Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer

    Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer are two people who's work I wasn't overly familiar with until recently, but have really come to admire over the course of the last year.

    Dawkins probably needs no introduction on these forums, but I found his book on religion (The God Delusion) one of the few books I have ever read in which I 100% agreed with everything in it, and I also found his works on evolutionary theory (The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype and The Blind Watchmaker) excellent as well.

    Peter Singer is maybe less well known around here than Dawkins, and he is an Australian moral philosopher who's book in the 70s, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals basically singlehandedly began the modern animal rights movement, popularizing veganism and vegetarianism, and the ethical treatment of animals. He has also long argued that people are morally obligated to give the most they possibly can to help save the lives of people in the 3rd world, and in the last few years has pioneered the new movement of "Effective Altruism" which is about carefully choosing charities that do the most good and working out exactly how to live our lives to maximize the amount we can help others and the number of lives we can save (See The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty and The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically).

    So I was thrilled to stumble across this video this week in which these two of my favorite intellectuals have a discussion with each other. Having watched it a few times myself I thought I'd share it here so others can enjoy. They discuss a variety of subjects including evolution, meat-eating, and effective altruism. Well worth a listen:



    If anyone has some interesting comments to make or questions to ask about either of these people or their ideas, hopefully we can have some good discussion in this thread.
    Last edited by Starlight; 01-10-2017, 02:37 AM.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

  • #2
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    They discuss a variety of subjects including evolution, meat-eating, and effective altruism.
    Oops, effective altruism is not actually covered in the above talk, but Singer talks about it in detail in other talks I had recently watched including in his three talks at google. I find his argument about saving a child from a shallow pond particularly intriguing (starts at 2:25 in the first of these google talks) - if we would sacrifice a great deal to rescue a drowning child we happened to notice as we were out walking, why do we generally not bother to sacrifice anything comparatively much to save dying people in third world countries - why do we buy ourselves luxury items and generally enjoy our lives when that money could actually save someone's life if given to the right charity?
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post

      If anyone has some interesting comments to make or questions to ask about either of these people or their ideas, hopefully we can have some good discussion in this thread.
      On Singer:

      Abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide

      Singer holds that the right to life is essentially tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is essentially tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure.

      In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.

      Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[37]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

      Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that to which the subject consents. He argues in favour of voluntary euthanasia and some forms of non-voluntary euthanasia, including infanticide in certain instances, but opposes involuntary euthanasia.

      In 2002 disability rights activist Harriet McBryde Johnson debated Singer, challenging his belief that it is morally permissible to euthanize new-born children with severe disabilities. "Unspeakable Conversations", Johnson's account of her encounters with Singer and the pro-euthanasia movement, was published in the New York Times Magazine in 2003. It also served as inspiration for The Thrill, a 2013 play by Judith Thompson partly based on Johnson's life.
      He supports infanticide, which should make you happy Star.


      Bestiality

      In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals...
      And he has no problem with bestiality if it is mutually satisfying with no harm.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_...nd_infanticide
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer are two people who's work I wasn't overly familiar with until recently, but have really come to admire over the course of the last year.

        Dawkins probably needs no introduction on these forums, but I found his book on religion (The God Delusion) one of the few books I have ever read in which I 100% agreed with everything in it,
        Really? That's hilarious.


        From a real philosopher:

        Originally posted by Alvin Plantinga
        Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.
        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          On Singer:



          He supports infanticide, which should make you happy Star.




          And he has no problem with bestiality if it is mutually satisfying with no harm.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_...nd_infanticide
          Singer is a terrible terrible individual. This is what happens when left with nothing to guide your ethics but cold naturalism. It's no surprise that Starlight is a fanboy.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            Singer is a terrible terrible individual. This is what happens when left with nothing to guide your ethics but cold naturalism. It's no surprise that Starlight is a fanboy.
            Yes, he is a moral scumbag, a perfect fit for Star...
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              "people are morally obligated to give the most they possibly can to help save the lives of people in the 3rd world, and in the last few years has pioneered the new movement of "Effective Altruism" which is about carefully choosing charities that do the most good and working out exactly how to live our lives to maximize the amount we can help others and the number of lives we can save (See The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty and The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically)."

              Gee I know something MORE you can do morally to help save lives, not only in the 3rd world, but the entire world: Oppose abortion and infanticide. Imagine the lives that could be saved.

              Stop being a hypocrite, Starlight. If you truly believe human life is important and worth saving, then oppose abortion and infanticide.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                Really? That's hilarious.


                From a real philosopher:
                Or better yet, how bout some prominent atheist or non-Christian philosophers and scientists,

                Source: Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament: Essays 2002-2008 by Thomas Nagel

                Richard Dawkins, the most prominent and accomplished scientific writer of our time, is convinced that religion is the enemy of science. Not just fundamentalist or fanatical or extremist religion, but all religion that admits faith as a ground of belief and asserts the existence of God. In The God Delusion he attacks religion with all the weapons at his disposal, and as a result the book is a very uneven collection of scriptural ridicule, amateur philosophy, historical and contemporary horror stories, anthropological speculations, and cosmological scientific argument.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Source: The Atheist Delusion of Richard Dawkins by Anthony Flew

                The God Delusion by the atheist writer Richard Dawkins, is remarkable in the first place for having achieved some sort of record by selling over a million copies. But what is much more remarkable than that economic achievement is that the contents – or rather lack of contents – of this book show Dawkins himself to have become what he and his fellow secularists typically believe to be an impossibility: namely, a secularist bigot. (Helpfully, my copy of The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as ‘an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view’).

                © Copyright Original Source



                Source: A Mission to Convert by H. Allen Orr

                Despite my admiration for much of Dawkins’s work, I’m afraid that I’m among those scientists who must part company with him here. Indeed, The God Delusion seems to me badly flawed. Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he’s actually more an amateur. I don’t pretend to know whether there’s more to the world than meets the eye and, for all I know, Dawkins’s general conclusion is right. But his book makes a far from convincing case.

                The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins’s failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. This is, obviously, an odd thing to say about a book-length investigation into God. But the problem reflects Dawkins’s cavalier attitude about the quality of religious thinking. Dawkins tends to dismiss simple expressions of belief as base superstition. Having no patience with the faith of fundamentalists, he also tends to dismiss more sophisticated expressions of belief as sophistry (he cannot, for instance, tolerate the meticulous reasoning of theologians). But if simple religion is barbaric (and thus unworthy of serious thought) and sophisticated religion is logic-chopping (and thus equally unworthy of serious thought), the ineluctable conclusion is that all religion is unworthy of serious thought.

                The result is The God Delusion, a book that never squarely faces its opponents. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins’s book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?), no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions (are they like ordinary claims about everyday matters?), no effort to appreciate the complex history of interaction between the Church and science (does he know the Church had an important part in the rise of non-Aristotelian science?), and no attempt to understand even the simplest of religious attitudes (does Dawkins really believe, as he says, that Christians should be thrilled to learn they’re terminally ill?).

                Instead, Dawkins has written a book that’s distinctly, even defiantly, middlebrow. Dawkins’s intellectual universe appears populated by the likes of Douglas Adams, the author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and Carl Sagan, the science popularizer,3 both of whom he cites repeatedly. This is a different group from thinkers like William James and Ludwig Wittgenstein—both of whom lived after Darwin, both of whom struggled with the question of belief, and both of whom had more to say about religion than Adams and Sagan. Dawkins spends much time on what can only be described as intellectual banalities: “Did Jesus have a human father, or was his mother a virgin at the time of his birth? Whether or not there is enough surviving evidence to decide it, this is still a strictly scientific question.”4

                © Copyright Original Source



                Source: Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute by Michael Ruse

                Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group.

                © Copyright Original Source

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer are two people who's work I wasn't overly familiar with until recently, but have really come to admire over the course of the last year.

                  Dawkins probably needs no introduction on these forums, but I found his book on religion (The God Delusion) one of the few books I have ever read in which I 100% agreed with everything in it, and I also found his works on evolutionary theory (The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype and The Blind Watchmaker) excellent as well.

                  Peter Singer is maybe less well known around here than Dawkins, and he is an Australian moral philosopher who's book in the 70s, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals basically singlehandedly began the modern animal rights movement, popularizing veganism and vegetarianism, and the ethical treatment of animals. He has also long argued that people are morally obligated to give the most they possibly can to help save the lives of people in the 3rd world, and in the last few years has pioneered the new movement of "Effective Altruism" which is about carefully choosing charities that do the most good and working out exactly how to live our lives to maximize the amount we can help others and the number of lives we can save (See The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty and The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically).

                  So I was thrilled to stumble across this video this week in which these two of my favorite intellectuals have a discussion with each other. Having watched it a few times myself I thought I'd share it here so others can enjoy. They discuss a variety of subjects including evolution, meat-eating, and effective altruism. Well worth a listen:



                  If anyone has some interesting comments to make or questions to ask about either of these people or their ideas, hopefully we can have some good discussion in this thread.
                  Behold your gods.


                  Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    On Singer:



                    He supports infanticide, which should make you happy Star.




                    And he has no problem with bestiality if it is mutually satisfying with no harm.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_...nd_infanticide
                    Singer, who as you pointed out, advocates killing disabled babies up to 28 days after birth, won the 2003 World Technology Award for Ethics.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post



                      Source: Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute by Michael Ruse

                      Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group.

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      Ruse (who is an atheist) and the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens et al.) do not get along and neither side makes any attempt to hide it.

                      As Ruse says in Why God Is a Moral Issue:

                      Source: Why God Is a Moral Issue


                      The New Atheists are not a comfortable group of people. They have scornful contempt for those with whom they differ — that includes religious believers, agnostics and other atheists who don’t share their vehement brand of nonbelief. They are self-confident to a degree that seems designed to irritate. And they have an ignorance of anything beyond their fields to an extent remarkable even in modern academia.


                      Source

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      And in "Fighting the Fundamentalists: Chamberlain or Churchill?" he has written about his disagreements with Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists

                      Source: Fighting the Fundamentalists: Chamberlain or Churchill?


                      I am on the outs with the militant atheist group because I do not see that committing oneself to science necessarily implies that one thinks that all of religion is false, and that those who worship a supreme being are in some respects at one with the fanatics who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Of course, I think some religious beliefs are wrong and dangerous. That is why I fight creationists. But overall, I don’t think someone is silly or immoral if he or she is a practicing Christian or Jew or Muslim or whatever. Although I don’t think you have to be a believer to be good, I fully accept that many believers are good because of their beliefs. Moreover, I think it is both politically and morally right to work with believers to combat ills, including creationism.

                      The Dawkins-Dennett school allows no compromise. Religion is false. Religion is dangerous. Religion must be fought in every way. There can be no working with the enemy. Those like me who work with religious people are like the appeasers before the Nazis.


                      Source

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      And from an article aptly entitled "Why Richard Dawkins' humanists remind me of a religion":

                      Source: Why Richard Dawkins' humanists remind me of a religion


                      Humanism in its most virulent form tries to make science into a religion. It is awash with the intolerance of enthusiasm. For a start, there is the near-hysterical repudiation of religion. To quote Richard Dawkins:

                      "I think there's something very evil about faith … it justifies essentially anything. If you're taught in your holy book or by your priest that blasphemers should die or apostates should die – anybody who once believed in the religion and no longer does needs to be killed – that clearly is evil. And people don't have to justify it because it's their faith."

                      In the caricaturing of "faith" as murderous fundamentalism, one hears echoes of the bloody and interminable Reformation squabbles between Protestants and Catholics. It is also of course to give help to the real enemy, those who turn their back fully on science as they follow their religion.

                      There are other aspects of the new atheist movement that remind me of religion. One is the adulation by supporters and enthusiasts for the leaders of the movement: it is not just a matter of agreement or respect but also of a kind of worship. This certainly surrounds Dawkins, who is admittedly charismatic.


                      Source

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      In article he explains his support for evolution and opposition to creationism but notes that because he is not like Dawkins, who sees science and religion at war, those in the latter's camp loathe him. P.Z. Myers refers to him as "a clueless gobshite." As Ruse notes, "because I will not bow down in praise of Dawkins and company, because I laugh at their pretentions and positions, I am anathema maranatha."

                      And this second article he concludes his piece with

                      Source:


                      Call it a secular religion if you will, but the humanism I have been discussing in this piece does bear strong similarities to conventional religion. One finds the enthusiasm of the true believer. And as a non-believing Darwinian evolutionist, as one who is a humanist in the broader sense, this makes me feel rather ill.

                      © Copyright Original Source


                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Singer, who as you pointed out, advocates killing disabled babies up to 28 days after birth, won the 2003 World Technology Award for Ethics.
                        Was it for "Bad Ethics?" Because if so, he really deserved it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Ruse (who is an atheist) and the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens et al.) do not get along and neither side makes any attempt to hide it.

                          As Ruse says in Why God Is a Moral Issue:

                          Source: Why God Is a Moral Issue


                          The New Atheists are not a comfortable group of people. They have scornful contempt for those with whom they differ — that includes religious believers, agnostics and other atheists who don’t share their vehement brand of nonbelief. They are self-confident to a degree that seems designed to irritate. And they have an ignorance of anything beyond their fields to an extent remarkable even in modern academia.


                          Source

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Yeah we can see that here in the contrast between, say, Sylas and Tassman.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Was it for "Bad Ethics?" Because if so, he really deserved it.
                            Sort of like how Bill Maher received the 2009 Richard Dawkins award from the Atheist Alliance for his contributions to an increased scientific knowledge because of his movie attacking religion (Religulous) even though Maher had gone on record as a germ theory and HIV/AIDS denialist and anti-vaccine advocate

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Ruse (who is an atheist) and the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens et al.) do not get along and neither side makes any attempt to hide it.
                              Yep. I've read and listened to him on a number of occasions. I do believe that he has a very simplistic view of faith, and what that means to the believer, but he's far more patient and reasonable than any of those in the New Atheist camp.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              13 responses
                              41 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              78 responses
                              411 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X