The God Delusion - ongoing review

[S.A.M.]

Dawkins, easily. Collins has not dealt much, if at all, with science itself - or even evolutionary theory, within science, from an understanding or philosophical viewpoint. To the extent he has, I haven't seen anything from him more "advanced in understanding" than the medieval Constantine Reply: "it's a divine mystery".

His advances in genetics, especially his technological employment of genetic theory, are of course of the highest order - far beyond anything Dawkins has accomplished in that field.

So you believe Dawkins memetics and extended phenotype have contributed to an understanding of science? e.g. how does a memetic genotype predict a memetic phenotype? And how does a memetic phenotype predict the survival of a memetic genotype in a separate organism? Is Wall Street an extended memetic phenotype?

 

[iceaura]

So you believe Dawkins memetics and extended phenotype have contributed to an understanding of science?

Not in themselves, no. So?

 

[S.A.M.]

Not in themselves, no. So?

I'm just wondering what you consider his contribution to the understanding of science to be. And how is it applicable to scientific theory and method?

Do you believe that Francis Collins, as a theist and not a metaphorical naturalist, is a "real" scientist?

 

[iceaura]

I'm just wondering what you consider his contribution to the understanding of science to be.

A drastic improvement in a few million people's understanding of Darwinian evolution and thus evolutionary approach or explanation in general, one of the cornerstones of modern science. For one.

Do you believe that Francis Collins, as a theist and not a metaphorical naturalist, is a "real" scientist?

To the extent he is theistically invoking the supernatural to explain real phenomena, he is not doing science, and vice versa -

and you can see that in his claims of divine mystery for the origin of morality and the human spirit, a matter which other scientists - many of them theists whose demarcation of the divine is somewhat different from Collins's - are investigating scientifically (and making considerable early progress).

I doubt Collins would welcome the intrusion of Michael Behe's theism into his own genetics lab. But Behe is a real organic chemist, or whatever - his theism does not intrude into his own lab either.

 

[S.A.M.]

A drastic improvement in a few million people's understanding of Darwinian evolution and thus evolutionary approach or explanation in general, one of the cornerstones of modern science. For one.

Frankly I don't see why you make this claim. From what I have seen on this site alone, people frequently confuse between memes and genes, using cultural analogs for genetic attributes while skipping the part that memetics itself is a field without rigor.

In fact, based on some of Gould's critiques, it would appear that Dawkins had narrowed the view point that Darwin espoused by making it more exclusive.

I do not deny that natural selection has helped us to explain phenomena at scales very distant from individual organisms, from the behavior of an ant colony to the survival of a redwood forest. But selection cannot suffice as a full explanation for many aspects of evolution; for other types and styles of causes become relevant, or even prevalent, in domains both far above and far below the traditional Darwinian locus of the organism. These other causes are not, as the ultras often claim, the product of thinly veiled attempts to smuggle purpose back into biology. These additional principles are as directionless, nonteleological, and materialistic as natural selection itself—but they operate differently from Darwin's central mechanism. In other words, I agree with Darwin that natural selection is "not the exclusive means of modification."

Do you not consider narrowing of thought to be detrimental rather than contributing to understanding?

To the extent he is theistically invoking the supernatural to explain real phenomena, he is not doing science, and vice versa -

Does he claim that his theistic invocations are science? He was very clear in his demarcations when speaking face to face. But I admit, I haven't read his books.

and you can see that in his claims of divine mystery for the origin of morality and the human spirit, a matter which other scientists - many of them theists whose demarcation of the divine is somewhat different from Collins's - are investigating scientifically (and making considerable early progress).

I doubt Collins would welcome the intrusion of Michael Behe's theism into his own genetics lab. But Behe is a real organic chemist, or whatever - his theism does not intrude into his own lab either.

Does Collins practise Christianity in his own lab? Has his religious belief been directing his scientific accomplishments?

 

[Enmos]

/offtopic

SAM, is that frog on XTC or something ? LOL

 

[S.A.M.]

/offtopic

SAM, is that frog on XTC or something ? LOL

All glory to THE HYPNOTOAD :bugeye: :worship:

 

[Enmos]

All glory to THE HYPNOTOAD

LOL :m::worship:

Edit: OH NO, I clicked the bead..

 

[iceaura]

Frankly I don't see why you make this claim. From what I have seen on this site alone, people frequently confuse between memes and genes, using cultural analogs for genetic attributes while skipping the part that memetics itself is a field without rigor.

The kerfluffle around memetics, which is not strictly Dawkins's fault and not all bad anyway, is nothing compared with the fundamental gain in comprehension of Darwinian theory by millions of people from his early books on the subject.

Dawkins's language and approach is, for example, useful for responding to some of the more naive meme enthusiasts.

And that is not his only contribution.

Collins's contributions,on the other hand, have been chiefly as cover credentials for completely irresponsible dismissals of scientific knowledge and the scientific approach, by others. His only contribution to the general understanding of science, that I can distinguish, has been as an example of an undeniably decent human being engaged in politically sensitive and otherwise easily demonized research.

In fact, based on some of Gould's critiques, it would appear that Dawkins had narrowed the view point that Darwin espoused by making it more exclusive.

