Oh Dawkins, you’re such a card

[Fortean]

Funloving atheist Richard Dawkins takes time out from saving the world to warn about a dangerous new drug, "Gerin oil": (www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7036)
Gerin oil (or Geriniol to give it its scientific name) is a powerful drug which acts directly on the central nervous system to produce a range of characteristic symptoms, often of an antisocial or self- damaging nature. If administered chronically in childhood, Gerin oil can permanently modify the brain to produce adult disorders, including dangerous delusions which have proved very hard to treat.
But wait. It turns out he was talking about religion all the time!
Gerin oil fuelled most of the wars of the European middle ages and, in more recent times, the carnage that attended the partitioning of the Indian subcontinent and, on a smaller scale, Ireland.
Come now, Mr D. Attack religion if you like, just don’t use shockingly cheesy analogies to do it.





cuntfeatures

[Mangetout]

He's a really smart, knowledgeable guy, but every now and again, he just seems to blurt out something incredibly stupid and inane; remember his suggestion that atheists should refer to themselves as 'brights'?

[yojimbo]

Political differences where at the heart of the partition of Ireland. It was not an argument over transubstantiation of anything like it.

Many Protestants in the south were at the forefront of the fight for Irish self determination.

I have to say though he had me searching for Gerin Oil for a while there until I realised it's an anagram.

[SentientMeat]

Oh dear. I defend old Richard when his insightful and perceptive articles are misinterpreted or misunderstood by theists. This is haughty smartarsed condescension which isn't even a very clever or funny pun.

When I hear or read theists impugning the character or intellect of atheists, it serves only to entrench my atheistic position more firmly. I wish he'd realise that this is precisely the same effect his preaching has on theists. And I wish he'd cut the "religion causes atrocity" spiel when, clearly, Hitler and Stalin are such blatantly obvious counterexamples. Atrocities are caused by Them vs. Us divisions over resources (land, mineral deposits, breeding rights etc.), and religion is just one such arbitrary criterion by which to separate Them from Us.

[cowgirl]

I used to count Dawkins as one of my favourite authors.

Until I got to that section in Unweaving the Rainbow where he unleashed a vicious, ignorant and completely irrelevant tirade against people who believe in crazy things like astrology, naturopathic medicine, etc etc - anything which didn't fit his narrow definition of "science." Anyone who didn't share his derision for these was worthless and stupid.

What does it hurt you, Dick, if someone enjoys reading their horoscope? Why the venom? You had me with The Selfish Gene but now you've done gone messed it all up.

Can't we all just get along?

[Futile Gesture]

And I wish he'd cut the "religion causes atrocity" spiel when, clearly, Hitler and Stalin are such blatantly obvious counterexamples. Atrocities are caused by Them vs. Us divisions over resources (land, mineral deposits, breeding rights etc.), and religion is just one such arbitrary criterion by which to separate Them from Us.Absolutely.

If there were no religions, we'd be inventing other things to motivate and excuse the exact same atrocities.

With this in mind, let's get the ball rolling by killing all the astologists and their followers. They are stupid and worthless.

[Malacandra]

Absolutely.

If there were no religions, we'd be inventing other things to motivate and excuse the exact same atrocities.

With this in mind, let's get the ball rolling by killing all the astologists and their followers. They are stupid and worthless.

As a Pterry fan, I have to quote some line of his about a battle cry that runs "Remember <the atrocity They committed last time that excuses the atrocity We are committing this time>!".

[Revtim]

Is there some pun or joke with the name "Gerin oil"? I'm totally not getting it. Maybe a British thing?

[The King of Soup]

This isn't worth a pitting. Dawkins has gotten tired of honest, simple arguments being countered with shovelfuls of idiotic stupidity. He finally made a rhetorical misstep. 'Tis a pity, but don't nohow prove anybody right. Or even close. Or even worth listening to. Come to think of it, why am i here? Oh, yeah. God told me to tell you to shut the fuck up and figure out a way for Dawkins' people to live in peace.

[Eureka]

Is there some pun or joke with the name "Gerin oil"? I'm totally not getting it. Maybe a British thing?
"gerin oil" is an anagram of "religion"

[yojimbo]

Is there some pun or joke with the name "Gerin oil"? I'm totally not getting it. Maybe a British thing?
It's an anagram of religion.

[FordPrefect]

I used to count Dawkins as one of my favourite authors.

Until I got to that section in Unweaving the Rainbow where he unleashed a vicious, ignorant and completely irrelevant tirade against people who believe in crazy things like astrology, naturopathic medicine, etc etc - anything which didn't fit his narrow definition of "science." Anyone who didn't share his derision for these was worthless and stupid.

What does it hurt you, Dick, if someone enjoys reading their horoscope? Why the venom? You had me with The Selfish Gene but now you've done gone messed it all up.

Can't we all just get along?

Reading a horoscope for entertainment and exploiting ignorant people mourning the death of a loved one by providing seance services are two different things. Reading a horoscope for entertainment and (allegedly) running a super-power with advice from your wife's psychic are two different things.

We can definitely all get along, but when the world's economy (for an extreme instance) or whatever can be influenced by the equivalent of my pulling shit out of my ass, hurling it against the wall and deciding on stocks or bonds by the splatter pattern, it is time to call a spade, a spade.

I like Dawkins, sure he may overstep pure science in his militant atheism, but at least he is honest about his feelings, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, chances are it is.

[Loopydude]

As sardonic as Dawkins can be, I'm often at a loss to find any basic flaw with his position. I guess it's because I'm one another one of those sardonic agnostics who finds it difficult to conceive of another polarizing force that could rival, as a source of inspiration, the gobsmacking insanity and depravity promoted and comitted by those whose one common characteristic was they purported to be following the will of the King of the Universe.

He does get testy from time to time, and hence can alienate, but it's the common straw-man of his critics that he picks on religion to the exclusion of other negative human proclivities, like he's some single-mindedly irrational hater. I'm sure if you asked him about pernicious nationalist and populist movements without religious affiliation, for example, he'd have plenty to say about those as well, but for reasons he's made very clear, he targets religion in no small part because the vast majority of people who still insist on engaging in the delusory debate over the validity of our greatest scientific theories (namely Evolution) are religionists. Is it any wonder religion is the particular human scourge most prominant in his mind? Has he no justification for focusing his attention on superstition? The world is full of problems. I for one, and grateful a man of his intellect and authority is willing to put his popularity on the line for a principled argument against one of the biggest.

[Revtim]

Thanks Eureka and yojimbo, shoulda seen that.

[Malacandra]

As sardonic as Dawkins can be, I'm often at a loss to find any basic flaw with his position. I guess it's because I'm one another one of those sardonic agnostics who finds it difficult to conceive of another polarizing force that could rival, as a source of inspiration, the gobsmacking insanity and depravity promoted and comitted by those whose one common characteristic was they purported to be following the will of the King of the Universe.

Pish, Loopydude, you've not even been paying attention to the rest of this thread. For gobsmacking insanity and depravity, you can go to Mao Zedong and Stalin for a start, who visited immense amounts of hurt on their own people with no reference whatever to the King of the Universe. Tu quoque is a tool with strictly limited application, but it'll do to rebut the notion that it's "difficult to conceive of another polarizing force".


