Richard Dawkins, Witch Doctor

[_amantha]

I don't think Tal despises Dawkins, he just doesn't seem to agree completely with a THEORY. What's wrong with that? I think a lot of you here are demonstrating the power of religious think in how fast you jump on the Dawkin's bandwagon. You may like his theory but it doesn't have the backing of the rest of the scientific community like evolution has.

Tal's comments seem to me to be a call for even greater skepticism. It is not at all certain that religion is a relic of the past and can be explained away with the wave of the "meme" wand.

Tal has a valid point and the vehemence with which many of you respond to his thought process is revealing. Take a breath and think about the argument rather than becoming a Dawkins apologist.

[_Some Schmo]

Have I ever said anything about your music career? I don't care about it and think it's irrelevant also, so don't conflate me with those that think it somehow relates to anything we're talking about here. I'd never heard of you until visiting FAIR. This is the first time I've ever seen you cite your education, and I admit, I'm surprised by it, only because... well, it doesn't matter why. I've never once cited my own credentials on this board or anywhere else because I, too, think it's irrelevant. I can't count the number of times people who are loud about how educated they are say the most ridiculous things. It's almost as though they talk about their education to compensate for a lack of common sense. I regard Dawkins highly because of what he writes and that way he thinks, not because of his credentials. I criticize you because comparing what the two of you write, there's no real comparison. It's not "Tal vs Richard" as much as it's "what Tal writes vs what Richard writes." Now that we have that out of the way...

You aren't the first one I've criticized for demonstrating a lack of, or simplistic understanding of Dawkins' writings.

I'm criticizing your contention with him based on what you've repeatedly written; that's all. It's piqued my curiosity, and it's hard for me to imagine that you don't have something against him. That's the impression you give me. I recognize I could be wrong. Fair enough?

I don't have anything against you personally either. I don't know you, so why should I? I'm certainly not on board with a good portion of what you write, but that's not that same as having something against you, agreed?

I've never really had a religious bone in my body myself. I remember thinking at the age of 9 or 10 that Joe Smith was full of sh*t, and my parents were into it as much as anyone. I did the church thing while living at home because it was easier for me that way, but the Sunday before the week I left home was the last time I ever attended church. Perhaps that's why I relate so well to what he's saying. It sounds like you're claiming that the only way a person can really understand religion is to be fooled by it.

Interesting, but isn't that a bit like saying you can't understand the physiological nuances of cancer without suffering from it? That's obviously hogwash.

[_marg]

This is dedicated to Mercury and Dartagnan.

It kind of seems that for some folks, rejecting the nonsense of religious charlatans requires accepting the nonsense of high-profile anti-religionists like Richard Dawkins. And in his case, nonsense is just what it is. No wonder, since Richard Dawkins's views on religion arise from his "meme" theory, which (where it is not merely superfluous), contains a good deal of nonsense.

Boiled down, Dawkins's meme theory amounts to a claim by Dawkins to have discovered that things like beliefs and opinions can be transmitted non-genetically. (Cue baseless "straw man" accusations).

I've not finished reading The God Delusion, and might very well not ever, not because I don't like or disagree with what I've read but it seems from what I've read much of it I've dealt with previously in discussions on MB's. Today I read chapter 11, the Selfish Gene and will attempt to argue what I believe is Dawkin's point of view.

You are correct it seems that the meme theory amounts to "things like beliefs and opinion can be transmitted non-genetically" I don't think Dawkins is claiming to have discovered this. Nor is he claiming this is a scientific theory. He does say it is a cultural theory, speculative on his part. And one of the main reasons of presenting it is to argue against the existence of religious beliefs being simply and only hard-wired in mankind's brains genetically. Dawkins I gather does not believe that as genes survive due to natural selection survival advantage, the same concept can be applied to religious belief having a genetic component and it surviving because of natural selection advantage.

Let me quote him; "As an enthusiastic Darwinian, I have been dissatisfied with explanations that my fellow-enthusiasts have offered for human behaviour. They have tried to look for 'biological advantages' in various attributes of human civilization.'

He then gives some examples which I won't copy and continues " The argument I shall advance, surprising as it may seem coming from the author of the earlier chapters, is that for an understanding of the evolution of modern man, we must begin by throwing out the gene as the sole basis of our ideas on evolution. I am an enthusiastic Darwinian, but I think Darwinism is too big a theory to be confined to the narrow context of the gene. The gene will enter my thesis as an analogy, nothing more."

So in essence what he is arguing is that in understanding why religions exist, it shouldn't be limited to solely assuming God belief is hardwired and has survival advantages.

