Originally posted by lucifershammerhe commented to a girl in the year above me that he was "surprised that a university with a reputation such as yours could let people as unintelligent as you in!". she was a creationist.
I'm waiting for the time when he argues that people who believe in God should not be allowed to breed so as not to pollute the human gene pool.
he may want to listen to the obviously unintelligent man* who once said, "I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind."
LRB says, on him writing his latest book, "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is The Book of British Birds", and the sunday times backs this up, "there is hardly a serious work of philosophy of religion cited in his extensive bibliography, save for Richard Swinburne – himself an oddity among orthodox theologians".
*shrugs*
you can but wonder why a man can devote his life to attempting to destroy something that really isn't inherintly evil. human's may be so, but when a a man claims that "loving one another" is inherintly evil. well, you can but wonder...
*albert einstein
Originally posted by geniusThe term "religion" in that quote meant something quite different. If you actually bothered reading that section of Dawkins' book you'd find that Richard cites that quote as well as quite a few others from Al which reveal Einstein's naturalistic, almost pantheistic, belief as well as his strong distaste for personal gods.
he commented to a girl in the year above me that he was "surprised that a university with a reputation such as yours could let people as unintelligent as you in!". she was a creationist.
he may want to listen to the obviously unintelligent man* who once said, "I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is b ...[text shortened]... ing one another" is inherintly evil. well, you can but wonder...
*albert einstein
1 edit
Originally posted by teleriontrue he did not beleive in personal gods, but he beleived in something.
The term "religion" in that quote meant something quite different. If you actually bothered reading that section of Dawkins' book you'd find that Richard cites that quote as well as quite a few others from Al which reveal Einstein's naturalistic, almost pantheistic, belief as well as his strong distaste for personal gods.
1 edit
Originally posted by geniusDo you really think Dawkins believes in nothing? Clearly he does, but its just not any gods that he believes in. I would recommend his book Unweaving the Rainbow to dispell that myth that he is some sort of antiseptic nihilist. From Wikipedia:
true he did not beleive in personal gods, but he beleived in something.
Unweaving the Rainbow (subtitled "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder" ) is a 1998 book by Richard Dawkins, discussing the relationship between science and arts from the perspective of a scientist.
Dawkins addresses the common perception of ordinary people who find science dull and boring and cannot understand why scientists find it not only important but also thrilling, interesting and beautiful. Driven by the responses to his book The Blind Watchmaker wherein readers resented his describing the world as mechanical and emotionless, Dawkins felt the need to explain that for him as a scientist the world was full of wonders and a source of pleasure; this pleasure was not in spite of, but rather because he does not assume as cause the inexplicable actions of a deity but rather the understandable laws of nature.
His starting point is John Keats's well-known accusation that Isaac Newton destroyed the beauty of the rainbow by explaining it. The agenda of the book is to show the reader that science does not destroy, but rather discovers poetry in the patterns and laws of nature.
Originally posted by rwingettDuring his visit he told us that he shared an awe for nature. There is something "spiritual" about that, though not at all in the same sense as the xians here normally use the word.
Do you really think Dawkins believes in nothing? Clearly he does, but its just not any gods that he believes in. I would recommend his book [b]Unweaving the Rainbow to dispell that myth that he is some sort of antiseptic nihilist. From Wikipedia:
Unweaving the Rainbow (subtitled "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder" ) is a 1998 book by R ...[text shortened]... science does not destroy, but rather discovers poetry in the patterns and laws of nature.[/b]
Originally posted by telerionA few quotes from the ever-quotable Carl Sagan to drive home the point:
During his visit he told us that he shared an awe for nature. There is something "spiritual" about that, though not at all in the same sense as the xians here normally use the word.
In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."
A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
Originally posted by rwingettThe quotes you give prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Carl Sagan knew nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, about the Roman Catholic Faith.
A few quotes from the ever-quotable Carl Sagan to drive home the point:
In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must b ...[text shortened]... hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.
It is quite surprising to me .... oh well, not thát surprising ..... that people who claim to investigate everything, who claim to think "independently" and who claim to not "follow the leader", choose to defend and advocate the ideas of people, fashionable gurus, who clearly have no idea of what they are talking about.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHey Ivanhoe, I tried above to give you some reasons to think that a rejection of eugenic policies was consistent with, and perhaps even supported by, political liberalism. If you don't like the ones I provided, I can probably come up with more. Let me know.
It is quite surprising to me .... oh well, not thát surprising ..... that people who claim to investigate everything, who claim to think "independently" and who claim to not "follow the leader", choose to defend and advocate the ideas of people, fashionable gurus, who clearly have no idea of what they are talking about.
Originally posted by ivanhoeAgreed
It is quite surprising to me .... oh well, not thát surprising ..... that people who claim to investigate everything, who claim to think "independently" and who claim to not "follow the leader", choose to defend and advocate the ideas of people, fashionable gurus, who clearly have no idea of what they are talking about.
Originally posted by bbarrHello good old Bbarr,
Hey Ivanhoe, I tried above to give you some reasons to think that a rejection of eugenic policies was consistent with, and perhaps even supported by, political liberalism. If you don't like the ones I provided, I can probably come up with more. Let me know.
I haven't read all the posts in this thread yet, but I will ..... I don't know when though. I've got a lot of things to do these days .... grrrhh ...
Originally posted by ivanhoeBy the way, I'm still wating for your arguments against eugenics.
LemonJello: "You and hoe have played right into Dawkins' hands ... "
Now that is a deep one, LJ ... considering the fact that you assume that Dawkins is [/i]against[/i] eugenics ... think it through, genius .....
By the way, I'm still wating for your arguments against eugenics.
As I stated, I'm not "for eugenics" and I meant that in any general sense, since I think 'eugenics' generally includes some practices that are clearly reprehensible. For example, forms of mandatory eugenics are often coercive and violate basic rights. The arguments against these practices are straightforward.
But, presumably, Dawkins is not talking about mandatory eugenics. He's talking about voluntary forms of eugenics, and IMO, much of what he references cannot strictly be called "eugenics" since these practices would often likely be motivated by the thought of individual "improvement", not collective "improvement" (e.g., the idea that genetic engineering will benefit my future offspring by giving them greater relative advantage and opportunity). For example, Dawkins mentions "designer babies" -- that's something I would call genetic engineering or reprogenetics, but I'm not sure it qualifies as eugenics, given the sorts of motivations involved.
Regardless, I don't really have much objection to the underlying premise of certain types of genetic engineering. The idea would be that through genetic modification, we could prevent certain genetic defects or ailments caused by "bad genes" that lead to undue pain, suffering, and forms of stigma. Not all of the research is eliminative in design, and there is also motivation to include genetic information that would, for example, lead to improved immunity toward certain diseases, etc. I view such considerations as being largely accidental with respect to personage. So it's not that this sort of manipulation is fundamentally aimed at altering the person who eventually develops, but that it is attempting to give this person a better quality of life. I don't see a problem with this in theory, although the development of reliable technologies and the policies governing their use would invariably raise a number of other relevant issues.
Concerning the engineering for certain natural physical abilities, I also view these properties as accidental to personage. But I would also view the criteria related to "improvement" as much more speculative. It seems straightforward to me (and well-supported) to say that a person who is, say, physically debilitated by a genetic defect would be better off without the disability. It seems more dubious to say that a person would be better off with more natural talent in area X. Still, I'm not so sure there are obvious good reasons against these practices??
For those properties related to mental abilities, character, disposition, etc., I'm not sure how viable the technology would be. I don't have a strong enough background in this area, but my guess would be that these properties are most strongly affected by things like upbringing, environmental stimulation especially early in development, self reflection, etc. I'm not sure.
ivanhoe, why don't you tell me why you are so vehemently and blanketly against these forms of genetic manipulation? Surely, you have what you take to be good reasons for your views....Maybe we can yet discuss this topic like adults. After all, isn't that the whole point of Dawkins' article??
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe religious freaks obviously don't care a fig for what Dawkins actually said. They only use him as a target on which to launch their vitriolic diatribes. They set up their straw men and paint Dawkins' name on their backs.
[b]By the way, I'm still wating for your arguments against eugenics.
As I stated, I'm not "for eugenics" and I meant that in any general sense, since I think 'eugenics' generally includes some practices that are clearly reprehensible. For example, forms of mandatory eugenics are often coercive and violate basic rights. The arguments against these ...[text shortened]... lts. After all, isn't that the whole point of Dawkins' article??[/b]