'Mommy, why are atheists dim-witted?'

Jerusalem Post ^ | 12-18-06 | JONATHAN ROSENBLUM

[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.

[csense]

It is often said here, by people such a yourself, that if your faith is so fragile it can't bear the weight of simple criticism, then there couldn't be much conviction to that faith to begin with.

You are the only one who has the power to choose what to believe, and what to reject....and the choice is yours to own.

We are all susceptible to ruminations and transgressions. Such is the curse that Adam and Eve have befallen us since eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but I tell you here and now, that when I shake myself of all things influential, and I stop and look around, I know in my heart and in my mind, and in my soul, that I was created above all else. This I can attest to with true conviction.

It bothers me not if there existed not a single person who thought likewise (nor if there were any who liked to use double negatives for poetic effect ) for God is my creator and Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior.

You and I have disagreed in the past, and have Even locked horns on certain occasions, but I implore you to rethink your position.

Merry Christmas, and may the peace of the lord be with you.

[LiberalGunNut]

"Why does it need to be *extra-Biblical*"

Well most serious historians cross reference the bible with other sources when it comes to historical record. For instance, the lineage presented in the book of Kings is thought to be fairly accurate, where as the book of Job is thought to be a parable based on similiar extra-biblical myths. There is very vague extra-biblical evidence that there was a man called King David as well but the story of David and Goliath is almost certainly a fable.

The point is NO DOCUMENT is taken as fact unless there is corroborating evidence be it documentary, scientific, or achaeological. For instance there is a lot of historical material found in Homer's THE ILIAD, but does that mean we should believe in ZEUS and POSEIDON? Of course not, but historians are pretty sure that the Trojan War happened. I would put the Old Testament on the same level as (probably slightly more historical) the Iliad.

The four gospels were written at least two hundred years after the death of Jesus. Now even though there isn't really
any extra-biblical evidence that the man even existed, most historians believe he did. But hundreds of years of oral tradition tends to amplify a story. Along with the fact that the gospels don't even line up and all of the books on the life of Jesus that are not in the bible. Around 200 years after the death of Jesus, books on his life became something of a fad. Treating the bible like any other document at that time, it is only logical to assume that myth mixed heavily with history. This is bolstered by the similarity between the supernatural aspects of the life of Jesus to figures in other religions. (Osiris, Mithras, etc) These other myths were around long before Jesus and their similarities are striking.

Now as to the question of someone being divine, I ask, how can one document prove that? What makes the stories of the Hebrew god more credible than divinity stories from other cultures?

Divinity is a belief. Unless some being comes down from the sky and demonstrates powers similiar to those stated in the bible, it will remain a belief.

[LiberalGunNut]

I'm 100% with Coyoteman. Science may be limited to what we can observe (for now) but it has a better track record than the thousands of supernatural tales throughout the world. I'll stick with science as well.

[LiberalGunNut]

"Too many of you "Evo" guys are just "Johnny one-notes." FWIW."

Partly because I spent half this thread defining what Evolution is and isn't over and over and over again.

And on that quote, why God conceal himself and then punish people for not believing he exists? Whats with all the mind games? What a jerk!

[cornelis]

You need more than science to build a civilization.

[cornelis]

What a jerk!

Other people have shaek their fist Nature.

[jwalsh07]

And on that quote, why God conceal himself and then punish people for not believing he exists? Whats with all the mind games? What a jerk!

I see you are not a man of your word. Oh well, not many left who are.

[cornelis]

What a jerk! Other people shake their fist at Nature.

[LiberalGunNut]

For the story of Adam and Eve to be true, there would have to be significant inbreeding and that has disastrous results. ANd you would not be able to account for the huge racial diversity throughout the world. There is a laundry list of scientific reason why it is just not possible. Not to mention, the bible itself has big gaping plot holes. Like who did Cain marry?

[flevit]

sorry, I didn't see you waiting patiently. I owe you one.

[narby]

when I shake myself of all things influential, and I stop and look around, I know in my heart and in my mind, and in my soul, that I was created above all else.

If you insist that humans were "created" instantly out of the dust of ground, then you're believing in a fantasy. On the other hand, if you believe that humans are a special species, guided by God via evolution over billions of years, then at least you're not denying the plentiful evidence at hand.

Some Christians believe the former, some the latter, and both consider themselves "created" by God.

[flevit]

but only one (genesis is quoted by Jesus numerous times) has ever had the seal of approval by the one who referred to himself as "the truth" that survived the 'test of time'as well as 'well thought out' attempts to exterminate that view. ("I am the way,truth and light"). so the evidence I showed, would suggest the gospels are accurately recorded.

the evidence doesn't change, but the interpretation by fallible and biased man can and does...it all depends on where you start.

you don't accept (I understand that) a priori that God has a motive of humbling man, 'so that none may boast', using what is 'foolish to to humble the wise', 'professing to be wise, they become fools'
'to discover brings glory to men to conceal brings glory to God'. But I do, because this too was given a seal of approval by 'the truth'.

so to suggest that a mass extinction and the evidence there of, happened as described in genesis (almost 100% of land animals dead), is "foolish" according to the world renowned experts, well I would agree (but they still could be wrong). I know that thats not what the experts say, I know they interpret the layers/layering as a timeline, with multiple extinction events, as opposed to catastrophism(sp?) hydrodynamic settling/pressures on an unknown(able)level. and similiarities between groups,dna, etc. . as relational with no 'known' taxonomic limits.

but I do hold out the possiblity that looks can be deceiving esp. if one does not hold firm words and the warning of the one who referred to himself as 'the truth'

[csense]

If you insist that humans were "created" instantly out of the dust of ground, then you're believing in a fantasy.

There is only one who wants me to believe that such is a fantasy, and with all due respect to your intelligence and conviction, that being certainly is not you.

You are but a mere messenger, just as I, but my message is life....yours is death.

On the other hand, if you believe that humans are a special species, guided by God via evolution over billions of years, then at least you're not denying the plentiful evidence at hand.

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder, and such evidence as mine can be beheld by anyone, including a child. That is real evidence my friend.

Some Christians believe the former, some the latter, and both consider themselves "created" by God.

Some people believe in all manner of things. I prefer to believe the words of my Creator...he that is, was, and always will be...and these words do and stand on their own such that even a child can understand. Such is the nature of Genesis one.

It is we who make things difficult where they need not be.

[music_code]

For the story of Adam and Eve to be true, there would have to be significant inbreeding and that has disastrous results. ANd you would not be able to account for the huge racial diversity throughout the world. There is a laundry list of scientific reason why it is just not possible. Not to mention, the bible itself has big gaping plot holes. Like who did Cain marry?

Adam and Eve were created in a pure state by God. Therefore, intermarriage among their offspring would not have been the problem that it is for us today.

Their DNA no doubt contained all of the elements necessary for the racial diversity among the world's inhabitabts today.

Were today's scientists on hand to personally observe the creation of Adam and Eve?

Big gaping plot holes...Cain would have married one of his sisters or some other close relative. Significant degeneration of the gene pool did not occur for many hundreds of years after Adam and Eve were created. By the time of Moses (which had to be at least 2600 years later) God prohibited intermarriage on moral grounds. No doubt this prohibition also encompassed the fact that by then inbreeding would be dangerous, producing defective offspring.

[music_code]

Evolution is an observation. Observations don't morally compel us to do anything.

Ummm...evolution is a religious point of view, not an observation.

[csense]

[Heartlander]

But you guys CANNOT accept the ToE no matter what logic, observation or evidence tells you because it conflicts with your pre-established belief in a 6,000 year old collection of books. Science seeks to find answers to questions and to ask more questions. You guys have a pre-established answer and are only looking for validation. No matter what the facts are, they have to be shoehorned into your pre-conceived notion.

First, telling me what I cannot accept based on a little correspondence between us is extremely naive. I don’t reject the ToE unless you consider neo-Darwinism and the ToE one in the same (see Dawkins et al.). For science to exclaim that there is no other reason other than ultimately purely natural causes for; mankind’s existence, morals, intelligence, the beauty we see, love, and our consciousness - is exponentially more naïve then your statement due to how it reduces our very being (especially with science having infinitely less knowledge with the limited correspondence it has had with our universe and the limits science now imposes).

It is one thing to say we are made up of natural matter and materials, but entirely different to say that we are the ultimate result of the aforementioned with both meaning and purpose being an imaginary construct within our ‘material mind’.

One big difference between me and you is that if scientific evidence or observation emerged that totally discounted the ToE, my whole world or belief system would not come crashing down. It would actually be pretty exciting!

This, again, is naïve. I at one time allowed myself to view the world through the eyes of purely and ultimately natural causes. I became a Christian and my belief system ’did’ come crashing down (and hard). But, I must admit, it is very exciting.

Merry Christmas to you and your family LiberalGunNut.

And Betty, Merry Christmas to you and your family. (We will have a house full of young and old this year - pray for us;-) May God’s blessings continue to be with you (I hope that you guys have great success with your book)

[music_code]

Dude...the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is overwhelming (more than 5,000 complete manuscripts). Compare this with about 10 copies of the Iliad.

Jesus did not regard King David as a fictional character. Nor, for example, did he regard the story of Jonah and the whale as a fictional account.

The four gospels were all written in the 1st century A.D. Matthew or Mark within 20 years (not 200) of Jesus' death; Luke very soon thereafter; John probably around 85-95 A.D. The point is, they were written soon enough (quite soon enough) that many who were alive and who witnessed the activities of Christ during his 3 year ministry, were still alive along with the authors of the gospels, and would have refuted the gospel accounts if they were in error. They would never have been able to gain the circulation and credibility they did, if they were fabrications.

On your last point...suffice to say that while many religious leaders have risen to greatness, only One has risen from the grave. The resurrection of Christ authenticates His divinity.

[hosepipe]

[ And on that quote, why God conceal himself and then punish people for not believing he exists? Whats with all the mind games? What a jerk! ]

LoL... Mind games are what people do..
And what IF the punishment is a "MIND GAME"..
Didn't think about that did ya!..

[jwalsh07]

For the story of Adam and Eve to be true, there would have to be significant inbreeding and that has disastrous results.

Not too disastrous, there are currently billions of human beings doing quite well.