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 42 of 43)
616. I did at one time fear death and hell, but I dont any more not since the God you deny exist, came to me one night and gave me peace in my soul.
------------------------------
And that was my point exactly. Since your god gives you that peace and takes away the fear, the very thought that he might not exist outside of your own head (and the heads of other believers) is terrifying, so you do not think it. That in no way prevents me from seeing that it is true, however. I do not have your blinders.
Brian at 3:12PM on Dec 4th 2007
617. Are you intellectually dishonest or just terribly confused?
fabio at 3:07PM on Dec 4th 2007
----------
The latter, Fabio. The latter.
Brian at 3:14PM on Dec 4th 2007
618. Back when I posted at #574 I asked any true believer to describe what believers expect in the afterlife in heaven. I'm still waiting for enlightenment. I had a wide range of questions and I asked for specific answers. No one has come forward as yet. I'm all ears (and eyes, too).
Mort at 3:37PM on Dec 4th 2007
619. I'm betting that heaven for some of these believers involves getting to watch us non-believers roasting in the pit, complete with popcorn and God Himself calling the show.
Egotists naturally love the concept of vengence.
Brian at 3:42PM on Dec 4th 2007
620. Brian
Actually Brian ,I would prefer you to be right and me wrong. For when the Bible is proven right by the appearance of Christ It will be torment for many, while the eternal ages roll.
Observant at 4:03PM on Dec 4th 2007
621. Mort,
616. Back when I posted at #574 I asked any true believer to describe what believers expect in the afterlife in heaven. I'm still waiting for enlightenment. I had a wide range of questions and I asked for specific answers. No one has come forward as yet. I'm all ears (and eyes, too).
Mort at 3:37PM on Dec 4th 2007
-----------------------------------------------
Why would it matter to an atheist?
Observant at 4:27PM on Dec 4th 2007
622. I imagine you do get tired of trying to make people believe a lie. It is a choice!
xxxxxxxxx
It is a choice if you're bisexual.
Don't worry about bisexuality if you are, it's normal, and there's absolutely nothing 'sinful' about it.
You also said it was 'unnatural' but as I posted elsewhere there are incidents of documented homosexuality in about 1500 species of mammal, from dolphins to racoons to moo cows.
So it's very demonstrably Nature's way.
Homosexuals so far as I know are only persecuted by a small minority of humans such as yourself.
I'd say the persecution is EXTREMELY abnormal, and I'd also speculate it's wholly self-serving.
It is also sociopathic if you act on it.
from about smack dab in the middle of the fray, who say:
You may believe the bible justifies genocide but I disagree strongly. Hitler did not follow the beliefs. Again, you can say you anything but it doesn't mean it's so.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Denying something doesn't make it not so. Hitler was catholic and christian. Insane, maybe, and that's his real motivation, but he was both devout and insane.
Just because some christians are insane murderers doesn't impugn christianity. I've known very good devout christians too.
Not fundamentalists, though - different breed of cat there, I think.
I think hitler was just crazy, but he was devout, and his religion had a lot to do with what he did. And his country, a christian one accepted it. Gott mit uns.
He based his belief on scripture just like the people who kiss rattlesnakes and drink strychnine and just like observant does to hate queers and pat robertson and Fred Phelps do to hate sane people.
You're all cherry pickers.
As to the justification of genocide, it's all there in Jeremiah for your consideration. I think it's one of the most disgusting legends I ever read, and it was written to shock.
Or you can just look at the flood - genocide, and the reason he killed off mankind was the exact same one he said he would never do it again.
I don't know if the bible justifies genocide or not and certainly don't care, but it attributes it to god, or the gods, depending on where you read.
It's funny how your 'god' is always just as hung up as the people he's god of. If there's anything consistent about scripture, it's certainly that.
Look at observant's god - that is one loose stool of a deity, lemme tell ya. I've seen burritos wrapped tighter than that!
Clif Kuplen at 6:50PM on Dec 4th 2007
623. Why so coy, Observant one? Don't you want to share your vision of the afterlife? Isn't the promise of heaven and the concomitant reward of basking in the presence of your god and his son one of the motivating forces that drives your religious fervor? If this material transitory world and its temptations and its occasions for sinning is as the grass, there must be something ahead so wonderful that death has lost its power to strike fear in your heart.