He mentions a few time his theory is speculative. He also mentions he is talking about the study of cultures. That would mean he appreciates at this point it is not a hard science theory proposal but rather involves what is known as a soft science.

Wow. Turns out, I could have made a huge name for myself at the age of eight, if only I'd been bold (egomaniacal) enough to claim the most obvious feature of human cultural experience as my own unique discovery - and given it a nifty name. (Maybe Susan Blackmore would be my groupie right now, instead of Dawkins's).

While it may seem obvious to you, I believe you are actually arguing against his main thesis. I think you do think people are hardwired to believe in God and that you place less emphasis on God beliefs and other religious beliefs coming from culture than you do on man's inate desire to believe such ideas. So as silly as it may seem to you, it's not something you would have presented if you don't really subscribe to it.

This would be embarrassing enough, but Dawkins goes further. Though he uses clinical language to do it, he describes memes much as primitive peoples describe ghosts or spirits, or science fiction writers describe parasitic viruses from outer space. They invade our minds. Once they do, they control us. And some of them are evil. These bad ones must be rooted out - exorcised.

It would help if you actually quoted him. I'll quote him on what he has to say about god beliefs.

Consider the idea of God. We do not know how it arose in the meme pool. Probably it originated many times by independent 'mutation'. In any case, it is very old indeed. How does it replicate itself? By teh spoken and written word, aided by great music and great art. Why does it have such a high survival value? Remember that 'survival value' here does not mean value for a gene in a gene pool, but value for a meme in a meme pool. The question really means: What is it about the idea of a god that gives it its stability and penetrance in the cultural environment? The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the next. The 'everlasting arms' hold out a cushion against our own inadequacies which, like a doctor's placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary. These are some of the reasons why the idea of God is copied so readily by successive generations of individual brains. God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture."

Consider how Dawkins views memes (taken from his book "The Selfish Gene", 207). Memes are "living structures, not just metaphorically but technically. When you plant a fertile meme in my mind, you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme's propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn't just a way of talking - the meme for, say [Pythagoras's Theorem] is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure of the nervous system of individual men...". (Adjust a few words here and there, and we're approaching the basic idea of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers").

Actually your quote is not Dawkin's words they are N.K. Humphrey's, a colleague of his but in any event I think Dawkins is in agreement otherwise why quote him. And yes, something physical must happen to the brain otherwise, why would mankind have memory. And some things are much more memorable than others, and repetition further increases memory. So while something physical does happen in the brain, the scientific understanding of that is minimal at present, as far as I know.

In "The God Delusion", Dawkins claims that religions are a conglomeration ("memeplex") of these memes, good and bad; but that overall, religion is a bad supermeme (evil spirit/alien parasitic virus) (I can't decide which metaphor I like best :P).

Have you got a quote, I'd like to see those words in context as well. I think Dawkin's main argument is more along the lines of religion does not serve survival purposes and in fact may be a detriment in some cases to survival of mankind particularly in the long term.

But no worry - The Exorcist knows just what to do to annihilate each and every type of subsidiary evil spirit/virus. Employ all his remedies, and you will be whole again. (The introduction to "The God Delusion" is disturbingly reminiscent of an Elizabethan "medical manual": "to remove mal humours producing fevered anxiety, on the night of a full moon, mix one turnip with cumen and garlic and fennel, boil until pasty, stir in hot ash, then apply to the bowels.").

I'm very leary of people's arguments when they are attacks without quotes to back up.

Consider Dawkins's own almost endearingly earnest (naïve) words from "The God Delusion":

"If your thoughts run along (creationist) lines, I hope you will gain enlightenment from Chapter 4 on 'Why there almost certainly is no God'...

I tend to think Dawkins is deliberately being aggressive here as a direct counter to the enormous pressure to accept God claims within our culture.

"Perhaps you think there must be a god or gods because anthropologists and historians report that believers dominate every human culture. If you find that convincing, please refer to to Chapter 5, on 'the roots of religion'...

"Or do you think that religious belief is necessary in order for us to have justifiable morals? Don't we need God to be good? Please read Chapters 6 and 7 to see why this is not so...".

On and on goes Dr. Dawkins, prescribing a surefire remedy for each and every component of the malady of religiosity ("bad-memitis"), until the patient is cured!: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down". (Dawkins himself explicitly favours the virus analogy - see, among other things, his reference to immunology on page 5).

And once we are all atheists, then - in the immortal words of Grace Slick - "nothing's gonna stop us now". Heaven on earth is right around the corner. (Topic for another post).

