Posted on 12/18/2006 8:12:55 AM PST by 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.
To be sure I'll look into it further. Thank you so much for the reference to Brian Vickers as a good source on the Baconian style. And thanks for writing!
Thanks for your splendid post!
Adam and Eve would have been created perfect which would mean no genetic mutations and it's not unreasonable to conclude that they contained all the genetic information necessary to account for the variation we see in humans. At the Fall is when corruption entered the world but it still would have taken time for mutations to occur and spread throughout the human race enough so that inbreeding would allow harmful recessive traits to show.
The laundry list of reasons why two people alone could not produce the variety we see in the human race now would only apply to imperfect humans in today's world. Perfect humans, or creatures of any kind, would have all the DNA they possess availbalbe to them for use, there'd be no *junk* DNA. So what would the potential be in a creature was able to utilize 100% of the DNA is possessed?
One could make the same argument for the Koran...
(it's not unreasonable to conclude that they contained all the genetic information necessary to account for the variation we see in humans.)
How is that not unreasonable? It is totally against all we know scientifically. There is no way two people can carry all of that genetic information! Define "created perfect"? Did they have more chromosomes than usual? Were they even human at all?
Based on what we know about genetics and DNA, the Adam and Eve story is scientifically impossible. This is one reason why many people discount Christianity whole cloth. You are asking me to make huge leaps in logic to believe stories like Adam and Eve, Samson and Noah's Ark.
"Not too disastrous, there are currently billions of human beings doing quite well."
And they didn't come from two people, 6,000 years ago.
(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.)
The authorship and origin of The Iliad (homer) is undisputed. The supposed "original" versions of the four gospels have NEVER, I repeat NEVER discovered and the authorship is unknown (the historical St. Matthew most likely did not write it). The fact is, all we have are copies of copies of copies (of the gospels).
(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.)
You're right, the earliest date agreed by historians is around 60 - 65 A.D. but the first actual documents come much later.
How do you account for the similarity of the story of Jesus to many other OLDER ancient myths?
(They would never have been able to gain the circulation and credibility they did, if they were fabrications.)
Do you seriously want to use this as an argument? What about the dozens of other "Gospels" that were just as popular as the four included in the Bible?
(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.)
There is no extra-biblical evidence that the historical Jesus rose from the dead. And yes, resurrection from the dead is a common theme across many religions.
Do humans use all their DNA?
At one time I had faith in Christ as well. Until some Christians insisted I accept obvious fantasy, and forced me to reject Him. It is not science with the message of death, it is the Creationists that made it impossible for me to believe.
such evidence as mine can be beheld by anyone, including a child. That is real evidence my friend.
Children believe anything they are told, and often hold those false beliefs for life. That is how faith is propagated. Ever wonder how come most Americans are Christian, and most Arabs Muslim? The truth of a faith is irrelevant, it's what children are taught in the home that makes a Christian, or Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu, or Shinto.
It is we who make things difficult where they need not be.
It is sometimes difficult to accept the truth, when the fantasy is so appealing. I will always detest the person that forced me to reject my faith in God, because they convinced me that I must accept Genesis literally, or reject Him. I was living in a fantasy faith, but it was a good fantasy, and now I've lost it.
75 years ago most Christians abandoned the fight against Evolution and there was little conflict on the issue. In the 80's "Creation Science" was invented, and Christians with knowledge have fled God ever since.
It is not "Evolution" that is the problem. It is the promoting of ideas like Creationism that is the problem. Creationism does no good for Christianity, only harm.
(Do humans use all their DNA?)
Are you saying one human can carry the genetic material for every single race now on Earth? That is just plain silly.
Vickers' book is "Francis Bacon and Renaissance Prose." He also edited Bacon for The Oxford Authors, which is a kind of students' edition.
Oxford has been putting out a new edition. I haven't kept up with it, but I seem to have Volume VI on my shelf, which was sent to me for review. It's a very nice piece of work, Latin and English on facing pages and extensive notes and bibliography. You might want to use it as the new standard edition, at least as far as it's come out.
Sounds like you've read C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man.
Cheers!
Yes, it is Narby. Behold your own words:
It sucks to know that when I'm dead, I'm dead.
Those words come not from your conflict with Christians, but from your inferences of science.
Children believe anything they are told..
You may have somewhat of a point here, but this part of our conversation evolved (no pun intended) from this pint which I made earlier: "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."
I still stand by those words, and child can tell you that he/she is unlike any other living thing on this planet.
Yes, to some extent, children believe what they are told, including, that such profound uniqueness is just fantasy...
I have to go for now....
OK, is naturalism (Dawkins et al.) the problem that destroys science? I am not a creationist but the current tide within science turns many conservatives off. Let’s be fair here… scientist proclaiming atheism in the name of ‘current’ science… Surely, you have read the article…
1) "Pint" should be "point"
2) "...and any child can tell you..."
[unfortunately there is no mechanism, such as "spell," to check for syntax when one is in a hurry]
Do humans use all their DNA? Supposedly over 95% is *junk*. What if it weren't?
Appealing?
Behold the words of Christ, and tell me if this is appealing:
Matthew 24:6-12
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
Matthew 24:21-22
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Matthew 24:29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Wonder Why finger prints are Unique among humans?..
Why would unique finger prints "evolve"?..
What would be their purpose?..
Was Paul WRONG about these???
Actually yes.
The used car salesman known as Paul was wrong so many times you lose count.
Not that it matters, Timothy (& Titus) were written 60-80 years after Paul had died ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.