5
   

Dawkins' ethical stance

 
 
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.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 1,401 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 06:45 am
@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.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 08:26 am
@rosborne979,
Imagine that, JJC is saying that there is a gene for Original SIn.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 08:46 am
Gene Pitney?

0 Replies
 
JohnJonesCardiff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 01:35 pm
@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.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 03:39 pm
@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.
JohnJonesCardiff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 04:20 pm
@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.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 04:44 pm
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..Wink

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..Smile

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/14th-legion.gif
JohnJonesCardiff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 05:12 pm
@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..Wink

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..Smile



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.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 05:37 pm
@JohnJonesCardiff,
I rest my case.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jan, 2014 07:23 pm
@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.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jan, 2014 08:23 am
@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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Dawkins' ethical stance
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/29/2022 at 06:30:08