#23450: — 04/30  at  10:06 AM
Oh, oh. Dawkins has gone and done it now. Surely a wrathful God will smote him. Uh, smite him? And he'll be well and properly smitten. Smoted?

Anyway, you know, one of those King-Jamesy verbs. Yes. For God waxes wroth. Wrathful.

Ah, screw it.

P.S.: Recent evidence for the nonexistence of God: Benedict XVI.

#23451: — 04/30  at  10:21 AM
The original reason I started reading this website (and returning to it faithfully) is for its discussion of the ID/Evolution stuff. The ID nut jobs scare the crap out of me and I am 100 percent in the evolution camp. I think the ID forces are getting stronger, not weaker, and this website performs a valuable service by fighting the good fight.

With that said, I don't think there's much to be gained if evolution-does-exist crowd welcomes the evolution vs. religion debate. The mocking of religion does nothing to persuade the middle-American fence-sitters who are likely religious. The ID/creationist crowd should be denounced on scientific, not religious grounds.

As PZ Myers frequently (and correctly) points out, the Discovery Institute does an excellent job with public relations. They spout off-psuedo-scientific mumbo jumbo, claim to concede aspects of the fossil record, and "humbly" ask that people be open-minded and allow the controversy to be taught. Yes, they're religious nuts, but they're smart enough to (mostly) downplay their own Christian fundamentalism in their public pronouncements. Look where it's gotten them -- they're getting what they want.

Similarly, I think the pro-science crowd ought not to mock the religious, if only for reasons of strategy and PR. (Also, I think many scientists are religious themselves, if not in the creationist/literalist way.) By mocking religion and comparing it to an affliction, you only fulfill the caricature that the fundies have of hard-working scientists.

#23452: — 04/30  at  10:26 AM
And just to add: perhaps what I referred to as the "caricature" of the scientist that is openly disdainful and opposed to religion, is actually an accurate description of Dawkins and Myers and others. Fine. My only point is that such staunch and outspoken viewpoints will hinder, rather than help, attempts to bitch slap the ID crowd.

#23453: covington — 04/30  at  10:39 AM
One of the things that worries me is the lengths the American fundamentalists will go to once the tide turns and they start to wane in power. Nothing is so vicious as a fundamentalist in decline.

Notice that the abortion clinic bombings and doctor murders have subsided recently? It's because they think they are winning the general power stuggle. As much noise as they make about being oppressed by "people of reality", the fundamentalists know they hold all the levers.

When they realize their grip is starting to slip, it's going to get even uglier.

#23455: PZ Myers — 04/30  at  10:47 AM
I don't know, Jim. We can't be driven entirely by PR -- we have to stand up for our principles somewhere. Most religion is ridiculous, and putting up a front of false respect would require compromising our commitment to Truth, Honesty, and Contempt for Bullshit.

I'm not trying to see religion eradicated, but I sure would like to see a few of the couch potatoes glued to Fox News get up and see the pious frauds for what they are.

#23457: covington — 04/30  at  10:51 AM
It's the reluctance to address the transparent delusions of religion that give it such strength. It isn't competing in the market place of ideas. The bizarre state of affairs in which we feel rude for questioning the bizarre fairy tales of the religious, while they feel empowered to attack reality and science at every turn, would be comical if the obvious results weren't so tragic.

#23459: QrazyQat — 04/30  at  11:22 AM
Last time we were on the road in the RV I caught the last couple minutes of a show where Lee Strobel interviewed Hugh Hefner on the subject of religion. And I wish I could remember verbatim (or even decently well) what Hefner said when Strobel asked him if he envied the faith of relgiious people. Hef's answer was really terrific, sharply said without actually being snarky. If anyone has that quote, I'd love to see it -- can't find it online so far.

#23460: Buridan — 04/30  at  11:41 AM
So Jim, is it all atheists or just atheist scientists who should shut up? In any event, anyone who would reject science on the basis of what some scientists personally believe about religion is very likely to reject science anyway – they’re called the Religious Right. Again, it’s a false dilemma.

#23462: Evan — 04/30  at  11:57 AM
The arguments Dawkins presents do not even rise to the level of a college dorm room bull session. Let's set aside the fact that he is willfully, gleefully counterproductive from a P.R. standpoint. He's not even making a very strong case for atheism in the first place -- at least not for anyone who bothers to, yanno, read philosophy.

Granted, standing up for one's principles is admirable. Unfortunately, Dawkins consistently chooses to stand up for his principles in a manner that is both A) destructive and B) not intellectually impressive. So I'm surprised and dismayed to hear PZ cheerleading for him.

An aside -- Buridan's mangling of what Jim said is not helpful either. Jim never said "you have to shut up if you're an atheist scientist." There's a difference between making a case for atheism and just plain being an asshole.

#23466: covington — 04/30  at  12:35 PM
The point Dawkins made is that there needn't be an argument made for atheism... all it is is the absense of a belief in the absurdities of religion. Teapots in orbit are more rational than a belief in fairies and pixies. Even bothering to bring up Hume (for those who, yanno, studied philosophy) isn't necessary.

All that's necessary to respond to the religious is to say, "present some evidence or shut the fuck up."

#23468: Buridan — 04/30  at  01:15 PM
Sorry Even, but that's how I read him and others who continually harp against atheists in this debate but then find it perfectly legitimate to discuss the merits of religion and science because the vast majority of Americans are religious. Bullshit!

I see no reason to coddle religious believers for fear that they may reject science or because associating science with non-religious types may not be "helpful" or "is destructive" or "not intellectually impressive” or whatever lame excuse you deem necessary to mollify your own religious insecurities. It’s the same old crap – let’s keep our atheistic brethren in the closet so we don’t upset the Jones. And somehow we’re the assholes?!

#23472: — 04/30  at  02:40 PM
Buridan,
I have never said anyone should "shut up," nor have I ever "harped against atheists." In addition, I have never "discussed the merits of religion" in any of my posts anywhere. And neither am I religiously "insecure." Please direct your anger away from me, and please don't continue to willfully misread and misrepresent my comments.

It's okay if you disagree with me; it's not okay to spout off against me for things I didn't write.

#23473: Buridan — 04/30  at  02:42 PM
By the way, did anyone happen to notice the modified Michelangelo in the article? If not, take a second look.

#23474: — 04/30  at  02:59 PM
I'll play devil's advocate here. Religion has been part of human culture for as long as we know about. I believe that religion is our attempt, beginning all those eons ago before science, to explain the universe to ourselves - how we got here, what our purpose is, all those Big Questions. For many people, religion gives them a moral center and a reason not to lie awake at night quaking in fear of death. As far as that goes, I respect every person's right to believe in the religion of their choice.

Religion goes astray when it tries to promulgate ancient mythology as literal truth. We know that evolution is a real process, just as we know the earth is not borne on the back of a turtle. A religion that teaches you to believe in falsehoods - who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes? - misses its purpose.

I was brought up in old-age, pre-Vatican II Catholicism. The Church did not insist on literal interpretation of the Bible; it was taught as metaphor and mystery. (True, only the RCC had the clue to the mystery.) I will never give up metaphor and mystery, even though I don't believe in the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. Every time I plant a seed in the garden and see it grow, I am struck with wonder of life. I don't have to believe in a supernatural being - cosmic muffin or hairy thunderer - to be in awe of the processes that surround us. They do not become less wonderful when we understand them - only more so.

Trackback: Required Reading Tracked on: The World Wide Rant - v3.0 (63.247.140.66) at 2005 04 30 15:10:09
His political leanings aside, this interview with Richard Dawkins is enjoyable. Choice lines:You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at...

#23475: Evan — 04/30  at  03:11 PM
covington -- I appreciate your point, but I think Dawkins's real message was that all folks who do not buy the Hume argument are delusional idiots. Unfortunately for Dawkins, Hume's argument is not the The End-All Argument That Permanently Destroys God; at best, it serves to undermine one pro-God argument. But Dawkins expects us to sweep away the massive body of philosophical work in this area, based on this one very small piece of the puzzle, because he says so? And if we don't, we're idiots?

Any good theist or good atheist needs to be familiar with the whole complex puzzle. The "there needn't be an argument" argument just doesn't cut the mustard -- whether you're Richard Dawkins or Jerry Falwell.

Buridan -- Thank you for beautifully illustrating my point. I never realized it was "coddling" to engage my opponent without screaming about how deluded/insecure/moronic/evil they are.

"It’s the same old crap – let’s keep our atheistic brethren in the closet so we don’t upset the Jones."

Keep beating that strawman, dude!

#23476: Buridan — 04/30  at  03:17 PM
Jim, I didn’t misrepresent you. What part of your following statements does not suggest that people like Dawkins, Myers, and perhaps myself "ought not" to sound off on why we think religion is dangerous:

“The mocking of religion does nothing to persuade the middle-American fence-sitters who are likely religious.”

“I think the pro-science crowd ought not to mock the religious, if only for reasons of strategy and PR.”

“And just to add: perhaps what I referred to as the "caricature" of the scientist that is openly disdainful and opposed to religion, is actually an accurate description of Dawkins and Myers and others. Fine. My only point is that such staunch and outspoken viewpoints will hinder, rather than help.”

If you want to back away from your remarks that’s fine with me, but when an atheist speaks his/her mind on religion and you find such “staunch and outspoken viewpoints” as a caricature, hindering, unhelpful, disdainful and thus we “ought not” to say them, I see that as telling us to shut up. Did you mean something else by them?

#23477: Buridan — 04/30  at  03:22 PM
You're welcome Evan.

"without screaming about how deluded/insecure/moronic/evil they are."

And you keep beating your strawman as well.

#23478: covington — 04/30  at  03:43 PM
There is no philosophical argument when there is no evidence to support the Magic Fairy theory. To pretend to need any more complex argument than a request for evidence is to fall into the trap of arguing how many angels can dance on those pinheads.

#23479: — 04/30  at  03:48 PM
Evan,

I don't see anywhere in that interview where Dawkins tries to present a clear case for atheism - it doesn't seem to be the focus of the interview. Can we expect him to do such a thing in a short article like this? I agree somewhat with you that we should be careful in linking biology with atheism, but I don't see what you are getting at here. Why would he need to present an argument for atheism anyway? The arguments for theism have never been particularly convincing.

And when you say he's being "destructive," how so? Destructive of what?

#23481: — 04/30  at  04:31 PM
Having, yanno, read philosophy, personally, I'm pleased whenever I see someone not invoke it when discussing religion. There's nothing in the rejection of religious belief that warrants a discussion of metaphysics or epistemology. Everyone in modern society is fully aware that religion is historically and culturally contingent. That's enough to undermine any claim it has to truth. Blabbering on about unicorns and paradoxes is just a diversion that plays into the hands of believers and their secular apologists.

#23482: Arthur Silber — 04/30  at  04:32 PM
Just a couple of brief points: it's touched on above, but I want to emphasize the importance of the burden of proof principle. An atheist is not asserting a positive belief at all. He is only saying, in effect: "I decline to believe in anything, including ghosts, the Easter Rabbit, Santa Claus, or God, unless some evidence is adduced to support the proposition. If you have none, you are asking me to consider the arbitrary. But it is only that: arbitrary, and therefore deserving of no further consideration at all."

But if someone wants to assert the existence of God (or of that invisible gremlin sitting on your shoulder), HE needs to provide at least some evidence for its existence. The idea of design obviously doesn't cut it at all, for reasons well-known to readers here.

One other point: when asserting the existence of God, it would be helpful -- indeed, required -- if someone could define what God is supposed to represent. Anyone care to do that, in terms which are comprehensible, and non-contradictory? It will not do to say God is infinite, eternal, non-physical, etc., etc. All such statements are definitions by negation: God does NOT have a specific identity, God does NOT exist in time as we understand it, etc.

A definition is a necessary starting point, and none has ever been provided -- that is understandable and consistent. If you want to assert the existence of anything, you must be able to state WHAT it is. And as I've noted, the burden of proof is then on the person asserting the belief, not on anyone else. Ever. Period.

Well, longer than I intended. :>)

Trackback: Dawkins on Religion in the United States Tracked on: Buridan's Ass (66.235.212.128) at 2005 04 30 17:35:41
Thanks to PZ Myers at Pharyngula.org for pointing out the Salon.com interview with Richard Dawkins on the rise of irrational religiosity in the United States. It’s really quite good. Dawkins provides an excellent analysis of the present culture war going...

#23485: — 04/30  at  05:55 PM
"Everyone in modern society is fully aware that religion is historically and culturally contingent. That's enough to undermine any claim it has to truth." (#21.)

I'll bet the first of these sentences is not actually the case, and that the second does not, in fact, do so even for many of those for whom #1 is true.

#23490: — 04/30  at  07:55 PM
Jeff, considering that most religions have a founding historical event as a matter of doctrine, and that everyone is aware of more than one of these religions, I stand by my assertion. I also think it's fairly obvious to all involved that this undermines any claim to truth. Certainly religious groups have, in the past, felt it necessary to denounce other religions as heretical, distortions of doctrine, primitive, etc, in order to protect their claim to truth. That has (mostly) fallen out of favour now. The rather woolly New Age notion that there's a single underlying spiritual truth to all religions has taken its place for many. Careful use of language to avoid the issue does the work for others. Still others prefer to attack the very foundations of belief, thereby making everything historically and culturally contingent. There seems to be an implicit consensus among believers that this is a decisive issue.