[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 18 KB, 468x360, Richard_Dawkins_giving_his_5th_1991_Christmas_Lecture_at_The_Royal_Institution (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2281691 No.2281691 [Reply] [Original]

What do you /lit/erates think of Richard Dawkins and his work?

>> No.2281703

Not a writer and not a scientist. What does he do?

>> No.2281708

>>2281703

>Not a scientist
>Professor of biology
>Has published papers about biology

Nope. No scientists here.

>> No.2281715

I've read the God Delusion and thought it was okay, it wasn't as good as any Hitchens that I've read but he has a nice, palatable style and interesting points, and if often pretty logical/scientific.

>> No.2281714

Meh, he is just slashing capital out of the 21st century atheism fad, I don't think he's a great writer nor an influential scientist.

despite coining the word "meme" I don't recall any great significance that spouted out from that character.

>> No.2281718

God Delusion was weak, I really enjoyed his most recent book (even though its aimed at a different demographic than myself) 'The Magic of Reality' beautiful animation and brought a healthy simplicity to a number of key theories consistently discussed badly in the public forum.

>> No.2281730

I love him, I've read some of his books but I'll never bother reading God Delusion. It's not supposed to be a science book really.

>> No.2281732

He has done some noteworthy academic work, and he's a good educator.

I got sick of the atheist movement a few years ago though, so I could care less about that side of him.

>> No.2281735

>>2281732
>could care less
It begins...

>> No.2281737

>>2281735
>>2281732
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw

>> No.2281740
File: 78 KB, 452x505, 123453183757.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2281740

>>2281732
>I could care less

>> No.2281748

He's a solid scholar who also found a way to become famous and get phat cash. This is what smart people do.

>> No.2281752

>>2281737
holy shit, /lit/, you have redeemed yourselves by knowing of wor Mitchell's polemic re 'more and less'.
Also
>>2281714
>Atheism fad
Oh you're so cute.

>> No.2281755
File: 44 KB, 251x231, 1298283181494.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2281755

>>2281735
>>2281737
>>2281740

>> No.2281770

>>2281735
>>2281737
>>2281740

If you couldn't care less you wouldn't be commenting at all. If you're commenting you care at least more than someone who doesn't bother with that. But I guess some people are too retarded to understand non-literal meanings of phrases and don't understand the derisive connotations of "I could care less."

>> No.2281774

Hes pretty cool, bit smug but way better than "christian scientists"

>> No.2281781

>>2281770
> non-literal meanings of phrases
That's an interesting way of phrasing 'utterly nonsensical batshit stupid Americanisms', you daft yank cunt.

>> No.2281791

>>2281781

Well someone is getting awfully mad and nationalistic because his grasp of language is tenuous.

>> No.2281792

>>2281791
>Uses nonsensical idioms known by everyone with a moderate complement of brain cells to be ridiculous
>Accuses other people of having a tenuous grasp of language
Also, praytell, who's getting nationalistic? Of course it's quite likely you've no idea what that word actually means...

>> No.2281794

>>2281792
>keeps calling it nonsensical
>I explained how it makes sense and how "I couldn't care last" is actually the contradictory phrase
>makes this about America vs. UK

>> No.2281797

>>2281794
>makes this about America vs. UK
I'm not from the UK you dipshit
>>I explained how it makes sense and how "I couldn't care last" is actually the contradictory phrase
No, you didn't.
>Accuses others of not understanding 'non-literal meanings'
>Pedantically picks to pieces the accepted rational phrase of those blessed with the correct English
Oh boy.

>> No.2281798

I just bought a couple of his books, only read The God Delusion so far. It wasn't bad, but considering I was already an atheist I didn't get much from it other than new arguments against fundies.

>> No.2281800

>>2281797

Allow me to quote myself here:
>If you couldn't care less you wouldn't be commenting at all. If you're commenting you care at least more than someone who doesn't bother with that.
>the derisive connotations of "I could care less."

