It's Coming…
by MikeGene
Richard Dawkins was recently voted one of the world's top three intellectuals (alongside Umberto Eco and Noam Chomsky) by "Prospect" magazine. As the author of many, now famous, classic works on science and philosophy, he has always asserted the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm it has inflicted on society. He now turns his fierce intellect exclusively on this subject, denouncing its faulty logic and the suffering it causes. While Europe is becoming increasingly secularized, the rise of religious fundamentalism, whether in the Middle East or Middle America, is dramatically and dangerously dividing opinion around the world. In America, and elsewhere, a vigorous dispute between 'intelligent design' and Darwinism is seriously undermining and restricting the teaching of science. In many countries religious dogma from medieval times still serves to abuse basic human rights such as women's and gay rights. And all from a belief in a God whose existence lacks evidence of any kind. Dawkins attacks God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed, cruel tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign, but still illogical, Celestial Watchmaker favoured by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry and abuses children. In "The God Delusion" Dawkins presents a hard-hitting, impassioned rebuttal of religion of all types and does so in the lucid, witty and powerful language for which he is renowned. It is a brilliantly argued, fascinating polemic that will be required reading for anyone interested in this most emotional and important subject.
[I'm actually looking forward to reading this book. - MG :mrgreen:]
July 27th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Well, a famously "intellectually fullfilled" will, of course, assert anything he wishes.
But, the fact is that it is the posission he expouses — yet does not himself *actually* believe to be the truth — which is illogical and irrational; and, indeed, anti-rational.
see: a post at ARN in which I show that Dawkins deas not actually believe what he espouses
(well, shoot! that link didn't go to the post, but rather to the start of the thread)
Comment by Ilion — July 27, 2006 @ 8:57 am
July 27th, 2006 at 9:12 am
That Dawkins, always on the prowl for more sharks to jump.
Comment by Deuce — July 27, 2006 @ 9:12 am
July 27th, 2006 at 9:35 am
OK, this should work, see particularly the section starting at: A Bestiary of Liars
Comment by Ilion — July 27, 2006 @ 9:35 am
July 27th, 2006 at 9:35 am
The blogosphere is going to be hopping over this. I'm looking forward to it, too. I found Blind Watchmaker to be one of the most well-written books I've read, and I'm sure he'll employ his same excellent style and research here.
That was said only partly tongue-in-cheek. The problem with Blind Watchmaker was that it promised on the cover to show how evolution reveals a world without design. He spent most of the book showing how, if there was no designer, evolution might have produced the world we experience. That part was really well written (even if not as conclusive as he assumed) and a very enjoyable read.
Then he took that as proof that there is no designer. (Can anyone say non sequitir?) I was literally bummed out at how weak it was at that point. I was really expecting something better, something meatier, and he wimped out there. Where's the fun in that?
This next book will obviously not be so coy about the designer, so I expect a rather different experience.
Comment by TomG — July 27, 2006 @ 9:35 am
July 27th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Tom G: If I recall, it was from reading The Blind Watchmaker that Phillip Johnson began to look more closely at the claims of Darwinian evolution and wrote "Darwin on Trial". I guess he saw the non-sequiter as major problem.
Comment by DonaldM — July 27, 2006 @ 9:47 am
July 27th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Tom:
Indeed. Dawkins does quite well when he stays close to his hero. But when he strays too far, the fierce intellect is more like a kitten hissing. Consider his claims about child abuse and religion, or comparing religion to a dangerous drug, or his notion that it is better to sexually molest a child than to raise that child as a Catholic. Consider his complete unwillingness to defend his own colleagues and school against the attacks of animal rights extremists. Consider his myopic arguments about animal rights.
I predict this book will provide a splendid example of both confirmation and disconfirmation bias. And I suspect that this book will cast all his previous books in a new light.
What will also be interesting are the reviews. Will any of the "pro-science" blogs critique it?
Comment by MikeGene — July 27, 2006 @ 9:58 am
July 27th, 2006 at 10:00 am
I love the sentence in the synopsis that says: "And all from a belief in a God whose existence lacks evidence of any kind." I've come to call this the atheistic mantra. What it really means is there isn't anything they take to be evidence for the existence of God, which is a very different thing. For some reason great intellectual can't seem to grasp the simple concept that evidence, i.e. data and observed phenomenon, doesn't come with a little label attached telling us what it is evidence for. Evidentiary status is assigned to what we observe based on other background principles and presuppositions that the observer takes to be true. Thus Dawkins (and many ohters like him) have already decided in advance as a background principle that no God or gods exist and so nothing in the entire cosmos can be taken to be evidence for God. But what Dawkins wants us to believe is that examination of the evidence has led him to this overwhelming conclusion, when in fact he pulled the old high school trick of drawing his graph and then plotting his points!
Comment by DonaldM — July 27, 2006 @ 10:00 am
July 27th, 2006 at 10:04 am
Once again our intellectually fullfilled atheist is attacking God and religion. Shouldn't this book be called Dawkins Strikes Back. There is no doubt that Dawkins' understanding of God, religions and spirituality in general is as little as a 5 yrs old understanding of quantum physics. So why should anyone care about what Dawkins has to say for God?
Comment by Farshad — July 27, 2006 @ 10:04 am
July 27th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Donald:
Yep. This point was mined here.
Comment by MikeGene — July 27, 2006 @ 10:09 am
July 27th, 2006 at 11:39 am
I imagine that the book will closely mirror his TV special "The Root of All Evil?" There it took him all of 30 seconds to compare a noncombative Ted Haggard to Hitler. Dawkins exhibits what can only be termed 'childish hubris' throughout the show. Can we expect any better from his book?
Personally, as interested as I am in watching Dawkins completely melt down, I cant bring myself to plunk down $24.99 for it. I could buy a lot of slurpees for that kind of dough. Anyway, I'm sure Mike will tell us all the juicy parts.
Comment by chunkdz — July 27, 2006 @ 11:39 am
July 27th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Chunkdz: No doubt you're right. However, you can get the book at the library for free!!
Hardcore "intellectually fulfilled" (and lets not forget, "top intellectual") atheists like Dawkins actually think that "no God or gods exist, therefore there is absolutely, positively no evidence for, nor anything that could possibly be taken to be evidence for, their existence" amounts to an actual, logical argument. Any first year logic students care to explain the problem with that argument.
Comment by DonaldM — July 27, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
July 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Sounds like Dawkins has found a gold mine. Just like Howard Stern, I expect more people who disagree with him will 'tune in' (or in this case buy his book) then those who agree.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 27, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
July 27th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I love the sentence in the synopsis that says: "And all from a belief in a God whose existence lacks evidence of any kind." I've come to call this the atheistic mantra. What it really means is there isn't anything they take to be evidence for the existence of God, which is a very different thing.
Not quite. Look at the sentence in context:
Have you seen any evidence that God wants women and gay people to have their rights denied them?
I haven't. In fact, it doesn't even make sense logically. God is good by definition, but persecuting women and gay people is objectively evil, so it's impossible for any such evidence to exist.
So it seems safe to say that the God described by those religious dogmas doesn't exist. Don't you agree?
(There are some conceptions of God that are consistent with the available evidence, but I think Dawkins' argument holds in this particular case.)
Comment by chaosengineer — July 27, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
July 27th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Between Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, etc. Darwin's corrosive principles are the primary cause for the murder of more than 125 million people in the 20th century. Three times more than the 38 million killed in all the wars of the 20th century!
This is detailed in: The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, et al. Harvard University Press (October 1999)ISBN: 0674076087
In Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity Nancy Pearcey explores the historical causes for the full range of world views with comparison to Christianity. 2004 Crossway Books ISBN 1-58134-458-9. Particularly startling is the corrosive impact of Darwin. e.g. Ch 8 Darwins of the Mind p 227: She describes reading a biography of Joseph Stalin
Having become an atheist, Stalin went on to murder about 30 million people in his attempt to construct an officially atheistic state. Mao Tse Tung out did him with 65 million. Dawkins is de facto multiplying this legacy.
Dawkins is also working to destroy the foundations of western civilization. E.g., the Magna Carta 1215, the (English) Bill of Rights 1689, the Declaration of Independence, 1776 and the US Constitution 1787 explicitly or implicitly presume a supreme being on whose principles civil law is established and before whom oaths are taken.
Dawkins further advocates Darwin's principles that led to the greatest slaughter this world has seen.
Comment by DLH — July 27, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
July 27th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
You never know, some early christians believed that God is an evil demiurge.
Comment by Guts — July 27, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
July 27th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Those weren't Christians, they were Gnostics.
Comment by Ilion — July 27, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
July 27th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
chaosengineer writes:
This is a non-sequiter. Dogmas, rules, regulations and such that spring from religious practice are an interesting discussion, but an entirely separate issue from whether or not there is any evidence that God or gods exist. The "context" you cite very cleverly conflates the two issues. I won't deny that bad behavior on the part of those who claim to believe in God might constitute evidence against God's existence (and even that is a flimsy argument — its like saying children who behave badly must have bad parents — not necessarily, any more than children who behave well must have good parents) but in and of itself it is a separate issue from the question 'is there evidence for the existence of God?'
Thus, in my view the sentence I extracted stands alone.
Comment by DonaldM — July 27, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
July 27th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
I've only read a portion of Dawkins' works, putting them down unfinished after a few chapters. I think the reason why is that, at least in my mind, Dawkins fails what I call the Feynman test of scientific integrity.
According to Feynman, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen."
I suspect its his philosophical worldview that endears him to these organizations that name him "top-dog scientist of the blah blah blah." To me, he's a propagandist who uses the authority of science to prop up his frequently suspect speculations and assertions.
Comment by David — July 27, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
July 28th, 2006 at 12:54 am
The life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ + my own personal experience beg to differ!
Comment by Ford Prefect — July 28, 2006 @ 12:54 am
July 28th, 2006 at 1:13 am
Mike Gene mused:
"Will any of the "pro-science" blogs critique it?"
I intend to do so as soon as I can get my hands on a copy. We "deconstructed" his The Blind Watchmaker in our summer seminar on evolution and design at Cornell, and decided that the "metaphysical jump" some have mentioned above was as unwarranted (i.e. unsupported by evidence) as they have suggested. For more on our "findings," take a look at:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
and/or:
http://evolutionanddesign.blog...
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — July 28, 2006 @ 1:13 am
July 28th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
David writes:
Just to be clear, David. I presume the "his" in this paragraph refers back to Dawkins and not Feyenman…correct?
Comment by DonaldM — July 28, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
July 28th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Ford:
Ford, surely you know that it has been scientifically established that the properties of the cosmos are such that resuurections can NOT happen, even in principle. Oh wait…that hasn't been scientifically established yet..whew!!
But try telling THAT to the Dawkster!!!
Comment by DonaldM — July 28, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
July 29th, 2006 at 2:28 am
Donald - Yes, I was referring to Dawkins…
Comment by David — July 29, 2006 @ 2:28 am
July 29th, 2006 at 8:16 am
That's really funny, considering two of those men rejected Darwin and his theory outright, and the third never demonstrated any inkling of ever having heard of it.
This is a symptom of creeping creationism disease — once one decides that facts have no meaning, that conclusions can be drawn from any premise no matter non sequitur, one may write that Darwin's observations of finches led to Stalin.
Bizarre.
Comment by edarrell — July 29, 2006 @ 8:16 am
July 29th, 2006 at 9:49 am
You guys ('modern evolutionary theorists') are such a riot.
Comment by Ilion — July 29, 2006 @ 9:49 am
July 29th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
I'll (perhaps) give some credence to Dawkins when he writes the book The Science Delusion.
Comment by Mung — July 29, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
July 31st, 2006 at 5:13 am
Hi Edarrell.
That is interesting, but could you please be more specific what the actual positions of these four personalities - Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung - were on Darwin.
Comment by LeifAsmarkJensen — July 31, 2006 @ 5:13 am
July 31st, 2006 at 3:58 pm
More specific? Ooh, I overlooked Lenin.
I don't think Lenin ever had any views on Darwin. I consider it unlikely he spent any time studying.
Stalin was opposed to Darwin's views since Darwin was bourgeois himself, and Stalin supported an odd, view promoted by Trofim Lysenko. In Stalin's time the Russian cadre of geneticists, probably the most formidable in the world after World War I, was decimated by arrests for teaching Darwin, cuts in funding, meetings where Darwinists were told to abandon the science and get with Lysenko's views, exilings, at least one alleged murder, and death in Siberian prison camps. Lysenko's rigid, dogmatic rejection of Darwin and everything that was known about genetics was a direct contributor to the massive wheat crop failures of the early 1950s. Several millions starved to death, and the Soviet Union was forced to purchase American wheat on credit, a debt the Soviet Union never got out from under.
Stalin never endorsed anything about Darwin's teaching or evolution theory, and his official rejection of the science ultimately contributed greatly to the downfall of communism in the Soviet Union.
Hitler's views on heredity were right out of scripture. He believed that heritage was carried in blood, and consequently he forbade the creation of blood banks for fear that Jewish blood might "taint" soldiers. Ashley Montagu cites studies in his book, Human Genetics (1959) that show tens of thousands of German soldiers died from simple lack of blood during the war, while soldiers of the Allied powers were patched up and sent back to fight from similar injuries. There is no evidence that any part of Hitler's bizarre thoughts were derived from Darwin.
Mao was no scientist. I've not read much of Mao since the early 1970s, but his political positions had nothing at all to do with Darwin or evolution in any way. Much of the communist posture, especially after World War II, in both the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China was based on the communist idea that nurture was more important than genetics, and that anyone could be trained to do just about anything, so the chief thing to do was to culturally indoctrinate people in communism. Hence the Cultural Revolution, in which scientists who may have known about Darwin (China was not so dogmatically opposed to western science as Stalin's regime) were deployed to farms in the countryside for "re-education" and to learn how to grow rice, from the farmer's view.
The claim that "Darwin's corrosive principles are the primary cause for the murder of more than 125 million people in the 20th century" is pure hooey. Socialism is driven by an appeal to altruism and community, communism by an appeal to an odd reading of economics that rather ignores the effects of incentives. It is true that free market economics and Darwinian theory enjoy some overlapping principles, but there is no credible connection between Hitlers madness and Darwinian science, Stalin's madness and Darwinian science, nor Mao's madness and Darwinian science. They didn't claim it, and the evidence contradicts the claim almost exactly.
Comment by edarrell — July 31, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
July 31st, 2006 at 3:59 pm
"any time studying Darwin" in the second paragraph.
Comment by edarrell — July 31, 2006 @ 3:59 pm