The Atheist Book Club discussion

104 views
Book Club > A Critique of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion"

Comments Showing 1-43 of 43 (43 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by [deleted user] (new)

Richard Dawkins seeks redemption in most unlikely places.


message 2: by Elisabet (new)

Elisabet Norris | 4 comments What do you mean? I don't remember reading anything about him redeeming himself...


message 3: by John (new)

John (longjohn) | 14 comments "Deleted User" may have been a notorious troll. Pay him no mind...


message 4: by [deleted user] (new)

Romance is like religion, poison.


message 5: by [deleted user] (new)

Dawkins's science is not science as it is unverifiable, at best it is logic, at worst it is pseudoscience.


message 6: by Tarryn (new)

Tarryn McKay (yellowgrub) | 6 comments In what way does Dawkins peddle pseudoscience?


message 7: by [deleted user] (new)

Tarryn wrote: "In what way does Dawkins peddle pseudoscience?"

The God Delusion is full of it.


message 8: by Tarryn (new)

Tarryn McKay (yellowgrub) | 6 comments Would you be able to give me an example? I'm just curious...


message 9: by [deleted user] (last edited Jan 15, 2015 07:43AM) (new)

It has been a long time since I read the book, but as I read, nearly all the science presented was unverifiable; however, even the odds that he gives for/against the existence of God are completely fabricated. Also, on a matter of research, he is completely blank as to what substance is to a theologian and shows only contempt for a concept that he doesn't understand; although, even a casual search would have found that substance is soul to a theologian. In fact, Richard Dawkins shows that he is as capable of ignorance as his opponents. And, my opinion of him as a man of science is very low.


message 10: by Tarryn (new)

Tarryn McKay (yellowgrub) | 6 comments Again, can you give me an example of this unverifiable science? I'm not interested in a theology debate at the moment, I would just like you to back up the statement that 'Dawkins' science is not science'.

We can get into the rest of your comment regarding souls, etc.. later.


message 11: by Rich (new)

Rich Goscicki | 54 comments even a casual search would have found that substance is soul to a theologian.

Dawkins is a full professor of Zoology at Oxford. He once reminisced that he assisted at the dissection of a giraffe. He was an associate of the great Desmond Morris. Sounds like a man of science to me.

The above cited line is pretty spooky in my opinion. In other words: boogetty-boo.


message 12: by Tarryn (new)

Tarryn McKay (yellowgrub) | 6 comments Exactly why I was asking about the science Rich! Dawkins is a respected evolutionary biologist, even if you don't agree with his philosophy on religion, you can't attack his scientific credentials - at least not without citing the 'pseudoscience'!

I'm still waiting for the evidence Gregory!


message 13: by [deleted user] (new)

Read The God Delusion, and if you can find a verifiable science, I'll back down.


message 14: by Tarryn (new)

Tarryn McKay (yellowgrub) | 6 comments Gregory, I'm sorry, but that isn't how it works. You made the claim, not me. If you can't actually furnish me with evidence, please just admit it.

The burden of proof is on you.


message 15: by Derek (last edited Jan 16, 2015 07:14AM) (new)

Derek | 7 comments Gregory, a discussion is not people simply uttering opinions at one another. You cannot make a fantastic claim, insist its correctness, and then insist the rest of us should read up.

First, it's reasonable to assume most of us have already read this book given Dawkins status in the community.

Second, it's unreasonable to presume that our interpretation of the reading will be 100% identical to yours. Clearly this is the case since you are the only person to have made this claim.

If you must engage others with your opinions, and if you have any respect for reality, you should read up on logical fallacies. Your current fallacy is burden of proof. If you claim something, and if your claim is challenged, it is your responsibility to lay the foundation for that claim. Only then can others test that foundation.

However, if your intention is not to engage in meaningful conversation, meaningful in that all participants stand to learn something, than uttering your opinion is the same as not uttering your opinion.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burd...


message 16: by Rich (new)

Rich Goscicki | 54 comments Allow me to clear up a point. Much of archeology, paleontology, and most importantly evolutionary biology aren't "verifiable" because of the element of time. But that doesn't mean we can dismiss the study altogether. Dawkins' selfish gene theory changed biology, even though we can prove that a "hawk gene" or "fast gene" even exists.


message 17: by [deleted user] (new)

Well, I am not going to reread the goddamn God Delusion just so I can debate the finer points with you mob.


message 18: by [deleted user] (new)

Nearly every theory that pops in and out of Richard Dawkins's mind is bullshit science, but if you love him so much, you are welcome to him.


message 19: by Derek (new)

Derek | 7 comments If you can prove this statement, than you should. If you cannot, isn't it more likely that your hatred impedes your reason?

"Nearly every theory that pops in and out of Richard Dawkins's mind is bullshit science"


message 20: by Tarryn (new)

Tarryn McKay (yellowgrub) | 6 comments It's very easy to make unsupported claims Gregory. It's nothing to do with love of Dawkins, it's people making claims they can't, or won't, back up. If the God Delusion is so chock full of pseudoscience, it really wouldn't take you long to go back and find some. The burden of proof still rests with you.


message 21: by Cameron (new)

Cameron Gregory seems to be essentially just stating his opinion here without elaboration because he doesn't feel like debating it. He is obviously not presenting an actual argument, but you should not disregard his claim (that the god delusion contains inaccurate points) simply because he fails to explain it. Indeed, such claims should only be considered true when proven rather than automatically considered correct until disproven, but it isn't necessarily Gregory's responsibility to provide said proof. He's given you a claim that he doesn't desire to expound on, so examine it's validity yourself (assuming you haven't already considered it).


message 22: by [deleted user] (new)

I am only too happy to debate my claim, however my memory fails me to the point where I can only vaguely remember Dawkins's contentions.


message 23: by [deleted user] (new)

Okay, I have done a quick search myself. And Dawkins raises the rational point in his God Delusion which is that of altruism in man and other species. Unfortunately for Dawkins, there is no altruism in chemistry.


message 24: by Rich (new)

Rich Goscicki | 54 comments Derek wrote: "If you can prove this statement, than you should. If you cannot, isn't it more likely that your hatred impedes your reason?

"Nearly every theory that pops in and out of Richard Dawkins's mind is b..."


Darek, I dig Prof. Dawkins and would never say that. DO you have the text?


message 25: by Derek (last edited Jan 18, 2015 07:12AM) (new)

Derek | 7 comments message 18: by Gregory Jan 16, 2015 09:12AM
Nearly every theory that pops in and out of Richard Dawkins's mind is bullshit science, but if you love him so much, you are welcome to him.


I was talking directly to Gregory when i posted that. I disagree with Gregory's position, and think he should strongly consider supporting his position.


message 26: by [deleted user] (new)

If you conflate the selfish gene with the meme, you get the rationalist project in a nutshell. I am not saying that Dawkins is an eugenicist like others of his kind but he is a typical elitist.


message 27: by [deleted user] (new)

Dawkins is the Plato of his times without being entirely disagreeable.


message 28: by Rich (new)

Rich Goscicki | 54 comments Assuming you mean "merge" by "conflate" there is no reason to do that. Dawkins makes is clear they are two different concepts.


message 29: by Michael (new)

Michael (semanticwarrior) | 18 comments Dawkins offers the most lucid and compelling theory for the source of altruism as an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) based on nothing more than logic, simple arithmetic ratios and the powerful reality of great spans of time. This would be from the Selfish Gene, where he describes many unverifiable theories. You see, all theories are unverifiable. Theories can only be refuted. His and the ones he generally espouses account for more facts than others in aggregate can. So while there is no altruism in chemistry, there is in evolutionary dynamics


message 30: by [deleted user] (last edited Feb 21, 2015 03:41PM) (new)

Michael wrote: "Dawkins offers the most lucid and compelling theory for the source of altruism as an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) based on nothing more than logic, simple arithmetic ratios and the powerful..."