Saying "I couldn't care less" is like yelling at someone "I'm not mad, you asshole!" Saying "I could care less" IMPLIES you care very little, because of its derisive connotation. It means, "I could [hardly] care less." Common usage has just stripped out that word.

Also
>batshit stupid Americanisms
>you daft yank cunt.

Stay classy.

>> No.2281814

>>2281714
>implying the concept of cultural unit of data hasn't revolutionized human sciences

>> No.2281815

>>2281800
>Saying "I could care less" IMPLIES you care very little, because of its derisive connotation. It means, "I could [hardly] care less."
There is nothing in that sentence to imply you care very little.
Cry more, Bobby Joe, your English is broken.
Furthermore....
>Getting upset over swearing
You have to be joking.

>> No.2281819
File: 221 KB, 854x720, k-on what.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2281819

>>2281815
>"I could hardly care less"
>doesn't imply you care very little

>> No.2281838

>>2281814

It hasn't really, the idea had long been present in psychology, philosophy and sociology since forever.

>> No.2281847

Hitchens espoused atheism with a lot more panache. And I have an inkling that other scientists have done the science more rigorously than Dawkins. He's a pop-sci emblem, but little more than that.

>> No.2281868

I like the concept 'meme' and the fact that it is now quite an accepted and recognized term, for which I believe he is largely responsible. So that alone justifies his existence as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm quite amused by his atheism for beginners type trolling which seems pretty successful. Sometimes he gets too mad himself though, which feels kind of embarrassing.

>> No.2281874

>>2281819
Nobody said 'I could hardly care less', only 'I could care less'.
Christ, how many weeks are you into your English course, Magda?

>> No.2281878

The work he's most known for, the elfish gene theory, isn't his. Also, he's a boring smug as fuck atheist, makes the rest of us look bad.

>> No.2281883

>>2281878
No, I thought Tolkein was the first to formulate the elfish gene theory.

>> No.2281886

>>2281883
That's what I said, it ain't dawkins' theory.

>> No.2281891

>>2281874

"I could care less" means "I could [hardly] care less." Lrn2 non-literal connotations and phraseology. If you insist in the future on flipping your shit over ambiguity, the phrase you, and the speaker you're correcting, are ideally aiming toward conceptually is "I could hardly care less" (probably). There are very few scenarios where "I couldn't care less" is appropriate, because as I've explained, it's generally an absurd statement.

>> No.2281895

>>2281891
>'LRN2ACCEPTMYASSERTIONSASFACT'

Also 'I couldn't care less' is inappropriate in a wide spectrum of situations.
>"What do you think of X?"
>"I couldn't care less."
Please tell me I'm not going to have to explain hyperbole to you also...?

>> No.2281896

>atheism fad
Yeah, those unruly teens!

>> No.2281904

>>2281896
Atheism is doomed to follow feminism into marginality if this "LOL UR WRONG FOR RELOGUIOS EXPERINCES I PROVE YOU RONG XD" shit goes on.

>> No.2281906

>>2281895
*appropriate
fuck I'm tired.

>> No.2281911

>>2281904

Both sides will reduce into absurdity and in a few generations people (in our society) will find the idea of having to argue either side ridiculous and simply live.

>> No.2281913

>>2281911
Ah yes, argumentum ad temperantiam...

>> No.2281915

>>2281913
>>2281911
After looking at posts like these I am, once again, in two minds about which board (candidates: /fa/, /lit/ and /mu/) contain the worst pretentious wankers.

>> No.2281918
File: 9 KB, 218x153, lol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2281918

>>2281915
Sounds like your of three minds actually.

>> No.2282034

>>2281691

I like Dawkins and his works. I hav red 4-5 books of his and varius other texts. He's without dout a great explainer of siens and a good sientist. His dokumentarys about faith skools and alternativ 'medisin' ar good too. I kant presently think of anything in partikular that i dislike about him.

