The 5 Most Awful Atheists by Alternet

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The 5 Most Awful Atheists (http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-most-awful-atheists?paging=off)


Many notable atheists believe in some powerfully stupid stuff, thereby eroding the credibility of all atheists.

...

Sam Harris

Dubbed one of the “Four Horsemen” of “new atheism,” along with philosopher Daniel Dennett, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens, Harris' atheist fame is both wholly undeserved and utterly embarrassing. Harris represents a disturbing anti-Muslim confluence between atheists and neoconservatives in this here post-9/11 'Murka. While it's fine to ridicule Islam, for the oppression of women, or say, the ridiculous story about Muhammad (PB&J) flying to Jerusalem on a Buraq (a winged and inexplicably shame-ridden horse with a dude's face), it's quite another thing to defend torture and racial profiling.

For a guy who purportedly came to be an atheist through his intellect, Harris routinely fails to demonstrate the faintest capacity to reason. By shamelessly trotting out the same “ticking-nuke” fairy tale as every other Jack and Jill Bauer on Fox News, he failed to notice that torture rarely produces reliable intelligence, and that it's a wildly counterproductive jihadist recruitment tool. And according to security expert Bruce Schneier, profiling on the basis on ethnicity is useless. But for all Harris' sometimes lofty rhetoric about science, he's just not amenable to evidence.

Most grating, for someone who wrote a book titled The Moral Landscape, Harris' “War on Islam” zealotry is numerically unjustifiable. You're four times as likely to die of a lightning strike than you are from a terrorist attack, and yet this constitutes the gravest threat to Western civilization, but 100,000 (at least) civilian casualties in Iraq is mere fodder for thought experiment apologia. Harris is basically a low-rent Hitchens, sans wit or the wisdom to waterboard himself.

Bill Maher

The “Real Time” host's thinly veiled misogyny, obtuse notion that fat, poor people just need to, like, shop at Whole Foods, and self-righteous condescension in all things religious and political might be tolerable were it not for the fact that he's on comedic par with cervical cancer. The only difference being: cervical cancer doesn't blame its victims for failing to laugh. Compounding the unpleasant nature of Maher's wheat-grass pomposity is that, from vaccines to the news items he discusses, he's just not very well informed.

In '09, he told America that getting “[a] flu shot is the worst thing you can do.” He then tried to “clarify” his Luddite remark with a piece on the anti-vax Huffington Post that conflated scientific consensus with...(wait for it)...religion!

If one side can say anything and its not challenged, then of course dissent becomes heresy in the minds of many.

No, Bill, that's not how that works. In the same article, Maher commits a classic bandwagon fallacy by claiming it's a “conversation worth having” because so many people believe vaccinations are harmful. Color me disappointed for presuming an American atheist couldn't possibly be so myopic. But, no worries; I have a “New Rule” that should fix everything: Bill Maher has to either stop booking half-bright libertarians who rhetorically roll his uninformed ass, or he needs to start reading books.

Penn Jillette

Like many skeptics, the bloviating, ponytailed half of Penn & Teller arrived at his disbelief via the world of magic. However, like giant mystified toddlers, the smoke and mirrors of economic libertarianism has the two performers completely duped. Unable to call bullshit on Ayn Rand, they used to carry a dogeared copy of Atlas Shrugged around on tour—to give you some idea. For a better glimpse into Jillette's intellectual compartmentalization, consider this article he wrote for CNN called “I don't know, so I'm an atheist libertarian.” While vast ignorance is a valid reason to be an economic libertarian, not knowing things is not a good reason to be an atheist. Jillette's profoundly illogical explanation defies deconstruction:

What makes me libertarian is what makes me an atheist -- I don't know. If I don't know, I don't believe...

OK...care to add any Cato Institute canards?

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

Translation: If the dern gubmint would just stop overtaxing the rich at gunpoint, which is a super-accurate description of reality, then they could have enough money left over for charity, you guys! While private charity is important in America, especially because of our highly regressive gunpoint tax code, it's demonstrably wrong to suggest that it's an apt substitute for a just tax structure. Americans would have to give roughly 10 times what they do to cover the cost of social welfare programs. But you know how facts can be. They're not awesome like Glenn Beck. Facts are all self-righteous and bullying and lazy and objectively accurate and junk. At least Teller has the decency never to speak.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

While she's to be commended for her staunch defense of women suffering under Sharia law, the Somali-born former Dutch politician's few good deeds shouldn't absolve her for being to Islam what Ayn Rand was to Communism. Hirsi Ali notoriously received death threats for writing the screenplay to Submission, the documentary which inspired the assassination of its director Theo van Gogh, and her ridiculous objectivist spin on this tragedy was nothing short of shameful:

“[The killer] was on welfare....he had the time to plot a murder, which in the United States he would not be.”

The consummate over-reactionary, what could have been an inspiring career based on reason and social justice quickly devolved into one of neoconservative lunacy. As a former Muslim and current fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, she lends an illusion of street cred to all manner of egregious “free-market” worship, global warming denial, and Western aggression. From her call to violently “crush” Islam or convert Muslims to Christianity to her desire to deny Muslims their First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, Hirsi Ali consistently demonstrates both galling hypocrisy and a stupefying lack of self-awareness. Like Rand, she's traded one form of totalitarian dogma for another—openly contending that reason must be shunted when confronting an irrational enemy. Mission accomplished.

S.E. Cupp

Pop quiz: Who wrote the book Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity? Although it's tempting to presume such dreck must be the work of a religious demagogue like Bryan Fischer or John Hagee, the answer is obviously one Sarah Elizabeth Cupp. As a devout Randroid and atheist outlier, the co-host of MSNBC's newly minted phony-balance-media-abortion “The Cycle” is more at home bashing atheism than she is defending it—per market demand.

Like Jillette, she's chummy with Glenn Beck because idiotic atheists and idiotic Mormons have a natural alliance. Cupp's self-loathing-token-atheist-in-the-conservative-media routine seems so geared toward delegitimizing atheism, and selling books to fundie Fox types, that is strains credulity. She recently said, “I would never vote for an atheist president. Ever,” because she thinks religion serves as a “check” on presidential power.

When not claiming that imaginary things can affect real things, Cupp's biggest passion—aside from classical dance and NASCAR, of course—is to spout moronic Americans for Prosperity talking points about the evils of “collectivism,” like public roads and bridges and so forth, which are ostensibly destroying the American Dream. In an atheist integrity contest, she loses to Stalin by a mustache. That's not hyperbole; she doesn't have a mustache.

I've never really heard of S.E. Cupp, but I've definitely heard of the others and I think they deserve excoriation.

[cynicles]

The 5 Most Awful Atheists (http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-most-awful-atheists?paging=off)



I've never really heard of S.E. Cupp, but I've definitely heard of the others and I think they deserve excoriation.
She is a conservative replublican atheist who wishes she believed in god.

[Terminator X]

Good list, and this justifies part of my rationale for longer referring to myself as an "atheist" - the term has lately been co-opted by Randroids and Islamophobes and in-your-face douchebags like Harris. Dawkins should be on this list, too...for a so-called atheist, he's pretty pro-Christian imperialism.

[NewLeft]

where is pat condell

penn shouldn't be on there tbh

bill maher lol this is a joke

[RedAnarchist]

Would certainly add Condell, he is a total embrassment who just uses atheism to justify his anti-immigration, Daily Mail-eqsue fearmongering.

[Tim Cornelis]

I've only heard of two of these, Maher (always resented him), and Ayaan Hirsi-Ali. It surprises me that Hirsi-Ali holds such ludicrous views, I always respected her and she came across as intelligent and well-spoken--it's a shame.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Condell for sure. Normally I can watch things that annoy me for some kind of masochistic entertainment value but he was so smug and arrogant but uninformed in his reactionary bullshit that it actually made me nauseas.

I try to not pay any attention to these militant atheists in the same way that I try not to pay any attention to religious preachers. Their rhetoric is of no value to me in any intellectual sense, I guess the problem is that a lot of people do listen to them.

[Per Levy]

Would certainly add Condell, he is a total embrassment who just uses atheism to justify his anti-immigration, Daily Mail-eqsue fearmongering.

well the list was put together by a us american, using atheists who live in the usa. so i doubt the author even knows about condell. but hey, why dont people on here make their own list and post it here? would be an interesting read.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Pat Condell... I'd forgotten about him, since it seems like such a long time ago that he dropped the pretense of reason and just started parroting EDL talking points and the Daily Mail.

But is he really any more influential in the YouTube yapping head stakes than say, TheAmazingAtheist?

[Spirit]

Sam Harris is a joke, and a very dangerous one. If that's the typical profile of an atheist, I weep for atheism.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Pat Condell... I'd forgotten about him, since it seems like such a long time ago that he dropped the pretense of reason and just started parroting EDL talking points and the Daily Mail.

But is he really any more influential in the YouTube yapping head stakes than say, TheAmazingAtheist?
None of them are probably influential in any qualitative sense if we really think about it.

Perhaps 'radical atheism' is worth nothing more than being ignored as a playground for douchebags. Let them play, like annoying children, while the grown-ups talk elsewhere.

Of course I'll take this back if these people ever start to rally any kind of serious support. They don't seem to have much influence, though, outside of the great arena of debate that is youtube comments.

UdRM3skHSE

[Socialism in One Planet]

Any top 5 list that doesn't include Dawkins and Hitchens or "Ditchkins" as Terry Eagleton calls him/them is crap :tt2: Definitely agree with Sam Harris being #1, he is the most disgusting apologist for torture and empire and the fact he gives a reactionary agenda a liberal veneer makes him dangerous. Dawkins to his credit is not a warmonger like his colleagues but his atheism is so crude and vulgar it's annoying, and his scientific utopianism is shortsighted. Hitchens is like a combination of Dawkins and Harris.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

None of them are probably influential in any qualitative sense if we really think about it.

I suppose, but I frequent blogs and forums having a lot of self-identified atheists, and Sam Harris et al get talked about a lot more than Condell or TAA.

Actually, I just posted a comment on this subject at one of those blogs, bringing up Pat Condell since he doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet. Be interesting to see what they have to say about that.

[Beeth]

Anti theism in a country like the US may be indispensable. I mean, only a guy who pretends to be church going can even be considered a serious presidential candidate. An outspoken atheist or agnostic can't even dream of it. So in this context, isn't anti theism necesary in the US and other conservative countries?

[pluckedflowers]

Anti theism in a country like the US may be indispensable. I mean, only a guy who pretends to be church going can even be considered a serious presidential candidate. An outspoken atheist or agnostic can't even dream of it. So in this context, isn't anti theism necesary in the US and other conservative countries?

Certainly some critical analysis of religion as a social phenomenon is necessary in such a situation. But antitheists like Harris, Dawkins, etc. would sooner die than treat religion in its socio-economic context. Their use to us as revolutionaries, therefore, is nil.

Marx's relatively few remarks on religion (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm) are worth infinitely more than the entire corpus of these so-called radical atheists.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Aside from some of the more obviously crappy positions regarding Islam or elitist anti-working class stereotypes, the main problem even with more progressive "atheism-advocates" is that they almost always take an idealist approach. Often their drive to promote atheism is based out of the idea that religion itself is the cause of "backwards ideas": for the liberals, it's the conservative dominance in the US while for the more right-wing of this set, it's "radical Islam" and terrorism. If people just had the right information, then everyone would be an atheist and decide things based on reason!

So this view can easily lead to elitist conclusions: people are just stupid and that's why they are religious, devout people from other countries aren't as 'civilized' or 'rational'. But of course "science" and "reason" under capitalism aren't free from ideological entanglements either and so, in France with calls to ban the veil for example, secularism or atheism can be used as tools of oppression just as much as evangelical Christianity or whatnot.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Aside from some of the more obviously crappy positions regarding Islam or elitist anti-working class stereotypes, the main problem even with more progressive "atheism-advocates" is that they almost always take an idealist approach. Often their drive to promote atheism is based out of the idea that religion itself is the cause of "backwards ideas": for the liberals, it's the conservative dominance in the US while for the more right-wing of this set, it's "radical Islam" and terrorism. If people just had the right information, then everyone would be an atheist and decide things based on reason!

If you frame it that way, then of course it is idealist. But if you frame it in terms of people's access to educational resources and the propagation/suppression of critical analysis, how is that not materialist?


So this view can easily lead to elitist conclusions: people are just stupid and that's why they are religious, devout people from other countries aren't as 'civilized' or 'rational'.

I've come across this dismissive attitude and it is deplorable, but it is by no means universal among atheists.


But of course "science" and "reason" under capitalism aren't free from ideological entanglements either and so, in France with calls to ban the veil for example, secularism or atheism can be used as tools of oppression just as much as evangelical Christianity or whatnot.

I think a better approach is to ask those calling for the veil to be banned whether they would be consistent and also ban the wearing of masks in public. If they don't they are hypocrites and if they do they are authoritarians.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you frame it that way, then of course it is idealist. But if you frame it in terms of people's access to educational resources and the propagation/suppression of critical analysis, how is that not materialist?For one thing, because in the US evangelicalism is often big among professionals and other "middle class" people who generally do have access to educational resources.


I've come across this dismissive attitude and it is deplorable, but it is by no means universal among atheists.Of course not, I was speaking about this recent wave of prominent atheists as discussed in the article. I'd hope this isn't the case - I'm an atheist! :D


I think a better approach is to ask those calling for the veil to be banned whether they would be consistent and also ban the wearing of masks in public. If they don't they are hypocrites and if they do they are authoritarians.I didn't mean what people individually thought - just that secular ideals were what were being appealed to in this specific example. Some people mentioned in the article seem to have attitudes like: "if it wasn't for such irrational religious beliefs, then there wouldn't be such opposition to gay rights". I'm just arguing that religion itself is not the source or only way that ruling classes promote reactionary policies and attitudes.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For one thing, because in the US evangelicalism is often big among professionals and other "middle class" people who generally do have access to educational resources.

That's why I also mentioned suppression of critical analysis. Creating and maintaining an anti-intellectual culture is critical to the continued survival of religious fundamentalism.


Of course not, I was speaking about this recent wave of prominent atheists as discussed in the article. I'd hope this isn't the case - I'm an atheist! :D

Fair enough, but I was thinking of my experiences visiting atheist websites.


I didn't mean what people individually thought - just that secular ideals were what were being appealed to in this specific example. Some people mentioned in the article seem to have attitudes like: "if it wasn't for such irrational religious beliefs, then there wouldn't be such opposition to gay rights". I'm just arguing that religion itself is not the source or only way that ruling classes promote reactionary policies and attitudes.

I think a lot of those in the atheist community recognise that, after a fashion. At the moment it seems that the atheist community is undergoing a fractious self-evaluation with regards to sexism and patriarchy (which have been always present but I guess the Elevatorgate business brought it to the fore), which has resulted in some surprising fallout.

[Jimmie Higgins]

^What kind of fallout?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Remember back in the good old days when Atheism was associated with Marxism?

[#FF0000]

Anti theism in a country like the US may be indispensable. I mean, only a guy who pretends to be church going can even be considered a serious presidential candidate. An outspoken atheist or agnostic can't even dream of it. So in this context, isn't anti theism necesary in the US and other conservative countries?

Not necessarily. I mean, in America we have the huge Baptist Christian mega-churches and fundamentalist lunatics with lots of money and political power -- but I'd be ignoring a lot of good religious people and groups who I've worked with briefly who have done a whole lot of good for the working poor in my area.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Not necessarily. I mean, in America we have the huge Baptist Christian mega-churches and fundamentalist lunatics with lots of money and political power -- but I'd be ignoring a lot of good religious people and groups who I've worked with briefly who have done a whole lot of good for the working poor in my area.

Catholic Worker House has done great things were I live.

[Beeth]

Not necessarily. I mean, in America we have the huge Baptist Christian mega-churches and fundamentalist lunatics with lots of money and political power -- but I'd be ignoring a lot of good religious people and groups who I've worked with briefly who have done a whole lot of good for the working poor in my area.

In terms of sheer power, strength in numbers, pro capitalist/imperialist (religous) institutions surpass the good ones, right? My point is, anti theism may be totally redundant in a progressive country like Norway where you don't find religious loonies contesting elections or holding any kind of power. But it is a different story in other nations.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

^What kind of fallout?

Thunderf00t was invited to blog at Freethought Blogs (FtB) (http://freethoughtblogs.com/) around about the same time issues with feminism were really kicking off (and which are still smouldering to this day), and TF commented on this in a way that got him kicked out in fairly short order. You can find more info HERE (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thunderf00t), although that source seems rather partisan in favour of FtB. My assessment is that Thunderf00t had something of a point, but made it in a way that was guaranteed to piss off liberal/bourgeois feminists. Since then PZ has published badly-spelled and poorly reasoned missives from alleged "Thunderf00t acolytes", which is an interesting thing to do when Thunderf00t himself was still arguing his case on his YouTube channel.

To be honest though I haven't been following this as closely as I have some other dramas I've seen played out on the internet. There's just something uniquely and utterly depressing about watching people with good feminist intentions on one side distort and cherry-pick the arguments of the other side, which has an over-abundance of sexist pricks.

[Goblin]

Bill Maher is a stuck up liberal douche with the personality of sandpaper

[Rafiq]

Dawkins, despite in many respects being nothing short of moronic, as Paul Cockshott pointed out, is fairly progressive in combating psuedoscientists in the field of biology. All sorts of religious vulgarists have joined in the field of biology, and as a result, we're getting all sorts of nonsense.

[Paul Cockshott]

You claim that Dawkins is moronic, why? He is one of the outstanding modern developers of Darwinian theory. If you have criticisms of his theory come out with them rather than claiming he is a moron.

[Princess Luna]

Penn Jillette is one of those people, who even if I completely disagree with what he is saying, I can still respect him. Bill Maher is the complete opposite, even when I agree with what he is saying, I still think he is an annoying prick that someone needs to tell to shut the fuck up. He's like a slightly left-wing version of Ann Coulter.

[Rafiq]

You claim that Dawkins is moronic, why? He is one of the outstanding modern developers of Darwinian theory. If you have criticisms of his theory come out with them rather than claiming he is a moron.

Richard Dawkins' understanding of the dynamics of Religion, his take on sociology, his analysis on modern society is completely moronic. He subscribes to the notion that religion and religion itself is solely responsible for the great majority of strife within the human species. He's brilliant in his field of study, and that's unquestionable. But when it comes to analyzing the ways in which humans organize themselves, understanding human relations between one and other, society itself, etc. He's nothing short of moronic.

[Red Commissar]

Aside from some of the more obviously crappy positions regarding Islam or elitist anti-working class stereotypes, the main problem even with more progressive "atheism-advocates" is that they almost always take an idealist approach. Often their drive to promote atheism is based out of the idea that religion itself is the cause of "backwards ideas": for the liberals, it's the conservative dominance in the US while for the more right-wing of this set, it's "radical Islam" and terrorism. If people just had the right information, then everyone would be an atheist and decide things based on reason!


I think that's the issue here. I'm not sure where it has come from, but simply writing off the problems of the world solely on what religion one person adheres to is common place. Heck, just see how some among the liberal crowd view the more conservative elements of the population as "rednecks" or some other term because they're just so stuck in their thinking.

Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. all suffer from an issue that is not in other atheists- they are allowing for their "criticisms" of religion to be used as apologia for pursuing war, whether under the guise of "defense" or "humanitarian grounds". Harris is explicit here with his denial that economic conditions and political oppression is a major source of the growth Islamic fundamentalist movement, using his ever so excellent knowledge of foreign affairs to claim that no other poor and oppressed people go into violence against their government or occupiers, nay, this is only what moooslims do.

And then going into just idioitic grounds claiming this is a matter of say, womens' rights or general civil rights. I mean, yes, in the case of people like them as well as Ali that was mentioned in the article, they may be pointing out some abuses carried out by fundamentalist elements of Islam even in immigrant communities, but they are more than fine in applying that same thinking as an inherent flaw among all of those following that faith. IE, people from areas shaped by Islam are apparently less open to ideas of free speech, "peace", secularism, etc. than by those in Europe, America, etc. since their Christianity was less violent than Islam. Another version of white man's burden, it appears.

It's no coincidence in my view that their works are ultimately consumed by people outside that particular community, including bigot nutjobs. Have we seen them trying to engage a Muslim congregation at all here (oh no, they'd kill us!), or just make condemnations about them to like-minded individuals? Preaching to the choir, I guess.

And so we see them jumping on board the "clash of civlizations" train. The first mistake is seeing "Islam" as some homogenous blob that transcends some of the cultural and ethnic divisions within it. That's really what gets me, frankly I don't care about what criticisms they make about religion, but this particular crowd of "atheists" have seen their work, if not encouraged, to be used by bigots and war mongerers. I mean you know there's something wrong when Republicans here suddenly start acting like staunch secularists and pass laws against sharia in some odd quixotic endeavor against the "islamification" of their western values. Then the other stuff such as blocking the opening of their places of worship, if not attacking and harrassing it, based on a conception that they are all radicalized, and if they are not, it's because they are using "taqiyya" to fool you!

[Lynx]

Is there a top ten list for agnostics? I suspect that agnostics don't spend much effort trying to get other agnostics to hoist them onto pedestals.

If only credibility were an issue that could be solved by excoriation.

[Lynx]

You claim that Dawkins is moronic, why? He is one of the outstanding modern developers of Darwinian theory. If you have criticisms of his theory come out with them rather than claiming he is a moron.
Thanks to him, many people now believe that genes are selfish. No, he's not a moron, just a successful author.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Richard Dawkins' understanding of the dynamics of Religion, his take on sociology, his analysis on modern society is completely moronic. He subscribes to the notion that religion and religion itself is solely responsible for the great majority of strife within the human species. He's brilliant in his field of study, and that's unquestionable. But when it comes to analyzing the ways in which humans organize themselves, understanding human relations between one and other, society itself, etc. He's nothing short of moronic.

When it comes to your understanding of evolutionary biology I'm sure you seem moronic to Dawkins.

[Beeth]

You claim that Dawkins is moronic, why? He is one of the outstanding modern developers of Darwinian theory. If you have criticisms of his theory come out with them rather than claiming he is a moron.

A person may be brilliant in one field, not in every field. In fact, his expertise in said field could make him arrogant and make him believe that he knows all.

[Rafiq]

When it comes to your understanding of evolutionary biology I'm sure you seem moronic to Dawkins.

Well, yes. What's your point?

[DasFapital]

Hitchens was the only of the new atheists I actually enjoyed. The rest all seemed to have this bizarre view that religion was the root of all evil and wiping it out (in some unexplained manner) would magically make a rational utopia. At least Hitchens always admitted he believed religion would never be eradicated. He always stood at odds with Dawkins' and Dennett's dumb "Brights" campaign and was an outspoken critic of torture. He always had a more nuanced view of the subject. Penn Jillette is a guy who holds many views I agree with however I can't understand his Ayn Rand worship. Even fellow free market atheist Michael Shermer has criticized Rand in "Why People Believe Weird Things".

[Paul Cockshott]

Thanks to him, many people now believe that genes are selfish. No, he's not a moron, just a successful author.

In the sense that he uses the term they are. He was making a very important and conceptually novel point that genes were the locus of evolutionary selection, and that since genes tend to be reproduced if their effect is to increase their probability of their reproduction, this was the process by which evolution occured.

[Lynx]

In the sense that he uses the term they are. He was making a very important and conceptually novel point that genes were the locus of evolutionary selection, and that since genes tend to be reproduced if their effect is to increase their probability of their reproduction, this was the process by which evolution occured.
The term is a misnomer. Genes are not selfish in either the literal sense, or even metaphorically. The gene-centered view of evolution (among other perspectives) describes a process of refinement through attrition. Unlike phenotypes, who can interact with their environment, genes are passive. The only "role" genes can play is to serve as recorders of what worked or didn't work - among phenotypes.
And because they are building blocks, genes are widely distributed, which means they persist, despite being found in countless species that have gone extinct. Evolution finds expression not in genes, which are ubiquitous, but in phenotypes and genotypes.

The Selfish Gene was a sloppy title. I can think of no other reason for it being chosen other than enhancing book sales. That he continues to use the term in his academic work is inexcusable.

[RadioRaheem84]

Hitchens was the only of the new atheists I actually enjoyed. The rest all seemed to have this bizarre view that religion was the root of all evil and wiping it out (in some unexplained manner) would magically make a rational utopia. At least Hitchens always admitted he believed religion would never be eradicated. He always stood at odds with Dawkins' and Dennett's dumb "Brights" campaign and was an outspoken critic of torture. He always had a more nuanced view of the subject. Penn Jillette is a guy who holds many views I agree with however I can't understand his Ayn Rand worship. Even fellow free market atheist Michael Shermer has criticized Rand in "Why People Believe Weird Things".

Hitchens was the worst fraud of them all. He claimed to be a Marxist but didn't have a materialist bone in his body and spewed nothing but idealist drivel when defending socialism or worker movements.

He admits to have always loathed 'populism' and in the end he heckled leftists for not seeing how the US Army can be a liberating force for "good". I mean he couched his rhetoric in such asinine idealism that he thought he was being leftist by championing anyone that stood for X ideal of freedom democracy what not. Essentially he became a hard core liberal who kept insisting that he was more leftist than thou.

[DasFapital]

Hitchens was the worst fraud of them all. He claimed to be a Marxist but didn't have a materialist bone in his body and spewed nothing but idealist drivel when defending socialism or worker movements.

He admits to have always loathed 'populism' and in the end he heckled leftists for not seeing how the US Army can be a liberating force for "good". I mean he couched his rhetoric in such asinine idealism that he thought he was being leftist by championing anyone that stood for X ideal of freedom democracy what not. Essentially he became a hard core liberal who kept insisting that he was more leftist than thou.
yeah, well he loved scotch. that's a plus in my book.

[cynicles]

yeah, well he loved scotch. that's a plus in my book.

Scotch is bourgeios, vodka is the drink or the proletariat.

[Paul Cockshott]

The term is a misnomer. Genes are not selfish in either the literal sense, or even metaphorically. The gene-centered view of evolution (among other perspectives) describes a process of refinement through attrition. Unlike phenotypes, who can interact with their environment, genes are passive. The only "role" genes can play is to serve as recorders of what worked or didn't work - among phenotypes.
And because they are building blocks, genes are widely distributed, which means they persist, despite being found in countless species that have gone extinct. Evolution finds expression not in genes, which are ubiquitous, but in phenotypes and genotypes.



Yes it finds expression in phenotypes, and Dawkins is well aware of this, indeed his concept of the extended phenotype was a significant contribution to understanding this process. But the evolutionary process works by altering the frequency of occurence of genes. You have to take into account that Dawkins is working on general evolutionary theory applicable to bacteria as much as to animals. Species can not be an applicable concept here since among bacteria species are not well defined.

[Lynx]

Yes it finds expression in phenotypes, and Dawkins is well aware of this, indeed his concept of the extended phenotype was a significant contribution to understanding this process. But the evolutionary process works by altering the frequency of occurence of genes. You have to take into account that Dawkins is working on general evolutionary theory applicable to bacteria as much as to animals. Species can not be an applicable concept here since among bacteria species are not well defined.
Even bacteria that exchange genes on a regular basis could be identified through genotype, and its occurrence in time and place.
When you have classes of bacteria that don't ever evolve in isolation because they keep exchanging genetic material - well, that is all you will ever have. Classes of bacteria, some of which have persisted for millions of years.

Genes that are found in different kingdoms have proven their 'usefulness'. The same could be said for structures, mechanisms and traits that have been expressed through convergent evolution.

In what way do any of these processes involve or imply selfishness?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Well, yes. What's your point?

That you should stop being condescending and obnoxious always.

[pluckedflowers]

That you should stop being condescending and obnoxious always.

If ever there were an appropriate target of condescension, it's Dawkins and his ilk in their self-appointed capacity as social scientists.

[Paul Cockshott]

In what way do any of these processes involve or imply selfishness?

They do in a technical game theory sense in that if you want to work out the equilibrium mixture of two different genes in a particular locus you look at the extent to which, over successive phases of reproduction, each gene can maximise the number of copies of itself that is in circulation in 'competition' with the other gene variant that can occupy the same location.

[Lynx]

They do in a technical game theory sense in that if you want to work out the equilibrium mixture of two different genes in a particular locus you look at the extent to which, over successive phases of reproduction, each gene can maximise the number of copies of itself that is in circulation in 'competition' with the other gene variant that can occupy the same location.
I'm not seeing any selfishness here, just probabilistic outcomes that are contingent upon the interactions of phenotypes rather than genes. Greater fitness results in greater numbers; extinction results in zero.
Game theory involves decision making by actors capable of reasoning, I hope you're not suggesting that it is the genes who are playing that role.

[Paul Cockshott]

Game theory involves decision making by actors capable of reasoning, I hope you're not suggesting that it is the genes who are playing that role.

As I understand it that is too restrictive an interpretation of game theory. Game theory evaluates the effect in terms of scoring of strategies. Genes which code for particular behaviours thus fall within its scope.

[Lynx]

As I understand it that is too restrictive an interpretation of game theory. Game theory evaluates the effect in terms of scoring of strategies. Genes which code for particular behaviours thus fall within its scope.
What kinds of strategies are we talking about?
Which strategies have the best scores?