| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/01/2011 10:07:34 AM · #2001 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. He doesn't understand how that works, at all. |
What Bear said. The man has no grasp of evolution whatsoever. It's painful to watch. |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 11:32:53 AM · #2002 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. He doesn't understand how that works, at all. |
What Bear said. The man has no grasp of evolution whatsoever. It's painful to watch. |
Is it painful to watch because the guy is wrong or because the guy is in pain? We can certainly debate other things than who's right and who's wrong in this forum can't we? Let's do something different for a change.
Sure, the man might be wrong, but that's what he believes. Not only that, but he seems to be in despair over these false beliefs. Many people who think that they know what evolution is really don't know. The same can be said for most religions. There are a lot of people out there who think that they know what Christianity is, but they are just flat out clueless.
So, who's to blame for the fact that many people don't understand evolution? Is it the media's fault? Is it the education system's fault? Is each individual to blame for his/her own lack of understanding? |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 04:48:47 PM · #2003 |
You are to be lauded for having the patience to view all of this drivel...I tried but truly couldn't.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 05:32:55 PM · #2004 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So, who's to blame for the fact that many people don't understand evolution? Is it the media's fault? Is it the education system's fault? Is each individual to blame for his/her own lack of understanding? |
Arguably, the Christian Church is largely to blame. From the moment Darwin published his work, the church began ridiculing it. The misinformation that so many people buy into was deliberately planted by anti-evolution (read "religious") forces early on, and it has taken on a life of its own. It's one of the great mistakes of our time, actually. There's no reason whatsoever for the church and "evolution" to be at odds.
R. |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 06:11:48 PM · #2005 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So, who's to blame for the fact that many people don't understand evolution? Is it the media's fault? Is it the education system's fault? Is each individual to blame for his/her own lack of understanding? |
Arguably, the Christian Church is largely to blame. From the moment Darwin published his work, the church began ridiculing it. The misinformation that so many people buy into was deliberately planted by anti-evolution (read "religious") forces early on, and it has taken on a life of its own. It's one of the great mistakes of our time, actually. There's no reason whatsoever for the church and "evolution" to be at odds.
R. |
(bold above is my own formatting, added for emphasis)
Why sure there is Robert, I think the time for conciliatory statements like that have passed. The church has made it quite clear that they do not value evidence in the face of faith, and they see each little progression of knowledge as chipping away at the foundation of their power (the unknown, ie, the "God" factor)..
I mean, how many tens of thousands of ideas that previously relied upon a God are now well explained by math, physics, and other sciences? How many times has it gone the other way? In effect, every scientific discovery has the potential to undermine the church's authority and power, and as such they have always resented new discoveries that explain things that previously needed a God to be explainable..
And people continue to ask why are atheists so angry, it's because the followers of the bronze age theology are hold the rest of us back, actively and aggressively, and it's pure shit. :) |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 06:30:23 PM · #2006 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Is it painful to watch because the guy is wrong or because the guy is in pain? |
It's painful to watch for the same reason it's painful to watch Miss South Carolina struggle through a pageant question, Ahmadinejad claim the holocaust was a hoax or Gaddafi explain that there are no protests and the people love him. They're not just wrong, but completely clueless. The rambling Joaquin Phoenix impersonation was only distracting. |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 06:31:10 PM · #2007 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
The church has made it quite clear that they do not value evidence in the face of faith, and they see each little progression of knowledge as chipping away at the foundation of their power (the unknown, ie, the "God" factor)..
I mean, how many tens of thousands of ideas that previously relied upon a God are now well explained by math, physics, and other sciences? How many times has it gone the other way? In effect, every scientific discovery has the potential to undermine the church's authority and power, and as such they have always resented new discoveries that explain things that previously needed a God to be explainable..
And people continue to ask why are atheists so angry, it's because the followers of the bronze age theology are hold the rest of us back, actively and aggressively, and it's pure shit. :) |
Cory, "the Church" is not a monolithic entity. It is true that we are seeing some segments of the Christian Faith fighting a pitched, rearguard action against science in general and evolutionary theory in specific, but these beliefs do not represent 'the' church, just 'a' church, or a number of churches. Look, I was brought up Christian and I have attended a number of churches in my life, and I've never heard anybody in any of those churches deny the reality of evolutionary theory. Doc's a devout Christian (which I am not) and HE believes that evolution is fact. He doesn't try to argue the literal truth of Genesis any more than I do.
Churches, collectively, are steadily getting more progressive and more socially aware: this is a fact. It should come as no surprise that there are extremely conservative factions within the various religious hierarchies who resist this evolution (!), but nevertheless it's been happening throughout my lifetime and it is continuing as we speak.
You don't do your argument, or indeed your anger, any favors by trying to tar all Christians with the fundamentalist brush.
R.
Message edited by author 2011-03-01 18:32:08. |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 06:55:29 PM · #2008 |
Here is a far more interesting update on the latest discoveries in modern human evolution.
//www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12535647
I just watched the programme and it is quite fascinating to see how widespread gene sequencing can now be used to identify the history of genetic change and the link to environmental pressures (even though as a race we are now more immune to environmental pressure than most creatures).
|
|
|
|
03/01/2011 07:00:26 PM · #2009 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
And people continue to ask why are atheists so angry, it's because the followers of the bronze age theology are hold the rest of us back, actively and aggressively, and it's pure shit. :) |
Your point in general is valid. Religious zealots frequently seek to undermine science education with manufactured controversy and disinformation, which is why we still have people who think a scientific theory is "just a theory" in the sense of a guess. Evolution is a favorite target and various organizations have sought to introduce intelligent design in the name of presenting an opposing viewpoint with equal credibility (as if evil humors were a valid alternative to germ theory). However, that doesn't mean ALL churches are in the same boat. Each of the last two popes have declared their acceptance of evolution as fact, and while they've envisioned somewhat different gaps to squeeze a god in, they no longer view evolution as incompatible with religion just as earlier popes eventually dropped opposition to the theory of heliocentricity (albeit a little too late for Giordano Bruno). |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 07:19:29 PM · #2010 |
| Dawkins video from TVO, where he Talks about the joy of living, and how we have "learned to emancipate ourselves from our Darwinian past". I was looking for this when Jason was going on in one of these threads about how everything should be permitted, or useless, or something, if we are products of evolution. Dawkins understands that modern humans have risen above their evolutionary, genetic predispositions. |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 08:47:21 PM · #2011 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
However, that doesn't mean ALL churches are in the same boat. Each of the last two popes have declared their acceptance of evolution as fact, and while they've envisioned somewhat different gaps to squeeze a god in, they no longer view evolution as incompatible with religion just as earlier popes eventually dropped opposition to the theory of heliocentricity (albeit a little too late for Giordano Bruno). |
Killer of a Yanko, Shannon :-) Ain't it weird when we're saying the same thing?
R. |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 09:08:05 PM · #2012 |
| Not as weird as when we aren't. ;-P |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 09:39:30 PM · #2013 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Dawkins video from TVO, where he Talks about the joy of living, and how we have "learned to emancipate ourselves from our Darwinian past". I was looking for this when Jason was going on in one of these threads about how everything should be permitted, or useless, or something, if we are products of evolution. Dawkins understands that modern humans have risen above their evolutionary, genetic predispositions. |
Interestingly, Dawkins points to culture to teach these anti-genetic principles such as altruism. This has, of course, been happening for millenia, but it's been under the guidance of religion. Something Dawkins is vehemently against. Deliciously ironic. |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 11:20:32 PM · #2014 |
| That isn't true at all, is it? First of all, he explains the origin of altruism in terms of evolution quite clearly, as well as why people are universally altruistic now. He doesn't mention a cultural origin for altruism at all. He handily explains religious impulses -- the good and the bad -- in terms of a "misfiring" of a pre-existing evolutionary rule. You seem to have heard something that wasn't said. |
|
|
|
03/01/2011 11:55:08 PM · #2015 |
Quoting Dawkins not on his video but rather in The Selfish Gene:
First he points out that things like disinterested altruism are not genetic impulses:
"Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense."
He goes on:
"We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth...We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism--something that has no place in nature, somethat that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines...but we have the power to rebel against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."
Finally he explains how we can overcome these impulses:
"Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish."
and
"among animals, man is uniquely dominated by culture, by influences learned and handed down."
I reiterate, Dawkins understands that to get beyond our genetic impulses we need culture. This teaching has been done for millenia under the guidance of religion.