I'm not sure that Dawkins main intent is to turn people into atheists, but rather to legitimize the atheist position, show it as a viable acceptable respectable one. There is so much out there in support of theism. Huge powerful institutions support and promote theism, there is little which supports atheism directly. Were it not for separation of state and religion, probably schools would focus on religion to the detriment of science studies. That pressure is illustrated by the ID proponents. And tied up into all of this is the scientific method, which is part of Dawkin's promotion.

Richard Dawkins may be a very talented zoologist. But as a philosopher, historian, psychologist, and political scientist, he fares very poorly.

Well as I said, his interest is in promotion of the scientific method, and promotion of atheism as a respectable position in our culture. I don't think he needs to be an expert in everything to argue as he does. Those who promote religion do not need to be experts in anything in particular, they don't even need reasoning to back them up. I mean just what credentials does one need to argue against the probability of a God?

[_solomarineris]

Solomarineris - you mean I'm wrong that Dawkins has never been a devout religious believer in the way we were? Of course I'm not wrong. Dawkins himself has made the nature of his religious career perfectly plain.

What the hell is up with you guys? You sound a lot like MAD posters defending Dan Peterson ("your hatred the well-respected academic Dr. Peterson is obvious", etc.). I don't hate Richard Dawkins, or resent him personally. I think his opinions on religion and society are foolish, and here and elsewhere (mostly elsewhere) I've explained why. Why don't we stick to that, instead of weird projections of personal animosity?

Tal,
Most of us do not project personal animosity toward you, few of the posters do.
Most of us also know your criticism is way of the mark, baseless.
It's like bad mouthing "Stairways to Heaven" to a rock fan, "ET, Close Encounters" to a Sci-Fi fan.

No matter what, prepare to be ridiculed.

[_Tal Bachman]

I don't think Tal despises Dawkins, he just doesn't seem to agree completely with a THEORY. What's wrong with that? I think a lot of you here are demonstrating the power of religious think in how fast you jump on the Dawkin's bandwagon. You may like his theory but it doesn't have the backing of the rest of the scientific community like evolution has.

Tal's comments seem to me to be a call for even greater skepticism. It is not at all certain that religion is a relic of the past and can be explained away with the wave of the "meme" wand.

Tal has a valid point and the vehemence with which many of you respond to his thought process is revealing. Take a breath and think about the argument rather than becoming a Dawkins apologist.

---I hope you're a girl, because I think I just fell in love with you :P

[_Gadianton]

I don't think Tal despises Dawkins, he just doesn't seem to agree completely with a THEORY. What's wrong with that?

If I don't completely agree with a theory, I don't usually condemn the proponent of the theory of being a witch doctor.

So what have you to say to that?

[_Tal Bachman]

Have I ever said anything about your music career? I don't care about it and think it's irrelevant also, so don't conflate me with those that think it somehow relates to anything we're talking about here.

I regard Dawkins highly because of what he writes and that way he thinks, [b]not because of his credentials .[/b] I criticize you because comparing what the two of you write, there's no real comparison.

---Hey Some Schmo: Please alert Dr. Shades immediately! Someone has obviously broken into your account, and has been posting as you. After all, here you say things like:

"Have I ever said anything about your music career? I don't care about it and think it's irrelevant"

and

"I regard Dawkins highly because of what he writes and that way he thinks, not because of his credentials".

Yet only yesterday, someone - posting under the name "Some Schmo" - wrote on this very thread:

"Tell me, where are your awards for intellectualism? I thought you were a musician. How the hell would you know what you're talking about in this field? At least he's actually a scientist."

Please check your VISA accounts and change all your passwords immediately.

You aren't the first one I've criticized for demonstrating a lack of, or simplistic understanding of Dawkins' writings.

I'm criticizing your contention with him based on what you've repeatedly written; that's all. It's piqued my curiosity, and it's hard for me to imagine that you don't have something against him.

---This sort of sounds like a religious nut saying things like "Why do you hate God?" everytime a skeptic says, "I find the Noah and the Ark story implausible".

Can I ask you a serious question? What on earth could I even possibly "have against him"? I've never met him, and I have no particular religious beliefs, so it's not like he could have "offended" me. There's nothing I even could have against him personally. If I was still in England, I'd be happy to be his squash partner. He seems, for one thing, to have humane motives. And I happen to agree with Richard Dawkins that reason establishes that religious beliefs are unwarranted in terms of empirical evidence. I also think his criticisms of Gould's weird "non-overlapping magisteria" hokum are well taken.

