John Wilkins went to hear Richard Dawkins last night in Pheonix, Arizona. I'll leave it to you readers to figure out why John and Richard were together in such a strange place. (Hint: It's not because John got lost.)I'm sure it will come as a surprise to no one that Wilkins took exception to some of the things Dawkins said [Dawkins' Lecture in Poenix]. As you might imagine, Wilkins really got annoyed when Dawkins talked about those who choose to overlook the silliness of belief in the supernatural. Here's what John writes ...
In particular I was annoyed that those of us who do not condemn someone for holding religious beliefs were caricatured as "feeling good that someone has religion somewhere". Bullshit. That is not why we dislike the Us'n'Themism of TGD. We dislike it because no matter what other beliefs an intelligent person may hold, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society, we simply do not care if they also like the taste of ear wax, having sex with trees, or believing in a deity or two. Way to go, Richard. Good bit of framing and parodying the opposition. Real rational.John, it's you who aren't being rational about this topic. Somewhere on this planet there may be a true believer in God who resembles your hypothetical caricature but they are very rare.
Most people who are willing to believe in imaginary deities are willing to believe all sorts of other things as well. They do NOT accept science with all of it's implications, You need only think of Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Michael Denton, and Simon Conway Morris to see how religious beliefs corrupt science. It's also a bit of a stretch to imply that their version of a "secular society" is the same as that of atheists.
Wake up and smell the roses. I don't care if some people like the taste of ear wax because that preference does not impinge on their understanding of science. You just can't make a similar valid claim about believers in the supernatural no matter how many times you say it. Your logic fails because there are very few believers whose faith doesn't conflict with science in one way or another.
10 comments :
Sure, I agree mainly with Moran's comments, but Wilkins is right that failing to bother the religious is not because such people are "feeling good that someone has religion somewhere". That's a substanceless charge, with as little evidence for it as ID has. And if Dawkins said it, he was wrong to do so.
There can be a host of reasons, from recognizing the hold religion has on many, a misplaced sense that religion deserves "respect" not given to other belief systems, personal issues (you just don't want to bother with religion, for instance), and of course, interpersonal relationships (one has to be a martyr? Not required, even if admirable).
If the relevant Dawkins quote is genuine, it's just so much simplistic nonsense and unfair attack. One doesn't have to agree with Wilkins' notions of the benignity of religion to recognize that fact.
Glen Davidson
Wilkins seeming defense of the Old Testament God is really surprising and completely indefensible. To me unfortunately, his true colors are beginning to show.
John,
This is the reply I left at Wilkins' original post. I leave it here as I think it is pertinent:
You seem to overlook an important point.
Most, but not all, religious people allow for some form of divine intervention, be it creationism, virgin birth, intercessory prayer, resurrection or miracles. When they do that they are rejecting science. Thus anyone who accepts that divine intervention does not accept science without reservation, since science excludes divine intervention as an explanation.
So who is left out of the religious who do accept science ? Well those who think god is just the rules by which the universe works. But then you have the problem that this is not the god Dawkins talks about, in fact he is quite explicit on that point.
I cannot understand your position here. You must realise that those religious people who allow for divine intervention do reject science at least, in part, and those who do not are not the target of Dawkins' ire. So who are these religious people you are talking about ?
Well, in the interest of fairness, here is John's reply to Matt:
Thing is, Matt, I don't care if they have nonscientific views about nonscientific subjects; any more than I care that some people actually like Kenny G. If, in the particular domain of science, they do not oppose knowledge, why would I? It's not up to me. I may think it a pity that friends who are religious think silly things. I may even try to discuss it with them with a view to talking them out of it. Or, they may have views about the Great Beyond that are not empirically contradictory, in which case I simply shrug my shoulders and say to myself, "Oh well, people believe silly shit sometimes." So long as it doesn't make them have to interfere with the positive results of science or its education, or try to impose their views on mine, they can think what they like.
And who are you, or Dawkins or PZ or anyone to say otherwise?
And understanding the origin of the Old Testament God and the changes later rendered to it is not a "defense" of it ... unless you think, like so many fundamentalists do, that knowing about something is the same as approving of it.
Wilkins said: If we demonise the God of the Old Testament, as he does, one is left wondering why in the hell the Hebrews ever wrote that book in the first place
Sure sounds like he's saying we shouldn't demonize him, as Dawkins does.
"Science and the need for a secular society": to me, it seems a good choice of what matters most. Since not everybody is, or need to be, a scientist, I would stress the need for a secular society (a commitment to make public decisions based on secular grounds). Even if believing in the supernatural should make one a bad scientist, there is still ample possiblity that a believer can be a good citizen, even a good teacher or a good doctor, if she understands what a secular society is.
And please, Wilkins is not defending the OT God. He is quite clear that one need to understand its parochial attributes as the result of a complex social process, which is lost if the only thing you can say is that it's a really bad guy.
Who says ID has little evidence?
And please, Wilkins is not defending the OT God. He is quite clear that one need to understand its parochial attributes as the result of a complex social process, which is lost if the only thing you can say is that it's a really bad guy
That will go way over most people heads (especially the fundies, who are the problem dawkins is addressing).
One might get the impression John is saying we're not allowed to demonize the monster of the old testament, because that would offend the jews, to whom he's quite favorably disposed. He even wanted to convert at one time.
Dawkins is a fundie. . . an evangelical fundamentalist atheist to be precise.
Robin Edgar, your link is broken. It goes to a large version of your avatar picture, not to the long-hoped-for evidence in favour of Intelligent Design Creationism.
***
random weirdness: word verificatino is "blueimp"
Post a Comment