He does mention those first two. (At least he does in “The Greatest Show on Earth”) In fact he goes into some detail about sexual selection.
I haven’t finished the book yet.
On a seperate note, I’m curious: Why was this thread moved to GD, but the thread that inspired it is still in IMHO?
Perhaps. But it might make us look a bit better.
Beyond that, people are simply more willing to listen to others who are willing to treat them better or behave more pleasantly. I’m sure the amount of believers who’ve changed their minds as a result of this forum are very small; nevertheless, I would imagine it is a greater amount than would be so if **Der Trihs **were the only representative of the athiest side. Too, it’s not simply an either/or debate; there might be few people who’ve crossed from theist to athiest or vice-versa, but certainly i’d think there’s a good few people on either side who have adjusted their thoughts within those boundaries. I know I have. And that’s a worthwhile debate, too.
Not read it. No interest in being preached to by a believer or a non-believer. Both are doing the same thing.
Plus, from what I hear, he’s incredibly rude to people who don’t agree with him. So fuck him. Civility is free, and has nothing to do with belief. I don’t listen to religious evangelists either; why would I listen to an anti-religious evangelist?
You heard wrong. There are any number videos of Dawkins in public debates and other interactions online, and Dawkins is unfailingly calm, polite and civil to those who disagree with him. This meme that he’s “rude” is completely made up.
Well, like I said, it’s just what I heard; I’ve no illusions it may be wrong. That said, there’s nothing that’s mkaing me feel compelled me to hear his opinions any more than anyone else’s, whether religious or not.
Dawkins didn’t write The God Delusion for theists, obviously. It is a book written by an atheist for atheists. The goal is to strengthen the arguments for atheism among atheists, so that they will be better prepared to debate their religious opponents and family and friends.
It is also meant to counter the very real bias against atheists by showing us that we’re not alone and that religion really is that wacky. When everybody you care about and everybody in power tells you that the only way to live is according to the whims of a sky fairy that were written down thousands of years ago by ignorant, primitive and violent misogynists, you begin to think maybe YOU are the crazy one. I think a main goal of this book is to counteract that.
And count me in with those who don’t see Dawkins as rude in any way. He is very respectful of theists and those who argue against him. He just isn’t very respectful of imaginary beings; I can’t say I blame him there. God is a fucker if he exists.
“Fuck him. For what I’ve heard. Even though it may be wrong.”
(Which it is.)
He’s only one of our greatest living scientists. Why should you bother with his “opinions”? I mean, after all, you’ve heard he’s a dick. Rumors trump all, I guess. :rolleyes:
No, they are not. Surely you can recognise that there is a difference between presenting fiction as if it was fact and presenting fact as if it was fact?
That is the best description I have ever heard of it. I am going to read it now. Thank you.
You appear to be presenting an argument to me (that religious beliefs are fiction). I’m not here to debate it; I was merely saying that I’m not interested in either side of the debate. Both sets of folks are fine as long as they don’t preach to me.
What, I’m obligated to read his books now?
If I hear a guy’s rude, obviously I’m going to have an opinion on that information. What should I wlak round with a blank satre? 
If I’m later corrected with more accurate information, that’s fine too.
Damn, wish I could write a book people were obligated to read! Dan Brown, JK Rowling eat your heart out - I’m about to make billions!
I will agree that he may, perhaps, be one of the greatest living advocates for science, but what has he done as a scientist that warrants such praise? As I noted above, Dawkins’ formal training is in ethology - the study of animal behavior. While no doubt an excellent ethologist, one doesn’t hear much about his work in that field. Instead, one hears about his popular works in evolutionary biology, of which he is but one of many such authors.
Looking over his bibliography, one notes that he has only authored or co-authored a total of 30 academic papers. Of those, pretty much everything from the '80s forward is more about evolution vs. creationism than making new discoveries or scientific contributions.
His two biggest contributions to evolutionary biology are selfish genes and extended phenotypes. In both cases, he presents those concepts from the point of view of an ethologist - selfish genes are his attempt to explain altruism, and extended phenotypes are his attempt to link complex behaviors back to genetics. In both cases, he has something worthwhile to say, but he also tends to overextend the respective metaphors to areas where they don’t necessarily pertain.
I have no doubt he’s a great scientific mind; calling him one the greatest living scientists is, however, a bit of a stretch (in my opinion, of course).
I don’t see the distinction. Any discussion of greatest living protestants would have to include Billy Graham for the work he’s done, though I’ve no doubt that untold thousands are better Christians, by a strict definition of what it means to be a Christian. Would his body of work be better if he did more of it but no one ever heard of it? In the long run, maybe. But right now he’s working in the role he’s best and most valuable in, and IMO few if any alive right now are unambiguously “better” (Sagan was better, RIP.)
Well, technically one side is proving the case, the other side is just telling you what is the case.
That’s twice this thread you’ve led off with a tu quoque… were you planning on anything more?
Are you saying his questions are somehow invalid? If not, what’s your point?
“A hospital paediatrician has hit out at vandals who forced her to flee her home after apparently taking her job title to mean she was a paedophile.”
Not particularly, no. But then the OP wasn’t asking about the Bible.
As Harris is trying to point out. It’s not mean spirited or rude to challenge religious beliefs that affect the lives of others. It’s something we ought to do in the course of our striving for personal and societal growth.
Some people will always consider it rude to have their beliefs questioned.
Atheist here. The only Dawkins book I’ve read is The God Delusion. Didn’t care for it. Don’t have a copy, as I borrowed it, so I can’t recreate in detail why I didn’t like it. Also, this was about two years ago. A few points I remember.
One, I didn’t like the ad hominem nature of the work, starting with the title. As far as I’m concerned, describing the opposition as deluded is a cheap shot. It’s also assuming the conclusion. If you’re setting out, as Dawkins claims in the preface, to change the minds of religious people, cheap shots and assuming the conclusion are pretty good ways to make sure you don’t achieve your objective.
Two, the treatment of faith based on scripture struck me as facile. Basically, on what arguably is the key issue, all he does is lay out some of the Bible scholarship on how we know the New Testament isn’t literally true. Fair enough and something a lot of lay Christians don’t realize. But it’s scarcely fatal. The Q hypothesis dates back to the 19th century. Thinking theologians have been getting over this hurdle for a long time. Not engaging the issue at that level greatly weakened the book, IMHO.
Three, I found disingenuous the discussion of why religious belief seems to be adaptive, as it’s nearly universal. As I recall, Dawkins ends up plumping for a theory that it’s a misfiring of an adaptive trait of children accepting without critical thinking what they’re told by parents and other elders to believe, like not swimming in the river or they’ll be eaten by crocodiles. So, again an ad hominem. With little basis in reality (has Dawkins really never spent any time around children?). And no relevence to why religion appeals to adults. To my mind, it’s a classic example of pulling a theory out of thin air to suit ones agenda, something good scientists don’t do.
Mind, these are only three examples and I may have mangled them a bit in detail, as I’m going from memory, but I ran into stuff like this throughout the book. At the time, as a mental exercise, I did a mock debate in front of a hypothetical Christian audience and trounced him. I also did one in front of a hypothetical atheist audience, where he won easily. IOW, it works as an atheist apologetic, but I don’t have much use for apologetics from either side. What I would like to see is a book which makes the case to the opposition. The God Delusion isn’t that book.