Reply
Thu 2 Jan, 2014 06:26 am
"What kind of ethical philosophy is it that condemns every child, even before it is born, to inherit the sin of a remote ancestor? " asks, rightly, an outraged Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, p. 251-252.
Now, with science, and with Dawkins' astuteness, we can be assured that the ethical philosophy that condemns every child, even before it is born, is the selfishness of all genes, and not of some phenotypes called ancestors.
Religion and Richard Dawkins are a team that have always worked together in bringing their single, ethical message to us, their respectful, and thankful, public.
Dawkins is dismayed, to say the least, by people who think that original selfishness is caused by phenotypes and not genes. Phenotypes or genes? It makes all the difference, we have been assured.
@JohnJonesCardiff,
JohnJonesCardiff wrote:Now, with science, and with Dawkins' astuteness, we can be assured that the ethical philosophy that condemns every child, even before it is born, is the selfishness of all genes, and not of some phenotypes called ancestors.
Have you actually read the book? Because "selfishness" when applied to genes, is not the same "selfishness" we mean when we talk about people.
Your post indicates to me that you have not read the book thoroughly, and certainly not understood it if you did.
@rosborne979,
Imagine that, JJC is saying that there is a gene for Original SIn.
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
JohnJonesCardiff wrote:Now, with science, and with Dawkins' astuteness, we can be assured that the ethical philosophy that condemns every child, even before it is born, is the selfishness of all genes, and not of some phenotypes called ancestors.
Have you actually read the book? Because "selfishness" when applied to genes, is not the same "selfishness" we mean when we talk about people.
Your post indicates to me that you have not read the book thoroughly, and certainly not understood it if you did.
Of course, yes, that's right, selfishness doesn't mean the same as selfishness. No, it means something else. There there now.
@JohnJonesCardiff,
JohnJonesCardiff wrote:Of course, yes, that's right, selfishness doesn't mean the same as selfishness. No, it means something else. There there now.
You didn't actually read the book did you.
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
JohnJonesCardiff wrote:Of course, yes, that's right, selfishness doesn't mean the same as selfishness. No, it means something else. There there now.
You didn't actually read the book did you.
I bought the book. Hated spending the money. I use it to tease out good nonsense and official opinion for use in forums and in my blog.
Not sure I understand what this thread is about. Genetics?
For example my great-uncle Alf was killed in WW1 going over the top to kill Jerries, my paternal grandad was a troublemaker and was killed in a pub brawl, and his son (my dad) was also an outspoken argumentative type.
I've definitely inherited their genes and DNA or whatever..
PS- incidentally our family go back many generations in my home town of Leicester (England) which was once the home of the notorious Roman 14th Legion, so maybe some of their fearsome blood is in me too which would explain why I'm a PC internet wargaming champ, ha ha..
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:
Not sure I understand what this thread is about. Genetics?
For example my great-uncle Alf was killed in WW1 going over the top to kill Jerries, my paternal grandad was a troublemaker and was killed in a pub brawl, and his son (my dad) was also an outspoken argumentative type.
I've definitely inherited their genes and DNA or whatever..
PS- incidentally our family go back many generations in my home town of Leicester (England) which was once the home of the notorious Roman 14th Legion, so maybe some of their fearsome blood is in me too which would explain why I'm a PC internet wargaming champ, ha ha..
You haven't physically inherited anything physical, like genes, from your ancestors. All their genes died.
Genes are not responsible for any behaviour. They are only responsible for chemistry.
And there aren't two things, you and your genes. It's like saying my genes are responsible for me. Well, what is "me"?
All that's happening is that you are just like your family and ancestors and what runs in the family runs in the family and what doesn't run in the family doesn't run in the family. Thank god, some might say. The gene hype is science mumbo jumbo. It's useless.
Let everyone else here take heed of that. And just sober up. Drop the science posture. Smell the coffee and get normal, if its not too much to ask a civilized man to do.
@JohnJonesCardiff,
JohnJonesCardiff wrote:Genes are not responsible for any behaviour. They are only responsible for chemistry.
And yet, chemistry is most definitely responsible for some behaviors.
@rosborne979,
ACCORDING TOJJ, ALL INHERITENCE OF TRAITS OCCURS AFTER THE PARENTS DEATH. he he he .
That's why I think hes just having a joke, no one can be this stupid and still have the ability to write.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace