5 ms·

Do we really need shrill atheism vs. religion discussions here? What has Richard added to the discussion? Maybe next we should argue about Sarah Palin, or text

Do we really need shrill atheism vs. religion discussions here? What has Richard added to the discussion? Maybe next we should argue about Sarah Palin, or text editors.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
netcan 17y ago
Dawkins has contributed interesting, novel, scientific & philosophical points to the discussion over the years. I agree that he can be shrill, but his contributions are meaty.
- rkts 17y ago
  Dawkins is a classic yellowist (http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html). Megawatts of brain power spent on arguing with idiots.
  - sketerpot 17y ago
    In my area of America, atheism is a lot more socially acceptable than it was before it became such a topic of controversy. Things have noticeably improved because of all this arguing. If Dawkins is squandering his talents arguing with idiots, he's doing a remarkably effective job of it.
    - berntb 17y ago
      Ah... job done in the anglo saxon world, time to move Dawkins' professor chair to Lebanon? :-) Or maybe not, there they blow up people not appreciated in Syria/Iran.
  - pvandehaar 17y ago
    I see no one who he is arguing with. He tends to refuse challenges to debates by prominent religious leaders...
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  >"Dawkins has contributed interesting, novel, scientific & philosophical points to the discussion over the years" Certainly! I think his biology writing is terrific. I've certainly learned a lot from the man. "The Ancestor's Tale" is one of my top five favorite books of all time. On the other hand, his religious writing is essentially what you find on atheism.reddit.com. Nuance? You won't get it from this man on this topic. It's us vs. them, and "them" are controlled by an evil mind-virus, so it's not even worth listening to their opinion.
  - netcan 17y ago
    Atheism is more loaded & prone to dumb attacks & dumb counter attacks. So sure, his pure biology writings are less baity then his atheism writing. However, he has contributed to the atheism discussion in the same way. Much of it stems from his work on evolution by natural selection as a metaphysical (rather then a biological) theory, a definitely worthwhile "philosophy of science" contribution to the atheism debate. This allows you to take fluff level stuff (eg Seth Godin, "ideavirus") & put it in to a serious framework, the subject of this article. Memes, Memoplexes, whatever is to organism as meme is to gene (is there a word for this?) It also gives you a framework for evolution as an example of non-god creation. This has to me been a real eye opener. If you want a modern contributor to the discussion who has contributed tangibly, Richard Dawkins is one of the top candidates. This article is not just mindless, it uses provocative (and perhaps shrill) analogies, but it is argued. The subject of this article is an area where Dawkins has made more novel contributions & is more qualified than "Ancestor's Tale," which is not based (according to me recollection) on his own work and is written intentionally as a popular science book. In my opinion, you either you exclude the whole topic as inherently shrill or you admit Dawkins. #Now we are the ones being shrill. [edit] I don't want to sound like too much of a fan. I am not advocating that Dawkins be unchallenged. I am advocating that he has earned a hearing. There is all sorts of stuff in this article I am not satisfied with. EG "4 Is Science a Virus"
    - jacoblyles 17y ago
      The meme idea is interesting, but it has been discussed elsewhere in more depth with less intention of starting a flamewar (Mr. Dawkins is a consumate troll). If you've already heard of that idea, I don't see what this adds. If you haven't, there are better sources. I note that Mr. Dawkins does not compare language to a "virus" though he admits it as memetic, saving the words with harsher connotations for his ultimate target. He then takes a one-sided view, accentuates the bad, ignores the good, focuses on the least reasonable religious people he can find, and calls it a day. On the internet, we call this "flaming". But hey, at least he didn't bring up Hitler. Bach? The University? Keeping alive European scholarship during the dark ages? Providing a center for community cohesion and services to the disadvantaged? Not mentioned, of course. I would even be willing to bet that our beloved secular modern egalitarianism owes its root to Christian philosophy, but that is speculation. No dispassionate exposition on the concept of memes, this. Mr. Dawkins clearly has an axe to grind.
Niten 17y ago
I agree that this probably isn't the place for religious debates, but it's plainly absurd to compare Richard Dawkins to Sarah Palin (presumably) with regard to the substance of his arguments, or to imply that he has not added anything worthwhile to this debate.

