I appeared Monday on the Riz Khan show on Al-Jazeera with Richard Dawkins, and guess what? We had a civilized three-way dialog. No one erupted into Hitler-type yells. The Gestapo didn't show up, nor the Inquisition police, to drag Richard Dawkins from the studio. Host Riz Khan interviewed me for the first half of the show on the compatibility of Darwinism and religion, and on the issue of how to teach evolution in the schools. Then Khan interviewed Dawkins for the second half, mainly on why he encounters resistance to evolution and also why he rejects arguments for God as the creator of the universe.
Unfortunately Al-Jazeera hasn't yet posted the show on the web, so I'll withhold comment on Dawkins's central argument until I can link to it. But I do think that there is something on which everyone who sees the show can agree. Dawkins's excuses for not debating me (Dinesh is a "creationist" or Dinesh uses Hitler-style "yells and shrieks") are utterly absurd. Why won't Dawkins simply admit he's afraid? I don't really mind a coward as long as he's an honest coward.
I'm not the only one befuddled by Dawkins. So is evolutionary biologist and atheist David Sloan Wilson. Several months ago Wilson wrote a savage review of Dawkins's The God Delusion for Michael Shermer's magazine Skeptic. Basically Wilson said that Dawkins is supposed to be an expert about evolution but his book fails to examine religion from an evolutionary perspective. Rather, Dawkins insists on faulting religion based on claims--theological, philosophical, historical--that lie entirely outside his area of knowledge. No wonder that Dawkins's one-paragraph "refutations" of the likes of Aquinas have an amateurish, even juvenile, quality.
Wilson argues that a true scientist would develop a hypothesis about religion and then test it to see how it holds up. For instance, against Dawkins's and view that religion is a kind of destructive virus, a culturally transmitted epidemic that may benefit its parasitic carriers (the preachers) but certainly not those who succumb to the infection, Wilson offers a rival hypothesis. Wilson's view is that "religious groups are products of cultural group selection....A given religion adapts its members to their local environment, enabling them to achieve by collective action what they cannot achieve alone or even together in the absence of religion. Even though elements of religion often appear bizarre, irrational, and downright dysfunctional to believers, when examined closely most of them will make sense."
In his book Darwin's Cathedral, Wilson offers the case study of the Calvinists in sixteenth-century Geneva. At a time when factionalism and internecine conflict was rending the social fabric of the city, Calvin and his deputies introduced the Ecclesiastical Ordinances. Wow, do they sound harsh! Fines for dancing and jail for gambling are only the beginning. Yet Wilson surveys a wide body of historical scholarship that concludes that "there is little doubt that Calvinism was instrumental in solving the problem of factionalism and helping the city of Geneva survive as a social entity."
How? Basically Wilson found that morals are the key to restoring social morale. (The two terms "moral" and "morale" are connected by more than the similarity of their sounds.) Wilson writes, "I was especially impressed by how the mechanisms for preventing cheating extended to the leaders in addition to the rank and file. The head of the church was not a single individual but a group of pastors who made decisions by consensus. Calvin shared all the duties of a pastor, despite his enormous additional workload as primary architect of the religion. Double accounting methods were used to prevent the inappropriate use of charitable funds. The egalitarian spirit of Calvinism is perhaps best illustrated by the duty of caring for dying plague victims. This life-threatening task was decided by lottery."
Wilson concludes, based upon this data, that at least in this one important case, the Dawkins view is wrong and his hypothesis is vindicated. The Calvinist leaders were not out to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. It is simply wrong to say that they got ahead while everyone else suffered. Rather, the opposite is true. Calvinism's dour doctirnes of original sin and predestination contributed to an unprecedented identification of leaders and followers and caused the introduction of checks and balances to curb the suspect tendencies in human nature. To put it in blunt evolutionary terms, Calvinism was socially adaptive.
So what does Dawkins have to say about all this? The short answer is: nothing. Dawkins wrote a lame response to Skeptic, noting that he didn't purport in his book to be using an evolutionary understanding of religion. This would be like a doctor saying, "Well, I wasn't claiming to be giving a medical opinion." I suppose Dawkins considers it normal for an evolutionist to ignore his own field and dispense folk prescriptions based on a cursory persusal of other disciplines. I hope that Wilson does not invite Dawkins to debate this issue. What excuse will inventive Richard come up with this time?
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 20)
1.
DoubleD If religion goes through evolution, doesn't that destroy the mythos of god?
JefFlyingV at 12:51AM on Jul 23rd 2008
2.
Brian a test of your mysticism. Without using perjoratives, swear words, or derogatory language, what is my middle name?
JefFlyingV at 12:54AM on Jul 23rd 2008
3. Why won't Dawkins simply admit he's afraid? I don't really mind a coward as long as he's an honest coward.
-----------------------------------
Sad really.
You wonder why he does not want to debate you?
Really? Surely tactics like this have nothing to do with it !
I wonder how cowardly he was at university? Did he out gay students? Does he sit, comfortably, in an office calling other men cowards?
You, sir, should be ashamed of yourself....I wonder if it is your cathollic background that makes you this way.
mac at 12:59AM on Jul 23rd 2008
4. YES, LET'S VOTE MCSAME! LETS CONTINUE TO THROW OUR PEARLS TO THE
SWINE (SEND YOUNG MEN TO GO FIGHT AND DIE FOR A HEATHEN COUNTRY).
LET'S LET EVERYBODY LOSE THEIR HOMES, PAY HIGHER GAS PRICES, HAVE
ENGLISH AS A SECOUND LANGUAGE, WATCH THE DOLLAR FALL TO A THIRD WORLD
LOW. MCSAME ENDORSED BY BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!
KAM at 1:51AM on Jul 23rd 2008
5. Heathen country? You are an idiot Kam.
sparrow at 1:58AM on Jul 23rd 2008
6. I appeared Monday on the Riz Khan show on Al-Jazeera with Richard Dawkins, and guess what? We had a civilized three-way dialog. ... Host Riz Khan interviewed me for the first half of the show ...Then Khan interviewed Dawkins for the second half,
========
*THIS* is a three-way? Sounds more like two separate two-ways that share a common denominator. By no stretch of the imagination do two *separate* interviews qualify as a dialog.
Seriously, now - do you consider you & your lover's intercourse juxtaposed with your lover & her previous beau's intercourse to comprise a three-way?
Toad at 2:11AM on Jul 23rd 2008
7. Hey - I just realized. By DD's relationship dynamics, if the 6-degrees-of-separation hypothesis is valid - EARTH IS ONE BIG 6 BILLION MONKEY ORGY!
Toad at 2:41AM on Jul 23rd 2008
8. Dinesh.
I went and asked the man him self.
"Mr Dawkins.
I had no idea you had such a low opinion of Christopher Hitchens.
Then again after the performance RD.net put forward to defend you against the claims made in Vox Days book with the chapter entitled "Darwins Judas" i wouldn't be too keen to stick my neck out either."
He replied with
"Allabaster, you speak in riddles and I have better things to do than solve them. What the hell has Christopher Hitchens (of whom I have the very highest opinion) got to do with this? And who (or what, or even when?) is "Vox Days"?
Richard"
To which and another posters flea comment i replied
"Allow me to clarify my position.
When i say that Dr Dawkins has a low opinion of Christopher Hitchens i was refering to the fact that he and D'souza have debated at length several times and it seems that Hitchens sees D'souza as a extremely handy oponent.
So in Dr Dawkins saying that D'souza isn't worth his attention is really a slam on Hitchens credentials and capability. (Something i admit professor Hitchens has in spades.)
I thought anybody following recent events would have found my obtuse riddle rather obvious. Then again i'm not a bright.
Now the flea comment for anybody who dares comment on your work Dr Dawkins has always mistified me. By what standard are you charging them with this and how could this standard not be applied against yourself in regards to the biblical cannon.
If not for that collection of writing i doubt anybody would care in the least what you thought and your book sales would reflect this."
One spelt out so a 5th grader could understand he replied with silence. I wonder Dinesh why you would want to bother with this chump? I have the feeling that future Atheists will be disowning him the same way they do Stalin and Mao.
allabaster at 2:45AM on Jul 23rd 2008
9. To put it in blunt evolutionary terms, Calvinism was socially adaptive.
Why would the 'truth' need to be 'socially adaptive'?
If a organized religion developed as a means of survival, isn't it possible they all to one extent or the other started that way? Doesn't that make God a creation of man? Doesn't his offer an explanation as to why we have religion in the first place?
It turns out DD and I agreed the whole time, I guess the jokes on me this time.
On a more negative note, it seems the core of Wilson's example is some people needed to be controlled 'for their own good' and organized religion provided the means to do so in a very oppressive way (fines for dancing, jail for gambling?).
DD, Which side are you arguing?
tmo at 2:51AM on Jul 23rd 2008
10. OK I'm a Christian but, why the hell is this the guy giving the Christian viewpoint? Does he not understand Dawkins was never informed that D'Douche was also being interviewed for a seperate thing?
PLEASE stop embarissing scientifically literate Christiand Dinesh D'Douche.
Zacharisthegreat at 2:52AM on Jul 23rd 2008
11. I'm not sure why I have to 'own' Stailin and Mao? Marxist may be atheist but the atheists don't have to be Marxist.
Marxist of course would argue that these two were not true Marxist. Sound familar?
Do you own 'Warren Jeffs'? How about his fellow child molesters hiding behind the Catholic church?
Fanatical Muslims come from the same 'God' tree do you own them too?
I've got you three to two and I didn't even have to leave this decade.
tmo at 3:03AM on Jul 23rd 2008
12. Seriously, now - do you consider you & your lover's intercourse juxtaposed with your lover & her previous beau's intercourse to comprise a three-way?
Toad at 2:11AM on Jul 23rd 2008
--------------------------------------
I think I just had sex with Marilyn Monroe( by this method).
Thanks toad, you've enrichened my love life with your suggestion here....I'm even more tired now.
mac at 4:24AM on Jul 23rd 2008
13. Dinesh: This would be like a doctor saying, "Well, I wasn't claiming to be giving a medical opinion."
Since when do people perpetually speak within the views of their profession. Does a chef apply cooking techniques to discussions of the evening news?
Dinesh: "Wilson argues that a true scientist would develop a hypothesis about religion and then test it to see how it holds up."
Wilson is wrong. His proposed tests would be sociological in nature, a field in which Dawkins claims no expertise. You attempt to relegate Dawkins to evolutionary biology by saying he is an expert in no other field, yet you spit poison at him for not using the expertise of a professional sociologist?
Dinesh: "A given religion adapts its members to their local environment, enabling them to achieve by collective action what they cannot achieve alone or even together in the absence of religion."
I agree. Without the institution of the Catholic Church, a large group of priests alone would not have been able to avoid prosecution and punishment for the numerous rapes of children. A small group alone wouldn't have been able to issue International Gag-Orders to silence victims or shuffle priests from parish to parish to afford them new resources for molestation.
Why should Dawkins waste his valuable time debating someone who spews pseudo-logic when there are plenty of us who dismantle your arguments on a regular basis? Your skill-set is based on emotional appeals and the false representation of your opponent's side. You are a common street shouter, the type that is ignored by regular pedestrians and yet you ask for a debate with a professional? Beggars cannot be choosers Din'.
Charlie Matthis at 4:30AM on Jul 23rd 2008
14. If you can't beat them (atheists and objective reality based scientists), join them!
It's the oldest trick in the book of the Faith Based Believers and their Con Men Leaders of various Churches and Soothsayers since the Dawn of (Human) Time.
Go with the flow. Just always take that leap of faith to ensure obedience to the CULT OF DEATH OF RELIGION!!!
Peter at 5:51AM on Jul 23rd 2008
15.
"Religious evolution" isn't much different than biological evolution. You've pointed to one example where it's beneficial. But there are just as many that aren't.
To say that one example is reason to keep a system that does more harm than good is silly. One "evolutionary" branch of the religious tree tells its followers to look for large groups of gods enemies, and blow them up. Another prey on the grief of the families of soldiers. Yet another sell children into "marriage". One of the worst of all,that claims to be the worlds moral authority, knew children were being harmed by it's own standards, and hid it.
Picking one branch of an evolutionary tree and proclaiming that proves the entire genus great, I'd have to say that's just a little bit fecious.
You picked a good day to proclaim the greatness of religious evolution. Here's a fine example of it in action.
http://news.aol.com/article/polygamist-sect-leader-jeffs-indicted/95785?icid=100214839x1206134267x1200327500
ex-christian at 6:34AM on Jul 23rd 2008