Are there any philosophers who take him seriously?
>>1043218
Yes, if they are looking into evolutionary theory, not for the god delusion if that's what you're asking.
He's a meme scientist.
He published 12 or so papers about bumble bee digging patters in the 70s then moved into selling controversial anti-christian books to make money,
He presented his agruments at a philosophy conference and completely embarrassed himself. They tried to explain basic modal logic to h im and he just gave up and said 'philosphy is dumb and we don't need it anymore'.
The dude is a complete joke at everything but capitalism which he is good at because he realized his pretentious title and controversy can make a lot cash peddling bullshit to retarded white males who desperatly need something to make them feel worth while in today's world.
So no his arguments are complete bullshit from a philosophical point of view.
>>1043245
>then moved into selling controversial anti-christian books to make money.
These were when he was employed as the professor of public understanding of science by Oxford, and aren't exclusively attacking Christianity.
And selfish gene is a very influential book on evolution.
You sound quit mad.
>>1043256
No its not and he's a meme scientist. He doesn't actually do science he just sells pop psuedoscience to non-scientists.
>>1043260
>The book was extremely popular when first published, caused "a silent and almost immediate revolution in biology",[17] and continues to be widely read. It has sold over a million copies, and has been translated into more than 25 languages.[18] Proponents argue that the central point, that replicating the gene is the object of selection, usefully completes and extends the explanation of evolution given by Charles Darwin before the basic mechanisms of genetics were understood.
Why did Stephen Jay Gould and others take his evolutionary theory seriously?
It sounds like you trying to discredit his biology work because of his anti-theism?
>>1043245
I mostly agree with this, but his work in evolutionary biology is actually quite influential and he IS a proper respected scientist.
Doesn't mean he's qualified to talk about topics he has no idea about using strawmen, however.
>>1043270
That book is irrelevant to modern biology and you would know htis if you have read any modern biology.
>>1043311
>that book is irrelevant to modern biology
So is The Origin of the Species, but that doesn't change how influential it was.
>>1043311
With the same argument you can say that On the Origin of Species is irrelevant to modern biology.
If you count fourteen year-old me as a philosopher, then yes
>>1044750
Ever progress from your 14 year old state?
>>1043321
>>1043317
No. On origin of species still contains the fundamental mechanism of modern evolution.
The only time I've ever seen Dawkins creditied in a modern biology class was when some dumb professor mistakenly credited him with the discovery of kin selection. But in reality he simply 'explained it' in his book the selfish gene for lay people.
His work is shit. You'd know that if you realized that nobody gives a shit about it in biology and for the fact that it was published for lay people isntead of academia in a journal.
>>1044759
yeah
>>1043245
>meme scientist
Was that meant to be wordplay?
>>1044892
I don't think he's that clever.
He is the ideological father of r/atheism and all post 2000 atheists. At least something good has come out of his 'reign of reason'.
>I dislike him so he's a hack and terrible at everything
it's possible that he could be knowledgeable and respected in his field while being a complete moron philosophically/theistically
>>1043245
> He's a meme scientist.
Fuck off, Dawkins is the GOAT autist and exactly the guy we need to stop this SJW nonsense
> his pretentious title and controversy can make a lot cash peddling bullshit to retarded white males who desperatly need something to make them feel worth while in today's world.
Also, hating on Dawkin in favour of 'real philosophers' while saying this... dat projection
>>1043245
>peddling bullshit to retarded white males who desperatly need something to make them feel worth while in today's world.
Not sure if shitskin or white feminist.
>>1045438
>this book written by a bunch of cultists as a political manifesto proves the existence of a higher being
>>1045489
It's one of those bogeymen, no doubt.
>>1043218
My uni does a 'philosophy of biology' course and one of his books is on the reading list.
>>1045547
It tells the end of the world from the beginning, a thing only God can do, yes.
>>1044750
Kek, same here. I find it incomprehensible that I ever believed his bullshit.
I don't think so, but he's also not a philosopher. His entire position as an anti-theist was just basic, common sense objections to theism. They may not stand up to greater philosophical scrutiny, but greater philosophical scrutiny tends to poke holes into all sorts of things that fall under basic common sense.
>>1043245
>He presented his agruments at a philosophy conference and completely embarrassed himself. They tried to explain basic modal logic to h im and he just gave up and said 'philosphy is dumb and we don't need it anymore'.
When did this happen? Genuinely curious.
>>1045423
You seem triggered, mate.
>>1043245
Did he even do anything notable in the bee arena?
Not that anyone could argue with him
>>1043270
“Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths–not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.”
>>1046861
Source?
>>1046857
>Dawkins befuddled over a little language horseplay
no wonder he no do philosophy good
>>1046857
>fedoras' hero has autism
>>1046939
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism
>>1046935
Don't worry, Ben. It was a brilliant joke.
>>1043218
Every analytical philosopher takes him seriously that's for sure.
>>1043218
Many evolutionary biologists and scientists consider him very influential for his work done to further explain evolution and for popularizing science.
Unfortunately, he's gone full fucking fedora after "The God Delusion", or perhaps earlier, considering his earlier antitheistic works. It's hard to say.
He's also apparently a royal cunt and has abused his position as the chairman for the public understand of science to further preach his brand of anti-theism.
I'd give a source for that, but I forgot the title of that book. It was written by a British atheist who worked for some British natural history museum.
>>1046990
But anon analytic are the only philosophers that still take God seriously because of Leibniz inspired ideas about Module Reality.
>>1046893
Science Daily
Date:
March 23, 2016
Source:
Case Western Reserve University
Summary:
The conflict between science and religion may have its origins in the structure of our brains. To believe in a supernatural god or universal spirit, people appear to suppress the brain network used for analytical thinking and engage the empathetic network. When thinking analytically about the physical world, people appear to do the opposite.
I take his books seriously, especially on evolution
pretty influential in popularizing a decent understanding of evolution
he's not a philosopher btw. he's a speaking tour hack essentially.
also what the fuck is up with 4chan being suddenly atheist hating christains?
god delusion would be a great bookk for every teenage christain raised in the bible belt
don't see why it gets so much hate..
actually I do, it's just a meme to hate atheists because 4chan likes to be contrarian on everything.
society is leftist, pol is born. society is getting atheist, 4chan goes full retard religion, national lines are breaking down, WN pops up geninely
>>1047140
Psychopath.
>>1047140
God delusion made no legitimate critique of religion other than strawmen
>>1047117
>or perhaps earlier, considering his earlier antitheistic works. It's hard to say.
Well before the god delusion he wrote several good books about the evolution vs intelligent design topic (the blind watchmaker, climbing mount improbable etc). I can see how he'd follow that with a general book on pleb interpretations of religion. I don't (or I do partly) see why he triggers everyone so much more than anyone else making similar statements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hX7t5NMhsQ
>>1047194
Krauss is getting old
Holy shit
>>1047194
People here tend to think reddit is an accurate representation of the real world (read as /r/atheism).
>After arguing that evolution is capable of explaining the origin of complexity (biological complexity obviously), near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God: "a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution ... must already have been vastly complex in the first place ..." He calls this "postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation."
>>1045423
>Dawkins is the GOAT autist
kek'd
Yes and no
As usual this thread is filled with people who say shit like 'he's been DISCREDITED in THE FIELD' without ever even offering an example of this, let alone any proper argument.
what arguments does he make against god that aren't good? I would love to believe, so honestly i'd like to know. as I can remember, TGD blows them all apart without getting into the 2deep4u type of eternal doubt where everything falls apart.
what good arguments are there for god, actually?
Fairly intelligent evolutionary biologist who decided to take a step into philosophy without knowing anything about it, jumped out because his feet were cold, and wrote about his experience in the many 400 page long scribblings he calls 'books'.
>>1043245
His philosophy is shit but he has an extremely nuanced understanding of evolution.
Other anons aren't lying when they said so. Both can be true you know.
>>1047805
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw
>>1043218
I liked him when he was publishing research on biology and not when he was ranting on twitter about jars of honey or accusing 14 year old muslim boys in texas of being part of an elaborate conspiracy.
![B1h4whuCEAI1Y6-[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/F3ZWo8q.png "B1h4whuCEAI1Y6-[1].png")
>>1043218
Reminder that he actually seriously unironically tweeted this.
>>1049316
why does he love honey so much
Yeah. Stop being so envious and you'll discover that he has some great scientific ideas.
>>1049349
It's a complete waste of all the time and effort the bees spent to make it.
>>1047194
bump
>>1043218
I don't think he cares. There aren't many philosophers he takes seriously.
>>1049316
the TSA is pretty incompetent. they fail nearly every test done on them to see if they can catch a fake bomb going through security
>>1049361
No one denies he has some good ideas on biology, though he's kinda stubborn and a bit reductionistic when it comes to everything being about "muh individual gene".
But not that's people critique him about.
>>1049986
>and a bit reductionistic when it comes to everything being about "muh individual gene".
He's not too bad really, I remember an analogy about genes being selected in terms of how well they function together, similar to a team of rowers, pulling the oars in synchronisation.
>>1043218
ARE there any philosophers?
>>1049309
>>1049309
he was actually right about clock boy though
he was literally a fraud
the issue with dawkins is that he' the king of fedora. and people who are close to being fedora e.g. 4chan users, or former fedoras, use hating on him to signal that they aren't as bad.
i get why people have issues with him, but once you understand he is literally autistic, you realise he just cares about the truth. he doesn't intend to hurt people, he's sort of what we need considering that the demand to moderate behaviour in accordance with people's feelings has become obviously a political weapon now
>>1043245
> He's a meme scientist.
Don't know if it was intentional or not but I giggled.
