Laudate_Dominum Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1332961896' post='2409749'] I tend to see the guy as...a moderately successful academic (from what I know of his academic career and h-index)... [/quote] I had the impression that Dawkins' h-index was around 20-30 but I just checked to be sure and it's 50. That's extremely good. I know that h-index is problematic, et cetera, but based on it alone, and for what it's worth, Dawkins is an exceptionally successful academic. My distinctions above are probably inaccurate in this regard. New version: Very successful academic (disclaimer: I'm not really in a position to judge); very successful science educator; top spokesman for atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJon16 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Haters gonna' hate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyAnn Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1332962348' post='2409753'] Something about Dawkins just grates my nerves. [/quote] Perhaps it's because he's an obnoxious, rude, hateful, intolerant and narrow-minded person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregorMendel Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1332962120' post='2409751'] I don't know what you mean by that exactly but you might enjoy his interview with Peter Singer. Here is Dawkins' opening statement. "Peter [Singer], I think you must be one of the most moral people in the world..." Although it is mostly about Singer, you can get a sense of how Dawkins thinks on moral issues. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU[/media] [/quote] This interview is really dominated by Singer's philosophy of the suffering of animals and animal rights, and really doesn't lend itself all that well to interpretation of Dawkins' Darwinism or revealing his morals. The quote "I think you must be one of the most moral people in the world" describes Dawkins reverence for Singer's philosophy and dedication to the prevention of animal suffering, which I dont think anyone here would personally disagree with. I dont think its very fair to question his morality or capacity to behave morally merely due to his opinions on religion. In fact, the theme of this interview is his attempt to ground "our [humanity's] undoubtedly deep feelings of moral caring (14:40)" in an objective, albeit secular, manner. Finally, to suggest that Dawkins "supports leftism and doesn't have the balls to say we should just kill the weak" is bastardization of Darwinism and expresses a severe misunderstanding of the implications of evolution by natural selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) [quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1332977311' post='2409842'] This interview is really dominated by Singer's philosophy of the suffering of animals and animal rights, and really doesn't lend itself all that well to interpretation of Dawkins' Darwinism or revealing his morals. The quote "I think you must be one of the most moral people in the world" describes Dawkins reverence for Singer's philosophy and dedication to the prevention of animal suffering, which I dont think anyone here would personally disagree with. I dont think its very fair to question his morality or capacity to behave morally merely due to his opinions on religion. In fact, the theme of this interview is his attempt to ground "our [humanity's] undoubtedly deep feelings of moral caring (14:40)" in an objective, albeit secular, manner. Finally, to suggest that Dawkins "supports leftism and doesn't have the balls to say we should just kill the weak" is bastardization of Darwinism and expresses a severe misunderstanding of the implications of evolution by natural selection. [/quote] You may have felt I was asking a rhetorical question in the case of Dawkins. That's probably because you think I'm likely to not understand natural selection, on account of me mocking atheists who are leftists but don't have the balls to kill the weak. That has nothing to do with Darwinism and everything to do with the typical atheist posturing about believing in utilitarianism and all that poo that leftists just love, but that has failed miserably to do anything but floopy up the world and the economy. Dawkins might be a libertarian atheist. I don't know. I do know he preached at the Reason rally. I've never heard him speak out against compulsory education. I heard some atheists interviewed today by that fascist Hannity. They were amusingly daft. Actually had less of a grasp on the Constitution than Hannity. I think that's wonderful. Edited March 29, 2012 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1332855648' post='2409116'] [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/dawkins-calls-for-mockery-of-catholics-at-reason-rally/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29&utm_term=daily+news"]http://www.catholicn...term=daily+news[/url] [/quote] He's a peach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) [quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1332977311' post='2409842'] This interview is really dominated by Singer's philosophy of the suffering of animals and animal rights[/quote] That's correct. It's an interview of Singer by Dawkins. I didn't intend to give any other impression. [quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1332977311' post='2409842'], and really doesn't lend itself all that well to interpretation of Dawkins' Darwinism or revealing his morals. [/quote] Dawkins' views on evolutionary biology were not the issue. It gives some examples of his moral views in that he interacts with Singer quite a bit and often explicitly agrees on specific things. The interview is not a full account of Dawkins' ethical thinking and I didn't present it as such. It simply came to mind as an example and it is quite revealing in many respects. But of course it says much more about Singer's views. [quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1332977311' post='2409842']The quote "I think you must be one of the most moral people in the world" describes Dawkins reverence for Singer's philosophy and dedication to the prevention of animal suffering, which I dont think anyone here would personally disagree with. [/quote] That sentiment is repeated in different contexts during the course of the interview and I think you're downplaying the import. Reverence for Singer's utilitarian philosophy is significant and not something that would likely be shared by people around here. And you're wrong to frame this as simply prevention of animal suffering. Dawkins expresses approval of many of Singer's statements and principles, which go beyond mere prevention of animal suffering. Of course it would be a mistake to assume he agrees with Singer's philosophy or all of his views. The converse error would be to dismiss the interview as unrevealing of Dawkins' leanings. It would be interesting to have a more detailed discussion of Dawkins' views on ethical issues and if you have such a source I'd like to see it. [quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1332977311' post='2409842']I dont think its very fair to question his morality or capacity to behave morally merely due to his opinions on religion.[/quote] I've not done that and of course that would be unfair. But what makes you say this? [quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1332977311' post='2409842']In fact, the theme of this interview is his attempt to ground "our [humanity's] undoubtedly deep feelings of moral caring (14:40)" in an objective, albeit secular, manner. [/quote] Maybe so. I'm not really sure how I'd summarize the interview. That general theme could summarize Singer's work and that of many ethicists. Simply stating that doesn't really say a whole lot about the interview. There were many topics and it serves the purpose for which I posted it. [quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1332977311' post='2409842']Finally, to suggest that Dawkins "supports leftism and doesn't have the balls to say we should just kill the weak" is bastardization of Darwinism and expresses a severe misunderstanding of the implications of evolution by natural selection.[/quote] I can't speak for Winchester so I'll pass on this. Look at how I introduced the vid. "I don't know what you mean by that exactly but you [Winnie] might enjoy his interview with Peter Singer...Although it is mostly about Singer, you can get a sense of how Dawkins thinks on moral issues." I was effectively saying to Winnie, I don't know what you're trying to say there, but if you're interested in Dawkins' ethical views this interview with Singer provides some insight. This is not a problematic claim; there is a lot of Dawkins in that interview and it came to mind as potentially of interest. I think you've read a lot into my post and thereby missed the point. Edited March 29, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) I'm not crazy about the term [i]Darwinism[/i]. It has variable definitions and connotations and is often an antiscience/creationist epithet these days. ETA: To me the default meaning of [i]Darwinism[/i] is late 19th century evolutionary theory, in contrast with the modern synthesis and contemporary evolutionary biology. Depending on context I might interpret it as the general and colloquial idea of evolution by natural selection. I recently asked a creationist, who uses the term in excess, to define what he means and he said belief in an old Earth (true, but not evolution), a single common ancestor to all living things (probably true, but not demanded by evolution), and natural selection as the only way by which species change over time (not true). (Sometimes people will throw abiogenesis in there too. Or the idea that everything is [i]random[/i].) Basically, for this guy Darwinism is defined in contrast to a set of theological beliefs (i.e., young Earth and special creation of each "kind"). Oh, but he accepts "microevolution" and can quote-mine legitimate research papers, therefore he's a rational guy. A specially enlightened non-scientist who can debunk a field of science from his armchair using crackpot websites as his guide. Yes, maybe ridicule is the ticket... ETA: Don't worry; I'm being facetious. Edited March 29, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I'd love to see Tim Staples, Patrick Madrid, or Scott Hahn debate with him (Or possibly all three at the same time. That would be as glorious as D-Day). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Dawkins is annoying Singer turns my stomach whenever he utters just about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1333004861' post='2409959'] Dawkins is annoying Singer turns my stomach whenever he utters just about anything. [/quote] Why? He's just trying to crate set of ethics that's not based on faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1333007853' post='2409968'] Why? He's just trying to crate set of ethics that's not based on faith. [/quote]Because ethics based on reason and observation is blasphamey and shouldn't be done if it could. Edited March 29, 2012 by Anomaly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1333007853' post='2409968'] Why? He's just trying to crate set of ethics that's not based on faith. [/quote] and he's doing a wonderful job following out his logic to its disturbing ends. Can't say he's not consistent but "not everyone has the right to live" just disturbs me a wee bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1333077250' post='2410515'] and he's doing a wonderful job following out his logic to its disturbing ends. Can't say he's not consistent but "not everyone has the right to live" just disturbs me a wee bit. [/quote] so he is disturbing because he says that as a fetus lacks the ability to conceptualize its own existance and there has no ability to desire existance over non existance he is disturbing, but you contention that masturbation merit unending torture is sublime and transcendent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1333138760' post='2410777'] so he is disturbing because he says that as a fetus lacks the ability to conceptualize its own existance and there has no ability to desire existance over non existance he is disturbing, but you contention that masturbation merit unending torture is sublime and transcendent. [/quote] I think your account was hacked by a lesser typist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now