Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth (page 16)

Etude

I really don’t need to speak to anybody. The fact that Susan Blackmore and Daniel Dennett have promoted it doesn’t change anything. You can put feathers on a dog but that doesn’t make it a chicken. I don’t even understand why I would have to defer to them. Here’s why: “…it [meme] was coined by the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976)” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme) That’s all I need. I also read a reference from Dawkins in “The God Delusion” about how he came up with the name. So quit making it like it’s not his bastard child. Your persistence in not addressing the issue is why I use the word “worship”. It seems that to you he can do no wrong and you’re wrong about that.

snare&racket:

No. Fallibility is not unique in anyone or anything. But from the noise I’m getting here just for pointing a few issues out, it seems that nobody wants to consider let alone admit that perhaps Dawkins doesn’t have the answers in at least the area I mentioned. If, like you said “some [of his] evolutionary matters are likely going to be proven wrong”, why are we even arguing? That’s all I’ve been trying to say all along! I have indication of that because of the controversy other scientists have raised. If Dawkins ever corrects the situation and comes up with a better explanation or some demonstration, he will effectively silence critics like Wilson who by-the-way is an Evolutionary Biologist.

Maybe “worship” is a bit much. But just a bit. I used it in the sense of unshakable reverence for someone in spite of some kinks in the armor. That’s what I’m sensing from some here. So, I didn’t say it out of immaturity but out of understanding. So, that’s not going to shame me at all no matter how strongly you point that ignominious finger at me. I’m not challenging the foundations of science, Evolution or Natural Selection. I, because of other experts, have come to understand that some of what Dawkins concludes is not sustainable. So, unless you can find some specifics where I’ve done otherwise, I’m not sure what it is you’re arguing about.

adamah:

Don’t be silly. C’mon man, you know what I mean. Do you really need to remind anyone on levitation and whether that is possible or not? Nobody needs that just like nobody needs to be reminded that “kissing up” to or “worshiping” someone does not necessarily involve any part of the anatomy or any sort of religious hocus pocus.

KateWild

Bumped for Galaxie, Cliff and Comatose

KateWild

Comatose said on this thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/279243/2/There-Was-No-First-Human#.U1ZOPvldW8A

Personally I like the vdeo. But, on the fundie stuff, I don't think that can apply to someone who is non religious. I don't get it. I think thats why the questions happened Kate. It doesn't make much sense. As I read the thread I kept hoping you were going to explain why you used the word fundie. Saying he is a radical atheist is not the same as being a fundie. Not sure why you used the term radical... Is it just because he says things like they are instead of trying not to hurt feelings? I think its okay for a scientist to be bold and clear with facts.

I can see your point coma, many veiw the term fundamentalist as only in a religious context. But in my opinion Dawkins has views that are fundamental to his way of thinking. His way of thinking is in my opinion rigid as regards his view of religious people in general. He can be very careful with words but that is all semantics.

I think that making up a group of people called holocaust deniers to prove a point and make a comparrison is radical, that is why I used that word. He could have used a group of people called geography deniers instead, but he wanted to have shock value to his point.

Having said all this about Dawkins, I don't disagree with his science. So if he was less of a fundie he would probably get a wider audience

Kate xx

KateWild

Galaxie said

Kate .Isuspect you agree with the premise of the video.Would you agree also there are many many churchgoers who still believe man was created by god from the soil of the earth ( literally ) perhaps these are the types Dawkins refers to, I would have to agree with him.

Yes I do agree there are fundamentalist church goers that are creationists, but I don't think they are in the majority. I was brought up Jewish and my father still goes to Synagouge, but he has always believed in evolution as a scientific fact. IMO Dawkins is sensationalising the point that church goers are uneducated.

Kate xx

Viviane

But in my opinion Dawkins has views that are fundamental to his way of thinking. His way of thinking is in my opinion rigid as regards his view of religious people in general. He can be very careful with words but that is all semantics.

You just described what's known as "having an informed opinion on a subject" (or not, in some cases). Would you call a mathemetician who uses calcusus to determine rate of change a fundamentalist? Or a chemist that uses moles? I ask because those are also fundamental to mathematics or chemistry, yet you don't say they are a fundamentalist.

You're making up a new definition of "fundamentalist". You're very careful to relate it to religious fundamentalism, but it's all just semantics. You can't hijack works and make them mean anything you want.

I think that making up a group of people called holocaust deniers to prove a point and make a comparrison is radical, that is why I used that word.

He didn't make up holocaust deniers. They are a real thing.

Having said all this about Dawkins, I don't disagree with his science. So if he was less of a fundie he would probably get a wider audience

We just established he's not a fundamentalist and not a radical. Problem solved.

KateWild

Cliff said

@Kate

"He makes sweeping generalisations like calling people "uneducated church goers"

Shame on you, Madam, i thought you were better educated than that!

Some church-goers ARE uneducated - many in fact. Nowhere is he saying all (anything) are UCGs!, so no sweeping generalisations!

Are you feeling personally attacked by the phrase? You seem to have it in for RD, from what I have read from you over recent months.

Cliff

Fair point Dawkins was careful with his words not to make sweeping generalisations. Yes I do feel personally attacked by Dawkins not because I am uneducated, but just because I know I am not educated in everthing. Also I once was a fundamental JW that preached creation like a trooper, because I was trapped in a cult and my mind was controlled by the GB. I feel Dawkins has no empathy for those still trapped and his way of presenting the facts is not going to help people trapped in a cult, it will just make worse their prsection complex.

I suppose in a way I do have it in for Dawkins. I will read his publications with a critical eye, now that I have more understanding of what it means to be a critical thinker. So I do question some of the terms he uses and his motives.

Kate xx

Laika

Given that the vast majority of members on this board once rejected evolution I find it odd how people now embrace someone who claimed that said rejection was akin to Holocaust denial and even support this comparison.

Also see people who raised their children in religious homes agreeing with Dawkins when he says that this is child abuse, apparently oblivious (?) to what they are saying about themselves there.

snare&racket

Rejecting evolution based on a lifetime of WT dogma and being too scared to look at opposing views in science, i.e. the evidence.... is very different to being an ex JW rejecting science and evidence. There is nothing holding back the examination of evidence once you leave.

Don't get me wrong, in my opinion I would be harming my children if I raised them rejecting science and with replacing free thought with dogma. I truly believe that.

KateWild

Laika,

Its a good point that you find it odd why some xJWs embrace Dawkins. Although he is a fundie and uses nonesense comparrisons like Holocaust deniers, his science cannot be faulted. So I wouldn't say I embrace him, but as an evolutionary biologist he has got it right. His teaching methods I disagree with.

Kate xx

KateWild

Snare you make a fair comment, many JWs are too scared to look at the science. As far as xJWs they need to be open minded to science, but also critical of fundamentalist views whether they be religious or not. Would you not agree?

Kate xx

Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth

Share this