RICHARD DAWKINS
Son gunlerde gezip tozmaktan sifayi kapinca, dort gunumu evde yorgan dosek yatarak gecirdim. Ama yine de bos durmadim ve biraz bilim ile ilgilendim. Evde hasta halde yatarken, internette Youtube sitesinden Richard Dawkins'in videolarini izledim ve ilginc buldugum iki yeri not aldim.
Oxford universitesinde profesor olan Richard Dawkins bir etnolojist (zoolojinin hayvan davranislarini inceleyen dali) ve evrim biyologu. Kendisi ayni zamanda Ingiltere'nin en unlu ateisti. Dini elestirdigi son kitabi "The God Delusion" bir sureden beri best-seller. En onemli kitabi ise 1976'da basilan ve Turkiye'de Tubitak yayinlari arasidan cikan "Gen Bencildir". Diger bir unlu kitabi da, yine Turkiye'de basilan Kor Saatci". Dawkins dincilerin Darwin'in evrim teorisini yalanlamak icin uydurduklari "Akilli Tasarim" sacmaliginin onde gelen karsitlarindan biri.
Dawkins'in The God Delusion adli kitabinin onsozunde "vicdan uyandirici" olarak adlandirdigi dort mesaji var:
a) Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.
b) Natural Selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis" - the illusion of intelligent design - in explaining the living world and the cosmos.
c) Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people flinch.
d) Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.
Videolarlardan birinde, CNN'deki bir programda kendisi ile kisa bir roportaj yapiliyor. Dawkins'in burada ateizm hakkinda sunlari soyluyor:
"If you're an atheist, you know, you believe this is the only life you are going to get. It's a precious life, it's a beatiful life. It's something that we should live to the full, to the end of our days. Whereas if you're religious and you believe that there's another life somehow, that means that you don't live this life to the full because you think you're going to get another one. That's an awfully negative way to live a life. Being an atheist frees you up to live this life properly, happily, and fully."
Bir diger video ise bir panele aitti. Konusmacilardan biri, Dawkins'i sert uslubu yuzunden elestiriyor. Dawkins de ona muhtesem bir cevap veriyor:
"I gratefully accept the rebuke. Just one anectode to show that I'm not the worst in this thing. A former and highly successful editor of New Scientist magazine, who actually built up New Scientist to great new heights, was asked 'What is your philosophy at New Scientist?' and he said 'Our philosophy at New Scientist is this: Science is interesting and you don't agree you can fuck off!' "
6 comments:
geçmiş olsun sevgili bliyaal...
gezerken yağmura yakalanmamaya çalış..:))
sevgiler,
Bliyall geçmiş olsun.
Ben Dawkins'in cevabında hiçbir muhteşemlik görmedim.
Dawkins argümanlarında kelimenin tam anlamıyla saçmalıyor ve Teist filozoflara alay konusu oluyor.
Bakın aşağıdaki videoda R.Dawkins'in son kitabında Tanrı'nın yokluğunu [(!)yokluk nasıl ispatlanırsa] ispatlamaya çalışırken kullandığı argümanların aynısı R.Dawkins'in varlığını reddetmek için kullanılıyor.
Oldukça eğlenceli:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/does_richard_da.html
Bu da kendiside bir darwinist olan Dennett'in, Dawkins'e ve M.Ruse'a yaptıkları saçmalıklardan dolayı serzenişi:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ruse-dennett-briefwechsel-the-clash-between-evolution-and-evolutionism/
Selamlar
Linkler tam çıkmıyor sanırım. Yukarıda verdiğim Dawkins'i ti'ye alan videonun açılımı vereyim.
