AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2014/03/30/reading-richard-dawkins-led-to-my-con... thoughts are what made dhw ask me to write my book. The critiques of The God Delusion are right on. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi in UK told Dawkins outright he was antisemetic for his put down of Genesis.

4942 views

http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2014/03/30/reading-richard-dawkins-led-to-my-con... These thoughts are what made dhw ask me to write my book. The critiques of The God Delusion are right on. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi in UK told Dawkins outright he was antisemetic for his put down of Genesis.-Errrm, well, actually no, these were NOT the thoughts that made me ask you to write your book (or that made me write my own "Brief Guide"). These people are complaining about Dawkins' ignorant and arrogant dismissal of religion. But Dawkins is first and foremost a scientist who tries to use his science as a means of attacking religion, and what was needed was a scientific response, not a religious response. The critiques that I read were not "right on" at all, because you cannot counter science with faith or myth or theology. What was needed was a book to show that Dawkins' scientific arguments were flawed. That is why I encouraged you, and why I feel your book is so important. I should stress, of course, that I neither accept nor reject your conclusions or those of Dawkins. My personal satisfaction lies in the fact that you have done such a great job in restoring the scientific balance between the two sides.

4949 views

http://www.deadphilosopherssociety.com/2014/03/30/reading-richard-dawkins-led-to-my-con... 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100267804/is-richard-dawkins-leading-p... 
> DAVID: These thoughts are what made dhw ask me to write my book. The critiques of The God Delusion are right on. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi in UK told Dawkins outright he was antisemetic for his put down of Genesis.
> 
> dhw: Errrm, well, actually no, these were NOT the thoughts that made me ask you to write your book (or that made me write my own "Brief Guide"). These people are complaining about Dawkins' ignorant and arrogant dismissal of religion. But Dawkins is first and foremost a scientist who tries to use his science as a means of attacking religion, and what was needed was a scientific response, not a religious response. The critiques that I read were not "right on" at all, because you cannot counter science with faith or myth or theology.-But the point of one review is that he wasn't using proper science:-"I started reading this thinking that I might read a logical, skeptical, nay scientific critique of religion. Instead, I found something right out of a Boston Globe editorial on a bad day: strings of pejorative adjectives pretending to be argument, bald assertion pretending to be evidence, an incredibly arrogant attitude, and a stance of moral equivalence incapable of distinguishing between the possible strengths and weaknesses of different religions, including the militant atheism Dawkins advocates. This is not academic analysis, it is bad journalism.-
> dhw: What was needed was a book to show that Dawkins' scientific arguments were flawed. That is why I encouraged you, and why I feel your book is so important. I should stress, of course, that I neither accept nor reject your conclusions or those of Dawkins. My personal satisfaction lies in the fact that you have done such a great job in restoring the scientific balance between the two sides.-Thank you.

4902 views

Antony Flew's review of Dawkins' The God Delusion:-http://www.bethinking.org/atheism/professor-antony-flew-reviews-the-god-delusion

4883 views

"I started reading this thinking that I might read a logical, skeptical, nay scientific critique of religion. Instead, I found something right out of a Boston Globe editorial on a bad day: strings of pejorative adjectives pretending to be argument, bald assertion pretending to be evidence, an incredibly arrogant attitude, and a stance of moral equivalence incapable of distinguishing between the possible strengths and weaknesses of different religions, including the militant atheism Dawkins advocates. This is not academic analysis, it is bad journalism.-
Here I find you start approaching the same sort of invective as you claim Dawkins has.-For example Dawkins advocates militant atheism-Is this militant as militant fundamentalist? -This is what I would call militant atheism

4856 views

"I started reading this thinking that I might read a logical, skeptical, nay scientific critique of religion. Instead, I found something right out of a Boston Globe editorial on a bad day: strings of pejorative adjectives pretending to be argument, bald assertion pretending to be evidence, an incredibly arrogant attitude, and a stance of moral equivalence incapable of distinguishing between the possible strengths and weaknesses of different religions, including the militant atheism Dawkins advocates. This is not academic analysis, it is bad journalism.
> 
> 
> Romansh:Here I find you start approaching the same sort of invective as you claim Dawkins has.-That is not my quote although you are attempting to personalize it. If you don't recongnize the weakness of The God Delusion as stated in the critical example above then I suspect you are well tilted toward an atheist veiwpoint yourself, and certainly not planted neutrally on the picket fence as is dhw, who started this website as a counterpoint to Dawkins. You have a right to your tilt, just let us see it as we analyze your defense of your viewpoint. I could show you many more criticisms of Dawkins, especially those sharp opinions of Mary Midgley come to mind. But Stove and Berlinski are just as cutting. I hope you have read them.
> 
> Romansh: For example Dawkins advocates militant atheism
> 
> Is this militant as militant fundamentalist? -All militants have strong faith in their viewpoints. Unreasonable in their attacks on others. Both astheists and fundamenalists are equally strong in their faith and equally unresonable to listen to. 
> 
> Romansh: This is what I would call militant atheism-Unreasonable praise for Dawkins beyond the pale. I think he is an intellectual lightweight, but a gifted writer and entertainer.

4902 views

I've listened to the Dawkins lecture. It's mainly a repeat of his arguments in The God Delusion. He still praises the elegance of evolutionary theory as if it offered all the answers, sticks to gradualism, though this has come under increasing fire, insists that the theory favours atheism ... although he admits that many religious people including the Pope have accepted it (of course he doesn't tell us how it can fit in with theism) ... and again dismisses design on the grounds that the designer would have to be even more complex than the design. I accept this point, but it doesn't invalidate the complexity argument. The question then becomes whether we can assume there is no form of intelligent existence beyond our own. Dawkins in The God Delusion expresses his hope that eventually all the things we don't understand will be embraced "within the natural". (Natural, admittedly, is a flexible term, but his whole approach is materialistic.)Dismissing design because you think and hope there will be another explanation seems to me as unscientific as embracing design because you don't think there can be another explanation.-He comes up with the usual sneer at all the past gods that people are now "atheistic" about (just as some theists might sneer at all the different theories of abiogenesis), but he seems not to realize that all god figures are approximations ... simply our attempts to identify (maybe anthropomorphize, or maybe dream up) whatever as yet unknown power(s) led to our existence. By picking on the soft target of individual religions, he can raise easy laughs, and play with the word "atheism", but one would have hoped for something more discerning at this level. There is a similar superficiality in his use of polls. I think he said 73% of scientists were atheists, and he wouldn't be surprised if the "intelligentsia" in other fields came up with similar figures. Firstly, if you set store by polls, you hold a poll, you don't anticipate the results according to your own prejudices, and secondly what grounds are there for assuming that what he calls the "intelligentsia" have any more access than anyone else to the ultimate truths that NONE of us know (e.g. the origin and nature of life and consciousness)? I remember ... alas only vaguely ... the story of how western experts brought new farming techniques to a region in Africa, where the natives had been using their traditional methods for centuries. Within a few years, the land was useless. I wish I could remember the details, but in all walks of life we see experts making an unholy mess of what they touch. Of course this is not to decry all experts, but my point is that the views of the "intelligentsia" about God can hardly be regarded as a reliable yardstick when there is so much that remains unknown.-As in The God Delusion, Dawkins tries to belittle agnosticism. In this context he mentions Darwin, and even quotes him as saying he had never been an atheist. It's the first time I've heard Dawkins acknowledge this fact, and it's a pity he didn't also mention Darwin's insistence that his theory is compatible with religious belief. Dawkins manages to gloss over all the implications with a digression about Aveling and Marx, and then goes on to associate the agnostic's non-belief in God with tooth-fairy and teapot agnosticism, as if somehow these are on the same level. Perhaps he simply cannot conceive of Darwin or anyone else genuinely being uncertain about the existence of God and therefore leaving the question open. His approach is amusing for a sympathetic audience, but I find it as blinkered as his views of evolution, different forms of gods, and the "intelligentsia".
 
If, however, American society is indeed as hostile to atheism as he says it is, I would certainly support his "coming out" campaign. And perhaps it needs militancy if it is to overcome the prejudices of a predominantly religious society. But militancy breeds militancy, and it seems to me that rational arguments might in the long run pay greater dividends than Dawkins' generally polemical and in my view extremely superficial approach to the subject in both his book and his lecture.

5394 views


> dhw: If, however, American society is indeed as hostile to atheism as he says it is, I would certainly support his "coming out" campaign. And perhaps it needs militancy if it is to overcome the prejudices of a predominantly religious society. But militancy breeds militancy, and it seems to me that rational arguments might in the long run pay greater dividends than Dawkins' generally polemical and in my view extremely superficial approach to the subject in both his book and his lecture.-This is a much more believing country than most of Western societies. I think we have pinned down Dawkins in these past exchanges. I await Romansh's point of view clarified.

4872 views

David
> This is a much more believing country than most of Western societies. I think we have pinned down Dawkins in these past exchanges. I await Romansh's point of view clarified.
If you think we should treat the senior Bush's opinions on atheism and American patriotism with anything but with concern ... let me know.-If we need to treat (frankly a childlike) literal belief with same rigour as say a panentheist's belief in god ... fair enough you can do that. ->But Stove and Berlinski are just as cutting. I hope you have read them.-If you think an ability to be cutting is somehow a good thing ... just because Dawkins' cuttingness is a little blunt ... so what? ->Unreasonable praise for Dawkins beyond the pale. I think he is an intellectual lightweight, but a gifted writer and entertainer.-I don't see what you mean by "unreasonable praise"-At least he doesn't argue for ... I don't see how X can work, therefore I will believe in Y. Now to me that sort of belief is a little bit lightweight intellectually speaking.

4938 views

There is a problem here dhw-While I might agree TGD can come across as vitriolic, I nevertheless enjoyed the book, despite the vitriol detracting from the reason. -Having said that when I used the word responsible people, including yourself dhw, bestowed an intent (to decieve in some way). When we describe other people as arrogant, I think we fall into the same trap that we might thing they have fallen in.-Regarding agnosticism ... I disgreed with Dawkins about temporary and permanent agnosticism in general but I tend to agree with Russell's type of philosophical agnosticism. Now if you hold an equal degree of agnosticism towards say a literalist Christian interpretation of god and David's panentheistic god, then there is something I really don't understand. Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood? Personally I completely dismiss the vast number of Christian positions I am atheistic in the strong sense of the word. Whereas I am agnostic towards panentheism or atheistic in the weak sense of the word.-Now what do we do aboutpeople wishing to teach intelligent design in science classes in schools?

4863 views

ROM: There is a problem here dhw
While I might agree TGD can come across as vitriolic, I nevertheless enjoyed the book, despite the vitriol detracting from the reason.-What's the problem?
 
ROM: [...] when I used the word responsible people, including yourself dhw, bestowed an intent (to decieve in some way).-Initially, when you challenged me on the subject of the sun's responsibility for hurricanes, I thought you must be unaware of the fact that you were using the word "responsible" ambiguously (the sun's unconscious causal responsibility versus Hitler's consciously moral responsibility). However, after I'd pointed this out to you, you still used the same argument against Tony. Of course only you can know the reason why you repeated the equivocation.
 
