PZ Myers. 2005 Apr 30. Dawkins interview in Salon. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/dawkins_interview_in_salon/>. Accessed 2008 Nov 20.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Saturday, April 30, 2005
Dawkins interview in Salon
The Light of Reason says you must read this interview with Richard Dawkins. I agree.
It's focused mainly on Dawkins' fight for reason against the irrationality of faith, and as you might expect, he is casually contemptuous of religion. It's so good to see that; I get so tired of the knee-jerk reverence for the pomp and lies of Christianity that is endemic in the media here. It's the one subject where journalists won't go for the he-said-she-said pseudo-balance they favor, always giving theology an uncontested voice. We need more people to state the simple truths, like these:
There is just no evidence for the existence of God.
Religion is scarcely distinguishable from childhood delusions like the "imaginary friend" and the bogeyman under the bed. Unfortunately, the God delusion possesses adults, and not just a minority of unfortunates in an asylum. The word "delusion" also carries negative connotations, and religion has plenty of those.
-
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.#: Posted by on 04/30 at 10:06 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.#: Posted by on 04/30 at 10:21 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.
#: Posted by on 04/30 at 10:26 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. -
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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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.
-
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. -
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." -
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?! -
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.#: Posted by on 04/30 at 02:40 PM - By the way, did anyone happen to notice the modified Michelangelo in the article? If not, take a second look.
-
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.#: Posted by on 04/30 at 02:59 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! -
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? -
You're welcome Evan.
"without screaming about how deluded/insecure/moronic/evil they are."
And you keep beating your strawman as well. - 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.
-
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?#: Posted by on 04/30 at 03:48 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.
#: Posted by on 04/30 at 04:31 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. :>)#: Posted by Arthur Silber on 04/30 at 04:32 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.#: Posted by on 04/30 at 05:55 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.
#: Posted by on 04/30 at 07:55 PM
-
poke wrote: "Everyone in modern society is fully aware..."
Oh, how I wish it were so. -
Reading this whole "debate" about how we should be nice to the religious makes me want to add my two cents...
and here it is:
FUCK
RELIGION.
(For reference material supporting my statement, see under: torture in the name of God; war in the name of God; bigotry in the name of God; willful ignorance in the name of God; et al.)
Thank you and have a nice day.#: Posted by on 04/30 at 09:32 PM -
You and Dawkins are missing the point of most churchgoing: religion is not an intellectual card game, it is a way for living. When a woman has a miscarriage, she doesn't call for a bioethicist. She doesn't sequence the bloody mess and fire off some BLAST searches to research what went wrong. She doesn't crack open a volume of Hume to renew her purpose and direction.
She might visit her pastor. She might draw comfort from a parable of endurance.
Calling her a deluded idiot just makes you look foolish. The rest of what you say will be ignored as ravings by your audience. And that will not result in their effective education, which you claim is your goal.#: Posted by Daniel Newby on 04/30 at 10:06 PM -
While Dawkin's comments will draw negative fire, he isnt running for office, nor the leader of a cabal of anti religionists. He is a man driven by empircal evidence, and he cant see any for God. Many others reach the same conclusion but dont say it out loud, hence allowing the faith based hordes to claim that non believers are few and far between.
If the masses of politicians and teachers and other leaders who dont really believe would quit lying to make others comfortable we might start to get a realistic, reality based approach to political life in these United States.#: Posted by on 05/01 at 12:08 AM -
Surely a wrathful God will smote him. Uh, smite him? And he'll be well and properly smitten. Smoted?
Smoot.
Calling her a deluded idiot just makes you look foolish. The rest of what you say will be ignored as ravings by your audience. And that will not result in their effective education, which you claim is your goal.
Insensitive maybe, but makes him look foolish? In what way? Only in the sense that you may think he might not be using a very well thought out strategy in trying to convince the delusional woman that she's delusional... but in fact he is right, she IS delusional.
Yes, religion is a way for living. A silly, delusional way. By the way you talked about your fictional woman, you seem to be trying to suggest that reacting to tragedy or loss in a delusional way somehow makes more sense than to react logically.
Sure, it's understandable that people in pain will do desperate, illogical things... but that doesn't mean its not stupid. A dog will gnaw off the bandage that's preventing a wound from getting infected. We put a cone around their neck for that reason.
Anyway, it's not a given that people will react with foolishness to trauma, it isn't necessary. You seem to be saying that to contact a bioethicist or to try to figure out what went wrong would somehow not be a way of coping... well, I normally don't trot out my own experiences for open discussion but I think I can safely say that I have experienced more trauma than the average american... enough that I am disabled with PTSD... and not once has the idea of seeking some kind of soothing mythology even entered my mind. It may be common for people to react that way, but I don't think its inherent. I am healing through a completely rational approach.
If your point was that he was foolish only in strategy, I would disagree there too... You can't talk people out of religion unless they are already leaning that way. People who believe in religion have been conned. You can't con people into not being susceptible to being conned. If they are interested in listening, you can talk reasonably with them. If they aren't, then all you can do is be blunt. 99% chance they will hate it as much as the dog hates the cone, but its all you can do.
Sorry for rambling, its getting late.#: Posted by Craig Carlyle Clarke on 05/01 at 12:12 AM -
No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth.
Richard Dawkins
This just hit the quote roll. Seems relevant.#: Posted by on 05/01 at 12:16 AM -
Newby, While many do react as you describe and fall on their 'beliefs' for succor, there are also many who cope with what comes their way. Some are better at it than others. It strikes me as a slippery slope when you believe that outside force is causing events in your life instead of the complex interaction of the complex environment we all are a part of.
I have been functioning alongside the faithful for close to 4 decades now. My life is no worse for assuming that it is my job to figure out how to cope instead of looking to mystical forces. Ive been kicked while down several time, but I always get back up. If I prayed first I would still have to pick myself up, but I would have wasted time praying that might have been better used figuring out how to keep from getting knocked down.
A great deal of time and effort is spent by people who are engaged in a belief system that isnt far removed from what the ancient Greeks or North American Natives used. No amount of praying, dancing or bribing gods will make it rain next Wednesday. If you need another example, look at the irony of players on two opposing sports teams both praying for victory. One side is going to win, .... by playing better.
If one spends much time thinking about it, it is hard not to adopt Dawkin's dismissive language.#: Posted by on 05/01 at 12:30 AM -
Well, Daniel, and this is admittedly anecdotal as hell, but when a friend of mine experienced the miscarriage you described, that put the last nail in the coffin of her theism (I was already there by then).
What is your point? That when tragedy strikes - and it will strike - we should jump to metaphysics for comfort? Seems more productive to stare the ugly beast of nature in the face and recognize, as Dawkins makes clear, that this life is all we have, and we damn well better make the best of it.
Really, as a thinking and feeling atheist, what else do we have left but a hardlined commitment to human compassion? Dawkins does a stellar job of addressing this in that interview. I know religion offers meaning and comfort to people, but it does not follow that atheism cannot do so, and do so more productively. If we view a miscarriage in a Christian light, it's God's doing, and oh, "he" has some divine and mysterious purpose for allowing it. Fuck that. It negates love and compassion and understanding. I'll take human love and compassion and the recognition that we're all stuck in this world together over any belief that God is playing cold-hearted poker with our lives.
Next time someone calls us atheists devil-worshipping immoral hedonists, can I compassionately kick their ass? Seems reasonable.#: Posted by on 05/01 at 12:36 AM -
Let me restate my point in more direct terms. People participate in religion for many reasons: to be entertained, meet people, have something to do on Sunday mornings, study morality, sing badly in public without being arrested, have social support in times of distress, and so forth. Rare among those reasons is to be an automaton blindly following doctrine.
In fact, they tend towards the opposite. Doctrine that contradicts experience is set aside. If the Church claims contraception is bad, and a person sees that having 25 children would plainly be bad, then they'll just ignore the Church on that subject. The precipitous drop in Catholic birth rates is solid proof. Ditto for divorce rates. If a preacher tells a farmer that evolution is flat out impossible, he'll smile and nod, and keep selectively breeding his cattle. Modern churchgoers pay the proper lip service to the doctrine, but judged by their behavior are considerably more flexible. They'll believe lots of things given the chance.
But the thing you have to understand is that evolution theory is generally useless for most of them. Whether trilobites evolved and then went extinct, or were put into rocks by divine intervention to test the faithful, doesn't really matter. Either way doesn't get them any closer to paying off the mortgage. It doesn't mow the yard or fix supper for the kids. It's just another pile of big glittery words.
Which means that if you want to educate them, you'd better take that into account. Start by making the story relevant. Antibiotic and pesticide resistance is a good place to start. Resistance of head lice to pyrethrins would be a particularly good attention-catcher. Virulence of epidemic viruses is another topic with personal relevance.
If you persist in grabbing them by the collars and screaming that they're deluded idiots, they'll consider you an obnoxious fool. And rightly so. Being loud and insulting means you don't really want to teach anything to anyone. It's just chest thumping to impress the other über-evolutionists. (You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. So put a cork in your carboy of glacial acetic acid.)#: Posted by Daniel Newby on 05/01 at 02:29 AM - ¿Isn't the introduction by Gordy Slack a big gauche attempt to attack Richard Dawkins?
-
Whether trilobites evolved and then went extinct, or were put into rocks by divine intervention to test the faithful, doesn't really matter.
It might not matter, but we should note for the record that there is now conclusive evidence that the 'God put the trilobites into the rocks' hypothesis is the correct one.#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 05/01 at 05:51 AM -
Daniel Newby: When a woman has a miscarriage, she doesn't call for a bioethicist. She doesn't sequence the bloody mess and fire off some BLAST searches to research what went wrong. She doesn't crack open a volume of Hume to renew her purpose and direction.
You should meet some modern women.
The pamphlet provided by the hospital for bereaved parents not-to-be included not only religious homilies, but an astronomical metaphor about brown dwarves; potential suns that only just failed to ignite.
We did want to find out what went wrong, which didn't mean resigning ourselves to gawd's will, wondering which one in the pantheon we'd pissed off or trying to figure out what the fuck Elysium needed with one more cherub. That way lies madness. Live birth is not always a given among human mammals.
We had to explain this to the poor green pastor eager to console us in our godless grief. He'd been wondering why we almost didn't let him see us. We ended up having to console him.
Coincidentally, we'd picked up a copy of Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow, just out at the time, before having to go to the hospital. After so many people had felt compelled to explain to us all about God's ineffable plan in an effort to comfort us, it was something of a relief to have a superstition-free zone. -
But the thing you have to understand is that evolution theory is generally useless for most of them. Whether trilobites evolved and then went extinct, or were put into rocks by divine intervention to test the faithful, doesn't really matter. Either way doesn't get them any closer to paying off the mortgage. It doesn't mow the yard or fix supper for the kids. It's just another pile of big glittery words.
Yep. People who don't have college degrees are drones, completely without the ability to possess curiosity or interest in anything other than pressing the big shiny metal bar that makes the food appear. Might I say that we're just unutterably lucky to have people like Newby to translate our incurious, pedestrian lives into terms that the more rarefied intellects here in the Pharyngula commenters thread can relate to. Boy howdy.
Little hint: two of the more popular pastimes among we incurious non-academics are flower gardening and bird-feeding. Not only do both pastimes require at least a modicum of interest in and knowledge about the natural world and its processes, but both are relatively expensive hobbies from which few will ever recoup any of their investment.
In other words: those flyover country bumpkins you stereotype have enough interest in biology to sink their hard-earned cash into observing it on a regular basis. Maybe - just maybe - you could work with us with that in mind, rather than assuming that the only thing that will motivate our attention is our direct self-interest.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 05/01 at 09:56 AM -
Let me restate my point in more direct terms. People participate in religion for many reasons: to be entertained, meet people, have something to do on Sunday mornings, study morality, sing badly in public without being arrested, have social support in times of distress, and so forth. Rare among those reasons is to be an automaton blindly following doctrine.
The reasons given in your second sentence exactly describe what it is like to be an automaton, perhaps not following doctrine but definitely following societal expectations. Apparently in northern Europe people are as fulfilled as they are everywhere else even though they don't go to church on Sunday mornings; still, they meet people, get entertained, and find emotional support in times of distress.
In fact, they tend towards the opposite. Doctrine that contradicts experience is set aside. If the Church claims contraception is bad, and a person sees that having 25 children would plainly be bad, then they'll just ignore the Church on that subject. The precipitous drop in Catholic birth rates is solid proof. Ditto for divorce rates. If a preacher tells a farmer that evolution is flat out impossible, he'll smile and nod, and keep selectively breeding his cattle. Modern churchgoers pay the proper lip service to the doctrine, but judged by their behavior are considerably more flexible. They'll believe lots of things given the chance.
This only describes a tiny minority of theists: those living in the first world. In the third world people really forego birth control because the Catholic Church says no, for example. Third-world countries' theists obey your description to a degree that is in direct correlation with the level of secularism in the country. -
Ken, your story reminds me of my own experience and I feel like relating it here... but mine was more humorous so I don't feel I mean any disrespect toward your feelings or your unfortunate experience.
I was crossing the street and was hit by a speeding pickup truck, was severly injured. I remember none of this due to amnesia (skull fracture) but my family tells me the following happened in the ER of "Mercy Hospital".
A priest came to me to give me last rites, shoving my dad out of the way... My dad tried to get the priest to get away from me since he is, and knew I was an athiest, and saw that the priest was totaly freaking me out.
The priest kept pushing Dad away, determined to save my soul whether I wanted it or not.
Later in the ICU, some nun was talking to me, saying she would pray for me, etc. I asked her "how many people have you saved?" She replied that she doesn't save people "The Lord saves people."
"Well, how many people has HE saved?" I asked, apparently sarcastically, as I next informed her that I was an atheist. She got kinda scared and left.
I think its cool that even when my brain wasn't working right (I had the problem that the guy in the movie Memento had) I still was ME.
Then again, I was also apparently talking about there being little girls riding turtles in my stomach, so... -
I've mentioned before that one of the projects I'm working on is the Cafe Scientifique. One of the more interesting suggestions I've had for speakers is to recruit someone from the local wetlands management office to give a talk -- one other huge group representative of flyover country are hunters and fishermen, who are acutely interested now in habitat preservation and management, and any talk on prairie restoration, river cleanups, waterfowl habitats, etc., is immensely popular around here.
One of our most popular regional television shows is Prairie Yard and Garden. This is where our locals learn about native plants, about what grows well in our relatively frigid climate, and the narrator taps into the talent at our university to talk about plant science.
People naturally want to know and understand. Religion claims to offer a shortcut to that, and people grab at it for that reason. I think the message we need to get out is that science offers a more honest route to the truth...and I think many will respond positively. -
Afterthought: I'd deliberately not mentioned either hunting or pet ownership as support for my idea that we rubes are interested in biology, because both pastimes carry a strong self-interest payoff. But I definitely should have mentioned keeping aquaria.
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 05/01 at 10:13 AM
-
If you persist in grabbing them by the collars and screaming that they're deluded idiots, they'll consider you an obnoxious fool. And rightly so. Being loud and insulting means you don't really want to teach anything to anyone.
I don't see anyone advocating going door to door like Jehovah's Witnesses and beating people into atheism.
It's not about being rude, its about being honest and matter-of-fact. Someone asks you why you don't believe in god, it's perfectly appropriate to quietly respond "because the entire concept is silly and preposterous. Idiotic beyond belief." -
Of course there is the self-interest, but that's also true of birding and gardening.
The important thing is that there is an appreciation of the natural environment out here that is often lacking in more urban Democratic strongholds. I can see how sometimes there might be resentment at high-handed city folks who are trying to dictate how to run the land to the people who are actually living in the middle of it. -
Also an afterthought, having now actually found time to read the interview... The interviewer, Gordy Slack, is an acquuaintance of mine and a damn fine writer. And according to his bio in a recent issue of Bay Nature (linked page includes a nifty painting by some guy named Buell) Gordy's at work on a book on ID and evolution.
Knowing Gordy, I suspect the book will be completely fair to the ID idear, which is to say Gordy will give it all the credit it deserves, which is to say I suspect we'll like it just fine.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 05/01 at 10:42 AM -
I think its cool that even when my brain wasn't working right (I had the problem that the guy in the movie Memento had) I still was ME.
(no worries, Craig) Hopefully you only lost those few hours, and don't have to run up a fortune in polaroids and tattoos (although I'd think a digital camera and a blog would be better suited for reconstructing personal narrative these days). -
Hey, Chris Clarke. Welcome back from the wild. Hope you had a good time out there communing with nature.
#: Posted by on 05/01 at 11:30 AM
-
I don't see anyone advocating going door to door like Jehovah's Witnesses and beating people into atheism.
I was gonna suggest a family project here, Craig, but then I re-read after another cup of coffee and saw you weren't actually talking about going door-to-door and beating up Jehovah's Witnesses.
(Hi, Carl!)#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 05/01 at 11:34 AM -
Thanks, DD. I actually had to draw the blinds to get anything done: too much nature out there.
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 05/01 at 11:41 AM
-
(no worries, Craig) Hopefully you only lost those few hours, and don't have to run up a fortune in polaroids and tattoos (although I'd think a digital camera and a blog would be better suited for reconstructing personal narrative these days).
It was weeks, not hours, and I'm still not really right in the head... but then I didn't have anything important to try to keep track of anyway. -
There is just no evidence for the existence of God.
And what does "existence" have to do with it? Is there really evidence for the "existence" of consciousness or gravity? How about evolution, does it "exist"? Of course it doesn't, it's a reconstruction of various existent (adopting the vernacular sense of "existent" for the sake of argument) moments that have collectively produced the present.
To be sure, the "existence" of God might be said to be important in some manner or other, but Dawkins is treating the whole matter in a decidedly un-philosophical manner when the issue is often highly philosophical. Plotinus' God's (if we take his "One" to be God, which in fact is not how he portrays the "One") over-riding feature is that he does not "exist", rather the "One" is responsible for what does "exist".
This gets to the heart of the matter of "God" for many people, that it isn't so much an infantile psyche that is responsible for, say, theology, but a rather infantile device to end questions about "existence". God, being beyond existence, is simply invoked to explain "existence". Many of us find this to be highly unsatisfying, of course, but this "God" provides the closure needed for many absolutist ideas about language, and is perpetuated for the sake of the perceived need for solidity in speech and writing. The whole matter is far more complex than Dawkins imagines it to be, inevitably, since language and culture (including religion) happen to be evolved structures.
Religion is scarcely distinguishable from childhood delusions like the "imaginary friend" and the bogeyman under the bed.
Dawkins apparently accepts the Freudian view of religion. But in the first place, identifying religion as a relic of childhood is not actually an argument against it, and in the second place, the Platonic and neo-Platonic evolution of childhood fantasy changes religion into something quite distinguishable from childhood illusions and delusions. This doesn't make it better or worse in any obvious way, but it does change its complexion.
Unfortunately, the God delusion possesses adults, and not just a minority of unfortunates in an asylum. The word "delusion" also carries negative connotations, and religion has plenty of those.
Yeah, whatever. Dawkins ought to learn how difficult it really is to distinguish between "delusion" and the lack of truth to be found in scientific modeling. Many honest and excellent scientific models of the past, and perhaps even the present, could be considered to be "delusions" under reasonable definitions of "delusion", but who cares as long as the process was honest? So religion is often dishonest? Fine, but that isn't much of an argument against honest religion.
The fact of the matter is that Dawkins doesn't know much about religion. And like Dembski or Salvador Cordova on biology, Dawkins would do better if he'd keep quiet on subjects that he does not understand well.#: Posted by on 05/01 at 03:26 PM -
"The fact of the matter is that Dawkins doesn't know much about religion. And like Dembski or Salvador Cordova on biology, Dawkins would do better if he'd keep quiet on subjects that he does not understand well."
I tell ya what, as soon as you religious wingnuts shut up about science, we'll shut up about religion. What do ya say? Do we have a deal? -
And what does "existence" have to do with it?
Thus you refute not only your own argument, but any argument you might ever make on anything else ever again.
Is there really evidence for the "existence" of consciousness or gravity?
I could suggest a way you might test the existence of both at the same time.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 05/01 at 04:14 PM -
I tell ya what, as soon as you religious wingnuts shut up about science, we'll shut up about religion. What do ya say? Do we have a deal?
If you ever learn how to read I might have some reason to discuss things with you. How can you be so stupid as to think that I'm religious?#: Posted by on 05/01 at 04:22 PM -
Thus you refute not only your own argument, but any argument you might ever make on anything else ever again.
Why do dimwits constantly believe in "existence" after God has died? It's what Nietzsche said, that we are not rid of God because we still believe in grammar. But believe your little theology-inspired doctrines, just don't suppose that you have any right to criticize those who openly embrace theology.
I could suggest a way you might test the existence of both at the same time.
And I bet it'd be as naive as all of your other comments. There is a reason why science doesn't claim to provide ultimate truth, one being that perception of "something" does not equal its existence. It's for you to continue to believe in creation of existence even without a creator, however, just as it is with all unwitting believers in metaphysics.#: Posted by on 05/01 at 04:27 PM -
Ken Cope said: The pamphlet provided by the hospital for bereaved parents not-to-be included not only religious homilies, but an astronomical metaphor about brown dwarves; potential suns that only just failed to ignite.
That's pleasantly surprising.
Chris Clarke said: In other words: those flyover country bumpkins you stereotype have enough interest in biology to sink their hard-earned cash into observing it on a regular basis. Maybe - just maybe - you could work with us with that in mind, rather than assuming that the only thing that will motivate our attention is our direct self-interest.
I was discussing whether calling churchgoers irrational idiots is an effective way to educate them about science. Those you talk about, who have a serious interest in nature, are even more likely to be turned off by the insulting, combative approach that seems to be favored by the reactionary wing of evolutionists.
Alon Levy said: Apparently in northern Europe people are as fulfilled as they are everywhere else even though they don't go to church on Sunday mornings; still, they meet people, get entertained, and find emotional support in times of distress.
My question was not whether churches are optimal or unique, but whether insulting people is an effective way to educate them.
This only describes a tiny minority of theists: those living in the first world. In the third world people really forego birth control because the Catholic Church says no, for example.
While significantly higher than in the First World, fertility rates in less-developed Catholic countries have nevertheless dropped significantly, and are expected to continue dropping.
PZ Myers said: People naturally want to know and understand. Religion claims to offer a shortcut to that, and people grab at it for that reason. I think the message we need to get out is that science offers a more honest route to the truth...and I think many will respond positively.
I'd rather see useful emphasized over honest. If you don't call somebody dishonest, they can't use it to change the subject. All they're left with is objective results that anybody can see. Does prayer reduce mosquito-borne diseases? Nope, not at all. Does science? Yes, to some extent.
craig said: I don't see anyone advocating going door to door like Jehovah's Witnesses and beating people into atheism.
Of course not. Handing out pamphelts on Secular Humanism, though...
#: Posted by Daniel Newby on 05/01 at 05:20 PM -
Best layman's article on the topic that I have read in a long time. I can't wait to see the wingnut pile-on about it this week.
#: Posted by The Liberal Avenger on 05/01 at 09:36 PM
-
There is a a new book by Michael Ruse, "The Evolution-Creation Struggle" that got pretty prominent coverage in my local paper (The Boston Globe). The link is here, although it is only good for today:
<http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/05/01/evolutionary_war>
In this book, Ruse (something of a polemicist, I guess, as he co-authored a book with Dembski, an ID man), says that evolutionary proponents are too critical of the religuous nuts belief systems, and ought to tread more gently on them when deriding Creationism and ID.
To which I say - BAH! It's a pretty evenhanded article though.