[ 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: 200 KB, 329x419, dawkins-greatest-show.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3643717 No.3643717 [Reply] [Original]

Who's read this? Is it worth a read, as the reviews are pretty good?

>> No.3643720
File: 56 KB, 625x422, 1357144408129.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3643720

>> No.3643726

Yes, it's an euphoric read.

>> No.3643731

>>3643720
Thanks. Really relevant to the question. Now take your shitposting elsewhere thanks

>> No.3643736

>>3643720
Um, many of religion's central dogmas impinge on that exact area of study, you know?
It seems fair that he might set his sights on a prominent challenger in the public sphere.

>> No.3643741

If you've read The Selfish Gene already, then go for it. It's as readable and interesting as anything Dawkins writes.

>> No.3643745 [DELETED] 
File: 171 KB, 548x618, MB5X6Ai.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3643745

>>3643726
>>3643731
>>3643736
>>3643741

>> No.3643750

>>3643745
Typical apologist... Take your ironic memes elsewhere. You're no better than the edgy teens you deride.

>> No.3643751

>>3643720
How many books has he written against religion in total? I'm only aware of The God Delusion.

>> No.3643753 [DELETED] 
File: 64 KB, 600x750, 1359195537885.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3643753

>>3643750

>> No.3643754

>>3643741
I haven't read the Selfish Gene OR The God Delusion, I'm just jumping in to this. Will that be alright?

>> No.3643760

>>3643754
Of course it will be all right. The God Delusion is nothing special, though it's interesting if you aren't clued in on the debate that's going on in lecture halls and Youtube comment sections all across America.

The Selfish Gene is generally considered his most important work, but Greatest Show on Earth is a fine entry point. It's quite accessible.

>> No.3643763

>>3643754
Have you actually read Darwin, OP?

>> No.3643765

>>3643741

Whoa, you just deep throated Dick there. Do you still have gag reflex?

>> No.3643773

>>3643765
That's a very clever comment you just made. Do you feel clever? Because what you said was decidedly clever.

>> No.3643782

>>3643741
>It's as readable and interesting as anything Dawkins writes.

I don't know whether that's insultingly sarcastic or an actual endorsement of his works.

>> No.3643793

>>3643773

It is irrelevant if I am clever or not. What is relevant here is the stupidity of those who support somebody blindly, bordering with idolatry.

Learn to think, boy.

>> No.3643796

>>3643793
The irony of saying this about Richard Dawkins of all people is overwhelming.

>> No.3643801

>>3643782
Ambiguity is your friend. Employ it wisely. I pass the torch onto you now.

>> No.3643804

>>3643793
Nothing in his comment (or any comments in this thread) bordered on idolatry... What are you on about?
It's just a casual discussion of a popular science writer, you're bringing your own baggage into this, clearly.

>> No.3643829

Lol, so much rage in this thread.

OP: If you haven't read some of Dawkin's older books on evolution (like The Blind Watchmaker) and don't know that much about biology then you're in for a treat - beautiful pictures, great text. It's intended as an introduction to evolution for the layman and I think it succeeds in doing so.

The Selfish Gene, on the other hand, is more for scientists - in it he tries to debunk the ideas of group selection (which was a thing at the time) and tries to show how selfless things like altruism are still possible when selection only acts on individuals.

Haven't read The God Delusion.

>> No.3643831

>>3643829
Forgot to add: The Selfish Gene made Dawkins famous, and rightly so. It's a scientific work that paved the way for a mountain of new findings while still maintaining readability.

>> No.3643838

>>3643796

You are clearly retarded. I am not referring to Dawkins but to a blank statement like "interesting as anything ____ writes".

Grow a brain and learn to read.

>> No.3643865

>>3643838
Yes, clearly.

>> No.3644625

>>3643829
Thanks, that a good summary

>>3643763
And no, I haven't

>> No.3644645

>The evidence for evolution

You have to be shitting me, right? Who do you think I'm going to believe, some British atheist with an agenda, or my congressman (who also happens to be in the US House of representatives for both Homeland Security and Science and Technology)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc

>> No.3644662

>>3644645
muhhhhhh freedoms

>> No.3645214

Dawkins is alright, but you should stet with Darwin If you're serious

>> No.3645245

Yeah, it's good, OP.

Ignore the idiots who strawman his entire authorship.

>> No.3645261

>>3645245

I think you need to re-read the wiki on informal fallacies.

>> No.3645294

>>3643838
Did you forget your meds? WTF are you doing>

>> No.3645301

>>3645261
pedantry isn't nice, fun, or interesting. It probably doesn't even make the illiterate change their lexicon.

>> No.3645304

>>3645261

What's wrong, exactly? Please enlighten me.

>> No.3645677

>>3645304
Reread the post

>> No.3646775

The selfish gene is important, and not polemic.
The God Delusion is by the nature of its subject controversial, but it's not really as adversarial or "smug" as it's made out to be. Dawkins is much less "in your face" in his books than he is in real life and on youtube, The Greatest show on earth is accessible, but not really necessary, If you don't understand evolution, you probably wouldn't be going to Dawkins to understand it in the first place, and if you do understand evolution, this doesn't add anything, This is more like a written version of one of his many evolutionary biology lectures, which are available on youtube, There was one section, about half a page or so, where I did say to myself, "well that was a little snide or condescending." but for the most part it stays away from being "arrogant"

I'd recommend selfish gene for everyone, and The God-Delusion for those who want to get an accessible book arguing against the existence of God. It's not the best book for arguing it, but it is one of the most engaging. And I think that applies whichever side of the argument you come to it on.

Dawkins' books just suffer a lot of backlash because of the "militant atheism" (not my term) and while he does engage in some of that in public, the books are pretty much as friendly as you can be while, you know, disagreeing on fundamental beliefs of the reader

>> No.3646781

>>3644645
oh my god I can't keep facepalming that hard, I'm going to give myself a concussion.

>> No.3646795

>>3643751
Most of his stuff is on biology especially evolutionary biology which is appropriate as he is an evolutionary biologist.
This one's not that necessary unless you don't understand evolution. It's sort of like an entry level refresher course. Not exactly "Evolution for dummies" but somewhat along those lines. If you want the gist of it and don't want to bother with a whole textbook or with scrolling through 6 or 7 wikipedia articles, than this will be good for you, otherwise, you can just skip it.

>> No.3646813

>>3646775
I never really found him to be smug or adversarial, he is rather pricklishly insistent on reason and logic, in the face of people who accuse him of the the freakiest things while being completely insistent on their individual beliefs being treated on absolutely equal footing with things that are determined through empirical means and open to critical argumentation. You are aware that his goal is making atheists/secularists less apologetical and more inclined to stand up to nonsense, and not to convert people to one faith or another?

>> No.3646821

>>3644645
Keyword is "believe". Take you Auctoritas back to the middle ages where they belong, thank you. If you can't think for yourself, with all the schooling and information available to you, that is where your mind is.

>> No.3646865

>>3646813
I'm aware. I'm just saying that he's better in written form. Though "Greatest Show" isn't as necessary a read as the others. I can't speak for any of his books beyond these three, though, as I haven't read them.

>> No.3646954

>>3646821
>with all the schooling and information available to you
Argument from authority? No thanks, stuff it up your ass and go die in a fire.