Richard-dawkins | Way of the Mind

Tag Archive for 'richard-dawkins'

Natural Selection and Eugenics

Published

on April 21, 2008

. 12 Comments

Richard Dawkins has posted an open reply to a letter from a Jew deceived by Expelled, who believed the propaganda movie’s absurd claims without any fact checking. I suggest you read Dawkins’ reply in full, of course, but the subject of this post is this part in particular:

Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin’s great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realize that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: “natural selection”, the “survival of the fittest”. Hitler didn’t apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler’s eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.

This, in retrospect, is obvious, but I hadn’t seen it explained so succinctly and clearly before. Eugenics has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution! Animal (and even plant) breeders have known about selective breeding for millennia (indeed, I think it’s even mentioned in the Christian Bible), ages before Darwin or the concept of the evolution of species. Anyone who breeds dogs, horses, birds, etc. knows perfectly well that you can cross specimens with particular characteristics to achieve desired results (say, a new hair or plumage color, or a bigger or smaller animal, or one with other specific characteristics). This can be seen as artificial selection.

Darwin’s new idea was: what if something like this also happens in nature, without intervention? And what if that is how the species in the world today have came to be? In other words: evolution, by natural selection.

Eugenics (the attempt to “perfect” the human race according to one’s beliefs or preferences) has nothing to do with natural selection. It’s simply an attempt to apply the ages old selective breeding of animals to humans.

Of course, I’m not even considering blaming animal breeders from thousands of years ago for the Holocaust. That would simply be ridiculous. But blaming something completely unrelated (Darwinian evolution) for it is even more ridiculous. Eugenics is a disgusting distortion of selective breeding (which is itself blameless for eugenics); it’s completely unrelated to evolution / natural selection.

And, when you should know better than to say such an absurdity (as some filmmakers do), it’s also a dangerous, evil lie.

Richard Dawkins and Douglas Adams, on the purpose of things, and a certain Dish of the Day

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 13, 2008

in atheism, nature and science

. 2 Comments

I just stumbled upon this, by browsing through a couple of other Dawkins-related videos on YouTube. I didn’t know such a thing even existed, though I knew Dawkins and Adams were friends, of course. Anyway, if you’re a fan of either, you’ll love this:

While not very well known compared to others, this was always one of my favorite parts of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, and I even told it to friends and co-workers a couple of times in my youth. To see and hear Adams himself reading it is a treat, to say the least. Also, Dawkins looks incredibly young — it feels a bit weird, in a way, as I’d just been watching his talk at UW Madison, from just 2 days ago (look here), and the difference is astounding, though I’m glad to see that he hasn’t yet lost his sense of humor.

P.S. - if you don’t see the video above, it’s probably because you’re reading this in an aggregator; in that case, just look here…

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 4): creating a false, but positive religion

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 13, 2008

in religion

. 1 Comment

Like before, before, before and before, just click on the image to go to the Richard Dawkins site and download / watch the entire discussion.

Sam Harris: You can invent an ideology, which by your mere invention in that moment, is obviously untrue, which would be quite useful if propagated, to billions. I mean, you can say this is my new religion: teach people to demand that your children study science and math and economics, and all of our terrestrial disciplines, to the best of their abilities, and if they don’t persist in those efforts, they’ll be tortured after death by seventeen demons. This would be extremely useful, and maybe far more useful than Islam, propagated to billions, and yet what are the chances that the seventeen demons exist? Zero.

First — and I should not need to tell you this, of course — Harris is not suggesting that we create such a religion. But the idea is intriguing, and certainly worth discussing, I think.

You’ve probably heard many people — both religious and otherwise — praising religion in general as a good thing, regardless of its truth, simply because it supposedly makes people both feel better and behave better, giving special importance to the latter. This is not new — you may have heard of Plato’s “noble lie” –, but I can see several serious problems in it.

One of them, of course, is that it’s not true — and, at least to me, that matters. Another, I think, is that it encourages serfdom and acceptance of one’s fate (indeed, that was Plato’s use for it). Even when it doesn’t, you’d be encouraging people to “be good”, well, “just because”. Accept a command, and don’t think about it. And if you teach people to be obedient, even if their current “commandments” are good, there’s a huge risk that their next set of commandments won’t be. Besides, a religion may begin with good intentions, with a good set of moral rules and so on, but — to quote Ayn Rand — “the moral is the chosen, not the obeyed”. It’s not “morality” to act “morally” just because someone told you to do it.

Finally, there’s the problem that Harris suggests: most current religions are actually very bad ideas, and for every good thing they teach (e.g. “thou shalt not kill”), they also teach many, many rules and ideas that are simply monstrous. In just a sentence, Harris suggested a religion that would be much better both for its believers and for the entire world, which would be much better than Islam, as he says — or than any other religion I know.

Of course, a religion whose main tenet (expanding on Harris’s) was “think for yourself, question everything, and don’t accept anything on authority or on faith” would have a huge problem — you’re basically telling people to leave it!

A fictional example of all of this is a brilliant Star Trek: TNG episode, Who Watches The Watchers, which I intend to dedicate a full post to, in the future. In it, a bronze age alien civilization begins to believe the Enterprise crew are gods, with Picard as their leader, and one of the scientists who were studying the civilization suggests that Picard “show them a sign”, give them some set of good moral rules, and leave them with their new religion. Although that would certainly be the easiest way to deal with the problem they caused by being seen (as the civilization is on the verge of chaos due to their new, fervent belief), Picard refuses; he will not leave those people with a lie, sending them back to the age of darkness and superstition they had already outgrown, and therefore has to work hard to convince the civilization’s leaders that, despite the Enterprise’s advanced technology, they are flesh and blood, not gods.

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 2): the immaturity of religious arguments

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 4, 2008

in atheism, christianity, logic, religion and the bible

. 1 Comment

Like before, just click on the picture above to go to the source, download or watch the 2-hour video, and so on.

Also like before, I’m going to post and comment on one of my favorite parts of the discussion between the “four horsemen of atheism”.

Daniel Dennett: Right. And you know this, what you just said Christopher, actually, I think, strikes terror, it strikes anxiety, in a lot of religious hearts. Because it just hasn’t been brought home to them that this move of theirs is just off-limits. It’s not the game. You can’t do that. And they’ve been taught all their lives that you can do that - this is a legitimate way of conducting a discussion. And here, suddenly we’re just telling them “I’m sorry, that is not a move in this game”. In fact it is a disqualifying move.

[..]

Christopher Hitchens: Adumbrate the move for me a bit, if you would, or for us. Perhaps only for me. Say what you think that move is.

Dennett: Somebody plays the faith card.

Hitchens: Yes.

Dennett: They say look, I am a Christian and we Christians, we just have to believe this and that’s it. At which point, I guess the polite way of saying it is well, okay, if that’s true you’ll just have to excuse yourself from the discussion because you’ve declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind. Now…

Hitchens: That’s what I hoped. That’s what I hoped you were saying.

Dennett: …if you really can’t defend your view, then sorry, you can’t put it forward. We’re not going to let you play the faith card. Now if you want to defend what your holy book says, in terms that we can appreciate, fine. But because it says it in the holy book, that just doesn’t cut any ice at all. And if you think it does, that’s just arrogant. It is a bullying move and we’re just not going to accept it.

Sam Harris: And it’s a move that they don’t accept when done in the name of another faith.

Dennett: Exactly.

In other words: saying “we just have to believe it and that’s it” is not a rational argument, or a grown-up argument. Nor is saying “it is true, because it says so in my holy book”. Those are appeals to emotion or to authority, which are childish arguments that have no place in an adult, rational discussion… and which believers wouldn’t accept from believers of other faiths, anyway. Those arguments are the equivalent of a child’s “but I wannaaaaaa!!!!”. They only “work” because religion and religious beliefs are still unnaturally and unjustifiably respected.

Incidentally, Dennett’s “Now if you want to defend what your holy book says, in terms that we can appreciate, fine” reminds me of Barack Obama’s “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all”.

In other words — and even though Obama is himself a Christian — both are saying that childish arguments, such as appeals to authority or emotions, just won’t do in real life. This is probably shocking to many believers, who are used to, and comfortable with, their immaturity of beliefs and arguments. It probably explains why Christians cry “we’re being oppressed!” merely for not being allowed to oppress others anymore… after all, they’re suddenly losing a ~~right~~ privilege they’ve had for centuries, when they were so powerful that they were able to act like spoiled children, both in terms of arguments and of actions. Suddenly being told to grow up and act like adults — for the first time in centuries — probably feels like “oppression” to them…

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 1): belief and emotional investment

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 29, 2008

in atheism, feelings and religion

. 8 Comments

As a follow-up to my previous post on the subject, I want to share — and comment on — some of the best parts (IMO) of the conversation between the “four hoursemen”, which I still recommend that you watch in full (just click on the image above and download the files, if possible, or at least follow the YouTube links). Since there’s too much to comment on, I’ll divide it among several posts; here’s the first.

Daniel Dennett: Yeah, well I’m amused by it [the accusation that they are "strident or arrogant, or vitriolic, or shrill"], because I went out of my way in my book to address reasonable religious people. And I test-flew the draft with groups of students who were deeply religious. And indeed, the first draft incurred some real anguish. And so I made adjustments and made adjustments. And it didn’t do any good in the end because I still got hammered for being for being rude and aggressive. And I came to realize that it’s a no-win situation. It’s a mug’s game. The religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them critically without being rude.

Nowhere else, from my experience, does something like this happen. “I think you’re wrong” is not an insult or a personal offense… except in religion. I think this is a very important point.

And why is it? Harris and Dennett provide the answer:

Sam Harris: I mean, this is just not the way rational minds operate when they’re really trying to get at what’s true in the world. And religions purport to be representing reality. And yet there’s this peevish, tribal, and ultimately dangerous, reflexive response to having these ideas challenged. I think we’re pointing to the total liability of that fact.

Dennett: Well, and too, there’s no polite way to say to somebody…

Harris: You’ve wasted your life!

Dennett: …do you realize you’ve wasted your life? Do you realize that you’ve just devoted all your efforts and all your goods to the glorification of something which is just a myth? Or have you ever considered - even if you say have you even considered the possibility that maybe you’ve wasted your life on this? There’s no inoffensive way of saying that. But we do have to say it, because they should jolly well consider it. Same as we do about our own lives.

Again, this is pretty important. It’s something I’ve noticed when discussing these matters with less skeptical friends (and it wasn’t even about religion, but astrology, mysticism, “energies”, and so on): if you refute their arguments one by one, they invariably reach a point where they’re visibly emotionally affected — almost near panic — and, if you keep going on past that point, they get really offended, angry, and aggressive with you. Why? Because their beliefs aren’t just a matter of whether the methods (e.g. prayer, horoscopes, etc.) “work” or whether the propositions are “true”. These people have an emotional investment in those beliefs. A huge one. And, in a way, you’re telling them that they may have lost all of that investment. That, as Harris and Dennett say, they’ve wasted their life. A form of the sunk cost fallacy comes into effect — deep inside, the person may realize that their belief isn’t based on reality, but they’ve invested too much time, energy, and emotions into it to ever admit the fact. And anyone who insists on making them “look hard” at it is “hurting” them, is attacking them personally, is “offending” them.

I guess that, in many cases, there’s nothing that can be done. It takes a special kind of courage and honesty to admit something like “I’ve wasted most of my life”. In many cases, it’s probably hopeless to try to get them do do it — and it can cost friendships, in fact.

2 Hours with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 28, 2008

in atheism and religion

. 2 Comments

This is not very new (it’s from December 2007), but I only found the time today to watch it, and I found it intellectually delicious. Four brilliant minds (who don’t agree in many ways) having a fascinating (and polite!) discussion about religion and atheism.

Please, watch it. Really. Just click on the image above. I suggest downloading the files first and watching them in the best available quality, instead of using YouTube.

For believers, it may surprise you to find out how “strident”, “shrill” and “fanatical” these four bestselling authors really are.

For non-believers, don’t pass this by because you expect it be just “preaching to the choir”. As I said, the discussion is, in my opinion, fascinating and absolutely stimulating, and it will sure get you thinking about stuff you hadn’t considered before.

Dawkins on faith

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on December 24, 2007

in faith, quotes and religion

. 6 Comments

I [...] think that basing your beliefs upon blind faith rather than upon evidence is potentially very dangerous, because you can’t argue against it.

- Richard Dawkins (in an interview)

Dawkins on "atheism takes as much faith as theism"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on September 7, 2007

in christianity and religion

. 4 Comments

Other people have already mentioned this review of Hitchens’ “god is not Great” by Richard Dawkins, so merely telling you about it is fairly useless. However, I just have to share this bit with anyone who didn’t read the full article:

The onus is not on the atheist to demonstrate the non-existence of the invisible unicorn in the room, and we cannot be accused of undue confidence in our disbelief. The devout churchgoer recites the Nicene Creed weekly, enumerating a detailed and precise list of things he positively believes, with no more evidence than supports the unicorn. Now that’s overconfidence. By contrast, the atheist says the humble thing: of all the millions of possible entities that one might imagine, I believe only in those for which there is evidence – trombones, pelicans and electrons, say, but not unicorns or leprechauns, not Thor with his hammer, not Ganesh the elephant god, not the Holy Ghost.

Lovely.