Berlinski Quotes

 
In the comments section of Breaking News... Mathematicians Don't Believe in Evolution!, glennd points us to An Interview with David Berlinski on an Intelligent Design Creationist website. (Incidentally, the commenters on that thread do a good job of proving that Berlinski isn't a mathematician.

Here's are some of the eye-popping views of this "famous" mathematician "philosopher" ...

The Panda’s Thumb, on the other hand, is entirely low-market; the men who contribute to the blog all have some vague technical background – computer sales, sound mixing, low-level programming, print-shops or copy centers; they are semi-literate; their posts convey that characteristic combination of pustules and gonorrhea that one would otherwise associate with high-school toughs, with even the names – Sir Toejam, The Reverend Lenny Flank – suggesting nothing so much as a group of guys spending a great deal of time hanging around their basements running video games, eating pizzas, and jeering at various leggy but inaccessible young women.

Darwin’s theory is plain nuts. It is not supported by the evidence; it has no organizing principles; it is incoherent on its face; it flies against all common experience, and it is poisonous in its implications.

And another thing. It is easy to understand. Anyone can become an evolutionary biologist in an afternoon. Just read a book. Most of them are half illustrations anyway. It’s not like studying mathematics or physics, lot of head splitting stuff there.

But Dawkins …

DB: An interesting case, very louche – fascinating and repellant. Fascinating because like Noam Chomsky he has the strange power effortlessly to command attention. Just possibly both men are descended from a line of simian carnival barkers, great apes who adventitiously found employment at a circus. I really should look at this more closely. Repellent because Dawkins is that depressingly familiar figure – the intellectual fanatic. What is it that he has said? “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)”. Substitute ‘Allah’ for ‘evolution,’ and these words might have been uttered by some fanatical Mullah just itching to get busy with a little head-chopping. If he ever gets tired of Oxford, Dawkins could probably find a home at Finsbury Park.

It is a matter of attitude and sentiment, Look, for thousands of intellectuals, becoming a Marxist was an experience of disturbing intensity. The decision having been made, the world became simpler, brighter, cleaner, clearer. A number of contemporary intellectuals react in the same way when it comes to the Old Boy – Darwin, I mean. Having renounced Freud and all his wiles, the literary critic Frederick Crews – a man of some taste and sophistication – has recently reported seeing in random variations and natural selection the same light he once saw in castration anxiety or penis envy. He has accordingly immersed himself in the emollient of his own enthusiasm. Every now and then he contributes an essay to The New York Review of Books revealing that his ignorance of any conceivable scientific issue has not been an impediment to his satisfaction.

Another example – I’ve got hundreds. Daniel Dennett has in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea written about natural selection as the single greatest idea in human intellectual history. Anyone reading Dennett understands, of course, that his acquaintance with great ideas has been remarkably fastidious. Mais, je divague …

In the case of both Crews and Dennett, it’s that God-awful eagerness to explain everything that is the give-away. The eagerness is entirely academic or even literary. But, you know, what sociologists call prole-drift is present even in a world without proles. Look at Christopher Hitchens – very bright, very able. Just recently he felt compelled to release his views on evolution to a public not known eagerly to be waiting for them. What does he have to say? Pretty much that he doesn’t know anything about art but he knows what he likes. The truth of the matter, however, is that he pretty much likes what he knows, and what he knows is what he has heard smart scientists say. Were smart scientists to say that a form of yeast is intermediate between the great apes and human beings, Hitchens would, no doubt, conceive an increased respect for yeast. But that’s a journalist for you: all zeal and no content. No, no, not you, of course. You’re not like the others.

The problem with Berlinski is that he's a fuzzy-headed idiot on some things but on others he hits a little too close to the mark for my comfort level. He's the Christopher Hitchens of the Intellligent Design movement.

---

[Photo Credit: Turkey's First ID Conference, March 2007]

Dan Dennett vs. Andrew Brown

I remember meeting Andrew Brown in a London pub seven years ago. He didn't like the New Atheists then and he still doesn't like them. I remember struggling to understand his accommodationist position back in 2006 and failing completely. At the time I attributed it to the beverages we were consuming but later on as I read his articles—when we were both sober—I realized that his position made no sense.

Andrew Brown sat down with Dan Dennett to discuss "Do the New Atheists have any new ideas?.

Andrew Brown challenges philosopher and atheist Daniel Dennett to convince him that the New Atheists have new ideas – and that they have really changed the face of belief in America. Dennett, one of the original 'four horsemen' of new atheism (along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens), has argued that belief in God is not merely mistaken, but dangerous.

Watch the short video and judge for yourself whether Andrew Brown is making sense.

---

[Hat Tip: Jerry Coyne]

The Militant Atheists

 
Last night's talk by Justin Trottier was quite interesting. There were several in the audience who agreed that Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and Hitchins are rude and offensive. I have two thoughts about this. One the one hand, I don't care if some people find them offensive—that's their problem and they should develop a tougher skin. On the other hand, I agree with the four horsemen that religion does not get a free pass. It's silly to grant it so much protection that any criticism is ruled out of order.

Here's an amazing conversation between Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. They address the question: are they militant atheists?

They also discuss the relationship between frozen water falls and Jesus Christ.

Part 1:

Part 2:

---

[Hat Tip: The Unexamined Life]

David Sloan Wilson on ScienceBlogs

 
David Sloan Wilson has joined ScienceBlogs of the SEED consortium. You can read the new version at: Evolution for Everyone.

This is going to be fun since Wilson is a strong advocate of group selection and, in addition, he is a firm opponent of the co-called "New Atheists."

Here's his opening salvo in Goodbye HuffPost, Hello ScienceBlogs: Science as a Religion that Worships Truth as its God.

Thinking of science as a religion that worships truth as it god enables me to praise its virtues and criticize its shortcomings at the same time. In my previous blogs, I have played the role of scientific reformer for two major issues. The first is the "new atheism" movement spearheaded by the so-called four horsemen: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Samuel Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Isn't it wonderful how scientists and rationalists reflexively adopt religious imagery? I am an atheist in the sense that I regard religion as 100% a human construction, but I'm here to testify that the "new atheists" depart from factual reality in their own way. So did Ayn Rand, the "new atheist" of her day, as we are learning to our sorrow from the collapse of the free market belief system that she helped to create. If we worry about religions for their departures from factual reality, then we should really worry about "stealth religions" that do the same thing without invoking the gods, because they do a better job of masquerading as reality. As someone who is seriously committed to studying religion from a scientific and evolutionary perspective, I'm here to say that the new atheists can't bring themselves to accept the facts about religion as a human construction. Read my six-part series on "Atheism as a Stealth Religion", now archived on my ScienceBlog site, for more. Even better, start acquainting yourself with the emerging field of evolutionary religious studies, whose members are more serious about holding each other accountable for what they say about religion.

Hmmmm ... my sympathies lie with Dawkins et al so I guess this is aimed at me. I was completely unaware of the possibility he mentions; namely, that I don't accept the facts about religion as a human construction. I'll have to think carefully about that one. Is it possible that, as an atheist, I was secretly thinking that religion might actually have been constructed by supernatural beings? Nope, I don't think so.

I was also under the impression that I was "acquainted" with the emerging field of evolutionary religious studies. After all, didn't I just post an article about Michael Persinger [Religion Makes Women Stupid?]? Perhaps David Sloan Wilson is confused about the difference between "getting acquainted" and "recognizing scientific nonsense"?

The second major issue that requires scientific reform is group selection, a theory that explains how groups can become well adapted to their environments in the same sense that individuals do. The theory of group selection began with Darwin and involves a simple set of issues that anyone can understand. Yet, it remains endlessly controversial. Next year marks the 35th anniversary of my first publication on group selection and I'm confident that the controversy will continue for decades more unless something is done. That "something" is a truth and reconciliation process, similar to the resolution of political conflicts that otherwise might continue forever. The idea that a scientific controversy might require a truth and reconciliation process similar to a political controversy speaks volumes about science as a fallible and culturally influenced process.

I don't have a dog in this fight. It will be interesting to watch and learn.

---

Julian Baggini on Science vs. Religion

 
Here's a free-lance philosopher I agree with, sometimes [Julian Baggini]. He's writing for The Independent about Stephen Hawking's new book [Julian Baggini: If science has not actually killed God, it has rendered Him unrecognisable].

This reflects an inconvenient truth about science that religion would prefer to ignore. For although it is true that science doesn't rule out a role for religion in providing meaning, or a God who kick-started the whole universe off in the first place, it does leave presumed dead in the water anything like the God most people over history have believed in: one who is closely involved in his creation, who intervenes in our lives, and with whom we can have a personal relationship. In short, there is no room in the universe of Hawking or most other scientists for the activist God of the Bible. That's why so few leading scientists are religious in any traditional sense.

This point is often overlooked by apologists who grasp at any straw science will hold out for them. Such desperate clinging happened, disgracefully, in the last years of the philosopher Antony Flew's life. A famous atheist, Flew was said to have changed his mind, persuaded that the best explanation for the "fine-tuning"of the universe – very precise way that its conditions make life possible – was some kind of intentional design. But what was glossed over was that he was very clear that this designer was nothing like the traditional God of the Abrahamic faiths. It was, he clearly said, rather the Deist God, or the God of Aristotle, one who might set the ball rolling but then did no more than watch it trundle off over the horizon. This is no mere quibble. The deist God does not occupy some halfway house between atheism and theism. Replace Yaweh with the deist God and the Bible would make less sense than if you'd substituted Brian for Jesus.

So it is not true that science challenges only the most primitive, literal forms of religion. It is probably going too far to say that science makes the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam impossible, but it certainly makes him very unlikely indeed.

The last sentence is technically correct in the same sense that this sentence is technically correct: "It is impossible to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist but science makes her existence very unlikely indeed."

Julian Baggini might be right about this but he's dead wrong about some other things. For example, in The New Atheist Movement is destructive, he writes,

“What do you think about the four horsemen?” It's a question I often get asked, quite understandably, since I wrote the Very Short Introduction to atheism. That book provides no answer, because it came out before Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens unleashed their apocalypse. But surely I must have an opinion on the biggest phenomenon in popular atheism since Bertrand Russell?

Well I do, but it comes with one huge caveat: I have not read any of their books. That does not, however, disqualify me from having an opinion about them. Let me defend both apparently intellectually disreputable confessions.

I'm sorry but the fact that he hasn't read the books does, indeed, disqualify him from having an "informed" opinion about them. He may have another kind of opinion but why should I listen to it?

Baggini also says,

For me, atheism’s roots are in a sober and modest assessment of where reason and evidence lead us. That means the real enemy is not religion as such, but any kind of system of belief that does not respect these limits on our thinking. For that reason, I want to engage with thoughtful, intelligent believers, and isolate extremists. But if we demonise all religion, such coalitions of the reasonable are not possible. Instead, we are likely to see moderate religious believers join ranks with fundamentalists, the enemies of their enemy, to resist what they see as an attempt to wipe out all forms of religious belief.

Well, he's just said that science makes the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god "highly unlikely indeed." That doesn't leave very many "thoughtful, intelligent believers" to accommodate, does it? Having just demonized Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, what moderate religions does he think atheists should form coalitions with? Are there any deists out there?

---

Is It Time for All Religions to Accept Evolution?

This is a BBC One program posted to YouTube on Jan. 13, 2013. The question is whether it's time for all regions to accept evolution. The answer is "yes" of course, but some religions are going to resist for a bit longer. Because this is Britain, it's not so much the Christians that are the problem but Muslims.

You will recognize some of the people on this program. Matt Ridley, for example, gives a pretty good answer to the question about whether there's a scientific debate about the fact of evolution. It's amusing to read the response of Cornelius Hunter who claims that everything Ridley says is a lie [Here is How Evolutionists Lie to the Public].

Hunter says,

That was such a dizzying flurry of big lies we, frankly, lost count. Those lies are so absurd, so unequivocally false, and spoken with such conviction, that the average person is sure to believe them.

Unfortunately such lies are the rule rather than the exception. This evolution propaganda segment was no mistake—it is unfortunately typical.

Of course one can make truthful arguments for evolution. And one can try to find scientific evidence to support it. It is not easy, but it can be done. But that is not what evolutionists do. They mandate evolution. They insist evolution is a fact in spite of the evidence. And that is a big lie.

I don't think we're ever going to succeed in teaching the Cornelius Hunter's of this world the difference between truth and lies but TV shows like this one are having an impact and I'm glad to see that some Muslims are willing to speak out.

Shows like this one were very rare in the 20th century. It's now become much more acceptable to challenge religious beliefs that conflict with science and I think that's because of outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, along with many other so-called "New Atheists."

---

Celebrity Atheists and Wimps

Over at talk.origins they're having a debate on Is it becoming fashionable to be an atheist?" One of the participants asked about well-known atheists and quickly received a reply. I'm posing the names here from Celebrity Atheist List...

Douglas Adams, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Woody Allen, Lance Armstrong, Darren Aronofsky, Isaac Asimov, Dave Barry, Ingmar Bergman, Lewis Black, Richard Branson, Berkeley Breathed, Warren Buffett, George Carlin, John Carmack, Adam Carolla, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera, Fidel Castro, Dick Cavett, Noam Chomsky, Billy Connolly, Francis Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming, Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, David Deutsch, Ani DiFranco, Micky Dolenz, Harlan Ellison, Brian Eno, Richard Feynman, Harvey Fierstein, Larry Flynt, Dave Foley, Jodie Foster, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, James Gleick, Seth Green, Robert Heinlein, Nat Hentoff, Katharine Hepburn, Christopher Hitchens, Eddie Izzard, Penn Jillette, Billy Joel, Angelina Jolie, Wendy Kaminer, Diane Keaton, Ken Keeler, Neil Kinnock, Michael Kinsley, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer, Tom Leykis, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, John Malkovich, Barry Manilow, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur Miller, Frank Miller, Marvin Minsky, Julianne Moore, Desmond Morris, Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan, Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Steven Pinker, Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, James Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Keanu Reeves, Rick Reynolds, Gene Roddenberry, Joe Rogan, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, Bob Simon, Steven Soderbergh, Annika Sorenstam, George Soros, Richard Stallman, Bruce Sterling, Howard Stern, J. Michael Straczynski, Julia Sweeney, Matthew Sweet, Teller, Studs Terkel, Tom Tomorrow, Linus Torvalds, Eddie Vedder, Paul Verhoeven, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Sarah Vowell, James Watson, Steven Weinberg, Joss Whedon, Ted Williams, Steve Wozniak.

Here's a list of famous wimps (also called agnostics) ....

Margaret Atwood, Antonio Banderas, Susie Bright, Vincent Bugliosi, Robert X. Cringely, Clarence Darrow, Charles Darwin, Alan Dershowitz, Richard Dreyfuss, Umberto Eco, Timothy Ferris, Carrie Fisher, Stephen Jay Gould, Matt Groening, Bob Guccione, Robert (Bob) James Lee Hawke, David Horowitz, Bob Hoskins, Robert Jastrow, Matt Johnson, Jack Kevorkian, Larry King, Tony Kushner, Dave Matthews, Larry Niven, Neil Peart, Sean Penn, Roman Polanski, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, Dan Savage, James Taylor, Charles Templeton, Uma Thurman, Ted Turner, Robert Anton Wilson.

Some of those so-called agnostics sound an awful lot like atheists to me and others sound like spiritualists of various sorts. Some of you may not be familiar with the name Charles Templeton. He's a former evangelical Christian from Toronto who abandoned his faith near the end of his life.

Most of the agnostics are probably wimps. We could expand the atheist list if only we could get Jodi Foster to talk some sense into Margaret Atwood ...

Or maybe Bill Gates could work on Antonio Banderas?

Atheist Books Are Bestsellers

 
Publishers Weekly has an article on books about atheism [Believe It or Not]. They report on the number of copies of these books that have been sold. Here's the summary complied by Friendly Atheist [How Well Are the Atheist Books Selling?].

• The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins: 282,000 copies sold
• The End of Faith by Sam Harris: 250,000 copies sold (says this article)
• Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris: 123,000 copies sold
• God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens: 58,000 copies sold
• Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett: 52,000 copies sold
• God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger: 60,000 copies shipped

These are impressive numbers, especially since the soft cover editions aren't out yet.

In case you're thinking about trying to make a living writing books like these, consider that the author gets about $2 per book. There are considerable expenses that need to be covered by that royalty payment so, in most cases, the net income isn't enough to induce you to quit your day job.

Top 100 Public Intellectuals

 
The Foreign Policy website has a list of the top 100 public intellectuals from around the world [The Top 100 Public Intellectuals: Bios].

The Canadians are: Malcolm Gladwell, Michael Ignatieff, Steven Pinker, and Charles Taylor. I would have included Irshad Manji, Bob Rae, and Don Cherry.

I included Don Cherry because he would fit right in with David Petraeus who is listed as a top 100 public intellectual.

There are several scientists and people who write about science and religion: Pope Benedict XVI, Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond, Christopher Hitchens, James Lovelock, Lee Smolin, Harold Varmus, J. Craig Venter, E.O. Wilson. It's interesting that Francis Collins and Ken Miller aren't on the list since the main criterion for inclusion seems to be that the person has written a book and they have Miller & Collins have both written books.

I would have included Richard Lewontin, Bruce Alberts, and David Suzuki. Are there any others who should be on the list? Who should be deleted to make room?

---

[Hat Tip: Sean at Cosmic Variance]