>> No.2282088

Intolerable, intolerant pompous wanker. As an atheist I really don't see why we ought to give a fuck about other peoples religions, at least in the UK where it has little to no effect on politics.

>> No.2282131

>Pretend to invent atheism
>"God doesn't exist, prove me wrong"
>Can't prove a negative
>Rake in the cash

As a capitalist I respect his business model, as someone who has had many psychedelic experiences I can see he's just exploiting confirmation bias.

>> No.2282249

Selfish Gene, Blindwatchmaker etc are some of the best pop science books ever written. Dawkins knows his shiyt and can cimunicate clearly, without oversimplification, and in an interesting manner.

His works about God and religion are ignorant polemics. He has an axe to grind (to guess, the motivations for this are hidden in his childhood) and he bangs on with that without regard for good sense or good taste. He's a second rate polemicist and has a undergraduate understatding of religion and theology. His only redeeming feature here as far as I can tell is that he is not Christopher Hitchens.

As a man, he seems at times wryly humorous, often smug and conceited, and seems overly fond of faux-buddy buddyness with his supposed allies.

Personally, I avoid him as much as possible these days. But feel gratitude to him for his pop-science stuff.

>> No.2282258

>>2282249

>undergraduate understatding of religion and theology

^this

Most atheists can't back up their position without resorting to making fun of things they don't understand.

(not defending religion, just intelligent debating)

>> No.2282262

>>2282258
Like bringing up unicorns and using the term "invisible sky monster"?

>> No.2282266

>>2282131
Why do you think you can't prove a negative?
You can't prove something is not black?

>> No.2282272

>>2281708
If you had posted that in /sci/, it would have counted as an argument towards him not being a scientist.

>> No.2282281

>>2282258
>Most atheists can't back up their position without resorting to making fun of things they don't understand.

Most atheists who take part in the argument do so because they were formally religious. So they do understand it. The ones who have had no religious experience tend not to care enough about the issue and quite rightly

>> No.2282295

>>2282258
>Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928

>> No.2282293

>>2282262
Yes

>>2282272
You can't prove a negative. You can prove something IS red and thus infer that it is not black.

>>2282281
Generalized assumption, not true in my experience. I know more about religion than most people who base their identity on it, I'm not an atheist but not a religionist either.

Taking either extreme side of the argument leaves you with a incomplete understanding.

>> No.2282303

>>2282281

>Most atheists who take part in the argument do so because they were formally religious. So they do understand it.

Is that why they are often bitter and contemptuous? Kind of projected self-hate. That makes sense.

And if you're ex-religious and haven't done any extra research or study you (possibly) understand one religion. All religions are not the same. At least not to anyone who has choose to leave religion behind.

>> No.2282304

Good scientist, shit-tier philosopher, comes across pretty well on the rare occasions when he debates intelligent Christians.

>> No.2282306

>>2282293
So would you consider yourself to be agnostic regarding anything that can be asserted but not proven?

The atheist position is this: We cannot disprove the existence of a god or gods, but we do think it's highly unlikely. We don't simply say that a supreme being is impossible.

>> No.2282309

>>2282295

Yeah, that is the US though. Your red state intellectual underclass are notoriously ignorant.

>> No.2282322

I wish people would stop using "atheist" as an antonym for "religious". It's natural and makes some sense in a Western context, but it's still incorrect and only muddies the debate.

>> No.2282336

I think he is a smug, asshole atheist that confuses religion with Christianity and gets off on insulting other people. He has becomes what he rails against.

Come at me.

>> No.2282338

>>2282303
>bitter and contemptuous

nah it's not that at all. it's that they are frustrated because they can see all the limitations and failures of religious faith to which the religious remain blind

>> No.2282354

>>2282338

That doesn't wash, sorry.

I'm not religious in any organised traditional sense, but I don't get in arguments with people castigating them for being stupid fools for believing x, y or z. It's religion: there are no conclusions.

