Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Richard Dawkins' lecture series: "The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science.
Harvard University Gazette ^ | 13 November 2003 | Ken Gewertz, Harvard News Office

Posted on 11/15/2003 3:51:38 PM PST by PatrickHenry

Speaking by phone from his office at Oxford University, biologist Richard Dawkins politely declined to talk in detail about his upcoming lecture series at Harvard, "The Science of Religion and the Religion of Science."

Dawkins, who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, will deliver this year's Tanner Lectures on Human Values Nov. 19, 20, and 21. While he would prefer to let the lectures speak for themselves, he had no such reluctance about discussing his recent book, "A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love" (Houghton Mifflin, 2003).

The title is from a letter by Charles Darwin: "What a book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horridly cruel works of nature." Darwin was no believer in the "argument by design," the notion that the world's living systems are so exquisitely engineered, so beautifully interdependent, that only God could be responsible for the order they display; Dawkins has no use for this idea either.

In the book's title essay, he affirms his belief in natural selection, not God, as the driving force behind the order of the natural world. But at the same time, he urges his fellow humans to stand up against the blind, wasteful competition that without the slightest hint of intention gives shape and order to nature.

"As an academic scientist," he writes, "I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature. But at the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs."

This combination of groundbreaking scientific theory and engaged cultural and philosophical criticism has characterized Dawkins' career, which has paralleled in many respects that of his friend and sometime professional antagonist, the late Stephen Jay Gould. Like Gould, Dawkins has the rare ability to write about science in an engaging, accessible, and challenging way.

He first book, "The Selfish Gene" (1976), an international best seller, argued that the gene, not the individual organism, is the significant unit of natural selection. In his second book, "The Extended Phenotype" (1982), he further developed this idea, suggesting that all animal behavior, including the complex social and cultural behavior of humans, could be seen as a manifestation of the gene's struggle to survive and replicate itself.

His later books have combined science with polemics, arguing that only the theory of evolution provides an adequate explanation for how life on earth assumed its present form, and demonstrating, often in a strikingly evocative and vivid way, how evolution works. These books include: "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design" (1986); "River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life" (1995); "Climbing Mount Improbable" (1996); and "Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder" (1998).

What might the author of these books have to say about religion? First, it seems clear that an evolutionist who views human culture as an outgrowth of our genetic code (our "extended phenotype") must take religion seriously, at least as a powerful and persistent aspect of culture.

Yet it is highly unlikely that Dawkins will embrace the notion that science and religion are converging, that they support each other's conclusions and point of view and can exist in a happy synthesis.

In an essay titled "The Great Convergence," he affirms the essential incongruence of science and religion's basic premises and questions the integrity of scientists who suggest otherwise. But he is quite willing to acknowledge a feeling of religious awe in the presence of nature's wonders.

"I do think - and this is what my second lecture will be about - that there is something quasireligious in science, the sense of awe, the sense of wonder, the sense of almost spiritual response to the universe, which I believe I have and many other scientists have developed to a high degree, but I would resist confusing that with the supernatural."

By the supernatural, Dawkins has in mind forces that ostensibly override the laws of nature. He characterizes the religious view as the belief "that there are capricious interventions by some sort of supernatural being, some sort of intelligence, that interfere with the world, that interfere with the universe, in ways that violate the laws of physics. My view of the laws of physics is that they are at present no doubt somewhat mysterious, but they are lawful in the sense that they are not violated. Capricious things don't happen. There are no bogeymen, there are no poltergeists that start moving things around at will when people pray or when people cast spells or that kind of thing," he said.

In an essay titled "Good and Bad Reasons for Believing," originally written as a letter to his 10-year-old daughter, Dawkins extols direct observation and scientific investigation as reliable methods of arriving at truth, and dismisses as spurious the kinds of evidence on which most religions base their claims - tradition, authority, and revelation.

Having demolished its evidential basis, Dawkins questions why religion should be accorded special treatment. In "Dolly and the Cloth Heads," he asks why clergy, whose ignorance of science is often stunning, should be taken seriously when they opine on subjects such as cloning. In an essay on the events of Sept. 11, 2001, "A Time to Stand Up," he calls religion "the most inflammatory enemy-labeling device in history," and calls on people of intellect to resolve "to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe."

Far from being a sustained attack on religion, the book contains many pieces in which Dawkins pays tribute to individuals of the past and present who embody the sort of clear-eyed dedication to truth that he admires. There are several essays on Darwin's prescience and the explanatory power of his ideas; a moving essay on the progressive British educator Frederick William Sanderson; a eulogy for Dawkins' friend Douglas Adams, author of "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"; and several essays reflecting Dawkins' admiration for and ongoing dialogue with Stephen Jay Gould.

Whatever his subject, Dawkins is a powerful writer who never soft-pedals his ideas or minces words. No doubt his lectures next week will be equally provocative and challenging.

The Tanner Lectures on Human Values is a nonprofit corporation administered at the University of Utah. It is funded by an endowment and other gifts received by the University of Utah from Obert Clark Tanner and Grace Adams Tanner.

At the request of a founding trustee of the Tanner Lectures on Human Values, these lectures are dedicated to the memory of Clarence Irving Lewis '06, Ph.D. '10, who served on the Faculty of Arts and Sciences from 1920 to 1953.

Co-sponsored by the Office of the President and the University Center for Ethics and the Professions, the series is designed to advance scholarly and scientific learning in the field of human values, and the purpose embraces the entire range of moral, artistic, intellectual, and spiritual values, both individual and social.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last
Everybody be nice.
1 posted on 11/15/2003 3:51:38 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Scully; LogicWings; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
2 posted on 11/15/2003 3:52:31 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Sounds like ole Dawkins can make up his mind...Oh, the foolishness of mankind.

An explosion from nothing, real sound theory you evolutionist have there.

3 posted on 11/15/2003 3:59:28 PM PST by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I don't believe a thing he says.


4 posted on 11/15/2003 4:00:20 PM PST by South40 (My vote helped defeat cruz bustamante; did yours?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South40
I don't believe in evolution, but I can tell you this, it sure looks like that TIE evolved from some ugly fabric genes!
5 posted on 11/15/2003 4:03:24 PM PST by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: South40
You are a wee bit confused. Your pic is of some game show guy named Richard Dawson, and it comes from this website: Game Shows. I hope the remainder of your postings will be more informative.
6 posted on 11/15/2003 4:07:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: South40
This is Richard Dawkins:


7 posted on 11/15/2003 4:11:10 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
It was a joke!
8 posted on 11/15/2003 4:13:31 PM PST by South40 (My vote helped defeat cruz bustamante; did yours?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: South40; PatrickHenry
Can you two families stop feuding?
9 posted on 11/15/2003 4:17:01 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"But at the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs."

Gosh, how ever did meaningless evolution produce such an attitude?

10 posted on 11/15/2003 4:18:22 PM PST by Trickyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Having demolished its evidential basis

With a subordinate clause, that is.

11 posted on 11/15/2003 4:20:16 PM PST by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Actually...I think they're the same guy.


12 posted on 11/15/2003 4:32:08 PM PST by South40 (My vote helped defeat cruz bustamante; did yours?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"I do think - and this is what my second lecture will be about - that there is something quasireligious in science, the sense of awe, the sense of wonder, the sense of almost spiritual response to the universe, which I believe I have and many other scientists have developed to a high degree, but I would resist confusing that with the supernatural."

Nature is quite experienced in shock and awe.


13 posted on 11/15/2003 4:34:05 PM PST by visualops (Freedom is worth fighting for,dying for, and standing for- the advance of freedom leads to peace-GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Can you two families stop feuding?

LOL!

14 posted on 11/15/2003 5:06:10 PM PST by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: South40
Actually...I think they're the same guy.

Can't you tell? Richard Dawkins' brain is bigger.

15 posted on 11/15/2003 5:07:40 PM PST by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
In an essay on the events of Sept. 11, 2001, "A Time to Stand Up," he calls religion "the most inflammatory enemy-labeling device in history,"...

Is he talking about anybody we know?

16 posted on 11/15/2003 5:08:05 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Here's some material on Richard Dinkins. I expect this pic to appear soon on creationist websites, whenever Richard Dawkins is mentioned. Or the talk show guy's pic. Anything but a true pic. Ain't creation science wonderful?
17 posted on 11/15/2003 5:17:54 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Ah. Found another pic for the creationists to use: Richard Dworkin. "Creationism is never having to say you're sorry."


18 posted on 11/15/2003 5:29:42 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
One more, then I'll quit. "Creation research" is great stuff. This is Richard Hawkins:


19 posted on 11/15/2003 5:34:52 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
And then there's the Stephen Jay Gould / Steven J. Gold business. The latter is a Marxist political writer. The former is an evolutionary theorist, perhaps a bit lefty in his politics, but who seldom if ever wrote about politics. Some creationists really like to confuse those two for the purposes of dismissing Gould as a communist.
20 posted on 11/15/2003 5:49:56 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson