Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution News and Views on Dawkins dumped from Berkeley: Did it serve him right?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Further to Dawkins dumped from Berkeley due to “hurtful words,” neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and editor David Klinghoffer weigh in:

Egnor:

Dawkins gets expelled: You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh

Why, one asks, is it fine to criticize Islam, but not Darwin? Dawkins has fought mightily to “de-platform” intelligent design scientists and anyone who harbors even a shimmer of doubt about Darwinian theology. But now he’s shocked — shocked — that defenders of another religion get to silence heretics too.

Atheism and its Darwinian creation myth have gained ascendancy in the Western world over the past century, and in several unfortunate nations, have grasped state power. It’s been an ugly ascent, complete with gulags and holocausts and inquisitions. But there are other forces in play, and other religions in ascent as well, and they have a history of centuries of conquest.

Klinghoffer:

Dawkins banned in Berkeley Well boo hoo

Fellow atheists are in an uproar, including one past holder of our Censor of the Year award. Well, boo hoo, but Dawkins has fallen into a trap that he and his pals helped set. Why do I say that?

You have no doubt observed yourself that our culture is riven by a conflict pitting two irreconcilable views of the world. I’m very interested in the way that a range of seemingly unrelated opinions – on science, politics, religion, etc. — tend to hang together, at least in the American context.

One worldview is animated by the idea of a unique human dignity. The other, citing evolution among other things, rejects human exceptionalism with outrage.

While laundering the crying towels (News): Well yes, come to think of it. If human consciousness is an illusion, so is learning. Then why does Dawkins’ view matter more than that of a rioting punk armed with pepper spray?

Naturalism, meet logical conclusion.

There’s something else to see here too: When Dawkins was young, intellectual heft and achievement mattered on campus. Today, overwhelmingly, what matters is victimhood and entitlement.

Whether or not you think his product is any good, it’s not a product many current universities even feel they need in any form. Support them at your own risk and expense.

See also: How naturalism rots science from the head down

Comments
Glaciers move rocks, big rocks. Perhaps Stonehenge was just dropped stones left behind after the glaciers melted. Floods also move rocks, big rocks. Then there are earthquakes and other non-telic phenomena to consider.ET
July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
Wind and erosion were present. What more do you need?Mung
July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
Ahh, so you want to argue that the only reason you don't reckon that Stonehenge is the natural product of wind and erosion is because evidence suggests that humans were around at the time to build it. I'm sure you join in the high emotions of those first methodical researchers at the site. It must have been quite exciting at the time to survey and date the area, and finally put to rest that pressing question if Stonehenge was a natural effect of wind and erosion. Alternatively, we can reason that you know fully well -- even from your own observations of the natural world -- that wind and erosion were never a candidate explanation for Stonehenge. If this is the case, then your attack on ID (demanding the identity of the designer) can be put into perspective. You badger ID proponents for evidence that is a) outside of ID arguments, and b) you don't require elsewhere to infer design. And c), you do this instead of engaging the evidence that ID actually presents. No inconsistencies there. :|Upright BiPed
July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
LoL!@ Pindi- I know all about Stonehenge. I also know that there isn't any evidence that humans designed and built it. All they have are inferences based on the fact that humans lived in the area. However I know there is a huge difference between living in the area and designing and building the monument. How do we even know the people of 4,000+ years ago had the capability to design and build such a thing?ET
July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
ET, I'm not going to do your work for you. Start with wikipediaPindi
July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
ET @ 92: You got that right. Rvb8 is a true believer in all forms of a/mat mythology, apparently taking great comfort in all the wonderfful things a/mat mythology offers...namely, nothing.Truth Will Set You Free
July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
What evidence do we have that humans designed and built it?ET
July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
UB, sorry I don't understand. You asked what I would say to someone who had a theory that wind and erosion produced Stonehenge. I would say show me the evidence. But given we have a coherent theory supported by good evidence that humans made it, it would have to be a better theory than that. I don't see any inconsistency. On the faculty of language, not sure what your point is. It's obvious that a lack of knowledge on our part doesn't cause anything to happen or not happen. Not sure how keeping that in mind is going to help me.Pindi
July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
rvb8:
But you take comfort in your silly myths,...
Clearly you take comfort in yours.ET
July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
You might want to keep that in mind.
Unguided natural forces keep making me forget. =pMung
July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
If he had a theory as to how wind and erosion could have moved rocks many miles across the ground and then pushed them upon their ends and on top of each other, I would listen to it.
You mean if Stonehenge wasn't Stonehenge, but was some other place where there is evidence of wind and erosion moving massive stones miles across the ground and then standing them up on their ends on top on one another. But that wasn't the question. The question demonstrates the inconsistency in your position, and you know that. So to avoid the issue, you've merely changed the question to something else. Apparently during the switch, your audience is expected to forget which end is up.
In answer to your questions about language, my answer to the first is yes. My answer to the second is no – human knowledge (or lack of it) does not cause unguided natural forces to do (or not do) anything.
You are correct on both counts. It is possible that the faculty of language existed prior to mankind, and any lack of knowledge on our part as to the source of that language doesn't mean that unguided natural forces can suddenly do things that they are otherwise not known to do. You might want to keep that in mind.Upright BiPed
July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
rvb8 I haven't gotten into Christian theology. I am merely pointing out how ridiculous your statement about telling God a thing or too points to a muddled thinker if God exists. I mean you brought it up . Since you seem to be an atheist I am posing God as a hypothetical to you to assist you in doing thought experiments. Imagine a hypothetical all powerful, holy, righteous and just God that created you. And knows everything about you. That you have to account for every thought word and deed .You are stripped bare of all pretense and shown that every word deed and action that was done by you was done only to serve your self interest , that you have never done anything that was not motivated by your own self interest and love for yourself. In this hypothetical your not going to be running your mouth off. In this hypo I am in the same boat. Vividvividbleau
July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT
viv @87, 'If God exists...'? You're not sure? Tertullian was Catholic, but you are right his preaching was largely anticipated by Puritan Calvinist teachings. I do think I know enough about you to apprehend you are religious, which is why your, 'If God exists...' quote is kind of similar to Peter's denial of Christ. You might want to improve your faith a little. We are wildly off topic. But then again, discussing theology at a Christian web site is not wholly inappropriate.rvb8
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
rvb8 You know nothing about me yet you feel free in your ignorance to tell me what I am like.If what you say about Tertulian is accurate he is going to be in for a big surprise as well. Your sermon would make a good Calvinistic Puritan proud with your holier than thou moralizing on display.If God exists I'm going to be soiling my pants as well. Unlike you I have thought it through. Vividvividbleau
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
vividbleau, Tertullian was a Christian apologist living in the second century A.D. He was famous for his misogyny, strict adherrance to his interpretation of scripture, and a very unconvincing description of what he believed, would be one of the principle pleasures of Heaven. He thought that he would spend eternity gloating over the misery of the sufferers, (sinners) of hell. That's right. He believed sitting in divine paradise with all the other redeemed, he could watch for eternity, the misery of others. No offence 'vivid', you sound like a modern day Tertullian. Understand, if Heaven is indeed peopled by you and your ilk, I will indeed implore God to forget my good deeds, and send me straight to burn. You see eternity in the company of you and people like you, (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, etc) would actually be my description of hell. Better the real devil, and my fellow sinners, than eternity in your company, and your petty, thin skinned, god. Of course this is all moot, as there is no god, and your childish fear is born out of an evolved fear of darkness, the night, and a desire to explain thunderstorms, and earthquakes. But you take comfort in your silly myths, just as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and countless others, take comfort in theirs. Hope you have the right god, there's lots of competition.:)rvb8
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT
Previous post correction. "You will be to busy soiling your pants" LOL Vividvividbleau
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
rvb8 "Oh, yes, God is going to get an earful from me!" I've heard this kind of drivel from atheists before. Anyone mouthing this kind of nonsense obviously have not thought this through. The idea that HE has some "splaining" to do to you, me ,or anyone, is laughable and displays incredible hubris on the part of the one saying drivel like this. If God exists your not going to do any talking because you will be to busy to be soiling your pants. Vividvividbleau
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
Seriously? How to properly maintain it. How to properly fix it. What else is there to life besides physics and chemistry. What is the purpose. Just for startersET
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
ET, what are the more important questions to answer? Given that we have already established design of life.Pindi
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
Unbelievable, Pindi. No one said that we just detect design and leave it there. I had posted exactly the opposite so obviously you have issues. The questions of who, how, when and why are SEPARATE from whether or not that which is being investigated was intentionally designed or not. And there are more important questions to answer. Keep ignoring that as if your willful ignorance is an argument.ET
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
If he had a theory as to how wind and erosion could have moved rocks many miles across the ground and then pushed them upon their ends and on top of each other, I would listen to it. But given the existence of creatures at the time who were known to be able to design and build things, he would have to have very good evidence as to how wind and erosion could have achieved it in order to convince me that it wasn't man made. In answer to your questions about language, my answer to the first is yes. My answer to the second is no - human knowledge (or lack of it) does not cause unguided natural forces to do (or not do) anything.Pindi
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
Yes of course, and what do you say to the man next to you who claims that Stonehenge is the product of wind and erosion? What do you say him? Or, are you going to push the idea that the only reason you believe Stonehenge is not the product of wind and erosion, is because humans were available to build it? - - - - - - - - - By the way, is it possible that the faculty of language appeared somewhere in this universe prior to it appearing on earth? Also, does a human lack of knowledge about a source of language prior to humanity mean that unguided natural forces somehow gain the ability to establish a language?Upright BiPed
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
No, I am not arguing either of those things. I am just asking a general question. Now that design has been established as the cause of life, are ID advocates, utilising the kind of approach we have taken with Stonehenge to establish the who, why, when, where, and how? ET brought up Stonehenge. It's an instructive example, that led me to ask this question about ID. I mean, we certainly did not say "Stonehenge is designed" and leave it there.Pindi
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
So your argument is that it is not possible for the faculty of language to appear in this universe until it appeared on earth with humans -- or -- is it your argument that humans not knowing the source of language means that unguided processes created it?Upright BiPed
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Pindi:
What are the candidate entities that meet the criteria of the ID designer?
We don't need to know that. Once we have determined intentional design exists that alone means there was a candidate. As for Stonehenge, just because humans were around doesn't mean they were capable of such a feat.ET
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
UB: ok, that's a start. An entity capable of recorded language. What next? I think with Stonehenge we realised that the entities that made it were able to use tools and transport materials and observed the sun and stars. We worked out roughly when it was made. The only entities around at that point that met those criteria were human beings. I think we also discovered where they had quarried the stone. What are the candidate entities that meet the criteria of the ID designer?Pindi
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
--It’s just that Christianity as I remember it dwelt gloatingly on the pains of Hell, yet was threadbare when it came to descriptions of Heaven.-- I guess that's why you don't like Christianity. In the New Testament there is rather little talk of Hell and even less of Heaven. Well over 90-percent deals with the here and now, or what's going to come about in the here and now.tribune7
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
rvb8:
Dawkins is a formidable debater.
That is your opinion and I don't happen to share it. I know I couild easily make him look like a fool.
When I said ‘pearly gates’, do you imagine that is what will greet you?
No
It’s just that Christianity as I remember it dwelt gloatingly on the pains of Hell, yet was threadbare when it came to descriptions of Heaven.
Your ignorance is amazing.ET
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
ET, Dawkins is a formidable debater. You enter an argument with him at your own risk. When I said 'pearly gates', do you imagine that is what will greet you? It's just that Christianity as I remember it dwelt gloatingly on the pains of Hell, yet was threadbare when it came to descriptions of Heaven.rvb8
July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
What can ID tell us about who the designer was?
Physical observation tells us that a set of symbolic representations and non-integrable constraints (i.e. a language) were used to organize the heterogeneous cell. The originator of the cell was an entity capable of recorded language. Shall we pretend otherwise?Upright BiPed
July 25, 2017
July
07
Jul
25
25
2017
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply