What do you like about Dawkins books?

Can somebody please point out to me something *exactly* what they find good in Dawkins writing? An exact quote would be most welcome.I think his writing is well pseudoscience, not even popscience. The non-science that is laced through the pseudo-science I find to be something akin to Satanism. Remarkably straightforward hatespeech.I've been reading a review of "Devil's Chaplain", which goes like Nature is not cruel, but pitilessly indifferent. That is not a science finding, that is some kind of Satanist finding in my opinion. A generalizing judgement on Nature like this is potentially enormously hateful. I have no idea why such a generalizing judgement would have any merit, either in science or religion.How on earth anybody can find something of merit in the books of this man, is beyond me, so please explain.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 03-06-2003]

Dunno, I read the abstracts

This would be a rather difficult guess on my part.@ Cornell "they" tend to 'allow' reading of behavior Before morphology
@ Harvard "they" permit morphology to read behavior
@ Wolfram Science it was transmitted that Calculus may not apply
Lewontin as an example of one of the "insiders" in the know read(s) topobiology as reductionist (if) at best..In the worst case sceneario (without respect to pedagogy which IS the ICR sticking point) that a holistic read of the ivy leauges under the filter ocurrs ( a fear of those who think that Sociobiology can be rejected and yet NOT explain bird migration...)THEN Dawkins REDUCTIONIS(M) i S the better read (from that point on) as to Mendelism NO MATTER THE HISTORICAL CRITICISM within the philosophy of biology that Wright need not be interpreted or read as a Laplacian since WOlfram who is no biologist THOUGHT he could answer in the problem question set of the biologist that Lewontin seperated into Castastrophe Theory, Chaos Theory, and Complexity Theory.I simply prefer to read Pasteur before bedtime.

I'll happily give my opinion on this one Syamsu:Dawkins is both an excellent life-sciences scientist and he is also educated in the classics. There is nothing wrong with being eloquent in description - it's not his fault you don't understand the prose he uses. Take that phrase you complain about - 'pitiless indifference' - just his eloquent way of saying "nature doesn't give a shit for your life - whether you survive and breed is down to the luck of your gene inheritance coupled with the natural selection that is working in the environment you live in. If you are lucky enough to have the genes that are successful in that environment you will prosper, if not you will persih - and Nature quite frankly doesn't give a shit which way the cookie crumbles."Now i've said that in 72 words in modern slang (with attitude) yet he eloquently says the same with just those two words - but means exactly the same - nature doesn't give a shit. If you don't understand that nature really doesn't give a shit about you or any of the other billions of life forms on this planet then that only goes to show you haven't the faintest notion of what evolution is about....either way it isn't Dawkins problem that you are both ignorant about biology and ignorant about English prose...

Amazing, this is one great cake here. Ad hominem, non sequitur AND a vacuous truth.Know what that is? It's like saying; "If I were superman I would fly to the moon".It is vacuously only true because I will never be superman.The problem is that it does not matter that the universe doesn't care about me. Neither does my washing machine, but how on earth does this disable a knowledge of allele frequencies, and the phylogenetic tree?Have we missed something?Like the OP guy, I don't find Dawkins to be particularly special. Everytime I hear his interviews I can think of several fallacies he jumps right into.I think your attitude is a prime example of exactly WHY you guys are not at all objective.If all you can offer is angry personal attacks then is it any wonder you don't understand reason? Did the guy tell you if he had any knowledge of biology?If he did - would this make him an evolutionist? Answer; no, as there are qualified creationists also.PS. I should also state that understanding that the universe is indifferent because it has no brain, bares no relationship to evolution. That the animal kingdom has some nasty conclusions does not prove evolution, it proves a nasty system.This is called the "problem of evil" and is a philosophical objection that only supports evolution in a tenuous capacity, as a circumstancial evidence might help in a murder case, but not tell us much about anything, nor prove anything directly.That mikey was eating ice cream in the same park where an arrogant atheist was murdered with a bible, really doesn't say much. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Hi Mike,
I'm not going to defend Drosophilla's comments too much here. Syamsu, as memory serves, is hopelessly ignorant of evolution and also thinks that by pointing out that reality doesn't care about you you are making a hateful comment.He also seems to think that the Devil's Chaplain should be a book that deals only in empirical facts derived by science, despite it not being a book about only science. It is a book that discusses various issues surrounding science, as well as other matters. In fact here is the contents:1 Science and Sensibility— essays largely concerning science and the scientific method.2 Light Will Be Thrown— essays on Darwinian topics.3 The Infected Mind— a selection of anti-religious writings.4 They Told Me, Heraclitus— some eulogies for late friends.5 Even the Ranks of Tuscany— a section devoted to the late Stephen Jay Gould.6 There is All Africa and her Prodigies in Us— essays connected with Africa.7 A Prayer for My Daughter - an open letter to Dawkins' daughter Juliet (to whom the book is dedicated), concerning the importance of evaluating evidence.(courtesy of wiki).Apparently this book is Satanic hatespeech according to Syamsu. You can surely see why Drosophilla may have looked upon that kind of nonsense less than favourably, yes? Yes it looks like you have - Dawkins is addressing the commonly held notion that "Nature is cruel." as well as the notion of a Mother Nature maternal image of nature AND the argument from design in one quick sentence. He has made this point in a number of places, for example: or

---

Except there is no evil. That's kind of the point Dawkins was making. If there were evil, it would not be any support for evolution. However, Dawkins' position is that in order to understand evolution better it is advised to not view reality through a good/evil lens but through a 'pitiless indifference' lens. No person is objective.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Thanks for the info.I don't have knowledge of Syamsu, or very little, but alas, I have no right to state anything about him from such ignorance.I do think most people could see that Dawkins has a very specific agenda. He searches out creationists, and interviews them from a position of incredulity. He asks them things such as; "you can't really believe what you're saying".I can't take much of what he says seriously, even as you can't take much of what Syamsu says seriously.Understanding "nature" first requires an assumption that things are only understandable "from" nature's point of view. But even the bible directly states that man has no advantage over the animals.I don't think it is consequential to see things from the point of view of an indifferent universe, anymore than to see things from the point of view of my washing machine, my washing machine, being, "nature". But then, "we" are nature, and the whole area of the ontological problem will come into play. Just why would humans care? Do we give a reason for why humans care? Is it then fair to give a reason why the universe doesn't care, as we also are "nature".Thanks anyway, though, I have not read all of Dawkins, but I have heard his debates and interviews, some being quite lengthy seminar-type jobs.

For most of his public life, Dawkins has generally avoided speaking with Creationists. As he entered his 60s he reconsidered this position and has become more directly critical. A shame, he is a great science writer. Syamsu, on the other hand, isn't. That isn't to say I haven't taken things that Syamsu has said seriously. Nature doesn't have a point of view If 90% of all humans geniunely thought that washing machines were good and dishwashers were evil - there might be psychological barriers to understanding them. I reccomend you read his books. I've read The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, and have begun reading The Ancestor's Tale.Unweaving the Rainbow is an interesting book, and you might be surprised by its contents. It discusses, beauty, poetry, awe, love and their relationship with science.But anyway - it isn't like Dawkins insists that you need to abandon the concept of good/evil or anything like that. He just says that it is difficult to really grasp that point - and I think he makes a point similar to the one I raised...this doesn't prevent understanding but it is unnecessary baggage that can impede understanding.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I wasn't being literal.My point is that if you look at everything from a position where naturalism is incharge, then there is no innate reason for anything, from a conclusion coming from observing the natural world. This only deals with the bad stuff ofcourse, I will assume, and a disregard for any beauty "counting" against such a system of innate futility.It doesn't follow that God would not care about me, given the Gospels, as historical accounts because of brilliant manuscript authority.It should not follow that the bible exists, written over thousands of years, in a Godless universe, or that humans should care.As for Syamsu not being a scientist and Dawkins being a scientist, I don't believe God qualifies as a scientist because he does not have the necessary PHDs, but he is still omniscient.I am not really defending Syamsu, I am stating that it is a very narrow viewpoint, to believe that naturalism is consequential somehow, or a view of a universe having no innate purpose because it doesn't care.My motorcycle has purpose but it doesn't care even as the universe doesn't. (assume the allegorical). It can't care - ofcourse! You are correct, therefore it only matter as a truth-value, because it can't. It's called a "vacuous statement" and can be difficult to grasp. The concentration must be on the fact that the universe can only be regarded as indifferent. even as I can never be superman. Cruelty and beauty are both part of the composition, but if there is no innate purpose only because of this indifference, then it's only a vacuous truth. It doesn't follow because an outside entity could have a "plan" for the universe.The bible says that the creation groans in earnest expectation of the revealing of the sons of God. Why should I NOT take that viewpoint rather than a naturalist one?Would you say that it follows that if the universe is indifferent, then the universe has no value to God? Or that there is no innate meaning.To me that's a non-sequitur no matter how eloquent Dawkins is, because the room I am in and it's "nature" doesn't affect purpose.He is eloquent, but he makes mistakes, and in his interviews he quickly changes the subject when he is asked something problematic like he has license because of credentials.P.s. I'm not hanging around, we both already know what this is all about without hair-splitting. I am being slightly allegorical.Is it the cruelty within nature, or nature itself? How is nature define, if we are nature and we are not indifferent. Is it more that the system is cruel, such as carnivores? I assume it is. This is easily explicable even via a basic reading of the biblical verses that tell us about such things, such as the "curse", and "suffering", the "present system of things". There is an explanation both in Genesis and Revelation, that explain how suffering and cruelty came in and how usually cruel creatures will lie down with more peaceable ones and a little child shall lead them.There are other ways of seeing this other than Dawkins' opinions, which are neither scientific nor necessarily logical.I agree we are all biased. Naturally you might find his work agreeable, your worldview matching his more than mine.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I'm not sure I completely comprehend the point you are trying to make. Dawkins observes that the universe is consistent with the proposition that nature is indifferent. Of course not. Nor does it follow that there is a god or that it has any care for you. But gods these days are generally regarded as 'supernatural' rather than 'natural'. I agree that it doesn't follow that the bible exists from the premise that nature is indifferent. The existence of any collection of writings is an observation in its own right. I said that Dawkins was a good science writer and Syamsu wasn't. Their qualifications of being a scientist are irrelevant. Though I suspect being a scientist makes being a science writer easier.I have not come across any books written by any deity so I can't speak to their science writing abilities. Dawkins simply states that what we observe of nature is that it is consistent with the claim that it
1) Doesn't care
2) Isn't evil
3) Isn't good
4) Has no purposeHe doesn't say that because nature doesn't care it therefore has no purpose. Your motorcycle is consistent with something that has a purpose and something that doesn't care about you. Dawkins' position is that the universe looks exactly the same as a universe would if it neither cares or has any purpose. Agreed. Fortunately, Dawkins isn't making that claim. Everybody makes mistakes, but I think the statement that he changes the subject when he is asked something is hopelessly vague. Does he do this all the time, or only for certain questions? Either way, his interviews are not really the topic - this topic is about the books But - since it is a long dead thread, we might be able to squeeze some discussion of his interviews in if you had some specific example in mind. It's not just being agreeable. There are many points he has raised that I initially resisted. There are probably some that I still don't accept. That doesn't prevent him from being a good or interesting writer. I am enjoying reading the book of Numbers at the moment - the fact that its worldview is rather different than mine is almost entirely irrelevant. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Ofcourse it looks that way. We only have what it looks like. He is trying to "prove" that this is consequential Mod'. It is not.The universe looks as it is, it does not look like a universe that wouldn't have purpose, or there would be no organisms at all. You have to "assume" that is correct to see organisms and order as irrelevent, does it not?The universe doesn't favour his POSITION which is an atheistic-motive to argue that there is no innate meaning.You can only logically infer that the universe, from a relative athesitic position, does not care or have purpose, but from my relative position, even though it doesn't care, God has shown me personal evidence that he does.it's not at all objective. Do you honestly believe it is?You have to "argue" that the universe is consistent, and you have to disregard facts such as the earth, and it's organisms, being "purposeless". This flies in the face of some solid arguments by Aristotle, and his causes. Even if organisms only have a purpose to survive and reproduce - why would they have such purpose in an innately puposeless world?Philosophically, and logically, it's a can of worms and in the end all you have is how much Dawkins can persuade you of his own opinions that obviously stem from his worldview.I might get back to you, apologies if I don't too soon. My time must end here for now.ps. I should note that on one interview with Dawkins, i agreed with 100% of what he said. Sorry I haven't elaborated. I am sure his books are very interesting, but I am after the book, "In the beginning was information". Naturally I will find it more agreeable, because my whole being sees design everywhere. but I also have read and listened to atheists.I think if you read Numbers, I doubt it will convince you it was at all true.Try not giving an answer to me such as; "ofcourse....all of the evidence shows it's nothing more than myth and this won't affect my objective evaluation".You're stating things in a manner that appears to make it look like I don't know what I am stating, or that I have mis-stated something. Or atleast it seems that way.Sorry if that's not your intention. but I've made some sound logical points here that deserve consideration.In the end - you will have to state "something" and when I have the information, I will analyze it correctly.You have now stated clearly that there is a a viewpoint that the universe shows what it should show if it is without purpose.This is a start for me, because now I can see if that is truly a fact or more of an argument. We can ofcourse, do semantics untill we are both grey-haired but in the end, it's what is meant that counts, not how I put my words.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Is he? Could you show that this is what he is trying to do? The quotes I have provided so far only suggest that he thinks thata) the universe has all the properties of an indifferent one.b) it is very hard for human beings to accept that the universe is indifferent to their struggles.Maybe you have some more words of his that might shed some more illumination onto this issue?For example, he also makes an aesthetic point regarding this: in Unweaving the Rainbow.And to expand the earlier quote:

---

God might care, so might her pinkness, and Odin, Wotan, Ra all might care. I might care, my mum might care, Mcdonald's might care, The National Carer's association might care. But the evidence of our senses seems to indicate rather strongly that nature doesn't care if you get eaten or if you have thousands of children or if you have a boring unproductive life or if you are an adventurer and discoverer of dark secrets. I don't have to disregard anything. Are you trying to argue that because we can say that that a car's purpose is a transport tool or that a fly's purpose is to procreate that means that nature itself has some purpose? It seems like a fallacy of composition to me. As and when, Mike, as and when. How could it? I won't. I just don't automatically assume that any story I read is true. It's all very entertaining stuff, plagues afflicting a people that can be cured by driving a spear through an pair of adulterers, battles, curses turning into blessings, but an entertaining story isn't necessarily a true one, right? I don't know - I do think you misunderstood what Dawkins was saying and had making claims he wasn't making. I wouldn't dream of deliberately not considering any point, logical or otherwise. If I've missed something you feel is important, or have misunderstood it then I urge you to clarify things for me. I'm not entirely clear on what you are saying here. I think you are saying that I have made it clear that the universe is consistent with the position that it is without purpose. By all means.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Lets take it a step at a time Mike: I don't suffer fools gladly i'm afraid and i will make you explain anything that i don't think is clear in your replies. So the ad hominem attack i will deal with shortly. Can i ask though what your mean by your 'non sequitu and the 'vacuous truth'- don't just state words like this - explain the context in which you use them (your superman quote is meaningless - it says nothing). So please be more specific that i may reply accurately - ravings may work in a pulpit but not with me my friend! Who said it did? Your point being?? This should be good: Lets have these 'several fallacies' then Mike - any fool can make a statement like that - lets see you put the cards on the table (if you start long ravings i'll call you on it so beware) Angry personal attacks eh? Based on the fact that i thought the guy had said he had knowledge of biology....Well what he did say was: If Syamsu had no science or in this case, as the subject in question is biology, then life sciences, he should not be making the statement above. Would you make an opinionated comment about a particular procedure in say brain surgery if you had no knowledge of it? To express an opinion of a subject one has by definition to have to know something about it (or else be totally irrational). So i acted accordingly - i called Syamsu for decrying Dawkins by attacking on a science front when he doesn't have the knowledge and therefore shouldn't express an unwaranted opinion - it's very simple really Mike...you wouldn't expect me to express an opinion of your family without ever meeting them would you? Can you point out a creationist please who also has indepth biological knowledge? - they are as rare as rocking horse dung...i wonder why! You do realise don't you that the ToE utterly predicts that nature is indifferent. It's a lot harder to see why God's creationist vision should be so. Funnily enough...nor does this...Edited by AdminModulous, : fixed quote tags

sorry about the short response, I chose to reply to two lengthy posts in another thread and am getting into skimmed milk territory rather than clotted cream, so i apologize if I start to "race" a bit.When Dawkins says things, I don't particularly get the flags out.Example; My answer to this is, "so what". Firstly, there is an alternative way to think about it, as I have previously indicated.One dog might die, one might get lucky, should we judge "purpose" based on these facts. If good results favour Dawkins and bad results favour Dawkins, then what can I say? What can I offer, if he won't allow any facts to "show" purpose.Can we define purpose at this stage then? If function in an organism is not purpose then philosophically, "why" does an organism bother to eat at all? The only answer to this I've heard from Dawkins, is that the alternative is death.It seems that stating tautological things is supposed to impress me.This is the problem for me Mod - that essentially you are seeing "things" from a very particular type of reasoning. But my problem is - sure, he might think those things, but again, so what? If there is no sound syllogism which deductively proves his assertions to be true, then as a practical honest person, I can say that I have no reason to believe those things, because they are seen only when you wear a certain pair of glasses.If something follows, as you know, we have only established a circumstanical and tenuous evidence because of the tollens-rule.Sure, I can, having read a bit of the reasoning, see how you might have proved his books good as a read. I concede that they are interesting. You win.But that's about it.--- Believe it or not, I believe death and suffering, and pot-luck, does favour a random system. If this doesn't mean that it is a Godless system, we have no problems here mod.---So now mikey has provoked a reductio ad absurdum-moment. Does Mod glean anything "more". Does Mod, believe this way of looking at things has any God-consequences?
I now need to got out of the house, and do other things. I will look forward to reading your response.I think we have agreement. You have defended Dawkins writings pretty successfully, but I am still think a vacuous element is involved here, or an allusion to circular reasoning, in that we only have the universe as it is now. Logically, it would change if the universe could have been different at another time, and we still need to define what would constitute an evidence of a system with purpose. That's still a can of worms.

The three fallacies were not just stated. I explained what a vacuous statement is.It's a statement that is true BECAUSE part of it will never be true.I reallt WOULD fly to the moon if I was superman. That part is true. I will never be superman.It's the same with the universe. Some atheists claim that the indifference of nature proves that it's a Godless universe. At most it "favours" a Godless universe, in that the universe can't tell us if it has purpose. In that sense it's vacuously true, because nobody can actually "know" whether it has no innate purpose.So the statement is actually true, but vacuously. Sorry if it appearred I was attacking you, I just thought your attack was a bit personal.As for ad hominem. That just means you attacked Syamsu instaed of his argument, by expressing that he had a lack of biology knowledge.Logically, I can still have a true conclusion in debate, without knowing the subject that indirectly effects the topic. So a knowledge of biology would only directly matter if the conclusion was solely biological.But these debates are usually speculative, based on certain worldviews, and involve conclusions that are philosophical, such as, "God might not therefore exist", or, "God certainly therefore exists".And the non sequitur because the universe "not giving a shit" about you does not allow for any inference about evolution, as a cruel system is not what evolution is, evolution is variation of species and changes in allele frequencies leading to all species from a common ancestor.There is no logical "link" between a random cruel system, as it doesn't follow that evolution is consequential to this or vice-versa.So - I am not babbling, I only state things if I know what they mean.Have you a sound argument that proves that such a system is consequential, and that I should care that the washing machine doesn't care for me? You stated that the universe doesn't give A SHIT. Modulous has since then conflated this, as though I was responding to Dawkins, but you said it, and i'm afraid that logically, it's entirely moot because my car doesn't care for me. And? Does that prove, "evolution", a different subject and theory?