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 6 of 43)
76. "There are more atheists out there that know the bible and became angry at GOD for whatever reason than you might think." - Rita
Oy vey.... How many times do WE atheists have to tell YOU that we can't hate or be angry at something we don't even believe exists?
Let's go over it again until it sinks in... Do you believe that unicorns, leprechauns and genies exist?
If not, then I'm willing to bet you don't summon the slightest bit of effort to hate them. It makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE to hate something you don't even believe in.
If you DO hate those things, then you need psychatric help.
If you believe someone is capable hating something they don't even believe exists, you REALLY need psychiatric help.
fabio at 5:12PM on Nov 30th 2007
77.
rita
you have contradicted yourself numerous times as other people have pointed out. you only state that i am trying my best not to understand where you are coming from simply because i disagree with you. i'm trying to figure out if you even know where you are coming from. you have managed to skirt many of the points i've made by ignoring them and continuing on with your comments contrary to your own previous comments. brian and i do have very plausible reasons for the way we feel. i'd even go as far to say that i am a more accepting individual than yourself. i do not need to find a platform simply because i respect brian's ideas. i respect your ideas about spirituality as well i just do not agree with them and i have a problem with the way you smile to a person's face while pissing on their leg. if you're going commit an ad hominem in an argument at least admit it, don't try to turn around and say that you love people after you've called them stupid and implied that they are ignorant.
Richelle at 5:18PM on Nov 30th 2007
78. fabio,
It's the old problem that Christians have: if we remove ourselves from their game, then they can't handle that. It can't possibly be because we've reasoned it out and decided it's a fool's game.
They MUST have some belief that we'll some day come back and stop "punishing" god or "hating" god because otherwise it just makes smoke come out of their ears.
There are no atheists in fox holes? Sure there are. And if someone suddenly believes in Cinderella because they're being shot at, well, mental illness can be caused by stress.
brandon at 5:20PM on Nov 30th 2007
79. Rita stated, "I can go away and if you don't have someone who is Christian to pick on you just start on each other."
That's a good point, Rita. Bloggers like Dinesh give the rest of us one of the best forums we could possibly have for correcting the misperceptions that believers have. Without this forum, the beliefs you have would just perpetuate without challenge.
michael at 5:27PM on Nov 30th 2007
80. OK, Alex.
I went to the website and read 'Fides et Ratio'
Assumes too many facts not in evidence.
I was raised in a virtually secular household, not indoctrinated with any religious dogma.
So I can see it for what it is.
You, on the other hand, apparently can not.
Like William Hays, I believe religion is a con game, one of the longest in history; and that the fantastical elements of religion are evidence of superstition, magical thinking, and wishful thinking.
I'm sure you don't believe it, but I have found the meaning of life. It is to have my place on this planet for however long I have, to be as good a person as I can be, and to love others.
That is just for me. Others may have whatever faith they want, believe what they want. That's what freedom is all about. I have many religious friends, and I respect their beliefs.
I just don't believe them.
Linda at 5:27PM on Nov 30th 2007
81. de snuza is at it again. He can't change anyone's mind by referring to any fact(s) that god exist. He can only spin his wheels, kick up dirt against generally thoughtful people, and say the same thing over and over again like howling minister with a bible in one hand and a congregant's pre-teen breast in the other.
To me, de snuza is a naked pig that realizes it is naked and disgusting. That's why it kicks up dirt. He is ashamed of his own deformed humanity, and wants to wallow on all fours before an imagined ghost. Why does he care whether I and others are atheists? Piss off.
lorenz at 5:30PM on Nov 30th 2007
82. "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."
Then why are the two people who are doing more than anyone else in the history of the planet to eradicate poverty and disease . . . atheists?
FromTheSouth at 5:30PM on Nov 30th 2007
83. if an atheist has a flaw in understanding one aspect of his beleif, does this make his whole theory flawed?.......If so then to is christianity? or does it operate on a differant set of rules?
mac65 at 5:30PM on Nov 30th 2007
84. Fabio,
Love that name, reminds me of butter, anyway back to matter at hand. Why, if you are not bothered and do not believe then why post. I personally do not believe in atheists. I believe as I have stated in the past that for whatever reason some of these people have left GOD. How does that go along with the theory of atheistism? If at some time in your life you have had he opportunity to know about Jesus and you just tuned him out how does that make you and atheist? I know a lot of people who have turned away from GOD but, I do not know of Atheist, because if you are ever thankful for not hitting that truck, or child or not running off the road and you are atheist who do you thank? Rita
Rita at 5:35PM on Nov 30th 2007
85. Hi Rita.
I see that you're getting battered about, but I know that it really doesn't bother you.
I think you feel that you have a mission, a calling, to try to get us to see the light. I'll bet you say to yourself "If just one person accepts jesus as savior, it'll be worth all this time I spend typing on this blog"
That is certainly your right, to preach and show your love for your god.
I think what people are saying, very simply, is that calling people stupid, or saying that there are no atheists, for example, is really insulting. Truly. And I know that you are a better person than that.
Sincerely, Linda
Linda at 5:34PM on Nov 30th 2007
86. Rita I wish God existed really I do. That way any bad I do would be forgiven, or better blamed on the devil!...But I have no such luck so I must be good for goodness sake. I dont need a heavenly reward to do what is right. Any reasonable person knows right from wrong god or no
mac65 at 5:40PM on Nov 30th 2007
87. Linda,
As a person who doesn't believe you seem to hit the nail right on the head as usual. My minister has already told me that I can't save the world but, by golly I'm gonna give it a try.
Thanks for you being you.
Rita
Rita at 5:42PM on Nov 30th 2007
88. Dinesh's argument is a prime example of what passes for "thinking" in the religious "mind"(to use the term very loosely). Steven Jay Gould calls Dennett a "Darwinian fundamentalist", and that proves that it is true! In other words, if some authority figure makes an assertion that one agrees with, it follows that that assertion is true! This is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, something taught very early in Logic 101. Of course, I strongly suspect that Dinesh has never taken a class in logic.
emelpe at 5:40PM on Nov 30th 2007
89. Rita:
"I do not know of Atheist, because if you are ever thankful for not hitting that truck, or child or not running off the road and you are atheist who do you thank?"
I thank my lucky stars, I thank the manufacturer of my BMW, I thank myself. It's all about luck, anyway, Rita.
If you hit the truck, or the child, or run off the road, do you thank god? what if the child is dead?
do you still thank god?
Linda at 5:40PM on Nov 30th 2007
90. rita
you can be thankful that a situation did not turn out badly without having to thank a person or higher power. you're using the word ambiguosly, it can mean to be happy and relieved, neither of which require god
Richelle at 5:42PM on Nov 30th 2007