He does get testy from time to time, and hence can alienate, but it's the common straw-man of his critics that he picks on religion to the exclusion of other negative human proclivities, like he's some single-mindedly irrational hater. I'm sure if you asked him about pernicious nationalist and populist movements without religious affiliation, for example, he'd have plenty to say about those as well, but for reasons he's made very clear, he targets religion in no small part because the vast majority of people who still insist on engaging in the delusory debate over the validity of our greatest scientific theories (namely Evolution) are religionists. Is it any wonder religion is the particular human scourge most prominant in his mind? Has he no justification for focusing his attention on superstition? The world is full of problems. I for one, and grateful a man of his intellect and authority is willing to put his popularity on the line for a principled argument against one of the biggest.

Evolution is our greatest scientific theories (sic)? It hasn't done that much to put bread on my table, a roof over my head, or a computer on my desk, for a start, nor is it likely to put a man on Alpha Centauri III. I personally don't find the issue of whether the bacon on my plate is the meat of an animal descended from an unusually hairy Jurassic lizard, or one designed by God. I only want there to be a steady supply of healthy, profitable swine available to the meat industry. The impact of evolutionary theory on that is minimal.

[Loopydude]

If you understood Stalinist and Maoist (esp. the latter) totalitarianism properly you'd see the incredible resemblance to the most offensive aspects of religious dogmatism, the grandiose claims to mortally-serious truth through philosophy, and the unquestioning and deadly authority such abuse demands. Mao is an examplary figure for the study of the modern-day demigod, and any serious critique of Maoist iconography and propaganda sees the obvious debt his political machine owed to the ancient understanding of an emperor figure as a mediator between this world and some higher plane. They don't call them personality cults for nothing. This is the most oft-repeated, easily-refuted, and just plain dog-tired objections to the position of skeptics, and I'm repeatedly amazed by its continued use. A wet noodle isn't much of a cudgel. And if your greatest criterion for worth is that something can provide " steady supply of healthy, profitable swine" you save me the further trouble of demonstrating how worthless your own position clearly is.

[yojimbo]

ignorant and completely irrelevant tirade against people who believe in crazy things like astrology, naturopathic medicine, etc etc - anything which didn't fit his narrow definition of "science." Anyone who didn't share his derision for these was worthless and stupid.

I have to say I'm with him on astrology. I don't think that fits in any definition of science. I'm not up to speed on naturopathic medicine but giving this (http://www.pandamedicine.com/medicine.html) a quick read doesn't blow my skirt up.

I don't think that he'd have any problem slamming Stalin, Mao(ie. Autocratic oppression) etc. His point isn't that religion is necessary for these atrocities to take place only that ‘my sky pixie is better than your sky pixie’ thinking has been the driving force behind many atrocities in the past and present.

[tdn]

Evolution is our greatest scientific theories (sic)? It hasn't done that much to put bread on my table, a roof over my head, or a computer on my desk
So the criterion for a theory to be great is that it must benefit you personally? Huh. OK, then, Reevaluate it the next time you have to take antibiotics.

[Fortean]

I don’t agree with Dawkins at all, but what most enraged me about this little piece of inanity was how very extremely LAME it was.

Like no one has ever equated religion with drugs before.

Like no one has ever spin out a clumsy analogy with a super TWIST ending.

It reminds me rather of that nasty pieces of glurge often posted on the Snopes site that spells out some excessively creaky analogy about how small puppies are actually Jesus and buying an ice-cream is like becoming a Christian.

I’m actually glad he’s been reduced to this (in his non-scientific writings at least) because it will mean that no one takes any notice of his mad prejudices ever again.

Unless the fundies find out about him, like O’Hair and make him their main persecutor. Not to be a bastard, but I think he kind of deserves it.

[tnetennba]

Evolution is our greatest scientific theories (sic)? It hasn't done that much to put bread on my table, a roof over my head, or a computer on my desk, for a start, nor is it likely to put a man on Alpha Centauri III.

If monkeys hadn't got smart enough to make ovens, houses, and microchips you'd have none of those things. So I think you owe quite a bit to evolution.

[Stranger On A Train]

I used to count Dawkins as one of my favourite authors.

Until I got to that section in Unweaving the Rainbow where he unleashed a vicious, ignorant and completely irrelevant tirade against people who believe in crazy things like astrology, naturopathic medicine, etc etc - anything which didn't fit his narrow definition of "science." Anyone who didn't share his derision for these was worthless and stupid.To add to and clarify the comments that others have made, as well as Dawkins' original contention--the harm of astrology, naturopathic medicine, et cetera is that they adopt the language and terminology of science but are not themselves based upon science or fact. Casually reading and enjoying the horoscope column in the Sunday paper is one thing (I prefer The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41002) for all of my astrology needs), but when you are making descions about the fate of the free world you should probably be consulting more, uh, astute sources than your wife's soothsayer. (Robert Heinlein hit that one on the head, at least.)

When you get into a field like medicine the damage becomes even more pronounced. "Naturopathic medicine"--and in particular the snake-oil pseudoscience of homeopathy and allopathic medicine--serves only to provide a nonsense alternative to effective, if less hyped standard medical treatments treatments. The alleged mechanisms behind such treatments make less sense than the four bodily humours, and the result is often that patients eschew proven treatments with limited (but realistic) claims in favor of the miracle quack nostrums to their eventual ruin. How many breast cancer patients who could have survived via surgery and light chemotherapy have instead succombed while persuing a program of Laetrile treatment?

This isn't to say that Western pharmacological-based medicine is the end-all, be-all of medicine; as the field develops it is often discovered that some standard treatments are little more effective than placebo, or that illnesses thought to have one simple cause are in fact the result of several unsuspected influences. Indeed, it is the key facet of the scientific method that any theory, no matter how established, is still subject to challenge and disproof. Nor can it be said that there is nothing to be gained from investigating traditional or osteopathic treatments; new drugs are often discovered in (and improved from) folk remedies, and osteopaths, acupuncturists, and other "traditional healers" have long known what is only now becoming apparent to Western medical science, namely that accurate and comprehensive diagnosis requires a holistic approach to pathology rather than just zeroing in and treating the obvious symptoms. But these are lessons to be winnowed out from the chaff of superstition.

From that perspective, these "crazy things" aren't just harmless diversions but instead insidious mistruths which detract from the ability of people to make accurate observation and critical assessment of the world around them. If you believe that light bulbs are illluminated by faerie magicks then you aren't going to bother learning about electricity, and when the fuse blows out all of the praying and sacrificing to the faerie king isn't going to bring the lights back. As fighting against ignorance and learning to appreciate the beauty in knowledge rather than worshiping a veil of mysticism is the key theme of the book (the title of the book is a reference to Keat's criticism of Isaac Newton shattering the elegance of a rainbow by describing the components that make it), this essay was particularly adroit, certainly moreso than some others included.

Aside from his positions in his technical field of study (evolutionary zoology), I tend to agree with Dawkins philosophically on most counts, including his advocacy of atheism and criticism of unfounded mysticism as an obfusacatory tactic by those who advocate positions that they cannot validate. But I have to admit that he often overreaches--and in a manner that is obnoxiously polemical--when he tries to conflate his writings on evolution with his position on religion, and as a result weakens both arguments. As a scientist and champion of Ronald Fisher's study of quanatitive genetics and George C. Williams theory of gene-centricity kin selection (as well as making valuable contributions of his own in ethology) he's done very valuable work, and his popular writings (The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker) have served to make modern evolutionary theory accessible to non-technical readers (even if they have been rampantly misinterpreted in their themes and appropriately questioned in some details). As a philosopher and social theorist, however, he comes across as being distinctly amateurish; his contemporary and competitor in science popularization, Stephen J. Gould, was actually much superior in this regard and made the effort to present the viewpoints of those he stringently disagreed with not as deluded or ignorant but rather based upon a different body of knowledge and understanding of the natural world.

In the case of the article quoted from the OP, it seems that Dawkins was attempting--rather lamely and unsuccessfully, in my personal literary opinion--to engage in social satire in the vein of Johnathon Swift. One can scarcely read past the second paragraph without coming to the realization that he's making an analogy, and one that is rather old hat for all of that. I don't think he's wrong--he makes some valid points in the article--but the writing isn't particularly effective as satire and could be taken by many as being simply in bad taste, which is nearly always the response to ineffective humor.

Stranger

[tdn]

I agree it was kind of lame, but...

I’m actually glad he’s been reduced to this (in his non-scientific writings at least) because it will mean that no one takes any notice of his mad prejudices ever again.
What mad prejudices would those be?

[Loopydude]

As a philosopher and social theorist, however, he comes across as being distinctly amateurish; his contemporary and competitor in science popularization, Stephen J. Gould, was actually much superior in this regard and made the effort to present the viewpoints of those he stringently disagreed with not as deluded or ignorant but rather based upon a different body of knowledge and understanding of the natural world.
Stranger

It's not clear to me why having a more dressy or politically-correct philosophical argument that flatters your opponent (instead of stating the obvious, or there would be no debate, that the opponent is essentially ignorant and/or deluded) makes the argument more valid or valuable. That Dawkins can be curt and abrasive is beyond dispute. That he's no philospher of science par excellance might be seen as refreshing by some who consider philosophy in its present form a study or worthless abstractions. Of course, we who think that are used to being derided as ignorant, close-minded, even bigoted ourselves, but at best its a load of value judgements based on oppinion. Could someone please point me to something in his commentary that Dawkins has been obviously wrong about, even if, by some standards, simplistic?

[Loopydude]

Sorry, "study of worthless abstractions".

[cowgirl]

His point isn't that religion is necessary for these atrocities to take place only that ‘my sky pixie is better than your sky pixie’ thinking has been the driving force behind many atrocities in the past and present.

Right, and I personally find his "sky pixie" of science-as-the-only-path-to-knowledge insulting and very counter-productive.

Of course it hurts people when their hard-earned bucks are scammed away under false pretences. But honestly, if it makes me feel better to take echinacea, why does that - in and of itself - make me worthy of his derision?

The reason it upsets me so much is because really, I completely agree with him on every point he makes that doesn't have to do with insulting people who believe differently. For example, I agree with the following completely, and I have been known to evangalize this argument among my friends:

the harm of astrology, naturopathic medicine, et cetera is that they adopt the language and terminology of science but are not themselves based upon science or fact

Personally I think astrology is a load of bunk, homeopathy probably does way more harm than good, and religion is usually no more than 'my sky pixie is better than your sky pixie.' The difference is that I understand that even though these things have no value for me, they do for other people, and I don't presume to force my world view upon them if it is not doing them any harm to believe otherwise.

It does bug me when 'naturopathy' gets lumped in as snake-oil along with homeopathy. I don't know if Dawkins has ever actually spoken to a naturopath but all the ones I've met are much more concerned with things like diet and exercise than bodily humors. His tirades make me - someone who agrees with most of what he says - feel like he thinks I'm a worthless moron because I prefer eating well to running to a drugstore. Not a good rhetorical technique, to say the least.

[Larry Borgia]

Loopydude is absolutely right about Communism. It is as much a religion as Buddhism or Christianity. It has devils (capitalists), prophets (Marx and Lenin), lesser prophets, an eschatology, a heaven, and even a God of sorts in the forces of history. It appeals to the same human search for meaning as all religions do. Its atheism is not so much real atheism as it is the contempt of the One True Faith for all the other faiths. Another baleful 20cen religion is of course the fanatic nationalism exemplified by Hitler. Pointing out that these doctrines have caused as much carnage as religion ignores the fact that these doctrines are religions, in all but name.

However, this just shows that religious feeling is strong in humans. If you try to supress it, it returns, often in horrible, twisted forms.

The problem with Dawkins is that he alienates the very people science and rationality need in the current struggle against fundamentalism: intelligent believers. On this very board you can find many believers who accept the theory of evolution and the rest of modern science: Tomndebb, Polycarp, DocCathode, and others. On The PBS evolution doc, they even had an evangelical Christian who supported evolution. Darwin is not the property of atheists, and it's foolish and couterproductive for atheists to claim otherwise.

Also, while Dawkins is an excellent science writer, when he gets on his atheist horse he comes off as a major-league asshole. He seems to have made atheism a religion of its own.

[Stranger On A Train]

Evolution is our greatest scientific theories (sic)? It hasn't done that much to put bread on my table, a roof over my head, or a computer on my desk, for a start, nor is it likely to put a man on Alpha Centauri III. I personally don't find the issue of whether the bacon on my plate is the meat of an animal descended from an unusually hairy Jurassic lizard, or one designed by God. I only want there to be a steady supply of healthy, profitable swine available to the meat industry. The impact of evolutionary theory on that is minimal.This comes from a place so callow and benighted I'm barely sure where to begin to shed light.

Your "steady supply of healthy, profitable swine" is the result of thousands of generations of forced evolution via artificial selection (i.e. selective breeding) to turn gamey, aggressive, feral hogs into the modern, docile, palatable and high-value meat producing domestic pig. Similarly, the domestication of wild wheat is what permits us to enjoy such a bountiful supply of flour that we don't even have to think of the cost and effort it would be to scavenge our carbohydrates from nature. A working understanding of the priciples of evolution and genetics is paramount to effective breeding and domestication, and is what has allowed us to avoid famine (except where politically expedient) in the 20th Century.

Will that do you for a start?

Stranger

[Loopydude]

Darwin is not the property of atheists, and it's foolish and couterproductive for atheists to claim otherwise.

If someone can show me where Dawkins has ever argued Darwin is his "property" because of some exclusive appeal to atheism, I'd be more accepting of that straw man.


Also, while Dawkins is an excellent science writer, when he gets on his atheist horse he comes off as a major-league asshole. He seems to have made atheism a religion of its own.

