Support NeoGAF

[Atrus]

Any time one resorts to belittling and making fun of any segment of the populace because they believe in things that you do not, that is arrogance plain and simple and no amount of spin-jobbing can change that fact no matter how right one is, or how much evidence they have to support them. Why is it when Americans talk about how great they are and show the evidence to support their position we are called Assholes and arrogant, but fucktarts like Dawkins can get away with the same line of thinking and get a free pass?

Arrogance? You don't think that a belief in an exclusive path to salvation that damns all others, the sacrificing of this life for the one hereafter, or the utter disregard for humanity in favor of 'God' is not arrogant?

Both Nazis and Communists had believers as well, yet few have a problem in belittling the ideology.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Any time one resorts to belittling and making fun of any segment of the populace because they believe in things that you do not, that is arrogance plain and simple and no amount of spin-jobbing can change that fact no matter how right one is, or how much evidence they have to support them. Why is it when Americans talk about how great they are and show the evidence to support their position we are called Assholes and arrogant, but fucktarts like Dawkins can get away with the same line of thinking and get a free pass?

not too bright; pot meet kettle too, how many segments of the populace do Christians belittle again? :lol I'm still waiting on that evidence to show how great you are by the way... 1000 posts in and you're not close.


BTW. Dawkins was on Bill Maher's show tonight.. should be up on youtube tomorrow.

 

[Dabookerman]

Why is it when Americans talk about how great they are and show the evidence to support their position we are called Assholes and arrogant?

What evidence :lol?

 

[Snaku]

Finally bought this today. Won't be able to start it until after work late tonight.

 

[Chrono]

Promotional trailer

I nearly fell off my chair laughing.

Oh, people just need to look at the evidence he says! That's the problem! :lol

Anyways, here's an interesting podcast episode from Scientific American that I think is relevant to the matter. You can read the transcript at that link if you don't want to listen to it.

 

[VNZ]

Read it through this weekend and particularly enjoyed the parts on embryology. And don't need any more proof for evolution as a fact – although some parts on that were fascinating as well – but I really don't know much about embryology and this book made me interested in reading a lot more about it.

 

[Azih]

or the utter disregard for humanity in favor of 'God' is not arrogant?

I was unaware that an utter disregard for humanity was a common trait for the religous.

Both Nazis and Communists had believers as well, yet few have a problem in belittling the ideology.

Alright, religion is like Nazism and Communism now?

 

[methos75]

not too bright; pot meet kettle too, how many segments of the populace do Christians belittle again? :lol I'm still waiting on that evidence to show how great you are by the way... 1000 posts in and you're not close.


BTW. Dawkins was on Bill Maher's show tonight.. should be up on youtube tomorrow.

I don't need to prove how great I am too you, those who know me tell me all the time I am an Icon among Men, that's enough for me.

 

[speculawyer]

The book was decent . . . but I was disappointed on the weak treatment of the molecular evidence. I guess since he is a zoologist, it is not his forte. So I'm kinda disappointed by that. He should have consulted some people who are more knowledgeable in that area.

Maybe he wanted to keep the book relatively simple. But in doing so, he left out (or didn't explain well) some of the greatest evidence we have.

I liked the embryology stuff. That is truly an amazing area . . . I guess we still really don't understand how those little cells know what they are doing but we are starting to figure it out. (Obviously they don't "know" anything . . . I'm speaking metaphorically about how they read the DNA plans, communicate with neighboring cells, follow simple rules, etc.)

 

[Parl]

I was unaware that an utter disregard for humanity was a common trait for the religous.

It's true that modern versions of most religions disregard the teachings of the Bible or equivalent. I guess a strong Christian would be one who follows the evils of the Bible, while the weak Christian would disregard either the whole Bible or the parts nobody likes anymore, which is very fortunate, so overall, most religious people are nice, or at least nearly as nice as humans are in general.

 

[Extollere]

I nearly fell off my chair laughing.

Oh, people just need to look at the evidence he says! That's the problem! :lol

Anyways, here's an interesting podcast episode from Scientific American that I think is relevant to the matter. You can read the transcript at that link if you don't want to listen to it.

Well it's said up front that his ideal audience was for people who were not well equipped to argue the facts of evolution with those who don't believe. Most people probably won't change their stance on the matter. There are some who might reconsider if they are exposed to the evidence (which consequently.. in their circle of friends and peers, never are). Often times I personally encounter people who tell me false things about evolution, or "if evolution is true then why isn't this 'X' ?" or what have you. After some clarification, I'll get a response like "Really I didn't know that?" So it is not always the case that people are stubborn but in many instances they are just misinformed and unexposed to the evidence. You will find this a lot with the younger generation rather than the older.

 

[Extollere]

The book was decent . . . but I was disappointed on the weak treatment of the molecular evidence. I guess since he is a zoologist, it is not his forte. So I'm kinda disappointed by that. He should have consulted some people who are more knowledgeable in that area.

Maybe he wanted to keep the book relatively simple. But in doing so, he left out (or didn't explain well) some of the greatest evidence we have.

Yeah I hear you. Although the experimentation with the E. Coli bacteria in the 7,000 flasks, showing the evolution of different tribes was quite remarkable. I don't know if that counts for what you're looking for but I found it pretty amazing.

I also didn't know about dendrochronology - that they could overlap time tables by going back generations. How do all the same trees have the exact same rings? They have to be really really close together, like in a forest or something to have the climate produce the same patterns. I don't know if that was clarified or not.

I may have to pick up one of his other books on evolution for more information. I'm sure there are grounds not covered here that there have been elsewhere in his like - what - 6 or 7 other books on evolution?

 

[soul creator]

YOU LIE

fixed

 

[140.85]

I can't take Dawkins seriously after seeing that South park episode. :lol

 

[Dever]

I was unaware that an utter disregard for humanity was a common trait for the religous.

Well there is the idea of this world being somehow fallen and thus sinful, something that'll be fixed in the glorious afterlife of the select few. Some Christians believe every single human deserves eternal hellfire and that the possibility of salvation proves that God is loving and merciful. It can be quite sickening, depending on the Christian you're talking to. Obviously not all religious people think like that, just some extreme ones.

 

[speculawyer]

I nearly fell off my chair laughing.

Oh, people just need to look at the evidence he says! That's the problem! :lol

Anyways, here's an interesting podcast episode from Scientific American that I think is relevant to the matter. You can read the transcript at that link if you don't want to listen to it.

A lot of people think they understand evolution and will say they understand it . . . but they don't. And they've only seen some of the evidence instead of the full spectrum of evidence. Knowing more about evolution very correlated with your belief in evolution.

But yeah, there certainly are other factors . . . very religious people do have a problem with willfully ignoring the evidence because it conflicts with what they already believe and want to continue believing.

 

[speculawyer]

I can't take Dawkins seriously after seeing that South park episode. :lol

I can't take you seriously after having an opinion swayed by a crass (albeit funny) satire cartoon.

 

[140.85]

I can't take you seriously after having an opinion swayed by a crass (albeit funny) satire cartoon.

Unfair I know....but there it is. It's not by choice! Damn you SP. :lol

 

[Masaki_]

I can't take Dawkins seriously after seeing that South park episode. :lol

I think you have a few problems you might want to care of.

 

[Monocle]

This is one of the best pieces Dawkins has written. I believe it's from Unweaving the Rainbow

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. [. . .]

That whole passage solidified Dawkins as one of my all time favorite science authors.

 

[Extollere]

That whole passage solidified Dawkins as one of my all time favorite science authors.

Is the whole passage available online anywhere from a quote or excerpt? Haven't read Unweaving the Rainbow..

 

[Ri'Orius]

Is the whole passage available online anywhere from a quote or excerpt? Haven't read Unweaving the Rainbow..

Well, if you'd bothered to plug it in to Google, you might find that yes, it is available:

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

 

[Extollere]

Well, if you'd bothered to plug it in to Google, you might find that yes, it is available:

:lol I don't bother with google when I can have GAF members find excerpts for me and bring me grapes.

 

[Dabookerman]

Well, if you'd bothered to plug it in to Google, you might find that yes, it is available:

Such a great quote. And he's absolutely right. If everyone strived to further the human race, think of how far we would be. It's insane. There are probably some radical religious people out there, who may be fucking amazing as scientists or artists etc.

 

[Evolved1]

Some of Dawkin's best writing is in his essays and letters... his books can drag at times.

 

[Always-honest]

Still, it's interesting that we think of dogs as evolving from wolves, and yet we still have wolves that share a generally uniform appearance, while there are numerous sizes and varieties of dogs. How does this happen? (serious question)

we (humans) did...
nothing wrong with wolves, so they're still here (not natural/spontaneous evolution)

 

[speculawyer]

Yeah I hear you. Although the experimentation with the E. Coli bacteria in the 7,000 flasks, showing the evolution of different tribes was quite remarkable. I don't know if that counts for what you're looking for but I found it pretty amazing.

Yeah, that part was awesome. I loved how the bacteria figured out how to metabolize a new substance that it was unable to metabolize before. A big step of evolution that literally occurred during the experiment.

 

[typhonsentra]

I can't take Dawkins seriously after seeing that South park episode. :lol

I view their take on Dawkins in much the same way as Al Gore- Manbearpig.

They're big point in that episode was "LOL, who cares about Al Gore?!" And then he.... wins an Academy Award, an Emmy, Nobel Prize.... they got pretty badly owned on that one.

 

[Extollere]

we (humans) did...
nothing wrong with wolves, so they're still here (not natural/spontaneous evolution)

What he means to say is that we bred village dogs. Village dogs came about (well village wolves) from interaction with human settlements. These places provided food and the wolves in the area became scavenger type wolves rather than hunters because of the new food source. Subsequently their shorter flight distance (you know, fight or flight?) allowed us to eventually capture and breed and train them. Over the centuries, continually breeding dogs, by selecting the traits we wanted (shorter legs, longer stouts, smoother coat ect) or the characteristics (more tame, better at hearding sheep, more alert - like a watchdog - ect) lead to all the various breeds of dogs we have today. It's pretty easy to understand really. We could probably capture and breed any animal to our liking. Now just picture that instead of humans doing it, that nature does it through competition, environmental changes, sexual preference and the like..

Domestication of animals, like breeding, is sped up evolution. It happens in a much much shorter time span because we can choose instantly what kinds of changes we want to make. In nature it takes a lot longer.

 

[Pyke Presco]

Just started reading this today, and I absolutely love the way Dawkin's lays out his arguments. He structures his work in such a way that you can't help but think "This makes perfect sense, why doesn't everyone agree with this or understand where he's coming from?" Here is an excerpt from chapter 3, discussing rat's teeth and tooth decay:

"...It is the lesson of trade-offs, and we have already adverted to it when talking about pollination strategies in plants. Nothing is free, everything comes with a price tag. It might seem obvious that tooth decay is to be avoided at all costs, and I do not doubt that dental caries significantly shortens life in rats. But let's think for a moment about what must happen in order to increase an animal's resistance to tooth decay. I don't know the details, but I am confident that it will be costly, and that is all I need to assume. Let us suppose it is achieved by a thickening of the wall of the tooth, and this requires extra calcium. It is not impossible to find extra calcium, but it has to come from somewhere, and it is not free. Calcium(or whatever the limiting resource might be) is not floating around in the air. it has to come into the body via food. And it is potentially useful for other things apart from teeth. The body has something we could call a calcium economy. Calcium is needed in bone, and it is needed in milk. (I'm assuming it is calcium we are talking about. Even if it is not calcium, there must be some costly limiting resource, and the argument will work just as well, whatever the limiting resource is. I'll continue to use calcium for the sake of argument.) An individual rat with extra strong teeth might well tend to live longer than a rat with rotten teeth, all other thigns being equal. But all other things are not equal, because the calcium needed to strengthen the teeth had to come from somewhere, say, bones. A rival individual whose genes did not predispose it to take calcium away from bones might consequently live longer, because of its superior bones and in spite of its bad teeth. Or the rival individual might be better qualified to rear children because she makes more calcium-rich milk. As economists are fond of quoting from Robert Heinlein, there's no such thing as a free lunch. My rat example is hypothetical, but it is safe to say that, for economic reasons, there must be such a thing as a rat whose teeth are too perfect. Perfection in one department must be bought, in the form of a sacrifice in another department." (pg 69-70)

This sort of argument just seems so well structured that countering it seems to be a foolish endeavour*. And this is a completely typical form of his writing style. For those who are on the fence but don't really know if this book is up their alley, read that passage and see if it presents a compelling argument to you. Does it belittle you? Does it seem too technical? Is it a clearly biased opinion that doesn't do anything to convince you? I would hope the answer to all of those is no, and if thats the case and the topic interests you, please pick up this book. It will shed light on the subject of evolution that perhaps you could put to good use, or just to educate you on why it is a valid scientific theory. I personally find all of his work to be witty, his argumentative style to be well thought out and welll structured, and his books to just be enjoyable reads. Hopefully more people buy this, as it is a great way to introduce yourself to his work and perhaps open your eyes to the field of biology/evolution if you were previously not interested at all.

*I am well aware that there could be a perfectly valid argument which could dismiss Dawkin's statement in this passage completely (though I doubt that to be the case). I am not well-versed enough in these things to know one way or the other. That being said, the way he presents the information makes it seem to me that there is little reason to dispute it. It is well structured, well reasoned and completely conceivable.

EDIT: Bolded the italicised parts of his passage, as the quote function just put's everything into italics

 

[Dabookerman]

I bought today, The God Delusion. Did I make a good decision? It probably won't change my views in anyway (I'm a 5 on the Dawkins scale). I just want an entertaining read.

 

[Pyke Presco]

I bought today, The God Delusion. Did I make a good decision? It probably won't change my views in anyway (I'm a 5 on the Dawkins scale). I just want an entertaining read.

I thought God Delusion was actually one of his weakest books, but still an enjoyable read. I suppose I just prefer when he lets the biology take the forefront and leaves God for the brief tangents. There is a lot of rehash of older material he's done (eg the 747 in the scrapyard and other intelligent design arguments he's used), so if you've read his other works there won't be alot of new material, it'll just be condensed into one book instead of strung out in chapters over all his other work. (This might be another reason why I enjoyed it less than his other work, alot of it I had seen before)

Still, definitely a worthwile read.

 

[Extollere]

I bought today, The God Delusion. Did I make a good decision? It probably won't change my views in anyway (I'm a 5 on the Dawkins scale). I just want an entertaining read.

Shoulda bought "The End of Faith" by Harris, if you like the guy or not, that book is amazing.

 

[Extollere]

I thought God Delusion was actually one of his weakest books, but still an enjoyable read. I suppose I just prefer when he lets the biology take the forefront and leaves God for the brief tangents. There is a lot of rehash of older material he's done (eg the 747 in the scrapyard and other intelligent design arguments he's used), so if you've read his other works there won't be alot of new material, it'll just be condensed into one book instead of strung out in chapters over all his other work. (This might be another reason why I enjoyed it less than his other work, alot of it I had seen before)

Still, definitely a worthwile read.

What would you say of Ancestor's tale? I still want to find a book where he addresses abiogenesis and the evolution of sexual reproduction.

 

[Wilsongt]

Dawkin's is giving a talk at the University of South Carolina next week, and one of the professors sent out an angry rant calling him a charlatan and that he doesn't know a thing about evolution. It was pretty lulz worthy once other profiessors fired back against him.

 

[Pyke Presco]

What would you say of Ancestor's tale? I still want to find a book where he addresses abiogenesis and the evolution of sexual reproduction.

It's been a while since I read ancestors tale, but I remember being thoroughly impressed with it. He takes you back to branching points in human evolution, and by the time you've reached about the tenth branch you're already talking about mice and rodents, the twentieth branch has you at fish, and by thirty it's no longer even animals, but plants and by forty it is the"progenitor" of all species, a bacteria of some sort. I found it extremely interesting as a thought exercise to try and see if things made sense, and then to consider the other branches and think about going down those in forward time. It was really well put together and well worth a read if you're interested in that side of the evolutionary path,but it is very different from all of his other work. He is not presenting an argument or trying to prove anything. Instead, be is suggesting what may have been our path of evolution, and picks a species that was probably close to the one that was our "ancestor", then goes on a few tangents and talks about it's descendants, it's place in the world during it's time, how it may have influeNced it's environment, etc. I found it very good, but in a completely different way to all his other work.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Dawkin's is giving a talk at the University of South Carolina next week, and one of the professors sent out an angry rant calling him a charlatan and that he doesn't know a thing about evolution. It was pretty lulz worthy once other profiessors fired back against him.

Professor of Philosophy I bet

 

[Extollere]

Just finished reading the book today. I took a week off from reading to focus on some other things, so it took me a little bit longer. I thought it was great, however.. I'm thinking that this book will do little to convince people about the truth who don't believe it. Even more sadly is the fact that creationists in general won't even open the book let alone pay money for it. "Evolution" has become almost like a swear word, like something bad, something wrong. They'd rather show up to church with no pants on than be caught reading a book about evolution. It was very educational though, and while there are definite points of proof laid out here, I couldn't escape the feeling that most of the evidence wasn't really evidence, but simple observation. Although I guess that counts just as well as the rudimentary types of facts. It was still great and I find myself wanting more. Hrmm which Dawkins book will I pick up next. Blind Watchmaker, Ancestor's Tale, or Climbing Mount Improbable?

 

[Salazar]

Dawkin's is giving a talk at the University of South Carolina next week, and one of the professors sent out an angry rant calling him a charlatan and that he doesn't know a thing about evolution. It was pretty lulz worthy once other profiessors fired back against him.

Curious thing, academic authority. So much effort to gather it to oneself, and so little hesitation in throwing it into the flames.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Professor of Philosophy I bet

"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

 

[phisheep]

I bought today, The God Delusion. Did I make a good decision? It probably won't change my views in anyway (I'm a 5 on the Dawkins scale). I just want an entertaining read.

It contains more invective and less insight than his other books - but I suppose that is really what it is for. I found it interesting to work through the arguments, but it isn't - unlike all the others - a book I'll spend much time re-reading.

There's one part of the book where he gets carried away too much and unleashes an argument that doesn't actually make logical sense. It's unlike him to do that, so it made me rather cross.

I guess you'll want to know which bit it is ...

The part where he goes on about crime rates in different cities and states in the US and concludes that there is something wrong with the Christian view because on the Christian view you'd expect crime to be lower where populations are predominantly Christian. And it isn't.

Or something like that - I forget the details. There are three errors in his argument.

First, a misunderstanding of Christianity. There's nothing in the rules that says that people who profess Christian beliefs actually live up to them all the time - quite the reverse, we are all sinners.

Second, a misunderstanding of the nature of crime - just how few people you need to create a crime wave. Far fewer than would significantly show up in the numbers he is talking about.

Third, and by far the worst because it is his specialist subject, a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. He says in effect that 'good' populations should logically behave better, but completely misses the point that Hamilton came up, Axelrod researched, and Dawkins promulgated that any purely 'good' population will inevitably be invaded by 'baddies'. So that in fact what you should expect is for crime to be higher in heavily Christian areas rather than the other way around.

And this error scuppers his entire argument in that chapter - just turns it on its head, it should never have got past editing.

 

[Witchfinder General]

Fantastic book so far and I'm really learning a lot about evolutionary science and whatnot. I'll probably buy more of his books.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Salon has a new Dawkins interview up:

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/10/16/richard_dawkins/

In the past few years, especially with "The God Delusion," you've become sort of an evangelist for the atheist movement. How have you dealt with becoming a more polarizing figure over the past few years?

I don't quite know why it should be polarizing. I like to think "The God Delusion" is a humorous book. I think actually it's full of laughs. And people who describe it as a polarizing book or as an aggressive book, it's just that very often they haven't read it. They've read other people reacting to it. It is true that religious people do react to any kind of criticism as almost a personal insult, it's almost as if you're saying their face is ugly or something, and so that has put out the idea that "The God Delusion" is an aggressive book. You've heard words like strident and shrill, as well. I'd like to suggest that actually it's quite a funny book.

Do you regret having that kind of reputation? Do you feel like it's handicapping you in the future -- that you'll always be seen as having a certain kind of agenda in mind?

Yes, I think it's unfortunate. I think it comes from people who haven't actually read the book, or who haven't actually met me personally, and so I'm described as a very aggressive, strident person, which I'm not.

 

[Pandaman]

What would you say of Ancestor's tale? I still want to find a book where he addresses abiogenesis and the evolution of sexual reproduction.

the ancestors tale is amazing.

easily on par with selfish gene.

 

[ckohler]

For anyone also interested reading The God Delusion, I highly recommend you try the audiobook version instead. It's read by Dawkins himself along with his wife. I think hearing them does a much better job of conveying their arguments than paper alone. You can hear a sample here:

http://www.audible.com/adbl/entry/o...p?BV_UseBVCookie=Yes&productID=BK_RHUK_000159

 

[Furcas]

The part where he goes on about crime rates in different cities and states in the US and concludes that there is something wrong with the Christian view because on the Christian view you'd expect crime to be lower where populations are predominantly Christian. And it isn't.

Or something like that - I forget the details. There are three errors in his argument.

First, a misunderstanding of Christianity. There's nothing in the rules that says that people who profess Christian beliefs actually live up to them all the time - quite the reverse, we are all sinners.

But Christianity is supposed to help its followers be better people than they would be otherwise. Dawkins didn't say that we should expect crime to be non-existent in places where Christians represent the near totality of the population, just lower. If believing in the alleged Source of All Morality and attempting to follow His commandments doesn't help in the slightest (and even makes things worse!), what's the point?

Second, a misunderstanding of the nature of crime - just how few people you need to create a crime wave. Far fewer than would significantly show up in the numbers he is talking about.

So? Whatever effect this has on the statistics about crime in areas with a high percentage of Christians, it has the same effect on areas with a lower percentage of Christians.

Third, and by far the worst because it is his specialist subject, a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. He says in effect that 'good' populations should logically behave better, but completely misses the point that Hamilton came up, Axelrod researched, and Dawkins promulgated that any purely 'good' population will inevitably be invaded by 'baddies'. So that in fact what you should expect is for crime to be higher in heavily Christian areas rather than the other way around.

Ugh.

First, it absolutely does not follow that because selfish exploiters are likely to appear in a big enough population of selfless cooperators, therefore the more selfless the cooperators are, the greater the number of selfish exploiters will be. The number of selfish exploiters is a function of the stupidity and naiveté of the cooperators, not of their selflessness.

Second, this point you're talking about is a point about the evolution of animal behavior. Humans are animals, but we're very strange animals. One of the things that make us strange is that our behavior can be changed radically by the ideas we pick up during our lives, whereas other animals are much more likely to stick to what their genes have programmed them to be. In other words, memetics adds a whole new layer of complexity to human behavior, a complexity that is way, way above the reach of basic calculations about the survival likelihood of genes. What you're doing is like trying to apply the kind of reasoning that worked well for chess to actual warfare.

 

[phisheep]

I appreciate the reply (should have guessed one would be coming).

But Christianity is supposed to help its followers be better people than they would be otherwise. Dawkins didn't say that we should expect crime to be non-existent in places where Christians represent the near totality of the population, just lower. If believing in the alleged Source of All Morality and attempting to follow His commandments doesn't help in the slightest (and even makes things worse!), what's the point?

I'm not sure that 'helping its followers to be better people' is a fair reflection of the aim of Christianity. It is more complicated than that. This is the assumption that Dawkins makes, and it is exactly the sort of rash generalisation that he takes issue with when Christians apply them to evolution.

There's a difference between salvation and avoidance of criminal behavior, in the same way there's a difference between evolution and macromutation.

So, yes, it's a mistake - and it is the sort of mistake that Dawkins particularly (and justifiably) dislikes.

So? Whatever effect this has on the statistics about crime in areas with a high percentage of Christians, it has the same effect on areas with a lower percentage of Christians.

Not necessarily - because we don't have enough information, there are too many other possible variables, and we're talking about small numbers in large populations (especially when he gets on to looking at voting patterns, which puts an extra level of indirection into the argument). The effect, if there is one and whatever direction it goes, is not statistically significant. Again this is something that Dawkins dislikes when other people pull it on him, and he shouldn't do it himself.

Ugh.

First, it absolutely does not follow that because selfish exploiters are likely to appear in a big enough population of selfless cooperators, therefore the more selfless the cooperators are, the greater the number of selfish exploiters will be. The number of selfish exploiters is a function of the stupidity and naiveté of the cooperators, not of their selflessness.

Second, this point you're talking about is a point about the evolution of animal behavior. Humans are animals, but we're very strange animals. One of the things that make us strange is that our behavior can be changed radically by the ideas we pick up during our lives, whereas other animals are much more likely to stick to what their genes have programmed them to be. In other words, memetics adds a whole new layer of complexity to human behavior, a complexity that is way, way above the reach of basic calculations about the survival likelihood of genes. What you're doing is like trying to apply the kind of reasoning that worked well for chess to actual warfare.

Your first point is true, even on a simplified model, only if comparing different populations both populated by selfless co-operators. But Dawkins seems to be saying is that a Christian population should contain a much higher proportion of selfless cooperators. That would leave it more open to attack. And, by the way, if you are a selfless co-operator I can't see that degrees of intelligence/naivety have any further impact.

Of course, in real populations it is far more complicated than this - but again we see Dawkins making what looks like an unwarranted generalisation, but here it is worse, as he is making it on the naive grounds that he himself has (justifiably) attacked in other books.

Your second point really doesn't help at all, because the reasoning around competitive and stable strategies is broadly applicable to all[/] competitive populations - whether animal or human, digital, economic etc. It is not limited to situations where there is a selection pressure on genetic material, and so not restricted to genes v memes at all. And while the behaviour patterns may be complex, the principles still hold, and Dawkins should not have ignored them - they are very relevant to his argument and slap bang in the middle of what he specialises in.


I really don't understand why Dawkins let himself get carried away by the rhetoric in this instance. As I said, this is very rare for him. Sure, it is a persuasive argument, but I have no truck with an argument that is false, no matter how persuasive it is. That, I think, is a sentiment that Dawkins would heartily support.

 

[Druz]

Dawkins doesn't like people teaching what is completely false.

 

[Furcas]

I appreciate the reply (should have guessed one would be coming).



I'm not sure that 'helping its followers to be better people' is a fair reflection of the aim of Christianity. It is more complicated than that. This is the assumption that Dawkins makes, and it is exactly the sort of rash generalisation that he takes issue with when Christians apply them to evolution.

There's a difference between salvation and avoidance of criminal behavior, in the same way there's a difference between evolution and macromutation.

Who said anything about "the aim of Christianity"? It's completely irrelevant. Dawkins was making a point about the effect of Christian beliefs on societal health. This effect could have been good, but it turns out to be bad.

Not necessarily - because we don't have enough information, there are too many other possible variables, and we're talking about small numbers in large populations (especially when he gets on to looking at voting patterns, which puts an extra level of indirection into the argument). The effect, if there is one and whatever direction it goes, is not statistically significant. Again this is something that Dawkins dislikes when other people pull it on him, and he shouldn't do it himself.

"Statistically significant" means "unlikely to be the result of chance" or "well outside the margin of error". The results Dawkins quoted are most definitely "statistically significant".

Whether this very real correlation implies causation is a completely different question. Of course there are uncontrolled variables, there are always uncontrolled variables in this kind of study, but that doesn't mean it's not evidence. It may not be the strongest evidence, but it's certainly strong enough to be confident that whatever effect Christianity has on societal health, it's not beneficial.

Your first point is true, even on a simplified model, only if comparing different populations both populated by selfless co-operators. But Dawkins seems to be saying is that a Christian population should contain a much higher proportion of selfless cooperators. That would leave it more open to attack.

Wait wait wait... are you saying that you believe that a society with a high proportion of selfless cooperators will have worse societal health than a society with a high proportion of selfish exploiters?

And, by the way, if you are a selfless co-operator I can't see that degrees of intelligence/naivety have any further impact.

Exploiting someone means fooling or outsmarting him somehow. A society in which exploiters fail in their attempts a certain fraction of the time will find it to their advantage to cooperate instead. It's only successful attempts at exploitation that yield benefits to selfish individuals. While a society comprised entirely of cooperators would be ideal, a society comprised of a majority of cooperators who are smart, rational, and aware of the existence of exploiters is the next best thing.

Your second point really doesn't help at all, because the reasoning around competitive and stable strategies is broadly applicable to all[/] competitive populations - whether animal or human, digital, economic etc. It is not limited to situations where there is a selection pressure on genetic material, and so not restricted to genes v memes at all. And while the behaviour patterns may be complex, the principles still hold, and Dawkins should not have ignored them - they are very relevant to his argument and slap bang in the middle of what he specialises in.

Where simple minds are concerned, it is practically a certainty that cooperators will get exploited, because all the cooperators can do is defend themselves. However, human minds are different (or at least, they have the potential to be different). Unlike less intelligent animals, we can do more than defend ourselves against exploiters, we can turn those who would otherwise become exploiters into cooperators, thanks to education, societal norms, ideologies, moral codes, and so forth. To state the most extreme case, it would be possible to carefully educate every single child into holding moral values that favor cooperation. It might seem impossible to us, but a society with sufficient resources could certainly do it.

Many people see Christianity as an attempt to do just that, and in a way it is, although its true believers see it in a much less pragmatic (and cynical) way. The question is whether there is any evidence that Christianity, as a method to create cooperators, has succeeded. It turns out that there's evidence to the contrary.


Anyway, most of what we've written so far is fluff. The central point is your claim that the higher crime ratio in highly Christian states is best explained, not by Christianity, but by the alleged fact that societies with a high proportion of cooperators are "more open to attack" by exploiters. The problem is that your conclusion wouldn't follow even if your premises were correct. Even if it were true that cooperators are more open to attack when they represent a greater fraction of the population, why would you conclude that such a society would have a higher crime ratio as a result? After all, a greater percentage of cooperators also means a lesser percentage of exploiters. Do you have any evidence?

 

[Witchfinder General]

The 2010 Global Athiest Convention is being held in Melbourne next year with Dawkins being the key speaker. I'm considering going even though it's probably like preaching (hur) to the converted. Maybe I'll learn something new and it'll give me a reason to go to Victoria.