[perceptrons]

Originally Posted by georgedcc

Wasn't The Selfish Gene fairly revolutionary when it was published?

Yes. The revisionist history going on here is silly.

[Nevuk]

Originally Posted by perceptrons

In what way?


The reason he is more well known for his atheism is because the general public could give less of a shit about what he did. If you ask average joe who Richard Feynman is, I doubt they could tell you a thing about him. That says nothing about his intelligence and ability as a scientist.

As for his biological work, as I understand it, there are factions that support Dawkins' assertions in The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype, just as there are those that oppose. At least, that's how it was a few decades ago when they were published. Newer data and theories may have shown that work inaccurate, but that doesn't take away from what it was.

I think people are letting their dislike of Dawkins' cloud their judgement here.

Well, the Selfish Gene proposed an interesting theory that is more adequately defended by others than by Dawkins. (There are issues with the arguments against it as well).

My dislike of The Selfish Gene lies more in my political leanings than any personal feelings about Dawkins. I don't think Dawkins is a bad person, wouldn't mind having a beer or something with him. I doubt we would agree on much other than our definitions of what an atheist is though. (A figure I do personally dislike is Christopher Hitchens, for comparison).

[bung]

The Selfish Gene is a classic. But it doesn't take long for someone to start crying 'genetic determinism' and 'reductionism' when you talk about it.

[Love As Arson]

Originally Posted by perceptrons

In what way?

His focus on genes make it impossible to understand the complexities of the human organism, insofar as we know that what and who we are are directly related not only to biological factors, but to a whole array of factors -many of which, actually, are quite recent developments that correspond not to a change in the gene pool, but a change to social arrangements as such.

[bung]

Originally Posted by Love As Arson

His focus on genes make it impossible to understand the complexities of the human organism, insofar as we know that what and who we are are directly related not only to biological factors, but to a whole array of factors -many of which, actually, are quite recent developments that correspond not to a change in the gene pool, but a change to social arrangements as such.

Dawkins never claims that we are not influenced by factors other than our genes or other biological factors. His assertion is that the gene is the proper unit of selection with which natural selection works. And he stresses the enormous impact of genetics on behavior. As a biologist he is going to be stressing and explaining a particular biological factor, but that doesn't mean he is rejecting that there are other factors that influence the complexities of the human organism--only that these non-genetic factors are not the proper level in which to understand natural selection because natural selection works at the level of the gene. If we want to best understand the human organism, I would think we would want analyses from a number of different levels, the biological, psychological, social, etc. It sounds like you're saying he's a bad biologist for talking about biology.

[Love As Arson]

Originally Posted by bung

Dawkins never claims that we are not influenced by factors other than our genes or other biological factors. His assertion is that the gene is the proper unit of selection with which natural selection works. And he stresses the enormous impact of genetics on behavior. As a biologist he is going to be stressing and explaining a particular biological factor, but that doesn't mean he is rejecting that there are other factors that influence the complexities of the human organism--only that these non-genetic factors are not the proper level in which to understand natural selection because natural selection works at the level of the gene. If we want to best understand the human organism, I would think we would want analyses from a number of different levels, the biological, psychological, social, etc. It sounds like you're saying he's a bad biologist for talking about biology.

Scientists in a particular field acknowledge the limitations of their field. Dawkins makes an effort to utilize his field as an explanatory framework for things that, in my opinion, are not part of his field. His efforts, along with those of other scientists, don't really break new ground as such, but come to justify opinions that have existed for a while,e.g., humans are naturally selfish.

[bung]

Originally Posted by Love As Arson

Scientists in a particular field acknowledge the limitations of their field. Dawkins makes an effort to utilize his field as an explanatory framework for things that, in my opinion, are not part of his field. His efforts, along with those of other scientists, don't really break new ground as such, but come to justify opinions that have existed for a while,e.g., humans are naturally selfish.

The gene-centered view of evolution very much did break new ground when it was first pursued by certain prominent biologists and popularized by Dawkins. "Humans are naturally selfish" is a mischaracterization of Dawkins' views, as well. Have you read the Selfish Gene? His view is that genes are ultimately vehicles that "care" only about their own replication. In that sense, he calls them "selfish." But selfish genes don't necessarily make selfish people. In fact, he's devoted lengthy discussions in many of his works to explain just how altruistic behavior can arise from "selfish" genes--the exact opposite of what you're saying he and others have done. As far as him directly commenting on things outside of biology that he thinks the selfish gene theory has implications for, I don't see a big problem with that. The vast majority of his work deals directly with evolutionary theory and nothing else. As for the small portion that doesn't deal directly in biology: When a scientist thinks their work has implications outside of its directly implicated field of study, I would say they're allowed to speculate on what those implications are just as anyone else is also allowed to (granted that they acknowlege its speculative character, which Dawkins does).

[awakeohsleeper]

So... what happened to non-believers doing a Bible study...?

[Nevuk]

Originally Posted by awakeohsleeper

So... what happened to non-believers doing a Bible study...?

Not sure. Let's move on to Christian myths that aren't from the bible. Saint George and the Dragon?

[georgedcc]

10 books not included in The new Testament.

[magicrat85]

Originally Posted by georgedcc

10 books not included in The new Testament.

what makes the church look bad is when they will quote ancient text (because it fits into their general belief) and will not quote these that you have listed. Great post

[Regards]

Originally Posted by georgedcc

10 books not included in The new Testament.

That was actually a very solid list and article. I wish they would have gone a bit deeper into why they weren't included, but for the most part the blurbs are spot on. The Didache is a great read, a lot of cool stuff is in it.

[TJ Wells]

Originally Posted by awakeohsleeper

So... what happened to non-believers doing a Bible study...?

We're still planning on doing it, but my girlfriend decided in the past couple months she wanted to go to law school, so has about -200% free time. Will be starting it in earnest after she takes the LSAT in October.