Richard Dawkins video : Root of All Evil?

[More Fire for the People]

For the first time ever, I watched Richard Dawkins last night. I almost fell in love :wub:
You can watch his criticism of Abrahamic religions and faith for free on Google Video:
Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6193866746249268230&q=richard+dawkins+root+of+all)
Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8239331458224461127&q=richard+dawkins+root+of+all)

My only criticism of him is the same as Marx's criticism of the Young Hegelians. He presumes that if all religion were to disapear all would be 'good'. But to abolish religion we must abolish the world that creates religion.

[RevMARKSman]

I've watched it once, maybe skimmed a little...it's really cool, except about the Hegelian thing.

[RebelOutcast]

I missed this when it was shown on TV in the UK. Thanks for telling us about it.

My mum acted really insulted when she heard about the program's content.

Apparently in real life Dawkins is an elitist prick though.

[LSD]

Dawkins is, of course, spot on when it comes to creationism and religion, but some of his more "expansive" conclusions are controversial to say the least. His "animal rights" stance, for instance, and many of his "psychological" opinions are, frankly, reactionary to their core; but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have some useful things to say.

He's certainly one of the pre-eminant evolutionary biologists and, again, there's nothing wrong with encouraging people to confront his deconstructions of "faith". :)

[Publius]

Watched it a few days ago; I loved it.

Dawkins is absolutely brilliant, and just demolishes religion every time he enters the subject.

If I were a theist, I would be afraid of guys like him.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wonder if Mr Dawkins engages in any online debates?

[Ian]

I doubt it.

[RebelOutcast]

I wonder if Mr Dawkins engages in any online debates?

I doubt it.

As I said, according to someone who has met him, he's an elitist prick.

But on the other hand I loved the part where he was talking to Ted Haggard :P

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As I said, according to someone who has met him, he's an elitist prick.

Considering that most of the world believes in some kind of delusion or other, no wonder.

[Publius]

He's been on the Infidelguy radio show before, which isn't very 'prestigious' and he seemed very amiable.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by "LSD"
His "animal rights" stance, for instance, and many of his "psychological" opinions are, frankly, reactionary to their core;
Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

[Publius]

Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

Dawkins is related to the field of 'evolutionary pyschology' which is something most communists are opposed to, as a matter of principal.

Dawkins is probably right in his views, but 'Communists' don't like that.

He's been hated by the far left ever since he published 'the Selfish Gene' and he's often been wrongly accused of promoting 'selfishness' or other such nonsense.

I don't think there's a leftist who can really refute Dawkins' 'reactionary' views on Biology.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:24 PM
He's been on the Infidelguy radio show before, which isn't very 'prestigious' and he seemed very amiable.
Woah woah woah! I listen to InfidelGuy. Do you have the show sound file and if so, can you email it to me? If not, that's ok. Just would like to hear him on IG sometime.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 08:50 PM
If I were a theist, I would be afraid of guys like him.
Why? You could just cover your ears and say "LA LA LA" when he comes close to you and tell other members of the herd to do the same. That's what most of them seem to do anyway.

[Comrade-Z]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:32 PM


Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

Dawkins is related to the field of 'evolutionary pyschology' which is something most communists are opposed to, as a matter of principal.

Dawkins is probably right in his views, but 'Communists' don't like that.

He's been hated by the far left ever since he published 'the Selfish Gene' and he's often been wrongly accused of promoting 'selfishness' or other such nonsense.

I don't think there's a leftist who can really refute Dawkins' 'reactionary' views on Biology.
Personally, I'd take an atheist like him over a religious "leftist" any day. The atheist, materialist mindset is what is absolutely necessary, in a fundamental sense, before any significant progress can be made. I applaud such scientists who are willing to boldly stand up to godsuckers and say that religion and science cannot co-exist and that we should "stop being so damn respectful of religion." Heehee! :lol:

And what's wrong with selfishness? Do communists have any sort of special attachment to the myth of altruism?

It is worth noting that near the end of the second part of "The Root of All Evil" Dawkins talks briefly about how cooperative "morality" can confer certain advantages for attaining self-interest in certain circumstances and makes sense from an evolutionary point of view.

He does place a little bit too much emphasis on "human nature." But, since people like him are fundamentally rationally-minded, they can change their minds in light of better arguments and conflicting evidence. That's why people like him don't bother me so much. You can reason with them about human social behavior, and such people are less likely to hide behind dogmatic facades. We can make progress with such people, at least, especially as material conditions make communism more self-evidently possible and attractive from a standpoint of self-interest.

[encephalon]

Dawkins is related to the field of 'evolutionary pyschology' which is something most communists are opposed to, as a matter of principal.

Dawkins is probably right in his views, but 'Communists' don't like that.

He's been hated by the far left ever since he published 'the Selfish Gene' and he's often been wrongly accused of promoting 'selfishness' or other such nonsense.

I don't think there's a leftist who can really refute Dawkins' 'reactionary' views on Biology.


Actually, I'm rather fond of Dawkins, and I see little to no conflict with most of what he says. The Selfish gene, as dawkins has explained time and again, was not saying that people are naturally selfish; but that genes live only to propagate their own material. His analysis does not extend beyond microbiology.

It's foolish of anyone to deny that biology has something to do with human behavior, communist, catholic, anarchist or capitalist alike. The problem is that some people will take certain characteristics of animal behavior and say that's all animals do, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. To say that humans are selfish out of biological necessity is just as foolish as to say that humans are purely altruistic out of biological necessity. They are both gross overgeneralizations.

[Forward Union]

Mostly very good. A few criticisms.

"only a few people are [racist]" ...really Richard? have you spoken to many people outside of your privileged friendship circle?

[Publius]

Woah woah woah! I listen to InfidelGuy. Do you have the show sound file and if so, can you email it to me? If not, that's ok. Just would like to hear him on IG sometime.

It's on the IG podcast.

You can use iTunes to download it.

[DaRk-OnE]

yes we do , Risk of being "punished by god"= 0%

[Pawn Power]

That was very good, thanks for that.

The ending talk on the "proto-morality" of chimps is interesting. Maybe I will pick myself up a copy of the The Selfish gene. Is it a good read?

[Pawn Power]

I didn't really like the title of the documentary either. However after listening to the Infedel Guy radio show i learned that niether did Dawkins. Obviously no single thing can be the root of all evil. The producers were would not budge though so they added the question mark.
What they wanted the title to get peoples attention and cause some controversy, which i guess it does.

[Publius]

That was very good, thanks for that.

The ending talk on the "proto-morality" of chimps is interesting. Maybe I will pick myself up a copy of the The Selfish gene. Is it a good read?

Yes, it's a very good read.

A little dense parts, but overall very readable and, most of all, educational.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 4 2006, 01:03 PM
For the first time ever, I watched Richard Dawkins last night. I almost fell in love :wub:
You can watch his criticism of Abrahamic religions and faith for free on Google Video:
Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6193866746249268230&q=richard+dawkins+root+of+all)
Part 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8239331458224461127&q=richard+dawkins+root+of+all)

My only criticism of him is the same as Marx's criticism of the Young Hegelians. He presumes that if all religion were to disapear all would be 'good'. But to abolish religion we must abolish the world that creates religion.
Thanks for posting. I appreciate it, interesting documentary to watch.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Publius, Dawkins is not this right-wing "reactionary" you are making him out to be. Most reasonable communists accept that people work out of self-interest. However, Dawkins also mentioned, in the second video, the importance of mutual aid as a method of improving one's life. That's what communism is about - not denying all modern science.

[Publius]

Publius, Dawkins is not this right-wing "reactionary" you are making him out to be. Most reasonable communists accept that people work out of self-interest. However, Dawkins also mentioned, in the second video, the importance of mutual aid as a method of improving one's life. That's what communism is about - not denying all modern science.

I know he isn't.

But his work, as well the fields he is associated with 'sociobiology' and 'evolutionary psychology' have been villified be figures on the left quite often.

There's actually a very sordid history between E.O. Wilson, Dawkins et al vs. Lewontin, Gould, et al.

Dawkins isn't right-wing; I know that, and you know that, but that's what he was attacked for, supporting 'right' or 'racist' science, by avowed Marxists like Lewontin.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

My mistake Publius. Lack of sleep does things to the mind.

[chimx]

dawkins interviews a bunch of rightists and extremists and tries to pigeon hole 'em as being the whole of theism. dawkins is a manipulator. fuck him.

[Publius]

dawkins interviews a bunch of rightists and extremists and tries to pigeon hole 'em as being the whole of theism. dawkins is a manipulator. fuck him.

:rolleyes:

He interviews a moderate priest at the end.

And he tears him apart as well.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

dawkins interviews a bunch of rightists and extremists and tries to pigeon hole 'em as being the whole of theism. dawkins is a manipulator. fuck him.

It's the "rightists and extremists" who make the world a significantly shittier place. They're the ones brainwashing their kids into a new generation of suicide bombers, striving to get their own personal morality enacted into law, the ones who express hatred of progress. In the eyes of their god they can do no wrong. They have no objective moral standard.

If anything, moderates have a less tenable philosophical position due to the fact that are amenable to some semblance of logic at least.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 03:37 PM

dawkins interviews a bunch of rightists and extremists and tries to pigeon hole 'em as being the whole of theism. dawkins is a manipulator. fuck him.

It's the "rightists and extremists" who make the world a significantly shittier place. They're the ones brainwashing their kids into a new generation of suicide bombers, striving to get their own personal morality enacted into law, the ones who express hatred of progress. In the eyes of their god they can do no wrong. They have no objective moral standard.

If anything, moderates have a less tenable philosophical position due to the fact that are amenable to some semblance of logic at least.
for a materialist, you sure do seem to fancy ignoring material conditions behind most actions you mentioned.

publius: what a nice balance.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 03:31 AM


Dawkins is related to the field of 'evolutionary pyschology' which is something most communists are opposed to, as a matter of principal.

Dawkins is probably right in his views, but 'Communists' don't like that.

He's been hated by the far left ever since he published 'the Selfish Gene' and he's often been wrongly accused of promoting 'selfishness' or other such nonsense.

I don't think there's a leftist who can really refute Dawkins' 'reactionary' views on Biology.


Actually, I'm rather fond of Dawkins, and I see little to no conflict with most of what he says. The Selfish gene, as dawkins has explained time and again, was not saying that people are naturally selfish; but that genes live only to propagate their own material. His analysis does not extend beyond microbiology.


Yup. Basically his point is that particular genes try to keep themselves alive, using "gene machies" like humans. Since humans share a large amount of identical genetic material, surely it's altriusm that would be human nature?

Not that I'm saying that this is fact, it's just a logical progression.

[encephalon]

Yup. Basically his point is that particular genes try to keep themselves alive, using "gene machies" like humans. Since humans share a large amount of identical genetic material, surely it's altriusm that would be human nature?

Not that I'm saying that this is fact, it's just a logical progression.

I understand what you're saying, but this isn't quite what Dawkin's is saying. He's saying that every gene, regardless of what it shares with any other gene, strives only to propagate itself. He limits himself quite strictly to microbiology, and makes that quite clear. In short, he does as much as he can to distance himself from politics; and in many ways, I respect him for that. Although I'm aware that nobody, no matter how hard they try, can ever separate themselves from their own material conditions, I find it a good sign that he's not trying to woo one faction or another. He's attempting to stick to the facts.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:46 AM
for a materialist, you sure do seem to fancy ignoring material conditions behind most actions you mentioned.
For an anarchist, you seem to have very little conception of the hierarchical structures and reactionary mindsets religion naturally creates.

[Publius]

publius: what a nice balance.

'Balance' isn't important.

It hardly matters what combination of wrong people he interviews, does it?

You make the mistake of implying that religious people really know something, or really have an argument; they don't.

Everything they say is as valid as mumblings of an infant.