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 19 of 20)
271. wildman, please stop bugging me about socialism until you find out a little more about it. Rush will not tell you, nor will the heritage foundation.
You do not have much of a grip on how governments function and you've been saturated with propaganda.
I just don't care. You'll never in your life vote for your own interests unless you develop a sense of curiosity that I don't think you were blessed with, so I'm not really concerned about what you think or don't since I couldn't do anything about it anyway. Maybe botts, but I doubt that too.
You need change, I think, but I'm not an agent of it for you.
You are already convinced you know more than I do about probably everything and that you've already entertained and dismissed every though that could go through my head.
If that makes you comfortable, it's not going to change anything about me nor will it blunt the curiosity I was born with, nor will it obviate the skills and knowledge I've accumulated. I'm sorry I can't help you, but I can't and we both know that.
Clif Kuplen at 1:56PM on Jul 25th 2008
272. [burp]
Mokele Mbembe at 1:56PM on Jul 25th 2008
273. mokele post 270 - not really.... the power is for the few. They do not share the same things they want the majority to have. So self serving for the power hungry kind of goes hand in hand.
Clif post 269 - Socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. The government in this case. Yes there a multiple degrees of socialism, so more correctly it would be a Marxist Socialism. Generally I think of old Russia, sorry for not spelling that out. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production, while social democrats have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies, while libertarian socialists advocate cooperative worker ownership of the means of production. Some Marxists, including those inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that controls all the means of production.
I think the social democrats is fitting enough for our current congress and senate members. Don’t you?
Man_in_Wilderness at 5:09PM on Jul 25th 2008
274. MIW,
If you're so terrified of the terrorists, dig yourself a hole, and crawl in. If you're scared of muslims, don't go to the gas station.
Can terrorists hit us? Yes, they can. If you're afraid of them, that's what they want, genius.
And your little antichrist spiel is REALLY pathetic. Would you like me to post what the bible says about your antichrist? There isn't any mention of age, or what religion he'd be. But none of that matters to liars who use their less than skin deep religious tripe to try to scare people away from voting for that "colored guy."
I posted a song for gasbag yesterday, but I'm starting to think it would fit you like a glove.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcE2dq3YD0
ex-christian at 6:29PM on Jul 25th 2008
275. has been - you miss the point.... These events are actual events from history.
They really happened!!!
Do you remember?
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40.
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
5. In 1983, the US Marinebarracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down
the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US
Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim male extremists between the of 17 and 40..
12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by-- you guessed it-- Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?
So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us,
Airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people...
Absolutely No Profiling!
They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss,
But leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 Alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
When your enemies declare war... oh I know let's find a sympathizer and help get in in our enemies head office....
Man_in_Wilderness at 6:46PM on Jul 25th 2008
276. MIW: um... Muslims aren't our enemy. Religious extremist are.
Also, Obama is not a Muslim... not that there is anything wrong with that.
Ryan Anderson at 7:34PM on Jul 25th 2008
277. Ryan - I have heard that. But if the Muslim majority are not in agreement with the fringe lunatics then why are they not speaking out and condemning thier acts? Either they are in agreement or they are cowards? which is it?
Christians speak out against wrong doing where ever it is, and whoever does it. We speak against the Jimmy Swaggarts who stand in the pulpit and say one thing then does another, we call black black and white white. Justice, judgment, and equity for all. Not being a respector of persons.
Sure there are cases that are swept under the rug that we do not hear about, but they will have thier just reward. I do not think there will be any secrets that are not brought to light on the day of Judgment.
Man_in_Wilderness at 10:40PM on Jul 25th 2008
278. But if the Muslim majority are not in agreement with the fringe lunatics then why are they not speaking out and condemning thier acts? Either they are in agreement or they are cowards? which is it?
Man_in_Wilderness at 10:40PM on Jul 25th 2008
===========================
They have spoken out. I recall many American Muslims speaking out after 9/11, condemning the actions of the radicals.
Here's a web site that addresses this:
http://www.muslimsspeakout.org/
Not that any of this will alter your prejudice.
Toad at 5:48AM on Jul 26th 2008
279. Question - When you apply for Welfare in Mexico what does that Government give you?
Answer - A map of the United States!
Man_in_Wilderness at 4:08PM on Jul 26th 2008
280. toad that is not true. I am open but this is such a small minority, not the majority.
Man_in_Wilderness at 4:10PM on Jul 26th 2008
281. Christians speak out against wrong doing where ever it is, and whoever does it. We speak against the Jimmy Swaggarts who stand in the pulpit and say one thing then does another, we call black black and white white. Justice, judgment, and equity for all. Not being a respector of persons.
==========
Well, Clint Christwood, maybe you can explain Little Rock Arkansas. Not too long ago, some black kids had the nerve to demand equal education.
There are many pictures of this pivotal moment in America. I challenge you to examine these pictures, and point out the good christians, speaking out against the wrong that occurred there.
Maybe you could also explain why these kids needed the national guard to protect them, Little Rock being so full of christians who would speak out against obvious wrongs.
ex-christian at 8:44PM on Jul 26th 2008
282. 280. toad that is not true. I am open but this is such a small minority, not the majority.
Man_in_Wilderness at 4:10PM on Jul 26th 2008
====================
Every time Reverend Fred Phelps makes a mockery of Christianity by being blatantly bigoted (in particular, by picketing funerals of war heroes), must every Christian take to the streets and airwaves decrying it? Or is it reasonable for some to speak out, and the rest to carry on their business, content that those who spoke out carried their voice, too?
After 9/11, American Muslims spoke out against the actions of radicals. Every time the subject comes up in the media, there's always a Muslim spokesperson denouncing the actions of the extremists.
The civil Muslim condemnation of the lunatic fringe exists and has been presented in the public arena. But rather than listen or seek it out, you frame the situation as exclusively either collusion or cowardice - your mind seems made up already.
Toad at 4:55AM on Jul 27th 2008
283. XC post 281 – In my lifetime that wrong has been made right. Sure there is wrong doing in all generations, welcome to life with your fellow man. That does not mean that we are not to speak out and set things right. That is the responsibility of being a good citizen of your community. Don’t you think?
Toad post 282 – my mind is not made up, I do not stereo type all Muslims, there are a few who have spoken out, but they are the minority. Therefore I concluded that the majority is in agreement with the terrorist lunatics, or they are afraid to speak out. The defense is that the majority of the Muslims are tolerant of others and their beliefs. Evidence seems to show otherwise.
I still do not know who Fred Phelps is, but y’all seem to have a fascination with him. I’ll try a google search…
Man_in_Wilderness at 4:16PM on Jul 27th 2008
284. XC post 281 – In my lifetime that wrong has been made right. Sure there is wrong doing in all generations, welcome to life with your fellow man. That does not mean that we are not to speak out and set things right. That is the responsibility of being a good citizen of your community. Don’t you think?
==========
Has it been made right? You called a black presidential candidate the antichrist. Were he a white guy, you would have attacked policy, and left it at that. But, you didn't.
You went that extra step further, to proclaim him the end of the world. Are you speaking out against evil when you say this?
Do you think we should strap him down, and shave him looking for some 666 birthmark?
What are you really saying when you proclaim a man to be the antichrist?
ex-christian at 1:50PM on Jul 28th 2008
285. my mind is not made up, I do not stereo type all Muslims, there are a few who have spoken out, but they are the minority. Therefore I concluded that the majority is in agreement with the terrorist lunatics, or they are afraid to speak out. The defense is that the majority of the Muslims are tolerant of others and their beliefs. Evidence seems to show otherwise.
I still do not know who Fred Phelps is, but y’all seem to have a fascination with him. I’ll try a google search
Man_in_Wilderness at 4:16PM on Jul 27th 2008
========================
A few speak out against terrorists, and somehow they don't represent the majority - but a few terrorists do something, and you accuse all the other Muslims of collusion or cowardice. Sounds like the implementation of an ooga-booga stereotype to me - but I'll take your word that you don't. Being Muslim is not the most important factor in characterizing terrorists - militant opposition to some authority is. Religion is just being misused as a tool to further a political movement.
I have no fascination with Phelps - he's just a prime example of a Christian leader being so very un-Christ-like.
Toad at 6:12PM on Jul 28th 2008