The "asshole" ephithet is a value judgement of the most unquantifiable nature. And Dawkins has surely not mistaken a lack of faith in God with some alternate faith in something else. It is faith itself, and the negative consequences of that mode of human thought, that Dawkins argues against. In my oppinion, he does so very effectively, if sometimes impolitely; but if people are going to close their minds to his arguments only because of his style and not his substance, then who is mistaken in their judgement?

[FordPrefect]

cowgirl "His tirades make me - someone who agrees with most of what he says - feel like he thinks I'm a worthless moron because I prefer eating well to running to a drugstore" is disingenuous. If you would change "I prefer eating well" to "suspending warm stones over my shakras" then you would better describing Dawkins' opinions.

[Loopydude]

The difference is that I understand that even though these things have no value for me, they do for other people, and I don't presume to force my world view upon them if it is not doing them any harm to believe otherwise.

We're surrounded by straw men! When has Dawkins ever tried to "force his world view" on anybody? He's argued for it, but there is nothing compulsive in the argument beyond reason. If people feel oppressed by confrontation with reason, why are they given such sympathy? If claimed I was being oppressed by paleontologists who called my bald assertion Nessie is an immortal pleiosaur a load of horseshit, I'd get laughed out of the room. Because some people are more sentimental about their sky pixie than they are about bigfoot does not make that sentimentality intrinsically deserving of respect, nor does it make vigorous debate with religionists a form or persecution.

[Marley23]

If you understood Stalinist and Maoist (esp. the latter) totalitarianism properly you'd see the incredible resemblance to the most offensive aspects of religious dogmatism, the grandiose claims to mortally-serious truth through philosophy, and the unquestioning and deadly authority such abuse demands.
Entirely true, and yet this also demonstrates that fanaticism is not confined to people belonging to conventional religions (something Larry Borgia expounded upon quite well). If Dawkins was investigating or criticizing things like the unquestioning loyalty and delusion that allow societies and leaders to go crazy and do these terrible things to each other and to other nations, that'd be interesting and possibly helpful. It'd also stand up nicely from the "bright" perspective, as it's skeptical of things other than just religion. But instead, it feels to me like he's cherry-picking examples to make religion look bad. And that's coming from a guy who's pretty damn athy in his own right.

[cowgirl]

We're surrounded by straw men! When has Dawkins ever tried to "force his world view" on anybody?

I wish I had a copy of the book nearby, but I got rid of it, so I have to go by memory. It has been several years since I read it, so I will do the best I can.

Note that I am not arguing about specifically what he said, I am arguing about the effects of what he said - basically, in the mind of this reader, to acclaim his own position as the only true and correct one, and that any alternative suggestions are not worthy of his consideration.

That's what bugged me. That is intellectually dishonest and makes him sound like wanker of the highest order. Most of us don't like to be told that someone else knows the Truth and that if we deign to disagree, then we are idiots. This is the overwhelming impression I got from that paragraph, and it is being confirmed by the OP of this thread and also from comments like this:

The problem with Dawkins is that he alienates the very people science and rationality need in the current struggle against fundamentalism: intelligent believers.

Furthermore, I objected to his conflation of naturopathy with homeopathy. Thus FordPrefect's comment that

If you would change "I prefer eating well" to "suspending warm stones over my shakras" then you would better describing Dawkins' opinions completely misses the point, because people like Dawkins and in fact Stranger

"Naturopathic medicine"--and in particular the snake-oil pseudoscience of homeopathy

are the ones who conflate it. I am trying to make the point that naturopathy has value beyond the snake-oil pseudoscience of homeopathy (ie nutritionism, in this example), and Dawkins dismisses this out of hand. In this regard also, he is being intellectually dishonest.

The thing is, there's a lot of grey area between pure, cold, atheistic scientific reason, and snake-oil garbage like draining old people's bank accounts on the promise of contacting their dead relatives.

Dawkins feels that not only is there no grey area, but that he himself is entitled to define the precise location of the line between the two. It is this arrogance which has made me lose all respect for him, despite the genius of The Selfish Gene.

[Loopydude]

That's what bugged me. That is intellectually dishonest and makes him sound like wanker of the highest order.

What's intellectually dishonest about saying "On every point, evidentially, you have been shown to be wrong, and hence your argument is completely refuted"?

[Marley23]

The thing is, there's a lot of grey area between pure, cold, atheistic scientific reason, and snake-oil garbage like draining old people's bank accounts on the promise of contacting their dead relatives.

Dawkins feels that not only is there no grey area, but that he himself is entitled to define the precise location of the line between the two.
Whether there's a gray area or not, if he'd dealt with illogical behavior or something larger, he could have made a more interesting point. And yes, the satire was totally ham-handed. I think a 14-year-old could have said the same things with the same depth.

[Loopydude]

Dawkins feels that not only is there no grey area, but that he himself is entitled to define the precise location of the line between the two. It is this arrogance which has made me lose all respect for him, despite the genius of The Selfish Gene.

It's this incredibly lazy sort of critique that is so exasperating. Why does having a thoroughly convincing and evidentially-supported argument equate to a sense of entitlement about some philosophically amorphous dilineation of the "truth"? That's nothing more than putulent complaint that you can't prove the guy wrong. The force with which he makes a strong argument is irrelevant, a red herring, a vacuous objection. Again, this is all about percieved attitude, and I suspect the misguided sense religionists have that their arguments be afforded some kind of special rhetorical deference and respect merely because they care about it.

[cowgirl]

What's intellectually dishonest about saying "On every point, evidentially, you have been shown to be wrong, and hence your argument is completely refuted"?

Specifically?

- He is assuming what "my" points are without having heard them; that if I believe in position X then I must, necessarily, also believe in positions Y and Z

- He is assuming (for example) that homeopathy = naturopathy, which is clearly not the case

- If my "argument" is "I feel better when I take echinacea/go to church/read my horoscope," there is no way to show that it is wrong or to refute it, no matter how stupid he thinks it is.

[Stranger On A Train]

It does bug me when 'naturopathy' gets lumped in as snake-oil along with homeopathy. I don't know if Dawkins has ever actually spoken to a naturopath but all the ones I've met are much more concerned with things like diet and exercise than bodily humors. His tirades make me - someone who agrees with most of what he says - feel like he thinks I'm a worthless moron because I prefer eating well to running to a drugstore. Not a good rhetorical technique, to say the least.Most of the naturopathy advocates I've talked to tend to talk interchangeably about diet and exercise with aroma therapy, aural treatment, and cranialsacral massage, as if comingling facts about the value of nutrition and fitness somehow validates the latter bumkum by association. Moreover, I think that most don't even appreciate the distinction between the two--they don't know enough to be critical about either science or mysticism. And it's not as if "scientific research" provides absolute and unquestionable answers; he results of medical studies are often preliminary, incomplete, or just plain wrong, even those originating from that noted beacon of factual scientific inquiry, The Tobacco Institute, and a critical assessment demands that you question the premises and results based upon known principles. Failing to have a sufficient grounding in both knowledge and critical thinking results in people who cannot discriminate between genuine scientific theory and elaborate, well-polished pseudoscientific hokum.

But, as I said, there's something to be gained even from looking at bunk, and seeing what does work, or appear to work, about it. Medical doctors today are largely trained in the direct forensic method; identify and isolate symptoms, follow a logical flowchart to determine what recognized illnesses fit those symptoms, and prescribe the pill that the glossy new brochures from GlaxoSmithKline promise will cure all ills. That works well for diseases with very specific symtoms or accurate diagnostic tests; not so good for chronic or systemic illnesses for which the symptoms are vague or irregular; and of course, in the case of general poor health with no specific pathogen or deficiency, it often causes a physician to misdiagnose just in order to justify some treatment. An osteopath or naturopath will, on the other hand, spend an hour or more getting a complete patient history, and picking up valuable clues as to why a patient feels ill. "Oh, you're a vegetarian and all you eat is bread and pasta? Well, the reason you feel tired is that you're anemic and protein deficient. You need to change your diet to include sources of..." And this is a lesson that is slowly being absorbed by the medical community (although it stands in opposition to the HMO/PPO assembly line philosophy). But it doesn't mean that everything, or even very much about naturopathic medicine is correct and valuable.

Dawkins is grating, though, when he gets on his hobby horse. Regardless of how correct he might be, his superior-than-thou attitude is a major irritant, and when he delves into areas that scientific inquiry can't provide definitive answers, he blunders on ahead making claims that overreach his ability to justify or disprove. With regard to his social theorizing he often oversimplifies; the second quote in the OP, for instance, lays the responsibility exclusively upon religion without acknowledgement of cultural and political motivations. Even when his arguments are in the bounds of fact, his tactlessness is better suited to a fiery debate between militants rather than a persuasive entreaty for understanding and enlightenment.

And I think it can be summarily concluded that he just isn't very funny. Not even "funny for an Oxford don" funny.

(BTW, I'm glad to see that someone actually read that overextended post; looking back over it I didn't realize how long it had gone.)

Stranger

[Loopydude]

Specifically?

- He is assuming what "my" points are without having heard them; that if I believe in position X then I must, necessarily, also believe in positions Y and Z

- He is assuming (for example) that homeopathy = naturopathy, which is clearly not the case

- If my "argument" is "I feel better when I take echinacea/go to church/read my horoscope," there is no way to show that it is wrong or to refute it, no matter how stupid he thinks it is.

Well, the fact is, you're spending money on a therapy that has been shown recently in carefully-constructive clinical trials to not only NOT be efficacious, but to carry risks (greater risk of skin rashes being the least severe, but most common) beyond treating yourself with nothing at all. If you're willing to waste your money on snake oil of a completely uncontrolled, unvalidated, disproven, and egregiously-overpriced (since it's proven to be worthless) nature, offering nothing but "it makes me feel good" as a justificationt to others to follow your irrational lead, then I am extremely grateful there are people like Dawkins who are willing to call out your fatuousness in stark terms. It's deserving of no less than extreme irritation for its corrosive influence, and if others disagree, it's no better than a matter of oppinion. I've seen no substantive arguments in this thread against Dawkins beyond "I don't like his style". What of style? Are we acting as literary critics or people interested in accuracy. Are we, for instance, interested in wooly aesthetics, or the integrity of people who attempt to foist quackery on the credulous and ill-informed? What will it be, style or substance? If you've got both, that's great, but if you had to choose, what would you value more?

[cowgirl]

Well, the fact is, you're spending money on a therapy that has been shown recently in carefully-constructive clinical trials to not only NOT be efficacious, but to carry risks (greater risk of skin rashes being the least severe, but most common) beyond treating yourself with nothing at all.

But why does this upset Dawkins - and you - so much? It's my body and my money.

And I would request that you address more than one niggling point in my argument. For example, can you tell me who it hurts for tomndebb to be religious?

[Der Trihs]

He is assuming (for example) that homeopathy = naturopathy, which is clearly not the case
The two are closely connected; among other things, naturopaths often use homeopathic "cures".

Loopydude is absolutely right about Communism. It is as much a religion as Buddhism or Christianity. It has devils (capitalists), prophets (Marx and Lenin), lesser prophets, an eschatology, a heaven, and even a God of sorts in the forces of history. It appeals to the same human search for meaning as all religions do. Its atheism is not so much real atheism as it is the contempt of the One True Faith for all the other faiths. Another baleful 20cen religion is of course the fanatic nationalism exemplified by Hitler. Pointing out that these doctrines have caused as much carnage as religion ignores the fact that these doctrines are religions, in all but name.
Exactly what I've been saying over in the Report says America Worse Off Because Of Strong Religious Beliefs (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=337114) thread; you put it better I think.

[FordPrefect]

Furthermore, I objected to his conflation of naturopathy with homeopathy. Thus FordPrefect's comment [...] completely misses the point
I zipped on over to Wikipedia and what I thought naturopathy was wasn't. On this point I apologize for calling your comment disingenuous, and add a fuckity-fuck for my screwing up. Eating well does equal naturopathy.

[cowgirl]

I've seen no substantive arguments in this thread against Dawkins beyond "I don't like his style". What of style? Are we acting as literary critics or people interested in accuracy. Are we, for instance, interested in wooly aesthetics, or the integrity of people who attempt to foist quackery on the credulous and ill-informed? What will it be, style or substance? If you've got both, that's great, but if you had to choose, what would you value more?

I've never suggested that my argument is anything more than "I don't like his style." I believe I am entitled to evaluate people according to my own opinion of them, as opposed to yours.

Am I not entitled to not like his style?

What exactly are you asking of me? What would you like me to concede? That he is clever - check. That he knows a lot about science - check. That he wrote one of the most important books in biology, that in my evaluation anyone who is remotely interested in natural sciences, should read - check. That he still has some - SOME - things of value to say - check.

That I take all his other books as gospel? no way. That I think he is a decent human being? no. That I want to read anything else he writes? nope.

On this point I apologize for calling your comment disingenuous, and add a fuckity-fuck for my screwing up. Eating well does equal naturopathy.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

[rjung]

As a Pterry fan, I have to quote some line of his about a battle cry that runs "Remember <the atrocity They committed last time that excuses the atrocity We are committing this time>!".
From my Terry Pratchett Quotes collection (visit my site for lots more ;) ):

Every society needs a cry like ["Remember Koom Valley!"], but only in a very few do they come out with the complete, unvarnished version, which is "Remember-The-Atrocity-Committed-Against-Us-Last-Time-That-Will-Excuse-The-Atrocity-That-We're-About-To-Commit-Today! And So On! Hurrah!"
-- Thief of Time, Terry Pratchett

[Loopydude]

But why does this upset Dawkins - and you - so much? It's my body and my money.

If it were that simple it would upset no one. And if such thinkers could be isolated such that they are not an infectiously negative influence on some number of others, who are more apt to follow a leader uncritically than examine a claim or position skeptically, there would be nothing more to the story.

But the evidence speaks entirely to the contrary. People are buying what the snake-oilers are selling in droves, and, unfortunately, that doesn't just hurt the buyers. Of course, ultimately, people must be free to make up their own minds, and they most surely do when given that freedom. What you seem to be saying is dissenters have no cause to care, if the argument somehow interferes with the process of finding your bliss or whatever. I firstly cannot see how it is the skeptics' fault if objective assertions cause consternation, and if there is an uncertainty (and there most certainly should be), why is it wrong to argue for an evidence-based approach above all others for evaluating the efficacy of therapeutics, for instance? Why is it so difficult to see how damaging simply allowing other criteria to be used without vigorous dissent can be?

