Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:55 pm

<< Week of July 26, 2016 >>
Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday
26 Day Month

27 Day Month

28 Day Month

29 Day Month

30 Day Month

31 Day Month

1 Day Month





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
deWaal vs Dawkins 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 199
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom (uk)

Post deWaal vs Dawkins
I'm not sure if this subject is a relevent one for the Ridley discussion, but it might be interesting to ask his view on this:

Franz deWaal gave what was for me the best lecture at the Values conference at the weekend.

His main point was that humans - like apes -are not innately "bad". He argued that there is a strand of thought going back to Huxley (in deWaal's book "The Ape and the Sushi Master" he takes this back to Hobbes) in which Humans think of themselves as being innately bad but with a thin veneer of culture which gives them their "goodness". He attacks this view and argues that love and niceness evolved too. He argued that Darwin agreed with him on this point and that Huxley misrepresented Darwin's views.

Then he put up a slide. Imagine a cutaway view of the Earth with the core at the centre and the mantle around it and with a very thin crust at the surface. Now imagine that the very thin crust is labelled good the mantle is labelled bad and the core is labelled very bad. I don't know if this will work without the picture but it had the audience in roars of laughter.

He argued that Dawkins perpetuates this myth by saying that we can fight our "nasty" nature.

There is something of a history of disagreement between Richard Dawkins and Franz deWaal on this point.

Dawkins has accused deWaal of poetic science for somthing he wrote in one of his earlier books.

In the conference they clashed about deWaal's point . Dawkins defended Huxley and quoted Darwin's statement about "What a book a devil's chaplain might write". In reply deWaal said that Huxley had been influenced by his religious upbringing and that was why he saw it so black and white.

Anyone have a view?

Edited by: PeterDF at: 10/13/03 5:48 pm



Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:38 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Agrees that Reading is Fundamental

Bronze Contributor 2

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 287
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 3 times in 2 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: deWaal vs Dawkins
I think it's a semantic point on Dawkins use of the word "nasty" before nature. Dawkins isn't using the word to imply some sort of innate evilness present within humanity...indeed, evolutionarily, there is no "good" or "evil", only survival. Rather, I think Dawkins uses "nasty" to imply selfish, in that our base nature, thanks to evolution, is to look out for ourselves, in order to improve our survival.

Thus the argument is largely (to me) a straw man, because it's essentially refuting an argument I don't think any evolutionist has ever made. Good and Evil are moral terms, and morality is a social convention that perhaps helps our evolution, but is not in itself an intrinsic requirement of evolution. To claim that one individual's actions for survival are "good" or "evil" requires some subjective basis made on our own social contract, and really has no objective bearing in the biological world.




Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:55 am
Profile YIM WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 199
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom (uk)

Post Re: deWaal vs Dawkins
Good point Zach.

I agree that Dawkins does accept that evolution by natural selection is a mechanistic process and therefore neutral in the sense of any human value system.

I admit to not quite understanding what is going on here. I does seem a shame that two very clever people who, I think, should be on the same side should appear to differ on this.




Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:28 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 15093
Location: Florida
Thanks: 2899
Thanked: 1114 times in 882 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 6

Post Re: deWaal vs Dawkins
Peter

Have you ever read Howard Bloom's "The Lucifer Principle?"

Quote:
A revolutionary work that explores the intricate relationships among genetics, human behavior, and culture to put forth the thesis that "evil" is a by-product of nature's strategies for creation and that it is woven into our most basic biological fabric.


That conference must have been incredible and I'm quite jealous. I am hearing through the grapevine that the 2004 Atheist Alliance International Convention might be in Colorado next year. I'd love if some BookTalk member were able to attend. I met Dawkins at the 2003 convention in Tampa, FL, and had a reeally good time with fellow heathens.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be."



Fri Oct 24, 2003 10:45 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 199
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom (uk)

Post Re: deWaal vs Dawkins
Chris

No I have'nt read "The Lucifer principle" it sounds interesting though.

I think deWaal is trying to say that one could equally argue that mankind could equally be said to be co-operative, loving and "nice".

Perhaps the problem is deWaal's attack on Huxley. Dawkins might legitimately be thought to have taken on Huxley's role as Darwin's bulldog (I think someone described Dawkins as Darwins rottweiler). Maybe Dawkins might feel that any attack on Huxley must be rebbutted.




Sun Oct 26, 2003 6:55 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 15093
Location: Florida
Thanks: 2899
Thanked: 1114 times in 882 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 6

Post Re: deWaal vs Dawkins
Peter

Yea, Dawkins is a strict Darwinian evolutionist (even though "evolutionist" isn't a word). I think many people feel the need to instantly refute any challenge to the ideas or theories of those they admire. This can be dangerous as it can lead to a closed mind. And I think "rottweiler" is a great choice of breed to describe Dawkins - having met him and experienced his "bite" up close. He went after one person that said something on stage that didn't meet with his approval. Otherwise, Dawkins is rather reserved in nature. Just don't piss him off or you could lose a limb.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be."



Sun Oct 26, 2003 7:53 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Asleep in Reading Chair


Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 199
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: Male
Country: United Kingdom (uk)

Post Re: deWaal vs Dawkins
Chris

I agree with everything you say. I know what he is like. Just imagine how I felt when I approached him about my book. He was OK though - I think he understood that it is important to get an evolutionary biologist to read the case I present.

I was well prepared for the meeting and I felt confident because I know I am right about my case but it could have gone badly wrong if I had inadvertently said the wrong thing.




Mon Oct 27, 2003 7:05 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2016. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank