Indeed, A-G -- it's almost a demonstration of some kind of weird cognitive "schizophrenia." We saw it also, IMO, in the public pronouncements of Carl Sagan: the appeal to "the mysterious" aspects of the world in his "commercials" on behalf of science.
Einstein himself, though captivated by the "mysterious," never held forth on the issue; I gather he did not regard this as a job for the scientist.
To me, it is just fine to acknowledge that there are things about the world that are mysterious. My point of disagreement with Dawkins consists in the fact that typically, historically, such things have not been regarded as falling within the purview of science. Science is supposed to be more practical than that, and therefore happy to leave "mysterious" questions up to philosophy and theology.
What I most object to about Dawkins is his habit of invoking "the mysterious," while at the same time his entire method is dedicated to utterly destroying it (as you perceptively note) -- by "reducing" all of reality to (the entirely directly observable and thus readily explicable) category of "matter in its motions." Which is hardly "mysterious," since the physical laws explicate such "matters" very, very well.
It's like a cheap "bait-and-switch" tactic, and I utterly deplore it. I do not regard these people as honest men; therefore, I do not trust their "science." And that's the "long and the short" of it. FWIW.
What truly amazes me is that people are so clueless and gullible these days that they get "sucked in" to such strategems. The only way that can happen is by giving very short shrift to reason and critical, analytical thinking, not to mention human history and culture....
If we were more alert, we would see that Dawkins' main project is to erase any distinction between the roles of science and theology. But each of these knowledge domains has its own set of "proper objects" of inquiry; and we cannot lose the distinctions that obtain between them without losing our ability to discriminate the truth of reality.
At the end of the day, IMO, Dawkins is using "science" (with its supposedly more trusthworthy methods) to kill "theology" -- thus to illegitimately integrate its subject matter into its own irredentist "empire." But the scientific method cannot cope at all with the spiritual domain. The general public used to understand that fact; but seemingly, no longer....
Dawkins just wants for us the thing he most values for himself: to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That is the long and short of the matter.
Personally, I do not think it is even remotely possible that one could be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." To me, the very term is an oxymoron.
In short, Dawkins et al. are engaged, not primarily in science, but in a "social movement" devoted to transforming human culture into a more "progressive" reification -- one more aesthetically pleasing to himself. But in what way is this desire/goal any different from what Karl Marx sought? Or, for the matter, the modern Democratic party?
People, pay attention to what is going on all around you!!! And then try to figure out how to "call a spade a spade."
It is only because human societies have lost their "knack" for perceiving truth that people like Dawkins and his friends could have gotten as far as they have in the esteem of the contemporary scientific establishment -- and tellingly, in the public esteem also.
Just "letting my hair down" here.... FWIW.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear sister!
Wow you're nailing it, betty.
What's it that science ought to do? If we leave this up to JUST the scientists, we get a social movement of JUST the scientists. Duh. But true! They can talk about peer review but they might as well be talking about their own private democracy.
Dawkins just wants for us the thing he most values for himself: to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. That is the long and short of the matter.
Personally, I do not think it is even remotely possible that one could be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist." To me, the very term is an oxymoron.
Since we're sharing here, let me just counter that I don't see how a rational person can be a theist. But since some rational people are theists, I accept they manage to reconcile theism and reason, at least to their own satisfaction.
In any case I'm an atheist, and most of the time I feel intellectually fulfilled. So one of us is deluded.
At the risk of further expanding a thread beneath the name of Dawkins, I would suggest that a rapacious grasp for truth, no matter who might be the subject, deserves at least a hearing in the academic arena. We cannot cogitate upon any idea, no matter how absurd, until it is presented. That is why I believe, despite Dawkins' bent toward or killing religion, he deserves a place at the table; or under it. At least he should be heard.
Too bad he does not recognize this courtesy in return. Otherwise the observation regarding his carrot of mystery and stick of materialism speaks for itself.
We are a long, long way from eliminating mystery from the world. Even in as reductively complete a case as QM, there seems to be no end to the mystery. My personal favorite is the electron that can tell the orientation of a magnetic field even though it is excluded from the region of the field. Another cool one is the bomb detector that uses light to detect a light-activated bomb.
In fact, one can argue that mystery can never be eliminated entirely because every scientific theory must have axioms and undefined terms.
BYW, my feeling is that Dawkins doesn't have an agenda per se, merely an intense and irrational dislike for religion. One often sees the reciprocal dislike for irreligion on these threads.
"What I most object to about Dawkins is his habit of invoking "the mysterious," while at the same time his entire method is dedicated to utterly destroying it (as you perceptively note) -- by "reducing" all of reality to (the entirely directly observable and thus readily explicable) category of "matter in its motions." Which is hardly "mysterious," since the physical laws explicate such "matters" very, very well."
You are using the term "mysterious" equivocally to mean "wondrous" as Dawkins uses it to explain the way scientists view the unknown, and "mystical" as Dawkins views religion. Dawkins is very precise in his separation of what feelings motivate him and other scientists to examine the unknown and the unscientific pursuit of religiosity one finds outside of scientific methodological naturalism. Condemning a person for an attitude that he doesn't express seems a bit narrow.