Richard Dawkins - right or wrong?

[2020hindsight]

I finally watched the Richard Dawkin's video in the first post ... lol ... Richard's depth and understanding on the subject reminds me of Clerks 2, Star Wars (science) vs Lord of the Rings (religion). Stoners ... science on, dudes.

Warning, MA 15+ rating on the following clip ...

weird, - but can you fault him?

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools" .. Kipling's If

 

[2020hindsight]

but (peace offering)
I sure as hell enjoyed your other post lol
It sure sounds funny when expressed in the language of South Park lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyav...estockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8806

 

[2020hindsight]

Changing direction somewhat ("Dawkins" covers a lot lol)
Then there's the "evolution of morality"
Here Dawkins claims that he has been misunderstood ( possibly intentionally so)
- that his reference to "the selfish gene" became an excuse to act as selfishly as one liked - and he was even blamed for the election of Maggie Thatcher.!

Dawkins: EVOLUTION OF MORALITY (1)

Maybe we could swing away from the God bit -
THAT's the thing about Dawkins - he is incredibly multifaceted. (and multitalented)

In the Selfish Gene, (from his zoologist background) he discusses ..

selfishness vs altruism...
a bee sacrifices itself to protect the colony

reciprocal altruism ? - how did animals get to this arrangement

the selfish genes on both sides must get their reward

strategy - the evolutionary prewired program written by natural selection
to achieve some desired goal

some soccer match from 1957, both teams stop trying because that was the best strategy. (the rare case of "win - win")

PS - he also says that the "right" (capitalists) took his words and distorted them - they could blame their "selfish gene" for the most ruthless behaviour. Then of course, as I say above, the "left" responded by accusing him of sanctioning greed in society - and blaming him for the election of Maggie Thatcher lol.

PS I would like to post a heap of youtubes here if that's ok - they all make better watching than the average TV show )

 

[2020hindsight]

continuiing (and this one is brilliant imo)
the game is called "the prisoner's dilemna"

Dawkins: EVOLUTION OF MORALITY (2)

cooperation vs defect

taking a "friend" for a ride.

PS has anyone played RISK? - treaties honoured, treaties ignored - etc .

 

[2020hindsight]

these "games" or observed behaviours - variations of "prisoner's dilemna" (SIMILAR TO GLOBAL WARMING) are called :-

b) "The tragedy of the commons"
selfish behaviour when common land is involved.
each indidual is better off being selfish

c) "cheats and suckers"
!! - No one wins if they act selfishly
cheats always refuse to remove ticks from suckers.
cheats would drive the suckers extinct.
but they will be driven extinct by the ticks as well !!

d) "cheats, suckers and grudgers"
the grudgers win
a grudger is a sucker with a memory , a permanent retaliator once cheated on
grudgers win in the end !!


e) COOPERATION- something better than grudgers - This is what man should be able to do - cooperate for the good of the planet

Dawkins: EVOLUTION OF MORALITY (3)

Dawkins: EVOLUTION OF MORALITY (4)

Axelrod conducted experiments on computer.. invited programmers to submit "behaviour programs"

"nice" behaviour = grudgers, tit-for-tat, suckers, trustworthy,
"nasty" behaviour = cheats, untrustworthy, variations thereof etc

WINNER?
tit for tat (= TFT = never the first to defect = "nice")
not envious
is forgiving (forgives as swiftly as it retaliates)
does well only when its opponent is doing well too

TFT was
a) simplest
b) best / winner

Note :too lenient (eg tit for 2 tats) was too generous and too easily exploited.

as for the nastys ? - crime doesn't pay - the nasty programs all end up at the bottom.

EXAMPLE :- vampire bats ( blood suckers can become blood donors) - sharing blood with each other BUT ONLY with ones they have built up a TFT relationship with.

 

[Rafa]

2020, instead of worshiping God, you just worship Dawkins...
Dawkins, and you, are deluded if you think having no God, means all those wars would not have happened!

Like Kennas, and co, I have already explained my position in this in many of previous posts in other similar topics, so i don't plan to elaborate any more.

Proving God doesn't exist is one of the easiest things to do... doesn't make you intellegent... or wise.

 

[2020hindsight]

"Nice guys finish first" continues... (the fifth of 5 youtube chapters)

TFT - tit for tat is important social behaviour ... ( eh Gorbachev and Reagan)
= the value of initial niceness and ongoing forgiveness

of course there's a great deal of cooperation within our society eg Oxford
and we do it naturally of our own free will - without having to be forced into it

but is our cooperation to do with our ability to think deeply philosophically and rationally

or have our brains evolved as advanced social organs designed to police tit-for-tat reciprocity

to calculate past favours, balance debts - an organ of social calculation
designed to make us feel angry when we've been cheated,
and guilty when we know we are the cheat.

"Nice guys finish last? or Nice guys finish first?

Dawkins: EVOLUTION OF MORALITY (5 - of 5)

 

[2020hindsight]

2020, instead of worshiping God, you just worship Dawkins...
Dawkins, and you, are deluded if you think having no God, means all those wars would not have happened!

Like Kennas, and co, I have already explained my position in this in many of previous posts in other similar topics, so i don't plan to elaborate any more.

Proving God doesn't exist is one of the easiest things to do... doesn't make you intellegent... or wise.

lol - howdy Rafa - In fact I preempted you would spring out sometime ...
here's what I posted back at post #32....

btw sure I like what Dawkins says - he's rational, and knows more than I will ever know -
btw also the set of 5 youtubes about the evolution of morality is worth the watch -
could go part way to explaining the problem we were all having in deciding whether man is basically "nice" or "nasty"

and is man capable of putting his greed behind him in the interests of the planet..(??) - not an easy question -

IN FACT it suggests that more cooperation (and less selfishness ) is the only way to go - or the planet (and global warming) will have the last say

kgee -
1. Rafa has challenged me on this question many times - i.e. "religion causes wars" . I think we agreed that "religion causes (some) wars".

2and3. yep -

"If is conceivable that religion may be morally useful without being intellectually sustainable" - John Stuart Mills 1806 - 1873.

and I would happily use "God" myself when I need to give a child hope etc. (just posted this song on "Tunes" thread for example).

Equally I am more likely to respect a Salvation Army officer who is not going to lecture me on the subject, than some visiting American missionary with a barrow to push, and a monthly tally of converts to meet

 

[Rafa]

I hold no truck with religion whatsoever, but I wonder if we are not being just a bit unfair in condemning those who do find some comfort in religion?

.
.
.

Perhaps a group of atheists could similarly go round rescuing people in trouble and this would work just as well. Don't see why not. But I just haven't seen this happening in any sustained way

So I guess I'm not completely comfortable with rubbishing religion entirely, much as I despise the capacity of some of its leaders to manipulate and destroy.

Agree 100%...

 

[Rafa]

lol - howdy Rafa - In fact I preempted you would spring out sometime ...

Yup, and I intend to spring back in soon... cause I don't have much to say really on his topic

What matters is what value do you place on another person's human life and do you believe in helping others and treating others like you would like to be treated.... If you are an atheist or religious, to me doesn't matter...

what peeves me off is the 21st century evangelism (corporate evangelism), of the religious and that atheist kind... where the words mean more than the deeds... and people should follow their words... and everyone else who doesn't believe the words is a complete idiot!

i mean, lets face it... dawkins is and corporate evangelist atheist... trying desperately to start a new religion... he is the teacher and he has disciples... (and 2020, you may be one of those)

Is he genuinely interested in helping others, or just writing a new scripture that repudiates other religions? Just what exactly has his movement done for the good of the poor and destitute of this world?

 

[2020hindsight]

Raf
let's move on....
(we agree that a few cases of war are religion based - Pakistan v India, Palestine vs Israel, AQ of course,; others were more nation based - WW1 etc).

check out those youtubes on the evolution of morality (neither god nor religion is mentioned lol) -
- an interesting study of human nature - to trust or not to trust - to be selfish or not

and the good news is that the good guy wins (or more accurately the bad guy loses).

 

[Wysiwyg]

continuiing (and this one is brilliant imo)
the game is called "the prisoner's dilemna"

cooperation vs defect

taking a "friend" for a ride.

PS has anyone played RISK? - treaties honoured, treaties ignored - etc .

Did anyone notice the noise from drawing a letter on the paper.I`m sure that decisions were made based on what the other person heard.(the two girls)

 

[2020hindsight]

Did anyone notice the noise from drawing a letter on the paper.I`m sure that decisions were made based on what the other person heard.(the two girls)

lol I thought of that too -
I thought - gee you could do a D with one stroke - and fool em lol
but then they were instructed to write their answer.... "NOW" (= concurrently)

thanks for actually watching it wys lol -
until someone watches it, it will be stupid commenting yes?
what did you think?

My guess is that the UN (and international diplomacy) operates pretty much on this principle (Tit for Tat etc)

But for Global Warming, and the next Kyoto deal, we have to step up a notch in the matter of mutual trust for mutual gain ..... and needless to say, the Yanks (and the current Aus govt) won't want to give up one carbon molecule of their current lifestyle.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Oh yes i understand now that they drew at the same time.In the end they agreed on trying to second guess the other based on previous decisions.

Which one are you ; the cheat, sucker or grudger?
Be honest now, lol.
I get picked a lot so i might be seen as a sucker, i don`t hold grudges (sort it out and move on) and don`t cheat.(generally honest)

 

[2020hindsight]

I tend to trust ...
along the lines of "better to have been deceived than never to have trusted"
but lol
can't afford to extend that to actually loaning anyone any money etc

If that trust is proven unwise, guess I become a grudger (as most of us would I guess - i.e. thereafter we remember that person as a bad debt - although I suspect "grudgers" as defined here don't literally bear a grudge as such).

BUT I believe he's saying we have to move on - to TFT (tit for tat) at least some sort of intelligent cooperative plan !!

(do I hear a faint echo of that word Kyoto?, )

then of course there's that famous Texas quote ...

fool me once shame on you
fool me errr -
fool me you can't get fooled again

- well you could have fooled me lol

Bush "Fool Me Once..."

PS tit for tat means never being the first to "defect from the agreement " - never attack unless you are attacked etc.

PS "Life is mostly froth and bubble two things stand like stone
kindness in another's trouble , give the dog a bone "

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref/files/d-f/fool.shtml

"Fool me once
Shame on you
Fool me twice
Shame on me."

--Chinese Proverb.
Source: Forbes Scrapbook of Thoughts on the Business of Everyday Life.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/FoolMeOnce.htm
So when trying to decide now whether to believe what Bush says about Saddam Hussein, remember the old adage: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

And in fact George Bush has tried to fool us more than a dozen times — not only about Iraq, but about his claims to be for limited government, or his claims that judges and politicians should stick to the Constitution.

So we should set aside the Bush assertions and look at each piece of evidence through fresh, independent eyes.

ok - as Bush continues to try to fool people, then slowly the "grudger" in them remembers him as untrustworthy - and refuses to believe him.

 

[Sean K]

A religious attitude is most likely part and parcel of being human
And is a natural consequence of evolution...

It was from religion that mathematics Science Philosophy medicine etc etc all sprung from...

In building the Pyramids, Cathedrals etc.. ways and means and our very minds had to be developed..

Understanding nature .. Sun worship.. lead to the the calendar etc

ethics and morality

all spring form the fact that We have a self awareness.. that is able to reflect and see intention in ourselves and others... A natural step is then to see intention in everything else ( spirits , souls... Blood pours out and evaporates
death ...soul stuff... breath expires breathing stops last out breath.. spirit etc .. wind is a spirit etc )

Self esteem ...Is the all... Others are watching us....everything is watching us

intent awareness self esteem.... forces and powers ..gods and demons.. and the continual attempt to find God.....

Emotions focus and attach... and become the power to create culture technology and science ( How much energy and resources in building things like pyramids etc ? )

self awareness ( limited We are our own blind spots ).. need for self esteem..
the existence of others , rational thought and ( to rational thought ) irrational emotion......... A Human is ( by evolution or God's grace ) a religious being..

And We have our gods... ( The things that draw the most emotional energy to them... what do We build our pyramids to .... what would We fight for and over )...

Symbolic Thinking... We see ourselves in everthing and everyone We encounter...

Our fears hopes bias etc.... religion is a given ... powerful and as such can be destructive ( nazism ? maoism ? etc... )

motorway

MW, all these things might have come about without religion, and not all of them are grand ideas or a good use of resources.

Some of your points I've read a few times, but I'm struggling....


The Pyramids look great, but how long did they take to build, at what cost, and to what purpose? To house a dead body. They are a nice pile of big rocks however.

Sun worship didn't lead to the calander. Most ancient calanders were time cycles of the sun beginning at mythological starting points. The Sun's obviously and important source of the sun tan, but worship?

Ethics and morality in religion? Like sacrificing virgins? The list goes on...

A source of self esteem? Because people are watching us? This is due to God?

Hmmmm, I shan't go on.


Religion has brought about some great stuff, on the surface of it.

Others to add to your list, apart from Dawkin's:

Renaissance art.
Stain glass windows.
Monty Python and the Meaning of Life.
Some great forms of torture developed during the Inquisition.
The destruction of Indigenous cultures.
The 7 day week, with a day off becuase God rested then.
Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark. (needed the Ark)
Burning of witches at the stake, or by drowning. (if she dies she's not a witch?)
Jesus turned water into wine, gotta LOVE that!
He also fed 5000 people with 7 loaves of a bread and a few fish. Tick!
The International Red Cross symbol. (reverse of the Swiss flag, bassed on the cross)
Fijian church choirs are brilliant!!
The fish symbol on bumper stickers.
Vatican City and the Swiss Guards. (love the art and the outfits!)
WWI/II cemetaries in France just wouldn't be the same without all those crosses, and stars, and moons.
Speaking of crosses and stars and moons, many national flags just wouldn't be the same...
Church Bingo was a hit in the 70s, even kids could join in!
The Brothers....


Go God and Religion!! Love ya!

 

[jonojpsg]

He's not the Messiah, he's just a very naughty boy! lol

Not that this encapsulates my personal view at all, it was just a line that stuck in my head as being very amusing at the time

 

[kgee]

of course there's a great deal of cooperation within our society eg Oxford
and we do it naturally of our own free will - without having to be forced into it

but is our cooperation to do with our ability to think deeply philosophically and rationally

or have our brains evolved as advanced social organs designed to police tit-for-tat reciprocity

Dawkins: EVOLUTION OF MORALITY (5 - of 5)

Unable to watch the video I still believe we work within a co operative framework.
The participants would be co-operating within the framework of the experiment...if a participant had got a gun and shot everyone within the room....now that would be another story...so in answer to your question of are people basicaly nice or nasty...I still have to sway towards nice (knocking on wood)

 

[Sean K]

I still have to sway towards nice (knocking on wood)

I agree kgee, but it's only because it generally ultimately makes our own life better. There are exceptions of course.

I think just swaying towards the 'nice' though will never fix the 'bad'. Let's critically look at the bad and accept it so we can move on. Otherwise, we are going to continue to live in the 'dream world' of religious belief forever.