Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)

Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[Right Wing Professor]

One of the things we empirical naturalists tend to avoid is lengthy discussion over definitions or labels. I've posted this Weinberg quote several times, and I apologize for the repetition, but it really does accurately describe the naturalism of most scientists I know.

Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists.

I call myself an atheist because I do not practice a religion, don't pray (even in dire straits), and my mental pitcure of the universe does not include a deity. I don't do any of these things because in my experience religious practice is a waste of time, I see no evidence that prayer by me or anyone else works, and because a deity has no explanatory or predictive power. Atheist is a short and reasonably accurate label. If a supernatural being appearted tomorrow and said 'Hi, I'm God', having discounted trickery and hallucinations I'd certainly change my view, though I'd be more inclined to study said being than worship him. You can call this agnostic or atheist or anything you want; I don't see anything fruitful in a discussion about the particular mode in which people don't believe in a deity.

Christianity has entertained itelf for two millenia by dividing itself into hundreds of feuding sects, often based on the most idiotic minutiae of doctrine; but Christians shouldn't assume that the non-religious share the same fascination with hair-splitting about the ineffable.

I'd avoid discussion of religion altogether if religious people stayed out of my space; if they stopped trying to force their supernatural ideas into science; and if they stopped denigrating those who don't happen to share their view of the Universe (e.g. by asking if 'atheists can be intellectually fulfilled', by suggesting that atheists are inherently amoral, etc.). My parents were, and one of my brothers' wives is religious; I don't denigrate their beliefs, and I respect their intellect. I don't go asking if their Christianity is attended by some intellectual defect. Why are so many religious people unable to muster up the same level of tolerance?

[Right Wing Professor]

one of my brothers' wives

That would be, the wife of one of my brothers. He isn't polygamist, at least to my knowledge :-)

[jwalsh07]

You might argue that force is used in the public school system, but you would be wrong on several counts. No one requires kids to attend public schools; no one requires those who do to take courses in biology. The content of public school education is determined by politics, just like our laws. Some you approve of and some you don't. Your tax dollars support both. But you are not required by any law to send your kids to public schools.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. My children have children of their own. Some go to public school some to Catholic school.

You do understand though that you've made a persusasive argument for those in Cobb County, Ga who wish to put a disclaimer in their biology book, right?

[Alamo-Girl]

How does feeling "fulfilled" relate to atheism?

IMHO, it cannot. The conversation on this thread started at post 1704.

[Right Wing Professor]

Stamped out is not synonomous with innoculate, it is synonomous with extinguish, crush, annihilate. Perhaps he misspoke?

Perhaps he's English, and you're American, and the term has some different nuances over there?

[js1138]

Stamped out is not synonomous with innoculate,

It is when used in the smallpox metaphor.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your thorough reply!

The label "atheist" much like other labels is a neon flashing bulls-eye on various threads around here.

Seems to me that the ones who do not see "Does God exist?" as a proposition - the ones who don't know and don't care - would be much better off ignoring posts where the word "atheism" is used.

If a supernatural being appearted tomorrow and said 'Hi, I'm God', having discounted trickery and hallucinations I'd certainly change my view, though I'd be more inclined to study said being than worship him.

On personal knowledge, I aver that everyone will appear before Him one "day". The better choice though is to listen for Him in the here and now - but, of course, not every one can or will. The "sense" for contact is hearing - spiritual hearing - not vision, touch, smell, logic, etc.

Why are so many religious people unable to muster up the same level of tolerance?

Christians have pretty much the same complaint. It seems the Koran gets more respect than the Bible, Muslims are allowed to pray when Christians are not, etc.

IMHO, the intensity for the deeply religious or irreligious (regardless of flavor) is that reality for us is framed by our understanding and thus all affronts are of the highest order.

Even the scientific materialists aka empirical naturalists aka methodological naturalists may prioritize that ideology above all else in their sense of reality. For such as these, I would not be surprised if affronts to the ideology were taken viscerally as well.

[jwalsh07]

Perhaps but as I've stated before I don't base my opinion on selected quotes and thus I don't look at that quote in a vacuum. But I'm sure Ed has sent him a link to this thread and he's certainly welcome to explain or correct any time he pleases.

[jwalsh07]

It is when used in the smallpox metaphor.

No it's not. Read the interview in its entirety, post 2043 gives a link. He equates religion with a virus. He didn't say he wanted to inoculate humans, he said he wanted to "stamp out" the virus. The virus is the subject, the verb he chose is synonymous with extinguish, annihilate, crush, boot heel.

You can't urinate down my leg and tell me it's April showers js.

I'll extend the guy the courtesy of thinking he misspoke or the Professors notion that somehow stamped out has a different colloquial meaning in Britain but I'm not buying the other crap.

In fact, I think I'm done here. This particular horse is as tender as it gets, the weather is getting nicer and duty calls. Till next time Kemo Sabes, adios.

[js1138]

You do understand though that you've made a persusasive argument for those in Cobb County, Ga who wish to put a disclaimer in their biology book, right?

No. I've made a case for their right to try, using the legal system and politics.

And I will oppose them by the same means, just as I oppose anyone who teaches something I believe to be wrong and harmful. I am not a conservative by birth or by education or by party affiliation or by social convenience. I care deeply about my children and the world they will inherit. I have personal reasons for opposing the anti-evolutionists. I will not go into this, but I have a huge number of close relatives having a wide variety of faiths. I am not impressed by the products of fundamentalist education.

[js1138]

He equates religion with a virus. He didn't say he wanted to inoculate humans, he said he wanted to "stamp out" the virus.

Is English a second language for you? Read your sentence.

[Right Wing Professor]

Thae fact is, if you had said that Dawkins goes overboard, that he's virulently and intolerantly anti-religious, I doubt you'd have gotten much reaction except agreement. Claiming the 9/11 attack was a result of 'religion', as opposed one violent sect of a notably violent religion, is a gross oversimplifcation. Sure, promoting passionate belief in an afterlife is a tool to get young men to immolate themselves, but Dawkins, if he were applying the same degree of honesty to his social criticism that he applies to his science, would have noted that most other religions do not generate large numbers of suicide bombers, and so 9/11 seems to have been a result of Wahhabist Islam in particular far more than of religion in general. One could then go on, if one wished, to make a more moderate case that some other religions, including some sects of Christianity, have been accompanied by serious but not as extreme or vicious violence.

I grew up in England and Ireland. In England, in particular, 'stamp out' is used in contexts from 'stamp our racism', where they really might mean state action, to 'credit-card companies should stamp out deceptive practices', where they're referring to voluntary behavior. And everything in between. It really just means 'end' or 'eliminate', without any necessary condition of compulsion.

[RightWingNilla]

Gore3000 used to kick your butt in debate without breaking a sweat too?

LOL. Is that why *everyone* on this thread completely disagrees with you on the Dawkins issue?

You and G3K heavily engage in "master-debation": arguing for your own versions of reality, completely impervious to reason.

Your credibility has reached rock bottom. Perhaps you should consider posting in blue.

[stremba]

Galileo witnessed the revolution of the earth around the sun first-hand

Really? Galileo had a spaceship that allowed him to travel into space and actually observe this? Nobody has actually directly observed the motion of the earth around the sun. It is inferred from other observations, just as most theories and laws in science are.

[AntiGuv]

OK, resuming the definition our terms, this was the last proposed version:

Intelligent Design: A hypothesis that given features of actuality are explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.

I am vetoing the idea of narrowing the definition at this stage. We require a definition that will cover any hypothesis that may be classified as an "intelligent design" hypothesis and the above seems to qualify. Now, you asked for a definition of "actuality" and I provided the following dictionary definition:

actuality: the state or fact of being actual.

Then, you responded:

That definition doesn't help because it is inherently vague. It puts us back to the question of "what is all that there is?" - or in the short form, "what is reality?".

To which, I would say: So what? You don't require answers to those questions to classify a hypothesis, and that's all we're doing.

You then continue:

Either way though, we are going way beyond life v non-life/death in nature into cosmology - which is fine with me, btw.

Excellent! Then so it shall be.

To go cosmological, perhaps we could agree to our own specialized definition of "actuality" to include all corporeals and phenomenon within space/time regardless of dimensions as well as space/time itself and everything "beyond" all dimensions of space and time? That would include mathematical structures, information, Platonic forms, qualia, etc.

That is not a "specialized" definition of actuality. Actuality covers all that there is, and if those things exist, then they are inherently included. If they don't, then they are properly excluded.

Or, if you would rather go back to looking only at the intelligent design hypothesis with regard to life, then perhaps we could agree to a mathematical definition for "what is life v non-life/death in nature?"

No, I am not interested in expanding the boundaries of our inquiry, and the above is unnecessary.

So, are we finally settled on our working definition?

Intelligent Design: A hypothesis that given features of actuality are explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.

If so, then we can move onward. As far as I'm concerned, we can agree to revisit this definition as we proceed, and determine at that time if it would be preferable to narrow it.

[AntiGuv]

The view that I've articulated in post #2198 neither provides for nor requires anything whatsoever beyond the physical properties of this universe, and I do not mean that they are supervenient either. There is nothing animistic within my assessment, and I consider the universe itself neither intelligent nor designed. If you want a principle that describes my view better than any other, then it is the anthropic principle that you're looking for.

You are free to delude yourselves into reading ID into my descriptions, but my viewpoint is the very antithesis of everything ID stands for.

[RightWingNilla]

Funny thing is that at the end of the day, who cares if Dawkins is a marxist?

Einstein declared himself a socialist in his writings. Does that have any bearing whatsoever on his science?

[Right Wing Professor]

Funny thing is that at the end of the day, who cares if Dawkins is a marxist?

Well, I would, because Marxism is totalizing. I think Gould and Lewontin allowed their Marxism to influence their science. Scientific integrity is a bourgeois value.

[Right Wing Professor]

When I sit out on my front deck and gaze at the trees and the wildlife I don't fabricate this stark disjunction with the elements surrounding them. I envision the ecosystem as but an extension of the earth, reaching up to the skies, with the same essence coursing through all of it. I regard life as an inherent extension of the properties of this universe, that perpetually attempts to organize itself even as entropy inevitably breaks it all down. Wherever the elements of the universe are arranged in such manner that they might organize organically, then they will do so, and the longer they are serendipitously graced with a stable environment, they will arrange themselves in ever more complex forms, until at some juncture they organize themselves into something like us, that can then turn around and master the less organized properties of the universe, and shape them into yet more elaborate forms and functions.

That's very poetically put. We don't often enough try to capture in our words the 'grandeur in this view of life', that Darwin pointed out.

[js1138]

In England, in particular, 'stamp out' is used in contexts from 'stamp our racism', where they really might mean state action, to 'credit-card companies should stamp out deceptive practices', where they're referring to voluntary behavior. And everything in between. It really just means 'end' or 'eliminate', without any necessary condition of compulsion.

With viral diseases, stamping out means immunization of the host population. Perhaps this is a rude phrase to apply to an idea or a religion, but it is non-violent and, in our country, non-coersive.

I might add that the Soviet Union invested 70 years trying to stamp out religion by coersive means and failed utterly. Dawkins' phrase is unfortunate for its counterproductive tone and for its implication that some sort of active resistence to religion would be successful. Religions, by and large, feed on persecution and the perception of persecution. What offends them most is being ignored, as by science. What offends them most of all is competetive ideas that produce cool things like immunization from disease.