Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dawkins controversial again.
Options
Comments
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »There's an atheist community now? Nobody told me!
Meh. I find this quite tiresome. Yes, most who identify as atheist don't go to conferences and the like but the reality is Dawkins is one of the most publicly identifiable "celebrity atheists" of our era, for better or worse.0 -
porsche959 wrote: »Dawkins is one of the most publicly identifiable "celebrity atheists" of our era, for better or worse.
Yes, I know, I just don't care. I didn't elect him Pope of Atheism, and his arguments and pronouncements, good or bad, do not reflect on me in the slightest.0 -
porsche959 wrote: »Meh. I find this quite tiresome. Yes, most who identify as atheist don't go to conferences and the like but the reality is Dawkins is one of the most publicly identifiable "celebrity atheists" of our era, for better or worse.
Nor do they form a community, have a shared world view, or have anything else in common beyond not believing in God. Dawkins may well be a celebrity atheist but he has no more mandate to represent atheism than Daniel O'Donnell has to represent Ireland.0 -
Nor do they form a community, have a shared world view, or have anything else in common beyond not believing in God. Dawkins may well be a celebrity atheist but he has no more mandate to represent atheism than Daniel O'Donnell has to represent Ireland.
Yeah, but you're one of them al a la carte atheists
and O'Donnell unlike Dawkins has an MBE
0 -
I wonder what Dawkins would have to say on twitter about this -
Birth of first baby screened for Cystic Fibrosis a ‘milestone’0 -
Advertisement
-
Victim blaming is one of more pernicious aspects of "rape culture", along with trivializing rape (mild rape versus stranger rape). Rape is rape, if sex is non consensual it is rape. Yes there are exceptions as with everything, like both parties involved being intoxicated to the point of not been able to seek or give consent, but I think common sense would suggest these are rare (and generally a handy excuse for those committing the offense).
Taken in isolation, Dawkins latest tweet may seem relatively harmless, but it has to be taken in the context of a whole series of tweets to his roughly 1M followers. In the past he has had a go at a feminist who complained about being propositioned in a hotel elevator, scolding her that Muslim women have it worse, mothers or parents who decide to continue a Downs Syndrome pregnancy are immoral, he has described some pedophilia as "mild", and now some rape as "mild". If a Catholic bishop were to make such statements about child abuse, how do you think it would be received? "Ah sure, it was mild rape, not at all like stranger rape".
Basically he is crap at philosophy and should stick to science. He has muddled incoherent thinking that generally isn't backed up by any evidence. His stated moral worldview is that it is immoral to do anything to add to world suffering, which is how he defended his Downs Syndrome argument. Perhaps he could take his own advise then and pause before causing suffering on subjects he knows nothing about, or at least interview a few people with DS and ask if they would prefer if they had been aborted, or ask their parents about the suffering they have caused. He might be surprised by the answers, if he had done any research on the subject he would know that people with DS are very happy with their lives, and their parents and siblings pretty much universally say their lives are better because of it.
Are you saying that Emma Watson has it as bad as women in the Taleban controlled areas. I mean a guy politely invited her to his room for coffee in a lift ( in Dublin as it happens) and she declined whereupon he said ok.0 -
Dawkins has set himself up as an atheist pope, and an authority figure of reason and logic, and there are plenty who regard him as such. Nowhere have I suggested he speaks for all atheists, nor even a majority of atheists, but in my experience he does speak for many strong atheists, given how frequently he is referenced on atheist fora, his speaking engagements at Atheist organizations, his 1M Twitter followers, and the fawning of his followers on his website. Personally I don't give a rats ass about him, but I do care about his influence on society, which I believe is negative.
My opinion on the DS issue is based on the evidence of those that have studied people with Downs Syndrome and their families, his opinion is based on his individual flawed logic. Survey data makes it quite clear that the great majority of parents, guardians and siblings of people with DS state their lives are positively affected by their DS child/sibling, and more importantly 98% of DS adults say they are happy with their lives and happy with who they are.
The inability of some strong atheists to see this issue clearly is disturbing, as clearly they cannot get past Dawkins as an authority figure. What if a religious figure stated that being gay leads to suffering, due to how it is perceived in society, and if we had a reliable genetic test parents should really abort and try again. What gives Dawkins the ability to judge who is worthy of life and love or not? The excuse that it is just his opinion is pathetic, his opinion is highly influential and needs to be countered publically, in the same way that intolerant fundamentalist religious opinion needs to be countered.
Actually not true. Dawkins is a significant public figure and his views are widely publicized, and taken seriously by significant numbers. His need for constant media attention and wide reporting of his views are evidence of this. His widely disseminated views are hurtful to those who have decided to go forward with DS pregnancies. Put yourself in the shoes of someone with DS or a family member, and imagine how you would feel if you heard an authority figure with a large public following thinks its immoral that you or the person you love was allowed to be born.
I honestly do not understand why people defend him, as I said compare him to a religious figure making such utterances, like references to "mild pedophilia" or "mild rape". It seems to me an appalling lack of empathy to think in this fashion, but as you say everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Clearly mild pedeophillia exists. You are an example of the kind of thinking - the black and white thinking - which is common in religiously minded people.
When I was 12 on a bus a guy sat beside me on a country bus and proceeded to tell me he was deaf. Well he wrote he was deaf. He had an A4 notepad. He then "talked for a while" which was writing to and fro. I was slightly weirded by this conversation. But I was taught to respect disabled people. He then got more and more... Weird. Asked questions about sex ( I was 12). Drew pictures of a penis. Or two. I did nothing. He then started to fondle me. I squirmed. He tried again. I wrote "**** off" on the notepad. And he did.
I remembered this about 15 years later in a pub where a group of guys were discussing the stats about abuse being ⅓ or ½. We all thought that too high until we tried to remember. Most people had something. Some weirdo grabbing them.
But it didn't really affect me. Or the other guys. It's not like we were Elizabeth fritzl.0 -
Dawkins has set himself up as an atheist pope
No. You and your theistic cohort have set him up as such. Solely so you can present this baiting misrepresentation in order to bait atheists into defending themselves against the straw man instead of discussing whatever topic happened to be at hand when you used the bait to derail it.
While still other Theists are so ingrained in their personality cult world views, such as the personality cult of Jesus Christ, that they find it difficult to observe the world view of others without doing so in the same structures and terms. So they need to believe we have a personality figure head in the same way THEY do.
But it simply is not true because those, like myself, have no such personality figureheads. Rather we listen to the arguments as and when they arrive. Some people are more prevelent in presenting them due to how world media and literature function. But I attack no more import to the words of Dawkins then I do the words of lesser known Aaron-Ra.
I respect them for getting up and DOING such public speaking and writing. But more than that.... no. I consider, then agree or disagree with, any argument or point they make as and when they make them. They are just a voice in a crowd like myself and yourself.
So stop applying the constructs of your own personality cult style world views when attempting to evaluate the world views of others..... and you will cease to be so wrong, so often.0 -
magicbastarder wrote: »i googled the claim about the 'great majority' being aborted. apparently there are approx. 700 births and 1,100 abortions every year in the UK; so a majority, but not as great a one as implied.
Since when is the definition of 'majority' subjective?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Why don't you ask him?I wonder what Dawkins would have to say on twitter about this -
Birth of first baby screened for Cystic Fibrosis a ‘milestone’
MrP0 -
Why don't you ask him?
MrP
I would, but -
1. Twitter isn't the place to have that discussion (notwithstanding the fact that I'm not on it).
2. It wouldn't be his personal opinion based on his morality I'd be interested in, it would be his professional opinion based on the ethics of affording IVF treatment to people who are known to have a terminal illness, in order to help them conceive.
It's a brave new world in the field of fertility and I think Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist would have an opinion on it.
It wouldn't be to put him on the spot. If I wanted to do that I could join twitter in less than five minutes and bait him on it, and we both know Dawkins wouldn't be able to resist the opportunity to put his foot in his mouth.
As much as I disagree with the man's personal opinions, professionally I would have more respect both for him, and for myself, than to play out the discussion on the social media stage.0 -
It's a brave new world in the field of fertility and I think Dawkins as an evolutionary biologist would have an opinion on it.
It's a brave new world for Ireland, but hardly news to Dawkins. PGD has been happening in the UK for many years. Link to HFEA regulator in UK.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »It's a brave new world for Ireland, but hardly news to Dawkins. PGD has been happening in the UK for many years. Link to HFEA regulator in UK.
Downs syndrome and abortion were hardly news to anyone either, let alone Dawkins.0 -
Sorry meant to get back to you on this before now.Only a man can commit rape.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/sec0004.htmlThe person having the penis inserted into their body is the person that must give consent.
Surely both should consent.There may be some sexual acts committed by a woman against a man against his consent, but it will not be rape.
There are instances of women forcing men into sexual intercourse. Doubtful that would meet the Irish legal definition of rape, but why shouldn't it? Also interesting that section 4 includes penetration of the vagina by an object, but not the anus, why is that.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
It wouldn't be his personal opinion based on his morality I'd be interested in, it would be his professional opinion based on the ethics of affording IVF treatment to people who are known to have a terminal illness, in order to help them conceive.
It doesn't say in the article whether either parent actually has CF, they could just both be carriers.Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »It doesn't say in the article whether either parent actually has CF, they could just both be carriers.
They were interviewed on TV3 this morning and I only caught the end of the interview. The child's father definitely had CF as he had the classic 'clubbed fingernails', a symptom of the disease.
The reason I mentioned it wasn't so much in relation to PGD itself, but to the ethics of that scenario as I mentioned earlier in the thread that I have a brother with CF and he has mentioned that he would like to have children some day -Here's where ethics gets hinky -
Should IVF be offered to people who have a genetic disorder, or is it a breach of their Human Rights to deny them the procedure if they can afford to pay for it? If a person without a genetic disorder is able to avail of IVF, then why not a person with a genetic disorder?
People with Cystic Fibrosis for example?
I don't expect you to answer that question, it's just one of those things to mull over. In the interests of disclosure though, my brother has Cystic Fibrosis and he would give anything to have children. He just hasn't met the right girl yet, but he lives a full life otherwise, travelling the world entering archery competitions when he's not at home lecturing at third level. He's in his 30's now and his life expectancy is unknown, as he's pretty much baffled doctors so far. My other brother wasn't quite so fortunate, but in the 19 years he did live, I mean he REALLY lived, packing in a life full of adventure and his diary right up until his death was full of upcoming appointments for the year ahead.
To say that either of them has unduly suffered though, even on balance between what they achieved and what they suffered to achieve it... I couldn't possibly quantify it, but I know their quality of life wasn't so impeded by their condition that they weren't or aren't happy. The sum of all happiness does indeed by far and above outweigh the sum of their suffering as far as they are concerned, and the legacy they have left and will leave behind them through them having lived their lives is still very much in evidence today, and will be for some time to come.
I would say the balance tips pretty heavily in terms of adding to the sum of all happiness on that score.
Which is why I would be interested in Dawkins professional opinion on the ethics of IVF being offered to assist people with terminal illnesses in conceiving, from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist and nothing more.
I think it's an interesting discussion that could be had, but perhaps when I think more about it, a discussion that may be better suited to the Humanities forum than A&A.0 -
Which is why I would be interested in Dawkins professional opinion on the ethics of IVF being offered to assist people with terminal illnesses in conceiving, from the perspective of an evolutionary biologist and nothing more.
His role as an evolutionary biologist is about as relevant to his views on the ethics of IVF as my role as a science fiction reader.0 -
My apologies, the Irish definition is slightly different than the UK version. It is still not great either.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Sorry meant to get back to you on this before now.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1990/en/act/pub/0032/sec0004.html
One would think. Cases where neither party consents are rare. I think, in general one of the parties wants to have sex, the issue being where the other party does not.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Surely both should consent.
It would not meet meet the Irish definition, nor would it meet the UK definition. Personally I agree with you, it should be rape, it is simply that under the current wording of the legislation it isn't.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »There are instances of women forcing men into sexual intercourse. Doubtful that would meet the Irish legal definition of rape, but why shouldn't it?
Yeah, it is odd. It effectively means that a man cannot be raped by a woman. A man can be raped by another man, but only if the penis is used.Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Also interesting that section 4 includes penetration of the vagina by an object, but not the anus, why is that.
In the UK definition, rape can only be committed by a man as it must be committed with a penis, but it is defined a penetration of the anus, mouth or vagina, so male victims are also covered. There are also other offences relating to penetration by objects, these cover penetration of the vagina or anus by either a male or a female.
I do understand that some people use the term rape in a slightly different way, but it is wrong. This is similar to creationists coming in here and telling us 'evolution is just a theory' or an anti-choicer calling abortion the 'murder of a child' they are using words in an incorrect way. This is just the same, using the correct meaning of the word a man cannot be raped by a woman. I know a woman can have sex with a man without his consent, and I personally think it should be rape, but it isn't.
MrP0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »His role as an evolutionary biologist is about as relevant to his views on the ethics of IVF as my role as a science fiction reader.
You're still not getting where I'm coming from -
Basically, IVF being offered to people with terminal genetic disorders is like re-writing the book on human evolution so to speak. It's eliminating disorders and diseases among the population on a very small scale at the moment, but as and when it becomes a more affordable and available option, and science pushes the ethical envelope even further...
There's no denying we're well on the way to evolution by human design (as in humans will have even more of a say in the offspring they reproduce, so you could have some dumb cluck Quasimodo produce offspring with the physical make-up of Scarlett Johansson, and the intelligence of Alan Turing, just an example!), and the more and more we take control of our own evolution, I feel that individual short-sightedness may lead to long-term consequences such as our immune system becoming redundant, or an unknown genetic mutation sneaking into the gene pool and polluting it, and the effect that could have on humanity.
That's the kind of ethics I'm talking about, as opposed to any 'increasing the sum of all happiness' nonsense. That, to me at least, is a futile standard of measurement as given the fact it's unquantifiable, it's inherently unscientific.
EDIT: A bit of a philosoraptor meme here, but -
If Dawkins argument is inherently unscientific, doesn't that mean his reasoning is irrational?
Now there's a question! :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
I feel that individual short-sightedness may lead to long-term consequences such as our immune system becoming redundant, or an unknown genetic mutation sneaking into the gene pool and polluting it, and the effect that could have on humanity.
That is perhaps true, but simply selecting embryos during IVF to avoid babies with Cystic Fibrosis is not that kind of change. The child has a certain natural chance of being born without CF anyhow, we aren't changing the genes of a healthy child, just ensuring that the unhealthy one is never born.
And Dawkins has repeatedly said that evolution is not a moral process, and we can't derive ethics from it. He has further made the point that evolution would be a cruel, evil way to get results if done on purpose as one of his arguments against it being a tool used by a benevolent creator.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »That is perhaps true, but simply selecting embryos during IVF to avoid babies with Cystic Fibrosis is not that kind of change. The child has a certain natural chance of being born without CF anyhow, we aren't changing the genes of a healthy child, just ensuring that the unhealthy one is never born.
There's a book I'd love you to read if you ever get the opportunity (perhaps it could be ordered through your local library) -
The Troubled Dream of Genetic Medicine: Ethnicity and Innovation in Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, and Sickle Cell Disease (Hardcover)
Just one of the reviews that gives you an idea of what the book discusses and why I highlighted your ending sentence there -The Troubled Dream of Genetic Medicine: Ethnicity and Innovation in Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, and Sickle Cell Disease provides a history of diseases which have been connected with racial makeup, sparking ethnic controversies in their discussion and analysis. The authors draw links between biology and social issues, examining underlying influences on research and perspective of modern medicine and how Americans ultimately come to embrace or reject projected breakthroughs. From therapy as social justice to media headlines and changing social perspectives, THE TROUBLED DREAM OF GENETIC MEDICINE is a powerful testimony to the power of prejudice even in the field of medical research.
This is why I'm saying that ethics goes beyond our own personal morality and why we need to do a proper cost/benefit analysis as to how our short term choices can have long term consequences. Dawkins 'sum of all happiness' argument appeals to popular social justice, but scientifically speaking it's about as useful in the decision making process as a chocolate teapot.And Dawkins has repeatedly said that evolution is not a moral process, and we can't derive ethics from it. He has further made the point that evolution would be a cruel, evil way to get results if done on purpose as one of his arguments against it being a tool used by a benevolent creator.
This whole argument started off with Dawkins applying his personal morals to evolution, and for a scientist to personalise evolution by applying terms like "cruel" or "evil", that's implying the existence of a benevolent creator, but not an existential one - the benevolent creator in this case is human beings themselves, by taking control over evolution from nature, and applying our own standards to it, as you say - ensuring the unhealthy child is never born, but then risking allowing prevailing social mores will dictate the direction of evolution, and since we're not all evolutionary biologists, to have evolutionary biologists take their directions from society seems, in my opinion at least, to be unscientific, irrational, and indeed - unethical.
This is why IMO scientists should never try to be popular, but they should instead stick to investigating the facts. Introducing their own personal biases makes for bad science, and even worse is when they take their lead from popular opinion in society.0 -
I think it is an interesting point Czarcasm raises. There may well be a chance of a child being born with CF anyway, but I think (he can correct me if I am wrong) the point he is trying to make is that we are now in a position where people that a few short years ago could not have passed their genes onto future generations now can...Zubeneschamali wrote: »That is perhaps true, but simply selecting embryos during IVF to avoid babies with Cystic Fibrosis is not that kind of change. The child has a certain natural chance of being born without CF anyhow, we aren't changing the genes of a healthy child, just ensuring that the unhealthy one is never born.
And Dawkins has repeatedly said that evolution is not a moral process, and we can't derive ethics from it. He has further made the point that evolution would be a cruel, evil way to get results if done on purpose as one of his arguments against it being a tool used by a benevolent creator.
I think this is actually very interesting. As the technology advances we will have the ability for people that could not otherwise have children likely to survive long enough to reproduce being able to reproduce.
Also, the idea of disease be effectively wiped and our immune systems riding down could make the plot for a really crap straight to sci-fi channel movie where the melting icecaps release a prehistoric virus that threatens to wipe out mankind. Awesome.
MrP0 -
prevailing social mores will dictate the direction of evolution, and since we're not all evolutionary biologists, to have evolutionary biologists take their directions from society seems, in my opinion at least, to be unscientific, irrational, and indeed - unethical.
But this is the whole point - an evolutionary biologist might be able to say "If you do x to genes, then Y", and fair enough.
As soon as he says "You must not do X to genes, because Y, and Y is immoral" he is no longer speaking as an evolutionary biologist, and his opinion on the ethics is no more valid than mine.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »But this is the whole point - an evolutionary biologist might be able to say "If you do x to genes, then Y", and fair enough.
As soon as he says "You must not do X to genes, because Y, and Y is immoral" he is no longer speaking as an evolutionary biologist, and his opinion on the ethics is no more valid than mine.
But... that's exactly why I said I would be interested in his professional opinion as an evolutionary biologist, and not his personal opinion. I have no interest at all in his personal opinion on the matter.
I do hope though an evolutionary biologist would be able to provide more insight than just "do X, Y is the result", but I understand what you meant. I would hope an evolutionary biologists' thinking would be more flexible.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,405 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 47856
you were interested in his professional opinion on the ethics - and that's the point; his professional opinion would probably be 'ethics does not enter the evolutionary debate'.But... that's exactly why I said I would be interested in his professional opinion as an evolutionary biologist
unless i've misuderstood your point; just skimming the thread at the moment.0 -
magicbastarder wrote: »you were interested in his professional opinion on the ethics - and that's the point; his professional opinion would probably be 'ethics does not enter the evolutionary debate'.
unless i've misuderstood your point; just skimming the thread at the moment.
Not only have you misunderstood my point, but you've also misrepresented Dawkins views on the ethics of evolution -Evolutionary ethics is a term referring equally to a form of descriptive ethics or normative ethics.
Descriptive evolutionary ethics consists of biological approaches to ethics (morality) based on the role of evolution in shaping human psychology and behavior. Such approaches may be based in scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, or ethology with a focus on understanding and explaining observed ethical preferences or choices and their origins.
On the other hand, normative evolutionary ethics may represent a more independent attempt to use evolution, alone or partially, to justify an ethical system. This project has not, according to one view, been especially successful; for example, Richard Dawkins describes how we must rise above our selfish genes to behave morally (that is, evolution has endowed us with various instincts, but we need some other moral system to decide which ones to empower or control). Dawkins has since expressed interest in what Sam Harris calls a science of morality, which starts with the assumption that "morality" refers to "facts about the flourishing of conscious creatures".
Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics0 -
That wiki quote does not represent the views of Dawkins. It just namedrops him, trying to look good.
Re this;
If human genetic engineering was occurring, then surely it would easily be possible to reverse these unwanted problems as soon as they were discovered?..and the more and more we take control of our own evolution, I feel that individual short-sightedness may lead to long-term consequences such as our immune system becoming redundant, or an unknown genetic mutation sneaking into the gene pool and polluting it, and the effect that could have on humanity.
That's the kind of ethics I'm talking about, as opposed to any 'increasing the sum of all happiness' nonsense. That, to me at least, is a futile standard of measurement as given the fact it's unquantifiable, it's inherently unscientific.
Anyway GM is not in itself ethics. We may decide to restrict GM based on fear of the unknown, or on ethics. Ethics is not an empirical science, it is more philosophy.
Whether or not ethics,philosophy, and science are the product of evolutionary biology is not really the point. Yes, they all have their origins in our will to survive, our constant striving to be more successful. Which drive is itself also evolutionary.
The kind of ethics that Dawkins and Harris refer to as "increasing the sum of all happiness" is a bit different to basic "selfish gene co-operative behaviour" in that it takes account of the happiness of all sentient beings, not just one genetic line, or one tribe, or one nation, or one species.0 -
There's no denying we're well on the way to evolution by human design (as in humans will have even more of a say in the offspring they reproduce, so you could have some dumb cluck Quasimodo produce offspring with the physical make-up of Scarlett Johansson, and the intelligence of Alan Turing, just an example!), and the more and more we take control of our own evolution, I feel that individual short-sightedness may lead to long-term consequences such as our immune system becoming redundant, or an unknown genetic mutation sneaking into the gene pool and polluting it, and the effect that could have on humanity.
It's a very interesting issue. I also wonder if a genetic divergence could evolve between wealthy developed countries and developing countries as a result? Perhaps wealthy, technologically advanced countries would routinely start "tweaking" their offspring to make them smarter, while poorer countries would not be able to afford it and would gradually fall behind their genetically more advanced neighbours. (Assuming global warming doesn't knock us all back into the stone age first.)0 -
Advertisement
-
Perhaps wealthy, technologically advanced countries would routinely start "tweaking" their offspring to make them smarter, while poorer countries would not be able to afford it and would gradually fall behind their genetically more advanced neighbours.
And an extension to that question would be.... in such a case when we are manually tweaking our codes and hence preventing natural mutations and the like..... when a genuinely useful new mutation arises (say for example a certain immunity) in these poorer lesser developed countries.... will we start farming them for their DNA?
I guess, to use the words in the posts above, we have been "re-writing the book on human evolution" for a long time already.
There is a suggestion above that "As the technology advances we will have the ability for people that could not otherwise have children likely to survive long enough to reproduce being able to reproduce." and we have been doing that for a long time already.
From the moment we put glasses on a nearly blind man, or found an injection to treat diabetes, or made medical advances enough to allow the likes of Stephen Hawking to reproduce.
I guess there is no "will have" here really therefore, if we are to be pedantic. It has been ongoing for quite some time.0
Advertisement