What do you mean by "evolutionary dynamics"? I reckon evolutionary dynamics, when talked about, take us away from the speculation of the selfish gene to the realm of the meme which is at least feasible.


message 31: by [deleted user] (last edited Feb 21, 2015 09:03PM) (new)

As much as Dawkins likes to complain about Lamarckism, in my mind I believe that he believes.


message 32: by [deleted user] (new)

There is no truth to Lamarckism, none at all. It is a matter of faith.


message 33: by Derek (new)

Derek | 7 comments Gregory wrote: "As much as Dawkins likes to complain about Lamarckism, in my mind I believe that he believes."
I suspected Gregory of being a troll, and now I'm certain of it.


message 34: by [deleted user] (last edited Feb 22, 2015 11:05AM) (new)

Derek, if you have no better argument, piss off. In my opinion, people who call people trolls are no better than trolls themselves.


message 35: by Rich (new)

Rich Goscicki | 54 comments "There is no truth to Lamarckism, none at all. It is a matter of faith."

I disagree with the above. Jean Baptiste Lamarck is considered one of the co-founders of evolutionary theory and was correct on most concepts except for "acquired characteristics". You remember, chopping off the mouses' tails to produce a tailless offspring. But, then again, neither did Darwin clearly understand the hereditary mechanism. The "evolutionary synthesis" of the 1920s settled the matter with the discovery of genetics.


message 36: by [deleted user] (new)

I am not saying that Dawkins is a religious person. I am saying that he is a rationalist as he declares himself to be.


message 37: by Derek (last edited Feb 22, 2015 03:06PM) (new)

Derek | 7 comments Gregory wrote: "Derek, if you have no better argument, piss off. In my opinion, people who call people trolls are no better than trolls themselves."
You stated that in your mind, you believe that Dawkins believes lamarckinism. Like the rest of your contributions here, you assert without providing evidence. Without evidence, you have no argument. Especially in this case, where your assertion is demonstrably false.


“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” (Christopher Hitchens)


message 38: by [deleted user] (last edited Feb 22, 2015 06:32PM) (new)

Derek wrote: "Gregory wrote: "Derek, if you have no better argument, piss off. In my opinion, people who call people trolls are no better than trolls themselves."
You stated that in your mind, you believe that ..."


I see that you don't have a better argument, Derek, therefore I won't waste my time fending you off.


message 39: by Derek (new)

Derek | 7 comments Gregory wrote: "As much as Dawkins likes to complain about Lamarckism, in my mind I believe that he believes."

Many people believe many things, even when there is evidence to the contrary. Confirmation bias runs strong and deep in this kind of belief. Why do you believe that he believes, when there is no evidence to support that position; and plenty to the contrary? Why do you make so many assertions with no shred of evidence?



"in his 1995 book "River out of Eden", Richard Dawkins described Lamarckian thinking as 'deeply pernicious'."

http://www.hughdower.com/Lamarck.htm


" In his rejection of Lamarckism, Richard Dawkins, the leading modern exponent of neo-Darwinism, is clear about his feelings: “To be painfully honest, I can think of few things that would more devastate my world view than a demonstrated need to return to the theory of evolution that is traditionally attributed to Lamarck.”"


http://www.nautis.com/2013/01/taboo-b...



" If you want to find Lamarckism, don’t look on a planet whose life form's embryology is epigenesis. See A Devil's Chaplain: Darwin Triumphant"

https://mobile.twitter.com/richarddaw...


" Richard Dawkins dismissed the possibility of Lamarckian evolution in his book The Blind Watchmaker (1991) and neo-Darwinist Daniel Dennett in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995) described "Teilhard, Lamarck and Directed Mutation" as "three losers"!"

http://www.researchgate.net/post/What...


message 40: by [deleted user] (new)

It is little known what rationalism is.


message 41: by [deleted user] (last edited Jun 29, 2015 01:58PM) (new)

Dawkins seems to believe in an inborn destiny. He sees himself certainly as a messiah.


message 42: by Gary (new)

Gary | 106 comments G. wrote: "Dawkins seems to believe in an inborn destiny. He sees himself certainly as a messiah."

Is that what he believes or what other people project onto him because they are so used to the concept of faith being an unassailable virtue?

I have been accused many times myself of being arrogant or close minded, yet in my experience it seems to be an accusation thrown at anyone willing to express an opinion who is also self aware enough to have already critically examined that opinion for themselves, and eloquent enough to express that opinion with confidence.


message 43: by [deleted user] (new)

Gary wrote: "G. wrote: "Dawkins seems to believe in an inborn destiny. He sees himself certainly as a messiah."

Is that what he believes or what other people project onto him because they are so used to the c..."


Very true.


back to top