Bellicose atheists for all the world seem like faithless people who are enraged by their own faithlessness and look to vent that anger on others. Frustration is much to generous a term.

And why do you say religious belief is limiting?

>> No.2282374

>>2282354

>>And why do you say religious belief is limiting?

Because you're not allowed to question the Bible's explanation of the world, it's origin, human nature, the meaning of life, etc. etc. etc. You have to believe in their world view dogmatically and run fearfully from any other viewpoint, lest you become "tempted" or "corrupted." How can you even ask such a question?

I'm an atheist, but I don't bother to ask people if they're religious, and people don't talk about religion to me at all. But if they do, and they ask me why I'm not religious, I'll tell them exactly what I would tell those people who believe in leprechauns, bigfoot and ancient aliens, that these beliefs are idiotic. And I don't care if they're offended. Why should I care about incurring the ire of morons? Frankly, I couldn't care less about the opinions of the mentally deranged.

>> No.2282379

What is "God"?

>> No.2282380

>>2282374

>Because you're not allowed to question the Bible's explanation of the world

Well at least you're honest about conflating all of relgious belief with Christianity.

And in fact it's only certain (generally US centric) forms of Christianity which take the bible cosmology stories at all literally.

Christianity as a relgion is entirely seprable from genesis etc. It's about salvation through Christ, which incidently is entirely compatible with Dawkins world view.

Fundamentalist Christianity is limiting, I agree. But there is more to religion than fundmentalist Christianity.

>> No.2282381

>>2282306

No, my position is that a personal and individual understanding of spirituality, religion and anything ethereal is entirely subjective and either too hard or impossible to truly explain to another person in a manner that would have them understand it as you do.

I also believe that the non-physical aspects of existence directly affect our lives and can be directly affected by us, given that we have a proper understanding of how they work.

A proper understanding of one's own spirituality, arrived at through a combination of intense interest, study and personal experience, gives life a fuller meaning and reality a greater beauty.

Science + spirituality = A total understanding

>> No.2282384

He acts exactly like a 16 year old American who wants to enrage his white middle class parents by being an edgy atheist.
By the way, I ignore everyone who writes about theism or atheism, it's just wasted time.
Well you have that bottle and you don't know if something is inside and you can't reach it at all to check, how long would you bother with thoughts if something is inside or not? 5 seconds? Well not long because it's completely unimportant, same goes for atheism and theism.

>> No.2282385

he went overboard with his criticisms of Mother Teresa

he nearly admitted so himself in an interview of his I saw not too long ago

because seriously now, the woman devoted her life to helping people dying alone in ditches and alleyways

but just because she accepted donation money from some bad people in Haiti, she's such an evil person

also, she was a nun

of course she's going to build convents and churches with her donation money instead of using all of it to provide medical care

>> No.2282387

>>2282381

>I also believe that the non-physical aspects of existence directly affect our lives and can be directly affected by us, given that we have a proper understanding of how they work.

I agree. These are exciting thoughts. Magic has a big future in C21st culture imo.

>> No.2282389
File: 13 KB, 271x240, 1322341966188.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2282389

The thing I can't stand about Dawkins are his fanboys who parrot everything he's ever said like it's scripture.

And then they go on about how theists and agnostics are so uncritical and narrow minded, unable to even consider another person's viewpoints.

>> No.2282394

>>2282354
>enraged by their own faithlessness

Nah. They are enraged because of the faithfulness of others. because they themselves have reach a point where the belief is inadequate, yet the faithful have yet to see it and it would take an insurmountable effort to explain it to them.

>> No.2282396
File: 37 KB, 240x315, Chii.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2282396

>>2282374
>Because you're not allowed to question the Bible's explanation of the world, it's origin, human nature, the meaning of life, etc. etc. etc. You have to believe in their world view dogmatically and run fearfully from any other viewpoint, lest you become "tempted" or "corrupted."

There's more to Christianity than Christian fundamentalists who insist that every single word of the bible is the direct word of God and that it's a sin to even question one's belief in God.

How about you do some of your own research into the beliefs of real Christians, not strawmen and nutcases.

>> No.2282397

>>2282354
>And why do you say religious belief is limiting?

the belief itself isn't problematic but the implications that are drawn through a long list of non sequiturs are clearly. (moral guidelines and whatnot)

more generally, religious faith is to inscribe ultimate purpose to existence. That's limiting we become a means to an end. (the end being that purpose) and not an end in our selves.

>> No.2282401

I haven't really read anything from Dawkins, yet I've read a copycat from around here and the ideas that he presents are probably right.

Then again, I don't even care. There are still things that influence us that aren't visible, sensible or whatever. Take friendship, for example: I feel like I'm in a bubble when around some of my best friends. You can't see friendship, but it's there. And saying, 'yeah, the world is stupid and superstitious' doesn't add up to anything much actually.

>> No.2282402

>>2282394
>Nah. They are enraged because of the faithfulness of others. because they themselves have reach a point where the belief is inadequate

For some interesting points on this, from a Christian point of view, I'd recommend this:

http://www.amazon.com/Death-Mythic-God-Evolutionary-Spirituality/dp/1571744061/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&a
mp;qid=1325021716&sr=8-15

>> No.2282405

>>2282387
wrong board, guys.
You're probably meant to be trolling >>>/sci/ just now

>> No.2282407

>>2282405

Nah man, this stuff is closely tied to words and literature.

From Blake's Poetic Genius to Spare's sigil magic.

Words and letters are the tool for this stuff

>> No.2282409

>>2282402
See. That's what infuriates them. Theists can't even consider letting go. In fact they to extremes of identifying everything as god. Like here, they even call godlessness God. it's just a fallacy of equivocation, or a lousy pantheism where everything is god and god is ultimately meaningless.

>>2282407


non-physical =/= magic

>> No.2282413

>>2282402
God is the initial myth that this author claims is lost. trying to define anything that comes after the myth as God is just a pathetic way of convincing yourself that god isn't dead.

>> No.2282420

>>2282409

>it's just a fallacy of equivocation, or a lousy pantheism where everything is god and god is ultimately meaningless.

Menaingless? People orientating themselves to the world, feeling grounded in it and humbled by it, and trying to give some indication of the ineffable, erm, quiddity of these feelings and experiences, is meaningless? All I'm hearing from you is that you don't feel comfortable with their terminology.

Have you read that book, incidently?

>non-physical =/= magic

To all intents and purposes, in the intellectual climate of the contemprorary West, outside the church, it does.

>> No.2282427

>>2282420
what about the mind? reductionism is certainly contested there.

>> No.2282434

>>2282427
Sorry, don't follow you there. You'll have to expand on that a bit.

>> No.2282437

>>2282434
just about that non physical being considered magic point. maybe ive misunderstood something.

>> No.2282440

a

>> No.2282449

>>2282420
>People orientating themselves to the world

Religious people don't do this. They do the opposite. They orient the world to fit desires, instead of orienting their desires to fit the world. religion only has the appearance of humility. christ was born in a manger we hear. and god is greater than we'll ever be, we hear. religion apparently teaches us to recognise that grander than ourselves.

religion also teaches us that god is everything and is great, god created humans and therefore by proxy humans are everything and are the greatest thing as well since god loves us. God is the idea of man (thats why there's competing definition). Essentially, mankind came up with a way to say that mankind is the greatest yet in an indirect way so that it can seem humble.

> their terminology

Their terminology IS the problem. Why call the feeling of being at peace with the world or whatever comes after the myth of god, God. God isn't this at all. God is defined as that myth and people choose whether they follow it. Stop trying to convince yourself that you redefine god just because you're uncomfortable with what god has already been defined but you don't want to say you don't believe in god.

the nonphysical is NOT magic. there are several non physical things even atheists like dawkins love (like ideas and imagination). it seems like you need a dictionary.

