I don’t mind The Selfish Gene so much as I hate Richard Dawkins for being a misogynistic transphobe who hung out with Epstein after his first conviction. For an enlightened rational athiest, he is quite narrow minded about science that doesn’t agree with his reactionary worldview.
The biggest problem with the book is that Dawkins demonstrates that the gods are living, evolving ideas which have developed over time to the point of being able to exert agency on the world… And then remains an atheist. Instead of concluding, as Terry Pratchett liked to joke, that the gods are alien intelligences created by humans through worship.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. How does your last sentence flow from your first? I think most atheists would agree with the notion that gods are ideas passed down over generations. They’re not real things that actually exist, but like anything people believe, the very idea of them exerts an influence on society…which we see every time a government passes a law based in religious ideology, like anti-LGBT or anti-abortion laws.
None of that even seems very controversial. Unless you’re a believer in a literal god or gods, I’m not sure where the problem is.
That guy is pretty much Baudrillarding that people live in the world created by media — including folk communication like memes in this case — so if this collective consciousness says something is true, it might as well be.
(You might want to tag the user, as they regularly say pretty weird stuff, this one is rather mild for them. Or don’t and let yourself be surprised.)
Sorry when you say “that guy”, you’re talking about Dawkins or the person I was conversing with here on the fediverse? Because to be honest I didn’t think they were saying anything that didn’t seem pretty much in line with what I was already agreeing with them about.
you’re talking about Dawkins or the person I was conversing with
The commenter.
The difference between you and them is they’re saying it doesn’t matter whether Jesus or God actually physically ever existed and actually did what’s ascribed to them — but, if people believe that they do or did then Jesus and God effectively exist(ed) as far as people can tell. It’s kind of a variation on solipsism where the noosphere dictates the effective perceived reality instead of any one individual mind.
As I mentioned, you can catch a further glimpse of their peculiar worldview if you peruse their previous comments, but this particular take here is probably the most comprehensible I’ve seen from them so far.
The idea of a god is a god. Jesus actually exists, He’s a psychological parasite living in the collective imagination of humanity. And He influences the world through His followers, who are sworn to serve Him.
I mean, sort of? That statement isn’t literally true, but taken metaphorically it basically matches what I said.
Jesus actually exists
Scholarly consensus is that he was indeed a real person who actually existed, but he obviously didn’t perform the actual literal miracles described in the bible.
He’s a psychological parasite living in the collective imagination of humanity. And He influences the world through His followers, who are sworn to serve Him.
Yeah, sure. He doesn’t literally live, but the idea of him has a powerful effect, so metaphorically you could say he influences the world through his followers.
Unless you’re getting into some really fucking weird mumbo jumbo bullshit and you’re trying to claim it is actually absolutely literal that he exists and exerts a force on the world directly, I don’t see where you and I are in disagreement.
I can’t tell if you’re messing with me or if you actually don’t know the one intelligent thing that Richard Dawkins has ever said
I love that image. Here you go 🙂
…The Aristocats!
Dick
Wait, we don’t like The Selfish Gene? Seems to be a good idea, at least from the evolutionary perspective if not the sociological one.
I don’t mind The Selfish Gene so much as I hate Richard Dawkins for being a misogynistic transphobe who hung out with Epstein after his first conviction. For an enlightened rational athiest, he is quite narrow minded about science that doesn’t agree with his reactionary worldview.
Also, he’s a huge realist 🤮
Scientifically, no. The selfish gene he posits is on the level of saying you only use 10% of your brain.
The book isn’t all good. There’s some strong arguments even against the concept of memes, but I think that particular idea is pretty robust
How so? Wikipedia and most sources near the top of DuckDuckGo seem to think that the idea is generally well-received, with a few minor quibbles.
The biggest problem with the book is that Dawkins demonstrates that the gods are living, evolving ideas which have developed over time to the point of being able to exert agency on the world… And then remains an atheist. Instead of concluding, as Terry Pratchett liked to joke, that the gods are alien intelligences created by humans through worship.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. How does your last sentence flow from your first? I think most atheists would agree with the notion that gods are ideas passed down over generations. They’re not real things that actually exist, but like anything people believe, the very idea of them exerts an influence on society…which we see every time a government passes a law based in religious ideology, like anti-LGBT or anti-abortion laws.
None of that even seems very controversial. Unless you’re a believer in a literal god or gods, I’m not sure where the problem is.
That guy is pretty much Baudrillarding that people live in the world created by media — including folk communication like memes in this case — so if this collective consciousness says something is true, it might as well be.
(You might want to tag the user, as they regularly say pretty weird stuff, this one is rather mild for them. Or don’t and let yourself be surprised.)
Sorry when you say “that guy”, you’re talking about Dawkins or the person I was conversing with here on the fediverse? Because to be honest I didn’t think they were saying anything that didn’t seem pretty much in line with what I was already agreeing with them about.
The commenter.
The difference between you and them is they’re saying it doesn’t matter whether Jesus or God actually physically ever existed and actually did what’s ascribed to them — but, if people believe that they do or did then Jesus and God effectively exist(ed) as far as people can tell. It’s kind of a variation on solipsism where the noosphere dictates the effective perceived reality instead of any one individual mind.
As I mentioned, you can catch a further glimpse of their peculiar worldview if you peruse their previous comments, but this particular take here is probably the most comprehensible I’ve seen from them so far.
The idea of a god is a god. Jesus actually exists, He’s a psychological parasite living in the collective imagination of humanity. And He influences the world through His followers, who are sworn to serve Him.
And this means they’re alien intelligence how?
They’re not human. Their minds work very differently to human minds.
I mean, sort of? That statement isn’t literally true, but taken metaphorically it basically matches what I said.
Scholarly consensus is that he was indeed a real person who actually existed, but he obviously didn’t perform the actual literal miracles described in the bible.
Yeah, sure. He doesn’t literally live, but the idea of him has a powerful effect, so metaphorically you could say he influences the world through his followers.
Unless you’re getting into some really fucking weird mumbo jumbo bullshit and you’re trying to claim it is actually absolutely literal that he exists and exerts a force on the world directly, I don’t see where you and I are in disagreement.
Well then you believe in all the gods. Elohim, Thor, Ra, etc. right?
That would be a massive logical leap for someone to make
Not it’s just a symbolic framing calm down rationality-crusader
Nope, that’s what I was referencing (wait i think the term meme came from that book). gotta give the man the flowers that he’s due