In preparation for my debate with Daniel Dennett on Friday evening, I went back and read the late Stephen Jay Gould's review-essay on Dennett in the June 12, 1997 New York Review of Books. Unlike Dennett, who is a philosopher, Gould was one of the world's leading authorities on evolution. One can feel safe in saying that he knew a lot more about the biological evidence for Darwinism than Dennett. Since Dennett's Darwinism is the primary basis for his atheism, I was interested in what a truly top-class biologist thought of Dennett's best-known book Darwin's Dangerous Idea and its argument for Darwinism as a "universal acid" that eats through traditional religion and traditional morality.
As I suspected, Gould seemed to have little quarrel with Dennett's religious and political views. Gould, like Dennett, was an unbeliever. So I found it especially telling that Gould dubbed Dennett a "Darwinian fundamentalist." He suggested that just as religious fundamentalists read Scripture in a literal and pig-headed way, and unimaginatively apply biblical passages to everything, so Dennett has a primitive understanding of evolution and, with the enthusiasm of the fire-breathing acolyte, tries to apply Darwinism to virtually every human social, cultural and religious practice, with disastrous and even comical results.
Gould warned that Richard Dawkins had started this trend of Darwinism run amok, yet Dennett had outdone even Dawkins. If Dawkins had caricatured Dawkins, Gould wrote, Dennett's book was "a caricature of a caricature." Given that Thomas Huxley was known as "Darwin's bulldog," Gould said that Dennett had earned the title of "Darwin's lapdog."
I thought that perhaps Gould was alone in his harsh assessment, so I turned to biologist H. Allen Orr's review of Dennett's Darwinian ideas in the leading biology journal Evolution. Orr was if anything even more dismissive. He accused Dennett of giving an "absurdly unfair" account of what biologists actually believe. He added, "Dennett fundamentally misunderstands biologists' worries." Such language is not very common in professional academic journals.
Among the atheist hoi-polloi, Dennett, like Dawkins, passes himself off as a great champion of modern biology and an authoritative interpreter of evolution. These two men make wild claims at atheist conferences, and the God-hating ignoramuses burst into applause. But if Dawkins' scientific work today has dwindled to virtually zero--his professional job description is professor of the "public understanding" of science, a kind of Sunday School teacher for science--Dennett seems to be a Darwinian who has become an embarassment to professional biologists. If atheism wants to carry the mantle of science, perhaps it needs spokesmen who do a better job of representing what science actually says.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 43)
31. It might be helpful to consider why atheists care so much about this debate, and the public acceptance of their views in general. Usually, they default to arguments about the 'evil' that 'religion' has caused. Being pretty smart people, of course they know this simply doesn't hold water; they use the argument because it generally sends the opponent into the distraction of defending the obvious. For example, any objective history buff than demonstrate the evil wrought by those who follow sets of belief which do not include a 'god' far, far outnumber those evil acts which have been committed in the name of 'religion'. In addition, those acts which are generally attributed to 'religion' are committed by radical outsiders more so using religion than following it.
While Darwinism is such a popular argument for atheists, based less on the fossil record than on the respect given physical science in general in modern times do in large part to physics and medical science, the best qualified sciences to address that which is by definition intangible (but by 'faith' you can not see or hold in your hand either god and the lack of a god) are philosophy and metaphysics; setting theology aside for now as more based on faith, although true theology goes hand in hand with right reason, and carries such knowledge to new heights.
Here we have arrived at an illuminating junction, while the physical sciences, based on what can only be called faith in particular and numerous fundamental assumptions, can be manipulated to reach certain conclusions, and which so often reaches false conclusions unintentionally based also on assumptions, the sciences of 'reason', which on the surface seem easy to manipulate, are actually more reliable in discussing and even predicting that which we can not see and hold. In fact, the assumptions in physical science which we do find in time to be true, were generally at first based on the 'reason' of the scientist. Einstein and Hawkins predictions being good examples; some might argue they were based on equations, but those equations still had fundamental assumptions. Is it possible, then, that the physical sciences are favorites of atheists because the geniuses in the sciences of reason cannot provide, and do not wish to provide, conclusions which support the atheist hypothesis.
To use a popular phrase these days, those who see the sciences of philosophy and metaphysics as something other than a search for 'ultimate truth' and 'goodness' (a moral civil code, ethics, etc.) are 'outliers' in the field. In other words, their extreme mutation of the sciences of reason are similar to the extreme mutation of religion by those who would commit evil in its name.
Without 'god' there is no ultimate truth, no ultimate good, and therefore no standard for 'evil'. Thus the conclusions of the Enlightenment and relativism. Mankind, then, can decide for itself what is right and what is wrong. Atheists, then, having rejected the existence of a universal, ultimate 'good' become deniers of their own set of beliefs when they fail to put themselves at the center of their own universe and justify 'harm' to anyone or anything which stands in the way of their own priorities. (Don't try this at home!) In other words, a good question one might ask someone who denies god might be, "Why are you not the ruler of all earth, dominating everything through whatever means necessary?" Without god, there is no evil, no harm, no law, nothing to stand in your way, other than the resistance of others, which, being so free of the chains of ethics as you are, you should easily overcome. We find, then, that the overwhelming majority of atheists do in fact believe in some degree of universal good and likely have not taken to occasion to study the ramifications of that belief. Of the very few who have slipped through, most have indeed caused, or tried to cause, great harm; wether through physical force or the propagation of wrong reason. This is the consequence of denying the nature of the human person.
Which brings us out of the fog of distraction to the real issue at hand. Today's atheism serves an anti-person, secular agenda. Wether they mean to or not, modern atheists serve the agenda of denying the value of certain persons for the benefit of other persons.
This is the great struggle of modern times; the debate between the 'thoughtful' person and the 'thoughtful person of faith'. (The irony being those who call themselves 'thoughtful' and 'atheist' have generally exercised their reason much less then they lead us to believe) In God, we find the dignity, the value of each human person. We find ultimate Truth, ultimate Goodness. We see the true evil of the numerous issues of modern politics. The secular agenda, which enslaves people to lies, is supported by the follies of atheism, and win a battle when it wins a battle. History proves, however, that truth and goodness will prevail.
In such, many thanks to Mr. D'Souza for your good work in the defense of what is true.
alex at 3:04PM on Nov 30th 2007
32. 28. Brian,
Saw a movie once upon a time called Forrest Gump, everytime I hear from you the line he quoted comes to mind "stupid is as stupid does".
---------------------------------------
I poke fun at you, because you are an egotist. I wouldn't do that to a normal person. You think that you know things, and you only have pre-digested sound bites from some christian website or some idiot preacher. But you're the one that decided that it was good enough; that since it supports your view and your belief, it must be true. It isn't.
And you're making YOURSELF look stupid; I'm just pointing it out to you. It's never pleasant to find out that you're wrong, but you refuse to even accept it. You're beyond dim; Forrest Gump was dim... you're head is made of stone. At least Forrest could learn, and was HUMBLE. I'd far rather be him, than you. He knows what love is. YOu can't love anything not exactly like yourself.
Brian at 3:08PM on Nov 30th 2007
33. Without 'god' there is no ultimate truth, no ultimate good, and therefore no standard for 'evil'. - alex
God sets the standard for evil. I think I agree with that!
fabio at 3:12PM on Nov 30th 2007
34. Which brings us out of the fog of distraction to the real issue at hand.
--------------------------------------
That's funny. Alex's whole email is a fog of distraction, portraying science as if it's in doubt of it's basic principles by pointing to it's minor controversies. It's the DD method. A tapestry of lies JUST complex enough to sound true to the believer, but standing out as the horse hockey that it is to the atheist.
Alex is a disinformationalist. A pravda puppet. If it sounds true, that's good enough for him.
Brian at 3:14PM on Nov 30th 2007
35. If you're going to try to make science look bad by pointing to it's minor controversies, then two can play at that game....
You christians are catholics, baptists, all other types of protestant sect, and other offshoots, fundamentalist bible-literalist to sundays-only catholic, and you all DISAGREE SEVERELY one from the other. You've even fought wars over it, both between yourselves and against others. What war has science started? None, because it isn't an ideology! It isn't a set of beliefs. It's a set of knowledge, tested over and over, proven effective. Try THAT with your religion!
Brian at 3:22PM on Nov 30th 2007
36. Alex,
Great explanation of how we feel in this world today, if we don't stand for something we'll fall for anything. Very understandable in all area's.
Rita
Rita at 3:23PM on Nov 30th 2007
37. "Without 'god' there is no ultimate truth, no ultimate good, and therefore no standard for 'evil'."
Nonsense. Pure and utter nonsense.
When you have the faintest clue as to what you're talking about, alex: try again.
Knight_of_BAAWA at 3:26PM on Nov 30th 2007
38. xx29. I know God exists. I've seen him, I talk to him and his Angels hang out with me.
Does he write you rx's for SSRI's? D'you think he would, like if you prayed and everything?
xxI'm friend to every living person and animal on the planet.
Then you must be an enemy of the plants. You gotta eat SOMETHING! ...or are you sayin...hm...
xxI am scientifically, analytically, mathematically, socially, emotionally, spiritually, and linguistically versed.
Yes! One of the versed on this site of all of the posters I've read!
Not versed than rita or brian or dena but close! At least you did't say 'well versed'...
xxI openly accept all people, as long as they are humble, do good in life and accept Truth.
Humble before you? The Truth with a capital T?
In other words you openly accept anyone who takes a knee before you and accepts your word as the Truth?
xxI openly stand against actions of ignorance, oppression, violence and misleading ways.
Probably not. I imagine it's ok with you that Falwell says Osama and henchmen are agents of God sent to destroy gays liberals and people who live in sin or when Robertson says god punished New Orleans (including the children and unborn) for abortion since Katrina looked like a fetus or that we should assassinate Chavez and nuke Foggy bottom? Or when Ann Coulter just opens her mouth? (other than in private with Bill Maher, of course)
xxI help bring those to Peace and Understanding with a desire to produce Good works on Earth.
Wow, are you god's best friend and confidante or just the second coming?
Can you do Mighty Works in your hometown? Jesus never could but somehow you seem more noble, more Chosen of God.
xxThere, now you know me, purdy much. You have no excuse, for all the intellectual water in the cooler.
Well, anyone who reads will know what you think of yourself, at least. You're better understood with your other posts, believe me!
Clif Kuplen at 3:29PM on Nov 30th 2007
39.
rita-
i have read many of brian's post on this articule and several others, and i do not, my any means, consider him stupid. it's easy to dismiss someone as stupid or ignorant when they do not believe the same way you do, but it leaves little room for intelligent discussion on opposing viewpoints. if you truly accepted that he has his own beliefs and you have yours you would not need to result to claims that he is weak or that is judgment is clouded. your comments are often littered with fallacious thinking. and answer this, if your "faith" is so strong, why do you feel the need to argue about it with other people? exactly who are you trying to convince here, them or yourself?
Richelle at 3:33PM on Nov 30th 2007
40. if we don't stand for something we'll fall for anything.
---------------------------
Historically untrue. People that "stand for something" are often the easiest to manipulate and the most gullible. It all depends on what it is that you stand FOR. If you stand for an obstinate and closed-minded belief system, you can fall for just about anything.
You believe that only christians have morals, that only christians CAN have morals. You are simple to think that. Fact.
Brian at 3:34PM on Nov 30th 2007
41. If you read what an Idiot writes long enough YOU have a very good chance of turning into one.If you read what an idiot writes and give a logical reply and the idiot does not change his view even slightly, you have a GREATER chance of turning into one . If you still insist on replying then you are an idiot.
Kevin at 3:34PM on Nov 30th 2007
42. Brian,
You are so terribly uneducated about anything or anyone Christian, you ties us altogether with one ball of string, why don't you try getting your facts straight before you go out there on a limb that you can't get back from. All the attack on Christians are not going to do you one ounce of good. Do you know not what my heavenly father went
thru? We are as stuck to our Lord as you are to your assertion that you are atheist. Which the theory only remains that (which is what proof besides your rude comments) can you inform me that you know what an atheists does or does not believe? You are indeed a very unhappy person. Rita
Rita at 3:39PM on Nov 30th 2007
43. You Know Rita,
Next time I have business in places like Syria, Turkey, Quatar and the like, I'm going to offer you to come with me. All paid for.
You will get to walk where Jesus walked. You will get to eat and converse with some well known Muslims. Culterly speaking, you will be diversed.
You will come back here with a new outlook on your life. You will realize that no matter the belief, the individual can find and know God. And if they choose not to, so what.
No one will be stupid. No one will be a ding dong, and most importantly you won't feel sorry for anyone. If someone truly, seriously and undeniably wants to Know God, they'll ask. Unfortunately, if someone asks you, you can't help them. I can.
I'd like for you to know God. I'd like to pull the blinders from your eyes. But you are intimidated by me. The Bible is a very powerful tool. But it is powerful for you in all the wrong ways.
Botts at 3:42PM on Nov 30th 2007
44. Dinesh Souza is an intellectual midget afforded the podium by his espousal of the conservative right wing religious fanatic . As the face, he is more likely to be listened to, at least for the first minute, because he is not the typical anglo-saxon pro-tes-ting the supremacy of his faith. He is a poor Indian thankful that his parents brought him to America(Heaven) so that he did not live the horrors of poverty in India.
Mr. D'Souza's writng lack historical premise, parallel or references:is devoid of socioligical reasoning;and lacks scientific evidence.
he may sound good to the average reader, but critical thinkers know he is just an *#$*, a wannb be social climber happy to be out of the Indian social claas to which he was born.
abou at 3:44PM on Nov 30th 2007
45.
rita
you're the pot calling the kettle black. you assert to know things about athiests that you most likely do not know. you say brian is rude, but i would hardly consider your snide remarks and passive aggressive attitude polite.
Richelle at 3:44PM on Nov 30th 2007