>> No.2282453

>>2282427
when we are unable to explain something it doesn't mean it's magic. it just means we are unable to explain it.

>> No.2282463

>>2282449
"religion"
"religious people"
you understand that these terms mean multiple things right?

literalist christians do not represent every religious person ever. you'd do good to read some keiji nishitani or something, he works within a framework i think you might be able to relate to, and talks about religion, hes also a zen buddhist, and also said something about how western scientists have maintained the creationist mentality even after throwing away the myth, you know, about humans being masters of nature and of the earth and such.

>> No.2282465

>>2282453
thats what i was trying to say, i probably misunderstood what the previous poster was saying and thought he said that in spheres excluding the church, that the case is that non-material = magic.

>> No.2282468

>>2282463
I'm talking about God, dipshit. Buddhism is an atheistic religion. Obviously I'm not talking about Buddhism.

And I'm not talking about literalists either. That's just you assuming something about me to make it easier for you to dismiss me.

>> No.2282469

Guys?

Hey guys?

Why don't we let people believe what they wish and stop debating religion on the internet? It really is one of the greatest wastes of time ever. The whole "I'm right and you're wrong" tone of it all doesn't work out.

>> No.2282482

>>2282469
>"I'm right and you're wrong"

I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I'm just stating what I think. You're assuming something about the nature of the discussion so you don't need to get involved. By the way, you don't need a reason to not get involved!

>let people believe what they wish

I do. But I take issue when people try to attrubute wrong definitions to words (like the way 'god' is defined by that book linked above).

For the most part, the belief isn't a problem. But I will take issue with it when they use what they believe in as justification for doing or not doing something

>> No.2282487

>>2282468
you said religious people. if youre gonna argue, please use specific terminology. for example, saying "buddhism is an atheistic religion" is wrong, because branches like vajrayana do have deities and icons.

>> No.2282490

>>2282449

>Religious people don't do this. They do the opposite.

Some do, many don't. The guy who wrote that book struck me as humble.

>Essentially, mankind came up with a way to say that mankind is the greatest yet in an indirect way so that it can seem humble.

Maybe. Religion is as about the greatness and nobility of man as well as the greatness of god, true. But to avoid the debilitating and constiricting effects of hybris (the great sin for the Greeks - they knew about this stuff) it is essential to have a conception of something or someone else, a beyond - and have an imgainative, emotional link to such.

>the nonphysical is NOT magic. there are several non physical things even atheists like dawkins love (like ideas and imagination). it seems like you need a dictionary.

Yes I went too hard there. But so did you. Magic deals with the non-physical, and does so through words, ideas and imagination. Magic is not the non-physical, it is a way for people to approach the non-physical. A tool or vehicle.

Also, would Dawkins claim ideas and imagination are non-physical? I'd gathered him to be a thoroughoing physicalist like Dennet.

>> No.2282502

Highly vindictive, which I don't like. He did do lots regarding the popularization of the antitheist conversation, but otherwise there's little noteworthy about him. Hitchens (RIP) really made antitheism happen, although I still think Dawkins is okay.

>> No.2282513

>>2282482

>wrong definitions to words (like the way 'god' is defined by that book linked above)

But the definition of God has a long and troubled history in christianity alone. A lot of mystics like Eckhart are close to the coneption you are saying is "lousy pantheism" So why do you claim to have the right defnition?

It annoys me when people put words into other peoples mouth.

Words are powerful. Names are powerful. Intelligent people use words with discernment.

Einstein called his god "God" for good reasons. He knew about atheism, theism, deism - and he used the word God.

"But he didn't mean *God*" say Dawkins and the rest.

He meant what he said. Deal with it.

>> No.2282520

>>2282387
I agree, more and more people are realizing the problem with polarizing opposites and are approaching deep subjects with a more open mind.

This is why I'm against atheism and organized dogmatic religion.