But I do think that Dawkins's "utopia through atheism" schtick, on full display on the first two pages of his book, is ludicrous (and come to think of it and Merc's comments, actually might just be fairly dangerous). At the very least it betrays, to my mind, some real gullibility/naïvété. I think his meme theory, at the very least when applied to the sources of religious impulse, is all but useless. And I think the fact that he thinks "The God Delusion" has a good shot at obliterating devout religious belief betrays some serious ignorance about the nature of the main topic of his book: "the god delusion" (as Nightingale pointed out).

Dawkins's many accolades seem to have impressed you. Indeed they are impressive. They say nothing about the merits of Dawkins's arguments on the subject of God or religion. Nothing. So, I don't wish to allow my admiration for his other professional accomplishments to influence my view of what he says on this topic. That's why I would write exactly the same things I wrote above if someone posting under an alias wrote them on this board. I couldn't care less if Dawkins is Oxford's "Professor of the Public Understanding of Science", or the King of England. It means nothing to me. It's not presumptuousness - it's that here we are taking turns talking about ideas and claims and arguments, not who got what from where.

I've never really had a religious bone in my body myself

.

---WELL....then no wonder you seem to have no idea what I mean when I claim that Dawkins doesn't understand what it's like to be a devout believer like many of us were. To you, his book would probably just seem like an excellent summary of why religious belief is empirically and logically unwarranted (which to a pretty large extent it is), and an effective antidote for those caught in the web of religious delusion (which to a large extent it is not).

I remember thinking at the age of 9 or 10 that Joe Smith was full of sh*t, and my parents were into it as much as anyone. I did the church thing while living at home because it was easier for me that way, but the Sunday before the week I left home was the last time I ever attended church. Perhaps that's why I relate so well to what he's saying. It sounds like you're claiming that the only way a person can really understand religion is to be fooled by it.

---No, I would not put it that way. But how I would put it is maybe a topic for another post.

Remember - change your passwords.[/color]

[_Tal Bachman]

Most of us also know your criticism is way of the mark, baseless.

---Is my characterization of Dawkins's utopia-through-atheism "baseless? If so, tell me why.

[_amantha]

I don't think Tal despises Dawkins, he just doesn't seem to agree completely with a THEORY. What's wrong with that?

If I don't completely agree with a theory, I don't usually condemn the proponent of the theory of being a witch doctor.

So what have you to say to that?

You have a point. Witch doctor is a bit hyperbolic for my taste, but putting that aside, its good to have a healthy skepticism of new(ish) theories which are largely untested, regardless of how promising they sound. Doesn't that make sense?

I think Tal is simply saying that religiosity has many masks and maybe, just maybe some atheists and secular humanists are a little too dogmatic about their views, especially, it seems, those who are fresh out of a hyper-dogmatic religion like Mormonism.

The rapid rate at which some people jumped to protect Dawkins and to dis Tal just tastes too much like my experience on MAD. I'd prefer (since you are all here to cater to my preferences ;) to see some more thoughtful consideration instead of knee jerk reactions.

[_Some Schmo]

Have I ever said anything about your music career? I don't care about it and think it's irrelevant also, so don't conflate me with those that think it somehow relates to anything we're talking about here.

I regard Dawkins highly because of what he writes and that way he thinks, [b]not because of his credentials .[/b] I criticize you because comparing what the two of you write, there's no real comparison.

---Hey Some Schmo: Please alert Dr. Shades immediately! Someone has obviously broken into your account, and has been posting as you. After all, here you say things like:

"Have I ever said anything about your music career? I don't care about it and think it's irrelevant"

and

"I regard Dawkins highly because of what he writes and that way he thinks, not because of his credentials".

Yet only yesterday, someone - posting under the name "Some Schmo" - wrote on this very thread:

"Tell me, where are your awards for intellectualism? I thought you were a musician. How the hell would you know what you're talking about in this field? At least he's actually a scientist."

Please check your VISA accounts and change all your passwords immediately.

This is a prime example of why this is the first time I've ever really engaged you in conversation. Your reading comprehension sucks ass, and your simplistic understanding of things is staggering.

I was addressing your comment regarding Dawkins' lack of credentials, as though they somehow mattered. I was turning it back on you and tackling your obvious hypocrisy. I didn't say anything about the quality or lack thereof of your music career; only that as a musician, you're no more qualified to talk on these things than he is. Can you understand the difference? Apparently not.

Whatever, man. So you disagree with Dawkins. Whoopie! If it feeds your ego, have fun with that. I don't really care.