The book “Finding Darwin’s God” does a pretty good job of explaining how the eye is a great example of evolution.
Richard Dawkins also pretty famously explained the evolution of the eye here...
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Richard Dawkins also pretty famously explained the evolution of the eye here...
Every time I read this from theist people (that you commented to the original post), a small part of me makes me wonder if these people are nice people only because of fear of God and the potential punishment on the other life. I don't want to take moral ground here (if I am nice, it is probably because of my genes and my environmental surrounding), but it is something that goes in my mind every time I hear the argument.
......I sincerely regret mentioning the eyeball.
Jesus never led actual armies into battle. Muhammad did.
Excellent explanation. Never seen Dawkins so young, thankfully his taste on clothes has improved over time.
I wonder if there has been anyone who was so passionate about something as Dawkins about the evolution.
What about Bing Bang? Do you regret it too?
It’s like the idea of a holy man not being mean to the person who wronged him, instead he holds his thoughts and believes that guy will be in hell for being a dick. Even that’s just as worse for the holy guy. I guess you’re behaviour becomes a part of you the older you get. Till it’s not about trying to be nice for the sake of it.
Yeah, Dawkins is great there. I’m really impressed in his ability to explain it to a room of “average” people like that. There’s another video on YouTube of him doing something similar more recently in a high school classroom. Really awesome stuff.
And yes, his shirt there... oh boy
I mean, who can argue with buttsex?
Geez, just saw this. It is really funny, Aisha seems to have been quite cool, to be fair. Way ahead of her time.
He's a brilliant communicator and an admirably lucid and clear minded thinker. My great regret regarding Dawkins is that we have likely lost wonderful works on evolution to his years debating the existence of God.Yeah, Dawkins is great there. I’m really impressed in his ability to explain it to a room of “average” people like that. There’s another video on YouTube of him doing something similar more recently in a high school classroom. Really awesome stuff.
And yes, his shirt there... oh boy
Interestingly, his shirt is surely a strong argument against the concept of an interventionist god, as surely no compassionate creator would allow that abomination to exist.
That's definitely true. He is still one of the most-cited scientists in entire biology, despite that for a long time he has been an anti-theist first, and a scientist second. Probably could have given much more valuable scientific contributions if he had stuck with science, instead of his personal vendetta against religion (though at the same time, perhaps ironically, could have made laymen be interested in evolution).
He has definitely had an influence on me. I grew up in the rural American South, so was raised an evangelical Christian. I discovered Dawkins’ work at about 18-19 years old. I’d already started questioning things by about age 16, but his way of explanating the evidence for evolution and against religion really did it for me.
Even ignoring a likley misinterpretation of randow, why would it be impossible?
It really didn't. Do yourself a favor and read The Blind Watchmaker.
Just because something isn't how you would like it to be has nothing to do with what is.
It wasn't. The concept of god was most likely arrived at because we couldn't explain storms, earthquakes, tsunamis or whatever. Now we can. Once we thought a god exists legends build up around this powerful supernatural being which leads to religion.
We are social cooperative animals. Sadness at the absence of a person who was socially important is a function if that. I think you are looking for a point to life in terms of individuals being important in an ultimate sense. We aren't. Why would we be?
Some people react to death in this way presumably to protect themselves from feeling like this again. So? Not sure the point.
We are "nice" to each other because we have evolved that way and this is common in more complex animals that require cooperation, particularly in child rearing. The happy result is that living in close family groups and wider social groups is heavily selected for so we get a feeling of satisfaction when we have good social contact and relationships
Let’s say the 10 commandments came in, the rules were set. Now everyone is obeying them so theres less murder, less evilness. Even though some are using religion with evil intent. Creating wars, killing Millions because they follow the “wrong god“. So yeah religion made the world worse in that sense. Don’t know where I’m going with that, my mind kinda went a bit off here sorry. I hope you guys get what I’m TRYING to say
Religious rules evolved out of a combination of the religious norms that developed mainly in the days before science but even then they were largely driven by existing informal social "rules" that had evolved in humans. Minimising murder, theft, coveting other people's spouses etc are all necessary for a happy family/social/community group so as to maximise individual successful reproduction.
Last edited:
The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype, in particular, are brilliantly conceived and wonderfully written. I reread them on occasion and enjoy them immensely each time.
The Blind Watchmaker is far more accessible if I remember correctly. A long time since I read them all so I may well remember correctly.
Same here. I was a de facto atheist, but considered myself an agnostic. After I read The Gold Delusion (I think it was 2010 or 2011), I started defining myself as atheist. I think it was inevitable that I was going to reach there (starting from occasionally religious, to not much religious but still believing in God and religion, to actually not caring about it too much but still thinking that there is a God, to agnostic, to de facto atheist), though that book saved me a year or two.
However, I just read a couple of days ago 'The Selfish Gene' and it is just on an entirely different level. It has to be one of the best books of all time, and I loved it for being scientific and barely mentioning God.
The Selfish Gene is quite accessible too. I think that the parts with Evolutionary Stable Strategies might get a bit difficult for people who are not familiar with game theory, but the other parts seemed really clear.
The meme chapter was just out of this world. I have no idea how true that theory is (and I don't think it ever became that big and seriously considered), but it just came out of nowhere, and was so thought-provoking (as is most of the book).
If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading the follow up and companion book "The Extended Phenotype". Just as brilliant.
Definitely planning to read it, The Blind Watchmaker and The Greatest Show on Earth (though heard, that The Greatest show is a bit too simple). However, I like to alternate between the topics I am reading (back to human history again).
Well, the term "meme" comes from that book and is still used today so it's embedded into society's collective subconscious at least.
Yes, "The Greatest Show..." is, quite deliberately, much more simple.
"Extended Phenotype" is the only other if his books in precisely the same mode as "the Selfish Gene", I'd say. "The Blind Watchmaker" is very good though.
Sure, it has left that mark in that sense, though I would guess that the vast majority of meme-users do not know where does the name come from.
Nevertheless, I was just 'wow' reading the chapter, especially the part that memes can be considered living structures * (in people's brains, essentially the patterns that the neurons make to create the memes) and that it is memes who are spreading themselves (or trying to), instead of us robots spreading our own memes (which was in perfect analogy to the accepted view of genes).
Honestly, you need to be very creative to reach those conclusions (for genes too, so maybe reaching the same for memes was going to come anyway).
* Technically, it wasn't his own idea. Some researcher who read a draft of the chapter, suggested that to Dawkins.
Have you read Matt Ridley's The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature? A very interesting read but also one that differs from Dawkins science/evolution books. It start with a really accessible reading of Van Valen's Red Queen hypothesis as an explanation of why something so energy expensive as sexual reproduction is a benefit. The longer the book goes the more speculative it gets and by the end he is applying gene level theory to social interactions (memes) without really flagging the huge gulf between the early and later chapters. His approach is very different from Dawkins who evidences everything he discusses. Probably not surprising that Ridley has more recently turned into a climate contrarian (not denier) who argues what he would like the point to be rather than what it actually is.
Agreed on all points.
Nobody but damn prudes.
Also interesting that to most people a meme is a cat picture with a funny phrase superimposed. The real meaning has largely been lost or more likely never really been socialised.
I have not. In the last 5 years, for whatever reasons (probably cause I was reading a lot of scientific stuff for Ph.D.), I read exclusively fiction stuff (sci-fi and fantasy) in my reading time. However, recently went back to non-fiction books and they're much better. The book looks quite interesting though, so putting it in my to-read list.
I guess it just got memed. Some imperfect memnization (mutation) and the new meme had it easier to spread in the teenagers.
Last edited:
Going about life constantly reminding yourself that you have to be nice to people or face the flame of hell is a pretty depressing way to live.
I think even more than the reassurance of Big Brother looking out for you, religious people believe in karmic justice to make peace with our helplessness against the injustice of this world.
I think even more than the reassurance of Big Brother looking out for you, religious people believe in karmic justice to make peace with our helplessness against the injustice of this world.
I think this is definitely the case (though probably one of the factors, instead of the only factor). When you're small, it is your parents who protect you at all times. When you get old, the parents most often cannot protect you against the injustices of the world, and most often are even more helpless than you. But if there is a God right there, he protects you and if not, it doesn't even matter cause this life is short and the God is gonna take us to his kingdom in the next one.
Essentially, God is the replacement for the parents.
Pretty fecked up alright. I mean if you were rational and a believer in life after death with an all powerful creator I could sit down with you and talk about evolution, quantum theory, different dimensions, dna manipulation, where it began and where it's going. feck I would even shoot the breeze on the hollow moon theory. But the judeo christian stories are just so divorced from any solid foundation to create the three abrahamic religions we see today. So much is missing archeologically and none of the three have shown anything to convince me to eat it up.
But I love Hinduism and creation stories from other civilizations like the Mayan or Australian Aborigines. That's how it's done, none of this burning bush nonsense or picking scabs off lepers. Nuclear war in flying vermanas and
8ft snake gods with white hair, love it.
There is a theory (probably not very believable, but more believable than today’s religions) that in those religions (and actually early Judaism too), they were just reporting the events that happened. Like some advanced alien civilization being on Earth, maybe even having wars with each other. Of course, the stories got changed over the time, but some laser weapon could have looked like Zeus’ lighting, and so on.
Sure, that is the most believable explanation.Or lightning storm were interpreted as the gods fighting?
That's the one thing you've said right despite your and Shamana's unabated mis-contexting. Aisha (RA) was indeed one of a kind, at 16 she was superior in intellect and maturity than any men (and women) around her at the time except her husband of course. Considering the men you mentioned above that is no small feat (Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, etc RA). They would go to her for the most difficult of social, political or religious understanding because she possessed something they didn't. At 16!! Not quite the expected psychological behaviour of a child sex victim.
I accept she was really young, I mean really young, when married. But she was mature a lot sooner than any girl probably before or after. Note, the Prophet (SAAW) did not marry any other young girl not did any of his followers. If you and Shamana are truly open minded you would read the hundreds of books on her attributes and qualities. Again, I understand your desire to go down the "all Muslims are terrorists" genre towards Islam. It's quite common, even among those that think they're open minded. They still prefer hearing the Daily Mail headlines of the religion lest they succumb to this mystical/secretive religion. And it is pretty much mystical/secretive because they want it to remain so, just taking Quranic blurbs where necessary to fit their arguments.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling. I think people are getting bored of this discussion.
Uh, what?
‘Muhammad didn’t just marry a very very young girl, he married a very very young girl because she was wise beyond her years, which made it okay.’
Who can argue with that?
Who can argue with that?
Most ancient people believe our origins came from the stars. This is a conversation that needs a bottle of whiskey and Google.
I never actually said anything negative about Aisha herself. I believe when it is written that Aisha and Muhammed had geniune affection for each other, the point of contention is just her very young age when they married and all that. I totally believe she developed into a very intelligent, strong and mature woman.
I don't believe that all muslims are terrorists, I believe that Muhammed should not protected from mock and critism considering his life story and that his life story is detrimental to a so called religion of love and peace. I think the vast majority of muslims in the world are no less descent than all the rest of us and just happiness for themselves and others as most descent people do.
It's just mental that this happened because over some offensive cartoons that most people would daily gloss over. The reason why the author puiblished the cartoons was actually because an author who was writing a biography of Muhammed couldn't find anyone willing to draw a depiction of Muhammed out of fear for their lives in freaking Denmark in the 21st century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter...uhammad_cartoons_controversy#Violent_protests
Last edited: