tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post340958544555188141..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: David Sloan Wilson on ScienceBlogsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61194936470947814812010-02-27T12:57:45.515-05:002010-02-27T12:57:45.515-05:00We do not want to know the truth, unless we can ma...We do not want to know the truth, unless we can manipulate it to our own profit. <br />In competition a complex truth is not as effective as a simple one-sided illusion as multilevel selection theory so marvelously describes. To fight "the evils" of religion Dawkins instinctively adapt religious characteristics, us/them thinking, to be more effective. Defining neutrally advantages and disadvantages of religions as with multilevel selection would take the edges of his crusade. Us/them thinking is also more media attractive. Media want to tell people what is wrong and how it can be manipulated to become right. There lies the power of Dawkins' distortion of evolution theory.<br />Belief is a prerequisite for religion. By revealing multilevel selection in the evolution of religion the mechanism of religion becomes evident, thereby threatening its power. That is why anybody who is religious will have a hard time to accept the truth.Karola Rubiconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63654663658798214422009-10-25T10:23:32.177-04:002009-10-25T10:23:32.177-04:00If a guy can't be bothered to understand free ...If a guy can't be bothered to understand free markets and how a regulated and subsidized business economy is not one and yet comment on it as evidence of a failure of 'new atheism' (which is ludicrous given that Rand was far from a secular humanist), I can't be bothered with the rest of it.tmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15797561656420404838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88757627147647587962009-10-23T01:43:56.867-04:002009-10-23T01:43:56.867-04:00David Sloan Wilson has some interesting ideas, no ...David Sloan Wilson has some interesting ideas, no doubt, but he doesn't seem to think them through. I mean, I've read his book <em>Darwin's Cathedral</em>, and at first approximation his ideas on functionalism and group selectionism of religion look good. But then you think it through, and there's a lot from related fields of science that just flies in the face of his thesis. <br /><br />It's almost as though science IS a religion of truth <em>for him</em>, even if science is really about curiosity + skepticism for the rest of us.Danhttp://migration.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82943849715493198722009-10-22T21:02:23.357-04:002009-10-22T21:02:23.357-04:00Ford Prefect says,
What's more, most of his &...Ford Prefect says,<br /><br /><i>What's more, most of his "refutations" are merely one- or two- sentence put-downs, nothing like a sophisticated argument.</i><br><br>David Sloan Wilson posted an article that said the following (in three sentences).<br /><br /><i>As someone who is seriously committed to studying religion from a scientific and evolutionary perspective, I'm here to say that the new atheists can't bring themselves to accept the facts about religion as a human construction. Read my six-part series on "Atheism as a Stealth Religion", now archived on my ScienceBlog site, for more. Even better, start acquainting yourself with the emerging field of evolutionary religious studies, whose members are more serious about holding each other accountable for what they say about religion.</i><br><br><br />I replied by saying that I understand that religion is a human construction and I'm familiar with evolutionary religious studies.<br /><br />It seems to me like an appropriate response to his accusations. <br /><br />What would you have preferred? Should I have mentioned that you can see my numerous articles and postings for more information?<br /><br /><i>That Larry will write a lengthy, unambivalently negative post on virtually anyone who dares reject his views (as though they were Emmanuel Goldstein) is not a testimony to the "open-mindedness" of the New Atheists.</i><br /><br />I can't win for trying, can I? Now you're complaining that I write too much. You can't have it both ways. Which is it? Are you upset because I write "lengthy posts" refuting those I disagree with or are you complaining that most of my refutations are merely one sentence put-downs?<br /><br />I'm confused.<br><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77302185126308842732009-10-22T17:21:30.694-04:002009-10-22T17:21:30.694-04:00Wilson is screening comments, but to his credit he...Wilson is screening comments, but to his credit he is willing to approve comments which are negative.Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43501964167468256942009-10-22T16:41:24.430-04:002009-10-22T16:41:24.430-04:00I think Wilson speaks for many, if not most, athei...I think Wilson speaks for many, if not most, atheists on this point, myself included. <br /><br />Not to mention the fact that people in the "Dawkins et al" camp (including Larry) are perhaps the worst thing for science since the Catholic church.<br /><br />Fortunately this is a blog for the converted, so the damage is minimal. Nonetheless — although I wholeheartedly support the fact that atheism is finally on the map in the general public, and recognize the fundamentally radical nature of that fact — I can't help but think that Darwin would be rolling in his grave.<br /><br />That Larry will write a lengthy, unambivalently negative post on virtually <i>anyone</i> who dares reject his views (as though they were Emmanuel Goldstein) is not a testimony to the "open-mindedness" of the New Atheists.<br /><br />What's more, most of his "refutations" are merely one- or two- sentence put-downs, nothing like a sophisticated argument.Ford Prefectnoreply@blogger.com