Message edited by author 2011-03-01 23:55:42. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 12:38:44 AM · #2016 |
No, neither culture nor religion have guided our impulse to altruism. Its evolutionary origin has. If we are altruistic -- or not altruistic enough -- it is because we have evolved that way. He never denies, even in his earliest work, the evolutionary origin of altruism. He quite clearly exposits that view in the video clip.
You've unfairly conflated the "culture" quote with his attitude to the selfishness of genetics. The full quote is about his book, and in it he denies that it will be concerned "nature versus nurture".
Finally, your quote elucidates what he means by genetic selfishness, and what we have in our power to achieve: "universal love", and a desire for "the welfare of the species as a whole", something "that has never existed before". He is talking neither about culture, about religion, or about the altruistic impulse we have in its evolutionary sense that selected for traits that helped small numbers act fairly toward one another. He's hinting at a condition that doesn't exist in humanity, but which is attainable despite the nature of our genetics.
And you should have included the sentence immediately preceding the "disinterested altruism" quote, which hints at his attitude to religion and its biases: "We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination." |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 01:29:54 AM · #2017 |
I don't completely disagree with you, but I guess I think it's shaped in a different way.
Perhaps he sees a difference between "altruism" and "disinterested altruism" because you assert, probably correctly, that he believes the first has an evolutionary origin. However, it seems directly contradictory to then say that the latter has "no place in nature" and "has never existed" if the two are synonymous. Perhaps an important distinction in his mind.
But I agree that he feels we can attain such things despite our genetics. He feels we can do it through our cultural teachings. What other options would there be? And though he would hate to admit it, religion is both a) part of culture and b) a method of teaching the very things he wants to teach. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 09:51:36 AM · #2018 |
| I would argue on his behalf that religion has never been concerned with the kind of thing he's talking about. It's comprised of memes that make it more concerned with ingroup/outgroup biases -- exactly the opposite hand-me-down required to attain the sort of true, unfettered, unconditional universal human brotherhood I believe is being suggested. I think he fundamentally believes notions of culture get in the way of rising above gene selfishness; they are just another expression of our selfish small-group-oriented evolutionary heritage. I think what is being suggested is completely new, completely different, heretofore unseen, and generally impossible to achieve in the current cultural and religious climate. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 10:58:59 AM · #2019 |
It sounds like he wants to start a new religion. :)
I was just saying that I agreed with Dawkins on this much:
1) There are two ways to know something: instinct and teaching.
2) Some of our instinct needs to "defied" or "rebelled against" (his words).
3) The way to do this is with teaching.
I'm sure we part ways beyond that, but I do find it ironic that religion is expressly interested in #2 and #3. So when Dawkins later begins his crusade against religion, he is really only saying, "I think we should do #3 this way." which amounts to opinion.
Message edited by author 2011-03-02 10:59:39. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 11:25:59 AM · #2020 |
| Not to belabour the point, but I think you're missing it. Religion is incapable of teaching anything like universal love, in spite of its high-sounding oratory, because it is concerned too much with its own (evolutionary) biases. As a composite of memes, each religion is concerned with its own survival. The core goal of an individual religion is to supersede all others -- to dominate, as it were, the environment in which it thrives. An uncomplicated, rising-above-our-selfish-ingroup-tendency to achieve altruism of a kind not seen in human history, without qualification, without conditions of any kind, is antithetical to every religious tradition. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 11:28:47 AM · #2021 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It sounds like he wants to start a new religion. :)
I was just saying that I agreed with Dawkins on this much:
1) There are two ways to know something: instinct and teaching.
2) Some of our instinct needs to "defied" or "rebelled against" (his words).
3) The way to do this is with teaching.
I'm sure we part ways beyond that, but I do find it ironic that religion is expressly interested in #2 and #3. So when Dawkins later begins his crusade against religion, he is really only saying, "I think we should do #3 this way." which amounts to opinion. |
Sounds like a "fight fire with fire" approach. Religious people have rebelled against evolution, so evolutionists must rebel against religious thinking. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 11:31:25 AM · #2022 |
Like everything else in life, Louis, religion is BOTH. Just as we, as a species, have to transcend our "instincts" or "nature" to evolve the sort of altruism Dawkins is championing, so religion itself needs to evolve, and indeed demonstrably IS evolving. Doc's point is valid, that the mechanism by which religion operates, so to speak, is the same one Dawkins is espousing. Only the content is different, and even that not entirely so.
Let me put it this way: I doubt anyone among us would have any problem with "religion" if it had expressed itself from the beginning entirely as a "code of behavior" with no reference whatsoever to heavenly movers-and-shakers. There is, and always has been, a strong social-engineering component to organized religion, and that's conceptually pretty much parallel to Dawkin's position, if you subtract the "mystical mumbo-jumbo".
R. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 11:39:33 AM · #2023 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just as we, as a species, have to transcend our "instincts" or "nature" to evolve the sort of altruism Dawkins is championing, so religion itself needs to evolve, and indeed demonstrably IS evolving. |
Certainly -- but the kind of evolution religions need to experience will transform them into something they are not. They won't evolve quietly. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 11:39:44 AM · #2024 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
And people continue to ask why are atheists so angry, it's because the followers of the bronze age theology are hold the rest of us back, actively and aggressively, and it's pure shit. :) |
Your point in general is valid. Religious zealots frequently seek to undermine science education with manufactured controversy and disinformation, which is why we still have people who think a scientific theory is "just a theory" in the sense of a guess. Evolution is a favorite target and various organizations have sought to introduce intelligent design in the name of presenting an opposing viewpoint with equal credibility (as if evil humors were a valid alternative to germ theory). However, that doesn't mean ALL churches are in the same boat. Each of the last two popes have declared their acceptance of evolution as fact, and while they've envisioned somewhat different gaps to squeeze a god in, they no longer view evolution as incompatible with religion just as earlier popes eventually dropped opposition to the theory of heliocentricity (albeit a little too late for Giordano Bruno). |
Yeah, that's another one of my gripes.... This whole "moving target" thing.... Drives.Me.Nuts!
It's like playing chess, but every time your opponent is in checkmate, they can just invent a new move that allows them to escape.... Truly infuriating - but that's the nature of religion, no self-checking and self-perpetuating in an amazing and horribly efficient way. |
|
|
|
03/02/2011 11:43:36 AM · #2025 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
The church has made it quite clear that they do not value evidence in the face of faith, and they see each little progression of knowledge as chipping away at the foundation of their power (the unknown, ie, the "God" factor)..
I mean, how many tens of thousands of ideas that previously relied upon a God are now well explained by math, physics, and other sciences? How many times has it gone the other way? In effect, every scientific discovery has the potential to undermine the church's authority and power, and as such they have always resented new discoveries that explain things that previously needed a God to be explainable..
And people continue to ask why are atheists so angry, it's because the followers of the bronze age theology are hold the rest of us back, actively and aggressively, and it's pure shit. :) |
Cory, "the Church" is not a monolithic entity. It is true that we are seeing some segments of the Christian Faith fighting a pitched, rearguard action against science in general and evolutionary theory in specific, but these beliefs do not represent 'the' church, just 'a' church, or a number of churches. Look, I was brought up Christian and I have attended a number of churches in my life, and I've never heard anybody in any of those churches deny the reality of evolutionary theory. Doc's a devout Christian (which I am not) and HE believes that evolution is fact. He doesn't try to argue the literal truth of Genesis any more than I do.
Churches, collectively, are steadily getting more progressive and more socially aware: this is a fact. It should come as no surprise that there are extremely conservative factions within the various religious hierarchies who resist this evolution (!), but nevertheless it's been happening throughout my lifetime and it is continuing as we speak.
You don't do your argument, or indeed your anger, any favors by trying to tar all Christians with the fundamentalist brush.
R. |
I see the more moderate churches as a big part of the problem, as they add legitimacy to arguments like yours, that in effect we shouldn't be so angry, or generalize when talking about religion. Sorry, but it's a system, and each cog matters, moderate religious organizations are critical to the more zealous organizations. It's a bit like a pyramid, there have to me 1000's of moderate churches to provide a strong enough foundation for lunatic fringe organizations like the asshats who are busy protesting the funerals of soldiers with the God Hates Fags / Soldier Fags / Kill more soldiers thing.... Moderates may not be doing this, but are indeed indirectly supporting them in multiple ways, some more obvious than others.
Message edited by author 2011-03-02 11:48:11. |
|
