A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

The Spectator (UK) ^ | December 9, 2006 | by Rod Liddle

[Old Professer]

All this is fine for as noble as a mere man can hope to be; but a mockery of what others dreams are made must be a perverse comment on what role society plays in the vast scheme of the universe.

[Popman]

Richard Dawkins has a "god complex"

Ironic isn't it?

[M Kehoe]

A book against belief written with the fervour of one who believes utterly in non-belief.

Sounds like a religion to me. Kinda like Islam.

Has Dawkins ever mentioned or discussed his soul? Or does he say he doesn't have a soul?

Methinks the "Spaghetti Man," in the sky is amused at Dawkins twaddle. Then again, maybe not.

5.56mm

[RunningWolf]

Here is more from a source that is not on the deny/link only list.

A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

The God Delusion is, like all the best books, riven with beguiling contradictions, full of interesting holes into which one can clamber and find oneself instantly transported to an alternative universe.

It is Dawkins's broadside against God and those who are stupid enough to believe in him, or her, or it. A book against belief written with the fervour of one who believes utterly in non-belief.

A book which insists that science must be a humble undertaking but which — driven by the logic of his argument — contains Dawkins's own abbrievated version of the Ten Commandments (for which thanks, mate).

A book that, for a disinterested non-believer, shows a simple and touching faith in the scientific creed of Darwinism — which theory, only 147 years after its inception, is already looking rather flawed and careworn.

And finally, as a neat little irony, a book that will trouser its author an enormous sackload of dosh, not because it is beautifully written and at times exquisitely argued, but because it is about that thing which the author believes must be banished — God.

Which brings me to the difficult stuff — and Darwinism. It is a creed to which Dawkins cleaves with the fervour of the fundamentalist, the true believer. And it is the real chink in his armour.

For example, because Darwin showed us that life forms progress from the simple to the complex over hundreds of thousands of years of gradual modification, it therefore follows (according to Dawkins) that there cannot have been a divine being present before the amoebae swam in those soupy oceans at Earth's toddler stage — because he would have had to be more complex than those organisms which followed him. And that doesn't fit with the theory.

But what if the theory, in its entirety, doesn't hold — as Dawkins concedes might be possible? Even now, a century and a half after Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the notion of gradual, cumulative change in every case is being challenged (most recently by the evo-devo school, which believes that sudden change can occur within species within a single generation). Like all scientific theories, Darwinism will be amended — perhaps beyond recognition. Perhaps it will be discarded entirely. Either way, disavowing a divine being because it doesn't quite fit in with another here-today-gone-tomorrow theory seems a tad peremptory.

The question Dawkins can never satisfactorily answer is: what if Darwin was wrong? And yet, as a scientist, he must be aware that the likelihood is that Darwin was wrong here or there. In which case, where does that leave his philosophical argument?

[Texas Eagle]

I think that the Hogan's Heros actor was Richard Dawson.

Oh, that's right. He was married to Elizabeth Taylor for a while. I'd forgotten about that.

[hosepipe]

Dawkins faith that faith is silly is a good syllabus of/for Faith....

[ASOC]

Another spin from Dawkins' work is

"Candle" by John Barnes (a very good review here) See also "The Sky so Big and Black" for a follow on story. Barnes treats Memes as a kind of mind virus.

Another view of the Meme Wars is that of Dr David Brin, who in 1989, said that after the fall of the Soviet Union the West would see times that "give way to an era of dire strife with some version of frenetic, male-centered fundamentalism" perhaps seen today as Islams radial elements.

In the end, many view this current iteration of conflict in the ME as the infant start of Meme War - information manipulation taken to 'weapons grade" status in an effort to control the levers of power.

Of course, YMMV and things are just fine.

[snarks_when_bored]

Let's wait and see what he believes when he is on his deathbed.

With respect to that sentiment, here's a pertinent paragraph:

Though Boswell was energetic in his pursuit of biographical material, he was capable of ignoring facts that seemed irreconcilable with a wider truth, or even of inventing facts to suit his purpose when the psychological need to do so was strong enough. In 1776, for example, he had conducted a long interview with the dying philosopher David Hume, whose biography he was hoping to write. Boswell was distressed by Hume's consistent atheism, and earnestly tried to persuade Hume to recant. When Hume died, having steadfastly refused to so, Boswell was very disturbed. That such a powerful intellect could contemplate oblivion composedly was upsetting; for years Boswell read and re-read Hume's works, and practised arguments to refute them. At last, nearly eight years later, he dreamed that he had found Hume's diary, "and read some beautiful passages in it", revealing that Hume had indeed been "a Christian and a very pious man". This dream reassured him, and afterwards he was tranquil again.

(from the essay, "Doctor Johnson's Second Wife", by Adam Sisman)

[GSlob]

Well, the public understanding of science is infinitesimal, and that's how it should be. The epoch when it was possible for a single person to have encyclopaedic knowledge has ended centuries ago. Now it takes a good part of a lifetime to master even a small parcel, and the number and variety of these parcels is such that en masse the public is ignorant, and will remain so. Thus, his Simonyi chair in "public understanding of science" needs to be abolished.

[mamelukesabre]

hahahaha!

I remember him. He was always kissing everyone.

[TaxMe]

I always thought it ironic that a person would have faith that no deity exists rather than have faith that one does exist. Just as one cannot scientifically prove that God exists, one can also not disprove it either.

Also, isn't there a law of physics that, given time, chaos will prevail over organization? How does this fit with evolution?

[TaxMe]

I always thought it ironic that a person would have faith that no deity exists rather than have faith that one does exist. Just as one cannot scientifically prove that God exists, one can also not disprove it either.

Also, isn't there a law of physics that, given time, chaos will prevail over organization? How does this fit with evolution?