Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2808 of them)

Thank you, RickyT, you said that so much better than I did. Maybe I should have got crosser.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, rubbish.

Dawkins is left-wing and there's even some OTT sentence about how 'we alone in the animal kingdom have developed the power to overthrow the tyranny of our genes'. He also points out that we do this everytime we use a condom. Or was it have a wank? I can't remember.

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think he's an unreserved classic though. Too much dogmatic blethering on about god and the lack thereof marr a lot of his work. Even the otherwise excellent Blind Watchmaker is tainted by his astonishingly weak argument for strong atheism.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm not claiming the interpretation of dawkins is right; i haven't read him; unfortunately, however, that line of argument has been associated with him, rightly or wrongly.

― enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

'We alone in the animal kingdom.......' Does he posit as to why this might be?

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Culture. His (rather less pop-science) sequel to SG, The Extended Phenotype, goes on at great length about this.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm reading John Gray's Straw Dogs at the moment, which is an attack on this kind of anthrocentricism. He gets Dawkins wrong when it comes to meme theory, though.

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I believe that Richard Dawkins has only the best and most helpful intentions for the human race - heis a good man and a strong thinker.
HOWEVER other people, with slightly more blood pumping in their veins can see the IMPLICATIONS of his popularised science. And that's his fault (c.f my question about his 'celebrity').

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry Ricardo, I'm confused. Don't other animals have culture too?

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Dawkins is the inventor of the 'meme' -- the cultural gene. For this alone, classic!

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Classic. I've only read TSG, but I love all the little articles he does with the Edge group. I wish there were more people that advocated skepticism like him. This is the first time I've been the quote about being fascinated and in awe of the little mechanical processes, but it's incredibly OTM.

― Dale the Titled (cprek), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I wish there were more people that advocated skepticism like him

wha? everyone advocates skepticism. it's a friggin skeptical world.

― enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I liked his 'the behaviour is most illogical, captain' response to 9/11 too.

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Sort of but his argument was that the richness of human culture dwarfed that of any other known animal. Lots of other animals have extended phenotypes, but not to the same extent. Insert waffling about means of cultural transmission here.

Dawkins did not invent memes, though he did popularise the term.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Dawkins on 9/11.

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

He does look like Spock......

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha ha, that Dawkins essay is filtered under category "Traditional Religions". I bet that would make his blood boil!

― Citizen Kate (kate), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:23 (twenty-two years ago)

momus -- i thought it was incredibly condescending gallery-playing wank; as if guardian readers were a faithless breed < insert qt from 'road to wigan pier'>

― enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:23 (twenty-two years ago)

In repsonse to the accusation that it's his fault that other people draw weird implications from the TITLE OF HIS BOOK, isn't that a bit harsh?

― Ricardo (RickyT), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:24 (twenty-two years ago)

It was staunchly vulcan gallery-playing wank! Actually, the follow-up article is better, largely because it has such great quotes from Richard Adams and Gore Vidal.

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:25 (twenty-two years ago)

it's harsh, but life's a hard, godless struggle against arbitrary cruelty.

― enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:25 (twenty-two years ago)

~~Richard~~ Douglas Adams!

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh god, that article is exactly what I was talking about wrt his dudness.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not sure who said that; but for me it's the content not the titles that disturb.
And yes i do think that disturbing people is a good thing.......

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:27 (twenty-two years ago)

gore vidal -- now there's a sane and rational authority on matters political.

disturbing people is a good thing -- always?

― enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:28 (twenty-two years ago)

'To label people as death-deserving enemies because of disagreements about real world politics is bad enough. To do the same for disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic.'

Dawkins OTM!

― Momus (Momus), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

haha richard adams wd have been better! he cd have invoked the gods of the rabbits of watership down to back him up!!

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

To label people as death-deserving enemies because of disagreements about real world politics is bad enough.

oh right. well, i don't agree that you should bulldoze my house, but hey, i'm a rational being so i'll just have to sit on it.

why are political motivations -- such 'real world' things as nationalism, imperialism -- more rational than so-called delusional stuff (if you think you can separate our politics from the incroyable religious meme-web that is western culture)?

― enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Name one historical figure/arist/thinker who hasn't/still does not disturb people. It's necessary for everything. That's why thouugh Dawkins gets on my tits i admire and respect him. And i can maintain a little distance from my own reaction.

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Hang on, so yr problem is with anyone delving into the mysteries of the universe?

― Ricardo (RickyT), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Name one historical figure/arist/thinker who hasn't/still does not disturb people

erm, just bloody loads of them, dude.

― enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

No what gave you that idea? Just the opposite!

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Enrique - Like?

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Hang on, so yr problem is with anyone delving into the mysteries of the universe?

no, just with the chest-beating idiocy contained in statements such as the one quoted by momus.

― enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Enrique - Like?

the beatles
charles dickens

― enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Grah, that comment was directed to Pete S, Enrique! I completely agree with you abt the crapness of the article linked to by Momus.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:40 (twenty-two years ago)

People burned Beatles records!

I burned The Pickwick Papers!

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Pete S, it was this sentence:

It's his total denial of the mysteries of life and human consciousness

Do you mean that life is intrinsically mysterious, and the study of it should not be attempted? Or have I completely misread you?

― Ricardo (RickyT), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:42 (twenty-two years ago)

i spose they did N. i spose i mean 'driller killer' disturbing.

― enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:42 (twenty-two years ago)

let's burn the rachel papers, how can that not bring abt world peace?

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Enrique - have you never listened to 'Rocky Raccoon'??

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

oh for FRITH's SAKE!!

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 17 November 2003 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I said hasn't (i.e when they were around) or still doesn't disturb people, You're wrong on BOTH counts.
1.The Beatles - Tons of people were disturbed by the Beatles when they first appeared, and some never got used to them (e.g Paul Johnson). The music, the beat, the haircut. And later on when they did stuff like Revolution 9 and Strawberry Fields, and the "We're bigger than Jesus" thing, they werte pilloried. Even today you'll find loads of wacko people continuing to look for hidden satanic messages in the grooves, and claiming they're agents of Satan. Plus i've lost count of the number of cultural commentators i've read who blame the Beatles and the musical revolution they created for The Decline of Western Civillization, That's today!
2.Charles Dickens - When he was writing he was attacked by many for portraying 'unseemly subjects', i.e. degredation, the poor. This really did disturb the comlacent classes of that time.
And today, he disturbs people with the degree of sentimentality he is prone to; 'How could such a great writer feel that way', etc.
Any more? I'm telling you there's no-one.

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:50 (twenty-two years ago)

That's 'complacent classes', natch.

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Ricardo - i applaud people who are curious enough to delve;that's what we're programmed to do. But every great scientist/thinker worth his salt has some humility in the face of the vast complexities of the universe (as embodied, i think, by the staggering fact of OUR existence.)He simply and fatuosly denies there's any mystery at all!

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 14:57 (twenty-two years ago)

So your problem is not with his science, but with his OTT antireligion stuff? (I find the two things easy to decouple, but I can see why they might not be)

― Ricardo (RickyT), Monday, 17 November 2003 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Like i said up top, it's HIM who's hawking this stuff around the tv studios; HE doesn't ask us to seperate them, He doesn't say 'This is my populist, no-brainer stuff, please don't assosciate it with the profound scientific thinker to be found in these books.' For me, he's on one unbroken polemical mission - and he'ill do whatever's necessary to make his argument fit this.

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 15:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Zorn = adj. meaning "Destroyed, murdered; suffered a catastrophe" !!!

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Monday, 17 November 2003 15:09 (twenty-two years ago)

It's difficult not to be anti-religion when your area of study conflict directly with relgious dogma.

You can ignore religion all you want in your studies but the minute you go public, relgious people will start telling you that you are wrong.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Monday, 17 November 2003 15:11 (twenty-two years ago)

this isn't the time or the place, but i once made a brilliant fuck up in re frith. at work experience at a Major Broadsheet Paper, on the arts desk, i excellently confused the clever, musicologist mercury music prize frith with... the editor of heat [ie 'who's the mercury music prize head judge?' me: 'the editor of heat'], when trying to be helpful/clever. great days!

― enrique (Enrique), Monday, 17 November 2003 15:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 2708 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

yeah i sometimes feel inappropriate saying happy xmas but I can't bear the americanism, sorry to be racist against americans.

― ledge, Thursday, 24 December 2020 11:04 (five years ago)

it doesn't work in a UK context because "holidays" means something different here.

― ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Thursday, 24 December 2020 12:31 (five years ago)

don't know if Dawkins has taken any time to consider this, probably not but who knows what's going on in there

― ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Thursday, 24 December 2020 12:32 (five years ago)

i agree it sounds awkward in uk usage sometimes but ~~nobody~~ most people sorry ledge lol complaining about it in public aren't complaining about the sounding awkward bit

― Uptown Top Scamping (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 24 December 2020 12:36 (five years ago)

happy holidays as praxis against anti-PC sentiment and anti-"americanism" language policing

― Left, Thursday, 24 December 2020 12:38 (five years ago)

I cannot think of any issue that matters less, especially this year, so bringing it up is obviously tied to an agenda

― ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Thursday, 24 December 2020 12:43 (five years ago)

tbh i’m not sure dawkins has much of an agenda any more i think he’s just an old bellend.

― Fizzles, Thursday, 24 December 2020 12:54 (five years ago)

What's this clown said now?

― Eggbreak Hotel (Tom D.), Thursday, 24 December 2020 12:54 (five years ago)

it doesn't work in a UK context because "holidays" means something different here.

To be fair, they only get like two days off a year over there.

― Eggbreak Hotel (Tom D.), Thursday, 24 December 2020 12:56 (five years ago)

dawkins has always had a racist eugenicist agenda, he just doesn't bother to temper it with liberal progressive pandering as much as he did for a while since everyone knows what he's about now

― Left, Thursday, 24 December 2020 13:05 (five years ago)

three months pass...

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments

― pomenitul, Tuesday, 20 April 2021 13:35 (five years ago)

two years pass...

can't believe his atheism is just coded white supremacy

― Bitchin Doutai (Noodle Vague), Monday, 1 April 2024 08:40 (two years ago)

Shocked I tells ya..

― xyzzzz__, Monday, 1 April 2024 10:18 (two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.