A beginner's guide to being an atheist, by Richard Dawkins

[anonymoose]

I knew Dawkins PhD was in animal behavior. Studying the pecking habits of baby chickens, specifically. That is why I linked him to animal behaviourism.

As much as you rely on google for your information I'd have thought you would have dug further than his 1969 doctoral thesis. Or did you actually think he just stopped there and then wrote books?

Core areas of research

• Gene-centered view of evolution:
  Dawkins is best known for popularizing the idea that genes are the fundamental units of selection

In fact according to AI Overview, "Richard Dawkins' research focuses on evolutionary biology and genetics, particularly the gene-centered view of evolution".

The fact that he makes use of genetic research doesn't make him really any different from archeologists, anthropologists, and crime scene detectives who also make use of genetic data.

He does research, FFS. And of course he uses citations. Fuck, anybody who publishes research cites other authors.

If you want to elevate zoology to a top-tier core hard science, that's up to you.

It's extremely broad. Some is , some isn't.

The takeaway here is that,
You don't get a degree in zoology and then get to say you have a degree in genetics

You don't get to acquire an RN degree and then call yourself an MD.

You don't get to use your undergraduate minor in history to call yourself a historian

Nobody said any of that.
What irks me is that you clearly don't understand what the broad subject of zoology entails.
I could study my cat's behavior and say I'm a zoologist because I'm studying an animal. That's the definition of zoology - the study of animals

Zoology | Definition, History, Examples, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

Zoology, branch of biology that studies the members of the animal kingdom and animal life in general. It includes both the inquiry into individual animals and their constituent parts, even to the molecular level, and the inquiry into animal populations, entire faunas, and the relationships of

www.britannica.com

As far as Dawkins, I don't particularly care for his writing. I read one to completion. It was torturous, like reading a Russian novel.
I started and gave up on two or three others.

 

[IBDaMann]

If matter and energy explain everything about life, the universe, and everything,

Only the number 42 explains everything about life, the universe and everything ... but then the question changes.

then science is the only intellectual domain that provides any truth or knowledge.

How was any truth or knowledge obtained prior to science? How were cave men able to successfully hunt without science?

I'm always surprised how keen some message board atheists are to slowly backup and tiptoe away from a matter-and-energy only materialist worldview.

Nope. You have never discussed Goedel's Incompleteness theorem and hence, nobody has ever tiptoed away from it.

 

[IBDaMann]

thinking matter and energy are so important is thinking that architecture is about choosing paint.

Wait, it's not?

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Wait, it's not?

matter and energy are bullshit.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

If matter and energy explain everything about life, the universe, and everything, then science is the only intellectual domain that provides any truth or knowledge.
I'm always surprised how keen some message board atheists are to slowly backup and tiptoe away from a matter-and-energy only materialist worldview.

So other than one "nuance" in just one bullet point in a list of ten bullet points, you have failed for at least the sixth time to justify your insinuation that my OP was chock full of misrepresentations and mischaracterizations.

you're so dumb.

the bigger question about creating nuclear bombs is, should we do that?

you miss everything important.

'spergs like you are what's wrong with the world.

 

[Cypress]

As much as you rely on google for your information I'd have thought you would have dug further than his 1969 doctoral thesis. Or did you actually think he just stopped there and then wrote books?

Core areas of research

• Gene-centered view of evolution:
  Dawkins is best known for popularizing the idea that genes are the fundamental units of selection

In fact according to AI Overview, "Richard Dawkins' research focuses on evolutionary biology and genetics, particularly the gene-centered view of evolution".



He does research, FFS. And of course he uses citations. Fuck, anybody who publishes research cites other authors.

It's extremely broad. Some is , some isn't.


Nobody said any of that.
What irks me is that you clearly don't understand what the broad subject of zoology entails.
I could study my cat's behavior and say I'm a zoologist because I'm studying an animal. That's the definition of zoology - the study of animals

Zoology | Definition, History, Examples, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

Zoology, branch of biology that studies the members of the animal kingdom and animal life in general. It includes both the inquiry into individual animals and their constituent parts, even to the molecular level, and the inquiry into animal populations, entire faunas, and the relationships of

www.britannica.com

As far as Dawkins, I don't particularly care for his writing. I read one to completion. It was torturous, like reading a Russian novel.
I started and gave up on two or three

So agitated now he is frantically googling

Dawkins bibliography of scientific papers is heavily weighted towards animal behavior and adaptation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography

Dawkins undoubtedly collaborates with trained experts in genetics, just like forensic detectives do. I doubt Dawkins has ever worked directly in a genetic lab extracting samples, and running the equipment, etc. He never got a degree in genetics.

Most of the famous zoologist you've heard of - Richard Dawkins, Diane Fossey, Jane Goodall, Morley Fowat - mostly worked on animal behavior because that is exactly the primary focus of zoology:

While not all zoologists study animal behavior, it is a significant and common focus, with fields like ethology specifically dedicated to it. Many zoologists study animal behavior as it is crucial for understanding their ecosystems, health, and conservation. ​

​

The focus on behavior: Studying behavior helps zoologists understand how animals communicate, interact, find food, and reproduce. ​

​

Why it's important: Research into animal behavior is essential for conservation efforts, as it helps inform strategies to protect endangered species and manage ecosystems, especially in the face of human impact. ​

​

-Google AI​

​

​

 

[Cypress]

"While Dawkins is not a geneticist and his ideas have been criticized for being outdated, his work remains highly influential in popular science and evolutionary thought, especially regarding the "selfish gene" concept. However, it is important to remember that modern genetics has advanced significantly beyond his core contributions."

Google AI

 

[jimmymccready]

Either atheism or theism is a belief only, not provable.

The only emotionally and rationally correct system is agnosticism.

 

[Cypress]

How was any truth or knowledge obtained prior to science? How were cave men able to successfully hunt without science?

Humans have been doing astronomy, mathematics, horticulture, observing animal behavior, animal migration patterns, weather and seasonal patterns for thousands of years.

It's hard to believe you thought Bronze Age humans did not use reason and inference to observe and understand patterns in nature

The spiritual and ritual side of human life is what atheists completely reject

Nope. You have never discussed Goedel's Incompleteness theorem and hence, nobody has ever tiptoed away from it.

That's not an explanation for why you insinuated that my OP was chock-full of misrepresentations and mischaracterizations, but then repeatedly failed to justify your accusation .

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

"While Dawkins is not a geneticist and his ideas have been criticized for being outdated, his work remains highly influential in popular science and evolutionary thought, especially regarding the "selfish gene" concept. However, it is important to remember that modern genetics has advanced significantly beyond his core contributions."

Google AI

cooperation is more beneficial for advanced species.

 

[IBDaMann]

Humans have been doing astronomy, mathematics, horticulture, observing animal behavior, animal migration patterns, weather and seasonal patterns for thousands of years.

Great, so answer your own question: How can humanity gain any knowledge without science?

You mischaracterize atheists as actively believing (too funny) that all truth comes from science, whereas atheists almost universally consider science as merely a set of tools that doesn't prove, verify or confirm anything as being true.

It's hard to believe you thought Bronze Age humans did not use reason

The reason it's hard to believe that is because I didn't think that. You English comprehension in almost nonexistent.

The spiritual and ritual side of human life is what atheists completely reject

Explain to me this "spiritual and ritual" side of humans so I can consider it.

That's not an explanation for why you insinuated that my OP was chock-full of misrepresentations and mischaracterizations

Shouldn't you actually read what I wrote before commenting?

, but then repeatedly failed to justify your accusation .

You missed it because you didn't read it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The order, design, and lawful organization of the cosmos is often taken to imply a law giver, whether you agree with it or not, it is a logical inference.

It seems odd to me and akin to survivor's guilt. If the laws of our universe didn't work as they did, we could never exist. It's like sperm that never made it to the egg.

If there are infinite universes, then it seems some have laws that don't allow life. Ours does.

 

[Cypress]

It seems odd to me and akin to survivor's guilt. If the laws of our universe didn't work as they did, we could never exist.

That's almost a religious or teleological argument.

If there are infinite universes, then it seems some have laws that don't allow life. Ours does.

True, but there is zero evidence of multiverses or that physical laws can vary.

Even if that were true it doesn't answer the fundamental question.

The mathematical laws and constants of physics transcend matter and energy. They are an immaterial organized set of mathematical rules that govern the behavior of matter and energy. No one knows why they exist or where they came from. Why would highly organized immaterial mathematical rules just pop into existence? Even the eminent theoretical physicists Aleksander Vilenkin and Alan Guth both said that the mathematical laws of physics seem to exist in an immaterial Platonic realm that even predates the creation of the universe.

 

[Cypress]

You mischaracterize atheists as actively believing (too funny) that all truth comes from science, whereas atheists almost universally consider science as merely a set of tools that doesn't prove, verify or confirm anything as being true.

If matter and energy is all there is, then science is the only intellectual endeavor that results in knowledge and truth. Even our brains are just collections of quarks and electrons participating in a system of electrochemical reactions.

Then love, religion, friendship, loyalty, emotions can all be explained by the motions and chemistry of subatomic particles.

In other words, matter and energy are fully explanatory for life, the universe, and everything.

Now that you are stealthily trying to tip toe away from physical materialism, and quietly backing away from atheism, please explain what this transcendent higher reality beyond matter and energy is.

 

[anonymoose]

So agitated now he is frantically googling

Dawkins bibliography of scientific papers is heavily weighted towards animal behavior and adaptation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins_bibliography

Dawkins undoubtedly collaborates with trained experts in genetics, just like forensic detectives do. I doubt Dawkins has ever worked directly in a genetic lab extracting samples, and running the equipment, etc. He never got a degree in genetics.

Most of the famous zoologist you've heard of - Richard Dawkins, Diane Fossey, Jane Goodall, Morley Fowat - mostly worked on animal behavior because that is exactly the primary focus of zoology:

While not all zoologists study animal behavior, it is a significant and common focus, with fields like ethology specifically dedicated to it. Many zoologists study animal behavior as it is crucial for understanding their ecosystems, health, and conservation. ​

​

The focus on behavior: Studying behavior helps zoologists understand how animals communicate, interact, find food, and reproduce. ​

​

Why it's important: Research into animal behavior is essential for conservation efforts, as it helps inform strategies to protect endangered species and manage ecosystems, especially in the face of human impact. ​

​

-Google AI​

​

​

I don’t know if you have a college degree or not but if so it sure wasn’t in zoology. If you have to google what zoology is, that’s pretty weak. I knew zoology was the study of animals in high school, maybe the ninth grade .

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That's almost a religious or teleological argument.

True, but there is zero evidence of multiverses or that physical laws can vary.

Even if that were true it doesn't answer the fundamental question.

The mathematical laws and constants of physics transcend matter and energy. They are an immaterial organized set of mathematical rules that govern the behavior of matter and energy. No one knows why they exist or where they came from. Why would highly organized immaterial mathematical rules just pop into existence? Even the eminent theoretical physicists Aleksander Vilenkin and Alan Guth both said that the mathematical laws of physics seem to exist in an immaterial Platonic realm that even predates the creation of the universe.

There's zero evidence of a creator. A multiverse theory is as valid as a Creator theory.

 

[IBDaMann]

If matter and energy is all there is, ...

... this promises to be entertaining.

... then science is the only intellectual endeavor that results in knowledge and truth.

Too funny! I'll let you in on a little secret: science isn't an endeavor; science is a collection of falsifiable models (tools). Humans pursue knowledge through observation and learning, and science models are just a few of the tools in the box. Math provides some powerful tools as well, as does logic. Science, however, consists only of models that have not yet been shown to be false, not anything that has somehow been confirmed to be true.

You're welcome. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Even our brains are just collections of quarks and electrons participating in a system of electrochemical reactions.

... even our brains? You don't say.

Cypress, do you have a soul?

Then love, religion, friendship, loyalty, emotions can all be explained by the motions and chemistry of subatomic particles.

Only by particles, not by subatomic particles. You keep trying to slip that in there but science only goes down to atoms.

In other words, matter and energy are fully explanatory for life, the universe, and everything.

In order to be fully explanatory, they have to be fully explanatory. You cannot find a single atheist who claims that science is fully explanatory, and further, you cannot find a single mathematician who denies/rejects Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.

You really should drop this rather stupid angle.

Now that you are stealthily trying to tip toe away from physical materialism,

I'm what?

and quietly backing away from atheism,

How does one back away from a lack of beliefs? Don't you think you should learn what atheism is before you comment on it? I realize that you have great difficulty learning that for which you are given the correct answers, but you can refrain from commenting until you actually do learn the material.

please explain what this transcendent higher reality beyond matter and energy is.

Please allow me to defer to @gfm7175 because he's in pretty tight with God, and so is @Into the Night, so I'm going to ask them to explain everything to both of us. My first question is about this "higher" notion ... instead of, say, "further off to the left-hand side." Essentially, is a direction involved? Secondly, how is God transcendental? Is this another way of saying he overlaps both nature and supernature? ... or is this the religious way of saying that God's preferred pronouns are capitalized?

 

[IBDaMann]

The mathematical laws and constants of physics transcend matter and energy.

What, preytell, do you believe that even means?

They are an immaterial organized set of mathematical rules that govern the behavior of matter and energy.

... until they aren't? Do the laws of physics "transcend" until they are falsified, at which time we say that they must never have transcended in the first place?

No one knows why they exist

We all know why science models exist.

or where they came from.

Cleveland.

Why would highly organized immaterial mathematical rules just pop into existence?

Maybe they oozed into existence over a longer period of time.

Even the eminent theoretical physicists Aleksander Vilenkin and Alan Guth both said that the mathematical laws of physics seem to exist in an immaterial Platonic realm that even predates the creation of the universe.

Well, if even Alek and Alan both said so, it must be indisputable.

 

[Cypress]

Too funny! I'll let you in on a little secret: science isn't an endeavor; science is a collection of falsifiable models (tools).

This has nothing to do with my post.

Only by particles, not by subatomic particles! You keep trying to slip that in there but science only goes down to atoms.

What do you think atoms and molecules are made of? Subatomic particles. They are made of quarks and electrons and their interactions are mediated by bosons. At the physical level, everything is ultimately composed of the fundamental subatomic particles.

In order to be fully explanatory, they have to be fully explanatory. You cannot find a single atheist who claims that science is fully explanatory,

If matter and energy is all that exists, all you need is science to acquire ontological knowledge.

now I've cornered an atheist into denying that matter and energy is all there is, lol

I knew once you held an atheists feet to the fire and made them live out the consequences of their belief system, they would run away to the hills.

If you are willing to deny matter and energy is all there is, please tell me what this higher organized transcendent reality beyond matter and energy is.
Please tell me how a love exists if it is not explained by matter and energy, chemical reactions.
Please tell me how we have free will if we are just dancing to the tune of chemical reactions at the atomic scale.

 

[Cypress]

There's zero evidence of a creator. A multiverse theory is as valid as a Creator theory.

I would say there is zero empirical evidence of a creator.

But empirical (observational) evidence is not the only kind of knowledge. Reason (logic) is another perfectly valid way of acquiring knowledge.

We know the universe universe had a beginning. A beginning logically requires a cause.
We know from experience that order, design, lawful organization do not just appear from inanimate random chance. Order and design logically point to a designer.

Some people think it is logical to infer a purposeful organizing entity underlying the universe based on those premises.