Bu videoda, Dawkins'in Allah'ın varlığını reddetmek için kullandığı argümanların aynısı, bizzat Dawkins'in varlığını reddetmek için kullanılıyor. Dawkins diye biri olmadığını, bunun bir yanılgı olduğunu savunan "Dr. Terry Tommyrot"—tam da Dawkins'in üslup ve ses tonuyla— bu "Dawkins dini"nden insanları kurtarmak gerektiğini anlatıyor. Dawkins'in kitaplarının "tasarlanmış" gibi durduğunu, oysa bunların İngilizce'nin 26 harfinin yanyana gelmesiyle oluşmuş ve zaman içinde evrilmiş rastlantısal dizilimler olduğunu savunuyor. Elbette “bilimin bu kitapların oluşum sürecinin tüm detaylarını henüz çözemediğini,” ama bunun bir gün mutlaka başarılacağını, bunu beklemenin “Dawkins yanılgısına inanmaktan daha bilimsel olduğunu” ileri sürüyor.
Buyrun açılımı:
Richard: We’re privileged to have with us today Doctor Johadahrahdah Tommyrot who’s going to be talking to us about his latest book, “The Dawkins Delusion”. Thank you for joining us, Dr. Tommyrot, it’s a pleasure to speak to you again.
Tommyrot: Thank you, Richard, it’s good to be here.
Richard: Now, Doctor Tommyrot, you’re famous for declaring in no uncertain terms that you are not a believer in Richard Dawkins; you don’t think he really exists. Now why is that?
Tommyrot: Well, nothing’s so simple Richard. You shouldn’t ask sensible people to believe in something unless you’ve got evidence for it. If there is a Dawkins, why hasn’t he shown himself to me?
Richard: In your opinion, then, are people who believe in Richard Dawkins just a little bit dim?
Tommyrot: Well, in a way I can understand the mistake: simple people pick up a handful of books claiming to be written by Dawkins, and since a Dawkins seems to be a sufficient account for how they got to be there, for the similarities in all the texts, and so on – they stick with commonsense and fallaciously conclude that this Dawkins (which they have never seen with their own eyes) actually exists.
Richard: Of course, some people do claim to have seen Richard Dawkins, and even shaken his hand.
Tommyrot: Yes, if you can believe them.
Richard: You think they’re all lying?
Tommyrot: I didn’t say that. Of course, there’s no shortage of liars in the world, and undoubtedly some people who claim to have had these ‘Richard Dawkins experiences’ are deliberately telling fairy stories, but, you know, the human brain is a very, very complicated thing… and conjuring up an imaginary Dawkins would be child’s play for it. Christopher Robin had Binker. I had the slimy custard man. I suspect that something very similar is happening with people who claim to have seen a Richard Dawkins, or heard his voice, or felt his touch.
Richard: But the books aren’t evidence for the existence of Richard Dawkins either?
Tommyrot: No, of course not! As a scientist, it is no answer to the problem of ‘where did this inane rubbish come from?’ to stick a label on it that says, “Richard Dawkins”. Each book is a simple re-arrangement of only 26 letters. Even a child should be able to see that, with a little random shuffling of vowels and consonants on a computer, one can arrive at all sorts of patterns like that. Working out how each letter got into the place that it did is the business of science. Claiming
that Dawkins-did-it puts an end to an inquiry that promises to give us a full and satisfying explanation of how these books came to be, without the need for invoking a discredited Dawkins-of-the-gaps-type hypothesis.
Richard: But some people might point to the fact that the letters are arranged in definite patterns, spelling out sophisticated chains of arguments, and that this is a clear mark of intelligence, not random accident.
Tommyrot: If there were some kind of intelligence behind these books, then, judging by their contents, it is obviously a pretty poor one; we would hardly have lost much worth having by not believing in Richard Dawkins or in what his books have to say. The scientific view of the matter is beautifully simple and invigorating: the works of Richard Dawkins are nothing but a collection of fortuitously ordered a’s, b’s and c’s, recombined from previous patterns. There is the Latin alphabet, there are the nonsense poems of Edward Lear, and there are the works of Richard Dawkins, and the one developed from the other, through a series of random typing errors… though admittedly we haven’t got all of the details just now.