Do we really need shrill atheism vs. religion discussions here? What has Richard added to the discussion? Maybe next we should argue about Sarah Palin, or text editors.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

netcan 17y ago

Dawkins has contributed interesting, novel, scientific & philosophical points to the discussion over the years. I agree that he can be shrill, but his contributions are meaty.

rkts 17y ago
Dawkins is a classic yellowist (http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html). Megawatts of brain power spent on arguing with idiots.
- sketerpot 17y ago
  In my area of America, atheism is a lot more socially acceptable than it was before it became such a topic of controversy. Things have noticeably improved because of all this arguing. If Dawkins is squandering his talents arguing with idiots, he's doing a remarkably effective job of it.
  - berntb 17y ago
    Ah... job done in the anglo saxon world, time to move Dawkins' professor chair to Lebanon? :-) Or maybe not, there they blow up people not appreciated in Syria/Iran.
- pvandehaar 17y ago
  I see no one who he is arguing with. He tends to refuse challenges to debates by prominent religious leaders...
jacoblyles 17y ago
>"Dawkins has contributed interesting, novel, scientific & philosophical points to the discussion over the years" Certainly! I think his biology writing is terrific. I've certainly learned a lot from the man. "The Ancestor's Tale" is one of my top five favorite books of all time. On the other hand, his religious writing is essentially what you find on atheism.reddit.com. Nuance? You won't get it from this man on this topic. It's us vs. them, and "them" are controlled by an evil mind-virus, so it's not even worth listening to their opinion.
- netcan 17y ago
  Atheism is more loaded & prone to dumb attacks & dumb counter attacks. So sure, his pure biology writings are less baity then his atheism writing. However, he has contributed to the atheism discussion in the same way. Much of it stems from his work on evolution by natural selection as a metaphysical (rather then a biological) theory, a definitely worthwhile "philosophy of science" contribution to the atheism debate. This allows you to take fluff level stuff (eg Seth Godin, "ideavirus") & put it in to a serious framework, the subject of this article. Memes, Memoplexes, whatever is to organism as meme is to gene (is there a word for this?) It also gives you a framework for evolution as an example of non-god creation. This has to me been a real eye opener. If you want a modern contributor to the discussion who has contributed tangibly, Richard Dawkins is one of the top candidates. This article is not just mindless, it uses provocative (and perhaps shrill) analogies, but it is argued. The subject of this article is an area where Dawkins has made more novel contributions & is more qualified than "Ancestor's Tale," which is not based (according to me recollection) on his own work and is written intentionally as a popular science book. In my opinion, you either you exclude the whole topic as inherently shrill or you admit Dawkins. #Now we are the ones being shrill. [edit] I don't want to sound like too much of a fan. I am not advocating that Dawkins be unchallenged. I am advocating that he has earned a hearing. There is all sorts of stuff in this article I am not satisfied with. EG "4 Is Science a Virus"
  - jacoblyles 17y ago
    The meme idea is interesting, but it has been discussed elsewhere in more depth with less intention of starting a flamewar (Mr. Dawkins is a consumate troll). If you've already heard of that idea, I don't see what this adds. If you haven't, there are better sources. I note that Mr. Dawkins does not compare language to a "virus" though he admits it as memetic, saving the words with harsher connotations for his ultimate target. He then takes a one-sided view, accentuates the bad, ignores the good, focuses on the least reasonable religious people he can find, and calls it a day. On the internet, we call this "flaming". But hey, at least he didn't bring up Hitler. Bach? The University? Keeping alive European scholarship during the dark ages? Providing a center for community cohesion and services to the disadvantaged? Not mentioned, of course. I would even be willing to bet that our beloved secular modern egalitarianism owes its root to Christian philosophy, but that is speculation. No dispassionate exposition on the concept of memes, this. Mr. Dawkins clearly has an axe to grind.

Niten 17y ago

I agree that this probably isn't the place for religious debates, but it's plainly absurd to compare Richard Dawkins to Sarah Palin (presumably) with regard to the substance of his arguments, or to imply that he has not added anything worthwhile to this debate.