Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

God’s best gift to intelligent design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

You’ve got to wonder what the staffers at the NCSE are thinking when they go to such lengths to assure the public that there’s no problem reconciling evolution and religious faith, only to have Richard Dawkins come along and utter the following (taken from his BBC program “The Root of All Evil?”):

The suicide bomber is convinced that in killing for his God he will be fast tracked to a special martyr’s heaven. This isn’t just a problem of Islam. In this program I want to examine that dangerous thing that’s common to Judaism and Christianity as well. The process of non-thinking called faith. I’m a scientist [well, actually, I just talk about science these days] and I believe there is a profound contradiction between science and religious belief. There is no well demonstrated reason to believe in God. And I think the idea of a divine creator belittles the elegant reality of the universe. The 21st Century should be an age of reason, yet irrational militant faith is back on the march. Religious extremism is implicated in the world’s most bitter and unending conflicts. America too has its own fundamentalists. And in Britain, even as we live in the shadow of Holy Terror, our government wants to restrict our freedom to criticize religion. Science we are told should not tread on the toes of theology. But why should scientists tip toe respectfully away? The time has come for people of reason should say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it’s divisive and it’s dangerous. . . .

People like to say that faith and science can live together side by side, but I don’t think they can. They’re deeply opposed. Science is a discipline of investigation and constructive doubt, questioning with logic, evidence, and reason to draw conclusions. Faith, by stark contrast, demands a positive suspension of critical faculties. Science proceeds by setting up hypotheses, ideas, or models, and then attempts to disprove them. So a scientist is constantly asking questions, being skeptical. Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakeable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.

Dawkins refers to religious faith as a “delusion,” “superstition,” “backward belief system,” “shallow pretense,” “parasite,” and “supporting Bronze Age myths.” He refers to evangelicalism as “an American Taliban.” He contends that “the abundance and variety of life on earth may seem improbable, but it’s self-evidently futile to invent an improbable god to explain that very improbability.” Later, when contrasting evolution with creationism, he announces, “Evolution by natural selection is supported by mountains of evidence, while creation contradicts the evidence and is only backed by some ancient scribblings.”

Anyone who hasn’t seen this two-part program by Dawkins needs to see it. I understand it is not available in this country (and for good reason — given the sensibilities of Americans, it would be a public relations disaster for evolution this side of the Atlantic). I’ve got the two-part program as two 260Mbyte wmv files. If someone has unlimited bandwidth and is willing to upload the files (perhaps at lower resolution) on, say, a Cayman server (where there may be fewer worries about copyrights), let me know.

Comments
Dawkins is doing the classic guilty by association tactic. He tries to bundle all Darwin critics as "Talibans", and waves his hand in a dismissive way. But, even so, I have to say that Dawkins is at least more honest than the likes of Dr Eugenie Scott. Dawkins says in public what Eugenie and all "God and Evolution are in harmony" atheists say in private.Mats
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Mark Frank wrote, “To believe something out of faith is to believe it independently of logic and evidence.” This is an interesting proposal, Mark. What do you make of the story of that famous “doubter,” Thomas, as related in John’s gospel (John 20: 24-29)? Needing evidence, Thomas says, famously, “Unless I see the marks of the nails in his hands...I will not believe.” Then Jesus appears, and invites Thomas to see and to touch the marks. Thomas does, and believes. Jesus says, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have come to believe.” What do you suppose the word “believe” means as it’s used here, Mark? It may (arguably) be independent of logic, but--at least as the word is used here in John’s gospel--it’s not necessarily independent of evidence. In other words, faith is not necessarily blind; for Thomas, seeing leads to believing. John notes (v. 24) that the other other disciples had already encountered the post-resurrection Jesus, and had come to faith; Thomas just happened to be missing when they did. (Please note that I’m not arguing for the resurrection here...I’m merely trying to point out that words like “faith” and “belief” can be defined in various ways. To “have faith” or believe in something or someone isn’t necessarily a counter-empirical or even a counter-logical move.)Lutepisc
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
You know, just once I'd like to see Dawkins apply his own criteria of logic and reason to his own arguments. If he did, intellectual honesty would force him to abandon about 90% of his arguments and rethink the other 10%. Argumentum ad hominem, straw men, and violations of the law of non-contradiction do not an argument make...unless your Richard Dawkins whose ego allows him to believe that he can pontificate about anything and the undeducated masses will swoon to his every utterance. His arguments would be rejected out of hand if the general public scrutinized his arguments with the level of logic and reason for which he advocates. No doubt the Dawkins sycophants will not utter one word of criticism against anything he says in this series, no matter how far out in left field he is. These are the same people who parse every utterence of Dembski, Behe, Wells, Nelson, Witt, Luskin, et.al. This BBC series by Dawkins demands that they scrutinize and criticize thier own...but I won't hold my breath, such is the level of disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty that exists in the anti-ID crowd.DonaldM
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Jack Krebs writes:
I’d just like to point out that Dawkins doesn’t speak for science, and isn’t talking about science when he writes this stuff. The fact that Dawkins thinks religion is bogus (and worse) doesn’t mean he’s right, and it doesn’t negate the fact that millions of religious people have different perspectives that, among other things, don’t conflict with evolution.
Well stated, Jack. Dawkins's chair at Oxford should be changed from "The Charles Simyoni Chair for the Public Understanding of Science" to "The Charles Simyoni Chair for the Public Understanding of Atheism". Ultimately, that's all Dawkins ever talks about anyway. Simyoni should ask for a refund!DonaldM
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
sometimes it pays to look at the essence of what 'the enemy' has to say and to take it seriously. Obviously I think Dawkins is completely deluded. However, religious people should never be quick to defend religion at all costs: rather, the allegiance of the spiritually pure is always to the truth. "every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" If Dawkins says anything at all which is true, it should be freely admitted. It certainly is true that religions are responsible for tremendous harms throughout history, and this fact cannot be glossed over or dismissed just because materialism is responsible for MORE harms. If something comes from the Light, it is light. Only the darkness has attributes of darkness and evil. Therefore, if religion has done evil, it has attributes of evil which must be honestly recognized and 'cast off'. When Jesus taught that we must behold not the mote in our brother's eye but the beam in our own, he offered a key insight into the human spiritual condition: rather than focus on the sins of another, we can conclude that when something bothers us in another, it is precisely because we carry that same fault in our own soul (usually to a far greater extent, since beams are bigger than splinters). This process is referred to in psychology as 'projection': when someone is unable to bear the awareness of their own evil, they imagine it as existing in another, who they then persecute and hate. Dawkins hates the type of religious people who are just like him: zealots whose blind and unquestioning faith leads to the destruction of goodness and beauty, and perhaps most importantly to an overwhelming self-righteousness which blinds them to anything but their own view. If religions didn't demand blind faith, but really contained the truth, undimmed by error, then nothing but beauty and light would ever flow forth from them, and people like Dawkins, if they could even exist, would certainly never attract attention as anything but the raving lunatics they are.tinabrewer
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
