all stories about the origin of life before Darwin, are irrellevant. That is a swipe at religion IMO, especially in the way he says it is hateful. Also to conceive of religion as a weapon like a tank is hateful towards religion, of course.I'm sorry you either don't see, or won't admit to the error in not viewing Natural Selection as "red in tooth and claw". It is just a metaphore, but he appeals to science for his metaphore, and factually his metaphore is all wrong. Natural Selection is about reproduction, of course, it is commonly defined as differential reproductive success of variants. Competition is not even required to occur for Natural Selection to apply. The book is fundamentally flawed, or more reasonably, misrepresentative, since Dawkins knows full well that selection is about reproduction. He repeatedly says it is about reproduction, but then after that he disregards what he says, and brings out the old "red in tooth and claw" baloney again. I suggest you read the book where he changes from talking about reproduction mainly, and then without explanation begins to talk about competition mainly.Chances for reproduction can exist, eventhough an organism doesn't actually reproduce at all in the end. They are chances after all.The book the selfish gene has the effect on people who accept it, to serve themselves in stead of others. Intentions are much besides the point, although as I've shown Dawkins apparent and stated intentions with the book are not those of a regular scientist just wanting to provide accurate knowledge.The book says that all organisms are basically selfish, and there are some *exceptions* of altruistic traits.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I've noticed that you're factually incorrect about some of the main things in the book, like the main hypothesis that organisms are essentially selfish, and only by exception display some altruistic traits, and that you ignore my paraphrasings of the book.Besides when you say that comparing religion and a tank is a wonderful metaphore, then you have lost all credibility with me. That is spuriously hateful towards religion, and towards basic humanity really.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You have avoided my arguments, and in stead have concentrated on trying to make this discussion into a meaningless issue of authority.You have avoided my argument about a fundamental flaw in the book, talking about Nature red in tooth and claw.You have avoided my paraphrasings of the book, even when you were insistently and repeatedly asking that I would give quotes of the book.You're also wrong on what the Selfish Gene is about:
Zephyr:
"Bottom line: "altruistic" behaviors, in the long term, can be favored by natural selection. That's what The Selfish Gene is about."The Selfish Gene hypothesises that organisms are generally selfish, and by exception some have some altruistic traits, although those traits are not really altruistic.So why are you arguing about authority on the book, when you yourself are wrong about what the book says?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But before in the tread he did answer a paraphrase from the book of someone. Could that be because the other person was an evolutionist, not very critical of Dawkins?Sure one can remotely conceive that it is not hateful towards religion, to say that we can discard all theories about origin prior to Darwin. We can do this if we conceive of Darwinism, and Dawkins particular conception of Darwinism, as well as those of Haeckel, Lorenz, Galton, and Darwin in "Descent of Man", as a religion itself. .I've seen the book referred to as the most important work in evolutionary biology in the last 30 years or something. The proponents of Dawkins tend to be more vocal, and therefore influential, then other scientists.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu