Dawkins banned due to atheism

[jarofthoughts]

@ Badran: Terribly busy at work these last couple of days.
I'll reply to your post as soon as I can.

 

[Protester]

Richard Dawkins was banned from speaking at a Michigan country club after they found out he was an atheist.

Wow. If true, that's pretty blatant discrimination. How would people have responded if the country club banned a speaker after finding out he was a Muslim or a Catholic?

I've only seen variations on this one article, however. I wonder if the club literally said "You can't speak here because you are an atheist", or if that is simply what was assumed.

You should have given us a link that worked. Richard Dawkins banned from speaking at a Michigan country club | Mail Online I wonder what is a religious discussion being done at a country club? Perhaps they ban all religious discussions and found out his may delve into that area. It isn't an area that Mr. Dawkins shies away from.

An impartial view of the O'Reilly vs Dawkins. Bill O'Reilly, Richard Dawkins Debate Creationism Heatedly (VIDEO) Well, at least from the lack of commentary for the disciples of Dawkins, I assume this might have been more impartial than most sites.

 

[gnomon]

I guess I should say I love ignorant people.

The only form of entertainment left that has retained it's novelty.

 

[Falvlun]

You should have given us a link that worked. Richard Dawkins banned from speaking at a Michigan country club | Mail Online I wonder what is a religious discussion being done at a country club? Perhaps they ban all religious discussions and found out his may delve into that area. It isn't an area that Mr. Dawkins shies away from.

The link works just fine. Maybe you should get a computer that works.

If they banned all religious discussions, then that would have been the reason they would have given for canceling the talk. The reason that was given, instead, was that Dr. Dawkins is an atheist.

An impartial view of the O'Reilly vs Dawkins. Bill O'Reilly, Richard Dawkins Debate Creationism Heatedly (VIDEO) Well, at least from the lack of commentary for the disciples of Dawkins, I assume this might have been more impartial than most sites.

O'Reilly still sounds like a dufus. He makes asinine assertions, and hops from one argument to the next like a deranged bunny rabbit.

 

[Falvlun]

Is there something equivalent to code-script that exists in transcribing genes? I'm not sure how useful the meme analogy is, but some of the stuff I've read which connects religion and culture with memes, appears to be after-the-fact, or offers no way to show the evolution of cultural ideas as they are passed along. Is there something equivalent to code-script that exists in transcribing genes? I'm not sure how useful the meme analogy is, but some of the stuff I've read which connects religion and culture with memes, appears to be after-the-fact, or offers no way to show the evolution of cultural ideas as they are passed along.

I'm not particularly computer literate, so I don't quite know what you mean when you say "code-script". I'm assuming it's a chain of commands that results in some action or final product occuring? If so, then DNA, and particularly chromosomes, could be the apt parallel.

A brief rundown of genes, chromosomes, and meiosis:
Genes exist at loci interspersed through the length of a chromosome. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, for a total of 46.

Meiosis is cell division for sexual reproduction. Usually, when a cell normally divides (mitosis), a duplicate set of chromosomes is made, and a daughter cell containing the exact same 46 chromosomes is produced. In meiosis, the duplicate set of chromosmes is created, but then the chromosomes undergo recombination, where the genes are shuffled. For example, a chunk from one of the chromosome 16s will exchange with the same chunk on the other chromosome 16, so that different alleles (variations of a gene) will be transferred to the other chromosome, and vice versa.

The pairs of chromosomes are then split up, and 4 cells (gametes) containing only one set of the chromosomes will be produced (23 chromosomes). When a gamete (containing 23 chromosomes) from the mother and a gamete from the father fuse, the pairs are reunited for a total of 46 chromosomes in the resultant zygote.

Now, the part that is relevant to our discussion of memeplexes is this: Genes that are close together on a chromosome tend to become linked-- that is, odds are, they will not be separated when recombination occurs (since it is chunks of chromosomes that are being shuffled, and not individual genes). So we see in fruit flies that the genes for eye color and wing length are inherited as a package-- they are considered "linked"-- due to their close proximity on the chromosome.

Now, regarding memes and their evolution. For natural selection to work, there must first be a stable enough entity to be transmitted. DNA is stable because it tends to copy faithfully and there are mechanisms in place to ensure that it remains as true as possible to original form. Ideas-- memes-- also have continuity and methods in place to ensure that they are copied and transmitted faithfully. Think of the longevity of things like music and books and stories that can last thousands of years virtually unchanged. Think also of things we teach our kids, both in and out of school.

But, of course, if a thing is perfectly stable-- if it is unable to change, mutate-- then it is also unable to evolve; natural selection will have nothing to select. So, there also must be the ability for mutations to (occasionally) occur. You see this ability to mutate both in genes and memes. We know this happens in genes due to transcription errors or other random effects. Usually the result is detrimental for the organism, but occasionally it is useful, and will be selected for, and will eventually become the predominant genotype in a population. Ideas can also mutate due to transcription errors-- think of the game "telephone" where one person makes up a phrase, whispers it to the next person, who whispers it to the next, etc, until the last person has to say the now completely garbled phrase out loud. If the idea does not prove to be successful, it fades from the meme pool, much like a maladapted gene. If it proves useful, it spreads through the population.

Notably, one of the big differences between the evolution of genes and memes is that memes can evolve by Larmarkian principles-- the idea that traits developed by the organism (and not through mere random mutation) can be passed on to their progeny. This is because we can concsciously act upon memes, while we cannot conciously act upon our own genes.

I know this is long, and I probably haven't covered all the relevant bits, but I hope this helps things make a bit more sense to you. I'll get to the rest of your post in a bit.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Various religions containing many things that supposedly can be shown to be not true isn't the same as referring to religion in general, or any religious idea like that, and including in the concept of god for example. In other words, i of course agree that some religious ideas can be shown to not be true as proposed, however the question is which are those.

The thing is that these outlandish ideas are usually either contradicted by evidence, or unsupported by the same.
In some cases the concepts can even logically destroy the basis for a religion, like the Biblical original sin of humanity that (many) Christians believe that Jesus died for.
Now, original sin depends on the tree of knowledge, which in turn depends on the Adam and Eve story.
The problem is that we know Adam and Eve never existed as described in the Bible and thus there could have been no original sin, which means that Jesus died for nothing and the whole house of cards come crashing down.
This is just an example though, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.

Which is why using the "truth supersedes" argument, and talking about rational and irrational in that part as if you can know that was not accurate in my view. That was all i was trying to point out.

As we've agreed 'truth' is a tentative concept, but what I was trying to illustrate was that some things are by necessity considered more 'true' than others based on the amount of evidence supporting it, and/or, evidence against the other alternatives.

I didn't say we should consider them true at all, or in the same sense or level we consider evidenced and/or proved things to be true. However when someone considers them true, calling him irrational or deluded based on supposed knowledge of the real truth is what i disagree with.

But according to the dictionary, believing things that are evidentially not true is the very definition of delusion, and unless one's ideas about reality are derived from rational processes, they cannot justifiably be considered rational, can they?

I do agree in a sense with what you're saying, like i tried to explain this isn't something i was trying to challenge. I wasn't saying we shouldn't differentiate between evidenced things and things that have no evidence to support them.

Fair enough.

And again various religions supposedly containing plenty of such ideas isn't the same as talking about religion in general, or the same as using it in a specified case where in fact it doesn't apply, or claiming superiority in general to a position based on generalizing that.

So at which point do you think we should abandon a general idea (of which religion is admittedly is just one of many)?
How wrong does it have to be before we decide that it is not worth our time?
Do we have to show that each and every detail is complete humbug beyond the shadow of a doubt, or could we conceivably reach a stage where we consider the methodology to be inherently flawed and useless?

I hope you can see what i'm saying now.

Somewhat, yes.

Like i indicated above, generally and normally, evidenced things should be considered on a higher level than those which are not.

Then that automatically puts science on top given that it is wholly evidence based in its methodology, and has shown innumerable times that it brings the results to the table.

I didn't say that nobody dismisses him or dislike him based on that. On the other hand, most atheists in this thread seem to be unable to imagine any different possibility. Thankfully not all though.

I'm just somewhat fed up with the overarching argument that 'this or that person arguing against my position is unpleasant/strident/disrespectful/whatever' because it addresses their argument not at all. It is simply a covert form of ad homin and it resolves none of the questions raised.

I don't think the messenger should not matter, but i agree at least that his/her ideas, concepts, or proposals of whatever kind shouldn't be dismissed based on that alone.

I don't think they should be dismissed at all on those grounds.
We're not talking about small children or unstable insecure people whom you need to pussyfoot around in case they break down and have an episode.
If we cannot tackle these topics as adults with robust argumentation, then what does that really say about our mental maturity?

 

[work in progress]

Now, regarding memes and their evolution. For natural selection to work, there must first be a stable enough entity to be transmitted. DNA is stable because it tends to copy faithfully and there are mechanisms in place to ensure that it remains as true as possible to original form. Ideas-- memes-- also have continuity and methods in place to ensure that they are copied and transmitted faithfully. Think of the longevity of things like music and books and stories that can last thousands of years virtually unchanged. Think also of things we teach our kids, both in and out of school.

When it comes to music, books and even oral histories in illiterate societies, they are copied with reasonable fidelity, but sometimes interpretations can vary. It would appear that in this explanation, the meme is the objective cultural artifact, rather than the subjective meaning that the reader takes from the work, which would seem to be essential for the harmful meme to take effect on the host. But a harmful religious meme, like a Bible verse, may not actually be a pernicious mind virus --- depending on how it is interpreted by the reader.

Notably, one of the big differences between the evolution of genes and memes is that memes can evolve by Larmarkian principles-- the idea that traits developed by the organism (and not through mere random mutation) can be passed on to their progeny. This is because we can concsciously act upon memes, while we cannot conciously act upon our own genes.

I guess that would weaken the Darwinian analogy, since Lamarck's theory of evolution was through acquired characteristics.

I know this is long, and I probably haven't covered all the relevant bits, but I hope this helps things make a bit more sense to you. I'll get to the rest of your post in a bit.

It might. Part of my aversion to meme theory is that some of the strong advocates, like Dennett and Susan Blackmore, even go so far as declaring those resisting the application of memetics to explain culture as being somehow anti-Darwinist...because they are resisting the further application of Darwinism to realms outside of the field of biology. For my part, I can't forget that Herbert Spencer - a philosopher who was a contemporary of Darwin, created Social Darwinism, when he tried to apply Darwin's methods to race, culture and economics.....and we still are living in a world dominated by the economic Darwinists!

 

[work in progress]

The thing is that these outlandish ideas are usually either contradicted by evidence, or unsupported by the same.
In some cases the concepts can even logically destroy the basis for a religion, like the Biblical original sin of humanity that (many) Christians believe that Jesus died for.
Now, original sin depends on the tree of knowledge, which in turn depends on the Adam and Eve story.
The problem is that we know Adam and Eve never existed as described in the Bible and thus there could have been no original sin, which means that Jesus died for nothing and the whole house of cards come crashing down.

That would only be the case if the Christians you are referring to are fundamentalists who insist that the Garden of Eden was an historical account that occurred 6000 years ago....rather than an allegory of the universal loss of innocence we experience as we move from early childhood and learn about death and suffering in the world. Even Carl Sagan touched on this in his book: "Broca's Brain." I recall reading something further he wrote about how Eve's curse compares with the problems the growing human brain presented for women giving birth. A myth may not be historical, but it can still be routed in some deeper universal realization about the human condition.

So at which point do you think we should abandon a general idea (of which religion is admittedly is just one of many)?
How wrong does it have to be before we decide that it is not worth our time?
Do we have to show that each and every detail is complete humbug beyond the shadow of a doubt, or could we conceivably reach a stage where we consider the methodology to be inherently flawed and useless?

Isn't that an individual decision and not a matter of "we" and "us" to decide? There are a lot of people who will never find a strictly naturalistic worldview satisfying, and will want to incorporate something they find of value in some religious tradition or other.....to each his own. We make a big mistake in determining that other minds are just like ours and need exactly the same things.

 

[Protester]

The link works just fine. Maybe you should get a computer that works.

If they banned all religious discussions, then that would have been the reason they would have given for canceling the talk. The reason that was given, instead, was that Dr. Dawkins is an atheist.


O'Reilly still sounds like a dufus. He makes asinine assertions, and hops from one argument to the next like a deranged bunny rabbit.

I can't say I agree with everything that O'Reilly says, and what I do run across and paid much attention to is in Jewish World Review, e.g., Bill O'Reilly Well, your article or mine apparently said the same thing, perhaps Dawkins was viewed isn't viewed as a believer in positive thinking?

So, probably most members of that country club are not atheists (perhaps none are), and the powers that be realized that what Mr. Dawkins had to say, was not what their members wanted to listen to. One notices that many of the New Atheism lack the civility of the old atheists, and that doesn't make them a fit speaker for many groups?
http://www.gotquestions.org/new-atheism.html

 

[jarofthoughts]

That would only be the case if the Christians you are referring to are fundamentalists who insist that the Garden of Eden was an historical account that occurred 6000 years ago....rather than an allegory of the universal loss of innocence we experience as we move from early childhood and learn about death and suffering in the world. Even Carl Sagan touched on this in his book: "Broca's Brain." I recall reading something further he wrote about how Eve's curse compares with the problems the growing human brain presented for women giving birth. A myth may not be historical, but it can still be routed in some deeper universal realization about the human condition.

And would these same non-fundamentalists consider the Jesus story to be allegorical too, or was that for some reason a historical fact? :sarcastic

Besides, that considering that I stated that these miraculous events are EITHER contradicted by evidence OR unsupported by the same, that would NOT only be the case when it comes to fundamentalists, unless you're talking about a Biblical interpretation akin to the Jefferson Bible.

Isn't that an individual decision and not a matter of "we" and "us" to decide? There are a lot of people who will never find a strictly naturalistic worldview satisfying, and will want to incorporate something they find of value in some religious tradition or other.....to each his own. We make a big mistake in determining that other minds are just like ours and need exactly the same things.

You will notice the 'when do YOU' part of my question, indicating that it was addressed at one person in particular to seek out their opinion.

 

[Sunstone]

One notices that many of the New Atheism lack the civility of the old atheists, and that doesn't make them a fit speaker for many groups?

The civility of, say, Mark Twain?

 

[jarofthoughts]

One notices that many of the New Atheism lack the civility of the old atheists, and that doesn't make them a fit speaker for many groups?

You mean old atheists like Epicurus and Diagoras? :sarcastic
Or are you perhaps thinking of the atheists that existed during the middle ages when being accused of such usually meant being executed?

 

[atanu]

Isn't that an individual decision and not a matter of "we" and "us" to decide? There are a lot of people who will never find a strictly naturalistic worldview satisfying, and will want to incorporate something they find of value in some religious tradition or other.....to each his own. We make a big mistake in determining that other minds are just like ours and need exactly the same things.

If a living being was just a body that resulted from sexual congress and if that body is the sole source of the awareness then art, science and culture have no real meaning.

Nature has its laws. But aware beings have the faculty to be happy or to be in misery. That is not mechanistic.

 

[waitasec]

If a living being was just a body that resulted from sexual congress and if that body is the sole source of the awareness then art, science and culture have no real meaning.

Nature has its laws. But aware beings have the faculty to be happy or to be in misery. That is not mechanistic.

i disagree.
we give meaning to these things...because we are alive and aware of it.

 

[atanu]

i disagree.
we give meaning to these things...because we are alive and aware of it.

Exactly. We have the competence to give meanings. Some meanings lead to misery and some meanings lead to peace.

 

[waitasec]

Exactly. We have the competence to give meanings. Some meanings lead to misery and some meanings lead to peace.

we're a crazy bunch

 

[work in progress]

And would these same non-fundamentalists consider the Jesus story to be allegorical too, or was that for some reason a historical fact? :sarcastic

Some already do...if we go by the writings of liberal theologians such as John Shelby Spong or Tom Harpur....who is one I am most familiar with because of a religion column that he wrote for the Toronto Star for many years....and all of the angry editorial responses he received from fundamentalists for his ideas.

Besides, that considering that I stated that these miraculous events are EITHER contradicted by evidence OR unsupported by the same, that would NOT only be the case when it comes to fundamentalists, unless you're talking about a Biblical interpretation akin to the Jefferson Bible.

Surely you must have noticed that liberal theologians who either don't accept miracles as historical events or consider that issue irrelevant, seem to be in agreement that the argument over whether miracles have occurred is not the same as whether the stories have value or deeper meaning for the reader. The problem with the Jefferson Bible is that he removed everything that he considered unhistorical....as if historicity is the sole determinant of its value.

You will notice the 'when do YOU' part of my question, indicating that it was addressed at one person in particular to seek out their opinion.

Yes I noticed -- and they are free to respond also, since this is a general debate open to everyone. There is a subforum for one-on-one debates, if you don't want other people butting in. Personally, I think this thread was turning into too many one-on-one type debates that end up being ignored by everyone not involved.

 

[work in progress]

The civility of, say, Mark Twain?

Or how about Madelyn Murray O'Haire? I don't think even Hitchens or the Youtube atheists could compare to her when it came to being nasty and rude.

 

[work in progress]

If a living being was just a body that resulted from sexual congress and if that body is the sole source of the awareness then art, science and culture have no real meaning.

As mentioned by Waitasec, it's up to us to provide the meaning; and I would add that because we are creatures that are hardwired to look for meaning and purpose, we will do it -- but not all come to the same conclusions.

Nature has its laws. But aware beings have the faculty to be happy or to be in misery. That is not mechanistic.

Actually, a study of anthropology and psychology + sociology shows that we have a long history of being social, cooperative creatures. There is some recent work out that contends the majority of people are optimists....even irrational optimists in the face of reality, and this intrinsic sense of optimism has likely been a key part of our survival as a species....although the optimism I hear lately in response to present environment-related issues seems to lead many people not to take the crisis seriously....and that could ultimately be our downfall.

Anyway, a quick study of physics and natural selection can tell us that we are the way we are for reasons that have been useful to our survival. Where I break from the majority of atheist humanists and naturalists, is that I don't agree that we can derive morals and ethics from scientific principles...as Sam Harris claims in a recent book. Science can provide the best answers to factual questions about what exists, but it doesn’t provide moral judgments.

Natural selection works from a standpoint of utility and nothing more; so if it's advantage for the Ichneumonidae Wasp (hope I spelled it right) to lay its eggs inside a caterpillar...and result in the hatchlings devouring its living host from the inside out...then that's what it's going to do! Morality doesn't enter the picture. Nature doesn't ask what is or isn't moral, so we have to create these things ourselves. Sure, we have a lot of common ground...everyone agrees that murder and theft are wrong, and being nice gets more rewards than cheating or abusing others, but the physical process that led to us does not determine how we should act in an overcrowded world of dwindling resources. We will either figure that out for ourselves or fail....and end up like the dinosaurs I suppose!

 

[jarofthoughts]

Some already do...if we go by the writings of liberal theologians such as John Shelby Spong or Tom Harpur....who is one I am most familiar with because of a religion column that he wrote for the Toronto Star for many years....and all of the angry editorial responses he received from fundamentalists for his ideas.

Right, so if all of the Bible, even the parts usually considered central, are considered allegorical, then what is left as a basis for calling oneself a Christian?
I mean, after someone has concluded that the miracles, the virgin birth, Adam and Eve, all of it, is allegorical, i.e. made up, what is there to build a religion or a religious view on?

Surely you must have noticed that liberal theologians who either don't accept miracles as historical events or consider that issue irrelevant, seem to be in agreement that the argument over whether miracles have occurred is not the same as whether the stories have value or deeper meaning for the reader. The problem with the Jefferson Bible is that he removed everything that he considered unhistorical....as if historicity is the sole determinant of its value.

But that's the point.
"The Little Engine that Could" is a story that has value and deeper meaning, but that doesn't mean that we treat it as any more than that; a story.
It may be a good story, and it might even change lives, but it's still just a story.

Yes I noticed -- and they are free to respond also, since this is a general debate open to everyone. There is a subforum for one-on-one debates, if you don't want other people butting in. Personally, I think this thread was turning into too many one-on-one type debates that end up being ignored by everyone not involved.

Appreciated, however that should go some way towards highlighting that I wasn't looking for an answer that was generally or objectively true at all times, but rather the recipient's opinion.
You are of course free to provide your own, and I will respond to it in kind, but I never pretended that anything resembling a complete consensus could be reached for all people everywhere.