The ayatollah of atheism and Darwin’s altars

Catholic Educators Resource Center ^ | 5/27/08 | PAUL JOHNSON

[Forgiven_Sinner]

How long will Darwin continue to repose on his high but perilous pedestal? I am beginning to wonder.

Few people doubt the principles of evolution. The question at issue is: are all evolutionary advances achieved exclusively by the process of natural selection? That is the position of the Darwinian fundamentalists, and they cling to their absolutist position with all the unyielding certitude with which Southern Baptists assert the literal truth of the Book of Genesis, or Wahabi Muslims proclaim the need for a universal jihad against ‘the Great Satan’. At a revivalist meeting of Darwinians two or three years ago, I heard the chairman, the fiction-writer Ian McEwan, call out, ‘Yes, we do think God is an old man in the sky with a beard, and his name is Charles Darwin.’ I doubt if there is a historical precedent for this investment of so much intellectual and emotional capital, by so many well-educated and apparently rational people, in the work of a single scientist. And to anyone who has studied the history of science and noted the chances of any substantial body of teaching — based upon a particular hypothesis or set of observations — surviving the erosion of time and new research intact, it is inevitable that Darwinism, at least in its fundamentalist form, will come crashing down. The only question is: when?

The likelihood that Darwin’s eventual debacle will be sensational and brutal is increased by the arrogance of his acolytes, by their insistence on the unchallengeable truth of the theory of natural selection —which to them is not a hypothesis but a demonstrated fact, and its critics mere flat-earthers — and by their success in occupying the commanding heights in the university science departments and the scientific journals, denying a hearing to anyone who disagrees with them. I detect a ground-swell of discontent at this intellectual totalitarianism, so unscientific by its very nature. It is wrong that any debate, especially one on so momentous a subject as the origin of species, and the human race above all, should be arbitrarily declared to be closed, and the current orthodoxy set in granite for all time. Such a position is not tenable, and the evidence that it is crumbling is growing.

It is wrong that any debate, especially one on so momentous a subject as the origin of species, and the human race above all, should be arbitrarily declared to be closed, and the current orthodoxy set in granite for all time. Such a position is not tenable, and the evidence that it is crumbling is growing.

Much of the blame lies with Richard Dawkins, head of the Darwinian fundamentalists in this country, who has (it seems) indissolubly linked Darwin to the more extreme forms of atheism, and projected on to our senses a dismal world in which life has no purpose or meaning and a human being has no more significance than a piece of rock, being subject to the same blind processes of pitiless, unfeeling, unthinking nature. The sheer moral, emotional and intellectual emptiness of the universe as seen by the Darwinian bigots is enough to make mere humans (as opposed to scientific high priests), and especially young ones, despair, and wonder what is the point of going on with existence in a world which is hard enough to endure even without the Darwinian nightmare. I was intrigued to note, earlier this summer, in the pages of the Guardian, an indignant protest by one of Dawkins’s fellow atheists that he was bringing atheism into disrepute by his extremism, by the tendentious emotionalism of his language and by his abuse of religious belief. But he has his passionate defenders too, and occupies an overwhelmingly strong position in Oxford, not a university famous for its contribution to science to be sure, but one where personalities notorious for extreme opinions of a quasi-theological kind are much applauded, even canonised, as witness Pusey, Keble, Newman and Jowett. To ferocious undergraduate iconoclasts he is the ayatollah of atheism, and in consequence much wined and dined in smart London society. Recently he was chosen by the readers of Prospect, a monthly journal with some pretensions, as Britain’s leading ‘public intellectual’. It is true that such write-ins carry no authority and often strike a ludicrous note. A similar poll conducted by the BBC produced Karl Marx as ‘the greatest philosopher of all time’. All the same, there is no denying Dawkins’s celebrity: he is up there among the football managers and pop singers, alongside Posh and ‘Bob’ and the Swedish Casanova.

Meanwhile, however, opponents are busy. The Times Literary Supplement, in its issue of 29 July, carried a seven-column article by the equally celebrated philosopher Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University, which relentlessly demolished the concept of Evolutionary Psychology, one of the pillars of the imposing mansion of orthodoxy occupied by the Darwinians. Fodor is particularly scathing about Dawkins and his leading American lieutenant, Professor Steven Pinker, and the theory that, in the process of natural selection, genes selfishly spread themselves. Fodor’s discourse on motivation (or lack of it) in the evolutionary process is well worth reading, being a sensible and sensitive argument as opposed to the dogmatic assertions of the Darwinian cultists. It is, I think, a sign of the times that they are now being attacked from within the establishment.

At the same time, opponents of the dogma that natural selection is the sole force in evolution, who cannot get a hearing within that establishment, are not remaining silent. It is characteristic of the new debate that heterodoxy is finding other outlets. I recommend, for instance, a book by the learned anatomist Dr Antony Latham, The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed, just out from Janus Publishing (105-107 Gloucester Place, London W1U 6BY). Much of the book is devoted to a chapter-by-chapter exposure of the errors and illogicalities of Dawkins’s best-known book, The Blind Watchmaker, and its highly emotional presentation of the case against design (and God). The indictment of Dawkins’s scientific scholarship is powerful, masterly and (I would say) unanswerable.

Another book which has come my way this summer, though it was published by Columbia in New York in 2003, is by Richard Bird of Northumbria University. It is called Chaos and Life: Complexity and Order in Evolution and Thought. This is a formidable piece of work, showing that the way in which living things appear and evolve is altogether more complex and sophisticated than the reliance on natural selection presupposes. One of the points he raises, which to me as a historian is crucial, is the impossibility of fitting natural selection as the normative form of evolution into the time frame of the earth as an environment for life. Bird shows that Dawkins’s attempts to answer this objection are disingenuous and futile. One of the virtues of this book (as, indeed, of Dr Latham’s) is that it has told me a lot about evolution and design that I did not know, and which orthodox dogma conceals. So there is a virtue in the origins debate — the spread of knowledge — and I hope it continues until the altars of Dagon come crashing down.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Paul Johnson. "The ayatollah of atheism and Darwin’s altars." The Spectator (August 27, 2005).

This article is from Paul Johnson's "And another thing" column for The Spectator and is reprinted with permission of the author.

THE AUTHOR

Paul Johnson, celebrated journalist and historian, is the author most recently of George Washington: The Founding Father. Among his other widely acclaimed books are A History of the American People, Modern Times, A History of the Jews, Intellectuals, Art: A New History, and The Quest for God: Personal Pilgrimage. He also produces brief surveys that slip into the pocket, such as his popular The Renaissance and Napoleon. He is a frequent contributor to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Spectator, and the Daily Telegraph. He lectures all over the world and lives in Notting Hill (London) and Somerset.

[Alamo-Girl]

Atheism was ruled a religion in this decision by the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals:

Kaufman v McCaughtry

[D-fendr]

I think "fundamentalist" applies to Dawkins. He writes - way out of his league - on religion. And he's a fundie about this atheism.

[D-fendr]

The universe does come with a comprehensible, unchanging set of basic laws of physics…

Does it come with a similar set of basic values right/wrong, good/evil. Do these have any intrinsic value or are the always and completely subjective and conditional?

[D-fendr]

The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism.

--Richard Dawkins

[D-fendr]

I should add - quickly - that I don't agree with Dawkins in the quote I just posted to you.

[jennyp]

The universe does come with a comprehensible, unchanging set of basic laws of physics…

Does it come with a similar set of basic values right/wrong, good/evil. Do these have any intrinsic value or are the always and completely subjective and conditional?

I think it does, to the same extent that the laws of economics are universal. Such rules or principles as buy low/sell high, invest as much of your profits as you can instead of squandering them all away, the theory of comparative advantage, which helps explain the development of governments run by the rule of law as a much more efficient & rational way of securing our rights than everyone having to take total responsibility for their own safety & enforcement of contracts, etc. I see the derivation of durable moral codes for a free society as very similar, on a fundamental level, to how economic laws were derived. (I'm not saying that morality & economics are the same, but they are related on some level.)

I think of morality as objective, since we're all human beings, and as such the overwhelming majority of us have basically similar values & goals. Some kinds of acts, such as theft, clearly would cause the positive-sum game of civilization to break down if it wasn't treated as evil. But it's not always self-evident where to draw the line between acceptable differences in taste or values (vanilla vs. chocolate) and that which should be treated as beyond the pale (theft vs. non-theft). But that's where studying history, other cultures, political systems, & your own life comes in.

[ChessExpert]

Interesting post.

Some kinds of acts, such as theft, clearly would cause the positive-sum game of civilization to break down if it wasn't treated as evil.

So if I understand right, we treat theft as evil. It is not actually evil, we just treat it that way for our own common good. You and I, and anyone else who is sufficiently well read or astute, will realize that the evil of theft is a fiction for others. We want others to avoid theft as that hurts all, including/especially ourselves. But given the opportunity to steal successfully, you should go for it. It’s just smart.

Another approach is that there is a God. He made moral laws. We know these laws. But for moral laws, unlike physical laws, we are free to choose. Do right or do wrong. That is what it is all about.

Perhaps you should agree with me. You might fool me and and many others so we don’t steal. Meanwhile, you can plan your big score, perhaps embezzlement. I think that is rational. That would be smart.

But if it is rational, and you, talking to yourself, are not satisfied, then why not?

[Dimensio]

Another approach is that there is a God. He made moral laws. We know these laws. But for moral laws, unlike physical laws, we are free to choose. Do right or do wrong. That is what it is all about.

For what reason should we assume the existence of a "God", or the existence of established moral laws by this "God"?

[ChessExpert]

I asked you a question first, and have not received a hint of a reply. Why don't you agree that there is a God, and therefore none of us should steal?

I don't feel you answered my question. But I will attempt some answers to yours.

As an aside, I am not a theologian. Some seem to think that only experts should have opinions in biology, climatology, education, law, and other fields. I think this applies equally well (or poorly) to theology, which is by no means an easy subject. But I think any of us should use our mind in any domain that interests. If you don't use YOUR mind, it's not thinking. So, with humility, and no training, I will attempt a few responses to a very big question.

One reason is that we do have a sense of right and wrong. Where does it come from? Religion has an answer. I don't think naturalism has a satisfactory answer.

A definition is in order. Naturalism is the belief that everything has natural causes, sometimes described as the interplay of chance and law. It is basically the assumption that there is no God.

Neuro-scientists believe there is no self. Self-conciousness is an illusion. They believe there is no you in there. There is merely brain-matter, chemistry, and electricity. They believe, as do I, that any other position introduces a supernatural element. Billions of people living today believe in the self, and billions more in the past. On the assumption of naturalism, neuro-scientists blithely say that "it is all an illusion"; these billions of people are wrong. It seems to me they are ignoring billions of data points, which is bad science.

Evolution seems certain to many because they were taught at an impressionable age - and by golly it's going to stay that way! But I suspect it does not stand up to scrutiny any better than the works of Malthus, Marx, or Freud. I think we've been sold on junk science, much of which assumes naturalism and acts to advance it. Dawkins says that in biology all appears to be designed, but that is (just another) illusion.

There is also the testimony of miracles in the Bible. Sure there all sorts of way that those who were not there can dismiss the testimony of those who were there. Witnesses are not always right, blah, blah, blah. Sure. Bur witnesses are not always wrong either. I believe that all the Apostles, with the exception of John, had the choice to deny or die. They all died. It may not mean anything to you, but it means something to me.

I think I may be soon running against limits - text length, time, intellect. So that is it for now.

Good luck in your inquiries.

[Dimensio]

I asked you a question first, and have not received a hint of a reply.

On the contrary. You have directed none of your previous postings to me.

Why don't you agree that there is a God, and therefore none of us should steal?

You will need to define "God" before I can even consider it as a possible entity. Once defined, you will need to provide a reason to believe that such an entity exists.

One reason is that we do have a sense of right and wrong. Where does it come from? Religion has an answer. I A definition is in order. Naturalism is the belief that everything has natural causes, sometimes described as the interplay of chance and law.

Such a description is somewhat misleading.

It is basically the assumption that there is no God.

This is an unsatisfactory claim. You are positing that naturalism accepts the definition of a specific deity, and then rejects it. You have not given reason for assuming the particular deity that you posit in the first place, however. Ultimately, naturalism is simply a lack of statement regarding the supernatural, not an outright denial.

Neuro-scientists believe there is no self.

I was unaware that this was a belief of neuroscientists. None of the neuroscientists with whom I have conversed have ever suggested such a thing.

Self-conciousness is an illusion. They believe there is no you in there. There is merely brain-matter, chemistry, and electricity.

This is not only an unsupported generalization of all neuroscientists, but also an appeal to the division fallacy, in that you assert that self-consciousness cannot be a result of the interaction of brain matter and chemistry.

They believe, as do I, that any other position introduces a supernatural element.

Incorrect. It is possible to accept that the final result of multiple processes acting in concert is more than the sum of the parts without invoking supernatural elements.

Billions of people living today believe in the self, and billions more in the past. On the assumption of naturalism, neuro-scientists blithely say that "it is all an illusion"; these billions of people are wrong. It seems to me they are ignoring billions of data points, which is bad science.

Even if I accepted your inaccurate generalization of the beliefs of all neuroscientists, which I do not, you have yet to establish any actual data points. You are appealing to the popularity of a belief, which is not itself evidence for a claim.

Evolution seems certain to many because they were taught at an impressionable age - and by golly it's going to stay that way!

On the contrary; I have found those most convinced that the theory of evolution is an accurate representation of reality are those who have studied it extensively in their adult years.

But I suspect it does not stand up to scrutiny any better than the works of Malthus, Marx, or Freud I think we've been sold on junk science, much of which assumes naturalism and acts to advance it.

You are certainly free to assert this, but your assertion does not amount to evidence against the theory of evolution. Your claims would carry credibility if you supported them with evidence; as you do not, your claims have no merit.

Dawkins says that in biology all appears to be designed, but that is (just another) illusion.

I am aware of Dawkins's claim on the subject, as I have encountered it used by creationists in the past. Dawkins uses the claim in explaining how examination of complex biological systems that, on the surface, appear as though they were designed are actually able to come about without any deliberate act of design at all. Dawkins does not make his claim without supporting it with evidence.

There is also the testimony of miracles in the Bible.

Please reference this specific testimony.

Sure there all sorts of way that those who were not there can dismiss the testimony of those who were there. Witnesses are not always right, blah, blah, blah. Sure. Bur witnesses are not always wrong either.

You have yet to demonstrate that the books of the Bible were actually written by those who witnessed any of the miracles claimed within.

I believe that all the Apostles, with the exception of John, had the choice to deny or die. They all died. It may not mean anything to you, but it means something to me.

It does not. Martyrdom is not evidence of the validity of faith. If it were, then Islam would carry a great deal of credibility.

[ChessExpert]

"I asked you a question first, and have not received a hint of a reply.

On the contrary. You have directed none of your previous postings to me."


On this, you are correct. My post (247) was to jennyp. Post 248 was a response and I thought it was from jennyp, but it was actually you Dimensio.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may add a tidbit in your discussion with Chessexpert concerning your challenge for evidence of his faith.

There is evidence, but it may not be available to you.

Christians have “ears to hear”. When the Word of God is spoken, they hear and Christ knows them and they follow Him. (John 10:26-27). The words He speaks are spirit and are life. (John 6:63)

Moreover, they are born again (John 1:12-13, John 3) – not of blood or by their own will, but of God. They are not the same people they used to be. They know this new life is timeless, hid with Christ in God (Col 3:3).

This means that Spiritual knowledge – particularly the direct personal Spiritual revelation that Jesus Christ is Lord – is overarching Truth to the Christian. God is Truth.

Therefore, for the Christian, all other forms of knowledge are subordinate - whether sensory perception, reasoning or whatever.

Freeper research project on the subject

Conversely, the person who does not have “ears to hear” has no concept of Spiritual knowledge whatsoever. For him, if the knowledge does not accrue from sensory perception, reasoning and such - it is not “real”.

Thus the evidence not only exists to the Christian but it is Truth. Reality or “all that there is” is understood within that framework.

But that evidence is unknowable to one who does not have “ears to hear”.

And that was God's plan so that no one could know Him through reason alone. (I Cor 2:9-16).

[Elsie]

Tripe alert! Don't need to read any farther.

Indeed!!!

We ALL know that only Creo's are FUNDAMENTALISTS and need not be listened to!!!

--EvoDude

[Elsie]

...the lineage from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapian.

Uh...

They all sit together in a row at the museum?

---

Or.....

"...the lineage from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapian to Homo Flamboyance...."

 

 

[Elsie]

Global warming is the fault of humans!

Or maybe even PRE-humans!!

(Who evolved into BUSH... it's HIS fault, you know...)

[Elsie]

Shouldn't we be seeing all sort of creatures in various states of evolving?

ONLY if you believe in Gradualism.

---

PUNK EEK gives us a full blown entire new critter with NONE of those nasty, ol' useless things hangin' on 'til the piece of the puzzle is in place.

[Elsie]

Atheists have no alter boys, no prayers, no church establishments, no tax-exemption, no record of sex scandals, no pastors, preachers, or priests, no coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation, no holidays, no banned books or statements about heresy and blasphemy, no record of burning witches or heretics, no public displays of prayer or piety, no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth', no recited creed, no mythological 'transubstantions', no edifices with crosses.

Of course not:

It's all about ME!

[Elsie]

Anyone who starts out using loaded language such as that can expect to lose a lot of their readers very quickly. That is not balanced writing, and it quickly exposes the authors' biases.

This, applied to many E posters here on FR, would be cause for not much output.

[Elsie]

"Funny how you know about such things....."

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

I don't understand how a person can refute the DNA evidence in the OJ case, but apparently it's the same kind of reasoning.

coffee.spew.monitor()!