I think Gould was wrong about that (both the accusation of narrowing and the implications) and Dawkins right - Daniel Dennett writes well about that particular discussion,if you're interested (I'm more closely aligned with Dennett, in general, than with most of these guys).

Does Collins practise Christianity in his own lab? Has his religious belief been directing his scientific accomplishments?

? Now what ?

 

[Repo Man]

Does Collins practise Christianity in his own lab? Has his religious belief been directing his scientific accomplishments?

The wonders of cognitive dissonance.

 

[James R]

SAM:

In fact, based on some of Gould's critiques, it would appear that Dawkins had narrowed the view point that Darwin espoused by making it more exclusive.

This has nothing to do with The God Delusion of course. Anyway...

You should be wary of reading Gould on Dawkins, and to some extent Dawkins on Gould. The two had an ongoing disagreement about evolutionary theory. Gould labelled Dawkins as an "ultra-adaptationist". Gould was a powerful and persuasive writer, but in my opinion (and I'm not alone on this) he misinterpreted Dawkins' position and ended up shooting down a straw man a lot of the time.

But selection cannot suffice as a full explanation for many aspects of evolution; for other types and styles of causes become relevant, or even prevalent, in domains both far above and far below the traditional Darwinian locus of the organism. These other causes are not, as the ultras often claim, the product of thinly veiled attempts to smuggle purpose back into biology. These additional principles are as directionless, nonteleological, and materialistic as natural selection itself—but they operate differently from Darwin's central mechanism. In other words, I agree with Darwin that natural selection is "not the exclusive means of modification."

As I understand it, Dawkins never said that natural selection was the exclusive means of modification, so this is the kind of straw man I'm talking about.

I should also point out that the argument over the "level" at which selection occurs is an ongoing one in biology.

Do you not consider narrowing of thought to be detrimental rather than contributing to understanding?

There's no real evidence that Dawkins has ever "narrowed thought" in the way you seem to be implying.

 

[S.A.M.]

iceaura:

The kerfluffle around memetics, which is not strictly Dawkins's fault and not all bad anyway, is nothing compared with the fundamental gain in comprehension of Darwinian theory by millions of people from his early books on the subject.

So before Dawkins books, evolution was less well comprehended? Which is why its only now that they built a creation museum in the US and a creation park in the UK?

James:

You should be wary of reading Gould on Dawkins, and to some extent Dawkins on Gould.

Sounds reasonable if they were at it hammer and tongs.

But I am still wondering how Dawkings contributed to an understanding of evolutionary biology.

Anyway, back to the God Delusion.

I find it interesting that even iceaura finds Collins theism as sufficient cause to consider him "not practising science all the time"

Do atheists practice science all the time? Does Dawkins?

 

[James R]

SAM:

So before Dawkins books, evolution was less well comprehended? Which is why its only now that they built a creation museum in the US and a creation park in the UK?

It has only been recently that huge amounts of money have been accumulated by creationist organisations such as the Discovery Institute.

You need lots of money to build a modern museum, plus organisation.

But I am still wondering how Dawkins contributed to an understanding of evolutionary biology.

I'm not a biologist, so I can't really comment. All I can suggest is that you read his scientific papers if you're interested in his contributions to biology.

I find it interesting that even iceaura finds Collins theism as sufficient cause to consider him "not practising science all the time"

Do atheists practice science all the time? Does Dawkins?

Nobody practices science all the time. Science isn't life. It's just one part of life.

 

[iceaura]

So before Dawkins books, evolution was less well comprehended?

Yes.

Furthermore, credit to his books is often given by people who do understand the theory better than the average layman.

And continuing, they are almost always the first recommendation for someone with a beginning scientific background and a casual interest but confused about the basics of Darwinian theory.

Where else would you send them ?

I find it interesting that even iceaura finds Collins theism as sufficient cause to consider him "not practising science all the time"

Do atheists practice science all the time? Does Dawkins?

Now what in hell are you talking about, or alluding to, or whatever ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes.
Furthermore, credit to his books is often given by people who do understand the theory better than the average layman.

And continuing, they are almost always the first recommendation for someone with a beginning scientific background and a casual interest but confused about the basics of Darwinian theory.

Where else would you send them ?

Hmm thats true, there is a gap in the lay knowledge available. IMO, though, reading about selfish genes and extended phenotypes does not clarify the issue, though they are entertaining. e.g. addressing the criticisms of the selfish gene in the extended phenotype, he goes, in my opinion, more off base with paradigms where the behaviour of one animal is directed to saving the genes of another.

Which is why I asked you, is Wall Street an extended phenotype?

Now what in hell are you talking about, or alluding to, or whatever ?

These statements:

To the extent he is theistically invoking the supernatural to explain real phenomena, he is not doing science, and vice versa -

and you can see that in his claims of divine mystery for the origin of morality and the human spirit, a matter which other scientists - many of them theists whose demarcation of the divine is somewhat different from Collins's - are investigating scientifically (and making considerable early progress).

I doubt Collins would welcome the intrusion of Michael Behe's theism into his own genetics lab. But Behe is a real organic chemist, or whatever - his theism does not intrude into his own lab either.

Collins's contributions,on the other hand, have been chiefly as cover credentials for completely irresponsible dismissals of scientific knowledge and the scientific approach, by others. His only contribution to the general understanding of science, that I can distinguish, has been as an example of an undeniably decent human being engaged in politically sensitive and otherwise easily demonized research.

 

[GeoffP]

Religion has caused great harm to mankind and continues to do so. The cycle of cult indoctrination is a form of child abuse. Religions don't pay taxes.

You see no good reasons for attacking religion? :shrug:

If we disagree with nationalism, do we attack the concept of the nation-state or the chauvinism with which nationalism comports itself in the public realm? Religion as such may be a force for good or evil. What will you make of my case, a humanist and Catholic who has not been indoctrinated as a child in any religion - and, in point of fact, was forbidden to attend religious services?

 

[S.A.M.]

If we disagree with nationalism, do we attack the concept of the nation-state or the chauvinism with which nationalism comports itself in the public realm? Religion as such may be a force for good or evil. What will you make of my case, a humanist and Catholic who has not been indoctrinated as a child in any religion - and, in point of fact, was forbidden to attend religious services?

Thats another argument I have with Dawkins.

He ignores facts:

More than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion -- or no religion at all. If change in affiliation from one type of Protestantism to another is included, roughly 44% of adults have either switched religious affiliation, moved from being unaffiliated with any religion to being affiliated with a particular faith, or dropped any connection to a specific religious tradition altogether.

 

[GeoffP]

It was not my analogy, and I have recommended dropping it rather than using it as anything other than the heuristic apparently intended. One cannot argue from it.

But our choices are not merely two - all the Gospels descend in an unbranched chain directly from one original: the Gospels are independent accounts each based on first hand observation.

There is also the possiblity that the Gospels are similar in nature to what they resemble in life - elaborated, fantastical legends with a variable and increasingly less coherent foundation in some past event or person.

Whether faithful or fantastic, it still descends to the choice of common or multiple origin. The choice is dualistic, in this sense: does the one tradition (i.e. Luke) follow from the other (Mark) or is it independently arrived at via other previous tradition? Whether oral legend or written record, they must still obey common origin or multiple origin.

Actually, the issue isn't terribly different from allelic identity by descent in genetics. Alleles of similar size or appearance either have a common origin or a different one via mutation. But the mutated "allele" must still come from one of the two sources - Mark or some proto-Luke - if it has been, as the graph insists, modified; this is the very essence of the comparison.

You shall attend to his explicit dealing with exactly that objection, and show why it does not explain his approach or announce his intentions.

He says "I am not going to pick on any one God", and then he does.

Rebuttal? Ice - you still haven't responded to my question, and this is important: why is my "Clintonian example" above irrelevant? You must specify this.

They make enumerable reference to specific laws, such as would appear on the chart, and such as do not appear in Paul.

Innumerable. I was referring to the description of the infraction on your parking ticket. When it comes in the mail, does it come with a complete description of every related and unrelated law in the state on automotive issues? Or is it just a remonstrance concerned with your particular infraction? The latter, naturally. So why would you expect Paul to recount every miracle of Jesus in a letter remonstrating Roman Christians? It's an unreasonable expectation, and for that reason Paul's position on the chart at least should be removed; further, Paul serves as the starting point for the whole argument: "How come Paul didn't write about the Gospels, eh? Must not have happened then?" which has been used in past to justify the "telephone analogy".

They are preaching and writing to members of Christian churches and fellow believers. Exactly the same thing.

Not at all. The Gospels are histories meant to "prove" the greatness and miraculousness of Christianity. Paul's Epistles are a reminder to other believers to "smarten up", as you Americans might put it. This is not at all the same thing.

OK: that particular expectation is irrelevant. It is based on a description of the New Testament different from the one used by the makers of the chart.

Well then how can we debate anything about the chart from a scientific - if we can apply such to any theological issue - perspective? How about this: tell me what your hypothesis is (post hoc, but there's no way around that obviously) about the graph and we'll go from there.

There is another source of the flaw of condescension in arguments, besides the a priori assumption of elite status and unwarranted arrogance by one of the arguers. There is also the exemplified debasement of argument and adoption of nonsense by the other, and the too easy presumption that such foolishness extends throughout their understandings.

This presumes that the other side is nonsense, which, in a metaphysical issue, is hard to do. Or perhaps we should just cast aside the evidentiary issue on this?

Thanks again for a great argument,

Geoff

 

[GeoffP]

Thats another argument I have with Dawkins.

He ignores facts:

Interesting points. I think his arguments look riddled with bias. It's an invective similar to what my father would use against religion; and no one ever doubted that his motivation was hate of religion, justified or not.

 

[S.A.M.]

Interesting points. It's an invective similar to what my father would use against religion; and no one ever doubted that his motivation was hate of religion, justified or not.

I would say that sounds pretty abusive to me.:bugeye:

I wonder how many athiests provide their children with alternatives to choose a belief system.

How many of them impose their (lack of) belief on the children.

I think his arguments look riddled with bias.

That was my impression on hearing him speak.