General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsrobbedvoter
(28,290 posts)Link to tweet
?s=21
tclambert
(11,087 posts)TomVilmer
(1,832 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2020, 05:20 AM - Edit history (2)
In his quest against the gods, he also rules out generosity and altruism, because "we are born selfish". But science is still a bit fluffy if this is really the case. We are born to survive, and in many cases the tribe and also the baby can benefit the most in their common surivival by helping each other. Evolution is selecting the group best fitted, not the single human.
(fixed the image again)
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)You may wish to extend your research of it beyond obvious hit pieces.
anamnua
(1,113 posts)and ought to know that association does not imply causation.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)But it isnt what Dawkins was talking about.
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,939 posts)TomVilmer
(1,832 posts)... reading a couple of his books, and interviews with him about this subject. I do not need any gods myself, but I do trust in the (mostly) good of my fellow humans. And so does a lot of the science. In my view it is foolish of Dawkins to buy so hard into his own aggressive atheism, that even human goodness needs to be ruled out.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Quite the opposite actually. I find it hard to believe youve studied him all that much.
TomVilmer
(1,832 posts)... but can see that Dawkins did apologies for that quote in a later book.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The only thing Dawkin said about it is he wished he had picked a different name for his book because people got hung up on the word selfish which was merely a metaphor for gene centric evolutionary theory. So Dawkins hardly apologized, and even if he wanted to hed have nothing to apologize for. The idea pre-dates Dawkins himself and the theoretical groundwork was not done by him. He just promoted the idea, and rather successfully as the work is foundational for modern biology in all sorts of ways largely thanks to Dawkins.
The tell on so many Dawkins detractors is they try to use that word in ways it was never implied or intended, which is a clear indicator they have no idea of the subject matter.
TomVilmer
(1,832 posts)... I remember him asking his readers to please delete that quote and forget about it. If you have a problem with that, please contact him directly. Over and totally out!
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Which is because people get hung up on it and take it totally the wrong way missing the greater significance, just as you have done.
anamnua
(1,113 posts)has been spun by both religious and anti-religious zealots.
EarthFirst
(2,900 posts)They need a few more deliveries...