It would be a neat experiment though- go back in time and stop all religions from originating- then see what happens. I've played around with this thought experiment a little Joseph, the results I came to every time I do this is; there is no civilization, meaning that civilization simply never would have come about. Take a short journey with me in a just-so story of my own... All the way from ancient man cowering from the thunder and lightening, through shamanism, all the way up to today, part of what religion does is to explain what is percieved. Some of these explanations give way to laws governing interaction between people and personal conduct. Some explanations give way to laws governing group conduct. Some explanations give way to statements about the world or universe and how it works. Thus religion is the parent of the physical sciences, the social sciences, and (perhaps counterintuitively to some) politics and society. To sum up, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind (I tell ya, that Einstein boy, he's smart as a whip that one is)carbon14atom
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
BarryA I did not like these programmes either. Dawkins seems to be obsessed with the evils of religion; to ignore the good that comes out of it; and to score cheap points by selecting patently absurd extremists to represent religious people. However, I am sure that Dawkins is sincere, if unreasonable, and your attack on atheism or naturalism is almost as extreme and unreasonable. To take this step by step. 1) There is an important difference between believing things to be true a priori and having faith. I believe the laws of arithmetic a priori, but I don't have faith that 2+2=4. To believe something out of faith is to believe it independently of logic and evidence. It may be that logic and/or evidence will support your faith, but what kind of Christian would give up their faith because they come to have doubts about the ontological argument? Faith in the religious context also has implications of making a commitment, adopting a certain relationship with the object of your faith, and observing certain behaviours. 2) Atheism in this sense is not a faith (some people might hold an atheist position out of faith I guess - but I have never met one and I am sure Dawkins isn't one). I don't think it is an a priori belief either. Most atheists come to their position because they can see no evidence for a deity. They see various religious hypotheses contradict the evidence and each other and sometimes in an attempt to avoid the evidence turn into a meaningless mush. This is something you learn from experience, not a priori. It is a position grounded on evidence. 3) Atheism has no logical implications for any kind of relationship with another being or for how to behave. The morality of an atheist does not stem from their atheism. It comes from other sources such as a desire for compassion and fairness, which is just as much as a human desire as the desire for self-preservation. 4) Hitler was not an atheist. His religion was all mixed up but he was not anti-religious and to some extent he justified himself with religious language and there is no reason to think he was insincere. To quote from Mein Kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." 5) Communism does have atheism as one of its foundations but it is hardly the essence of communism - not in the sense that religion was the essence of some of the crusades (not all I admit); the Bartholomew's day massacre; or many, many other such incidents. Although the sheer numbers of deaths due to communism outnumber all others it is not at all obvious this was due to the leaders’ atheism. Had Marx decided that religion and communism were compatible the whole horrible business might have happened in much the same way. 6) Western Europe is full of atheists and yet these countries are relatively free of massacres and indeed the homicide rate is much lower than countries with more believers including the USA. I don’t argue that this is because of atheism – just that there is no necessary connection between atheism and violence. RgdsMark Frank
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Dawkins is a special breed- that's for sure. I would absolutely love to see a debate featuring Dawkins v. Berlinski. But anyway, when someone sez this: "There is no well demonstrated reason to believe in God." My response would be: "There is no well demonstrated reason to believe our existence is due to sheer dumb luck. So where does that leave us?" Then there is Einstein, who gave us: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Close-minded clap-traps, such as Dawkins, can NEVER fit the definition of a scientist. I take it he finally realized that and that is why he now just "talks about it these days." It reminds me of some of my "working" buddies who got promoted to supervisor or manager-> It was the best thing that happened to the technical ability of the department... That people can (and do) abuse religion is a reflection upon the people, not the religion. The "Dawkins' defense"- religion made me do it man. Sorry Dick but PEOPLE have to stand up and take responsibility for their actions. It would be a neat experiment though- go back in time and stop all religions from originating- then see what happens.Joseph
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Dr. Dembski, if this Dawkins documentary is copyrighted, you should be cautious about aiding the unauthorized distribution of it. Having followed the p2p and file-sharing wars for a while, I know that the RIAA (Record Industry Association of America) and MPAA (its counterpart in Hollywood) have already sued thousands of people in the USA for distributing copyrighted works (music and movies) on file-sharing networks. They are very litigation-happy. My fear here is that some Darwinist zealot is going to pounce on this proclaimed idea of yours and report you to the authorities. I am no media-industry cop and I sincerely admire your ideas regarding intelligent design. This is offered as friendly advice. Best regards, apollo230apollo230
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
The most astounding thing about this to me is the statement, “The process of non-thinking called faith.” The implication is that religious people have faith commitments and Dawkins does not. This is patently absurd. Dawkins, like everyone else, accepts certain things on an a priori basis. Another way to say the same thing is “on faith.” Dawkins seems to be saying that his faith commitment (in metaphysical naturalism) is not faith. One can say a lot of things about Dawkins, but he is not stupid. He does not believe that, which means he is a deceiver. Also, people always act on their faith commitments, whether that faith commitment is to theism or naturalism. Dawkins implies that only religious people’s faith commitment leads to violence. This, too, is absurd. Has Dawkins never heard of the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea, Hitler’s Germany? Every one of these regimes was militantly atheistic – i.e., they had the same faith commitment to metaphysical naturalism that Dawkins does. Over 100,000,000 died in the 20th century as a result of people acting on that faith commitment. If one adds the total number of those who have died in religious wars and acts of religious oppression and/or terror from the beginning of time to the present moment, that number would still be a small fraction of the number who died at that hands of the atheists in the 20th century. This is not in any way to excuse violence based on religious belief. It is repressible. But if one is going to choose which faith commitment to worry about, the choice should be obvious. The 20th century was one long lesson in what should, by now, be an obvious fact: those whose faith lies in naturalism are far more violent than those whose faith commitment is to theism. And if Dawkins doesn’t understand that, to quote one of his fellow Brits, “He’s a loon.”BarryA
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Jack, Are you speaking for science when you claim that Dawkins is not speaking for science? How does science determine who is speaking for it and who is not? The claim that Dawkins is not talking about science is patently absurd. Dawkins claims he's a scientist who just talks about science these days. Are you calling him a liar or a deceiver? What indication does Dawkins provide to his listeners in this particular "talk about science" that would lead his listeners to believe that he's not really talking about science in this particular talk?Mung
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
I'd just like to point out that Dawkins doesn't speak for science, and isn't talking about science when he writes this stuff. The fact that Dawkins thinks religion is bogus (and worse) doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't negate the fact that millions of religious people have different perspectives that, among other things, don't conflict with evolution. Dawkins is an easy target - he is an evangelical anti-religionist, but many of us (myself included,) don't agree with him at all in respect to the things being quoted here.Jack Krebs
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Just occured to me why Dawkins dislikes American Evangelicals so much. They're more successful at biological reproduction than their political opponents, and he knows his selfish genes are doomed by this Darwinian advantage.russ
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
You can pick it up in much higher quality off of most p2p services. Ed2k/kad is a good one for this, the client is emule. Probably copyright infringement though... but I dont think its any great moral crime to download a program you cant get legally. I can be of some service here though - the networks are full of poor qualitity and fake files, but if you download the eMule client ( http://www.emule-project.net/ ) and feed the following two hash-links into it (just put them in start->run, emule registers as a protocol handler), you will get high-quality copies out. The two files total 620M. They may take a few days to download though - ed2k has the greatest selection of the p2ps, but its not the fastest. ed2k://|file|Richard.Dawkins.The.Root.Of.All.Evil.Pt1.avi|283070464|293ecc00e3c8e0e1fde551fcfe4d3ac2| ed2k://|file|Richard.Dawkins.The.Root.Of.All.Evil.Pt2.avi|368091136|a0a5786c2b2c32ae31d21957d3aecfe5| I have this version on my webserver for supplying to those in a debate channel on IRC where I often chat. I would happily provide this service if I could. However, I am on a residential broadband connection, and my upload would not handle the demand. The links are the best I can offer.SuricouRaven
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
"He refers to evangelicalism as 'an American Taliban.'" This is language abuse. No American Evangelicals are calling for establishment of a state religion (compare Dawkins' U.K. where they've had a state religion for centuries), public beatings of women for immodesty, mandatory wearing of burkhas, public beheadings for adultery or religious conversion, the destruction of other faiths' monuments, harboring of terrorists, etc. If people who are known by their neighbors to be ordinary, decent folk are also "like the Taliban", then being a Taliban is either okay, or Dawkins is recklessly slandering millions of people and depleting the word "Taliban" of it's powerful connotations.russ
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
Bill, You can stream the first part in three realtime Flash segments at these links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPaD6D54L4o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUy-Uq3WuhA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GgD3lgspQE Dawkins is indeed a piece of work. GilGilDodgen
May 20, 2006
May
05
May
20
20
2006
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
Isn't ID "a discipline of investigation and constructive doubt, questioning with logic, evidence, and reason to draw conclusions."?idnet.com.au
May 20, 2006
May
05
May
20
20
2006
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply