…and this is a 
The Dawkins/Dennett boogeyman
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: March 27, 2006 10:38 AM, by PZ Myers
Why would a pro-science op-ed give credence to the words of William Dembski?
William Dembski (one of the leading lights of the US intelligent-design lobby) put it like this in an email to Dawkins: "I know that you personally don't believe in God, but I want to thank you for being such a wonderful foil for theism and for intelligent design more generally. In fact, I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God's greatest gifts to the intelligent-design movement. So please, keep at it!"
You can guess why: to engage in more atheist-bashing. Yes, Dawkins does much to antagonize the godly, and I've heard over and over again that that is bad strategy, but I'm sorry, someone must have that discussion. Despite Dembski's welcome (which reeks of pleas not to be thrown in that there briar patch, Br'er Fox), the surest and I think the only way to end the creationist threat and many other social ills is to undermine the credulous authority granted to the religious. Trying to nibble away at the edges and parading around those awkward scientist-Christian chimeras as representative, while reassuring the cow-eyed masses that "yes, your sons and daughters can be smarter than you are while retaining the same blind obedience to Mother Church" is the strategy we've been trying for years and years, to utter, abysmal failure.
Scientists will never be the close, reassuring father figures that Americans see every week. We will always be threats to the backwards-looking flocks of the majority of the religious, and we will always be railed against from the pulpits—science is an alternative and better way to approach the truth, so we are the competition. The only religion that we can coexist with is one that abandons dogma and scriptural authority, that concedes all explanations of the natural world to the scientific process rather than ancient writ, and to short-circuit the inevitable whining that will follow in the comments thread: those faiths and those individuals are in the minority just as much as we atheists are, and are regarded by the Baptists and the Catholics and the Lutherans and the Mormons and other established sects as just as much of an evil.
Dawkins goes for the root of the problem. It's the only way. The rest of you can keep nipping at the twigs, but you're just playing at topiary, rather than addressing the source of our conflict.
The real problem isn't Dawkins—it's the spectacle of sorry appeasers like Michael Ruse trying to silence dissent. Oh, no, religion is sacrosanct; we must not speak the truth, or we'll rouse the ire of the true believers.
Michael Ruse, a prominent Darwinian philosopher (and an agnostic) based in the US, with a string of books on the subject, is exasperated: "Dawkins and Dennett are really dangerous, both at a moral and a legal level." The nub of Ruse's argument is that Darwinism does not lead ineluctably to atheism, and to claim that it does (as Dawkins does) provides the intelligent-design lobby with a legal loophole: "If Darwinism equals atheism then it can't be taught in US schools because of the constitutional separation of church and state. It gives the creationists a legal case. Dawkins and Dennett are handing these people a major tool."
Hmmm. in•e•luc•ta•ble: "unable to be resisted or avoided; inescapable." Dawkins doesn't say that. He has said that evolution made atheism intellectually respectable, by providing a natural explanation for a prominent feature of our world, organic life. He has said that religion is a foolish delusion, and on that I agree with him; are we to be denied the privilege of criticizing foolishness? No one claims that science leads inescapably to atheism, since as any idiot can tell, many good scientists are also religious (which, of course, does not make religion good).
Ruse compounds his stupid error of equating "Darwinism" (have I ever mentioned that I hate that term?) with atheism, something that we do try not do, with his argument that this hypothetical, nonexistent state of affairs would violate the separation of church and state. Atheism is not a religion. Teaching science is not the same as teaching atheism, as Dawkins would plainly say, while Ruse is the one who insists on conflating them. Ruse is the one who is playing into their hands.
Try this: evolution is a secular theory. I'm sure even Ruse would agree with that statement, and it's much more accurate than claiming it is an atheistic theory. Now update his sentence with this more accurate phrase: "If Darwinism equals secularism than it can't be taught in US schools because of the constitutional separation of church and state."
I know, dear readers, that sounds insane and internally contradictory to you, but that is exactly what the religious hordes who oppose the teaching of evolution think. "Atheism" is merely one label for the things they hate, but "secularism" and "secular humanism" are also things they want to extirpate.
Atheism is the easy target. Secularism is next, then deistic freethought, then non-Christians, and finally we'll have the schisms between the different sects. Ruse and the author of this op-ed are just waging the first stages of the war against secularism for the theocrats; this is why Dembski can so love Dawkins, because he can relish the sight of all of his opponents turning to slash at one of the few clear-sighted enough to see where the struggle has to go.
Madeleine Bunting, the author, is so clueless to what is at stake that I had to laugh aloud at where she took her diatribe next. When she starts talking about what religion is really about, all she's got are naturalistic/materialistic evolutionary explanations about the advantages of religious belief on an individual and social and cultural level.
Both Dennett and Wolpert acknowledge that religion may have provided evolutionary advantages for humans. There's good evidence for faith improving mental health and optimism, and reducing stress; shamanism, with its placebo effect, was the best healthcare system for thousands of years. Dennett cites those who argue that faith improves cooperation within groups (though not between them). This argument raises the crucial question of whether, in an era of globalisation and limited resources, religion has outrun its evolutionary advantage.
Nothing about God, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost; nothing about faith and an afterlife; nothing about salvation or damnation. It's all about belief, nothing but belief, as a biological mechanism that confers a selective or physiological advantage. No god is necessary for this mechanism to work. It's as atheistical as anything Dawkins has ever said.
Remember, Madeleine, as you turn up your nose and sneer and favor the Dembskis of the world who love the way you applaud as they demonize us atheists: they see no difference between you and us, and you are next.
Comments
You mean William Dembski the proven liar, failed barbecue proprietor, the Dover defendants' rejected expert witness. If this guy is a leading light, then he's among some pretty dim bulbs.
Posted by: PaulC | March 27, 2006 10:51 AM
"the only way to end the creationist threat and many other social ills is to undermine the credulous authority granted to the religious."
Yep.
Posted by: steve s | March 27, 2006 10:55 AM
I have to admit I'm only familiar with Dawkins by reputation, so I never saw this idea summarized so concisely. It's a compelling point. For instance, you could read Lucretius to get the basic hypothesis that everything has a naturalistic explanation, but his details just aren't believable. So I guess it would be difficult to argue against the existence of a god-like creator when there are gaping holes in our explanation of what we can observe every day.
In Paley's time, you could make a case that atheism did not even appear intellectually plausible. The trouble is that IDers and other creationists want to claim that even now atheism is not intellectually plausible, and they're frankly wrong about that and in many cases consciously lying about it. The burden of proof has reversed with the advance of science. This is something that rational people have to be able to agree on whether they count themselves among the "faithful" or not.
Religion was never supposed to be about proof anyway. Anyway, I had twelve years of Catholic primary and secondary education and was continually, subtly discouraged from expecting any outward proof of the existence of God. Maybe that was a 70s thing following Vatican II. Huh. I mistook it for a core theological principle.
Anyway, in light of that it's not obvious to me why Dawkins should be considered an enemy of religion merely by pointing out the self-evident. I would have been able to bring up the same point back in Catholic school in which case it would have been considered a statement about the importance of faith rather than its irrationality.
Posted by: PaulC | March 27, 2006 11:12 AM
How about the placebo effect of praying to a sculpture of a guy nailed to a cross? After all, if his suffering makes you optimistic about death and praying reduces your stress over all the rules and regulations in your religion, go ahead and pray. Just don't expect it to cure cancer.
Posted by: ericnh | March 27, 2006 11:15 AM
BTW, I want to give a little credit to that Guardian writer. At least she called ID a "lobby" rather than a research program. That's more than you get from the typical NYT article.
Dembski may be one of the leading lights in the lobby, but the building has not had an occupant for years.
Posted by: PaulC | March 27, 2006 11:17 AM
Something I'm sure will be of interest to PZ that I heard yesterday on Wisconsin Public Radio:
Steve Paulson with E.O. Wilson on Science and Religion
E.O. Wilson is one of the world's most eminent scientists. His theory of sociobiology laid the groundwork for a new branch of science, but also created plenty of enemies. Now, he's taking aim at a new target: religion. In this hour of To the Best of Our Knowledge we'll talk with E.O. Wilson about the growing rift between science and religion; why he calls himself a "provisional deist," and what he dislikes about the whole idea of an eternal afterlife in heaven.
Wilson's insight about the eternal afterlife is very pithy, but spot on.
Posted by: David Wilford | March 27, 2006 11:28 AM
First off, I'm fairly sure that Dembski likes having Dawkins as a (falsifiable) foil. Secondly, he probably does tell his "colleagues" that Dawkins is "God's gift", which I guess gets back to the unavoidable theism pervading "scientific" ID.
Were Dembski a real scientist, he would instead consider what Dawkins says about evolution and the evidence, of course. Most scientists do not care a great deal about Dawkins' extra-curricular beliefs, but IDists most certainly do. The whole Phillip Johnson project is aimed at smearing science as a commitment to atheism, and at substituting religion for actual science.
Of course this is a false portrayal of Dawkins' own position, which is hardly that science arbitrarily and capriciously excludes ID (there are some whose "naturalism" lead them to such a pathetic notion), rather his position is only that a fair application of the methods of science to religion leads to the conclusion that religion's claims are incorrect. So what? So do courts, forensics, philosophy, and any reasonable understanding of literature. The fact is that Dawkins may or may not be correct about religion (probably it's best to say simply that he's wrong about religions which are entirely transcendent, right about the others), but he, like all of science, is only committed to evaluating ideas based upon the proper "rules of evidence". He does not support the lies about science propagated by Phillip Johnson and Dembski, although these charlatans will smear him and science with their a priori conceptions of what science is and does.
Dembski likely is less happy with Dawkins than with many scientists who will pretend that science arbitrarily excludes religion. Dembski attacks Dawkins like he attacks science, by using his own misrepresentations and misapprehensions, as if Dawkins' position were the pre-committed position that IDists accuse science of having (the counterpart of their own precommitments). That Dawkins is willing to subject religion to the same tests as secular beliefs is what Dembski doesn't like, since Dembski is committed to exempting ID and other religious beliefs from all proper tests. He attacks Dawkins because he doesn't want to allow the proper consideration of religion to take place, and must make a caricature out of Dawkins to keep up their facade that "committed Darwinists are committed atheists".
Dembski thanks God (or at least should)--due to his religion-based life--for those who will exempt religion from the proper tests, since these people muddy the waters enough to allow many to "take ID seriously". He thanks God for a caricature of Dawkins as well, since Dawkins may readily be treated as arbitrarily excluding God and religion, when there is no evidence for this arbitrary exclusion in Dawkins' life (the fact that I have issues with Dawkins and his lack of a deep understanding of religion does not mean that his critique of religion is inadequate to the issue--I think it's mostly inadequate in persuasiveness to the public).
The real Dawkins is no help to him, for he exposes the inadequacy of religion (at least any religion not based wholly in mysticism) throughout, and is merely consistent in demanding that ID provide results to be taken seriously. It is probably well that many scientists are more accommodating to religion than Dawkins is, because of the politics of the matter, however it is only for these people that the real Dawkins serves as a useful foil, since they may honestly say that science and evolution are able to coexist.
Here is where PZ is clueless:
Nothing about God, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost; nothing about faith and an afterlife; nothing about salvation or damnation. It's all about belief, nothing but belief, as a biological mechanism that confers a selective or physiological advantage. No god is necessary for this mechanism to work. It's as atheistical as anything Dawkins has ever said.
Of course Buntings' slight apologetic for religion is godless. She's not stupid. What she is likely addressing in the quote that PZ so badly misunderstands is Dawkins' "Root of All Evil" remarks. What she is likely saying is that religion is not the unremitting bad faith and "evil" that Dawkins too often portrays it as being, rather it is part of culture and of human evolution and development. PZ has yet to recognize this any better than we have seen Dawkins does, and yet excellent atheists like Nietzsche have expounded upon the benefits (and costs) to the believers of religion. Bunting knows about some of these benefits, but allows that the past benefits of religion may be less beneficial at this point.
Indeed, it is such poor understanding of religion that does provide some aid and comfort to the enemy, whether from Dawkins' pen or from Myers' keyboard. On the whole, though, consistent thinkers like Dawkins are of little use to Dembski and other IDists, which is why they must re-make Dawkins into someone whose pre-commitments to atheism are responsible for his scientific methodologies. This is not true, however it would be a good argument for atheism if it were so.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 27, 2006 11:38 AM
Dembski's comment is cute, and it also mirrors my own thinking relative to the many hypocritcal deists out there: if I'm wrong and there does happen to be a merciful and fair god, and an eternal resort town called heaven, then I'm in pretty good shape to get there because of my deeds. (Bring the sunscreen!) Whereas many of the hypocritical deists - or at least the bigoted, greedy, unprincipled ones - will probably wind up in the 'other place' despite all of their protestations of faith.
So, although I'm an atheist, I'm pretty sure that if there is a god, he/she is on my side.
Posted by: Dawn O'Day | March 27, 2006 11:39 AM
First off, I'm fairly sure that Dembski likes having Dawkins as a (falsifiable) foil. Secondly, he probably does tell his "colleagues" that Dawkins is "God's gift", which I guess gets back to the unavoidable theism pervading "scientific" ID.
Were Dembski a real scientist, he would instead consider what Dawkins says about evolution and the evidence, of course. Most scientists do not care a great deal about Dawkins' extra-curricular beliefs, but IDists most certainly do. The whole Phillip Johnson project is aimed at smearing science as a commitment to atheism, and at substituting religion for actual science.
Of course this is a false portrayal of Dawkins' own position, which is hardly that science arbitrarily and capriciously excludes ID (there are some whose "naturalism" lead them to such a pathetic notion), rather his position is only that a fair application of the methods of science to religion leads to the conclusion that religion's claims are incorrect. So what? So do courts, forensics, philosophy, and any reasonable understanding of literature. The fact is that Dawkins may or may not be correct about religion (probably it's best to say simply that he's wrong about religions which are entirely transcendent, right about the others), but he, like all of science, is only committed to evaluating ideas based upon the proper "rules of evidence". He does not support the lies about science propagated by Phillip Johnson and Dembski, although these charlatans will smear him and science with their a priori conceptions of what science is and does.
Dembski likely is less happy with Dawkins than with many scientists who will pretend that science arbitrarily excludes religion. Dembski attacks Dawkins like he attacks science, by using his own misrepresentations and misapprehensions, as if Dawkins' position were the pre-committed position that IDists accuse science of having (the counterpart of their own precommitments). That Dawkins is willing to subject religion to the same tests as secular beliefs is what Dembski doesn't like, since Dembski is committed to exempting ID and other religious beliefs from all proper tests. He attacks Dawkins because he doesn't want to allow the proper consideration of religion to take place, and must make a caricature out of Dawkins to keep up their facade that "committed Darwinists are committed atheists".
Dembski thanks God (or at least should)--due to his religion-based life--for those who will exempt religion from the proper tests, since these people muddy the waters enough to allow many to "take ID seriously". He thanks God for a caricature of Dawkins as well, since Dawkins may readily be treated as arbitrarily excluding God and religion, when there is no evidence for this arbitrary exclusion in Dawkins' life (the fact that I have issues with Dawkins and his lack of a deep understanding of religion does not mean that his critique of religion is inadequate to the issue--I think it's mostly inadequate in persuasiveness to the public).
The real Dawkins is no help to him, for he exposes the inadequacy of religion (at least any religion not based wholly in mysticism) throughout, and is merely consistent in demanding that ID provide results to be taken seriously. It is probably well that many scientists are more accommodating to religion than Dawkins is, because of the politics of the matter, however it is only for these people that the real Dawkins serves as a useful foil, since they may honestly say that science and evolution are able to coexist.
Here is where PZ is clueless:
Nothing about God, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost; nothing about faith and an afterlife; nothing about salvation or damnation. It's all about belief, nothing but belief, as a biological mechanism that confers a selective or physiological advantage. No god is necessary for this mechanism to work. It's as atheistical as anything Dawkins has ever said.
Of course Buntings' slight apologetic for religion is godless. She's not stupid. What she is likely addressing in the quote that PZ so badly misunderstands is Dawkins' "Root of All Evil" remarks. What she is likely saying is that religion is not the unremitting bad faith and "evil" that Dawkins too often portrays it as being, rather it is part of culture and of human evolution and development. PZ has yet to recognize this any better than we have seen Dawkins does, and yet excellent atheists like Nietzsche have expounded upon the benefits (and costs) to the believers of religion. Bunting knows about some of these benefits, but allows that the past benefits of religion may be less beneficial at this point.
Indeed, it is such poor understanding of religion that does provide some aid and comfort to the enemy, whether from Dawkins' pen or from Myers' keyboard. On the whole, though, consistent thinkers like Dawkins are of little use to Dembski and other IDists, which is why they must re-make Dawkins into someone whose pre-commitments to atheism are responsible for his scientific methodology. This is not true, however it would be a good argument for atheism if it were so.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 27, 2006 11:39 AM
PZ,
You write that this kind of religious belief is a minority viewpoint in American relgious life:
"The only religion that we can coexist with is one that abandons dogma and scriptural authority, that concedes all explanations of the natural world to the scientific process rather than ancient writ,"
You are right. If the stats in Kevin Phillips' book are to be believed, this has been so for a long time.
But there was a time, in the 60's and 70's, when the extreme right did not dominate all public discourse on religion and the kind of religious belief you wish for was the de facto public one. It wasn't perfect then, but it was a whole lot better than it is right now.
I see no reason why the religious right can be beaten back. It will take one helluva fight, but it can happen.
As for the larger goal you desire, in truth, the only thing I care about is driving religious nuts back to the margins of American discourse. If Dawkins' approach will do the trick, sign me up. (I know Ruse's tactic can't work and he's a joke.)
However, I suspect that it is not Dawkins per se that will do what I want - drive the creationists into irrelevance. But Dawkins PLUS the entire wide spectrum of interests and belief that find themselves in coaltion arrayed against creationists will.
So. Yes to Dawkins, but yes also to Ken Miller, PZ Myers, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Eugenie Scott, Barbara Forrest, etc. and anyone prepared to recognize that whatever their ultimate goal is, a useful proximate goal is the marginalization of the American religious right. Because that is achievable.
I suspect we are saying the same thing, essentially, but in rather different language, btw.
Posted by: tristero | March 27, 2006 11:39 AM
The problem with Dawkins
PZ, I've just thought of an analogy to express the difficulty I have with Dawkins (less so with Dennett) as the most visible public advocate for a nontheistic worldview.
Suppose that instead of Christianity the Western world had a dogmatic religion in which music was seen as the direct revelation of God via prophets we know as "composers". Suppose that J. S. Bach was considered the supremest of God's composer-prophets, and that religious duty consisted largely of listening to, memorizing, and explicating the meanings of his various preludes, concerti, masses, etc. Suppose that Bachians believed that the the fundamental physical laws of the universe are all ultimately to be found within Bach's harmonies, and that they branded as immoral and atheistic any science that explained those law on any other basis.
In this scenario, Richard Dawkins is the fellow who steps forward and demonstrates, both brilliantly and clearly, that the orbits of the planets have nothing to do with the Brandenburg Concertos, that quantum mechanics cannot in fact be reduced to the opening bars of the Toccatas and Fugue in D minor, and that scientists are just as musical as Bachians even though their own particular passion is extending the reportoire of the claw-hammer banjo.
Unfortunately, anti-Bachian Dawkins also makes no attempt to conceal the fact that to him personally Bach's music sounds like the howling of tomcats in heat. He can never quite keep straight the difference between J.S. Bach, C.P.E. Bach, and for that matter P.D.Q. Bach; he's unclear on the distinction between counterpoint and needlepoint; and he's clueless about whether it was Buxtehude who influenced Bach who influenced Mozart, or the other way around.
That's pretty much the way I see Dawkins vis-a-vis Christianity. The problem is that the a-B Dawkins manages to offend everyone who admires Bach's music, even if they don't think it's the foundation of the universe; and those non-Bachians who have spent a good chunk of their lives learning to play the harpsichord, or studying the history of music from Machaut to Vaughn-Williams, get a pained look on their face whenever a-B Dawkins launches into a discursus on music theory that gets things wrong in a dozen different places.
Posted by: DavidSewell | March 27, 2006 11:39 AM
PZ,
You write that this kind of religious belief is a minority viewpoint in American relgious life:
"The only religion that we can coexist with is one that abandons dogma and scriptural authority, that concedes all explanations of the natural world to the scientific process rather than ancient writ,"
You are right. If the stats in Kevin Phillips' book are to be believed, this has been so for a long time.
But there was a time, in the 60's and 70's, when the extreme right did not dominate all public discourse on religion and the kind of religious belief you wish for was the de facto public one. It wasn't perfect then, but it was a whole lot better than it is right now.
I see no reason why the religious right can be beaten back. It will take one helluva fight, but it can happen.
As for the larger goal you desire, in truth, the only thing I care about is driving religious nuts back to the margins of American discourse. If Dawkins' approach will do the trick, sign me up. (I know Ruse's tactic can't work and he's a joke.)
However, I suspect that it is not Dawkins per se that will do what I want - drive the creationists into irrelevance. But Dawkins PLUS the entire wide spectrum of interests and belief that find themselves in coaltion arrayed against creationists will.
So. Yes to Dawkins, and yes also to Ken Miller, PZ Myers, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Eugenie Scott, Barbara Forrest, etc. and anyone prepared to recognize that whatever their ultimate goal is, a useful proximate goal is the marginalization of the American religious right. Because that is achievable.
I suspect we are saying the same thing, essentially, but in rather different language, btw.
Posted by: tristero | March 27, 2006 11:42 AM
I don't think we can make fun of religion enough.
Frankly, if religionists want to do the right thing and be reasonable grownups, fine. I'm still not giving them a cookie for praying to make-believe men in the sky and weird white Arab dead prophets. That's their problem.
We need to make MORE fun of religionists. they so richly deserve it. It's like, keep it in your crappy house of "worship". I don't want to hear it, and any right-thinking person shouldn't have to hear it. Imagine millions of children emerging from their little couch-cushion forts and demanding that the Kingdom of Jimmy-is-the-bestest be recognized as the only source of moral authority because "it's the bestest!"
Its just stupid. These people are embarrassing and stupid, and Dembski is a "leading light" of the Stupid Right. I rhymed.
Posted by: garth | March 27, 2006 11:45 AM
Here's a print interview with E.O. Wilson at Salon.com:
link
It's not clear to me why he can't accept the label of "provisional atheist" rather than "provisional deist", or why the "provisional" is necessary at all. Aren't all positions open to re-evaluation when presented with new evidence? It's just that the evidence continues to fail to appear.
Posted by: wamba | March 27, 2006 11:50 AM
Note to David Sewell: try a different flavor of bud this week.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 27, 2006 11:52 AM
One correction to my post(s) above. I wrote:
The real Dawkins is no help to him, for he exposes the inadequacy of religion (at least any religion not based wholly in mysticism) throughout, and is merely consistent in demanding that ID provide results to be taken seriously. It is probably well that many scientists are more accommodating to religion than Dawkins is, because of the politics of the matter, however it is only for these people that the real Dawkins serves as a useful foil, since they may honestly say that science and evolution are able to coexist.
The last sentence should read, "that science and religion are able to coexist", or, "that religion and evolution are able to coexist."
And it is not a claim that the two are compatible as such, I'm simply saying that empirically we know that humans are able to accept both at the same time.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 27, 2006 11:59 AM
The religious right conflates everything they oppose as a competing religion. This is how they mobilize their following, and activate partisanship. Thats why I also hate the terms they have chosen to annoint scientists with - Darwinist, evolutionist, etc. I have yet to find a university program that confers any degree in Darwinism, or evolutionism.
The implication is we study Darwins theory like they do the Bible, and we are all experts in every facet. They use it like a club. Asking a Geologist a biology question and a Biologist a geology question - can't answer it - see, evolution is wrong! As a Geophysicist I only know evolution where it intersects geology, I know little about protiens and flagellum.
I have been called an evolutionist and a Darwinist several times. I coldly tell them no! I am a Geologist! If they ask me a biology question I tell them ask a Biologist! It steals their fire, they can't battle me on my turf, they always slink away their colons tied in a knot.
We should all reject their branding. It plays to their psychology and strength.
I am also an atheist and am unashamed about telling anyone. I get a lot of different responses. One thing I won't allow is anyone try to equate atheism with religion. Atheism is an absence of religion, facts and truth over faith.
Posted by: Dennis Lynch | March 27, 2006 12:00 PM
BTW, nobody contradicted my characterization of Dembski as a failed barbecue proprietor, but I admit I'm guessing. There is still a Brazos barbecue http://www.brazosbarbecue.com/ but the website omits any mention of intelligent design, Dembski no longer lives there as far as I know, and I had assumed that he does not have a current stake in the venture. He's not the administrative contact for the website either.
Posted by: PaulC | March 27, 2006 12:02 PM
There was an article on the front page of the New York Times on Sunday about some woefully ignorant and supersticious African women who are opposed to eradicating a truly nasty parasitic worm from their "magical" drinking pool.
A local African leader was quoted as saying something like, "I can't believe this. I am a Christian. I don't believe in that juju."
And I was struck by the failure of the author to note that there is a whole lot of Christian juju that is really no different from the juju that these African women were practicing. Whether this African leader chooses to practice the juju that is practiced by other Christians is his personal choice. There is very little or nothing about Christianity per se that is more pro-science or rational than any other religion.
I was not surprised or shocked by the omission because the treatment of Christianity as a more "rational" religion than other religions is par for the course in the U.S. (it's not necessary to explain why that is).
In any event, the right thing to do is to treat the well and provide armed guards with the right to take necessary action against anyone who tries to interfere. There's no reason an innocent kid should get infected by one of these parasites just because his/her parent is a supersticious idiot.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 27, 2006 12:03 PM
The whole Phillip Johnson project is aimed at smearing science as a commitment to atheism, and at substituting religion for actual science.
I love it when people point out this elementary fact.
Anyone going to Berkeley in April to lay some righteous farts in Phil's general direction during his IDEA Club lecture?
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 27, 2006 12:05 PM
Speaking of Dembski, he'll be making appearances in New Jersy and Pennsylvania this week if anyone cares to show up and heckle^H^H^H^H^H^H ask him questions.
Posted by: wamba | March 27, 2006 12:09 PM
I was going to post a comment about PZ needing to look into a comparative religion class and about Lutherans and their take on creation, but it turned into something else. Sorry if this is too off-topic for folks.
My Lutheran confirmation class where someone asked the pastor teaching the class about creation in Genesis vs. evolution. The pastor answered that the creation story in Genesis wasn't literal but symbolic. The ELCA website even says "The Bible is...not a definitive record of history or science."
But then while looking for the above quote I found the following hooey:
"Lutherans believe that God is Creator of the universe. Its dimensions of space and time are not something God made once and then left alone. God is, rather, continually creating, calling into being each moment of each day."
As an adult I wish someone in that confirmation class had asked when to stop interpreting the Bible and the church's teachings as symbolic and not literally to see how he would have answered. Maybe if we weren't all 12 or 13 at the time it would have occured to us (it didn't to me then) or someone would have been brave enough. Over the years the percentage of my symbolic interpretation of both eventually approached 100% until I realized how much doublethink I had to go through just to hold onto some respect for or faith in the church I had been raised in and realized I just needed to let the whole thing go. I guess if I'm still defending them I haven't let go completely yet.
Over time I've come to the point where I gather much more spiritual comfort from my faith in the non-existence of god than I ever did in the existence of god. No more contradictions requiring mental gymnastics, no more self deception, and no self-doubt from trying to please the all-knowing unknowable invisible above.
Posted by: TomS | March 27, 2006 12:13 PM
DavidSewell:
I think you left some things out of your metapor of the "Anti-Bachian Dawkins". Might want to add these in:
Over history, adherents of Bachianism have suppressed, jailed, tortured, forced conversions, and burned at the stake those who favored Mozartism or other systems of ideas.
Bachian power elites have suppressed fundamental breakthroughs in understanding our world, subjugating or burning people like Galileo or Tycho Brahe. This has resulted in retarding humankind's ability to make a better, cleaner, safer world for centuries.
Currently, very useful medical technologies are mired in controversy because of Bachian ideas such as stem cells having what they call "counterpoint".
Bachian fundamentalists are motivated by their allegiance to Bach to immolate themselves and others in acts of terrorism, something they call "achieving vertical harmony".
So, sure, have your problem with "Anti-Bachian Dawkins" for not playing nicey-nice with "Bachianism", and condemn him for not knowing the obscure, arbitrary, senseless details of hundreds of different sects on top of the mountain of biological understanding he already has conquered. In the meantime, busses blow up, faith healers rob poor people blind, and selections from the "Brandenburg Concerto" are being discussed to replace our national anthem.
Posted by: cm | March 27, 2006 12:16 PM
DavidSewell:
I think you left some things out of your metaphor of the "Anti-Bachian Dawkins". Might want to add these in:
Over history, adherents of Bachianism have suppressed, jailed, tortured, forced conversions, and burned at the stake those who favored Mozartism or other systems of ideas.
Bachian power elites have suppressed fundamental breakthroughs in understanding our world, subjugating or burning people like Galileo or Tycho Brahe. This has resulted in retarding humankind's ability to make a better, cleaner, safer world for centuries.
Currently, very useful medical technologies are mired in controversy because of Bachian ideas such as stem cells having what they call "counterpoint".
Bachian fundamentalists are motivated by their allegiance to Bach to immolate themselves and others in acts of terrorism, something they call "achieving vertical harmony".
So, sure, have your problem with "Anti-Bachian Dawkins" for not playing nicey-nice with "Bachianism", and condemn him for not knowing the obscure, arbitrary, senseless details of hundreds of different sects on top of the mountain of biological understanding he already has conquered. In the meantime, busses blow up, faith healers rob poor people blind, and selections from the "Brandenburg Concerto" are being discussed to replace our national anthem.
Posted by: cm | March 27, 2006 12:17 PM
Dennis Lynch:
Actually, I don't know if it's just the rightwing of theistic thought; one oftens hears the statement that evolution is "just another religion" from those posing as contrarians or skeptics.
I was thinking about this in the context of "methodological naturalism." I consider it self-evident that naturalistic explanations, when available, are to be preferred to ones that invoke the supernatural, and claim that in practice this happens everywhere. Nobody, not the courts, not your dentist, not your plumber, not even your priest when asked for practical advice, offers "God did it." as a proximal cause until a list of mundane possibilities has been exhausted.
Now, you do hear the scientific worldview dismissed as "another religion" but notice that what you never hear are scientists claiming that creationism, astrology, entrail-reading, or rain-making is just another science.
Isn't this in itself strong evidence that in practice everyone accepts scientific reasoning as the gold standard of understanding the world around us and only punts it over to faith when science does not back up one's belief.
Posted by: PaulC | March 27, 2006 12:20 PM
Glen
What she is likely saying is that religion is not the unremitting bad faith and "evil" that Dawkins too often portrays it as being...
Too often? For whom?
Remember: in the big picture, Dawkins is a nobody.
To be consistent, the hand-wringers on the side of science who take offense at Dawkins' "portrayals" of religion should spend ten times as much verbiage attacking Frank Zappa -- a far more influential figure if you consider the number of teenagers whose heads exploded when they heard 'Dumb All Over' versus the number of people who have heard of Dawkins or bothered to read one of his books.
If Dawkins didn't exist or Dennett didn't exist, then the Discovery Institute shitheads would simply find someone else to use a foil.
Remember: the fundies will not be satisfied until everyone is a fundie, which is to say that they will never be satisfied.
We could outlaw being gay and outlaw abortion and the fundies will want to outlaw unmarried people from living together.
Fundies = psychos.
Non-fundie religious people = one foot in the door.
People who engage in mind games to prevent having ulcers = normal human beings.
It's not terribly complicated. Pretending that it's complicated by issuing disclaimers about any alleged "good" that is allegedly unique to religion simply provides coverage for the fundies.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 27, 2006 12:22 PM
Why was a portrait of Susan B. Anthony put on the dollar coin? Because Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a freethinker.
A version of this same debate went on during the fight for abolition, the fight for women's rights, the fight for birth control. The freethinkers, who composed a sizable portion of the leadership for social progress, were told to shut up and sit down in the back of the bus.
Now let's all join hands and join in a chorus of 'We Shall Overcome'.
Posted by: wamba | March 27, 2006 12:27 PM
Oh, for pity's sake, it's so obvious that Dembski is jealous of Dawkins--of his success, of his credentials, of his place in history, which is assured. (I doubt that Dawkins takes the time to e-mail Dembski at any time, on any subject!)
This kind of game is played all the time. "Thank you, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, for lobbying for women's suffrage, because you're just providing us slave-owners with more ammunition against the Abolitionist Movement!" Well, I'm holding you to it, Dembski! Cough it up or suck it up, my boy--I want results from Intelligent Design in 15 years. Thank the nonexistence of God for you and your theism, Dembski. Yes, let's have it out. I hope all the little creationists hitch their wagons to your star, you bright light, you. See you in 15 years.
Posted by: Kristine | March 27, 2006 12:32 PM
Wamba, it's bad enough Stanton is eclipsed by Anthony. SBA practically retconned Matilda Joslyn Gage out of the history of the movement. Most people have never heard of her.
"Gage began to be more and more disillusioned with the NWSA, and eventually broke with it when Anthony underhandedly was able to combine the NWSA with the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA), which had combined with the Women?s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). Gage was not against temperance; she had in fact worked for the movement back in the 1850?s. But she disagreed with the WCTU plan to make prayer mandatory in public schools and to change the Constitution to have Christ be the true head of the government. Gage thought this was outrageous, and after Anthony betrayed the NWSA, she created a new organization called the Woman?s National Liberal Union (WNLU). This organization worked toward the separation of church and state, and recognized that religion has been the oppressor of women."
Posted by: Ken Cope | March 27, 2006 1:00 PM
If Dawkins didn't exist or Dennett didn't exist, then the Discovery Institute shitheads would simply find someone else to use a foil.
Of course. I've made that point often enough, such as in this post (Seth Gordon managed to say it first in the thread, but it had been my thought all along as I read the posts):
http://tinyurl.com/qnvwk
As I noted in that post, the fact that Dawkins resides in the UK may be convenient for us as well. Beyond all that, however, I think that what I wrote is important in discussing Dawkins, that he is an atheist who doesn't exclude religion from the appropriate tests, and that it is simply his conclusion from the evidence that religion is wanting in legitimacy. Only the tests exclude religion, there is no a priori exclusion as the appropriately titled shitheads at the DI like to claim.
Pretending that it's complicated by issuing disclaimers about any alleged "good" that is allegedly unique to religion simply provides coverage for the fundies.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 27, 2006 1:08 PM
continuing from the above post:
It is complicated, and I did not write that there was any "good" unique to religion. That a kind of selfish "good" may accrue to believers is what Bunting brought up, using Dennett in the doing. There is little else to use to evaluate the "worth" of religion, so that will have to do. The fact that Dawkins (like Myers) rarely evaluates religion as a decent philosopher, anthropologist, or sociologist would do does not help him to be convincing, and indeed, I do not believe that he is (except for those who think "memes" is profound--which is to say, to the already "converted").
Anyhow, I wrote about such matters less for their own sake than because PZ appears not to have understood what issues Bunting was addressing. But when the matter is raised, I am not about to pretend that religion is simple, or that it embodies any sort of evil (or good) that cannot be found elsewhere in human systems and behavior. The rigidity of many modern monotheistic religions presents a dangerous dimension that was mostly lacking in the promiscuous polytheism of the very distant past, which is my major complaint.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 27, 2006 1:10 PM
Do you really think Dembski is happy with what Dawkins says? If that were the case, why would he write to Dawkins with the apparent intention of getting Dawkins to change his strategy and rhetoric?
It reminds me of "Some Mistakes of Moses" by Robert Ingersoll, when he mentions the clerics telling him that he is going about criticizng Christianity and the Bible all wrong, and they give him advice on how he should be criticizing them if he really wants to be effective. Ingersoll laughs at the idea that the clerics are really trying to help him accomplish his goals. They clearly want him to be less effective.
The same seems to be true about Dembski regarding Dawkins.
Posted by: Nick | March 27, 2006 1:24 PM
Kristine:
I think this is a pretty fair summary. Dembski wants to be a real researcher. All other things equal, he probably has the brains for it, but science is about being honest as well as clever. He made some promising starts along the way, but he just bet on the wrong horse. Now he can console himself with sycophants calling him Isaac Newton of Information Theory, but he's got to realize that he's just puttering around, doing nothing but obfuscating the issue. Dawkins is one of many doing the real work and getting the real credit. Maybe Dawkins is particularly galling to Dembski because he wears his atheism on his sleeve instead of just not getting involved in religious discussions.
Posted by: PaulC | March 27, 2006 1:32 PM
Over history, adherents of Bachianism have suppressed, jailed, tortured, forced conversions, and burned at the stake those who favored Mozartism or other systems of ideas.
Bachian power elites have suppressed fundamental breakthroughs in understanding our world, subjugating or burning people like Galileo or Tycho Brahe. This has resulted in retarding humankind's ability to make a better, cleaner, safer world for centuries.
Currently, very useful medical technologies are mired in controversy because of Bachian ideas such as stem cells having what they call "counterpoint".
Bachian fundamentalists are motivated by their allegiance to Bach to immolate themselves and others in acts of terrorism, something they call "achieving vertical harmony".
cm, you might want to take the words of the Guardian writer, Madeline Bunting, to heart:
All protagonists in a debate have a moral responsibility to ensure that the hot air they are expending generates light, not just heat.
You may think it's a killer rhetorical point to bring up the evils of religious fundamentalism as though it was somehow relevant to a discussion of why Dawkins might (I said might) be doing more harm than good, but it really isn't. Someone should come up with a religious version of Godwin's law to deal with this sort of silly lumping together of the Spanish Inquisition and, say, Midwestern Lutherans. Not all Christians - in the US or elsewhere - are gay-hating, anti-abortion, anti-sex, anti-science, anti-stem cell bigots. If you want to label them all like that, you have just made your job of promoting science much, much harder.
There is a clear and legitimate difference of opinion in the pro-science camp on this issue. On one hand, there are people who feel that the goal of promoting science in general (and evolution in particular) is best served by accomodating those who have religious beliefs, even if they think those beliefs are wrong, silly or even potentially dangerous. On the other hand, there are those who see religion as the root of all evil, and argue that there should be no accomodation to the sensibilities of the religious, and that one should achieve the supremacy of science by wiping out the virus of religion once and for all.
Both sides in this argument share a common goal of supporting and promoting science. Madeline Bunting shares this goal. You, cm, and I share this goal. It is OK to have this debate. The question is, which approach will work better?
PZ thinks that the former approach has been an abysmal failure, to which all I can respond is this: try the second approach and see how far you get.
There is a political analogy to this discussion. How do progressive Democrats make inroads into Red States? Do they do this by promoting gun control, pushing for gay marriage and tax increases? Or do they frame the debate in terms that will win them voters instead of driving them away in droves? You will never win over the real crazies. Do you want to split the moderates away from the crazies, or drive them into their arms?
Posted by: Andy Groves | March 27, 2006 1:33 PM
I buggered up the italics in that last post. First four paras should be in italics.
Posted by: Andy Groves | March 27, 2006 1:35 PM
I wrote:
By which I mean only that he learned how to manipulate mathematical notation very well and received various degrees and awards suggesting some inherent capacity for mathematics. I don't mean to suggest that any of his work on ID has merit.
Posted by: PaulC | March 27, 2006 1:36 PM
Ah, but Andy, I'm not saying we need to convert all the godly to good atheists, just as Democrats are not telling the redstaters that they must each and every one enter into a homosexual union. We're saying we're here, we're part of the American reality, and you need to recognize our existence.
The way to win over the moderates is to make ourselves known and show that we are no threat and aren't going to attack their values, whatever those nebulous values are...that in fact we share those values.
Those who advocate silencing the atheists are in the same boat as the reactionaries who think the way to advance Democratic politics is to lock the queers in the closet and tell them to accept limits to their rights and privileges. Yeah, it'll get you a few more votes -- by becoming Republican.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 27, 2006 1:43 PM
Greek Zeus-worshippers call for state recognition
Posted by: ivy privy | March 27, 2006 1:47 PM
PaulC:
I totally agree with you. Most people favor rational or natural explanations over superstition. Even Billy graham and Pat Robertson reach for the barbituates when the old siatica acts up. Most people take their cars to the mechanic when it breaks down, not the family priest.
Most people wouldn't question their mechanic if he told them the reason their auto air conditioning isn't working is it needs a new transmission. But, they look at a Scientist funny when he tells them the cracks in their walls are because the fault running through their living room is actively shifting and predicts a quake. Those people will go to their priest, and ask for a prayer.
People are just funny that way!
Posted by: Dennis Lynch | March 27, 2006 2:44 PM
I don't see what's wrong with accepting atheism as a scientific theory anyway. We treat religion naturalistically, most of the time, and the change from studying religion as a supernatural phenomenon to studying religion as a natural phenomenon followed usual patterns of theory change. That is, not everything in the original theory was "disproved," the newer theory was instead found to be a better explanatory framework. That's normal science. Nor is it troublesome that the theory that was displaced had supernatural elements; the history of science is full of cases where a naturalistic theory has displaced one that contained extra-physical causes.
The only difference between the religious case and other similar cases is the extreme opposition to the new theory found in society. But even there, as I said, we treat religion naturalistically most of the time. It's only for certain types of religion that we take the naturalistic theory of religion to be provisional or instrumental or even out right false. Those types are usually religions that are well-established in our own society or the religious beliefs of other cultures in certain circumstances. If someone believes in a minority cult, Scientology say, or in a religion that isn't currently in favour, various forms of paganism for example, we treat it naturalistically.
To my mind, there is no difference between Creationist opposition to evolution and religion-in-general's opposition to atheism/materialism. The main difference is the sheer number of theories categorised under "religion-in-general," which out number those of Creationism, some of which are more difficult to respond to than others. But as in the case of Creationism, such theory proliferation, which is clearly designed to dodge criticism, should give us pause (as it does in every other area of science). I don't think the fact that we lack a single, "complete" naturalistic account of religion is a problem either; there are many theories united under a wider consensus, much like any area of science, including evolutionary biology.
Posted by: poke | March 27, 2006 3:10 PM
The way to win over the moderates is to make ourselves known and show that we are no threat and aren't going to attack their values, whatever those nebulous values are...that in fact we share those values.
Do you think that the posts you write on religion and atheism are achieving that very laudable aim? Because I don't, and I'm an atheist! I can't quote you chapter and verse without resorting to a search engine, but at various times on your blog, you've said things to the effect that religion is silly, stupid, a lie or some such. Yes, you also make it clear that you don't think all religious people are awful, but still..... what effect do you think your words will have on a moderate Christian who has heard about your site and visits it for the first time to learn more about evolution? Do you think they will be more or less receptive to what you have to say about the science?
Those who advocate silencing the atheists are in the same boat as the reactionaries who think the way to advance Democratic politics is to lock the queers in the closet and tell them to accept limits to their rights and privileges. Yeah, it'll get you a few more votes -- by becoming Republican.
You misunderstand what I was trying to say. The best way to promote gay rights is to elect Democrats. If you can do that best in red states by not making gay rights an issue in your campaign (or by simply dismissing the controversy as anti-american, a la Paul Hackett), good for you. I'm not saying you have to remove the promotion of gay rights as a policy position, just as a campaign position. You will not elect Democrats in red states by making gay marriage the centrepiece of your campaign any more than you will increase the acceptance of science by Christians telling them they are deluded.
We may have to agree to keep disagreeing on this. It doesn't mean I love you any less. The funny thing is that from reading your accounts of giving presentations to the public, you seem to be more sensitive to people's religious views in person than on your blog. So we may not be so far apart as we think......
Posted by: Andy Groves | March 27, 2006 3:34 PM
[Dembski may be one of the leading lights in the lobby, but the building has not had an occupant for years.]
PaulC: that was awesome.
Posted by: Damien | March 27, 2006 3:49 PM
Andy Groves:
I don't think that PZ's posts are intended to win over moderates and I don't think that this contradicts the fact that he has a more realistic view of what it takes to achieve that aim.
I think his role is more along the lines of keeping the negotiation honest. Atheists and theists can live together, but it has to be a relationship that acknowledges the fundamental disagreement between the two viewpoints. Someone else can work to bridge the divide. PZ's job is to delineate it and he does it in an engaging, provocative fashion.
I found it interesting that PZ's response to a comment I made recently left me with nothing to disagree about.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/archbishop_of_canterbury_antic.php#comment-40749
Still, I'm sure that PZ and I really do disagree about the appropriate level of respect between people who disagree about the existence of God. Yet I'm still not sure where that disagreement begins.
My view is that you respect people by default and drop the respect only if their behavior towards others is intolerable. Nobody gets everything right. Some people are wrong about an awful lot and yet make valuable contributions. And even their "contributions" are a red herring: the right of each individual to pursue their own happiness without hurting others entirely supercedes any view I might have about their utility or merit by any measure. Of course, I want social policy that creates good citizens, not just free individuals, but the appropriate means are education, not coercion. Ridicule is a form of coercion, since it wins not by attaining consensus but by using weapons against a weaker opponent. While I consider it appropriate to carry out this kind of ideological war on the likes of William Dembski (it was his side that started it) I don't think it's appropriate to attack everyone and their grandmother for being devout believers. To a large extent, I think PZ limits his attacks to those who are already on the attack, so I have little problem with his blog.
Posted by: PaulC | March 27, 2006 3:58 PM
So what exactly would you have me change? To not say that religion is silly, stupid, a lie? Because that's what I think, and that's what I have to say.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 27, 2006 4:01 PM
If the previous comment was directed at me (since it followed it), I think it should be clear that I'm not recommending any change at all.
Posted by: PaulC | March 27, 2006 4:04 PM
Actually, I think that the answer to where PZ and I disagree might be what I said in the Archbishop of Canterbury thread, namely that PZ considers religious belief less inevitable and more harmful than I do. It just strikes me that people are naturally superstitious and nobody has been able to find a cure for this tendency that works for more than a small percentage of the population. But this is not in itself an obstacle for getting a long. Our commonality of interests supercedes our differences.
Posted by: PaulC | March 27, 2006 4:09 PM
I guess it's just because I'm pretty libertarian, but I approach this from a different angle: Dawkins doesn't have any kind of responsibility to talk about atheism in the way that best attracts the godly.
He's not president of the Atheist Outreach; He's a scientist. His responsibility is to do good research. He isn't obligated to tone himself down for the sake of the Christian PR machine.
And another thing: Christianity has as one of its central tenets the idea that all other religions are stupid and wrong. This is a point that comes up again and again from the old testament to the new.
So why ON EARTH do Christians expect everybody else to act as though their religion is sensible and good?
Posted by: Christopher | March 27, 2006 4:11 PM
Posted by: PaulC | March 27, 2006 4:12 PM
Oh Andy Andy Andy.
Why, exactly, should we expect Democrats to champion gay rights when A)They don't need to to get elected, and B) If they do it signifigantly hurts their chances of re-election?
Posted by: Christopher | March 27, 2006 4:15 PM
Christopher:
I'm not sure they do. Evangelicals seem to expect and demand a culture war. Genuine moderate Christians would have to respect the right of others to disagree (that's part of being moderate).
I suspect the calls for unity are coming not from Christians but from weak-kneed secularists who are afraid of turning the majority against them. I don't agree with this on two counts. First the religious majority already appears to have an axe to grind against atheists and no amount of appeasement will change this. Second, if you make it clear where you draw the line, then people might at least respect you for standing your ground. I don't see any great benefit to appeasement, nor do I see any great harm in what Dawkins is doing. He may be doing some good just by being engaging and standing as a shining role model of how an unapologetic atheist can be a great success and contribute to society through his work.
The idea that people like Dawkins cause harm is promulgated mostly by their opponents, like Dembski, and bought into by those who ought to know better but have no strength of conviction. On the other hand, the vast majority of religious people have probably never even heard of Dawkins or, for that matter, anyone connected with ID.
Posted by: PaulC | March 27, 2006 4:44 PM
Not all Christians - in the US or elsewhere - are gay-hating, anti-abortion, anti-sex, anti-science, anti-stem cell bigots.
And few scientists are outspoken atheists. Still fewer are publicly speaking against religion. The day when the Christian bigots are as few in number, and other Christians consider trying to silence these bigots lest they "hurt the cause", then we can get back on whether Dawkins and Dennett are being unreasonable.
Posted by: windy | March 27, 2006 5:30 PM
The problem with Dawkins's comment on that evolution makes atheism respectable is precisely that it presumes exactly the same thing as many theists: that a gap in naturalistic explanation must or should be filled by God. It is precisely this illicit move that rationalists should reject. Our failure to find a natural explanation for some observed phenomena is evidence only of the state of man's knowledge, and never by itself constitutes evidence that "God did it."
We still don't have a good theory of how life originated. Does that mean atheism still lacks some measure of intellectual respectability? Nonsense! It merely means there is much yet to figure out. Not yet having figured it out in no way bolsters belief in a god, not even if believers attribute him as having done what we don't yet understand.
Posted by: Russell | March 27, 2006 5:33 PM