جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "داوکینز" در نشریات گروه "فلسفه و کلام"

Culture is one of the great themes of Bloch and Dawkins’ philosophy. They use ideas of materialism and processtual evolutionism with reduction approach to explain the cultural realm. These common aspects make a comparative/ synthetic study of their philosophy of culture- based on components “Ideas” and “Memes”- possible. The claims of this article are: 1) Bloch's processtual ontology is a proper metaphysics for Dawkins' genetics and theory of culture; 2) Dawkins' genetics explains the relation between the human biological sphere and social/historical structures. This article tries to show that the analysis of the cultural theories in Bloch and Dawkins' thought can provide genuine and profound insight into the fundamental dynamics of society and history and can more clearly explain some philosophical conceptions, for example “alienation” and “social class”. On the other side, two pair's conceptions- mainly “praxis/expanded phenotype” and “mems/plus ultra”- are complementary and can more exactly explain the relation between gene, social structures, and culture. The result of this comparative/synthetic analysis of culture are: 1) A type of philosophical “determinism” that is challenging for some basic Bloch's conceptions: utopia and hope; 2) An example -by adding the Bloch's conception of “teleology” to Dawkins' genetics- of compromising the scientific and philosophical exceptional approach.

The issue of efficiency of religion is one of the most important current theological topics. Since this concept does not require complex philosophical and scientific grounds, it can easily engage the general public, and for this reason, it has been used by atheists like Richard Dawkins. Following the pragmatic approach to religion, Dawkins has discussed the relationship between religion and morality in some chapters of the The God Delusion, but not in the usual way, rather, he tries to deny religion by denying the moral efficacy of religion. It is not that simply Dawkins declares that ethics is separate from religion and that religion can enter other fields such as issues related to belief, rather he attempts to undermine the authenticity of religion through showing its inefficiency. In denying religious ethics, Dawkins presents his argument in two ways. First, he explains human ethics from a scientific and evolutionary point of view, and in the next stage, he criticizes religious ethics, and then, by proving human ethics and negating religious ethics, he concludes the negation of religion and God with a pragmatic approach. This article examines Dawkins' pragmatic approach with descriptive-analytical method, regardless of his scientific-evolutionary arguments which have been criticized in other articles. The following results have been achieved: 1. fallacy in his pragmatic approach, 2. imperfection of the human ethics claimed by him, and 3. criticizing his perspective toward religious ethics and presenting the rational-scriptural model of religious ethics.

Studying the basis of origination and persistence of religion is an important issue in the scientific study of religion.  Richard Dawkinz, the contemporary evolutionary biologist, however, introduces religion as an accidental by-product of evolution. According to this view, religion is not however, an adaptive object, rather is produced by misfunction of the other adaptive ones. Dawkinz has tried to find the adaptive objects wich religion may be made of, and explain the relation between them and religion. The present issue is to study and evaluate this idea. The conclusion is that the above mentioned explanation of religion is affected by some general and special objections. Therefor it is not able to deliver a reliable scientific explanation of religion.

Having believed in Darwin's theory of evolution, the contemporary biologist and animal behaviorist, Richard Dawkins has tried to present a naturalistic and atheistic account of the theory during several decades thus basing atheism upon evolutionism. His strongest support for such an account is natural selection which he considers as a clue to decipher the mystery of being, invincible though blind, bereft of any orientation, in an accumulated way, along with some sort of luck, and based not on intelligence or awareness. In his paper, the author goes to study and assess Dawkins' view and arguments.The upshot of this research is Dawkins' many mistakes in his very claims, arguments, results, and at last his failure in imposing his naturalistic metaphysics on the evolution theory thus his so-called scientifically atheistic explanation. Furthermore and contrary to Dawkins' assumption, not only the theory of evolution is compatible with monotheistic approach, but also divine and wise calculations are the best explanation and infrastructure for the cognitive value of evolution theory.

Richard Dawkins has taken an atheistic approach to the evolutionary explanation of the origin of religion. In this regard, he has used the hypothesis of "religion as a sub-matter" as well as the hypothesis of "Meme". Alister McGrath, on the other hand, criticizes his atheistic approach and finds his arguments deeply inadequate and unjustified. According to McGrath, a purely biological explanation of the origin of religion is incorrect and results from a confusion between biological evolution and cultural evolution. Incompatibility, lack of reason, cognitive bias, lack of distinction between the propositions of religion, lack of similarity between genes and memes are among the drawbacks of these two hypotheses. The problem with leading research is to visualize and measure the contrast between the two approaches. In this evaluation, we have used the library-documentary method in terms of collection and the analytical method in terms of arbitration. The results of the research show that although, on the whole, McGrath’s bugs are useful and effective; But in some cases, he has not provided a sufficient and comprehensive explanation.

Richard Dawkins, emphasizing maximum scientism, argues for the conflict between science and religion. By proposing the improbable argument, he has viewed the existence of God as being of the least possiblity, and finally, inferred atheistic belief. In contrast, Alister McGrath dismissed Dawkinschr('39')s maximum view of scientism as incorrect and, using critical realism and the psychology of perception, challenged his atheistic view. The point of leading research is to evaluate and measure this encounter. In this study, we have used analytical and library-based method and technique. The research shows that although the analysis of McGrath from a theistic point of view of the universe as an interpretive framework solves Dawkinschr('39') alleged conflict between science and religion, it still cannot be away from epistemological relativism. At the same time, some of his critiques on the proof of improbability are not without weakness.

Form the viewpoint of evolutionary naturalism, the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design, and the evolution theory reject the belief in supernatural identities and causes. However, it seems that one must distinguish between the evolution theory as a scientific theory and the “evolutionary naturalism” as a philosophical view. Naturalists such as Dawkins claim that “Evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.” However, it is by presuming ontological naturalism that one can arrive at such a conclusion from the evolution theory. Of course, by accepting the ontological naturalism, there is no need to the evolution theory to prove a universe without design. The ontological naturalism can result in such a conclusion once it comes together with anything else. In this article, we show that the arguments presented by naturalists cannot show that there are no supernatural identities and causes; and thus, the naturalists cannot reject the possibility of entrance of such identities and causes into the explanations regarding the features of the natural universe unless they do not let their entrance a priori and according to a philosophical approach.

Dawkins, a contemporary evolutionary biologist and one of the pioneers of modern atheism, while deeply believing in Darwinchr('39')s theory of evolution and offering an atheistic reading of it, has devoted part of his efforts to presenting various objections agains the belief in the existence of God. The point of the forthcoming research is to examine and measure these objections. In this study, in terms of gathering, the library-documental method, and in terms of assessment, the analytical method have been used. The results of the research show that Dawkins was wrong in all these objections, he was caught in many fallacies, and contrary to his belief, the belief in the Almighty God is the best rational explanation in the world.

Richard Dawkins is one of the contemporary atheists greatly affected by Darwinism. As an evolutionary biologist, he has tried to justify all the complex phenomena of the world through his Naturalistic approach. He denies the relationship between ethics and religion following evolutionary ethics and strives to overrule the hypothesis of God as the Designer and Cosmic Mind. But the important thing is that despite the serious criticisms of Darwin's theory of evolution, it still holds great significance and appears to have caused many conflicts between religious beliefs and science. To many, the conflict with religion is not due to the conflict between the content of science and religion but to the assumption that scientific methods are the only way to know and discover reality. In the present research, we intend to defend this stance – through a critical investigation of some of Dawkins’ Naturalistic approaches from the viewpoint of Alvin Plantinga and others – that a true agreement between science and religion can be found via a true interpretation of experimental science theories and attention to methodological issues in science, and finally can use the scientific methods for recognizing the world as ways of divine management and action.

The issue of "the existence of God and its relation to the world" has always been a vibrant and dynamic field in philosophical discussions. Bring up Darwin's theory of evolution in Western scientific circles, very important questions were raised in this regard. Enumerating criticism on some of the proofs of the existence of God such as ontological argument, teleological argument, casual argument and etc., Richard Dawkins, a biologist, who believes in Darwin's theory of evolution, has provided arguments in his works to deny the existence of God, such as argument of “improbability of the existence of God”, argument of “belief in God as a mental virus” and argument of “God’s explanatory competition with science”. This article explains the reasons of Dawkins for denying the existence of God, and then it reviews and criticizes them based on the ideas of martyr Mutahari, Alistair McGrath and other contemporary philosophers of religion

As an evolutionist biologist, Dawkins has commented on some non-biological fields of knowledge such as ethics. Regarding ethics, he has utilized different areas of knowledge like social biology, evolutionary psychology, genetics etc. The most important aspect of Dawkins theory is that he negates any form of moral distinction between human and animals. His concerns about dealing with ethics originate from the motivation to negate the ethical functions of religion. In addition, according to the fact that evolutionary theory fails to explain the morality of human, and considering this as one of its flaws, Dawkins attempts to resolve this problem in one way or another. This paper is an attempt to analyze and report Dawkins’ attempt.