Science & Technology

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What do you think of Dawkins' sentiments?

Richard Dawkins says: “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Is this true? If it's all nothing, how is he able to say there is no good and evil? The ideas and debates we have must mean we have a conscience. Without a conscience, there would be no discussion and nothing to think about. Dawkins would not have the clarity to make this statement without a conscience.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Bel6EQUJ5

No, of course it's not true.
First of all, genes cannot be "selfish"; they're just chemistry, and can't have any motivating factors, feelings, or other states of mind.
Secondly, we all know these opinions of his are based upon unstated, and unconfirmed, philosophical biases (i.e. naturalism, the belief that nature is all there is, and there is nothing beyond what we ourselves can observe using our five senses and scientific apparatus).
He also believes that it's only through the scientific method that we can ever really know anything, which is so obviously not true that one has to wonder what universe this guy is living in.

1-25 of 124

NativePortlander1970 ·

@Bel6EQUJ5 You do realize that Dawkins IS THE expert in his field, Oxford educated and degreed in a field that is very highly peer reviewed and proven, now Professor Emeritus at Cambridge for LONGER than you have been alive. Show us Dear Bellatrix2024, show us all of your degrees and education feom institutions of esteemed higher learning, show us all of the studies you have published. We'll all be waiting.

Bel6EQUJ5

@NativePortlander1970 The 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. So he's an expert in his field. All that means is that he shouldn't discuss things that are outside his field, like philosophy, logic and theology, to list just three.
I don't need to show you my "degrees and qualifications", because what degrees and qualifications I have are completely irrelevant when it comes to determining what is objectively true

Bel6EQUJ5

You're basically saying here that I shouldn't question Dawkins, because of his alleged "expertise" (he's just a biologist, nothing more). Well, I don't agree, because I believe in doing my own thinking, and not relying upon others to tell me what's right, or true.

JimboSaturn · 56-60, M

@Bel6EQUJ5 The scientific method is the only way we can get to know things,.

emiliya · 22-25, F

@JimboSaturn Anyone can follow the scientific method. Why do you need to be a scientist for it?

JimboSaturn · 56-60, M

@emiliya You don't . Using the scientific method makes you scientific. A scientist is just someone who does it as a profession and and trained in the method.

BlueSkyKing · M

@emiliya It’s about science literacy and critical thinking skills. When you’re promoting a religious agenda, there is no need for methodology.

Bel6EQUJ5

@JimboSaturn

The scientific method is the only way we can get to know things,.

So... you don't have personal experiences? 😳

emiliya · 22-25, F

@JimboSaturn These words are limiting. The scientific method is a method that everyone can use. By saying only scientists can use it, you are not understanding what science is. Science is bigger than any scientist.

emiliya · 22-25, F

@BlueSkyKing “When you’re promoting a religious agenda, there is no need for methodology.”

You are approaching this with a bias. If you are a neutral observer with no existing view of religion, you would be able to see it as a possible scientific endeavor. Anything can be scientific. We live science; it is all around us. Why, if all of what exists is science, would religion not be scientific?

JimboSaturn · 56-60, M

@emiliya Science is defined by the scientific method the method is science. Science is not all around us science is the method of investigating the universe around us.

JimboSaturn · 56-60, M

@Bel6EQUJ5 Yes but experiences and feelings are not facts. Science is just a way of using observation and testing theories to predict results

JimboSaturn · 56-60, M

@emiliya Because religion relies on faith which is believing in things with no evidence. It is the opposite of science

Bel6EQUJ5

@JimboSaturn

Yes but experiences and feelings are not facts.

Actually... yes, they are. They're as real as everything else.

JimboSaturn · 56-60, M

@Bel6EQUJ5 No . They are not. We can have delusions. How you feel about something doesnt make it true. Some of your observations could be correct but only the scientific method proves something is a fact

Bel6EQUJ5

@JimboSaturn Yes, I know that how I feel about something doesn't make it true (or false), but feelings themselves are real enough.
And the scientific method doesn't "prove" a damn thing! Proofs are only found within mathematics; science, and the scientific method, only establish probabilities, not certainties (although we can be 99.9% certain about some of the discoveries made).

JimboSaturn · 56-60, M

@Bel6EQUJ5 The scientific method uses math. Science IS the scientific method. That is what science is. People wrongly believe that science is a body of knowledge not so. Look up Science in Wikipedia.

Bel6EQUJ5

@JimboSaturn Oh dear. You use Wikipedia. Look, I know all about the scientific method; you don't need to tell me what it's all about and why it works the way it does, but it's not everything!

BlueSkyKing · M

@emiliya Science is totally neutral. My adage is: If it’s not science, it’s superstition. Why should respect magic?

“You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?”
― Mark Twain

emiliya · 22-25, F

@BlueSkyKing Who said anything about magic? What is magic? We aren't asking enough questions here.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Bel6EQUJ5 So your objections are based on semantics and philosophy?

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@emiliya W

Why, if all of what exists is science, would religion not be scientific?

Because... evidence

BlueSkyKing · M

@emiliya There is lots of magic in the Bible.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Bel6EQUJ5

They're as real as everything else

Only to you personally.. they don't apply beyond your skull

BlueSkyKing · M

@Bel6EQUJ5

@JimboSaturn Oh dear. You use Wikipedia. Look, I know all about the scientific method; you don't need to tell me what it's all about and why it works the way it does, but it's not everything

Name one alternative to the scientific method that works equally as well. For that matter, name one that works half as well or any that does better than chance.

1-25 of 124