He's baaack: Selfish Gene author pens one for the kids

[rug]

By Hawes Spencer | [e-mail]
Published online 1:13pm Thursday Sep 29th, 2011

The author of The Selfish Gene is back in Charlottesville. This time, however, the British scientist and atheist extraordinaire (he's also author of the 2006 best-seller The God Delusion) will speak at a venue that may be big enough to hold the crowds clamoring for his rational view of the world.

When he spoke here at Gilmer Hall in 2009, hundreds were shunted to overflow video-feed rooms to hear Dawkins argue that, unlike religion, the theory of Natural Selection sets itself up for disapproval every day. All it would take to undo Darwin, he said then, would be to find something out of place amid the fossils– like a bunny rabbit mixed in a stratum of dinosaurs.

Now he's back in the States to launch a new lecture tour and promote a new book for teens and young adults, The Magic of Reality, to be published by Simon & Schuster on the day of his talk at UVA. We had a few minutes on the phone with Dawkins this morning.

You're 70: what do you think of other people getting to that age without entertaining the idea of a rational existence?
Dawkins: I feel pity for them, and I would like to do all in my power for children in the next 70 years to be brought up in fuller knowledge of the world in which we live.

http://www.readthehook.com/101135/hes-baaack-selfish-gene-author-pens-one-kids

[SidDithers]

1. Awesome. Just went onto Amazon and pre-ordered the book...nt

Sid

[skepticscott]

4. Careful now!

[SidDithers]

7. It's for my kids!...

Really!!

:)

Sid

[skepticscott]

12. Oh, I was talking about your sign

But maybe the reference is too obscure...sorry about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT9xuXQjxMM

[SidDithers]

23. I never knew where that came from...

I just thought it was appropriate for the generic complaining I see so much of at DU.

Thanks for the education of the source :thumbsup:

Sid

[struggle4progress]

2. Material objections to the miracles of life (Colin Tudge | The Independent)

The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins (illustrated by Dave McKean)
Material objections to the miracles of life
By Colin Tudge
Friday, 23 September 2011

Richard Dawkins has no sense of irony. He rails endlessly against fundamentalists yet he defends old-fashioned, Thomas Gradgrind-style materialism as zealously as the Mid-West Creationists defend the literal truth of Genesis. He accuses others of misrepresentation yet he seriously misrepresents religion. Also, which is irony writ large, he misrepresents science, in whose name he is assumed to speak. He condemns the Catholics for filling the heads of children with a particular view of life before they have had a chance to think for themselves – and now, in The Magic of Reality, written for readers as young as nine, he has done precisely that. As somebody said of Miss Jean Brodie, it's time he was put a stop to ...

That the idea of scientific omniscience is supremely dangerous was demonstrated horribly in the late 19th and early 20th century by the zeal for eugenics. Nowadays it is leading gung-ho industrialists to suppose that we can and should re-create our crops and livestock (and even, perhaps, ourselves) by "genetic engineering". Alas, some gullible politicians who came to science late in life believe them. Yet the greatest lesson of 20th century philosophy is that science does not and cannot deal in certainties: that all its truths are partial and provisional, waiting to be knocked off their perch; and that we cannot in acceptable detail predict the results of our actions ...

Religions do not depend upon their myths and miracles. They are there as illustrations. Neither is it true, as he contends, that miracles can be compared to the pumpkin that took Cinderella to the ball. Any theologian could have put him right on this. Indeed, many theologians have tried – but nothing can shift the idées fixes of a fundamentalist (though Dawkins tells us with not inconsiderable chutzpah to "keep an open mind"). Incidentally, you don't have to be a Catholic to find grotesque his description of the Virgin Mary: "a kind of goddess of a local religion". Why are Dawkins's editors afraid to edit?

Yet I do agree with Dawkins on what is ostensibly the main point of his book: "Science has its own magic". So it does - for it is helping to show just how wonderful the world in which we live really is. But the notion that the revelations of science are necessarily at odds with religion does no favours to either. Indeed, the 17th-century founders of modern science – Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Leibniz, Boyle, John Ray – were all devout. For them, to explore the wonders of the world through science was to glorify God. Bach said the same about his music. Dawkins's ultra-materialist view of life is crude by comparison. How can we not believe in miracles, when stuff like this is presented as a serious contribution to the education of our children?

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-magic-of-reality-by-richard-dawkins-illustrated-by-dave-mckean-2359196.html

[darkstar3]

3. Worthless, fallacy filled article.

Just in the piece you pasted, I see ad hom, red herring, and NTS. This is nothing but a hit piece written out of fear. Someone doesn't like that Dawkins' writing is being made accessible to children.

[skepticscott]

5. Well, either you've posted something

that you know is chock full of nonsense and logical fallacies, or you're incapable of grasping such things, even when they're right in front of you. Which is it?

[LeftishBrit]

10. Since I haven't yet read Dawkins' book, I won't comment on the book itself

However, one point:

'That the idea of scientific omniscience is supremely dangerous was demonstrated horribly in the late 19th and early 20th century by the zeal for eugenics'

The zeal for eugenics was not *caused* by the idea of scientific omniscience. It involved the use of certain scientific ideas to justify a long-existing segregationist attitude to class and race. The hereditary nature of the ruling classes; such terms as 'breeding' and 'royal blood'; the suspicion of 'parvenus' and 'nouveau riche' contaminating the aristocratic bloodlines; worst of all, the attitude that it was OK to let the poor starve - 'there are too many of them anyway'; all these long preceded any scientic knowledge of genetics. The Indian caste system, perhaps the most detailed and explicit system of hereditary determination of social status, preceded Darwin and Mendel by centuries.

Principles of what is sometimes called 'social Darwinism' owe more to right-wing economic philosophies than to Darwin's actual theory.

Certainly, science like everything else can be harnessed to evil; but blaming 'scientific omniscience' for eugenics is rather like blaming the invention of the wheel for the trains to Auschwitz.

[skepticscott]

11. Exactly

Scientific discoveries are simply tools, and like all tools, can be used for constructive or destructive purposes, depending on the users. Science claims no ability to decide questions of morality. Religion does, and yet in cases like this, religious apologists always seem to want to point the finger at science instead of religion for the moral failings of humans.

Merely one example of the muddled thinking of this author.

[struggle4progress]

15. One might ask here various questions, such as: (1) whether we have good reason to accept

or reject "scientific omniscience"; (2) what the philosophical consequences of accepting "scientific omniscience" would be; or (3) what the political uses of "scientific omniscience" could be

This being primarily a political board, I am here mostly interested in the third question. Since political disputes are typically about material issues, and since the scientific method is an essential tool for addressing material questions, it is natural to seek good scientific input when it is available. But "We are rational, and our opponents are not" is a staple of political rhetoric, and good rhetoricians are always capable of painting a layer of apparent rationality onto their own views. Over time, I have seen more than one bit of propaganda, chock-full of equations, all carefully written in the hope that nobody would be bothered to check the math too carefully, and I have more than once heard "The computer says ..." bandied as a trump card in policy arguments with no intent to illuminate but only the aim of shutting down the opposition. Having technical scientific skills does not necessarily or immediately render a person an impartial advocate of truth in all regards, and the process of obtaining scientific truth can be hesitant and uncertain. Science can give excellent answers to some precise questions; however, science may not have provided a good answer to the question one is asking, because (perhaps) either because one is asking a vague or overloaded question (as is typical in politics) or (perhaps) because the technical question is hard and the necessary work has not yet been done or the critical insight has not yet been obtained. It is a historical fact that the proponents of eugenics claimed their policies were soundly based on the most modern science and that this propaganda was effective with legislatures and courts; looking back, one would prefer more skepticism in that matter about the claims that "invincible modern science has taught us thusly." Of course, we can equally find other cases in which the scientific consensus seems solid, and those who find the scientific consensus inconvenient then argue that science is hesitant and uncertain and that more research is needed, simply because they find in such rhetoric a convenient stalling tactic. In summary: at the political level, philosophical attitudes towards "scientific omniscience" will not be very helpful; sometimes one needs to emphasize the reliability of scientific work and other times the unreliability of it

The second question seems to lead to a similar mess. Science is a method for constructing partial and provisional intellectual charts of the material world, and for improving those charts, and it involves a strange and difficult mindset, in which one tries to question or investigate some very particular and limited portion of what one thinks one knows, while retaining without any question various other "known facts," using some combination of calculation and experiment and theory. The quest is to fit together one master chart, but at any moment one actually has a number of proposed pieces of the putative master chart, which often (but not always) seem to be generally consistent with one another. Belief, that the final master chart can be obtained, might indeed be an excellent psychological motive for engaging in this process of chart construction and correction, but it is not entirely necessary to the project since the smaller bits of chart are themselves interesting and useful. And there is a certain irony in speaking of "scientific omniscience" -- since science can progress only when we realize that our knowledge is imperfect or our ideas muddled and set out to make some small improvement to our state of ignorance and confusion

I've discussed the first question repeatedly in this forum and won't repeat myself now

<edit: corrected final sentence>

[LeftishBrit]

16. My point is that I don't think that anyone seriously believes in 'scientific omniscience'

At most, some people may believe that scientific omniscience might be POSSIBLE sometime in the future; i.e. that the scientific method has the potential to explain everything one day probably in the far future. Very few people now think that scientists now know everything.

There *are* a few people who might be regarded as 'fundie' scientists who think that there's a simple scientific explanation for everything. But they tend not to be regarded as good scientists. A noted example, I suppose, is the evolutionary psychologist Kanazawa, who takes a 'traditional-social-mores-are-great-and-not-to-be-changed-because-they-were-favoured-by-evolution' approach, that is remarkably similar to the arguments of creationism. But he is pretty much despised by most scientists in areas related to his.

I think, however, there is a tendency among some religious believers to assume that those who prefer scientific methods of explanation to religious ones are simply following a rival faith to theirs. In their view, 'science' in itself is a sort of faith that some people have, and Science is 'worshipped as a god'. In fact, science should be seen as a method for finding things out. It is a tool, and like any tool, can be misused.

Science can give information about what the world is like, and if one is very clever and lucky, about how and why it came to be that way. It cannot give prescriptions about what acts are morally virtuous. It may be able to tell you about how best to achieve certain goals, but not about what the goals can be. E.g. science can tell one some things about the pace of climate change, about what actions might slow down or prevent climate change, and about what the consequences may be if one doesn't take these actions. However, science cannot tell someone that they *should* choose the reduction of climate change as a priority over other priorities such as economic profit in the short term. Science can tell you that genes contribute to certain characteristics - but it cannot tell you whether one should accept these characteristics as part of the variety of human nature, or seek to eliminate them by fair means of foul.

Some scientists - like some literary people, philosophers, business owners, etc. - may become arrogant and think that they can prescribe what *should* be. However, this is not the purpose of science (or of literature, business, etc.) In many religions, one of the purposes *is* to prescribe how people should act, so some religious believers think that science have this purpose as well. But there are no 'Ten Commandments' of science.

I am reminded of a story an older friend told me of his boyhood in pre-war rural Canada. He had an aunt who was intensely religious, and could quote chapter and verse of the Bible as a justification for any sort of moral prohibition. 'You should not drink alcohol/ gamble/ dance because of the words of Bible book X, chapter Y, verse Z.' Her nephew, who knew nothing of Darwin except that the highly religious didn't like him, would retort: 'But Darwin says that you should drink alcohol!' 'But Darwin says that you should gamble!' etc. He had no idea of what Darwin actually said - but then neither did his aunt. I think that some of the current religious views of science are pretty much on the same level: as something that prescribes moral rules that contradict and compete with those of the laws of certain religious groups: 'But Darwin/ godless science says that you should gamble and drink and dance and have abortions and get married to someone of the same sex and vote against Sarah Palin!!!'

[Jim__]

18. Suppose that for political purposes, we all accepted "scientific omniscience."

I propose that this acceptance would change nothing of substance in the political arena. Our political fights would change to the question of which side of the issue had "science" on their side.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. "scientific omniscience" = the strawiest straw man in the history of strawdom.

The scientific worldview is the very antithesis of "omniscience".

[Kurovski]

6. K&R

"Dawkins: There are millions of children all over the Islamic world taught almost nothing but memorizing the Koran, that it's virtuous to die a martyr's death, that it's virtuous to kill Jews. One dose of skepticism would cure that."

[struggle4progress]

8. Dawkins, double standards and dualisms (Tim Middleton | Varsity)

Richard Dawkins' new children's book is more than a little hypocritical
by Tim Middleton
Friday 30th September 2011, 15:15 GMT

Richard Dawkins is dealing in double standards. In last year's Channel Four documentary Faith School Menace? he urged society "to respect a child's right to freedom of belief." Simultaneously he was working on his latest book The Magic of Reality, reformulating his brand of militant materialism for a "family audience" ...

Dawkins modestly admits his limits in the realm of science, saying he isn't a cosmologist so he doesn't understand the big bang himself. But he fails to avoid a dictatorial air of authority on matters of underlying philosophy; as one review aptly put it, he has "shifted into 'wise granddad' mode". The writing is symptomatic of Dawkins' position at one extreme of an unnecessarily polarised media debate. The question of science or religion is a false dichotomy, a dualist approach fortified by extremists on both sides. They either preach to the converted or quarrel with their enemies; rarely does anyone change their mind as a result.

The more interesting distinction is between those that think that everything is knowable and those that don't. Dawkins asserts that it is "lazy, even dishonest" to suggest that "no natural explanation will ever be possible". It is also anthropocentric, even arrogant to suggest that humans can understand it all. In education and in debate, it is perhaps those that bear their knowledge with humility that are most likely to influence opinion.

http://www.varsity.co.uk/comment/3750

[laconicsax]

9. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Militant materialism? :rofl:

[skepticscott]

13. More completely muddled thinking

For example: "rarely does anyone change their mind as a result." And he knows this....how, exactly? Has he talked to all of the millions of people who have read Dawkins' books and columns, or listened to his lectures and debates, and determined how many have had their thinking changed as a result? Don't bet on it.

And this: 'Dawkins asserts that it is "lazy, even dishonest" to suggest that "no natural explanation will ever be possible". It is also anthropocentric, even arrogant to suggest that humans can understand it all.' Dawkins' statement in no way asserts that "humans can understand it all". It merely reflects the fact no supernatural explanation for anything has EVER been demonstrated affirmatively, while natural explanations HAVE been eventually found in countless cases when they were not immediately obvious, and that to resort to "goddidit" when science has no instant answer is simply dopey.

And it is religionists who tend to lack humility in how their bear their "knowledge" far more than Dawkins or other proponents of scientific rationalism. The latter freely acknowledge that ALL scientific knowledge is provisional, and that ALL theories are subject to being modified or replaced if the evidence warrants it. For the former, many things far less well supported are immutable, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

When this is the best that critics of Dawkins (and those who quote them) can come up with, is it any wonder that they are dismissed with scorn?

[struggle4progress]

14. Natural Enchantment (Meghan Cox Gurdon | Wall Street Journal)

OCTOBER 1, 2011
By MEGHAN COX GURDON

... He makes a fine case, too, when he confines himself to the study of the physical world. In chapters that range from natural selection to chemistry to radio waves and tectonic plates, Mr. Dawkins walks readers through complex subjects with verve and lucidity, only rarely venturing so deep that readers over the age of 14 may not want to follow ...

That young people might come to see poetic magic in the scientific method and the natural world is not, however, sufficient for the author of "The God Delusion," the 2006 best seller. A crusading atheist, Mr. Dawkins has ridden his hobbyhorse into the children's section of the bookstore. There is no doubt that he hopes to relieve young readers of any primitive vestigial religious belief to which they might cling.

In each chapter, dramatized by Dave McKean's colorful graphic artwork, the author recounts the "made-up" and "fun" stories of various religious traditions. We are invited to smile at the idea of miracles and to regard as charmingly quaint such colorful individuals as the Hopi spider-woman goddess, the Tasmanian god Dromerdeener and the famous "Jewish preacher" who turned water into wine. Mr. Dawkins ranges widely across all manner of religious belief, so it is worth noting that he never mentions Muhammad or Islam. Perhaps he did not want to offend.

His tone throughout alternates between real delight over how things work and avuncular pity for the people who persist in seeing an author behind the machinery of the universe. Mr. Dawkins is rather like a subversive relative who comes to dinner and, while father is banging on about the Divine Plan, catches the attention of the teenagers at the table and rolls his eyes. There is no plan, winks Mr. Dawkins, nor any divinity. There is just the "magic" of the universe unfolding. If that is the view you wish your children to have of the cosmos, then "The Magic of Reality" will suit you very well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576597143620504666.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[darkstar3]

17. This article once again attack Dawkins and not anything he has to say.

Furthermore, the usage of the word "tone" belies the true reason that the article was written.

And if you have to go to the Wall Street Journal in order to make your point, you've jumped the shark. That paper isn't worthy of being called a "fishwrap".

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. Why the article dump? That's three already.

U worried?

[skepticscott]

21. It's what he does

He flings Google poo and hopes something sticks. Apologetics any way he can.

[dmallind]

22. Militant bastard! Write books at people does he?

Telling people facts, the radical fucker! That's way worse than legislating his beliefs onto others, killing his kids because of these beliefs, raping teenagers because of them, withholding equal rights for all because of them, and fomenting wars because of them.

How dare this tyrant offer a book for sale to paying customers!

[laconicsax]

24. +1