Richard: You admit that science hasn’t got the answers to where they came from, then?
Tommyrot: I haven’t got all the answers, science is working on it.
Richard: But can you be sure that science will get all the answers?
Tommyrot: If science doesn’t have the answers to where they came from, then, sure as hell, Richard Dawkins Religion doesn’t! If a Dawkins designed the books, then who designed the Dawkins? Just tell me that.
Richard: Moving on now, Dr. Tommyrot. In your book, you have described the Dawkins revealed in the literature as a “an ostentatious, acrimonious, supercilious, pusillanimous, calumnious, censorious, vituperative, querulous, embittered, obsessive and bombastic bully’.
Tommyrot: Yes. That seems fair enough to me.
Richard: Now some people might say that’s going a bit over the top.
Tommyrot: Read your Richard Dawkins, if you think that. Just read it. Read ‘A Devil’s Advocate’. Apart from finding no evidence whatsoever for an intelligence hiding somewhere beneath the paragraphs in the mystical realm of blind faith, you will discover, on the other hand, plenty of intolerance and bigotry in every chapter; all of these very good reasons to have nothing whatsoever to do with this Richard Dawkins’ religion.
Richard: Doctor Tommyrot, you have described this wide-spread belief in Richard Dawkins as a dangerous delusion – but what’s especially dangerous about people believing in the existence of Richard Dawkins, if it makes them happy?
Tommyrot: Well, for one fairly obvious reason: these people believe any book which has Dawkins’ name on the cover, and these books say a lot of very silly things. Belief in Dawkins has been responsible for filling the internet with non-sequiturs, caricatures, strawmen and vitriol. Dawkins’ disciples are militant, they are organised, and they’re out to convert you and me. Yes, I would certainly call this a dangerous delusion. If there is a Richard Dawkins, he has a lot to answer for.
Richard: In summary then, Dr. Tommyrot, what would you say is your main objection to the Richard Dawkins belief?
Tommyrot: My main objection is simply this: people are following a delusional Dawkins who is telling them what to think and believe, when they should be following me.
Richard: Well, our time’s up. Thank you very much, Dr. Tommyrot, for joining us this morning to talk about your latest book, ‘The Dawkins-Delusion’, published by Banter & Twaddle and available from our website for £19.99.
Hosgelmissiniz Suat bey. Izlenimler'den bu yana gorusemedik :) Hastalik pek kotu vurdu. Hala tam gecmis degil.
Oncelikle cok muhim bir yanlisinizi duzelteyim: Dawkins tanrinin varolmadigini kanitlamaya calismiyor. Zaten kendisi de bunun kanitlanamayacagini soyluyor. Youtube'da Dawkins ile son kitabi "The God Delusion" hakkinda yapilan bir roportaj var. Linki: [ http://youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54 ] Roportaji yapan adam Dawkins'e kitabinda "god almost certainly does not exist" ifadesini kullandigini ve tanrinin varoldugu ihtimalini acik halde biraktigini soyluyor. Dawkins'in cevabi soyle:
"Of course. Any scientist would leave that possibility open. You can't absolutely disprove the existence of anything. So just as we can't disprove the existence of Thor and Zeus and the flying spagetti monster, we can't be dogmatic and say "it is certain that god doesn't exist." We can say "as unlikely as Thor with his hammer." I could call myself a thorist to give the idea of that."
Ayni roportajin basinda sorulan bir soruda Dawkins sunlari soyluyor:
"Professor Dawkins, why are you so wound up about the position of faith in our society?"
"I wound up about the truth. I care passionately about the truth as a scientist and I do regard religious claims about the universe as alternative scientific claims. So the claim that the universe contains a god, contains a creative intelligence is a scientific claim because the universe would be a very different kind of universe with such a being than without it."
Linklere gelince:
Dennett'in yakinmasi ile ilgili su paragraf ilgi cekici:
"Fifth, I think that you and Richard are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design - we are losing this battle, not the least of which is the two new supreme court justices who are certainly going to vote to let it into classrooms - what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues - neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas - it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims - more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will."
Dikkat ederseniz, Dennett ilk cumlesinde "we" ifadesini kullanarak akilli tasarima karsi yurutulen savasa kendisinin de dahil oldugunu ifade ediyor ve ihtiyac duyduklari seyin, meseleleri ciddi bir sekilde kavramak oldugunu soyluyor. Benim gordugum kadariyla, Dennett, Dawkins ile Ruse'u usluplari ya da inandiklari seyleri savunurken takindiklari sert tavir nedeniyle elestiriyor. Ama savasta muttefik kazanmak ile ne kastettigini tam olarak anlamadim.
Dawkins'den uslup meselesine yanit olabilecegini dusundugum bir alinti yapayim: [The Guardian, 2001-10-11 "Has the world changed?." The Guardian. Accessed 2006-01-29.]
"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"
Dawkins ile dalga gecen videoyu izledim. Ancak Dawkins ile dalga gecerken kullandiklari mantik Dawkins'inkine uymuyor. Zira kendisi varoldugu kanitlanamayan bir varligi elestiriyor. Halbuki Dawkins'in varoldugunu biliyoruz, yoksa Darwin karsitlarinin bu kadar tepkisini cekmezdi :) Bence dalga gecisleri Dawkins'in savundugu, ancak varoldugu kanitlanamayan bir seyden hareketle yapilmaliydi.
Dawkins'in cevabina muhtesem dedim, cunku dobra ve hazir bir cevap.
Gene beklerim ...
Merhabalar,
Bu konuda çok farklı düşünüyoruz, vaktim olmadığı için iki şey söyleyeyim.
Evet, Dennet de Dawkins ve Ruse gişbi düşünüyor. Zaten ben de ilgili linki verirken "Bu da kendiside bir darwinist olan Dennett'in, Dawkins'e ve M.Ruse'a yaptıkları saçmalıklardan dolayı serzenişi.." şeklinde notla vermiştim.
"Savaş" tan kastı ise sizin tahmin ediyorum hiç inceleme gereği duymadan "saçmalık" olarak nitelediğiniz AT ile darwinizm arasında bilim dünyasında süregelenen tartışmalar. Bu konu çok konuşuluyor ve Darwinist tarafın tüm argümanları çok ciddi delillerle çürütülmüş durumda.
Kısa bir yazının linkini vereyim:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2447
Evet, Dawkins'in var olduğunu biliyoruz çünkü görüyoruz. ya göremeseydik?
Bunları Dawkins'in varlığını gizlediğini ya da tüm bu argümanların Dawkins'in var olduğunu bilmeyen birisine anlatıldığını kabul edin. O zaman Dawkins'in argümlarının niçin Teistlere alay konusu olduğu daha iyi anlaşılabilir.
Bu bir modellemedir. Ve insan matığının çözümlemesidir.
Teizm konusunda R.Swinburne'nun ünlü üçlemesini okumanızı önerebilirim.
Çok yoğunum, tekrar uğrayamayabilirim, çok geçmiş olsun dikkat edin kendinize lütfen..
Son birşey.. Son yazınızı da okudum. Bir ara siyaseten liberal, ekonomik açıdan müdahaleci nasıl olunur izah edebilirseniz çok sevinirim. Ekonomik müdahelecilik, siyasi müdahalecilik olmadan mümkün değildir çünkü. Bir iktisatçı olarak bu konuyu çözemedim, siz yazınca yardım isteyeyim dedim ;-)
Selamlar..
Dawkins hakli ama sinirliligi zarar veriyor. Tanri konusuda daha sakin tartismayi ogrenmek zorundayiz. Yoksa sesimizi duyuramiyoruz. Ciddiye alinmiyoruz.
www.elifsavas.com/blog
Post a Comment