The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins

[Brugmansia]

I stumbled on this book and since it has drawn my intention I'd like to hear or anyone has read it already, or a part of it at least. If so, shed your connection with it.

 

[forgetoz]

One of my bibles

Great book exploring the theory of evolution in all its domains, Dawkins' style!

 

[restin]

I really really dislike Dawkins (you can say hate). He is a lunatic that thinks that he destroys a dogma but doesn't realize that he creates a much greater one.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

I really really dislike Dawkins (you can say hate). He is a lunatic that thinks that he destroys a dogma but doesn't realize that he creates a much greater one.

In that regard he's certainly not the only one! LOL

 

[Forkbender]

What restin said.

The book is a classic, but I don't think he's even remotely right.

 

[restin]

In that regard he's certainly not the only one! LOL

Is it a dogma if I dislike an extreme opinion? I don't think that I do make a statement about myself by saying that I disagree with someone.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Is it a dogma if I dislike an extreme opinion? I don't think that I do make a statement about myself by saying that I disagree with someone.

I meant there have been, and are, more like him in the science community, demolishing one dogma by replacing it with another.

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Yeah like me !

Heeeee heiiiehiiiiiiiii YWawhahwhaheyah !

*does the rain dance*

 

[restin]

I meant there have been, and are, more like him in the science community, demolishing one dogma by replacing it with another.

Sorry CM, don't be angry

 

[Brugmansia]

Just for the record, I don't believe in any future theory or practise that saves 5 billion people from doubts and question about how, who and why. And will never commit to particulary 1 source of information or approach. I love orientation on multiversional (is that even a worth?) sources and approaches. This is a really hard one to start and read objectively till the end if you're into entheogens. But I feel it can help me a lot to get a better understanding of other people's world and their relationship with life.

I'm always interested in elaborated subjective views.

 

[forgetoz]

Well, I have to say he really is one of my favourite authors, and the proposal he does in the Selfish Gene is now considered science. Evolution DOES operate at the gene level. Also on the species and groups levels. That is what is accepted when talking of theory of evolution.

Also, interpreting memes as natural selection of ideas has been used by a wide variety of authors and is considered not only a thought exercise but a valid idea.

And I have to disagree with those who think he is trying to replace a dogma for another. I think that's misinterpretation of his work: he is fighting against the major dogmas of our times and his style reflects just that, an attack similar to those we have been victims of, by religions and others. If you think he is dogmatic, try reading the God Delusion :lol:

 

[Brugmansia]

Could it be forgetoz, that replacing a dogma for another one is said here, because it pushes the believe in giving and alliance more to the background; and rises a licence to lean more on the individual drift?

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Thats the difficulty nowadays when the word science can almost be equated with religion at times, it's all in the dynamic more than in the actual rationalisation.

The line is very thin...

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Science as in the Big Bang, life arising out of a primeval soup, evolution etc. These are all theories, but they are often assumed to be undeniable facts, in other words dogma.

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Exactly my point... who is to tell ?

Well I'd be a liar if I said it couldn't be me... or a consensus of 144000 like me.

artyman:

 

[forgetoz]

Could it be forgetoz, that replacing a dogma for another one is said here, because it pushes the believe in giving and alliance more to the background; and rises a licence to lean more on the individual drift?

I'm not sure I understand you? Are you referring to the "selfish" part of the equation? That's just a metaphor, intentionalizing (direct "translation" from portuguese, I hope the word exists :shock: ) genes is just a way to better explain how they would go to survive in the gene pool.

And well, I'm deeply into the academic point of view, so when I speak of evolution I take it for granted, given the knowledge we have at the moment.

The thing is: if you demonstrate scientifically that any one of that theories is wrong, then anyone deserving to be called a scientist will accept it and move on to another idea. Unlike dogmas and not exactly what happens with religion, as you all know, and science has suffered centuries of repression in the name of some god, so we might as well retaliate now that we can! :twisted:

 

[????????]

why do you hate Dawkins? i think you have the idea of him being this atheist crusader that's on a mission or something, an idea you must have gotten from media. i do not see him like that at all. watch him in videos at youtube. he's a very calmed and respectful guy. in fact, when i read The God Delusion i was pleasantly surprised by how tactful and discreet he came across when describing how the idea of the bearded all mighty father ghost perpetrated by religion is a delusion. and not because he is infatuated with science like you seem to think but because he actually shows how these beliefs can be (and are) dangerous in our everyday life. unnecessary example: the middle east disaster.

and the book is far from an attack from a dogmatic. it reads more like a thought experiment on why we feel we need to have the father god concept and all the sorts of different arguments that arise from it. then taking each of those arguments and see if they hold.

i take it you have not read him.

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

I haven't... yet the concept is familiar...

Intentionalizing genes is part of the ascension process, but to access some genes you need to aprehend their history and the verbal turning points in the macrocosm, is that included in his theory as well ?

False ascension (ascension of the mind) is much easier to manifest than biological ascension.

 

[Crimzen]

im a hard line atheist so naturally i love richard dawkins
i'm yet to read this one, i own the god delusion and the blind watchmaker
both terrific books
im not going to hijack this thread with atheist propaganda though

why dont people see the pure simplicity of evolution?
it just makes so much sense, whereas most religions make almost zero sense and people jump at the chance to believe and be led by others
it doesnt seem right, i think there are too many followers in the world

"deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow, what you need is someone strong to guide you"
-maynard-

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

People don't want to see that because they know subconsciously that the established institution that teaches those things are biased, not because their research is not right, but because the knowledge has been disseminated according to a pattern that striked up the fear that has been implanted into them at a very early age.

Sure evolution, but the greeks heck were more evolved than we are socially, what happened to evolution then ?

You see what I mean, the schism is so large that some people will have a cardiac arrest just by realising something that proves the schism ; it's a schism in a schism.

I would be considered an atheist by religious people, because I beleive in nothing, but I feel the presence of the fractality of this world and if a scientist tells me there is no life on the sun because it's too hot ; I will accuse him of dogma.

If life is fractal according to science, you cannot tell me there is no life on the sun, or even in the large masses of suns in the middle of the galaxy, where there is obviously too much light to theoretically support life. (the suns are very close to each other)

Hope this perspective helps resolve your question