Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

O’Leary remains skeptical: Does Richard Dawkins really exist?

arroba Email

A commenter, at the bottom of this collection of news posts on the ID controversy, asks me whether I think that long-running atheist bore Richard Dawkins really exists. Well, I’ve given some thought to how to respond to such a sensitive question, because I do so dislike hurting anyone’s feelings. So, here’s the straight dope:

It makes me feel more intellectually fulfilled to assume that Dawkins does exist. But, unlike some people, I will not assume that a correct answer to this question will necessarily make me feel intellectually fulfilled, or you either. We must have better evidence than that.

The strongest argument for the existence of Richard Dawkins has been the books published by reputable houses under his name. But on reflection, I now see how foolish an argument that is, and am appropriately ashamed of myself. The books themselves attempt to demonstrate that mind comes from mud, in which case – if the thesis of the books has any merit at all – they could easily have written themselves.

Slightly stronger evidence is the fact that my co-blogger Bill Dembski claims to have received correspondence (and still more correspondence) from the fellow.

Oh, but, you know, Dembski is a relentless kidder, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he is just testing my gullibility level. It’s quite possible that, at this very moment, Bill is chortling, “Whaddayaknow? I even got O’Leary believing that Dawkins exists! Hey, making that guy up was one of my better moves.”

As if I needed confirmation of my pretty-good hunch that Dembski created Dawkins in order to put ID books on the science shelves (because if Dawkins’ New Age rubbish about “memes”, of all things, can be on the science shelves, it is a scandal if responsible ID books aren’t!) – lo and behold, it turns out that Dawkins won’t debate Alister McGrath, whose book Dawkins’ God pretty much ripped the whole anti-God schtick to teeny shreds. (See also this.)

“Won’t” debate indeed. I’m sure Dembski’s a mean hand with sock puppets, but that’s not going to, like, work on national TV.

Well, there you have it. It’s all very well for Bill to create a Dawkins persona (Freud could explain) and write those silly books under its name, but I do think that this particular joke – like Bill’s notorious head-in-a-vise Charlie doll and the “fartfest”, may have gotten a trifle out of hand at this point.

It is time for Bill to acknowledge that Dawkins is his alter ego or, if the Dawkster really does exist somewhere, to make sure he has a clean shirt and a shave, and produce him stone cold sober for a debate with Alister McGrath.

Come on, kids! All together now: I DO believe in Dawkins! I DO believe in Dawkins! I DO BELIEVE IN DAWKINS! See? Scientific consensus WORKS! Dawkins exists, and for no better reason than because I say so. Just as NS+RM works in creating new species. It does because my philosophy says it does, and I don't need one scrap of evidence to back me up. Dawkins is a FACT! Why can't you silly IDiots ever realize that? Where, 0 where is PZ Myers when you need him? TerryL
The real Richard Dawkins does not exist. The human that goes by that name and who writes in glorification of atheism and all things anti-God is not the real Richard Dawkins. Can a person who is in ignorance about the nature of his own being and the world around him realistically be the true person? Is a newborn baby the real you? Or is the real you only discovered when all delusions about yourself and the world and your relationship with it is fully understood? In criminal law there is such a thing as pleading insanity. A person can be found innocent of a crime he commited because the person is considered to be not himself. A baby has not realized the full potential of his human life. Can a person be said to be the real person he can be unless he has attained his full potential? Are you the same person when you are 1 day old as when you have attained in the words of Ace Ventura: "omnipresent supergalactic oneness"? I think not. So the human known as Richard Dawkins who pontificates on the ignorance of enlightenment, is simply not a real person at all. He is a collection of thoughts imprinted onto a consciousness devoid of self realization. Like a person who is hypnotized into thinking that he is Elvis Presley or Marilyn Monroe, his true self is dormant and what he thinks is his true self is nothing but an illusion. mentok
TerryL, ... I wouldn't try building a deck that way - everything handing off everything else. At some point I need foundations - solid evidence. Now, here's what I've got: Two competing hypotheses 1. The books wrote themselves. Under a Darwinian interpretation of life, this is inevitable. Objection: There wasn't enough time for the books to write themselves. Objection easily overcome: Only a closet creationist would dare to think that time or probability has anything to do with it. But, for the record, reading "Dawkins"' latest, The God Delusion, gave me a sense of eternity passing by. There certainly IS enough time, if you count perceived as well as actual time. 2. My lead blogger and well known kidder, Bill Dembski, cooked up the whole thing, obviously to ensure shelf space for books on ID theory when he didn't have a budget. Lines of evidence: - the ID guys have the most to gain from the existence of "Dawkins" and especially from his recent anti-God crusade, a fact that Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse has been pained to note. - Every time "Dawkins" opens his mouth, more people come to Uncommon Descent and the Post-Darwinist and such. The Darwinists would have found a way to shut "Dawkins" down long ago, IF he realy existed. I used to wonder why they didn't but, hang!, I think I've pretty much got the answer now. - Dembski is the only person who has informed me that he has received e-mails from "Dawkins". Well, ... I used to get notes from the tooth fairy ... - In the past, the reason we weren't seeing "Dawkins" in debate with ID folk is that "Dawkins" allegedly had a policy of not debating folk like Dembski. Hmmm, yeah I'll just BET "Dawkins" had that policy. - I have firm evidence that my lead blogger is a relentless kidder. Objection: Dembski isn't smart enough to write all those books, and besides pious little old ladies at his church would be real mad at him if they ever found out that he had actually written and marketed a bunch of Darwinist books, and now an anti-God book. Hmmm, well, how smart would Dembski actually have to be to pull it off? Writing a lot of Darwindunits - you could actually work with a template in word processing and speed it all up some. "Dawkins" is also said to have written a word processing program,come to think of it. And Darwinists are pretty gullible; there's no problem with whether THEY would fall for it. And I remember Bill telling me once that the church he goes to is long on reformed tough-guys and short on dim, pious old dears. The tough guys would probably just slap him on the back and say, "Nice one, Bill!" See, I bet the TROUBLE started when McGrath demanded to know why "Dawkins" wouldn't debate him ... Now, if "Dawkins" wants to show up at a debate WITH Dembski (okay, I'll take McGrath, as long as Dembski is actually present and not obviously manipulating "Dawkins"), then I'll accept his existence. Otherwise, I am simply going to hold to my original opinion that my lead blogger is an irrepressible kidder and quite capable of cooking all this up. - Denyse, Toronto O'Leary
Okay, so we can't point to all the books "written" by this hypothetical entity, which, for lack of a better word, we call Richard Dawkins. Books are obviously the work of intelligent agency, and we can't infer design as a mode of causation because that makes us creationists and pseudoscientists. But there's another avenue, and that is scientific consensus. If we can get enought real scientists to assure us that Richard Dawkins does indeed exist, then that should be enough. (And, of course, by "real" scientists I mean only those who already assume in advance that Richard Dawkins exists--we will quite naturally exclude any posers doubting the existence of RD by careful manipulation of the peer review process.) Satisfied? TerryL

Leave a Reply