The God Delusion - ongoing review

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by GeoffP, Feb 28, 2008.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    What about the size of his alleged pecker?

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1792184&postcount=90

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,523
    Please do so that the affirmative response be realized.

    You have yet ventured waist deep into Chapter 2 of your review, how can we at this point jump to that conclusion?

    He did?

    If you've not run across any substance in the book thus far, you have already missed a great deal. But, I await your further criticisms, Geoff. It's always a pleasure.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That would be the TV series, "Doctor Who"
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,482
    You are badly confused about what an extended phenotype is, despite having read Dawkins's book - which is evidence in support of your apparent disdain for the value of his writings, I guess. But we can't require one source to do for everyone, or be accounted worthless. I found his explanation reasonably clear, but then I had run into the concept before.
    I insist that you have mistaken Dawkins's argument and overlooked his explicit dealing with exactly that issue, in my print copy of the book. Your objections seem to be based on mistaken assumptions of what Dawkins says he is about - he is indeed, purposefully, and says he is, setting out to damage a specific kind of faith altogether, and all of that kind, in his cultural audience. That is his explicit purpose, for which purpose his examples are chosen.

    There is nothing disengenuous, or bait and switch, or deceptive about it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    From what I remember (and I've read it a long time ago) his idea was that the concept of the phenotype should be extended to embrace not only the organisms own body but also its effect on the environment, beneficial not only to the organism itself but also other organisms that receive benefits from the behaviour. That reminded me of a movie I once saw "Sliding Doors" and I applied the concept accordingly. However to arbitrarily assign the effect on the external environment to the phenotype seems to me extremely far fetched.
    I don't think there is anything specific about it. He's just covering his base to protect the intellectual elite who may have made references to metaphorical (as he interprets Einsteins statement) gods.

    Definitely deceptive.
     
  8. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    Obviously not, since Wall Street is not a living thing. Are you sure you're a scientist?
     
  9. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Extended phenotype: all effects of a gene on the world.

    It does not say living thing.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,482
    No kidding.

    Until I get some evidence to the contrary, I'm just going to assume that everything you claim to believe about Dawkins's writings is equivalently informed - you haven't read it, don't understand what he's talking about, or are reacting against a conception of his writings simply invented to suit the requirements of your response to his category of essay.

    Such as this bit of nonsense:
    (He's covering his base to protect the intellectual elite !? )

    Fair enough?
     
  11. Barry Flannery Registered Member

    Messages:
    64
    To imply that they need it just highlights your lack of understanding and blind dogma.
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Duh you could explain if its not too beneath you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    He had to explain Einstein somehow and a metaphorical god is very convenient. I've heard him speak and he always seems embarrassed by this point. Its actually quite entertaining to hear his long drawn explanations explaining away the references to God in "great" scientists [his emphasis] while ditching Hitler and Stalin as religious.

    Oh all these great scientists didn't mean God as in God. Oh all these vicious mass murderers didn't mean what you think they did when they said stuff against religion!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Which begs the question:

    Are Dawkins statements those of an athiest, considering he was schooled in an Anglican environment?
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2008
  13. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,167
    It seems like a great deal of centralized power is dangerous, be it in a theocracy or in a (communist) atheocracy.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,678
    SAM:

    This is a simple question of evidence. One need only look at what Einstein wrote and said about God to discern his conception of God.

    Dawkins' summary of how Einstein thought about God is accurate.

    If you wish to claim inaccuracy, then back your claim with evidence. But bear in mind that you will be arguing not only against Dawkins but also against many biographers of Einstein and others who have carefully examined his comments on god and religion.

    I await your in-depth analysis of this matter.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    It depends on who you ask. Einsteins god sounds rather like the Hindu concept of Brahman to me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,482
    I notice that the people reacting most strongly and baselessly against Dawkins's book here have apparently not read him, but heard him.

    I haven't heard him, other than a few youtube clips. Has anyone done both, and noticed some kind of explanatory feature of his declamatory style, like a really irritating manner or tone, that differs from the approach of his books ?
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,678
    He has a clipped English accent that is probably taken as arrogant by his detractors. Other than that, I think they're mainly upset that he would dare to openly question religion.
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Thats not fair.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I think one would be a very poor theist without faith. Fear of the truth is not faith, is it?
     
  19. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,167
    It would only be unfair then if there are no poor theists. I would say there are quite a number. At least one president.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Then they're missing the whole point of the exercise, aren't they?

    As such, its unlikely you'll ever reach them, anyway.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    It seems unlikely that Dawkins would claim that not-living things can evolve in the same way as living ones, since the mechanism of "inheritance" for non-living things is - at the very least - different.

    Normally the "extended phenotype" is a characterization of how selection happens at the genetic level and not the organism level, and one of the results of this is that selection on a trait will seem to cross the line from one organism to another. From Wikipedia's article on the subject:
    This implies nothing about the selection on or evolution of traits in non-living things, like Wall Street. That was your own invention and a tad disingenuous all in there as well.
     
  22. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,523
    If anyone holds the the title for deception, it is you, sam. Since you've not read the book and have no idea what those statements are, you're response here is a complete fabrication.

    Are you an attention whore, Sam? Is that why you constantly lie?
     
  23. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,167
    Interesting and pehaps even revealing if I was clever enough.
    But who can we reach on either side of that divide?
    I see competing madnesses.
     

Share This Page