This goes, I'm afraid, for religion as well. It's really not terribly convincing to me to be repeatedly reminded that some religious individuals are not criminals. The vast majority are not criminals. What of it? It's not the good people like myself take issue with, obviously, but the bad that inevitably comes with it. Part of the critique is a rejection of the notion that personal experience can be the sole criterion for validity or accuracy when all other "evidence" is, even by necessity, completely lacking. It's not an unreasonable objection to consider such matters unworthy of serious consideration, and those who would debate them have no business troubling others with their unsubstantiated superstitions. What is the well-reasoned, objectively verifiable alternative position? What great harm comes from demanding one?

I think anyone is justified if they insist upon verifiable external evidence to take most assertions seriously, especially if they pertain to questions that can be answered with verifiable external evidence. I think I'm also justified in viewing alternative approaches to living as "dangerous medicine", given the trouble they've inevitably caused, and I cannot support them, no matter how good some people who do happen to be.

[cowgirl]

If it were that simple it would upset no one.

But you see, for me, it IS that simple. To complicate it would require assuming things about my argument/mindset that I have not stated, which is what I object to in post #36. On the face of it, my taking herbs or going to church or getting my tea leaves read is no problem for anyone.


And if such thinkers could be isolated such that they are not an infectiously negative influence on some number of others

But you see, I am such a thinker, and I ALSO agree with the majority of what Dawkins argues elsewhere. I don't think anybody (except maybe you ;) ) would describe me as an infectiously negative influence on anyone.

My problem is that I resent being lumped in with sellers of snake oil.

What you seem to be saying is dissenters have no cause to care, if the argument somehow interferes with the process of finding your bliss or whatever.

No, I'm saying (if indeed I am a dissenter) that if my practices (mine, not those of people who may share some of my beliefs) are causing nobody any harm, then no derision should be heaped upon me because of them.

Or are you saying that you are the dissenter, and that I think you have no cause to care about my taking herbs? Then yes. It's true. I think it is none of your business what I grow in my garden and infuse into tea because I think it helps my rheumatism.

I firstly cannot see how it is the skeptics' fault if objective assertions cause consternation

I wish I had that book now because I can't evaluate your claim that his assertions are "objective." That's certainly not how I remember it. My objection when I read it was that he strayed well beyond the realm of objectivity, into the realm of his opinion of people who liked to read horoscopes, or go to naturopaths, or to church.

and if there is an uncertainty (and there most certainly should be), why is it wrong to argue for an evidence-based approach above all others for evaluating the efficacy of therapeutics, for instance?

In the case of therapeutics, I would agree, but for things like religion and astronomy - people's own, personal spirituality - an evidence-based approach is completely inappropriate. I don't need you to prove that my god exists, in order for me to believe in her. You see what I'm saying? Do you see why I might resent it if somone said I did?

Why is it so difficult to see how damaging simply allowing other criteria to be used without vigorous dissent can be?

This goes, I'm afraid, for religion as well. It's really not terribly convincing to me to be repeatedly reminded that some religious individuals are not criminals. The vast majority are not criminals. What of it?

It's not the good people like myself take issue with, obviously, but the bad that inevitably comes with it.

Well, as a counter-example, I take issue with the bad that "inevitably" comes with capitalism. Sweatshops, environmental destruction, resource wars - these all go along with capitalism. But I can see that there are benefits to it as well. The vast majority of capitalists are not criminals either.


Part of the critique is a rejection of the notion that personal experience can be the sole criterion for validity or accuracy when all other "evidence" is, even by necessity, completely lacking.

But some of the things Dick objects to are about nothing more than personal experience. When it comes to my religious life, no evidence other than my own beliefs is relevant.

It's not an unreasonable objection to consider such matters unworthy of serious consideration, and those who would debate them have no business troubling others with their unsubstantiated superstitions.

Did any tarot-card readers or naturopaths trouble Dawkins by asking him what he thought of them? Who, exactly, are they troubling?

I think anyone is justified if they insist upon verifiable external evidence to take most assertions seriously, especially if they pertain to questions that can be answered with verifiable external evidence.

I believe this is the crux of it, but I would replace "especially" with "only." If it can't be answered with verifiable external evidence, it passes out of the realm of "science" and into the realm of religion/spirituality/belief/faith/whatever.

[Loopydude]

On the face of it, my taking herbs or going to church or getting my tea leaves read is no problem for anyone.

So long as you don't advocate it, and caution all others, if they volunatarily follow your lead, to make a skeptical inquiry into your habits, then you are indeed of no probable harm to anyone.


I don't think anybody would describe me as an infectiously negative influence on anyone.

I'm not so sure of that. Some might say if you're somehow functioning as an exponent, your mind's been coopted to some degree into spreading the meme, and you quite literally can't help it. Since this meme exists with no reference to external reality, and spreads itself solely as information from mind to mind, it's viral in nature, and perhaps inherently dangerous. I'm not sure if I'm convinced of all the details of this hypothesis myself, but it's worth considering, I think.


My problem is that I resent being lumped in with sellers of snake oil.

The users, then? And have you never born witness to your beliefs without the caveat that they are without evidential support, and may in fact have considerable evidence that contradicts any claim to benefit?



No, I'm saying (if indeed I am a dissenter) that if my practices (mine, not those of people who may share some of my beliefs) are causing nobody any harm, then no derision should be heaped upon me because of them.

See above.


I think it is none of your business what I grow in my garden and infuse into tea because I think it helps my rheumatism.

It is if you publically support the efficacy of such herbs in your garden against a preponderance of contrary data. If you're willing, when appropriate, to concede the benefits of those herbs are most likely nothing more than a placebo effect, and hence taking them may be more risky than not, no one has cause to complain.


I wish I had that book now because I can't evaluate your claim that his assertions are "objective." That's certainly not how I remember it. My objection when I read it was that he strayed well beyond the realm of objectivity, into the realm of his opinion of people who liked to read horoscopes, or go to naturopaths, or to church.

Having read Dawkins myself, I'm sure he made it clear, if he was derisive toward these people, that it was an oppinion, and not one he could compell others to hold other than with a strong, evidential argument.


In the case of therapeutics, I would agree, but for things like religion and astronomy - people's own, personal spirituality - an evidence-based approach is completely inappropriate. I don't need you to prove that my god exists, in order for me to believe in her. You see what I'm saying? Do you see why I might resent it if somone said I did?

You probably meant astrology. And if you can't give me some evidence that your God is real, and that you're anything but self-deluded, why should I take your argument seriously? Why is this even impolite?


Well, as a counter-example, I take issue with the bad that "inevitably" comes with capitalism. Sweatshops, environmental destruction, resource wars - these all go along with capitalism. But I can see that there are benefits to it as well. The vast majority of capitalists are not criminals either.

There are laws, fortunately, against the excesses of unfettered capitalism, at least in some places. I shudder if the notion that God wants us to be capitalist gains wide acceptance. Economics is subject to evidence based scrutiny, and economic systems adjusted accordingly. Fortunately, there are no immutable truths in economics, only prescribed systems and experimentation with them. I happen to find "capitalist fundamentalists" abot as irrational and corrosive as any other kind.


But some of the things Dick objects to are about nothing more than personal experience. When it comes to my religious life, no evidence other than my own beliefs is relevant.

Nor should your own beliefs be relevant to anyone else, I would say, unless you've got something other than your own witness to back up your assertions. If you're happy with that, so am I.


Did any tarot-card readers or naturopaths trouble Dawkins by asking him what he thought of them? Who, exactly, are they troubling?

I guess ethics and a sense of right and wrong might cause one to object to the practice of quackery, especially for profit.



I believe this is the crux of it, but I would replace "especially" with "only." If it can't be answered with verifiable external evidence, it passes out of the realm of "science" and into the realm of religion/spirituality/belief/faith/whatever.

And what of that "other realm" warrants application to real-word problems like, say, illness? Can you show me it's more than snake oil? If not, are you right to support it?

[cowgirl]

Loopydude, I don't think we're disagreeing any more. To wit:

So long as you don't advocate it

I don't, other than to say "this works for me."

I'm not so sure of that. Some might say if you're somehow functioning as an exponent, your mind's been coopted to some degree into spreading the meme, and you quite literally can't help it.

Would you find it insulting if somebody told you that your mind has been co-opted and you can't help your ignorant opinions? That's not much of a rhetorical technique, and I'm not inclined to give much credence to anyone who uses it.

The users, then? And have you never born witness to your beliefs without the caveat that they are without evidential support, and may in fact have considerable evidence that contradicts any claim to benefit?

No. I do not bear witness to my beliefs, nor do most people I've met who believe in snake-oily things like astrology or religion or naturopathy. They are happy to talk about what works for them, but they do not evangelize. Perhaps the snake-oilers Dawkins knows are completely different from the ones over here.

It is if you publically support the efficacy of such herbs in your garden against a preponderance of contrary data.

Talk about strawmen!

If you're willing, when appropriate, to concede the benefits of those herbs are most likely nothing more than a placebo effect

Sure. I only said that they worked for me, I have never forwarded any hypotheses as to why they work.

You probably meant astrology.

Yes. My mistake.

And if you can't give me some evidence that your God is real, and that you're anything but self-deluded, why should I take your argument seriously? Why is this even impolite?

Because I never asked for you to take my argument seriously, or to endorse the existence of my god. I don't care if you believe in her. [Note this is all hypothetical in the sense that I am agnostic, but not in the sense that I don't need your approval.] It would be presumptuous of you to assume that your evaluation is relevant to my belief.

There are laws, fortunately, against the excesses of unfettered capitalism, at least in some places. I shudder if the notion that God wants us to be capitalist gains wide acceptance.

I see what you're saying, and agree that my analogy is not perfect. However, the essence remains that if we would write off religion because of all the horrors it perpetrates (despite all the benefits it brings to some), then under the same reasoning we should write off capitalism.

And we all know that nobody but a filthy Communist would even think of suggesting that we write off capitalism, even though it clearly brings about horrors. It's just that its benefits are much more widely appreciated.

Economics is subject to evidence based scrutiny, and economic systems adjusted accordingly. Fortunately, there are no immutable truths in economics, only prescribed systems and experimentation with them. I happen to find "capitalist fundamentalists" abot as irrational and corrosive as any other kind. Hear hear!

Nor should your own beliefs be relevant to anyone else, I would say, unless you've got something other than your own witness to back up your assertions. If you're happy with that, so am I.That's all I've been saying from the beginning.

I guess ethics and a sense of right and wrong might cause one to object to the practice of quackery, especially for profit. And what of that "other realm" warrants application to real-word problems like, say, illness? Can you show me it's more than snake oil? If not, are you right to support it?

When the other realm is applied to real-world problems as you describe, it automatically enters the category of things that could be demonstrated with "verifiable external evidence."

[Loopydude]

I don't, other than to say "this works for me."

Why do you suppose that is? And if you were honest about the reasons, why would you tell anyone else?



Would you find it insulting if somebody told you that your mind has been co-opted and you can't help your ignorant opinions? That's not much of a rhetorical technique, and I'm not inclined to give much credence to anyone who uses it.

If I had a factual argument, as opposed to something like "it works for me", yes I would be insulted, and I would have reason to be.



No. I do not bear witness to my beliefs, nor do most people I've met who believe in snake-oily things like astrology or religion or naturopathy. They are happy to talk about what works for them, but they do not evangelize.

Do they argue with people who bring up evidence that it's all a load of garbage and should be discouraged?


Talk about strawmen!

Are you being honest with people about this stuff or not? Do you tell them, when it works for you, that the best evidence demonstrates quack medicine, at best, does nothing for you at all? That you are well-informed about the quackery, but consume it anyway for personal reasons?


Sure. I only said that they worked for me, I have never forwarded any hypotheses as to why they work.

I have: The placebo effect. And there's reason to be confident that's precisely what it is, because these snake oils have been studied, and shown to lack additional efficacy beyond a placebo effect. Given that, it rather behooves me to spread the word, in case people are taken by quacks and are parted from their money like fools. You, clearly, have no interest in fighting such ignorance as long as it's folks don't believe they've been robbed. Works for them, right?


It would be presumptuous of you to assume that your evaluation is relevant to my belief.

And as long as you never claimed your religious beliefs have relevance to the real world, nor took umbrage at a rebuttal if you did feel the need to make such a claim, I would indeed have no comment.



I see what you're saying, and agree that my analogy is not perfect. However, the essence remains that if we would write off religion because of all the horrors it perpetrates (despite all the benefits it brings to some), then under the same reasoning we should write off capitalism.

As one can evaluate market economies empirically, I simply cannot see the comparison. Do you wish to argue against the existence of markets? Can I not argue for or against the benefits and deficits of free markets based on evidence we all can evaluate objectively? Do economists, as a rule, make supernatural appeals to justify their position that Capitalism has worth and should be promoted, that it be accepted on faith, or, at best, based upon some personal revelation? If they did, should they be taken seriously? If all they had to recommend Capitalism was that it's not all bad, even if otherwise completely unessential to the workings of real economies, I should myself find it a reasonable idea to promote it? Of course, if no one promoted it, because they admitted they had no better argument than "it works for me" it would be a non issue.

[Malacandra]

If you understood Stalinist and Maoist (esp. the latter) totalitarianism properly you'd see the incredible resemblance to the most offensive aspects of religious dogmatism, the grandiose claims to mortally-serious truth through philosophy, and the unquestioning and deadly authority such abuse demands. Mao is an examplary figure for the study of the modern-day demigod, and any serious critique of Maoist iconography and propaganda sees the obvious debt his political machine owed to the ancient understanding of an emperor figure as a mediator between this world and some higher plane. They don't call them personality cults for nothing. This is the most oft-repeated, easily-refuted, and just plain dog-tired objections to the position of skeptics, and I'm repeatedly amazed by its continued use. A wet noodle isn't much of a cudgel.

