My longtime readers know that I have very mixed feelings about Richard Dawkins. On the one hand, I certainly recognize that he is quite brilliant both as a scholar and as a writer. His extremely lucid prose has undoubtedly helped millions of laypeople better understand the theory of evolution and the many lines of evidence which support it. On the other hand, I think his outspoken, even militant atheism, too often offered almost as a package deal with evolution without any meaningful distinction made between the two, also drives millions of people away from even attempting such understanding. And in my personal dealings with the man, I've found him to be astonishingly arrogant and not terribly honest.
With all that as background, I was happy to see this interview with Dawkins on BeliefNet. In it, I think he says something very important that makes a distinction I wish he would make more often. When asked the question "Is atheism the logical extension of believing in evolution?", he replied:
They clearly can't be irrevocably linked because a very large number of theologians believe in evolution. In fact, any respectable theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible church believes in evolution. Similarly, a very large number of evolutionary scientists are also religious. My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.
Having criticized Dawkins for not making this distinction many times before, I also have to offer praise for having done so here. Unfortunately, he then turns right around and erases whatever good that statement might do when he takes his ego out for a walk in response to another question. When asked how he would react if his daughter ended up believing in God, he replied:
Well, that would be her decision and obviously she's her own person, she's free to do whatever she likes. I think she's much too intelligent to do that, but that's her decision.
*Bashing head against wall* The irony, of course, is the sheer stupidity of this statement. It assumes that belief or disbelief in God is a function of intelligence (and here I define intelligence broadly, not by IQ measurement) and that is clearly false. There are plenty of stupid people in the world, many of them religious. There are also plenty of stupid people who are irreligious and plenty of brilliant people who are religious. There simply is no correlation between the two.
I've been known to do my fair share of bashing stupid people, and lucky for me the world appears to have ample supply of them (and they tend to be prolific and easily identifiable). But I would suggest that one has to have an ego the size of the Milky Way Galaxy if they think that they are more intelligent than a Ken Miller, or a Francis Colling, or for that matter a Thomas Aquinas, merely by virtue of the fact that they believe in God and you don't.
You know why this annoys me so much? Because I used to be him. When I left Christianity now nearly 20 years ago, I did what many others have done in the same situation, I became one of those evangelical atheists one encounters in chat rooms and on message boards so often. When I first went online, about 12 or 13 years ago, it was in the Compuserve Religion Forum. There I met many people with whom I remain friends today, including one or two who comment here (Troy Britain, most commonly).
I would sit there in the chat room bashing anyone who dared to believe in anything religous at all. If you believed in God, you were clearly an idiot and that's all there was to it. Before long I ran into a real problem: I kept running into people who believed in God who weren't idiots. I met Henry Neufeld, a Hebrew scholar and director of a Bible Institute, and he didn't fit my preconceptions at all. He was brilliant and well educated (far better educated than I when it came to Biblical questions) and nothing like the simple-minded fundamentalists I was used to (and no, not all fundamentalists are simple-minded, but I only knew the simple-minded variety at the time). I met John Burgeson and many others, all very bright and well educated and engaging. And over the course of a couple years, I moved past my own simple-mindedness in thinking that only those who agreed with me could be intelligent.
So I'm sure that at least part of the reason why I find Dawkins' words here so irritating is that I am reacting against my own history because I'm a bit ashamed of it. But I grew out of it in my 20s; Richard Dawkins appears to be incapable of doing so. And that is a shame, because he is undoubtedly a brilliant thinker and a brilliant writer, and if he would argue more with his brain and less with his ego, he might find that a lot more people would listen to what he had to say.
- Log in to post comments
On the one hand, militant atheists have shown the same ignorance, narrow-mindedness, intolerance, and outright bigotry they claim to despise in religion. On the other hand, militant atheists offer absolutely none of the compassion, empathy, or deeper understanding and appreciation of mystery that a good religion offers. Does anyone remember any bits of superior wisdom or humanity coming from the likes of Madeline Murray O'Hare?
By rejecting all but the tangible, atheists make themselves deaf, dumb and blind to some very relevant and important things in the human experience.
Raging Bee wrote:
I certainly don't. I loathed the woman. She was Marge Schott with a library card. I once turned down the opportunity to write an article for an American Atheist publication because I didn't want to be associated with them.
To be fair, not all atheists do that.
On one hand I agree with you and another I don't. I agree that believing in God is not a sign of a deficient level of intelligence but it is often a failure to use good critical thinking skills even among scientists.
One also has to seperate the 'belief in God' from far more irrational beliefs like a belief the bible is innerrant. Believing in God in and of itself is far different from believing the claims made by the majority of religions.
I also have had numerous conversations with Ken Miller, have a good friend who works at Brown as well. He's a smart guy, a fun guy, and I like him. I personally do not consider him a genius nor the equal of Dawkins intellectually. Miller is great on the science but when he dips into his religious ideas he becomes as illogical as the fundie preacher on your street corner.
'On the other hand, militant atheists offer absolutely none of the compassion, empathy, or deeper understanding and appreciation of mystery that a good religion offers.'
That is simply ridiculous and a good argument can be made the opposite direction.
' rejecting all but the tangible, atheists make themselves deaf, dumb and blind to some very relevant and important things in the human experience.'
Again very wrong. The tangible is all anyone ever really deals with, it's just the perception of these experiences that changes.
I'm not an atheist, and I admit I believe for totally irrational reasons. I suppose similiar reasons exist for people like Martin Gardner.
Who?
Oops, thanks for catching that pough.
Ed: you're right, not all atheists do that; just the ones I've heard from the most.
Of course, we may be using different definitions of "atheist:" the more open-minded atheists you speak of may pass in my view as "agnostics."
'ego the size of the Milky Way Galaxy if they think that they are more intelligent than a Ken Miller, or a Francis Colling, or for that matter a Thomas Aquinas,'
I should also make a quick comment that Aquinas would be an interesting read if he had access to our modern knowledge.
But my real comment is people may very well be 'more intelligent' than the above mentioned people in this area, on this subject. Intelligence appears to be a multilayered task with individuals(even apparently dim ones) often able to see clearly where those better educated cannot.
I'm a profesor and am not infrequently amazed at the clarity of thought some students are capable of using on a variety of subjects. I wouldn't discount the seemingly simple minded on a subject that really is the ultimate simple answer subject. I think Shermer has it correct in his book 'Why people believe'. Smart people are simply better at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.
I think Dawkins has no less right to push his ideas as strongly as those who oppose his ideas. And the truth is, people who accept his worldview are among the fastest growing segments of the world population. Despite or maybe causing so much of the 'culture war' so prevalent in political thought today.
Sometimes those less educated are also less encumbered. Especially those who have not been indoctrinated since childhood.
"But I would suggest that one has to have an ego the size of the Milky Way Galaxy if they think that they are more intelligent than a Ken Miller, or a Francis Collins, or for that matter a Thomas Aquinas, merely by virtue of the fact that they believe in God and you don't."
But one doesn't need a large ego, only suitable skill in critical thinking and familiarity with the facts, to know that these individuals, brilliant though they may be in their fields of expertise, are simply wrong when it comes to matters of religion. After all, if these really smart people actually had a good reasoned argument for their religion, then you and I wouldn't be non-Christians, would we?
Chance wrote:
I agree with this completely, though I still don't think this necessarily links with intelligence. But I make a very big distinction between specific empirical claims, whether religious or non-religious in nature, and claims where we just don't have any evidence one way or the other. Given the evidence, I think it is absurd to deny that life on earth evolved. But when it comes to the origin of the universe, or of existence itself, not only do we have no evidence either way, I don't think we can even ask the question coherently.
When it comes to the existence of the universe, we have two equally absurd possibilities - that it was created by some entity that always existed and is uncreated, or that it has always existed and was uncreated itself. Neither alternative is any more logical than the other, and we have no evidence to go on in determining which one is true and which is not. In other words, we have a genuine mystery that we just can't answer with any certainty at this point and may never be able to. So on that question, it seems quite silly for someone to take either position and criticize those who take the opposite for being illogical. Both are in the same boat, having to take a guess, essentially a shot in the dark. And I'm perfectly okay with that, but I'm certainly not going to criticize someone else for taking a different shot in the dark. If they add on to that guess with specific empirical statements that are contrary to the evidence, then those statements may be fairly criticized.
But believing that the universe was created is no more absurd, in my view, than believing that the universe has always existed. I think an agnostic position is perfectly acceptable here. I think taking either of the two affirmative positions is acceptable as long as you do so provisionally and with the understanding that you may well be wrong. But taking one of them and pretending that anyone who takes the opposite position is an idiot? Well that's just thinking with your ego instead of your brain.
K Klein wrote:
I don't think that follows at all. You assume that you and I are perfectly rational people who decide questions solely through objective analysis of the evidence. We may be more or less capable of that than some people, but no one is purely objective. We may very well reject religion for reasons that are not objective and we may be influenced by lots of non-objective inputs, just as Dawkins' hostility toward religion may have more to do with his having been diddled by an Anglican priest as a child than by rational analysis.
Furthermore, as I said in a comment above, when it comes to the ultimate question of the origin of existence itself, all of the rational analysis of the facts we might want to do isn't going to answer that question. Infinitely old and uncreated matter/energy is no more or less illogical than an infinitely old and uncreated creator of matter/energy. Both suffer from essentially the same logical problem. Thus, I don't think one can justifiably get arrogant about having the right answer to that question. On some empirical questions, we have sufficent evidence and powerful reasoning to make the argument that, in Gould's words, it would be perverse and absurd to withhold one's assent to the basic truth of a particular explanation. The earth is 4.55 billion years old, and the evidence for that claim is extremely conclusive and compelling, to the point where denying it is an exercise in absurdity.
But when it comes to the question of ultimate origins, we just don't have that kind of evidence to go on. On that question, we are all seeing through a glass darkly, so to speak. We're all just guessing. And as long as that is the case, I think it's absurd to take a dogmatic position either way. I am a deist. My best guess is that the universe was created by something. I don't know that for certain, I'm taking a fairly uninformed guess. And so are you, and so is everyone else.
Ed,
I agree with one exception.
'that it was created by some entity that always existed and is uncreated, or that it has always existed and was uncreated itself.'
The difference between the two, at least in my mind, is the lack of an additional step in the naturalistic view. Once you posit the creators existence you have to answer yet another question. And another, and another.
Plus you lack any evidence for that view, at least we have the natural world to confirm it's existence. So in that regard it is more logical as it is consistent with what we know to be true.
But I do understand your point.
'just as Dawkins' hostility toward religion may have more to do with his having been diddled by an Anglican priest as a child than by rational analysis. '
Is that true or just semantics?
'I don't think that follows at all. You assume that you and I are perfectly rational people who decide questions solely through objective analysis of the evidence. We may be more or less capable of that than some people, but no one is purely objective. We may very well reject religion for reasons that are not objective and we may be influenced by lots of non-objective inputs'
I agree with Klein here a little more than you. I do agree that we all approach things through our own prism but again if it wasn't for childhood training would anyone take most religious claims even remotely seriously.
I think it's particuarlly telling that if you ask someone to worship or in some cases even respect an ancient deity or one who belongs to another culture they immediately are repulsed or just laugh it off. But when it comes to their own it's a matter of emotion and brain chemistry that prevents the 'objective' stance.
The fact that so many people leave or change religions is an indicator that reason and experience can break the meme. And that people can become very objective and rational with practice.
It's like throwing a baseball:-)
Two points:
one, in response to: "When it comes to the existence of the universe, we have two equally absurd possibilities - that it was created by some entity that always existed and is uncreated, or that it has always existed and was uncreated itself." Well, I don't think a continually existing universe is as absurd as one that just 'started.' Consider: does the universe have to end? It seems reasonable that the universe will keep existing forever and that it doesn't have to just stop. But then-- if a universe doesn't have to have an ending point, it doesn't have to have a starting point. In other words, if a universe can keep existing in the future, it can keep existing in the past.
With regards to the association between intelligence and religiousity, I don't know if "belief or disbelief in God is a function of intelligence" but it could be. Let's say that the more intelligence you are, the more time you spend in school, the more time that you're exposed to a) modern biology and b) comparative religion or world religions. Chances are, those who are exposed to these subject matters are simply more likely to become atheists or agnostics. After all, a person not exposed to science is more likely to remain a creationist and a creationist is more likely to believe in God.
The fact that a few smart people believe in God and a few morons are atheists doesn't mean there isn't a general trend, unless you've sampled a random population to study the relationship between the construct of religiousity and the construct of intelligence.
A study of such has not been completed, and I honestly don't know the answer, but I think such a relationship does exist. It would be correlative, although, it could be causitive as well.
chance wrote:
One can certainly attempt to apply Occam's razor here, but Occam's razor just tells us which we should provisionally accept, not which one is actually true. That certainly isn't enough, in my view, for someone to assert certainty and claim that the opposing view is absurd.
It's true, actually, at least the part about being molested by an Anglican priest when Dawkins was a boy. I have no way of knowing for sure how much that effects his views or detracts from his ability to be objective on such matters, but the basic story is true.
But bear in mind that I'm not arguing for the truth of any religion (indeed, I reject all claims of revelation). I'm only arguing that the basic belief in a creator is not inherently irrational, and further that because the question of ultimate origins is an unsolved (and probably unsolvable) mystery, it's absurd to be dogmatic about it.
In fact, there is some correlation between religion and intelligence.
Is there a correlation between intelligence and understanding that even if there is a correlation between the two, it's still a ridiculous statement to claim that a person is "too intelligent" to believe in God? General correlations like that do not logically justify dogmatic statements of that sort. And one doesn't need to be a genius to understand that simple truth.
' That certainly isn't enough, in my view, for someone to assert certainty and claim that the opposing view is absurd.'
I agree. I don't think it's absurd. But I do think not even 1 iota of evidence points to it being the correct conclusion.
'It's true, actually, at least the part about being molested by an Anglican priest when Dawkins was a boy. I have no way of knowing for sure how much that effects his views or detracts from his ability to be objective on such matters, but the basic story is true.'
I did not know that, in some ways I have more respect for him and the success he has had based on what must have been a traumatic experience.
'I'm only arguing that the basic belief in a creator is not inherently irrational, and further that because the question of ultimate origins is an unsolved (and probably unsolvable)'
I'm not sold on the unsolvable part, simply because many items often hold that distinction only later to be discovered. I do think a basic belief in an unseen creator is irrational and again I feel Martin Gardner has a great take on this.
In an area where there are two closely competing viewpoits taking an irrational leap of faith is ok. So I do.
But I don't really think the arguments are on my side or even remotely rational. But I'm ok with that for now.
Chance-
I think you and I are essentially in agreement, though I wouldn't even call it a leap of faith (I am a deist, not a theist). I just call it my best guess right now. Stay tuned, it could change.
Ed said:
"I don't think that follows at all. You assume that you and I are perfectly rational people who decide questions solely through objective analysis of the evidence. We may be more or less capable of that than some people, but no one is purely objective. We may very well reject religion for reasons that are not objective and we may be influenced by lots of non-objective inputs, just as Dawkins' hostility toward religion may have more to do with his having been diddled by an Anglican priest as a child than by rational analysis."
Surely you're not arguing in favor of postmodernism here? I'm not suggesting that all people are perfectly rational, only that reason is the only practical tool we have for discriminating between true truth claims and false ones. And reason, not ego, is all that is needed to dismiss the religious truth claims of otherwise smart people.
"Furthermore, as I said in a comment above, when it comes to the ultimate question of the origin of existence itself, all of the rational analysis of the facts we might want to do isn't going to answer that question."
I missed this qualification on my initial read of your post, and I think I'm in agreement with you on it. Maybe Dawkins is like me where when someone mentions "God" I immediately assume they are talking about the Islamo-Judeo-Christian one.
BTW - How do you format quotes in replies?
What is the difference between Dawkins saying evolution necessitates atheism and a theist saying the big bang offers proof of de/theism?
I used to have a bit of respect for Dawking. But a few months ago I heard him being interviewed on a call-in talk radio program on WBUR, one of Boston MA's public radio stations. His arrogance was amazing. And his dismissal of one of the caller's questions--by his not addressing it head-on, and not explaining why he was not addressing it head-on--was quite telling.
I have a number of objections to public radio and television, but most of the listeners and viewers appear to be reasonably intelligent. Dawking did himself a significant disservice.
BTW - How do you format quotes in replies?
You can use the HTML tags (blockquote) at the beginning and (/blockquote) at the end. Substitute angle brackets (shift comma and shift period) for the parentheses.
Because the two issues are not analogous. The BB theory ultimately is analogized to abiogenesis. Evolution does not purport to explain abiogenesis.
The BB theory purports to explain the expansion of spacetime after something like 10^-35 seconds after spacetime began. We have no theory for what happened before then. That theory would be analogous to a theory of abiogenesis.
We just don't have theories to explain the evidence.
Yet.
On the other hand Dawkings is wrong if he said that evolution necessitates atheism. The two issues are completely orthogonal.
KKlein wrote:
No, I'm certainly not arguing in favor of postmodernism here. I just don't think that the issues are nearly so simple as you appear to think. I don't think that reason alone is enough to dismiss the existence of a god. I certainly agree that some religious truth claims can be easily dismissed as absurd, but it does not follow that therefore the simple existence of a god is so easily dismissed. I think you're missing two crucial points. A) I'm not arguing for the truth of any religion, and B) even if you were correct and one could construct a perfectly logical argument to dismiss every religious claim ever made, it would not support the notion that all one has to be is intelligent enough and they won't believe in god. And that is the only point this post attempts to make.
Matthew wrote:
I don't quite understand what you mean by "what is the difference" here. Obviously, the differences are that both subject and predicate, so to speak, are different. The arguments have the same structure, I suppose, and they can't both be true. The problem I have in both cases is the notion of "proof" and "necessitate". Either side could put together a reasonable argument that those scientific theories provide some support for their religious or non-religious philosophy, but to claim in either case that it is proof is to overclaim substantially.
Ed: the statement "God exists" doesn't make any sense (as in "kajsbdkeb ksbdojnh" doesn't make any sense: there is simply no meaning associated). (There are some sophisticated systems of thought which have a meaningful concept (like existence or consciousness) they call "God", but that's not what we usually mean when we talk about God.) Noticing this is probably a question of intelligence. Therefore, what Dawkins said isn't ridiculous (though the way he meant it might be). It's debatable (what isn't?), but definitely not ridiculous.
(This, of course, has nothing to do with the correlation between religion and intelligence, which I only mentioned as a curiosity.)
tgr wrote:
That may be the dumbest argument I've heard all day.
Like?
I hate when people like Dawkins say stuff like this, because A) he should (and probably does) know better, and b) people start going on about how arrogant atheists are and how we're all like Dawkins. Again.
Most of us are quite able to separate people's intelligence from their beliefs. Dawkins is simply an arrogant man, and he's not representative.
And Madeline Murray O'Hare was simply a completely horrible human being. That she is supposed to be somehow representive of the average atheist sickens me.
As for what tgr said, I assume his/her argument is that most of the time, God is an undefined term. What do you mean by God? I can hardly evaluate a claim that basically amount to "X exists". Usually we just fill in societal expections of what the term "god" is supposed to mean, but this can be problematic-- for instance, for you the term "God" means one thing, and to a Christian it means another. Therefore, before we can evaluate such a claim, we must know what is being claimed.
I probably butchered that; my brain is fired. Anywho, the argument is something that came out of logical positivism, and not something I'm terribly well versed in.
If he had qualified it as his personal belief would it have offended you less? I just don't see a problem with someone making a statement that I disagree with intellectually if that statement is obviously a personal opinion. Unless he's including his atheism in academic journals or bringing it up at science conferences, it doesn't offend me much.
I think that there is an idea out there, and perhaps you do not adhere to this, that atheists must tone down what they say to avoid turning off theists from evolution. I guess that's what I want to argue against.
Ed -
Suppose Richard Dawkins said,
Well, that would be her decision and obviously she's her own person, she's free to do whatever she likes. I think she's much too intelligent to do that, but that's her decision.
about Creationsists? Would you display the same degree of outrage? Clearly, creationists are perfectly capable of being very intelligent people, so if you take this statement to imply that creationists are unintelligent, it would be just as wrong. However, this is normal, everyday language when we want to express the idea, "So and so is a knowlegable person and a good critical thinker," so I wouldn't expect them to do that. When it comes to belief in God, no matter how many intelligent people are believers, is it far to say *that* if you think such belief is not grounded in sound reasoning? Granted, creationism might be more obviously using mistaken reasoning than some other forms theistic/deistic rationale, but the same principle holds. If that's not Ok, will you be consistent as say it's also not OK for Richard Dawkins to respond to the question, "What if your daughter became a young earth creationist," by saying "I'd respect her decision, but I think she's much too intelligent to do that...?"
Ed,
It seems to me as if a problem that both Dawkins and the ID folk share is their belief that conceptually, evolution specifically, and methodological naturalism (MN) more generally, preclude the existence of God.
But while MN is in fact purposely nuetral on the subject, there are two conceptions of "God" that are either unacceptable or are in fact obviated by MN.
The so called "God of the gaps" is unacceptable within the framework of MN for the reasons often stated referring to it being a "science stopper."
The other conception of God that is excluded by MN is the "fundamentalist" version wherein the revealed truth of said God (or gods), is held to be literally true. This is the case for the biblical literalist as well as the confucionist, vedist, or any of the many sects that have such revealed "truths."
If these are the only views of God that Dawkins and the IDists can imagine, then they are correct in thinking that MN and evolution make God superfulous.
Fortunately, there are many more sophisticated conceptions of God that aren't in any way threatened by MN and therefore evolution.
For those who do hold those views of God exclusively, their enemy isn't just evolution or MN, it is empirical reality itself.
I think the evidence is much more against any kind of a god than for it. First of all, "it was created by some entity that always existed and is uncreated" applies equally well to a meta-universe which is constantly spawning off daughter universes, of which ours is one as it does to a god. The meta-universe is one of the current theories in cosmology and from what I've read, there is actually some hope of finding evidence for or against it. If it does exist, then no gods are necessary to explain the universe.
A more telling point is that any god worth caring about has to be at least as intelligent as a human being. (Anybody object to this?) Humans are, hopefully, at the low end of this universe's intelligence scale and even a lowly human intellect requires upwards of a billion neurons, each with a thousand or so synapses, all arranged in a fairly precise manner. I hesitate to estimate how much information is contained in an adult human brain, but let's say it's ten billion bits to be conservative.
What are the odds of ANYTHING with ten billion bits of information existing by chance? Unfathomly low. It makes Dembski's 10^150 look utterly pathetic. The only way we know of to produce even a human quality intellect is the long, slow process of evolution.
Or, in other words, if anybody claims that there is a god smart enough to read this sentence, the burden of showing where that god came from is on them and "He's always existed." is not an acceptable answer.
This universe, on the other hand, was apparently very very simple at the beginning and contained almost no information at all. An enormous quantity of amorphous energy confined in an extremely small space with perhaps a few hundred bits worth of laws of physics appears to be a very good description of our universe when it first began. Most of our laws of physics appear to have been created by random symmetry breaking as the universe expanded.
All the rest of the complexity of the universe seems to have been generated by the expansion of the universe and Darwinian evolution after planets formed without any intelligent input at all.
Therefore, it appears that we have two choices: Either a god of some sort has always existed, one that contains a breathtakingly huge amount of highly organized information, or an unknown meta-universe has always existed, containing an unknown amount of information which may well be zero and which produced our universe, which originally had very little or possibly zero information in it. I know which way I bet on this one.
Ed wrote:
"Furthermore, as I said in a comment above, when it comes to the ultimate question of the origin of existence itself, all of the rational analysis of the facts we might want to do isn't going to answer that question. Infinitely old and uncreated matter/energy is no more or less illogical than an infinitely old and uncreated creator of matter/energy. Both suffer from essentially the same logical problem."
I think djmullen just put the issue into the same framework I was about to use. I don't think your dichotomy is the best way to put the dilemma either, and I suspect Prof. Dawkins would agree with us. It is not so much "infinitely old and uncreated matter/energy" vs. "uncreated creator of matter/energy." It is more like "infinitely old and uncreated matter/energy out of which a human-like mind and/or its products (consciousness, intention, reason, emotion, values) evolved through physical processes" vs. "infinitely old and uncreated Mind/Mind products which produce(d)/act(ed) on matter/energy through magical processes." Complicated way of putting it, but you get the gist.
I personally don't see these claims as suffering from the same logical problems because the first one (mind-brain connection and the evolution of the brain) can indeed be examined or explored scientifically -- and as far as I can tell the second one really can't. There's also the matter of plausibility and consistency. The second one requires that for unknown reasons it apparently took about 14 and a half billion years for any physical evidence for beings with the ability to think and feel to evolve in order to reflect and point to the underlying fundamental nature of reality which was there all along. This seems unlikely on the face of it. The Mind-first assertion also gives our human type of thinking-process and emotion-process an implicit cosmic significance and central importance which doesn't necessarily fit in well with the size, scope, variety, and age of the universe. Fits in pretty well with our own opinion of ourselves, though.
"A universe in which mind grows up will look very different than one which begins with mind." Dawkins made this statement (or something like it) in a talk I heard recently, and it was the underlying theme for his defense of naturalism. I suppose it could be considered the controversial crux of the matter. Would there be a difference? Would we expect a difference, and would or could we investigate the issue using science?
I wonder if we would get the same controversy if we were to substitute "human-like mind" with "web-making ability" or "large trunks" or "sight" or "photosynthesis" or any of the other aspects of the universe which we comfortably place under evolutionary biology.
I agree with you re. the comment on the daughter's high intelligence, though. Dawkins himself knows better; he actually refutes himself earlier in the interview, as you pointed out. I think he simply gets frustrated by the intelligent theists who casually drop public statements to the effect that mature reflection leads to belief in God, and "extremists" like Dawkins lack the depth of intellect to see it. Then they dodge the defense of their assertion on the grounds that science and reason are inadequate to address the question.
I found this article to be very good.
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
It's Sam Harris who I admire as a thinker. I don't know how to activate the link. Perhaps Ed can offer assistance.
Just to comment on Dawkins and his arrogance. I find arrogance in any form unattractive but in the case of esteemed scientists who must continously battle hordes of ignorant boobs daily it must get tiresome.
Especially for someone as outspoken for evolutionary biology as Dawkins and quite a few others are year in and year out. I feel he doesn't let his arrogance show near as often as I might given the sheer number of battles he must fight again and again. Can you possibly imagine how insulting it is for him to have an ignoramus who knows virtually nothing about the topic tell him his lif's work is a lie or worse? It's a very human reaction to a continued an unmerited attack.
It's easy to nail him for being arrogant while also ignoring the many times he speaks calmly and brillantly to the masses. I feel for the most part he is above the fray, but also have no problem when he ruthlessly smacks down the ignorant.
I think almost everyone commenting in this thread is missing the point. The point of my post was not to argue that there is a god, a subject I frankly care very little about. The point was to argue that the claim that intelligence is measured by whether one believes in a god or not is false and absurd and needlessly insulting. All of the arguments in the world for why someone doesn't think there is a god do not even begin to address the point of the post.
I think you may be missing what many of the posts are saying: that one can call a viewpoint "stupid" or a group "stupid" for holding that viewpoint without necessarily intending that this be taken as indicative of what you really truly think about the basic or general intelligence of those who disagree with you. Casual use vs. serious use, iow.
When invective is used casually, personal frustration is being expressed with an underlying assumption that the listener will not take you literally. You yourself often refer to people as "morons" or more amusing variations without intending to make a serious psychological blanket evaluation of someone's actual IQ level or worth and value as a person. I assume.
In his interview Dawkins used both the casual and serious approaches, with mixed results.
Your point -- that this is not diplomatic and is counterproductive when the speaker is a spokesperson for evolution and atheism -- is a good one. I agree with it. Theists are, on the whole, just as intelligent as atheists and implying otherwise just feeds into the stereotype of atheists/skeptics as "too arrogant to believe in God" (or too "arrogant" to believe in homeopathy or pet psychics or alien abductions or quantum consciousness or whatever.)
But I don't agree that both theism and nontheism are on the same logical level IF one uses science as the basic method of understanding the nature of reality. Since you introduced that, it's legit to comment on it -- even if it wasn't the main point of your original essay.
Imnsho ;)
Manual trackback:
"Why Ed Brayton is on my blogroll" on Telic Thoughts
Thanks for the kind words, Krauze.
Ed,
on your original point, it is a known statistic that scientists are - on average - less religious than non-scientists. I would also argue that scientists are about average in the intelligence department, certainly from my own experiences.
Correlate these two factors together and - in this case at least - there does appear to be a link between higher intelligence and lower likelyhood of being religious.
I agree with your point on the origins of the universe issue - we simply don't know if there was a natural or a supernatural creation. I don't think it's necessary however to choose either position and then use that as a basis for everything else. You don't have to choose a god as creator and then work with that. You don't have to deny all gods and start there either. You can just say - "hell, I don't know". Which is where I stand on that issue.
I think that Dawkins could be correct in that learning about evolution could cause someone to lose their religion. Again, I think this is borne out by the statistics - biological scientists are less likely to be religious than other scientists.
In my case I was an atheist before I learnt about evolution, so it doesn't automatically follow that evolution leads to atheism.
I'm an atheist because all the religions are mutually imcompatible, which leads me to conclude that either a) one of them is right and all the others are wrong or b) all of them are wrong. In the lack of any evidence supporting one over the others I have concluded that the most likely explanation is that they are all wrong.
Sorry, tired typing but my first sentence should read 'above average' not 'about average'