Well he hasn't said that and from a quick read up, there doesn't seem to be clear evidence of that. Given his logical nature, I'd have expected that to be the case if that's what he meant.
I'm starting to think that he is, fundamentally (ho ho!), trolling.
He's a bad and predictable troll at that, Hitchens was a far better one, a thinking mans troll. A giant amongst trolls. 
I got a good laugh when Hitchens compared North Kora to heaven/Christmas. Dawkins just comes across as a jerk.
He is a bit of an attention whore afterall...
Yup. He's all meme meme meme.
Dawkins added a post to his blog clarifying his position:
FWIW I'd have to say that this response seems pretty reasonable, but I can see why people have got upset about it as well. As Dawkins points out its really up to the individual at the end of the day.
FWIW I'd have to say that this response seems pretty reasonable
Richard in "Dawkins not strident" shock horror in depth probe... 😆
Agreed, it was obvious that his true intention had not come across as meant (cue at the naysayers saying that he is now backtracking).
At the end of the day, it still turns on the point at which you consider a foetus to become a child. Biology teaches us one thing and emotion tells us another.
Difficult choice regardless of the side of the fence you sit on.
Biology teaches us one thing and emotion [s]tells us another[/s] misleads us by triggering a Darwinist survival mechanism.
If he realy meant to say on twitter what he said in his explanation on the blog I am sure he could have achieved it within 140 characters without saying the moral choice is to abort. I am pro the availability of abortion on demand and an atheist I would wholly support someone's decision to abort on the basis of a downs risk but to do so is not"the" moral choice it is "a" moral choice . when in the real world crankygirl and I worked out this equation our decision was we really wanted and would love our child regardless, we are not rich but have sufficient resources financial and family support and a first world state behind us to ensure a safe and happy life for our child, our limited experience of people with disabilities is that they can and do have happy and fulfilling lives . On that basis we decided not even to bother testing as we knew we would continue regardless . Our decision was not sound from a purely pragmatic or eugenic point of veiw but I believe was morally and ethnicly defensible .
Is not a Darwinist survival mechanism biology too?
It's biological, not Biology.
Is splitting hairs bullshit, biology or biological?
"biological" is, in this case, [i]of[/i] human development.
"Biology" is the study of that, hence being taught by it.
Hairs are a nuisance, especially yours. Get a shave.
Biology teaches us one thing and emotion misleads us by triggering a biological survival mechanism. Is that should have been said Woppit ?
Biology teaches us we are driven by a need to perpetuate our Genes. If one have lots of opportunity to reproduce then it makes biological sense to abort a foetus that is going to be potentially defective (not my ideal choice of word) if one has limited opportunity to reproduce then it makes biological sense to try to ensure the survival of every potential progeny .
I see you lot are still befuddled between morals and ethics
The Oxford Defence?
eh?
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/dawkins-now-just-telling-random-strangers-why-he-hates-them-2014082189774 ]Tee-Hee[/url]
Dawkins explainsWho'd have thought it? 140 characters isn't a good vehicle for nuanced opinion. FWIW I thought his tweet was crass, arrogant and insensitive, yet can't find anything to fault in the linked piece.
If he'd have written his blog then linked that in his reply tweet, it would have been fine. The problem is not what he said - his blog is actually very good and given time and space he explains himself very well.
The problem is that he tried to explain it via Twitter which is a rubbish medium for anything that in-depth and nuanced, especially when you bring into the equation the emotion that surrounds issues like abortion, religion etc.
Got no problems with Dawkins himself, generally he speaks pretty good sense even if he can be a bit self-publicising at times.
Perhaps he looks at everything from a purely logical point of view, leaving out any of the emotions that are an integral part of humanity?
Thats his problem, and many like him.
Science is nowhere near to understanding the human brain, emotions, feelings. All science can do is reduce phenomenon down to a mechanical explanation of the universe.
This mechanical explanation (everything runs like a machine, efficiency is a higher form of being etc) is a priori (before) the actual phenomenon we experience in the world.
Simply put, if you see the world in terms of logic, reason, religion, then any entity you encounter phenomenologically will be processed through that framework, which exists before you encounter the entity.
So a Down's Syndrome baby in Dawkin's eye will always appear as 'broken' or 'useless' because he has an a priori notion of what is 'useful' or 'not broken'.
I'm not religious, but these types like Dawkins really get on my nerves. They act like they know it all but in reality they need to take a course in Philosophy 101 and realise the scientific worldview isn't the be-all-end-all.
devash
They act like they know it all but in reality they need to take a course in Philosophy 101 and realise the scientific worldview isn't the be-all-end-all.
A priori notions are potentially problematic you say?
Dawkins upsets the self righteous, keep it up 😉
Down's Syndrome baby in Dawkin's eye will always appear as 'broken' or 'useless' because he has an a priori notion of what is 'useful' or 'not broken'.
Except that wasnt his point. His point was that a fetus does not suffer whilst kids with Downs have all sorts of health problems likely to cause suffering so the moral thing to do would be have an abortion and try again as Downs isnt an inherited genetic disorder.
His point was that a fetus does not suffer whilst kids with Downs have all sorts of health problems likely to cause suffering so the moral thing to do would be have an abortion and try again as Downs isnt an inherited genetic disorder.
If we can accept that at the point of termination a foetus is not a child, if when pregnancy is confirmed the midwife gave you an option and said " would you like your child with or without Down's ?", I would imagine every parent would say "without preferably". So from Dawkins perspective (ie foetus is not a child its just a stage in a biological process) why would someone choose to carry that foetus to term rather than try again with a different sperm and egg?
Like i've said before, the difference between Dawkins and people opposed to him (other than his manners) is simply when he considers that biological process to be a "child".
if one has limited opportunity to reproduce then it makes biological sense to try to ensure the survival of every potential progeny .
Wrong! If you can't have lots of offspring it's probably because they require lots of resources and take a long time to develop into adults, hence it's better to abort than waste resources on offspring that might not be able to pass on your genes.
try again as Downs isnt an inherited genetic disorder.
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Most cases of Downs Syndrome are not inherited but some are.
So much crap Biology in this thread.
Science is nowhere near to understanding the human brain, emotions, feelings. All science can do is reduce phenomenon down to a mechanical explanation of the universe.
The universe is mechanistic. Besides, we understand the brain well enough to make a judgement call on fetal pain.
Don't tell me, you're a postmodernist?
try again as Downs isnt an inherited genetic disorder.Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. Most cases of Downs Syndrome are not inherited but some are.
So much crap Biology in this thread.
Oh I am sorry mr biology god if I had put 95% not inherited would you be happy? The point remains howver regarding probabilities of suffering.
What other incorrect biology have you seen oh wise one?
Tom I'm not sure you understand my point .
The drive to procreate is individual if for whatever reason the individual has a limited shot at procreation then they will be more ready to invest time and resources in what might be viewed by others as a sub optimal child .
I'm not religious, but these types like Dawkins really get on my nerves. They act like they know it all but in reality they need to take a course in Philosophy 101 and realise the scientific worldview isn't the be-all-end-all.
I like that post, Daveash. Prpbably the most well constructed and best tohught out response yet.
I view Dawkins very much in a similar way to Jeremy Clarksn; both atre undeniably intelligent, and are particularly adept at knowing just which buttons to press in order to get a reaction. But Neither are quite as clever as they or their acolytes beleive them to be; Dawkins could make his points in a more intelligent and reasonable way, if he possesed a smodgen more awareness. For all his undoubted scientific knowledge, I find him a tad narrow-minded, and he has a need to seek negative reaction, perhas as a way of attempting to address an insecutiy within himself, a bit ho like a child deliberately misbehaves in order to get attention. He has however been particulary successful at turning this needinessinto a way of making money, particularly from other similarly needy types needing sme sort of para-messianic figurehead. I do find it amusing that such devotionby his followers mirrors that of the very people and ideologies he often attacks.
Dawkins upsets the self righteous, keep it up
One of the reasons I'm a fan.
It's quite nice to have my point proven so easily. 🙂
Tom I'm not sure you understand my point .
The drive to procreate is individual if for whatever reason the individual has a limited shot at procreation then they will be more ready to invest time and resources in what might be viewed by others as a sub optimal child .
Most humans get a chance to try again, however, I can understand why people would go through with a pregnancy even if the child will be disabled. The parents have a right to choose and that's the way it should stay.
LOL....Classic only on stw could someone compare Richard Dawkins and Clarkson in terms of intelligence..
Oh Clarkson is no fool (much as I'd love to think he is sometimes). And they do both say some ****erish things to provoke a reaction sometimes. Added to that, they both have legions of devotees and haterz.
stoffel - Member...Dawkins ... has a need to seek negative reaction...
but in this case, he didn't.
his 'attention seeking' tweet was written in such a way that only a small group of people could read it.
this hoo-ha has only been made possible because other people went digging for it, perhaps people with a need to feel offended...
a need to feel offended...
*Adds to the list of phrases for the intellectually bereft and mild trolls*
LOL....Classic only on stw could someone compare Richard Dawkins and Clarkson in terms of intelligence..
LOL....Classic only on stw could someone deliberately misrepresent a point someone has made and use the comment "both are undeniably intelligent" to claim that someone is comparing Richard Dawkins and Clarkson in terms of intelligence
I've never noticed Clarkson say anything intelligent.
I've never noticed Clarkson say anything intelligent.
Me neither, but his choice of what unintelligent things to say suggests at least an element of low cunning.
If we can accept that at the point of termination a foetus is not a child, if when pregnancy is confirmed the midwife gave you an option and said " would you like your child with or without Down's ?", I would imagine every parent would say "without preferably".
I'm sure you're right, but I don't see how that makes the others "immoral".
DrJ, I definitely don't think it should be linked to morality (I've said previously in this thread that I don't agree with Dawkin's use of the word in that context and suspect he just made a poor choice).
Again, as I've said before, it's an enormously personal choice either way and the state should never try change a parent's mind when they are doing what is right for [i]their[/i] family.
Peterfile, I believe his use of the word moral was entirely correct. Morals are your own, mine are different from his and both are different from yours. He thinks it is the moral decision, he did not say it is the ethical decision.
Peterfile, I believe his use of the word moral was entirely correct. Morals are your own, mine are different from his and both are different from yours. He thinks it is the moral decision, he did not say it is the ethical decision.
Not sure I want to get into a debate about the meaning of morality on a saturday night 🙂 But, my understanding is that morality is concerned with whether actions are right or wrong.
You say morals are personal, so why did Dawkins offer his moral to another as being the only and correct one? He offered it because he does not feel that it is a subjective topic, he thinks he has the correct answer. For such a subjective topic, there is no right or wrong answer IMO and therefore to come down on either side does not lead to either party being moral or immoral.
btw, I sympathise with Dawkin's position, I just don't agree that "immoral" was the correct word to use.
The dictionary says it means "not conforming to [i]accepted standards[/i] of morality"
If morals are subjective as you describe, how can there also be accepted standards?
This pretty much is what I thought was the difference between moral and ethical
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals
So you and I could face the same problem come up with different answers and think them morally correct.
@aa - what you say makes sense, but then what point is there for Dawkins (or anyone) to criticize others as immoral, if it jus means "it's wrong for me".