Ah, right. By "religion" you mean "the thing I am pointing at when I say 'religion' ", and your definition handily holds as irrelevant any God or claim for the existence of one. Indeed, a "religion" can expressly deny the existence of any God at all. Okay, in that case there's nothing to argue over. Was Dawkins using your definition?

And if your greatest criterion for worth is that something can provide "steady supply of healthy, profitable swine" you save me the further trouble of demonstrating how worthless your own position clearly is.

A criterion; you were expected to infer others from what I said about other useful forms of science which, in purely practical terms, I do rank some way above evolutionary theory. 'Course, if you'd rather get into angels-on-a-pinhead arguments about the descent of some modern species than make two ears of corn grow where one grew before, there may be nothing to argue over here either. Mind you, a few words on why my position was worthless would have carried more weight than a dismissive statement that such was the case, res ipsa loquitur and three cheers for Loopydude. :dubious:

So the criterion for a theory to be great is that it must benefit you personally? Huh. OK, then, Reevaluate it the next time you have to take antibiotics.

Fascinating. To observe that a certain secretion from a certain mould kills disease bacteria without harm to the creature hosting the bacteria, one must understand the origin of species. Also see below.

If monkeys hadn't got smart enough to make ovens, houses, and microchips you'd have none of those things. So I think you owe quite a bit to evolution.

Naturally your own statement as to the descent of man is intentionally quaint and oversimplified. But you're missing the point by an embarrassingly wide margin. If man evolved, then we evolved without knowledge of the origin of species, at least until the 1800s, and the process seems to have worked perfectly well without our knowledge. We may owe our intelligence to evolution; we owe none of it to evolutionary theory. As a smart monkey could perhaps have told you. :)

This comes from a place so callow and benighted I'm barely sure where to begin to shed light.

Well, do your best. :: looks interested ::


Your "steady supply of healthy, profitable swine" is the result of thousands of generations of forced evolution via artificial selection (i.e. selective breeding) to turn gamey, aggressive, feral hogs into the modern, docile, palatable and high-value meat producing domestic pig. Similarly, the domestication of wild wheat is what permits us to enjoy such a bountiful supply of flour that we don't even have to think of the cost and effort it would be to scavenge our carbohydrates from nature. A working understanding of the priciples of evolution and genetics is paramount to effective breeding and domestication, and is what has allowed us to avoid famine (except where politically expedient) in the 20th Century.

Will that do you for a start?

No, it won't. Again, we selectively bred for millennia without the first idea about Darwin's theories of the origin of species. That was really part of my point: We successfully bred tasty, docile and profitable kine, swine and ovines long before the Beagle hove in sight of the Galapagos Islands. I contend that we'd be doing so yet, Darwin or not; and, what's more, that most of the successful animal breeders world-wide couldn't state Darwin's theories in a form that would stand up to five minutes' casual criticism on the Dope. (Mind you, neither would an assertion that water is wet.)

You don't need to understand or accept theories on the origin of species in order to gene-splice either. I'm not going to come down on either side of the GM crops debate for now, but you don't need to know how (or whether) wheat evolved in order to play with its genetic coding; you just need to understand how the genetic code works. Darwin's impact: minimal.

Similarly, we can understand that if we repeatedly expose disease bacteria to antibiotics, sooner or later you will have only bacteria that are descended from those that are less susceptible to antibiotics. We need no greater understanding of evolutionary theory for this than had a pre-Christian sheep farmer who knew that you should avoid breeding from sickly animals if you don't want sickly descendants. Darwin's impact: minimal.

Every society needs a cry like ["Remember Koom Valley!"], but only in a very few do they come out with the complete, unvarnished version, which is "Remember-The-Atrocity-Committed-Against-Us-Last-Time-That-Will-Excuse-The-Atrocity-That-We're-About-To-Commit-Today! And So On! Hurrah!"
-- Thief of Time, Terry Pratchett

That's the one. Thanks, rjung. :D

Conclusion: That evolutionary theory is supported by the preponderance of evidence and informed thought, I have no quarrel with. That it is our "greatest science": pshaw.

[SentientMeat]

Personally, I would sooner live in a cave with an explanation for my existence than in all-mod-con comfort with no idea of how I came to exist. I consider Charles Darwin to have advanced that explanation more dramatically than any other in history. To place 'utility' above that explanation is to ungratefully disown the incredible apparatus in one's skull and effectively become more like livestock oneself. It is, IMO, to embrace ignorance.

[Malacandra]

Personally, I would sooner live in a cave with an explanation for my existence than in all-mod-con comfort with no idea of how I came to exist. I consider Charles Darwin to have advanced that explanation more dramatically than any other in history. To place 'utility' above that explanation is to ungratefully disown the incredible apparatus in one's skull and effectively become more like livestock oneself. It is, IMO, to embrace ignorance.

Cool. Then Darwinism is your religion, since you are content for it to have no utilitarian justification whatever other than giving you a warm feeling in your belly about your place in nature.

[SentientMeat]

Then Darwinism is your religion, since you are content for it to have no utilitarian justification whatever other than giving you a warm feeling in your belly about your place in nature.So be it, for animals get no such feelings from anywhere.

[Malacandra]

So be it, for animals get no such feelings from anywhere.

I've no quarrel with that. But I'm content to get my warm fuzzies about my place in nature and my assurances for the future from my Christianity, and let science take care of the mundane trivia of feeding, housing, clothing and medicating myself, my family, my descendents, everyone else in the world for choice, and possibly have some time left over for cool stuff involving space travel.

[SentientMeat]

I've no quarrel with that. But I'm content to get my warm fuzzies about my place in nature and my assurances for the future from my Christianity, and let science take care of the mundane trivia of feeding, housing, clothing and medicating myself, my family, my descendents, everyone else in the world for choice, and possibly have some time left over for cool stuff involving space travel.Might I ask, have you ever tried getting warm fuzzies from a natural explanation for your existence? You absolutely must propose some supernatural being in order to initiate the necessary outputs from your limbic system?

[Malacandra]

Creationism and Darwinism occupy a sort of quantum superposition in my psyche, SentientMeat. :)

I don't find it necessary to insist, even in private, that the world was created in 4004BC and all the rest of that. But I don't think I could choose to disbelieve in God, through an act of will, any more than you could choose to believe that you were created last Tuesday with a full set of false memories designed to convince you of your assumed chronological age.

But I certainly didn't enter this debate, what am I saying, this argument in order to justify my faith, or even to assert the superiority of Creationism to Darwinism, but only to say that IMHO evolutionary theory ain't all that - certainly not the most significant of our sciences.

Ironically, a creature that viewed evolutionary theory as the most important science, to the exclusion of a spot of physics, chemistry, mathematics and non-evolutionary biology, would probably demonstrate its own unfitness to survive in short order.

[SentientMeat]

Creationism and Darwinism occupy a sort of quantum superposition in my psyche, SentientMeat. :)I sincerely hope I'm looking at a Darwinist right now. In fact, I'll take my leave in case my next observation reveals you to be a Creationist. :D