ROMANSH: Regarding agnosticism ... I disgreed with Dawkins about temporary and permanent agnosticism in general but I tend to agree with Russell's type of philosophical agnosticism. Now if you hold an equal degree of agnosticism towards say a literalist Christian interpretation of god and David's panentheistic god, then there is something I really don't understand. Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood? Personally I completely dismiss the vast number of Christian positions I am atheistic in the strong sense of the word. Whereas I am agnostic towards panentheism or atheistic in the weak sense of the word.-You and Dawkins have a very different understanding of the word "atheism" from mine. I would define it as: the belief that there is no God and there are no gods. (My Collins dictionary offers: "rejection of belief in God or gods".) I don't know how you can apply the term to man walking with dinosaurs prior to the flood. You seem to be associating it with disbelief in anything. But your other examples follow the Dawkins line, and they boil down to disbelief not in God or gods, but in different versions of God or gods. And I'm afraid I'd find it ridiculous for the Pope to call the Chief Rabbi, or the Ayatollahs, or a billion Hindus atheists because they don't believe that Christ was the son of a virgin, was resurrected, and is now in heaven with his father God. Clearly you don't find it ridiculous, so yet again we need a definition.-As for agnosticism, for me it's neither belief nor disbelief in God or gods. That leaves me free to have preferences between different versions. Even if I can't make up my mind whether there's such a thing as a god, I'm still perfectly capable of finding some versions more believable than others. David's panentheistic God is as devoid of attributes and stories as a god can be, and so I naturally find it closer to my agnosticism than any of the more clearly formulated versions. If we don't know whether a god exists, how can we possibly know what it would be like? Once more, should the Pope call David an atheist because he doesn't believe Jesus was the son of his God? I know such religious bigotry still exists, but I would have hoped that agnostics and atheists especially would see the absurdity.-I'm also a little sad that you think of your approach in terms of strong and weak atheism (a commonly used linguistic device to devalue agnosticism). According to my definition, agnosticism is no form of theism or atheism, although of course there are degrees of all the ...isms. Since you like mathematics, agnosticism = 50/50 between some kind of unknown universal intelligence (regardless of religious interpretations) and a purely impersonal, unconscious mass of mindless energy and matter. And let's say 25% is the borderline where theist/agnostic/atheist overlap (= agnostic leaning towards...). I'm 50/50. Where do you stand?
 
ROMANSH: Now what do we do about people wishing to teach intelligent design in science classes in schools? -In science classes, I think we should teach science, including evolution as a scientific theory, stating whatever "facts" are known and unknown at the time. We should not draw conclusions. These should be discussed in philosophy lessons, which would include atheism, agnosticism, and all the major religions. For instance, it should be made clear that evolutionary theory can be interpreted atheistically and theistically, and is rejected by some religions, which offer alternatives. Teachers should not impose their own philosophies. I myself am in favour of pupils being given as wide a range of views as possible, though I know that this could initially lead to conflicts between school and home. One's hope is that after a generation or two, the broader view might lead to ever increasing tolerance. No harm in dreaming, is there?

4869 views

What's the problem?-The problem is we assign values to others (as well as 'ourselves') and think they are somehow true ... eg Richard Dawkins is arrogant-> Of course only you can know the reason why you repeated the equivocation.
Agreed, but does not appear to stop one from accusing others of deceit in some form another.
 
> You and Dawkins have a very different understanding of the word "atheism" from mine. I would define it as: the belief that there is no God and there are no gods. -Again you completely misread me. Personally I prefer the strong atheist definition. But whatever attachment I have to 'my' preffered definition is just that - an attachment.->(My Collins dictionary offers: "rejection of belief in God or gods".)
Your Collins dictionary I find ambiguous on the subject. It could be strong or weak.-> I don't know how you can apply the term to man walking with dinosaurs prior to the flood. 
You don't? OK I can drop that for the moment.-> But your other examples follow the Dawkins line, and they boil down to disbelief not in God or gods, but in different versions of God or gods. 
And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject ... ?????-> And I'm afraid I'd find it ridiculous for the Pope to call the Chief Rabbi, or the Ayatollahs, or a billion Hindus atheists because they don't believe that Christ was the son of a virgin, was resurrected, and is now in heaven with his father God. Clearly you don't find it ridiculous, so yet again we need a definition.
Quite ... yet there appear to be ancient historical examples'-> As for agnosticism, for me it's neither belief nor disbelief in God or gods.-For most atheists it is simply a lack of belief of god. I don't particularly care so long the I understand how the person I am discussing the subject with. -It is like theists saying all self described atheists have an active disbelief in god, whereas the majority I speak to would be agnostic by your definition.
 
> I'm also a little sad that you think of your approach in terms of strong and weak atheism (a commonly used linguistic device to devalue agnosticism).
I am a little sad that you are so attached to definitions that you think your view can be devalued.-I describe myself as agnostic and not as an atheist in the same way I don't go around telling people I am a non-stamp collector. Agnosticism for me is about the way we handle knowledge ... the original meaning c/o Huxley was not limited to the subject of god(s) but was aimed at the metaphysical (I would include the so called supernatural in this). -Unlike Huxley I expand my agnosticism to the physical world ... and that is a more contentious debate. -> And let's say 25% is the borderline where theist/agnostic/atheist overlap (= agnostic leaning towards...). I'm 50/50. Where do you stand?-Here you revert to a childlike (Dawkins like) scale ... In the engineering world we can calculate probabilities of a project coming in on time and on budget. I need some data ... what is the data I should use?-I can dismiss a literal Christian god to all intents and purposes as it does fit the data I experience. Do I know this? No but I think this.-David's panentheistic god ... does not make sense to me either. Frankly I don't trust David's interpretation of probabilities and his ultimate arguement from incredulity. 
regarding
some kind of unknown universal intelligence and a purely impersonal, unconscious mass of mindless energy and matter-I don't buy the word intelligence ... primarily I am far from sure it exists. 
What is is intelligence other than something where I can see a pattern or make sense of? Otherwise you have nailed down pantheism ... which is so far the "godism" I can not eliminate.
 
> In science classes, I think we should teach science, including evolution as a scientific theory, stating whatever "facts" are known and unknown at the time. We should not draw conclusions. These should be discussed in philosophy lessons, which would include atheism, agnosticism, and all the major religions. For instance, it should be made clear that evolutionary theory can be interpreted atheistically and theistically, and is rejected by some religions, which offer alternatives. Teachers should not impose their own philosophies. I myself am in favour of pupils being given as wide a range of views as possible, though I know that this could initially lead to conflicts between school and home. One's hope is that after a generation or two, the broader view might lead to ever increasing tolerance. No harm in dreaming, is there?-You did not answer my question ... let me reformulate it ... I have no problem with various religions being being taught in schools as religions ... including intelligent design. Would you have intelligent design taught in the science classroom?

4875 views

DHW: What's the problem?
> 
>Romansh: The problem is we assign values to others (as well as 'ourselves') and think they are somehow true ... eg Richard Dawkins is arrogant-Of course we do... how else are we supposed to make sense of the world or express ourselves to each other if we do not assign values to things. Dawkins is arrogant, having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities, by claiming that he is right and anyone that disagrees with him is an idiot, anyone that believes in a god(s) is a 'religidiot' and should be persecuted. I think he is wrong. I could be wrong. I have faith that there is a god, and whatever mechanisms were used in creation are explainable by science, however.-> 
> > DHW: Of course only you can know the reason why you repeated the equivocation.
> Agreed, but does not appear to stop one from accusing others of deceit in some form another.
> -Yup. I stand by that too.
 
> > DHW: You and Dawkins have a very different understanding of the word "atheism" from mine. I would define it as: the belief that there is no God and there are no gods. 
> 
>Romansh: Again you completely misread me. Personally I prefer the strong atheist definition. But whatever attachment I have to 'my' preffered definition is just that - an attachment.
> 
> >(My Collins dictionary offers: "rejection of belief in God or gods".)
> Your Collins dictionary I find ambiguous on the subject. It could be strong or weak.
>-Ok, think of it as a ternary question. Do you believe in god(s) Yes, No, or I don't know.-If you admit the possibility, but can not decide one way or the other, select I don't know. If you do not admit the possibility, select no. This is not difficult or ambiguous.--> > But your other examples follow the Dawkins line, and they boil down to disbelief not in God or gods, but in different versions of God or gods. 
> And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject ... ?????
>-Dawkins is not agnostic on the subject of deities. Period. He is quite militantly atheist (by his own admission) towards even the remotest possibility of a deity of any sort.- 
> >DHW?(lost track): As for agnosticism, for me it's neither belief nor disbelief in God or gods.
> 
> Romansh: For most atheists it is simply a lack of belief of god. I don't particularly care so long the I understand how the person I am discussing the subject with. 
> 
> It is like theists saying all self described atheists have an active disbelief in god, whereas the majority I speak to would be agnostic by your definition.
>-You either believe, disbelieve. In this one particular sense, agnostics and atheist are on common ground. It is fairly binary. Choosing not to believe because of lack of 'proof' is disbelief. 
 
<Insert "More debate on shifting definitions of agnostic and atheist here that are rather meaningless because they have already been defined quite thoroughly in dictionaries, literature, and discussions alike" here.>-- 
> > In science classes, I think we should teach science, including evolution as a scientific theory, stating whatever "facts" are known and unknown at the time. We should not draw conclusions. These should be discussed in philosophy lessons, which would include atheism, agnosticism, and all the major religions. For instance, it should be made clear that evolutionary theory can be interpreted atheistically and theistically, and is rejected by some religions, which offer alternatives. Teachers should not impose their own philosophies. I myself am in favour of pupils being given as wide a range of views as possible, though I know that this could initially lead to conflicts between school and home. One's hope is that after a generation or two, the broader view might lead to ever increasing tolerance. No harm in dreaming, is there?
> 
> You did not answer my question ... let me reformulate it ... I have no problem with various religions being being taught in schools as religions ... including intelligent design. Would you have intelligent design taught in the science classroom?-
My two cents here: Ok, suppose for a moment that there IS(are) a god(s). If that were true, would it make good science any more or any less valid? No. Does it stop people from asking questions? No. Does it stop people from trying to reach as far back into the past as they can? No. Does it negate the possibility of evolution? No. Does it negate the possibility of the Big Bang? No.-What does it do then? It allows for a different framing of the questions. It allows a scientist to shelf unverifiable speculation in favor of the gradual uncovering of knowledge. In short evolution does not HAVE to be true. It reverts back to its proper place as a theory that still needs a lot of work. It allows the BBT to revert back to its proper place as a theory that still needs a lot of work. It removes the impetus for making unfounded claims or overreaching the explanatory power of a given theory out of some misguided attempt to disprove god. So yes, I think it should be taught.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4883 views

I had drafted my reply to Romansh before seeing Tony's response. I agree with almost everything you have said, Tony, apart from three points:-TONY: You either believe, disbelieve. In this one particular sense, agnostics and atheists are on common ground. It is fairly binary. Choosing not to believe because of lack of 'proof' is disbelief.-Earlier in the same post, you said it was a "ternary" question, and that I agree with. You have now left out "don't know", and I think it's essential to distinguish between actively saying there is no god (disbelief) and saying I don't know if there's a god (= non-belief but also non-disbelief).-You've questioned the need for discussing definitions. I wish you were right. But when Dawkins and Romansh argue that people who don't believe in ancient gods or in the Christian version of God are atheists, I think we need clarification.-Teaching ID. I regard evolutionary theory and big bang theory as science, but as we've seen on this forum these theories can be interpreted in different ways ... theistically and atheistically. I think they should be taught in science classes as theories (including the gaps which prevent them from being accepted as facts), but I would confine the interpretation to philosophy lessons. In my view, however, there is no way you can treat the existence of God as a science subject, and you cannot divorce ID from God; therefore it belongs in the philosophy class. We shall probably have to differ on that!

4765 views

dhw: Teaching ID. I regard evolutionary theory and big bang theory as science, but as we've seen on this forum these theories can be interpreted in different ways ... theistically and atheistically. I think they should be taught in science classes as theories (including the gaps which prevent them from being accepted as facts), but I would confine the interpretation to philosophy lessons. In my view, however, there is no way you can treat the existence of God as a science subject, and you cannot divorce ID from God; therefore it belongs in the philosophy class. We shall probably have to differ on that!-Teaching the different interpretations of scientific data, as Tony presents it can be in a science class. Let students see the controversies

4749 views


> > 
> > Romansh: You did not answer my question ... let me reformulate it ... I have no problem with various religions being being taught in schools as religions ... including intelligent design. Would you have intelligent design taught in the science classroom?
> 
> 
> Tony: My two cents here: Ok, suppose for a moment that there IS(are) a god(s). If that were true, would it make good science any more or any less valid? No. Does it stop people from asking questions? No. Does it stop people from trying to reach as far back into the past as they can? No. Does it negate the possibility of evolution? No. Does it negate the possibility of the Big Bang? No.
> 
> What does it do then? It allows for a different framing of the questions. It allows a scientist to shelf unverifiable speculation in favor of the gradual uncovering of knowledge. In short evolution does not HAVE to be true. It reverts back to its proper place as a theory that still needs a lot of work. It allows the BBT to revert back to its proper place as a theory that still needs a lot of work. It removes the impetus for making unfounded claims or overreaching the explanatory power of a given theory out of some misguided attempt to disprove god. So yes, I think it should be taught.-I don't think it should be taught as 'intelligent design'. Instead as your discussion implies it should be taught as current proposals, not truths, and the controversal points of view should be clearly defined. The ID folks have clear criticisms of Darwinism. Simply present them as a valid point of view, God not intended.

4760 views

I didn't think this would happen. He is revered by many as if he leads a religious faith.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/it-s-time-charles-darwin-was-exposed-for-the...

"Funnily enough, in the course of my researches, I found both pride and prejudice in bucketloads among the ardent Darwinians, who would like us to believe that if you do not worship Darwin, you are some kind of nutter.

***

"By 1892 Darwin’s reputation was fading, and by the beginning of the 20th century it had all but been eclipsed. Then, in the early to mid 20th century, the science of genetics got going. Science rediscovered the findings of Gregor Mendel (Darwin’s contemporary) and the most stupendous changes in life sciences became possible. Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, and thereafter the complexity and wonder of genetics, all demonstrable by scientific means, were laid bare.

***

"Darwinism is not science as Mendelian genetics are. It is a theory whose truth is NOT universally acknowledged. But when genetics got going there was also a revival, especially in Britain, of what came to be known as neo-Darwinism, a synthesis of old Darwinian ideas with the new genetics. Why look to Darwin, who made so many mistakes, rather than to Mendel? There was a simple answer to that. Neo-Darwinism was part scientific and in part a religion, or anti-religion. Its most famous exponent alive, Richard Dawkins, said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. You could say that the apparently impersonal processes of genetics did the same. But the neo-Darwinians could hardly, without absurdity, make Mendel their hero since he was a Roman Catholic monk. So Darwin became the figurehead for a system of thought that (childishly) thought there was one catch-all explanation for How Things Are in nature.

"The great fact of evolution was an idea that had been current for at least 50 years before Darwin began his work. His own grandfather pioneered it in England, but on the continent, Goethe, Cuvier, Lamarck and many others realised that life forms evolve through myriad mutations. Darwin wanted to be the Man Who Invented Evolution, so he tried to airbrush all the predecessors out of the story. He even pretended that Erasmus Darwin, his grandfather, had had almost no influence on him. He then brought two new ideas to the evolutionary debate, both of which are false.

"The great fact of evolution was an idea that had been current for at least 50 years before Darwin began his work. His own grandfather pioneered it in England, but on the continent, Goethe, Cuvier, Lamarck and many others realised that life forms evolve through myriad mutations. Darwin wanted to be the Man Who Invented Evolution, so he tried to airbrush all the predecessors out of the story. He even pretended that Erasmus Darwin, his grandfather, had had almost no influence on him. He then brought two new ideas to the evolutionary debate, both of which are false.

***

"if the Darwinian theory of natural selection were true, fossils would by now have revealed hundreds of thousands of such examples. Species adapt themselves to their environment, but there are very few transmutations.

"Darwin’s second big idea was that Nature is always ruthless: that the strong push out the weak, that compassion and compromise are for cissies whom Nature throws to the wall. Darwin borrowed the phrase “survival of the fittest” from the now forgotten and much discredited philosopher Herbert Spencer. He invented a consolation myth for the selfish class to which he belonged, to persuade them that their neglect of the poor, and the colossal gulf between them and the poor, was the way Nature intended things. He thought his class would outbreed the “savages” (ie the brown peoples of the globe) and the feckless, drunken Irish.
Stubbornly, the unfittest survived. Brown, Jewish and Irish people had more babies than the Darwin class. The Darwinians then had to devise the hateful pseudo-science of eugenics, which was a scheme to prevent the poor from breeding.

"We all know where that led, and the uses to which the National Socialists put Darwin’s dangerous ideas."

Comment: I have read all these criticisms before, but not in a British newspaper. Darwinism was clearly behind the Nazi extermination schemes, but not his fault they used his ideas.

4083 views

DAVID: I didn't think this would happen. He [Darwin] is revered by many as if he leads a religious faith.

Which is not his fault, any more than it is his fault that both theists and atheists try to twist his theories to fit their own personal agenda.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/it-s-time-charles-darwin-was-exposed-for-the...

DAVID: I have read all these criticisms before, but not in a British newspaper. Darwinism was clearly behind the Nazi extermination schemes, but not his fault they used his ideas.

Thank you for this very fair comment. I don't know why you're surprised. Religious and anti-religious bigotry is just as common over here as it is in the States. A.N. Wilson is a theist converted to atheism and then converted back to theism. He courts controversy, and the headline of the article is worth quoting in full to get the tone of his views:

"It’s time Charles Darwin was exposed for the fraud he was
Two of his theories about evolution were wrong – and one resulting ‘science’ inspired the Nazis"

This sort of sensationalism may sell books and bring the writer into the public eye, but to call someone who devoted his life to his science a “fraud” and to couple his name with Nazism is gutter journalism of the worst kind. (If he were alive today, Darwin would have every right to sue.) As you say, the criticisms aren’t new, though the vicious implication that somehow the theory reflects the theorist (“compassion and compromise are for cissies”) perhaps takes them to a new low. In any case, one can’t help wondering why anyone would devote their time to writing a biography of someone they so obviously despise. I wonder how A.N. Wilson would react to a biography of Jesus by Richard Dawkins, advertised with the headline: “Jesus was a fraud who inspired some of the worst cases of genocide in human history”. I’ll look forward to reviews of the book, and will let you know what they come up with.

4048 views

DAVID: I have read all these criticisms before, but not in a British newspaper. Darwinism was clearly behind the Nazi extermination schemes, but not his fault they used his ideas.

dhw: Thank you for this very fair comment. I don't know why you're surprised. Religious and anti-religious bigotry is just as common over here as it is in the States. A.N. Wilson is a theist converted to atheism and then converted back to theism. He courts controversy, and the headline of the article is worth quoting in full to get the tone of his views:

"It’s time Charles Darwin was exposed for the fraud he was
Two of his theories about evolution were wrong – and one resulting ‘science’ inspired the Nazis"

This sort of sensationalism may sell books and bring the writer into the public eye, but to call someone who devoted his life to his science a “fraud” and to couple his name with Nazism is gutter journalism of the worst kind. (If he were alive today, Darwin would have every right to sue.) As you say, the criticisms aren’t new, though the vicious implication that somehow the theory reflects the theorist (“compassion and compromise are for cissies”) perhaps takes them to a new low. In any case, one can’t help wondering why anyone would devote their time to writing a biography of someone they so obviously despise. I wonder how A.N. Wilson would react to a biography of Jesus by Richard Dawkins, advertised with the headline: “Jesus was a fraud who inspired some of the worst cases of genocide in human history”. I’ll look forward to reviews of the book, and will let you know what they come up with.

Darwin did not know what he did not know and is known now, making many of his conclusions problematic. And the struggles of his acolytes to make evolution fit into his theories laughable.

4062 views

dhw: A.N. Wilson is a theist converted to atheism and then converted back to theism. He courts controversy, and the headline of the article is worth quoting in full to get the tone of his views:
"It’s time Charles Darwin was exposed for the fraud he was
Two of his theories about evolution were wrong – and one resulting ‘science’ inspired the Nazis"
This sort of sensationalism may sell books and bring the writer into the public eye, but to call someone who devoted his life to his science a “fraud” and to couple his name with Nazism is gutter journalism of the worst kind. (If he were alive today, Darwin would have every right to sue.) As you say, the criticisms aren’t new, though the vicious implication that somehow the theory reflects the theorist (“compassion and compromise are for cissies”) perhaps takes them to a new low. In any case, one can’t help wondering why anyone would devote their time to writing a biography of someone they so obviously despise. I wonder how A.N. Wilson would react to a biography of Jesus by Richard Dawkins, advertised with the headline: “Jesus was a fraud who inspired some of the worst cases of genocide in human history”. I’ll look forward to reviews of the book, and will let you know what they come up with.

DAVID: Darwin did not know what he did not know and is known now, making many of his conclusions problematic. And the struggles of his acolytes to make evolution fit into his theories laughable.

Agreed. And I trust you are as disgusted as I am by the term “fraud” and by the other scurrilous ad hominems.

4044 views

dhw: A.N. Wilson is a theist converted to atheism and then converted back to theism. He courts controversy, and the headline of the article is worth quoting in full to get the tone of his views:
"It’s time Charles Darwin was exposed for the fraud he was
Two of his theories about evolution were wrong – and one resulting ‘science’ inspired the Nazis"
This sort of sensationalism may sell books and bring the writer into the public eye, but to call someone who devoted his life to his science a “fraud” and to couple his name with Nazism is gutter journalism of the worst kind. (If he were alive today, Darwin would have every right to sue.) As you say, the criticisms aren’t new, though the vicious implication that somehow the theory reflects the theorist (“compassion and compromise are for cissies”) perhaps takes them to a new low. In any case, one can’t help wondering why anyone would devote their time to writing a biography of someone they so obviously despise. I wonder how A.N. Wilson would react to a biography of Jesus by Richard Dawkins, advertised with the headline: “Jesus was a fraud who inspired some of the worst cases of genocide in human history”. I’ll look forward to reviews of the book, and will let you know what they come up with.

DAVID: Darwin did not know what he did not know and is known now, making many of his conclusions problematic. And the struggles of his acolytes to make evolution fit into his theories laughable.

dhw: Agreed. And I trust you are as disgusted as I am by the term “fraud” and by the other scurrilous ad hominems.

Darwin was not fraudulent, but like all humans he was careful to claim his share of the credit for the evolutionary discussion.

4031 views

DAVID’s comment (under "Genome complexity"): ...this is the best sort of evidence that evolution is a process of common descent. Archaea are the oldest of the three domains of life, and closest to original life forms.

Confirmation of Darwin’s most important contribution to our understanding of evolution.

DAVID : Darwin was not fraudulent, but like all humans he was careful to claim his share of the credit for the evolutionary discussion.

Not his fault if credit is given where credit is due, and certainly not a justification for A.N. Wilson’s scurrilous ad hominems.

4091 views

I have restored this post to the thread where it belongs.

dhw: The principle is on the same intellectual level as blaming Jesus Christ for the Crusades and the Inquisition, Muhammed for ISIS terrorism, and God for all the evil that men do. No, I am not comparing Darwin to these religious figures. He was simply a scientist trying to unravel the mystery of how life on earth developed, and he put together a theory much of which is still valid 150 years after he wrote it. If the theory of common descent is true, and if it’s true that in most cases those organisms best suited for survival will survive, then why attack the person who promulgated the truth just because other people used it for their own purposes? As for “bogus Victorian science” and the other spiteful ad hominems, no doubt there will be responses from people who know a lot more than I do, and last time I promised to report on any reviews. They obviously won’t be available till later next month.

DAVID: Your partial sentence: He was simply a scientist trying to unravel the mystery of how life on earth developed, and he put together a theory much of which is still valid 150 years after he wrote it. If the theory of common descent is true, and if it’s true that in most cases those organisms best suited for survival will survive, (my bold) is where I have trouble with Darwin. My position, as you know, is evolution is driven to advance complexity, with or without survivability.

I’m disappointed that you have focused on this and not even commented on the dreadful distortions underlying A.N. Wilson’s personal attacks on Darwin, which are the subject of my post. I know you disagree with Darwin, and you know that I have added the drive for improvement to the drive for survival. Meanwhile, I hope you will join me in condemning A.N. Wilson’s ad hominems for the reasons I have given in my post.

4000 views

dhw: I’m disappointed that you have focused on this and not even commented on the dreadful distortions underlying A.N. Wilson’s personal attacks on Darwin, which are the subject of my post. I know you disagree with Darwin, and you know that I have added the drive for improvement to the drive for survival. Meanwhile, I hope you will join me in condemning A.N. Wilson’s ad hominems for the reasons I have given in my post.

Sorry to disappoint you. I can only discuss what I am familiar with, which is a discussion of the science of evolution. My American impressions of Victorian England are romantic and vague and colored by fiction. Wilson's attacks on Darwin and his discussions of Victorian England are repeats of others I have read from other authors. I don't doubt your defense of him, as a proud Englishman, but do you really see Darwin, warts and all? I don't know the truth about him. I've not read his writings. Descent of Man has had some vicious reviews. I brought up the subject because I am surprised at the nasty attacks by British commentators.

3993 views

dhw: I’m disappointed that you have focused on this and not even commented on the dreadful distortions underlying A.N. Wilson’s personal attacks on Darwin, which are the subject of my post. I know you disagree with Darwin, and you know that I have added the drive for improvement to the drive for survival. Meanwhile, I hope you will join me in condemning A.N. Wilson’s ad hominems for the reasons I have given in my post.

David: Sorry to disappoint you. I can only discuss what I am familiar with, which is a discussion of the science of evolution. My American impressions of Victorian England are romantic and vague and colored by fiction. Wilson's attacks on Darwin and his discussions of Victorian England are repeats of others I have read from other authors. I don't doubt your defense of him, as a proud Englishman, but do you really see Darwin, warts and all? I don't know the truth about him. I've not read his writings. Descent of Man has had some vicious reviews. I brought up the subject because I am surprised at the nasty attacks by British commentators.

I am no expert on Darwin, and my Englishness and A.N. Wilson’s Englishness have nothing to do with it. I am attacking his method of putting words into Darwin’s mouth and using a scientific theory of how different species evolved as a reason to lambast Darwin for other people’s prejudices and practices, culminating in the extermination of the Jews half a century after his death. This is neither science nor scholarship. I’m disappointed that you can’t see it.

3961 views

dhw: I am no expert on Darwin, and my Englishness and A.N. Wilson’s Englishness have nothing to do with it. I am attacking his method of putting words into Darwin’s mouth and using a scientific theory of how different species evolved as a reason to lambast Darwin for other people’s prejudices and practices, culminating in the extermination of the Jews half a century after his death. This is neither science nor scholarship. I’m disappointed that you can’t see it.

I've explained my peripheral knowledge. Did Hitler use Darwin's theories in Descent of Man as alleged? Obviously not Darwin's fault.

3967 views

An interesting defense of Dawkins selfish genes, by making assumptions against the presented evidence that 80% of DNA has some functions:

https://aeon.co/essays/our-genome-is-not-a-blueprint-for-making-humans-at-all?utm_sourc...

"Our genome has more than 20,000 genes, relatively stable stretches of DNA transmitted largely unchanged between generations. These genes contain recipes for molecules, especially proteins, that are the main building blocks and molecular machines of our bodies. Yet DNA that codes for such known structures accounts for just over 3 per cent of our genome. What about the other 97 per cent? With the publication of the first draft of the human genome in 2001, that shadow world came into focus. It emerged that roughly half our DNA consisted of ‘repeats’, long stretches of letters sometimes found in millions of copies at seemingly random places throughout the genome. Were all these repeats just junk?

***

"After working hard for almost a decade, in 2012 ENCODE came to a surprising conclusion: rather than being composed mostly of useless junk, 80 per cent of the human genome is in fact functional.

"To reach that conclusion, ENCODE systematically scouted the genome as a whole for specific functions. One function could be coding for proteins; another function could be acting as a ‘molecular switch’ that regulates the operation of other genes. In one experiment, for example, ENCODE surveyed the entire genome for DNA that is bound by ‘transcription factors’ - proteins known for calling other genes into action. In this way, ENCODE compiled a comprehensive and very useful catalogue that provided a functional clue for 80 per cent of the 3 billion nucleotides that comprise all the genes of the human genome.

***

"Consider the so-called ‘LINE-1 elements’, a DNA sequence formerly classed as junk. Our genome teems with 500,000 copies of this 6,000-letter sequence that seems to do nothing but reproduce copies of itself, the very definition of the ‘selfish gene’. According to ENCODE, these LINE-1 elements are functional since they are biochemically active. But does this mean they function to further human survival itself?

"Likely not. ‘Function’ is a loaded word, and ENCODE chose a very inclusive definition: in the ENCODE world, function can be ascribed to any stretch of the genome that is related to a specific biochemical activity.

***

"Indeed, many of ENCODE’s 80 per cent ‘functional elements’ are unlikely to contribute to human survival and the reproduction of human genomes, which is what you would expect if you consider function from the perspective of a human blueprint.

"Yet viewing our genome as an elegant and tidy blueprint for building humans misses a crucial fact: our genome does not exist to serve us humans at all. Instead, we exist to serve our genome, a collection of genes that have been surviving from time immemorial, skipping down the generations. These genes have evolved to build human ‘survival machines’, programmed as tools to make additional copies of the genes (by producing more humans who carry them in their genomes). From the cold-hearted view of biological reality, we exist only to ensure the survival of these travellers in our genomes.

"This is the central idea in Richard Dawkins’s milestone book, The Selfish Gene (1976), and the fundamental shift in perspective it entails might be as hard to accept as it was hard to acknowledge that our world revolves around the sun, not the sun around us. The selfish gene metaphor remains the single most relevant metaphor about our genome.

***

"At the most fundamental level, then, our genome is not a blueprint for making humans at all. Instead, it is a set of genes that seek to replicate themselves, making and using humans as their agents. Our genome does of course contain a human blueprint – but building us is just one of the things our genome does, just one of the strategies used by the genes to stay alive.

***

"ENCODE has called 80 per cent of the human genome functional, yet 97 per cent of the genome does not encode proteins or other molecules that support human life. Is all this DNA just junk? Of course not. There are undoubtedly many molecules whose function we have not yet grasped. And a blueprint alone is not enough to build anything – you also need assembly instructions and a time plan that orchestrates the building process. The portion of the genome responsible for this organisational feat likely adds another 7 per cent or so to the blueprint’s 3 per cent, leading scientists to suspect that about 10 per cent of the genome is actually needed to specify a functioning human." (my bold)

Comment: There are many essays trashing this line of reasoning. We have no idea to make a living organism. All we know is DNA makes proteins. Note my bold. Seven to ten percent to make life is a ridiculous assumption. The essay describes two sets of scientists squabbling. I'm with ENCODE.

3778 views

DAVID: An interesting defense of Dawkins selfish genes, by making assumptions against the presented evidence that 80% of DNA has some functions:
https://aeon.co/essays/our-genome-is-not-a-blueprint-for-making-humans-at-all?utm_sourc...

The article does defend Darwin (and I disagree with its presumptions concerning natural selection and random mutations), but I don’t know why you have to make him your headline when it is Dawkins who is the focus of its attention. And although it is an attack on ENCODE, I’d like to highlight a very different aspect of the argument:

QUOTES:
When looking at our genome, we might take pride in how individual genes co-operate in order to build the human body in seemingly unselfish ways. But co-operation in making and maintaining a human body is just a highly successful strategy to make gene copies, perfectly consistent with selfishness.
So why are we fooled into believing that humans (and animals and plants) rather than genes are what counts in biology? It is a matter of scale: the world we can see is too big to include genomes, and our lifespan is too short to see how individual genes come into existence, change, and disappear again, processes that unfold over millions of years.
Our genome does of course contain a human blueprint – but building us is just one of the things our genome does, just one of the strategies used by the genes to stay alive. In their selfish desire to leave offspring, our genes have evolved to form a society where they work together efficiently, dividing the labour to ensure that each makes it into the next generation. Like Adam Smith’s invisible hand, the genes in this society co-operate with one another not from a sense of fairness or design, but simply to maximise their own survival. From the myriad interactions of genes in this complex society emerge the striking biological adaptations we see in the living world.

If we substitute cell for gene, this is very much along the lines of the hypothesis I have proposed. Every organism is a community of cells which cooperate to form every multicellular organism that has ever existed. The point that the world is “too big to include genomes”, in our understanding of how life works as it does, is akin to Shapiro’s response to the question why people question cellular intelligence: “Large organisms chauvinism”. And the myriad interactions account for the higgledy-piggledy evolutionary bush of organisms extant and extinct, including humans. Of course the article does not take account of the astonishing complexity of a mechanism that can achieve this diversity and which a theist would understandably claim requires a designing mind. And it doesn’t specifically claim that genes/cells are intelligent. For some reason, all the emphasis is on selfishness – which is not always conducive to successful cooperation and communal life – but selfish, unselfish, cooperative, communal behaviour are all factors that suggest a degree of conscious intelligence, as maximised in us humans.

"
***

3755 views

DAVID: An interesting defense of Dawkins selfish genes, by making assumptions against the presented evidence that 80% of DNA has some functions:
https://aeon.co/essays/our-genome-is-not-a-blueprint-for-making-humans-at-all?utm_sourc...

dhw: The article does defend Darwin (and I disagree with its presumptions concerning natural selection and random mutations), but I don’t know why you have to make him your headline when it is Dawkins who is the focus of its attention. And although it is an attack on ENCODE, I’d like to highlight a very different aspect of the argument:

It should have said Dawkins dissed. Changed.

dhw: QUOTES:
When looking at our genome, we might take pride in how individual genes co-operate in order to build the human body in seemingly unselfish ways. But co-operation in making and maintaining a human body is just a highly successful strategy to make gene copies, perfectly consistent with selfishness.
So why are we fooled into believing that humans (and animals and plants) rather than genes are what counts in biology? It is a matter of scale: the world we can see is too big to include genomes, and our lifespan is too short to see how individual genes come into existence, change, and disappear again, processes that unfold over millions of years.
Our genome does of course contain a human blueprint – but building us is just one of the things our genome does, just one of the strategies used by the genes to stay alive. In their selfish desire to leave offspring, our genes have evolved to form a society where they work together efficiently, dividing the labour to ensure that each makes it into the next generation. Like Adam Smith’s invisible hand, the genes in this society co-operate with one another not from a sense of fairness or design, but simply to maximise their own survival. From the myriad interactions of genes in this complex society emerge the striking biological adaptations we see in the living world.

dhw: If we substitute cell for gene, this is very much along the lines of the hypothesis I have proposed. Every organism is a community of cells which cooperate to form every multicellular organism that has ever existed. The point that the world is “too big to include genomes”, in our understanding of how life works as it does, is akin to Shapiro’s response to the question why people question cellular intelligence: “Large organisms chauvinism”. And the myriad interactions account for the higgledy-piggledy evolutionary bush of organisms extant and extinct, including humans. Of course the article does not take account of the astonishing complexity of a mechanism that can achieve this diversity and which a theist would understandably claim requires a designing mind. And it doesn’t specifically claim that genes/cells are intelligent. For some reason, all the emphasis is on selfishness – which is not always conducive to successful cooperation and communal life – but selfish, unselfish, cooperative, communal behaviour are all factors that suggest a degree of conscious intelligence, as maximised in us humans.

I appreciate your comment. The article is all fluffy reasoning based on an emphasis on survival. As I have stated survival is only one of the considerations as to how and why evolution works. And there is more than a degree of conscious intelligence in the universe.

3758 views

dhw: If we substitute cell for gene, this is very much along the lines of the hypothesis I have proposed. Every organism is a community of cells which cooperate to form every multicellular organism that has ever existed. The point that the world is “too big to include genomes”, in our understanding of how life works as it does, is akin to Shapiro’s response to the question why people question cellular intelligence: “Large organisms chauvinism”. And the myriad interactions account for the higgledy-piggledy evolutionary bush of organisms extant and extinct, including humans. Of course the article does not take account of the astonishing complexity of a mechanism that can achieve this diversity and which a theist would understandably claim requires a designing mind. And it doesn’t specifically claim that genes/cells are intelligent. For some reason, all the emphasis is on selfishness – which is not always conducive to successful cooperation and communal life – but selfish, unselfish, cooperative, communal behaviour are all factors that suggest a degree of conscious intelligence, as maximised in us humans.

DAVID: I appreciate your comment. The article is all fluffy reasoning based on an emphasis on survival. As I have stated survival is only one of the considerations as to how and why evolution works. And there is more than a degree of conscious intelligence in the universe.

Yes, survival is a hugely important factor in the history of evolution, but it has to be coupled with the drive for improvement, which we have already discussed at length. My remark about “degree of consciousness” referred to the cells, which – if my hypothesis is correct – clearly have a lesser degree of conscious intelligence than us humans.

3741 views

I had promised to let you know about reviews. Here are some quotes:

The Guardian
Charles Darwin by AN Wilson review – how wrong can a biography be?
Wilson blames Darwin for totalitarianism and portrays him as a monster of ruthless self-interest. It’s a prolific biographer’s cheap attempt to ruffle feathers
xxxx

New Scientist Live
‘Radical’ new biography of Darwin is unreliable and inaccurate
A. N. Wilson's error-strewn and tendentious portrayal of Charles Darwin as a "Victorian mythmaker" falls into old traps and digs new ones, finds John van Wyhe

The book claims to be a “radical reappraisal of one of the great Victorians, a book which isn’t afraid to challenge the Darwinian orthodoxy”. The result is one of the most unreliable, inaccurate and tendentious anti-Darwin books of recent times.
xxxx

Evening Standard
When it comes to the author’s speculations on evolutionary theory, however, the book is fatally flawed, mischievous, and ultimately misleading.
xxxx

Sunday Times
Wrong, wrong and wrong again
AN Wilson tries to attack the fundamentals of Darin’s great work on evolution. What he reveals is his own scientific ignorance, writes professor Steven Jones.

Elsewhere I've read that the book has been trashed by most critics. I can only comment on the two articles of his that I have read,summarizing his arguments, and it seems I am not alone in my distaste.

3962 views

dhw: I had promised to let you know about reviews. Here are some quotes:

The Guardian
Charles Darwin by AN Wilson review – how wrong can a biography be?
Wilson blames Darwin for totalitarianism and portrays him as a monster of ruthless self-interest. It’s a prolific biographer’s cheap attempt to ruffle feathers
xxxx

New Scientist Live
‘Radical’ new biography of Darwin is unreliable and inaccurate
A. N. Wilson's error-strewn and tendentious portrayal of Charles Darwin as a "Victorian mythmaker" falls into old traps and digs new ones, finds John van Wyhe

The book claims to be a “radical reappraisal of one of the great Victorians, a book which isn’t afraid to challenge the Darwinian orthodoxy”. The result is one of the most unreliable, inaccurate and tendentious anti-Darwin books of recent times.
xxxx

Evening Standard
When it comes to the author’s speculations on evolutionary theory, however, the book is fatally flawed, mischievous, and ultimately misleading.
xxxx

Sunday Times
Wrong, wrong and wrong again
AN Wilson tries to attack the fundamentals of Darin’s great work on evolution. What he reveals is his own scientific ignorance, writes professor Steven Jones.

Elsewhere I've read that the book has been trashed by most critics. I can only comment on the two articles of his that I have read,summarizing his arguments, and it seems I am not alone in my distaste.

Thank you. An avalanche of criticism.

3932 views

ROMANSH: The problem is we assign values to others (as well as 'ourselves') and think they are somehow true ... eg Richard Dawkins is arrogant-You're not the first to discover that human relations are problematical. -Dhw: Of course only you can know the reason why you repeated the equivocation.
ROMANSH: Agreed, but does not appear to stop one from accusing others of deceit in some form another.-I'm far too polite to have accused you of deceit. But it might have helped Tony and myself if you'd explained what you hoped to achieve by citing the causal responsibility of the sun when we were discussing the moral responsibility of Hitler.-Dhw: You and Dawkins have a very different understanding of the word "atheism" from mine. I would define it as: the belief that there is no God and there are no gods. 
ROMANSH: Again you completely misread me. Personally I prefer the strong atheist definition.-Please explain the difference between my definition and "strong" atheism.
 
DHW: I don't know how you can apply the term [atheism] to man walking with dinosaurs prior to the flood. 
ROMANSH: You don't? OK I can drop that for the moment.-According to current scientific knowledge, humans came long after dinosaurs, and therefore I do not believe that humans walked with dinosaurs. What has this to do with belief in God? -Dhw: But your other examples follow the Dawkins line, and they boil down to disbelief not in God or gods, but in different versions of God or gods. -Romansh: And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject ... ?????-You gave me the example of your disbelief in Christian positions. Dawkins used the example of disbelief in ancient gods. You both refer to these as examples of atheism. I am pointing out to you that they are examples of disbelief in particular versions of god(s). See the next point.-Dhw: And I'm afraid I'd find it ridiculous for the Pope to call the Chief Rabbi, or the Ayatollahs, or a billion Hindus atheists because they don't believe that Christ was the son of a virgin, was resurrected, and is now in heaven with his father God. Clearly you don't find it ridiculous, so yet again we need a definition.
ROMANSH: Quite ... yet there appear to be ancient historical examples'-Does "quite" mean you agree that it's ridiculous for you to say that your disbelief in Christian positions = atheism (your own example)? Good! Or that you don't find it ridiculous? Or that we need a definition? If so, what's yours? -Dhw: As for agnosticism, for me it's neither belief nor disbelief in God or gods.
ROMANSH: For most atheists it is simply a lack of belief of god. I don't particularly care so long the I understand how the person I am discussing the subject with. It is like theists saying all self described atheists have an active disbelief in god, whereas the majority I speak to would be agnostic by your definition.-If they "lack belief" but don't disbelieve, then they are indeed agnostic by my definition. You are at present discussing the subject with me. See below. -Dhw: I'm also a little sad that you think of your approach in terms of strong and weak atheism (a commonly used linguistic device to devalue agnosticism).
ROMANSH: I am a little sad that you are so attached to definitions that you think your view can be devalued.-Of course I reject the attempt to subsume agnosticism under "weak" atheism. "Attached to definitions" really won't do. There's no possibility of our reaching any kind of understanding if we don't define our terms, as I have tried to do. Please give us your own definitions.-ROMANSH: Agnosticism for me is about the way we handle knowledge ... the original meaning c/o Huxley was not limited to the subject of god(s) but was aimed at the metaphysical [...] -Dawkins' subject in book and lecture is God, and until now that is what we have been discussing. Please define agnosticism and atheism in terms of belief in god(s).-ROMANSH: I can dismiss a literal Christian god to all intents and purposes as it does fit the data I experience.-You mean does not. Fine. David also dismisses a literal Christian god. That does not make you or him an atheist. It makes you and him non-Christian.
 
ROMANSH: ...regarding some kind of unknown universal intelligence and a purely impersonal, unconscious mass of mindless energy and matter I don't buy the word intelligence ... primarily I am far from sure it exists. What is is intelligence other than something where I can see a pattern or make sense of? [...] -David's argument is that with his intelligence he does see a pattern, and he can make sense of it because the pattern works, which suggests it was created by another intelligence. Why can't you "buy" the word?-ROMANSH: Would you have intelligent design taught in the science classroom?
-No. ID is a philosophical conclusion, and is not science, so I'd have it taught in philosophy lessons, in which, as I wrote: "it should be made clear that evolutionary theory can be interpreted atheistically and theistically, and is rejected by some religions, which offer alternatives." That covers ID.

4923 views

ROMANSH: The problem is we assign values to others (as well as 'ourselves') and think they are somehow true ... eg Richard Dawkins is arrogant
> You're not the first to discover that human relations are problematical. 
That was not the intent of my problematic ... There is a logic issue ... Dawkins is arrogant and I find Dawkins is arrogant are two very different things.
>>> Dhw: Of course only you can know the reason why you repeated the equivocation.
>> ROMANSH: Agreed, but does not appear to stop one from accusing others of deceit in some form another.
> I'm far too polite to have accused you of deceit. But it might have helped Tony and myself if you'd explained what you hoped to achieve by citing the causal responsibility of the sun when we were discussing the moral responsibility of Hitler.
Is not politeness in the eye of the beholder? 
>>> Dhw: You and Dawkins have a very different understanding of the word "atheism" from mine. I would define it as: the belief that there is no God and there are no gods. 
>> ROMANSH: Again you completely misread me. Personally I prefer the strong atheist definition.
> Please explain the difference between my definition and "strong" atheism.
Yours is a strong definition of atheism. I have no problem with the strong sense of the word ... I prefer this sense. My point remains ... if someone wants to identify themselves as an atheist in the weak sense of the word that is fine by me. I understand what they are trying to say.
>>> DHW: I don't know how you can apply the term [atheism] to man walking with dinosaurs prior to the flood. 
>> ROMANSH: You don't? OK I can drop that for the moment.
> According to current scientific knowledge, humans came long after dinosaurs, and therefore I do not believe that humans walked with dinosaurs. What has this to do with belief in God? 
For certain variations of theism Christianity it is believed man walked with dinosaurs. I am definitely atheistic (or an atheist in the strong sense of the word) to that kind of god. Do you remain agnostic towards a god that created an Earth where man walked with dinosaurs?
>>> Dhw: But your other examples follow the Dawkins line, and they boil down to disbelief not in God or gods, but in different versions of God or gods. 
>> Romansh: And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject ... ?????
> You gave me the example of your disbelief in Christian positions. Dawkins used the example of disbelief in ancient gods. You both refer to these as examples of atheism. I am pointing out to you that they are examples of disbelief in particular versions of god(s). See the next point.
The example I gave was a video of Dawkins talking with the then-Archbishop of Canterbury and saying he was agnostic wrt to god ... I took it as a some form of deistic god ... not any literal version.
>>> Dhw: And I'm afraid I'd find it ridiculous for the Pope to call the Chief Rabbi, or the Ayatollahs, or a billion Hindus atheists because they don't believe that Christ was the son of a virgin, was resurrected, and is now in heaven with his father God. Clearly you don't find it ridiculous, so yet again we need a definition.
>> ROMANSH: Quite ... yet there appear to be ancient historical examples'
> Does "quite" mean you agree that it's ridiculous for you to say that your disbelief in Christian positions = atheism (your own example)? Good! Or that you don't find it ridiculous? Or that we need a definition? If so, what's yours? 
Generally I take on the definition of atheist of the atheist I am talking to. I don't believe there is some intrinsically correct definition. But I would point out some of the most strident atheists I have come across might label themselves as agnostic atheists. 
>>> Dhw: As for agnosticism, for me it's neither belief nor disbelief in God or gods.
>> ROMANSH: For most atheists it is simply a lack of belief of god. I don't particularly care so long the I understand how the person I am discussing the subject with. It is like theists saying all self described atheists have an active disbelief in god, whereas the majority I speak to would be agnostic by your definition. 
> If they "lack belief" but don't disbelieve, then they are indeed agnostic by my definition. You are at present discussing the subject with me. See below. 
And yet agnosticism is not about belief ... it is about how we handle knowledge. 
>>> Dhw: I'm also a little sad that you think of your approach in terms of strong and weak atheism (a commonly used linguistic device to devalue agnosticism).
>> ROMANSH: I am a little sad that you are so attached to definitions that you think your view can be devalued.
> Of course I reject the attempt to subsume agnosticism under "weak" atheism. "Attached to definitions" really won't do. There's no possibility of our reaching any kind of understanding if we don't define our terms, as I have tried to do. Please give us your own definitions.
That you reject the attempt to subsume agnosticism shows that you believe there is some intrinsically correct definition ... which in of itself is not agnostic.

4852 views

continued
>> ROMANSH: Agnosticism for me is about the way we handle knowledge ... the original meaning c/o Huxley was not limited to the subject of god(s) but was aimed at the metaphysical [...] 
> Dawkins' subject in book and lecture is God, and until now that is what we have been discussing. Please define agnosticism and atheism in terms of belief in god(s).
Agnosticism is not about belief in gods ... it is about how we handle such knowledge. We can find books by agnostic theists, people who understand we can't be certain about god and still believe. I suppose we can have an agnostic strong atheist, but I have yet to meet one. Both positions fall into the category of fideism, generally used as a pejorative.
>> ROMANSH: I can dismiss a literal Christian god to all intents and purposes as it does fit the data I experience.
> You mean does not. Fine. David also dismisses a literal Christian god. That does not make you or him an atheist. It makes you and him non-Christian.
No it means I am atheistic with respect to literal Christian gods as is David.
>> ROMANSH: ...regarding some kind of unknown universal intelligence and a purely impersonal, unconscious mass of mindless energy and matter I don't buy the word intelligence ... primarily I am far from sure it exists. What is is intelligence other than something where I can see a pattern or make sense of? [...] 
> David's argument is that with his intelligence he does see a pattern, and he can make sense of it because the pattern works, which suggests it was created by another intelligence. Why can't you "buy" the word?
Just because I can make sense of it ... it does not mean it is intelligent.
>> ROMANSH: Would you have intelligent design taught in the science classroom? 
> No. ID is a philosophical conclusion, and is not science, so I'd have it taught in philosophy lessons, in which, as I wrote: "it should be made clear that evolutionary theory can be interpreted atheistically and theistically, and is rejected by some religions, which offer alternatives." That covers ID.
Make sure we have a good founding in probability and that the axioms are clearly defined.

4815 views

Romansh, this discussion began when I gave examples of what I regard as Dawkins' superficiality. You picked on one: "He comes up with the usual sneer at all the past gods that people are now "atheistic" about (just as some theists might sneer at all the different theories of abiogenesis), but he seems not to realize that all god figures are approximations ... simply our attempts to identify (maybe anthropomorphize, maybe dream up) whatever as yet unknown power(s) led to our existence. By picking on the soft target of individual religions, he can raise easy laughs and play with the word "atheism", but one would have hoped for something more discerning at this level." I am not, of course, defending any god(s) or the idea that men walked with dinosaurs. I object to language games that trivialize a subject which Dawkins, you and I deem worthy of prolonged discussion. However, if you really think a devout Christian who disbelieves in men walking with dinosaurs (with or without a flood) can be called atheistic, then we should agree to disagree. This covers several points in your latest post. Let me deal with some others that you raise:
 
David quoted a critique of Dawkins which described him as arrogant. You wrote: "There is a logic issue ... Dawkins is arrogant and I find Dawkins is arrogant are two very different things." I don't think anyone on this forum is unaware that such personal judgments are subjective.
 
Romansh: The example I gave was a video of Dawkins talking with the then-Archbishop of Canterbury and saying he was agnostic wrt to god ... I took it as a some form of deistic god ... not any literal version.-You wrote:"And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject...?????" This was in reply to my pointing out that you and Dawkins were referring to disbelief not in God or gods but in different versions of God or gods. As a response to my criticism of his and your use of language, it is and remains a non sequitur. 
 
Dhw: Does "quite" mean you agree that it's ridiculous for you to say that your disbelief in Christian positions = atheism (your own example)? Good! Or that you don't find it ridiculous? Or that we need a definition? If so, what's yours? 
ROMANSH: Generally I take on the definition of atheist of the atheist I am talking to.
 
What a pity you can't take on the definition of the agnostic you are talking to now! And what a pity you didn't answer my questions.-ROMANSH: That you reject the attempt to subsume agnosticism shows that you believe there is some intrinsically correct definition ... which in of itself is not agnostic.-If there is no consensus on the meaning of words, we cannot have a coherent discussion. My objection to "weak atheism" when associated with agnosticism is that "weak" is pejorative, and "atheism" denies the agnostic's neutrality on the question of God's existence. In a religious context my definition of "agnosticism" (below) coincides with that of every reference book I have consulted (though some extend it to knowledge of anything outside the material world). Your use of "agnostic" above ... in the more general sense that nothing can ever be "known" ... changes the context from religion to epistemology.
 
Dhw: As for agnosticism, for me it's neither belief nor disbelief in God or gods.
ROMANSH: Agnosticism is not about belief in gods ... it is about how we handle such knowledge.-A remarkably authoritative statement from someone who doesn't believe in intrinsically correct definitions. I wonder how an agnostic handles such knowledge when he believes there is no such thing as such knowledge.
 
ROMANSH: ...regarding some kind of unknown universal intelligence and a purely impersonal, unconscious mass of mindless energy and matter I don't buy the word intelligence ... primarily I am far from sure it exists. 
Dhw: David's argument is that with his intelligence he does see a pattern, and he can make sense of it because the pattern works, which suggests it was created by another intelligence. Why can't you "buy" the word?
ROMANSH: Just because I can make sense of it ... it does not mean it is intelligent.-Of course not. But you said you did not buy the word intelligence and were far from sure that it existed. What is wrong with the word intelligence? Do you not know what it means? You also regarded emergence as a non word. There is a disturbing pattern beginning to "emerge" from your posts, Rom. You're not sure if intelligence exists, you were forced by language (presumably against your non-existent will) into saying your cells were your cells, you doubt whether you are conscious, and you even think you are the product of a virgin birth (no cells from your Daddy). Is there perhaps cause for concern?

4852 views

Is there perhaps cause for concern?-Well perhaps if we are on the subject of concerns, I don't find it a concern that you might disagree with me, but I do find it concerning, that I have not seen a glimpse of you actually understanding my position.-Is this a cause for concern?

4760 views

ROMANSH: I don't find it a concern that you might disagree with me, but I do find it concerning, that I have not seen a glimpse of you actually understanding my position.-It is indeed. And we just don't know whether this is due to my ignorance and/or stupidity, or your lack of clarity. Perhaps our latest conversation will shed light on which it is.-ROMANSH: I think Dawkins realizes all too well that all god figures are metaphors for something we might feel. I think Dawkins has a problem with those that think the metaphor should be taken literally.-(a) It is not a matter of just "feeling" for some. David says he has reached his God through science; (b) when it comes to the individual details of the "metaphor" I'm sure you are right, but Dawkins goes beyond the details to the very essence of the image: he 6.9 out of 7 rejects the very concept on which the image is based ... namely, a conscious power that created the universe and life. I think we need to separate the trappings of individual religions from the power people call god(s). -ROMANSH: Saying a god did it just does not answer any questions. We can't help but wonder if god is the cause of this universe what caused god? It is an ancient question.-Agreed. But saying chance did it is not an answer either unless or until science can show that chance is capable of doing it. That is why I simply cannot judge (= agnosticism) whether the material world as we know it represents the limits of what BBella calls ALL THAT IS.-Dhw: ...if you really think a devout Christian who disbelieves in men walking with dinosaurs (with or without a flood) can be called atheistic, then we should agree to disagree. 
ROMANSH: I am not saying this at all ... is this what you mean by language games?-Yes. You asked the following question: "Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood?" I do not believe man walked with dinosaurs, and I do not believe there was a literal world flood. Now please explain why you chose the word "atheistic" and what it has to do with whether I believe in a deity or deities.
 
Dhw: You wrote: "And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject...?????" This was in reply to my pointing out that you and Dawkins were referring to disbelief not in God or gods but in different versions of God or gods. As a response to my criticism of his and your use of language, it is and remains a non sequitur. 
ROMANSH: Yes the video was in reference to Dawkins taking the weak theist position and not the strong one you claimed for him.-Please reread the above, which was once more a complaint about the misuse of language. I made no reference to Dawkins' weak or strong atheism, and your response was and remains a non sequitur, which never helps when it comes to our understanding one another.-Dhw: What a pity you can't take on the definition of the agnostic you are talking to now! And what a pity you didn't answer my questions.
ROMANSH: What was the question I did not answer?-In response to your ambiguous response of "quite" (ambiguities are not uncommon in your posts), I asked if it meant "you agree that it's ridiculous for you to say that your disbelief in Christian positions = atheism (your own example)? Good! Or that you don't find it ridiculous? Or that we need a definition? If so, what's yours?" You frequently ignore questions and requests for definitions.
 
Dhw: A remarkably authoritative statement from someone who doesn't believe in intrinsically correct definitions. I wonder how an agnostic handles such knowledge when he believes there is no such thing as such knowledge-ROMANSH: Fair point ... but then I will give some leeway to the person who coined the modern usage of the word. But you are right, I should not be so authoritative.-Thank you. You wrote that "agnosticism is not about belief in gods....It is about how we handle such knowledge." The definitions you referred me to are quite explicit in their references to belief in gods. Even if you tone down your rejection of the Wikipedia definitions, you still haven't given me your own definition, and we have the same problem with your use of "atheistic". You wrote, concerning definitions of agnosticism, "I don't particularly care so long the I understand how the person I am discussing the subject with." (Sorry to reproduce the typos, but I don't want to take words out of your mouth!) Is it just possible that you understand me because I try to clarify my meanings, whereas your not particularly caring maybe...might...just possibly...perhaps...sort of...well...make it more difficult for me to understand you?

4847 views

It is indeed. And we just don't know whether this is due to my ignorance and/or stupidity, or your lack of clarity. Perhaps our latest conversation will shed light on which it is.-I asked a similar question (of David think) whether it is due to different formation of our brain structures ... through our experiences, education, genes, foods eaten etc-> (a) It is not a matter of just "feeling" for some. David says he has reached his God through science; (b) when it comes to the individual details of the "metaphor" I'm sure you are right, but Dawkins goes beyond the details to the very essence of the image: he 6.9 out of 7 rejects the very concept on which the image is based ... namely, a conscious power that created the universe and life. I think we need to separate the trappings of individual religions from the power people call god(s). -A direct quote from David
>> David: I then came up with sn explanation for me taht I find emotionally comfortable.
And my use of the word feel was in response to this quote.-That it [6.9] rejects for you I can't argue with. What it rejects for Dawkins I would have to ask.-> Agreed. But saying chance did it is not an answer either unless or until science can show that chance is capable of doing it. That is why I simply cannot judge (= agnosticism) whether the material world as we know it represents the limits of what BBella calls ALL THAT IS.-Chance is happening all around us all the time. What is there to show? 
 
> Yes. You asked the following question: "Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood?" I do not believe man walked with dinosaurs, and I do not believe there was a literal world flood. Now please explain why you chose the word "atheistic" and what it has to do with whether I believe in a deity or deities.-Here is a question and I hope the context was adequate, that you did not answer directly.->> rom: Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood? Personally I completely dismiss the vast number of Christian positions I am atheistic in the strong sense of the word. Whereas I am agnostic towards panentheism or atheistic in the weak sense of the word.-It was a very definite question ... and you did not answer. Your answer was essentially atheism meaning a belief that not one god exists. But I will actively rephrase my question ... do you actively disbelieve in the god of the flood and man comingling with dinosaurs?-> Please reread the above, which was once more a complaint about the misuse of language. I made no reference to Dawkins' weak or strong atheism, and your response was and remains a non sequitur, which never helps when it comes to our understanding one another.-I never claimed you did. Also it is not Dawkins' weak or strong atheism ... it is the language that of philosophy-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism -> In response your ambiguous response of "quite" (ambiguities are not uncommon in your posts), I asked if it meant "you agree that it's ridiculous for you to say that your disbelief in Christian positions = atheism (your own example)? Good! Or that you don't find it ridiculous? Or that we need a definition? If so, what's yours?" You frequently ignore questions and requests for definitions.-And you think you answer all my questions DHW?-Did you look at my belief bubbles?-As phrased it is a ridiculous proposition. But I did phrase the question that way. I think I phrased it as atheistic (atheist like) or atheist with respect to a particular god.
 
> Thank you. You wrote that "agnosticism is not about belief in gods....It is about how we handle such knowledge." The definitions you referred me to are quite explicit in their references to belief in gods. -From the opening line of Wikipedia 
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claimsâespecially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claimsâare unknown or unknowable.-If you recall I mentioned I extended this to other non metaphysical concepts ... I also noted this could be quite contentious.

4802 views

David: I then came up with sn explanation for me taht I find emotionally comfortable.
ROMANSH: And my use of the word feel was in response to this quote.-Fair comment. David also says he reached his God through science, but he can speak for himself!-ROMANSH: Saying a god did it just does not answer any questions.
Dhw: Agreed. But saying chance did it is not an answer either unless or until science can show that chance is capable of doing it. 
ROMANSH: Chance is happening all around us all the time. What is there to show?-Perhaps you haven't followed our discussions over the last six years. The reference is to whether chance is capable of creating the complexities necessary for life and evolution.
 
Dhw: You asked the following question: "Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood?" I do not believe man walked with dinosaurs, and I do not believe there was a literal world flood.
ROMANSH: Here is a question and I hope the context was adequate, that you did not answer directly.
Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood? Personally I completely dismiss the vast number of Christian positions I am atheistic in the strong sense of the word. Whereas I am agnostic towards panentheism or atheistic in the weak sense of the word.-I answered it directly, but I do not accept your use of the word "atheistic". See below.
 
ROMANSH: It was a very definite question ... and you did not answer. Your answer was essentially atheism meaning a belief that not one god exists.-My answer ("I do not believe...") had nothing to do with atheism, because in my view your question had nothing to do with atheism, which I've defined as disbelief in the existence of god(s). I object to your use of the word "atheistic" in relation to disbelief in any particular god (e.g. Roman gods), in a particular story (the flood), in individual tenets of individual religions, or in the theory that men walked with dinosaurs. You have approvingly quoted a similar definition to my own ("the rejection of belief in deities....the position that there are no deities"), and yet you continue to use "atheistic" as if somehow the meaning of the adjective is divorced from that of the noun.-ROMANSH: But I will actively rephrase my question ... do you actively disbelieve in the god of the flood and man comingling with dinosaurs?-More ambiguity. Do you mean the god who is reputed by some story-tellers to have caused a flood, or do you mean the story some story-tellers have told about their god? I'll answer both questions, plus the third. Until and unless science can prove to the contrary, I actively disbelieve the story about the OT God flooding the whole earth (AND about Noah's ark!). I also actively disbelieve in men walking with dinosaurs. I do not actively disbelieve in the existence of a single god concerning whom some humans have told a story about a flood. (For further objections, see my post under "Agnosticism".) Now please explain what men walking with dinosaurs has to do with disbelief in the existence of god(s). -Dhw: In response your ambiguous response of "quite" (ambiguities are not uncommon in your posts), I asked if it meant "you agree that it's ridiculous for you to say that your disbelief in Christian positions = atheism (your own example)? [Plus more questions you didn't answer.]
ROMANSH: As phrased it is a ridiculous proposition. But I did phrase the question that way. I think I phrased it as atheistic (atheist like) or atheist with respect to a particular god.-As above, the definitions you claim to use yourself specifically refer to non belief in the existence of deities, NOT to a particular religious position. You are really scraping the barrel with "atheist like": What is your purpose in comparing disbelief in men walking with dinosaurs to disbelief in the existence of god(s)?
 
dhw: Please reread the above, which was once more a complaint about the misuse of language. I made no reference to Dawkins' weak or strong atheism, and your response was and remains a non sequitur, which never helps when it comes to our understanding one another.
ROMANSH: I never claimed you did. Also it is not Dawkins' weak or strong atheism ... it is the language that of philosophy-You wrote: "Yes, the video was in reference to Dawkins taking the weak theist position and not the strong one you claimed for him." You claimed that I claimed the strong position for Dawkins, and I claim that I never made any such claim. And now you wish to tell me all about strong and weak atheism. Another non sequitur.-ROMANSH: And you think you answer all my questions DHW?-I certainly try (which is why these posts get longer and longer!).-ROMANSH: Did you look at my belief bubbles?-I'm not sure what this has to do with any of the preceding points, but I do remember vaguely. If you think it will help, please give me the reference again.-I'll deal with "agnosticism" on the other thread.

4781 views


> ROMANSH: Did you look at my belief bubbles?
> 
> dhw:I'm not sure what this has to do with any of the preceding points, but I do remember vaguely. If you think it will help, please give me the reference again.-
To help out the 'belief bubbles' are a diagram of interlocking circles relating all types of belief and non-belief. I thought it was pretty accurate.

4743 views

Romansh, this discussion began when I gave examples of what I regard as Dawkins' superficiality. You picked on one: "He comes up with the usual sneer at all the past gods that people are now "atheistic" about (just as some theists might sneer at all the different theories of abiogenesis), but he seems not to realize that all god figures are approximations ... simply our attempts to identify (maybe anthropomorphize, maybe dream up) whatever as yet unknown power(s) led to our existence.-It did not begin in this thread and I don't recall particularly picking on any particular bit of your "invective".-I think Dawkins realizes all too well that all god figures are metaphors for something we might feel. I think Dawkins has a problem with those that think the metaphor should be taken literally.-> By picking on the soft target of individual religions, he can raise easy laughs and play with the word "atheism", but one would have hoped for something more discerning at this level." -You call them soft targets, I might call them obvious ones. But he addresses the deistic ones in The God Delusion. Saying a god did it just does not answer any questions. We can't help but wonder if god is the cause of this universe what caused god? It is an ancient question.->I am not, of course, defending any god(s) or the idea that men walked with dinosaurs. I object to language games that trivialize a subject which Dawkins, you and I deem worthy of prolonged discussion. -Well stop playing language games and concentrate on what the other person is trying to say. What is trivial for you just might be important for the other person.-> However, if you really think a devout Christian who disbelieves in men walking with dinosaurs (with or without a flood) can be called atheistic, then we should agree to disagree. This covers several points in your latest post. Let me deal with some others that you raise:-I am not saying this at all ... is this what you mean by language games?
 
> David quoted a critique of Dawkins which described him as arrogant. You wrote: "There is a logic issue ... Dawkins is arrogant and I find Dawkins is arrogant are two very different things." I don't think anyone on this forum is unaware that such personal judgments are subjective.-Good ... but is this not true for Dawkins too? Even if Dawkins does not realize it himself ... the people on this forum should. 
 
> You wrote:"And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject...?????" This was in reply to my pointing out that you and Dawkins were referring to disbelief not in God or gods but in different versions of God or gods. As a response to my criticism of his and your use of language, it is and remains a non sequitur. -Yes the video was in reference to Dawkins taking the weak theist position and not the strong one you claimed for him.-> What a pity you can't take on the definition of the agnostic you are talking to now! And what a pity you didn't answer my questions.-What was the question I did not answer?-> A remarkably authoritative statement from someone who doesn't believe in intrinsically correct definitions. I wonder how an agnostic handles such knowledge when he believes there is no such thing as such knowledge-Fair point ... but then I will give some leeway to the person who coined the modern usage of the word. But you are right, I should not be so authoritative.

4817 views

Romansh: David's panentheistic god ... does not make sense to me either. Frankly I don't trust David's interpretation of probabilities and his ultimate arguement from incredulity. 
> regarding
> some kind of unknown universal intelligence and a purely impersonal, unconscious mass of mindless energy and matter-Starting as a soft agnostic, what makes sense to me is where I arived, and what you have witnessed in what I write. You may call it incredulity, but forme itis a logical conclusion. Muy logic rtaining is only medical, a practical solutions level, which I am sure has conditioned me. Religions' conclusions are men's wishes.

4755 views

Starting as a soft agnostic, what makes sense to me is where I arived, and what you have witnessed in what I write. You may call it incredulity, but forme itis a logical conclusion. Muy logic rtaining is only medical, a practical solutions level, which I am sure has conditioned me. Religions' conclusions are men's wishes.-You appear to agree with me (at least in a sense) here.-Here is a visual map I called belief bubbles ... as to how we might divvy up atheism, theism and agnosticism.-did it a while ago ... was not completely happy with it then as I am not now.-This model is almost certainly wrong but it might be useful.

4748 views

Starting as a soft agnostic, what makes sense to me is where I arived, and what you have witnessed in what I write. You may call it incredulity, but for me it is a logical conclusion. My logic training is only medical, a practical solutions level, which I am sure has conditioned me. Religions' conclusions are men's wishes.
> 
> Romansh:You appear to agree with me (at least in a sense) here.-Yes, I do
> 
> Romansh: Here is a visual map I called belief bubbles ... as to how we might divvy up atheism, theism and agnosticism.-I think it is a pretty good bubble map. I fairly firmly accept the proposition that a greater power exists. Not religions' concept of a personal/ personalized God, but my own quantum level universal consciousness. What I have done is look at all the evidence I can find and understand ( I can't do the theoretical math, but I'll read the conslusions), and I won't accept wild theories that cannot ever be proven. I then came up with sn explanation for me taht I find emotionally comfortable.

4756 views

I think it is a pretty good bubble map. I fairly firmly accept the proposition that a greater power exists. Not religions' concept of a personal/ personalized God, but my own quantum level universal consciousness. What I have done is look at all the evidence I can find and understand ( I can't do the theoretical math, but I'll read the conslusions), and I won't accept wild theories that cannot ever be proven. I then came up with sn explanation for me taht I find emotionally comfortable.-I understand that you do not believe in any personal god.-I can't see a way to reconcile quantum phenomena with consciousness.-I am far from convinced that consciousness is anything but a reflection of a some past event. For me it is definitely not what it seems and I definitely don't buy into the cartesian dualism that seems to be prevalent on this forum.-For me whether or not I am emotionally comfortable with a conclusion is pretty much irrelevant.-No theories can be proven in our real life David
All we can do is provide corroborating evidence for our theory or perhaps a wack load of contradictory evidence that disproves a theory.

4718 views


> Romansh:I can't see a way to reconcile quantum phenomena with consciousness.-I cannot buy into the theories that consciousness is required for the universe to exist. But consciousness plays some sort of role in quantum mechanics. 
> 
> Romansh: I am far from convinced that consciousness is anything but a reflection of a some past event. For me it is definitely not what it seems and I definitely don't buy into the cartesian dualism that seems to be prevalent on this forum.-Fair enough. None of us know its true source.-> Romansh: No theories can be proven in our real life David
> All we can do is provide corroborating evidence for our theory or perhaps a wack load of contradictory evidence that disproves a theory.-At times I wonder how trustworthy the 'facts' are, but we have to be willing to work with something and even reach some tentative conclusions. I can't be skeptical about everything. As I've said, I couldn't have practiced medicine in that frame of mind.

4738 views

just a quick comment on the word religion.-A literal translation (from the Latin) as re-connect is widely accepted.-So the question becomes re-connect to what?-A panentheistic god is subtly disconnected from the universe - it still remains separate from the universe in some way. Whereas a pantheistic interpretation is the universe is one with god. The universe and god are the same thing.-John 10:30
and the word atonement (at-one-ment), both give us a glimpse behind Christianity to a monistic world view.

4712 views

Romansh: just a quick comment on the word religion.
> 
> A literal translation (from the Latin) as re-connect is widely accepted.
> 
> So the question becomes re-connect to what?
> 
> A panentheistic god is subtly disconnected from the universe - it still remains separate from the universe in some way. Whereas a pantheistic interpretation is the universe is one with god. The universe and god are the same thing.
> 
> John 10:30
> and the word atonement (at-one-ment), both give us a glimpse behind Christianity to a monistic world view.-The meaning of Panentheism depends on the definition one uses. From Wiki this one fits me: "While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe."-Merriam/Webster says the same thing:-"Definition of PANENTHEISM-
 : the doctrine that God includes the world as a part though not the whole of his being"

4715 views

Romansh: just a quick comment on the word religion.
> > 
> > A literal translation (from the Latin) as re-connect is widely accepted.
> > 
> > So the question becomes re-connect to what?
> > 
> > A panentheistic god is subtly disconnected from the universe - it still remains separate from the universe in some way. Whereas a pantheistic interpretation is the universe is one with god. The universe and god are the same thing.
> > 
> > John 10:30
> > and the word atonement (at-one-ment), both give us a glimpse behind Christianity to a monistic world view.
> 
>David: The meaning of Panentheism depends on the definition one uses. From Wiki this one fits me: "While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe."
> 
> Merriam/Webster says the same thing:
> 
> "Definition of PANENTHEISM
> 
> 
> : the doctrine that God includes the world as a part though not the whole of his being"-
Ironically, Christianity actually fits both of those definitions. In one sense, YHWH created created everything from his own energy, though most was done via an intermediary and thus, everything that exist is quite literally part of him. On the other thing, after his initial act of creating his Son, he is only rarely, acting either through his son or through holy spirit which is called as some kind of active force that is connected to, but separate from, him. Essentially, there is an intermediary that exists between God and all of creation. The interesting theory posited in the bible is that it is simply too dangerous for him to intervene directly, perhaps like trying to crack a pecan with an atom bomb.-I think the connection then, is something a little different than some form of physical re-connection. Instead, it is the re-connection with God's laws. In nearly all religious teachings, man rebelled against the gods, choosing to decide their own fate rather than follow the lead of their gods. This reconnection with the right path actually reconciles us with god's love. 1 John 5:3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome.-Considering that original sin amounts to not keeping the commands, we can only auume that is part of what was meant here.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4738 views

Considering that original sin amounts to not keeping the commands, we can only auume that is part of what was meant here.-From where I sit ... for the vast majority of Christians, God is the ultimate dualistic theological position.-Man is separate from from god. Jesus got crucified for claiming otherwise (at least in the myth). If anyone tries saying this today they are labelled an atheist.-Regarding original sin ... I think Christians have got the concept oh so wrong. When we read the relevant bits of Genesis 3 ... we find that in the mythical story of GoE ... Adam and Eve were thown out of Eden for disobeying God and startig to think in terms of good and evil. -Thinking dualistically was the original sin -Not the dressed up dogma we have today.

4783 views

BM:Considering that original sin amounts to not keeping the commands, we can only auume that is part of what was meant here.
> 
> R: From where I sit ... for the vast majority of Christians, God is the ultimate dualistic theological position.
> 
> Man is separate from from god. Jesus got crucified for claiming otherwise (at least in the myth). If anyone tries saying this today they are labelled an atheist.
> -Um, no. That was not why Jesus was crucified, nor is that concept supported anywhere in the Bible. Now, I am not going to debate the many varied claims of God's fanclub, but the text itself makes no such claim. -->R: Regarding original sin ... I think Christians have got the concept oh so wrong. When we read the relevant bits of Genesis 3 ... we find that in the mythical story of GoE ... Adam and Eve were thown out of Eden for disobeying God and startig to think in terms of good and evil. 
> 
> Thinking dualistically was the original sin 
> 
> Not the dressed up dogma we have today.-I don't have to refute this, the Bible does a far better job:-Genesis 3:8-20-Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, "Where are you?"-10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."-11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"-12 The man said, "The woman you put here with meâshe gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."-13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"-The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
...
.......
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,'-.....-So, no, they were not kicked out simply for thinking dualistically. The were kicked out for disobedience and for not accepting responsibility. (Notice how both Adam and Eve tried to blame it on someone else.)-Thinking dualistically was part of the result of disobedience. And, for the record, I do not know nor care if it were literal fruit or something else. The intent of the passage regarding disobedience is very clear. -This is also backed up with 1 John 5:3, where loving god is equated to 'keeping his commands'. Essentially, Adam and Eve decided they knew best and screwed things up. Bears a remarkable resemblance to modern human activity, doesn't it?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

4674 views

20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.-21 And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.
 
22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live foreverâ" -23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. -24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

4740 views

We are way off base. The Bible is the Bible. Neither of you are competent interpreters. It says they disobeyed. They lost their inocense. What has that got to do with agnostocism?

4642 views

We are way off base. The Bible is the Bible. Neither of you are competent interpreters. It says they disobeyed. They lost their inocense. What has that got to do with agnostocism?-It is to do with thinking in dualistic terms David ... but it has nothing to do with agnosticism as such. So I agree there.-edit
I have much right and ability to interpret god's word as any Biblical scholar.

4778 views

We are way off base. The Bible is the Bible. Neither of you are competent interpreters. It says they disobeyed. They lost their inocense. What has that got to do with agnostocism?
> 
> It is to do with thinking in dualistic terms David ... but it has nothing to do with agnosticism as such. So I agree there.
> 
> edit
> I have much right and ability to interpret god's word as any Biblical scholar.-Agreed. There is too much over-interpretation from an anthropomorphic viewpoint

4738 views

The latest take:-http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/30/richard-dawkins-what-on-earth-happened-to-you

4584 views

Once again:

https://ecoevocommunity.nature.com/posts/more-obsolete-dawkinsian-evidence-for-evolution

"The protein molecules that form the structure of the TTSS are very similar to components of the flagellar motor. To the evolutionist it is clear that TTSS components were commandeered for a new, but not wholly unrelated, function when the flagellar motor evolved…Evidently, crucial components of the flagellar motor were already in place and working before the flagellar motor evolved.

"Thus, Dawkins viewed the injectisome as an evolutionary precursor for the flagellar motor.

"In the Cell paper published just a few day ago, a group of Chinese researchers published an atomic-level structure of the bacterial flagellar motor and compared it to the injectisome. These structures are shown in the figure below (kindly provided by Yonqun Zhu).

"Although the flagellum has been proposed to be the evolutionary ancestor of T3SSs, the structure of the flagellar motor is significantly different from that of the T3SS basal body.... the flagellar rod has few contacts with the LP ring to facilitate its high-speed rotation and torque transmission. In addition, unlike the C24-symmetric inner membrane ring assembled by PrgH and PrgK in the Salmonella T3SS, the MS ring of the flagellar motor is composed of 34 FliF subunits with mixed internal symmetries. Therefore, the flagellar motor has evolved special structural elements for bacterial motility.

"In other words, even parts of the two structures that seem to correspond to each other are very different. Thus, parts of the injectisome could not simply be “commandeered” for the flagellar motor.

"You may notice another implicit contradiction of Dawkins’ scenario in the quotation above. The only ancestor-descendent scenario that the authors of the Cell paper consider to be worth mentioning is one where the injectisome is descended from the flagellum. Not the other way round.

"This is because there is existing evidence that the injectisomes found in present day bacteria are more recent in their origin than flagellar motors are. This evidence is summarised by a 2015 paper in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. For example, flagellar motors have a far wider phylogenetic distribution than injectisomes, and tend to be encoded within the main bacterial chromosomes, whereas injectisomes tend to be on horizontally transferred DNA segments. More phylogenetic evidence for the flagella first can be found in this PLoS Genetics paper.

"Therefore, Richard Dawkins’ scenario for the evolution of the flagella motor has not stood the test of time. Despite its obvious attractions, this scenario is no longer suitable for use by science educators and communicators.

"So what should we say if someone asks us what evolutionary biology has to say about the origin of the flagellar motor? The good news is that a large new project has just been funded at Imperial College London to investigate the origins of the flagellum. But for now, the most accurate answer to give is to be found in the press release for that project: “For evolutionary biologists, the flagellum is an enduring mystery.'” (my bold)

Comment: any complex biological mechanism will remain a mystery as long as obvious design is ignored as Dawkins did.

911 views

The review in Evolution news:

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/05/new-book-puts-richard-dawkinss-selfish-genes-in-the-icu/

"Biologist Richard Dawkins came to prominence in 1976 with his book The Selfish Gene. Nearly half a century later, we’re entitled to wonder how the work has held up. In his recent book, Selfish Genes in ICU?, Dr. Michael Jarvis considers that question, asking whether recent findings in biology match the predictions of Dawkins’s selfish gene concept.

"Jarvis, who holds a PhD in biology from the University of Cape Town (where he focused on zoology), takes his reader on a historical journey. He first describes the origin of the universe and the history of Earth, and moves on to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Here, he outlines four key points in The Origin of Species, while paying special attention to one challenge Darwin faced: the Cambrian explosion. From there, Jarvis describes Dawkins’s selfish gene concept — the idea that a gene can be seen as a “selfish unit” that exploits an organism to carry out its own process of replication. Stated another way, the selfish gene concept holds that natural selection takes place at the gene level.

"In subsequent chapters Jarvis dives into some discoveries that (spoiler alert!) don’t really match with the selfish gene idea. Jarvis does a nice job of laying out the evidence so that the reader can decide what to think.

***

"In the past some scientists suggested that the human eye retina was actually a poor design. Richard Dawkins proposed this argument. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker he concluded that the vertebrate eye is functionally sub-optimal because the retina photoreceptors are oriented away from incoming light.

"Jarvis addresses head-on this frequently repeated claim of poor design. He goes on to cite recent discoveries and explains how this new research affects our understanding of the purported “sub-optimal” design. He notes that our retinas contain special Müller cells which funnel light through the optic nerve onto the retina, compensating for any loss of vision related to the “backwards wiring” of the vertebrate retina:

"Research by Amichai Labin and Erez Riba from Israel’s internationally recognized Technion – Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa has shown that the surface of the retina also has so-called Müller cells. These cells not only compensate for the light sensitive receptors being “back to front.” Their function actually results in vision being better than it would have been if the light sensitive cells had been the so-called “right-way round.”

***

"In the final chapters of the book, Dr. Jarvis updates his reader on what the last twenty years have revealed about evolution. His focus here is on the study of epigenetics, orphan genes, Hox genes, mitochondrial DNA, and directed mutagenesis, all shedding light on how genes evolve and whether or not they are units of selection. Throughout, he argues that these recently discovered genetic features don’t fit the selfish gene concept.

"Here’s one example from the field of epigenetics. Epigenetics is the study of mechanisms that change gene expression but that are not heritable. Epigenetic mechanisms allow for both behavior and the environment to affect how a gene works. Here’s the problem epigenetics poses for selfish genes: if a gene is the unit of selection, what benefit does a non-heritable change that is only evidenced in the organism have for the unit of selection? Why would such a mechanism ever be selected in the first place? Hence, epigenetics only makes sense in a system-wide context.

"Let’s look at one more of Jarvis’s examples: master regulatory genes, aka Hox genes. These genes have the purpose of being master regulators within a system context. Their activation and function depend upon upstream and downstream genes respectively. A master regulatory gene is helpless without its system context. How then could such a gene be a unit of selection? Do master regulatory genes really desire to reproduce more than they do to serve the organism? Is there evidence for that? Definitely not.

"In gentle fashion, Jarvis lays out numerous pieces of evidence that jeopardize Dawkins’s view that genes are selfish and act as the units of selection. That makes this book the perfect gift for an inquisitive friend who might not be familiar with some of the recent challenges to Dawkins’s ideas.

"Jarvis concludes that “selfish genes are in the ICU” and he encourages the reader to place recent discoveries into what he calls a melting pot — a place where many different people and ideas exist and often produce something new. He concludes with a question to the reader: “Are you and I ready for a new theory of evolution that may be as difficult to accept as were the revelations of Albert Einstein?'”

Comment: Dawkins was a master writer with thin understanding of the current research. He was killed long ago.

498 views

As a counter to these claims to have been driven to religion by Dawkins, 
there are plenty who have gone the other way.-http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/24/losing-religion-clergy-longer-believe-gather-online/-The Clergy Project, supported by Dawkins and Dennett is for
people who have lost their faith and found reason.

--
GPJ

4773 views

GEORGE: As a counter to these claims to have been driven to religion by Dawkins, 
there are plenty who have gone the other way.-http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/24/losing-religion-clergy-longer-believe-gather-onl...-The Clergy Project, supported by Dawkins and Dennett is for
people who have lost their faith and found reason.-Thank you for this article, which I found very touching. All credit to Dennett and Dawkins for trying to support these folk. I can't help feeling that, unlike love, it is better never to have had faith than to have lost it. One of my fears when discussing religious matters with religious people (the gentle, moderate kind ... I don't know any fundamentalists) is that if we probe too deep, doubts may begin to stir in them, and I would hate to undermine something that visibly brings them joy and comfort. When people lose their faith, I'm not so sure that they find anything except a gaping hole in their lives. In many cases, that is the pernicious effect of institutionalized religion ... it creates pressures of its own that have nothing to do with belief in God. Some of the people in the article were simply afraid to "come out" because of the possible reactions of those around them.-I find it sad that so many people cannot love life for its own sake. On the other hand, for those who are suffering, I can see that belief in some benign power will bring reassurance. I have my personal doubts as to whether there is any substance behind the reassurance, but I certainly wouldn't celebrate anyone's loss of it, provided their faith had not impinged on other people's enjoyment of life.

4735 views

More anti-Dawkins comments. Seem right on th mark to me:-http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9286682/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/-Ay defenders?

4569 views

Now E.O. Wilson:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/11/putting_dawkins090971.html

4468 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum