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

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 22, 2017

Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Naturalism}

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

Seversky @6:
This ignores the uncounted millions who have died in religious conflicts over the millennia.
Did you know that the greatest crime recorded in human history was committed by very religious people with very strong religious motivations?Dionisio_{July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Daniel King at 5: Unsupported and unproductive snark gets people banned around here. Say something or get lost. Check out Trolls Wanted, if that happens.News_{July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Seversky @6: God is the sole Creator of life, hence only He can dispose of it as He wishes. Try again.Dionisio_{July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
This site is filled with criticism of Darwin.
All of academia should be too, yet it isn't. And that is the point. Geez the "evidence" for the alleged evolution of vision systems is the same now as it was in Darwin's day. And it doesn't even count as evidence to the educated.
Where was the respect for “unique human dignity in the treatment meted out by God and his minions to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites and others violently dispossessed of their territory, property and lives at that time?
Those peoples squandered it
Where was the respect for the “unique human dignity” of almost the entire population of the planet at the time of the Great Flood?
SquanderedET_{July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

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.
This site is filled with criticism of Darwin. It promotes articles and books by leading figures in the ID movement, noting how well they appear to be selling. You seem to have no difficulty publishing your views in various media so playing the victim is unconvincing. You may be offended when your ill-founded criticisms of Darwin are themselves subject to criticism but there is no right not to be offended, something which unfortunately some on the so-called "regressive Left" seem to have trouble understanding.
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.
This ignores the uncounted millions who have died in religious conflicts over the millennia. The only real difference was that the dictators of the twentieth century had much more efficient means of killing people en masse than those of earlier centuries. Does anyone doubt that, had they been available to past generations, they would have been used and that the casualties would have been correspondingly even higher? It also ignores the fact that the Old Testament bears witness to many atrocities committed by the Israelites at the behest of and with the full approval of their God.
One worldview is animated by the idea of a unique human dignity. The other, citing evolution among other things, rejects human exceptionalism with outrage.
"Unique human dignity"? Where was the respect for "unique human dignity in the treatment meted out by God and his minions to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites and others violently dispossessed of their territory, property and lives at that time? Where was the respect for the "unique human dignity" of almost the entire population of the planet at the time of the Great Flood? Matthew 7: 1-5Seversky_{July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

News at 4: Homework assignment Learn how to write coherent prose.Daniel King_{July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

rvb8 at 3: Homework assignment Look up this string of words je suis Charlie and ponder its meaning in the light of what really happened later. Naturalism, the religion of Europe and of Berkeley, is one that few people will take risks for. That's understandable and inevitable. They are just animals, in their own eyes. What can be expected? Berkeley is beginning to understand its naturalist master and will not defend it against another.News_{July 23, 2017
July
07
Jul
23
23
2017
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Egnor and Klinghoffer sound, for lack of better phrase, 'vindictively childish.' You may disagree with Dawkins, you may even loath him, but his stance has always been, 'open to debate.' He criticised Islam because Islam needs it, desperately. Criticism of Islam only comes from rare areas of today's society: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, conservative news sites,Freedom From Religion Foundation, and a few other individuals and groups. Dawkins is one of those rare individuals willing to call Islam out on its many hypocracies, and vile teachings. This is absolutely necessary in a secular society. Unless of course ID sees an attack on Islam, as an attack on religion, or, as an attack on ID? Also, Dawkin's 'attacks', are actually not 'attacks'. They are merely observations, pointing out the out dated teachings of a religion that is stuck in the medieval world. Just as the West collard, and subdued Christianity, and Judaisim, so Islam desperately, desperately, needs collaring by rational thought. Is it any wonder ID is on the rise in the Islamic world, and that Turkey has banned the teaching of Evolution, prior to university?rvb8_{July 22, 2017
July
07
Jul
22
22
2017
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

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.
From what I've seen Dawkins has always been a strong free speech advocate and has always defended the right of those with controversial views to speak at universities, including those he disagrees with. I can't find any instances of Dawkins trying to de-platform anyone. Anyone know what Egnor is referring to?goodusername_{July 22, 2017
July
07
Jul
22
22
2017
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Karl Popper from The Open Society and Its Enemies.
“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
I don't recall Dawkins denouncing all argument, or forbidding others from listening to it. If I recall correctly, most of his criticism takes the form of argument. Nor do I recall him teaching others to answer arguments using violence. Note: not agreeing with an argument or pointing out that an argument is absent or irrational is not denouncing argument or forbidding others from listening to it. For example, I've suggested that ID doesn't actually solve the problem of knowledge in organisms. It just pushes it up a level without improving it. That conclusion is based on argument, not the absence of it. In fact, I would suggest that ID proponents are actually opposed to any such explanation because doing so would exclude their preferred designer, who is by definition an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable realm and operates via inexplicable means and methods. And it results in promoting the idea that we can draw no conclusions about a supposed "designer" via argument. That is denouncing argument.critical rationalist_{July 22, 2017
July
07
Jul
22
22
2017
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply