Quote:
By dor, Yesterday, 07:44 PM
Quote: Originally Posted by Megan
Let's just say that Dawkins is a criminal sociopath, for the sake of argument.
What, exactly, does that have to do with the price of memes, er, I mean beans?
| He has an ideology - he applies it to reality, it becomes how you frame reality... ideology IMHOP becomes, the hammer which you apply to every nail -in your reality....so everyone starts talking about 'memes' as if it is an absolute....[emphasis mine--Megan]
He is presenting himself as rational - but twists reality to suit his idealogy - and we have clear examples of that - so he is a best deceptive...
|
Well, I am not an atheist, I am a Christian. The fact that I think memes are a yeasty idea is not involuntarily "framing an atheist reality" for me, which I will then "apply to every nail in my reality" willy-nilly as I slide down the slippery slope into perdition.
I think only Michael and I spoke of memes, and we are not "everyone" and I don't recall talking about them as an "absolute."
Edit: Dawkins quote:
Quote:
I became a little alarmed at the number of my readers who took the meme more positively as a theory of human culture in its own right -- either to criticize it (unfairly, given my original modest intention) or to carry it far beyond the limits of what I then thought justified. This was why I may have seemed to backtrack.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)
Positive Atheism's Big List of Richard Dawkins Quotations |
Trying to discredit the idea by discrediting the man is not an effective way to advance your cause, IMO, as I said, and not a clean way to debate.
You could start a thread called something like, "Richard Dawkins: at best deceptive" and discuss him there, but it's usually considered logically fallacious to try to discredit an idea by discrediting a person.
I don't disagree that Dawkins is evangelical about his atheism, I just don't see what that has to do with a discussion about memes. It's possible to benefit from someone's ideas with whom you don't agree totally. If it isn't, then none of us can learn from anyone else.
I agree with takkaria that, "I also think it's *good* to have a voice at the far side of the debate in favour of science."
The far sides of a polarized debate mirror each other quite amazingly, I think, as the confrontation between Richard Dawkins and Ted Haggard demonstrated, IMO.
The fact that he may not be thinking at his clearest about religion doesn't mean Dawkins' thinking should be universally anathematized.
I still think memes are interesting, e.g., the generosity meme:
The Generosity Game: spread random acts of kindness