Posted on 12/18/2006 8:12:55 AM PST by SJackson
Reviewers have not been kind to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, professor of something called "the public understanding of science" at Oxford. Critics have found it to be the atheist's mirror image of Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism - long on in-your-face rhetoric and offensively dismissive of all those holding an opposing view.
Princeton University philosopher Thomas Nagel found Dawkins's "attempts at philosophy, along with a later chapter on religion and ethics, particularly weak." Prof. Terry Eagleton began his London Review of Books critique: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the British Book of Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
Dawkins's "central argument" is that because every complex system must be created by an even more complex system, an intelligent designer would have had to be created by an even greater super-intellect.
New York Times reviewer Jim Holt described this argument as the equivalent of the child's question, "Mommy, who created God?"
Nagel provides the grounds for rejecting this supposed proof. People do not mean by God "a complex physical inhabitant of the natural world" but rather a Being outside the physical world - the "purpose or intention of a mind without a body, capable nevertheless of creating and forming the entire physical world."
He points out further that the same kind of problem Dawkins poses to the theory of design plagues evolutionary theory, of which Dawkins is the preeminent contemporary popularizer. Evolution depends on the existence of pre-existing genetic material - DNA - of incredible complexity, the existence of which cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.
So who created DNA? Dawkins's response to this problem, writes Nagel, is "pure hand-waving" - speculation about billions of alternative universes and the like.
As a charter member of the Church of Darwin, Dawkins not only subscribes to evolutionary theory as the explanation for the morphology of living creatures, but to the sociobiologists' claim that evolution explains all human behavior. For sociobiologists, human development, like that of all other species, is the result of a ruthless struggle for existence. Genes seek to reproduce themselves and compete with one another in this regard. In the words of the best-known sociobiologist, Harvard's E.O. Wilson, "An organism is only DNA's way of making more DNA."
THAT PICTURE of human existence, argues the late Australian philosopher of science David Stove in Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution, constitutes a massive slander against the human race, as well as a distortion of reality.
The Darwinian account, for instance, flounders on widespread altruistic impulses that have always characterized humans in all places and times. Nor can it explain why some men act as heroes even though by doing so they risk their own lives and therefore their capacity to reproduce, or why societies should idealize altruism and heroism. How, from an evolutionary perspective, could such traits have developed or survived?
The traditional Darwinian answer is that altruism is but an illusion, or a veneer of civilization imposed upon our real natures. That answer fails to explain how that veneer could have come about in the first place. How could the first appeal to higher moral values have ever found an author or an audience? David Stove offers perhaps the most compelling reason for rejecting the views of those who deny the very existence of human altruism: "I am not a lunatic."
IN 1964, biologist W.D. Hamilton first expounded a theory explaining how much of what appears to us as altruism is merely genes' clever way of assuring the propagation of their type via relatives sharing that gene pool. The preeminent defender of Darwin - Dawkins - popularized this theory in The Selfish Gene.
Among the predictions Hamilton made is: "We expect to find that no one is prepared to sacrifice his life for any single person, but that everyone will sacrifice it for more than two brothers [or offspring], or four half-brothers, or eight first cousins," because those choices result in a greater dissemination of a particular gene pool.
To which Stove responds: "Was an expectation more obviously false than this one ever held (let alone published) by any human being?" Throughout history, men have sacrificed themselves for those bearing no relationship to them, just as others have refused to do so for more than two brothers. Here is a supposedly scientific theory bearing no relationship to any empirical reality ever observed. Stove offers further commonsense objections: Parents act more altruistically toward their offspring than siblings toward one another, even though in each pair there is an overlap of half the genetic material. If Hamilton's theory were true, we should expect to find incest widespread. In fact, it is taboo. Finally, the theory is predicated on the dubious proposition that animals, or their genes, can tell a sibling from a cousin, and a cousin from other members of the same species.
SOCIOBIOLOGY, Stove demonstrates, is a religion and genes are its gods. In traditional religion, humans exist for the greater glory of God; in sociobiology, humans and all other living things exist for the benefit of their genes. "We are... robot-vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes," writes Dawkins. Like God, Dawkins's genes are purposeful agents, far smarter than man.
He describes how a certain cuckoo parasitically lays its eggs in the nest of the reed warbler, where the cuckoo young get more food by virtue of their wider mouths and brighter crests, as a process in which the cuckoo genes have tricked the reed warbler. Thus, for Dawkins, genes are capable of conceiving a strategy no man could have thought of and of putting into motion the complicated engineering necessary to execute that strategy.
Writing in 1979, Prof. R.D. Alexander made the bald assertion: "We are programmed to use all our effort, and in fact to use our lives, in production." And yet it is obvious that most of what we do has nothing to do with reproduction, and never more so than at the present, when large parts of the civilized world are becoming rapidly depopulated. Confronted with these obvious facts about human nature and behavior, sociobiologists respond by ascribing them to "errors of heredity."
As Stove tartly observes: "Because their theory of man is badly wrong, they say that man is badly wrong; that he incorporates many and grievous biological errors." But the one thing a scientific theory may never do, Stove observes, is "reprehend the facts."
It may observe them, or predict new facts to be discovered, but not criticize those before it. The only question that remains is: How could so many intelligent men say so many patently silly things? For Dawkins, the answer would no doubt be one of those evolutionary "misfires," such as that to which he attributes religious belief.
And it is not 'anti-science' to not buy into the basis or the conclusions of evolutionary beliefs. Nor is it anti-science to see the obvious faults and weaknesses of 'the data' the belief is built upon.
Your comment here alone is enough to demonstrate my point.
As more often than not, it seems, the self described intellectuals among us continually disappoint me with their lack of ethical behavior, yet they are the first ones to point it out in someone else. There are terms for people such as that...
In addition, many of the crevo threads turned into mudslinging contests"...and the Elephant Man had a little puffiness around the eyes." Of course, I say that a lot... :')
It is useless to continue this circular argument when you wont even stipulate that the Theory of Evolution is what it is. You are twisting it into something it has nothing to do with, in order to discredit it.
"What I want to know is: What is the ordering principle or natural law that accounts for this? "
Explain to me what an ordering principle of "natural law" (whatis that?) is? That has nothing to do with science.
I will say that evolution and geography are almost perfectly compatible. In fact, if the geological record conflicted with the Theory and the fossil record it would be a huge problem. (obviously it fits just about perfectly) The Plate tectonics Theory also bolsters evolution. These are scientific disciplines that could cause problems for evolution if they were contradictary.
No matter what scientists who work in this field tell you, you refuse to accept that abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. You refuse to accept that the only thing needed for evolution to work is life that can reproduce. No matter how much you try to widen the scope of the Theory, the definition will remain the same:
In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by changes in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones.
All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record.
Show me where abiogenesis has anything to do with that. PLEASE.
Also, what do you think is responsible for the vast diversity of life on earth? And how would you explain the fossil record? Let's see how well your ideas stand to scrutiny.
What if the Jews are right and you die and God tells you you've been worshipping a false prophet, he is not my son?
You're taking the same chance I'm taking, I'm your religious equal.
Taking Pascal's wager and replying with a counter-dilemma of higher multiplicity.
I've seen atheists using that one close to twenty years ago...
what are the obvious faults and weaknesses of "the data" that the "belief" is built on? SInce they are obvious, this should be easy for you to answer.
There are contradictions between both essential teachings, and religious tradition, in Christianity and Islam; as well as Christianity vs. Hinduism. Therefore they cannot *all* be correct.
Don't play at strawmen. It's lame.
If he's not the son of God and he was just an old fashioned loony-tune like all the "second comings" we have popping up all the time, how do you think God feels about him.
People said that of Jesus at the time, too. Are you that impressed with yourself that really think you are the *first one* who had the brilliant stroke of insight to mock Jesus and taunt Christians?
How come God only appeared to people before camera's etc. he's had a lot of years, do you believe that God used to appear before these mortals? Really?
People disbelieved back then, too. "And He could do no mighty works their, because of their disbelief."
But there are contemporary accounts of miracles, even in the 20th century.
Make up your mind. Two sentences ago you essentially said "what if Jesus was a false prophet or looney-tune". And now you turn around and say "well, why did God only appear back then?". They cannot both be true (if as it appears you are primarily addressing Christians).
The fact that you are able to take either of a pair of opposite assertions and use it as a base to contradict Christianity makes it look like you are not arguing from goo d faith. If you wish to say for example that "God only appearing back then" somehow falsifies religious belief, there are two hurdles to cross. First, you must demonstrate that God is not appearing today--it would be disingenuous to allow for tales of two thousand years ago as being "God" and then to dismiss out of hand stories of a similar bent today as being merely rumor and therefore not even possible evidence of God. Second, you must demonstrate not that your definitions of theism, but Christian theology as it has been expounded by major denominations for a long time (this helps to weed out crackpots) requires that God *continually* operate in human affairs, in ways plain enough that they are *disposative* of the issue of whether God exists. E.g. find a theological explanation of "why" X number of thousands of years went by between Abraham and Jesus. Why that long of a time frame? Etc. etc.
Through all these wars, etc., he's never appeared. All these children molested and mutilated and he's never made even the briefest of appearances. All those Jews being stuffed into ovens and he couldn't pop his head out ONCE.
Does God never intervene through human agency? And what of the brutal attacks on Hebrews in the Old Testament? Read Psalm 137-- "Happy shall he be who requites you with what you have done to us! Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
Or for that matter--it is Christmas--Herod's slaughter of the male infants around Bethlehem. Recall that the New Testament writers cite this as an instance of prophecy fulfilled. "Rachel weeping for her children" and all that.
And of course, the worldwide symbol of Christianity is a man being executed by torture.
So how in the world do you expect anyone on reflection to be cowed by your assertion that religion is unaware of suffering?
Trolling is fun, I suppose. But do try to get more skillful at it.
Cheers!
I'm not a troll, I just don't believe in the supernatural, I'm not playing strawmen, there's just a million times more evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist that it does.
It doesn't take any skill to prove the supernatural doesn't exist, it will take supernatural skills to prove that it does. So you belive that God spoke to mortals then, ok.
"Maybe they've seen the vociferously religious at work and it turned them off..."
That's like writing off all coffee mugs in terms of their ability to hold coffee because one day you happen to cut yourself on a broken one.
If someone gave you a hard push and shoved you, you would think them obnoxious. What if that person pushed you out of the way of a bus barreling down on you. You would not think them obnoxious then. You would think them wonderful because they saved your life. The thing about some of us "religious" people is that we live with the knowledge that many around us, some we are very close to, are going to a fate far worth than death, hell. Since we care we want to warn them. What would you do if you knew your neighbor was slipping into hell forever. Some of us "religious" people may at times seem obnoxious, but we just don't want you to be eternally damned because you forfeited your chance for eternal salvation that comes only through Jesus Christ The LORD. He gave His life to pay for all of our sins so that we can live eternally in heaven, in a wonderful, blissful place full of love rather than burning in everlasting destruction.
The thing that disturbs me are the "religious" people who keep their mouths shut. They know that others are in extremely serious peril. Some won't preach the gospel to you because they are afraid of not being liked. It is the Christian who may not be the best at conveying the message but cares enough to try who is your hero. If (and I sincerely hope you do) you end up in heaven, you will some day thank them. If (I very sincerely hope you don't) you end up in hell, it will be the "religious" ones who didn't tell you that you will bitterly curse forever.
appears to us as altruism is merely genes' clever way of assuring the propagation of their type
this theory in The Selfish Gene
because those choices result in a greater dissemination of a particular gene pool
that animals, or their genes, can tell
is a religion and genes are its gods
exist for the benefit of their genes
genes are capable of conceiving a strategy no man could have thought of and of putting into motion the complicated engineering necessary to execute that strategy
genes are purposeful agents, far smarter than man
the selfish molecules known as genes,"
This gene intelligence and motivation is woven throughout much evo writing. For them, it is like all genes have some sort of collective intelligence. What they don't realize is that the intelligence that runs the universe is God.
Doubt has held a respected place in Christian theology going all the way back to the Apostle Thomas. Doubters, as any experienced churchgoer knows, very often occupy half the pews at any given service. Agnosticism is a form of doubt, though admittedly usually more pronounced than the simpler form floating through the heads of your fellow congregants on Sunday.
I wouldn't be so quick to condemn agnostics. Almost every believer experiences a dark night of the soul at one time or another. It might even happen to you.
If you're looking for a Biblical based answer, a whole bunch of people were created on the sixth day. Adam & Eve weren't named in the first chapter of Genesis.
If not from two other humans now THERES a newsflash, a blockbuster of a story.. A human coming ((NOT)) from two other humans but born in some other fashion.. Its absolutely DNAilicious.. would rival the birth of Jesus..
From a ToE perspective, evolution doesn't work on a single individual or pair, but instead we're dealing with population groups. When a mutation offers an advantage & it is a dominant trait, it can be passed on to the next generation when only one of the parents passes it on. When it is recessive it requires two parents with the mutation in order for it to be expressed in the next generation. The change is so gradual, you would recognize both parents as the same kind of "animal", so we're always talking like breeding with like with evolution, though a portion of those "like animals" would have the desirable or advantageous traits offering their progeny a survival advantage over the progeny produced by parents without the advantageous trait to pass on.
How is evolution used in developing antibiotics, and in fermentation? Are you talking about adaptation of a species to external stimuli, or the changing of a species, into another species, through random allelle changes? Because "evolution" is used in a lot of definitions, to mean different things.
Viruses are pure parasites, unable to live without some sort of cell as a host. This would have to mean that they couldn't have "evolved" from anything, since fully cellular lifeforms would have to "devolve" to become viruses. So either you're looking at devolution, or they formed after more complex lifeforms did. The same goes with prions.
"In other words, the ancestors of fruit fly B and C couldn't make babies even though they both came from fruit fly A. The generations birthed from Fruit Fly A branched off into two seperate species."
"That is evolution plain and simple."
Were they still fruit flies?
Scholasticism isn't science. Science as we know it (observation => hypothesis => experimentation/observation => revision = repeat => theory) didn't begin until the late 16th/early 17th century. The classical Greeks did the observation => hypothesis thingy, but didn't take it much from there.
Remind me never to confide in you what I got my wife for her birthday.
Heard about this billboard campaign and Web site last week and this seems a good time to share it -
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.