Dawkins

The thing that concerns me about the classification of atheism as non-religion is that I fear that the rights of atheists to assemble, etc. could be threatened by religious conservatives campaigning against a "freedom from religion". For instance, as an atheist and potentially future parent I want my kids in school to have the same protection against religious harassment that, say, a Hindu or Muslim would (and should) have. In a nation of predominantly Christian worshippers I think that's important.Perhaps it's best to say that atheism is an equivalent religious alternative. equivalent in the sense of being an equally protected outlook.So, if by "religion" people mean "a belief about the supernatural", atheism would be "a belief that the supernatural doesn't exist", which would be a belief about the supernatural. In that sense it could be a religion. But most people use "religion" to refer to traditional beliefs and rituals concerned with specific supernatural entities held and followed by a group of people. Atheism has no ritual; ergo, not a religion. But close.Also that most people come to atheism through a process of initally rejecting religion first, then belief in gods in general, is telling to me. Another reason to suggest atheism as a religion-alternative, I think.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

I don't think we have that sort of formal protection
in the UK, but I can see your point.Perhaps referring to atheism as a religous position might
be accurate enough, provided that people do not confuse
that with 'religion'.

I wasn't necessarily thinking of scientific evidence,
but I suppose one could claim that this is forced upon
us in school etc. ... although the further through
the education system one goes the more one is encouraged to
think critically.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't know what you mean by this. Perhaps you could spell it out for me?

quote:

---

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.

---

If, as you've alluded to before, we're reaching out to the preacher and the paediatrician (who have surreptitiously advanced from simply misunderstanding his text, to having a different, although equally valid interpretation, I note). They've read The Selfish Gene and are affected due to the fact that, despite clear warnings in the book itself, they feel that the fact that genes are selfish implies that humans must be selfish (I don't get the impression that you yourself hold this view, but that you feel that Dawkins has somehow been negligent - correct me if I'm wrong). Again, I don't see how someone pointing to an dry academic article about how one can make derive a better understanding of natural selection by imagining that genes are motivated purely by self-interest helps the priest or the paediatrician. Surely they'd be better off reading the book properly?

quote:

---

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.

---

Whilst this is probably a legitimate gripe to have, this sounds to me as though it is borne out of a fear of having human actions and thoughts somehow "explained away". In any event, are religious morals and values not, when stripped off their ritualistic and supernatural veneers, formulaic approcahes to morality? If the complaint is that Dawkins is stepping on religion's turf, then you need to provide justification of why religion is in any way qualified to answer questions of morality better than science.

quote:

---

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.

---

I wouldn't take post modernism if it were the last philosophy on Earth. But I'm interested in why you call his views "superiority thinking", when he repeatedly champions altruism and generosity, as I've already demonstrated?From the preface of The Selfish Gene: PE

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

quote:

---

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

---

Its not clear to me that he wants us to be anything. If he were to define altruism and greed from a technical perspective then I don't believe your criticism would disappear (he later defines what he means by altruism in the preface). Why would a priest or a paediatrician need the concept of greed defined for them?

quote:

---

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 suspected that you were about to argue on these lines...Dawkins work would not pass peer review. I had previously commented that I wasn't sure if the selfish gene concept was ever part of the scientific literature, but I've just seen this extract from an interview with him in The Scientist 2[22]:11, Nov. 28, 1988: Which suggests to me that the ideas have indeed been subject to peer review. I don't know. The interviewer could be lying, I suppose - but I've no reason to expect that.

quote:

---

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 don't have a problem with this. A problem might arise if you thought that human emotion was a fundamentally irrational strategy, but I don't. (I always found Mr Spock puzzling as I figured that the most "logical" action at times would be to show emotion when surrounded by humans. Tch, not very realistic at all).

quote:

---

I think the selfish gene theory, coupled with his blind pititless indifference doctrine is more akin to satanism.

---

Despite his repeated claims in practically every page that the selfish gene need not say anything about our morality? The fact that he himself advocates generosity and altruism is Satanism?I'm sorry Syamsu, I cannot take this comment seriously.

quote:

---

The few appeals to altruism Dawkins makes seem really very pathetic, compared to the charging hatered that follows from his main judgements.

---

Charging hatred? Only if you don't read his books properly. You're beginning to sound like one of those readers who persistently misunderstand him.PE

Hi PE, To be honest, I don't know whether Dawkins ever submitted the selfish gene idea to peer review, but it does show up a bit in the peer-reviewed journals discussing genes, epigenesis, etc in that context.Here's one example I had on file (it also provides a sort of operational definition of selfish gene, so I'm quoting the full abstract):

quote:

---

"Genealogical evidence for epidemics of selfish genes",
Pr K. Ingvarsson* and Douglas R. Taylor
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 99, Issue 17, 11265-11269, August 20, 2002

​

Some genetic elements spread infectiously in populations by increasing their rate of genetic transmission at the expense of other genes in the genome. These so-called selfish genetic elements comprise a substantial portion of eukaryotic genomes and have long been viewed as a potent evolutionary force. Despite this view, little is known about the evolutionary history of selfish genetic elements in natural populations, or their genetic effects on other portions of the genome. Here we use nuclear and chloroplast gene genealogies in two species of Silene to show the historical pattern of selection on a well known selfish genetic element, cytoplasmic male sterility. We provide evidence that evolution of cytoplasmic male sterility has been characterized by frequent turnovers of mutations in natural populations, thus supporting an epidemic model for the evolution of selfish genes, where new mutations repeatedly arise and rapidly sweep through populations.

---

Thanks Quetzal.I've just had a look at Dawkins bibliogaphy and the most likely candidate I could find was "In defense of selfish genes. Philosophy 56, 556-573 (1979)", although I confess that I've no idea as to whether this is peer reviewed.PE

Zeitschrift Fuer Tierpsychologie (renamed Ethology) appears to be peer-reviewed
http://www.blackwell.de/eth.htmThe Bibliography lists a likely candidate from there :
Replicator selection and the extended phenotypeThere appear to be some others which might at least touch on the subject.

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

quote:

---

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.

---

So...to backtrack a little here, you are saying that a priest or paediatrician, horrified and aghast at the perceived repercussions of their own (as we've decided) misreading of Dawkins book, could only take solace in knowing that Dawkins had written a peer reviewed technical article on the metaphor before 1976? Even if they were to pick the book up for the first time now? And this would have a far greater effect on them than simply reading the book properly?Sorry, don't buy it. This is not a substantive criticism.

quote:

---

You could use the thing right now, since apparently I "misunderstand" what "selfishness" means.

---

The "thing" presumably being the Dawkins (or anyone else's) peer reviewed article(s) on the selfish gene concept?OK - ahem - I hereby use the article(s). But as you know, I've used the books themselves, so you have no excuse for your "misunderstanding" in any case.PE

Seems as if Dawkins has been politely expressing his views on YEC'ers setting up further schools in the UK: PE

Ya, know :I REALLY DONT THINK THIS EDUCATION (finishing (in the Brits sense)) really does exist. Henry Morris %wants% to see such a school come into being for ^higher^ education but this had not happened and I have not seen postings under the threads about creation and evolution in the schools that has changed any sentiment either in or out of this direction. I am begning to see that such COULD exist and then I would say it quite appropo for Dr. D to say so or so SIMON SAYS etc but unless for instance the school should finish with a thought on how both the number of generations Mendel signed with "n" the periodic table of elements be plyed AS THE SAME DENUMERABLE INFINITY I do not see how such finish can be polished.I was certainly MORE mislead in this by evolutionist than creationist influence but that I prefer my Croizat to any other bed time story is my own perogative when not simply having to be eaten by the apple. That however is not correct as you can read. B. Russel spoke of "odd symmetry" that irrational numbers add to discussions of continuity and E. Mayr certianly does not seem to have lead his own revolution of this for an organismic bias able to record individuality in the face of any class which need not land in a creationist aproach apriori but that indeed is all I have culturally found it to contain.

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

Syamsu,I don't really get the feeling we're moving forward here, chiefly because you raise points in your last post that have already been answered viz:post 29:

quote:

---

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

---

was previously asked by you and I responded in post 21. If you don't like my answer then I'm happy to discuss, but there's not much to be gained by repeating the same question and answers repeatedly. Would you agree?

quote:

---

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.

---

Testable hypothesis: if Dawkins child is somehow lacking in moral fibre as a result of being treated as fundamentally selfish then you may have a point worth pursuing. Do you have any supporting evidence of this claim?Its also time to turn the tables - what do you understand by the use of selfish in this context? You must have some notion or the perception you have of a cultural trend towards treating children as selfish makes no sense. What does the notion of a child born selfish mean to you?Also - to help me understand your point - what are the wider societal consequences of parents treating their children as born selfish as a result of not having knowledge of any peer-reviewed article of the Selfish Gene concept, published before 1976?

quote:

---

Even the use by Nazi's like the British National Front of Dawkins texts is to some extent legitimate IMO.

---

Uncharacteristically cheap shot, Syamsu. The Crusaders / Spanish Inquisition's use of Jesus Christ is therefore to some extent legitimate.

quote:

---

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

---

Again, please re-read the thread - these have all been answered.PE[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 05-01-2003]