Is it possible that you've given no thought to your heavenly reward, that you've pledged yourself, committed yourself to something without having the faintest idea of what it is? Perhaps, like the ineffable, indescribable nature of your contact with god, an unsharable experience, your idea of heaven is so transcendent that not only can't you share it, but also you can't even envision it because itg overwhelms your senses. Or, having now given it some thought, you are struck with
banality of a heaven replete with harps, angels, white robes, full of all the Jesus-struck people who ever lived, including all the boring people who used to sit near you in church, with nothing with which to occupy you but perfpetual adoration for eons of eons of eons.
Why would your vision of heaven matter to an atheist? Well, you've explained other aspects of religion so clearly in previous postings that I just thought it would be interesting to see what you had to say about
this one.
Mort selub at 7:22PM on Dec 4th 2007
624. Mort:
There is no sincerity in your questions.
If you really wanted to know, you could read it for yourself in the book of fairy tales.
Observant at 8:07PM on Dec 4th 2007
625. clif
actually it's not even a choice if someone is bisexual. no sexual orientation is a choice. but i agree with you on your other points. there is nothing wrong with homosexual or bisexual people.
Richelle at 8:07PM on Dec 4th 2007
626. Yes I guess I am right smack in the middle of it all... hmmm. Anyho, I can not argue God's point of view and the reasoning behind all of the bloodshed of the OT.... however, I can say that Hitler should have been following his NT teaching (love God above all else and love your neighbor)if he indeed was following Christ.
And I do remember from history courses a long time ago that Christians were also sent to his lovely camps... I think that is telling that not all embraced his doctrines.
Maybe I should change my name to Cherry Picker on your kind suggestion...thanks Clif.
swimming above the fray at 8:41PM on Dec 4th 2007
627. Hey, Observant one, where's your sense of mission? Don't you want to dangle your little sugarplum heaven before my eyes and dazzle me into becoming a believer? If you don't have a heaven with which to tempt me, what do you have? C'mon! Entice me!
I have to admit that I can't imagine you describing a heavent that could persuade me to give up so much as five minutes of down-to-earth time.
I think you have a problem about describing your heaven because it is so much like the Muslim's heaven....without the seventy virgins, of course. Why don't you loosen up and tell us your heavenly dream. Let it all hang out!
Mort at 9:07PM on Dec 4th 2007
628. "Ouch! The resident loon is telling me that I should seek help. That's funny! Now go re-fold your tinfoil hat, sonny. I think your brain is leaking again."
----------------
Brian,
i was checking up on some of the comments i missed and when i came across this one i started choking on my apple cider. ;)~
Richelle at 10:41PM on Dec 4th 2007
629. 623. clif
actually it's not even a choice if someone is bisexual
xxxxxxxxxxx
I didn't mean it quite that way.
What I meant is that if you're bi you are sexually attracted to both parties so you could 'choose' one and shun the other if you were under the influence of some christian or other dogma that taught it was a choice and that homosexuality was immoral.
Also if you're wired up that way and religiously proscribed from facing up to it, it would seem more logical that everyone's orientation was such a choice.
You know what christian dogma does to people. They think atheism is another kind of religion.
I agree that sexual orientation isn't a choice, but there was once a social homosexuality that probably was, referencing greco-roman history.
I don't know what the deal was there, but I think that a lot of judeo-christian hangups about homosexuality came from the fact that it was practiced by their opressors.
from fray:
I can say that Hitler should have been following his NT teaching (love God above all else and love your neighbor)if he indeed was following Christ.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I can say that about bob jones, george bush or anyone who's a homophobe and ignores mr. dillon 22:39 and especially 40 - "on these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets".
I know jesus is flipfloppy about the laws and the prophets but if what he said there is true, that supercedes levitican proscriptions against MALE homosexuality. (As you know, in jesus' time there was nothing in the laws or prophets regarding lesbianism. That was inserted after jesus died.)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Maybe I should change my name to Cherry Picker on your kind suggestion...thanks Clif.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well if you wanted to get all biblical you could be 'Fig Plucker' instead, and pray for no spoonerisms.
I don't really think christianity owes any apology for people like hitler or jones, but pretending they weren't christians and were evil for that reason is duplicitous, and probably a tactic.
Christianity proved to be an attractive nuisance in both of those cases, but if they'd been delusional some other way that had nothing to do with religion, they'd probably have wound up just as evil.
Clif Kuplen at 11:29PM on Dec 4th 2007
630. okay clif, now i see the point you were making. my mistake, thank you for your clarification.
Richelle at 11:55PM on Dec 4th 2007