Reddit Reddit reviews DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA: EVOLUTION AND THE MEANINGS OF LIFE

We found 15 Reddit comments about DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA: EVOLUTION AND THE MEANINGS OF LIFE. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Science & Math
Books
Evolution
DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA: EVOLUTION AND THE MEANINGS OF LIFE
Simon Schuster
Check price on Amazon

15 Reddit comments about DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA: EVOLUTION AND THE MEANINGS OF LIFE:

u/[deleted] · 6 pointsr/atheism

Check out neuroscience. It can, and does, explain how we experience, understand, and learn about things like love, beauty, etc. And it's getting better at it every day. To me, calling something "just a chemical reaction" doesn't diminish it; rather, it makes me marvel at the complexities involved in all of those reactions occurring at once, and me being the type of animal with a brain evolved enough to appreciate those complexities.

In general, I applaud you for asking questions. The questions you are asking, however, show me that you should read more into biological evolution and philosophy. Sure, we might me able to give you short answers here, but I highly doubt that (even of the civil responses) you will get the detail and back-story needed to truly understand the answers to your questions. Again though, keep asking questions; it's the right way to approach everything in life. For starters, I think Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell might be a good place for you to start with the religious/philosophical questions and Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene a good place to start for your evolution questions. All of Dawkins' book about evolution are amazing, and there is one to address pretty much any question you might have about evolution. Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea combines the two subjects a little.

u/shanedoth · 3 pointsr/science

The hill keeps shifting, too - so what may be "higher" terrain today may not be tomorrow. And everyone climbs the mountain with the following algorithm - "Always take steps upward." Then a bunch of people find themselves on local peaks, unable to cross chasms to the actual highest peak of "fitness."

This mountain analogy is actually quite helpful for understanding the philosophical connotations of Darwin's theory. Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea is actually one of my favorite books on the topic.

u/omaca · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

Just buy him a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth.

Or failing that, Mayr's What Evolution Is, Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea (a bit heavy), or finally if all else fails, this

u/Jivlain · 2 pointsr/reddit.com

The term is used extensively by Richard Dawkins, who attributes it to Daniel Dennett (who apparently used it in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which I have not read yet, though I do intend to).

u/nolsen01 · 2 pointsr/DebateAnAtheist

I really really wish I could have gotten to this post earlier.

Faith

There are always different definitions for the word faith floating around. It appears that your definition of faith is actually pretty trivial. If I'm not mistaken, you would have to have faith to believe anything according to your definition. If that is the case, then sure I have faith. The fact that I believe anything implies that I have faith.

But this sort of faith doesn't tell us anything. If I ask, "Why do you believe in God?" Pointing out that you have faith doesn't tell me anything since I've already assumed you have faith by acknowledging the fact that you believe in something. The real question is:

> Why have faith in one belief, and not in another?

In other words, how do you distinguish between what is reality and what isn't? What makes you think God exists? "I have faith" is not an answer.

Evolution

Its common for theists to make arguments like, "If God doesn't exist, then why is the universe so well designed for us?" They will highlight many variables like the temperature of the earth, or the earths density and point out (rightly) that if they were much different, we wouldn't be able to live. If the earth was much more dense, then our bones would break under our own weight, etc.

This is the design argument. "If any of these things were any different, then we wouldn't be able to live. Therefore, the universe must have been designed with us in mind. The designer is God."

The key to understanding why this is wrong is evolution. They are making an assumption that the universe was designed for us when there is another very real possibility: that we are the ones that are designed. They observe this compatibility between us and our environment, and assume that it is our environment that is adapted to us while dismissing the possibility that we are the ones that are adapted to our environment.

"...any form of intelligent life that evolves anywhere will automatically find that it lives somewhere suitable for it."

Evolution showed us that complex phenomena can bubble up on their own and don't require a more complex intelligent agent to design and create them.

This is absolutely damning for the hypothesis than an intelligence had to have created the universe. Since we know of no minds that occur without a brain, and we know that evolutionary-type processes occur all over the universe, the conclusion is pretty simple. We don't need God to explain the current state of things, and more then likely God doesn't actually exist.

There is a great book on this called Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett. The book is dense, so if you don't have the patience or the interest, you can check out some of his talks on youtube and TED.

u/Ohthere530 · 2 pointsr/atheism

Daniel Dennett. I was especially struck by Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

u/fduniho · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

For Atheism:

  1. Superstition in All Ages by Jean Meslier - a comprehensive treatise against religion, written between 2 and 3 centuries ago.

  2. The Religion Virus: Why we believe in God by Craig A. James - explains how religion and particularly belief in God is due to memetic evolution.

  3. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael Martin - a comprehesive overview of arguments for and against the existence of God.

  4. Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel Dennett - explains why the idea of evolution is so powerful an explanation of things, it acts as a universal acid against supernatural beliefs.

  5. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins - specifically addresses the idea of God as a supernatural creator

    For Christianity:

  6. The Five Great Philosophies of Life by William De Witt Hyde - covers Epicureanism, Stoicism, Plato, Aristotle, and Christianity, explaining the value in each.

  7. Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas - a comprehensive and detailed examination and defense of Christian beliefs

  8. The End of Religion: Encountering the Subversive Spirituality of Jesus by Bruxy Cavey

  9. Unspoken Sermons by George MacDonald

  10. Descent Into Hell by Charles Williams - a novel
u/brutay · 1 pointr/Anarchism

>Capital is the primary (only?) true drive in the segregation of society into a hierarchal class system.

Actually, centralized, exclusive access to decisive coercive violence is the primary true drive in the segregation of society into a hierarchical class system.

>anarchist will have to turn to subversive media propaganda

If you're using the traditional definition of propaganda--i.e., a message designed with purpose to persuade--I agree. The public needs to be exposed to and educated about a small number of vitally important ideas that have traditionally been suppressed. The American populace is uniquely equipped (due to their widely dispersed access to decisive coercive threat) to dismantle their oppressive government. They are merely lacking the right information and motivation.

u/MarcoVincenzo · 1 pointr/atheism

As others have said, The God Delusion deals with atheism directly whereas The Greatest Show on Earth presents evidence for evolution. Which you read first depends on what you want to know.

As for other books, I suggest Dan Dennet's Breaking the Spell or Darwin's Dangerous Idea.

u/DNAGeeks · 1 pointr/biology

Try "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". One of my all time favorites.

https://www.amazon.com/DARWINS-DANGEROUS-IDEA-EVOLUTION-MEANINGS/dp/068482471X/

u/NotFreeAdvice · 1 pointr/atheism

I am not totally sure what you are asking for actually exists in book form...which is odd, now that I think about it.

If it were me, I would think about magazines instead. And if you really want to push him, think about the following options:

  1. Science News, which is very similar to the front-matter of the leading scientific journal Science. This includes news from the past month, and some in-depth articles. It is much better written -- and written at a much higher level -- than Scientific American or Discover. For a very intelligent (and science-interested) high school student, this should pose little difficulty.
  2. The actual journal Science. This is weekly, which is nice. In addition to the news sections, this also includes editorials and actual science papers. While many of the actual papers will be beyond your son, he can still see what passes for presentation of data in the sciences, and that is cool.
  3. The actual journal Nature. This is also weekly, and is the british version of the journal Science. In my opinion, the news section is better written than Science, which is important as this is where your kid's reading will be mostly done. IN addition, Nature always has sections on careers and education, so that your son will be exposed to the more human elements of science. Finally, the end of nature always has a 1-page sci-fi story, and that is fun as well.
  4. If you must, you could try Scientific American or Discover, but if you really want to give your kid a cool gift, that is a challenge, go for one of the top three here. I would highly recommend Nature.

    If you insist on books...

    I see you already mentioned A Brief History of the Universe, which is an excellent book. However, I am not sure if you are going to get something that is more "in depth." Much of the "in depth" stuff is going to be pretty pop, without the rigorous foundation that are usually found in textbooks.

    If I had to recommend some books, here is what I would say:

  5. The selfish gene is one of the best "rigorous" pop-science books out there. Dawkins doesn't really go into the math, but other than that he doesn't shy away from the implications of the work.
  6. Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennett is a great book. While not strictly science, per se, it does outline good philosophical foundations for evolution. It is a dense read, but good.
  7. On the more mathematical side, you might try Godel, Escher, Bach, which is a book that explores the ramifications of recrusiveness and is an excellent (if dense) read.
  8. You could also consider books on the history of science -- which elucidate the importance of politics and people in the sciences. I would recommend any of the following: The Double Helix, A man on the moon, The making of the atomic bomb, Prometheans in the lab, The alchemy of air, or A most damnable invention. There are many others, but these came to mind first.

    Hope that helps! OH AND GO WITH THE SUBSCRIPTION TO NATURE

    edit: added the linksssss
u/jmsr7 · 1 pointr/atheism

I would recommend "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett. It is think and dense and comprehensive and meaty. Thanks to his takedown of Stephen J Gould's use of the term spandrel, i can no longer look a the corners of a vaulted ceiling arch without thinking of evolution anymore.

jmsr

Gould was famous for overblown rhetoric - just look at the 'debate' over gradual evolution vs. punctuated equilibrium which turned out to be the exact same phenomena observed at different timescales. Thousands or even tens of thousands of years of evolutionary change can appear to be a punctuation when viewed at the level of millions of years.

u/blackstar9000 · 0 pointsr/atheism

Hijacked is too strong a word, but I think two points are notable. First, arguably most of the really popular and notable books on evolution released in the last twenty years were penned by New Atheists proper or by authors who basically fit the New Atheist mold but aren't one of the four specific authors. A big part of the reason for that is simply Richard Dawkins. He's a popular writer and a biologist, so it was almost inevitable that he'd pen books about Darwin and that they'd hit the bestsellers lists. And if it were limited to Dawkins, I'd think nothing of it, but there's Dennett and Shermer, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Harris release one before long. Another part of the reason is that a number of the other books about Darwinian evolution that have sold well in past decades were penned by creationists like Michael Behe, so a certain measure of response is, from my perspective at least, welcome. At that point, it's about market share, and we don't want creationists having too big a piece of the market share. Their point of view is, after all, problematic to say the least. If it weren't for my second point, it wouldn't even be problematic that a) popular books on evolution are basically split between creationists and New Atheists, and b) that New Atheists make up such a large share of that market.

But my second point is this: New Atheists aren't just popularizing or "standing up for" Darwinian evolution; they're attaching a political and ideological agenda to that effort, and that runs several risks, the most obvious being that it can polarize people against evolution, as some commentators have warned it might do in Muslim countries. To my mind, the more insidious risk is that, once you've connected a scientific theory to a political or ideological effort, it becomes all to easy for its patrons to see it in those terms even when it has nothing to do with that effort. Without much noticing it, pro-Darwinians may start seeing barely articulated associations as part and parcel of evolution, until evolution is something more than a scientific model. Dawkins, for example, has turned evolution into a theological disproof with the subtitle of "The Blind Watchmaker". The title of Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters" sums up the achievement of evolutionary theory as a form of polemic against intelligent design theory. Dawkins, at least, is close enough to the professional practice of biology that he probably doesn't need reminding that evolution isn't really about atheism, but all of these guys are writing books for people who don't have the continual reminder of working in the field where evolutionary theory is most functional.

I say none of this in defense of the Guardian article, but I do think there's something to be said for the idea that our society stands to lose by leaving it up to the New Atheists to give evolution its popularly received meaning.

u/JamesCole · 0 pointsr/philosophy

IMO, if you're interested in philosophy, your first port of call should be to get an understanding of evolution. It's surprisingly relevant to so many topics in philosophy, and I think so many misunderstandings that occur in philosophy come from not really appreciating an evolutionary viewpoint. There's sure to be quite a few people who'd disagree with me on this.

I'd recommend these books, all of which are quite readable and have a somewhat philosophic bent:

Climbing Mount Improbable or The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins

Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel C. Dennett