The Church of Dawkins

[Wolf]

Because we didn't get pissed off enough. These days, CNN entertains the fascinating notion that it's a forum for legitimate discussion. Don't ask me why, but that's what it seems like. Today they thought they'd take measures to bring about some of that "discussion" and posted this gem; http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html ; and this one; http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/meyer.intelligent.design/index.html . Stuck somewhere in the middle were these guys; http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/shermer.why.darwin.matters/index.html , because a debate isn't a debate unless some people are allowed to sit on the fence, right?

(Sigh.) Well, I really would rather not have this devolve into some sort of debate about the actual legitimacy of religion and the actual legitimacy of evolution. At this point, it should be consensus on this forum that a "conflict model" of the two ideas is horribly flawed, and serves only to promote the worst-aspects of religious worship or membership in the Darwin fan club.

Instead, I really want to roast Richard Dawkins. By every metric that he, himself promotes to discredit institutionalized religion, he is materially no different from Paul, the Apostle, or the modern Mother Church, both of which I'm sure he loathes to the extent that Constitutional protections of religion allow. The worst part is that he didn't even come up with evolution! He's not even a scientist! He's a hack-writer, writing pop-science in an effort to capitalize on some sort of market research that suggests that atheism will be big. I don't know, I'm inventing that part, but it makes sense, I guess, if you look at demographic trends.

In short, this is a man going far, far out of his way to make people uncomfortable in their beliefs, holding high above him a Holy Book that he, himself, did not write. I'm sure this criticism applied thoroughly to St. Peter, but everyone who was there is dead, so I can't be sure about that. My point is, whether or not he admits it, he is engaging in behavior that is virtually identical to the behavior that medieval Christianity and medieval Islam engaged in. "Our God [in this case, Dawkins' interpretation of Darwin's idea and specifically the point that it must prove that God doesn't exist] is bigger than your God, and if you believe in Him, you're silly." Why write books if you don't want to attract converts? Why claim that you're "promoting" freedom of thought when you're demanding that people recognize the superiority of one point of view over others? (Which, I'd really like to make clear, isn't that evolution is right--it is--but that God as a notion, somehow, is necessarily voided by the presence of evolution!)

I'd really appreciate the man more if he admitted that, logically, there's no material difference between him and the Church, but he feels he's righter, so you should follow him. What I don't appreciate is that he masquerades as some sort of "liberator of thought," (to be fair, probably in the same sense that St. Peter masqueraded around the streets of first century Rome) when in reality, he's advocating the view of someone else who died long ago (cough, St. Peter, cough) that he didn't meet, never spoke to, and does so at the expense of the body politic. If you actually read the middle-ground article (God help me if I could understand why you would), you'd see that there's nothing wrong with saying that "evolution is merely God's tool for creation" or "maybe God didn't create man, but that doesn't mean there's no God," but obviously these, utterly logical statements fall by the wayside when you have two factions, diametrically opposed, with First Commandments that leave no room for the other to maneuver without losing face. It's interesting, in fact, that Dawkins' most valued point--that God does not exist--is, in effect, the mirror image of the Church's own, very first commandment, that thou shalt have God, and no others. I suppose there's an argument to be made for the Church having already done this, but if you're going to be a jerk about imposing your belief structure on others, be honest about it, and then try to sell it. Don't use the terror-tactics of "you'll go to hell" or "you're not being rational and scientific" to compel belief. Jerks.

[Edric O]

The worst part is that he didn't even come up with evolution! He's not even a scientist! He's a hack-writer, writing pop-science in an effort to capitalize on some sort of market research that suggests that atheism will be big. I don't know, I'm inventing that part, but it makes sense, I guess, if you look at demographic trends.

Actually, he is a brilliant biologist, who has published a lot of very good science in his day. His views on the genetic determination of behaviour are really extreme, but they may well apply to some species.

The problem is that he recently decided to start writing about things of which he is pathetically ignorant. His understanding of philosophy, religion, or the social sciences barely goes above high school level. Dawkins is an example of that arrogant kind of intellectual who thinks that just because he is brilliant in one field, that makes him qualified to give expert opinions on everything. He should at least put some effort into understanding what he's writing about, as opposed to relying on popular misconceptions and throwing in half-baked biological explanations for every social phenomenon he cannot comprehend.

When Einstein wrote his opinions about things outside of physics (for example in his famous political article, "Why Socialism?"), he began by emphasizing that these things were not his field of study, and he was therefore writing as an interested layman rather than an expert. Dawkins would do well to learn some of that humility.

...membership in the Darwin fan club.

I feel sorry for Darwin. He was a quiet, moderate, non-confrontational person, and his work is being twisted and abused to score points in religious or political conflicts. He would certainly not appreciate being set up as some sort of Holy Prophet of Science.

Of course, this is neither the first nor the last time that a dead person gets a fan club that would horrify them if they were still alive.

[Wolf]

Quote from: Wolf on Today at 14:35:42

The worst part is that he didn't even come up with evolution! He's not even a scientist! He's a hack-writer, writing pop-science in an effort to capitalize on some sort of market research that suggests that atheism will be big. I don't know, I'm inventing that part, but it makes sense, I guess, if you look at demographic trends.

Actually, he is a brilliant biologist, who has published a lot of very good science in his day. His views on the genetic determination of behaviour are really extreme, but they may well apply to some species.

The problem is that he recently decided to start writing about things of which he is pathetically ignorant. His understanding of philosophy, religion, or the social sciences barely goes above high school level. Dawkins is an example of that arrogant kind of intellectual who thinks that just because he is brilliant in one field, that makes him qualified to give expert opinions on everything. He should at least put some effort into understanding what he's writing about, as opposed to relying on popular misconceptions and throwing in half-baked biological explanations for every social phenomenon he cannot comprehend.

When Einstein wrote his opinions about things outside of physics (for example in his famous political article, "Why Socialism?"), he began by emphasizing that these things were not his field of study, and he was therefore writing as an interested layman rather than an expert. Dawkins would do well to learn some of that humility.

I guessed. Figured it was 50/50--but to justify why I guessed, I at least told you that that was what I was doing. The illustration here is that, if one is going to be ignorant, one might as well also be honest. I think that, at least on this point, you and I are on the same page regarding Dawkins. Also, I don't think I had enough jokes for it to be properly considered a "roast," this is more of a "hating on."

[chatfsh]

Goody gum drops, Christmas has come early this year!

How seriously can you take anyone who claims that being raised as a Christian is far more damaging to an individual than childhood sexual abuse?

Richards Dawkins

[Dante]

Dawkins is an example of that arrogant kind of intellectual who thinks that just because he is brilliant in one field, that makes him qualified to give expert opinions on everything. He should at least put some effort into understanding what he's writing about, as opposed to relying on popular misconceptions and throwing in half-baked biological explanations for every social phenomenon he cannot comprehend.

There's a lot of that going about these days. "I've succeeded at X and therefore my thoughts on Y are surely right on the money." Some people really need to stick to what they're good at and leave the stuff they're bad at well alone.

Regarding Dawkins specifically, I'm in two minds about him. On the one hand, he's being very confrontational and somewhat disrespectful, which is neither a helpful nor a professional way to go about an argument. On the other hand, I rather enjoy the table-turning aspect of it all. "See, religious fanatics? Not so much fun when we've got fanatics too, is it? Nyah nyah."

So I suppose my feelings on him depend on whether I think a reasonable dialogue is a sensible option or not. And that depends entirely upon to whom the argument is directed.

[Edric O]

The last that I heard, Dawkins is refusing to engage in a debate with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer (PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University, undergraduate degrees in physics and geology).

I did not know that. But I'm not surprised. I remember a few years ago we were discussing Dawkins on this forum, and at the time he was working on a documentary (I use the word loosely) about religion. This involved a lot of interviews with religious people who did not have much knowledge of theology. Dawkins used their limited knowledge to make them say contradictory or irrational things, and thus "prove" that religion is stupid and that all religious people are idiots.

At the time, I noted how he seemed to pick only the easiest fights, and carefully avoided interviewing any actual theologians, or archbishops, or any of the people who would be able to crush his simplistic arguments. Basically, he refused to acknowledge the existence of any religious doctrine beyond that which is known by the average person in the street.

I remember saying that I would like to see a serious theologian challenge Dawkins to a debate. Now it seems that has happened, and Dawkins ran away from the challenge. That says a lot. Dawkins strikes me as the sort of playground bully who refuses to fight anyone his own size.

[chatfsh]

Yes, sort of pathetic, isn't it?

Indeed, and as a result of Dawkins astounding tendency to speak so abusively on subjects that he obviously hasn