Indeed, Dawkins is not doing science in his essay - it sounds like he is prostelyzing for his own atheistic beliefs. On my reading of his works, atheism is his primary objective, not science.
The fact appears to be that Dawkins simply prefers to think of human beings as not possessing reason or free will, for whatever reason. On his view (the observer problem rears its head here), we humans and all other living creatures are simply cogs in a universal clockwork and, as such, differ little from one another in principle. In fact when you boil it all down, Dawkins seems to recognize little if any distinction between the living and nonliving worlds. Exactly! "Doctrinally pure" atheism requires an infinite past, no direction, no distinction between life and non-life in nature, strong determinism (predestination) and no free will.
107 posted on 10/23/2006 10:03:44 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
... an infinite past Why? Aren't there atheist who believe in a Big Bang?
... no direction What do you mean when you speak about a "direction"?
... no distinction between life and non-life in nature Why? Aren't there atheists who know the difference between their dog and - let's say - a salami...
... strong determinism (predestination) Why? Isn't quantum mechanics enough to crush the idea of strong determinism?
... no free will. Why? Why no free will?
108 posted on 10/24/2006 4:52:21 AM PDT by si tacuissem
(.. lurker mansissem)