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 2 of 20)
16. Has anyone else noted that almost all of DD's,post today is an effort to discredit Dawkins by cutting and pasting an article by someone else? Not only has he been caught out in trying to create a "debate" with Dawkins that never materialized and which had not been agreed to in the first place, but he now continues to try to characterize the resulting "interviews" as if a debate-like situation had actually occurred. (Note his statement that he will be able to "demolish" whatever Dawkins said when his interview can be referenced on the internet.)
Most important (to me at least) is his choosing to support the idea that religion is and always has been an invironmental tool to allow certain individuals to "control" group behavior!! This, of course, is true, whether one believes that people have created Gods in every culture we know about, or if one believes that there is a deity that created everything. Believers who are part of any organized religion must accept the teachings of other men (not God) who tell them how they are expected to behave (i.e. to achieve a "heaven;y reward") in this life. All of them are instruments for "crowd control" whether or not the intentions of the "teachers" are benificent. I am aware that this observation does not address whether a creator exists or not. This is, of course, an unanswerable question, but even if God exists, we have no knowledge that He/She demands any special behavior on our part, other than the various writings (i.e. the Bible, the Koran, etc., etc.) of MEN!! who claim (in some cases) to have been inspired by their particular brand of deity. I cannot help but point out again that DD repeatedly makes it clear by his behavior that he is NOT one of those inspired to truth and/or love for his fellow man by his "creator".
Harvey at 7:47AM on Jul 23rd 2008
17.
You didn't mention that monotheism is in effect, elitist. It proclaims "one true god." By that doctrine, all other doctrines are false, and offensive to the "true" one.
What does that evolutionary step do? It causes it's followers to impose that doctrine on others. It proclaims itself to be superior, and can be used to justify atrocities against inferior, evil people, up to and including genocide.
It's been used to impose absolute executive power over entire populations without regard for true leadership potential, and does so today in Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
Need more on the downside of Monotheism?
ex-christian at 7:54AM on Jul 23rd 2008
18. Please please please
do respect every religion
thanks
Azhar Mehmood at 8:30AM on Jul 23rd 2008
19. Relax everyone....This is DD's way of saying that he "won" the debate (which never happened) on Al Jeezera. The rest is just fluff.
Organized religion has been a benefit to some people who had empty lives. But to say that religion had an evolutionary benefit is going a little too far.
Organized religion was forced on the pagans by threat of death. I guess we have unnatural selection here. And now we are in an idealogical war with Islam where many people are dying, while the places in the world that really need help, are unnoticed. So heres to the evolutionary benefits of religion.....only benefitting those at he top.
CaptainCack at 8:09AM on Jul 23rd 2008
20. During the Sixteenth Century, the Catholic Church was very different from the early church that the Apostles had founded. Pardoners were imposing eternal damnation on all who did not pay money to have their sins forgiven. The church was becoming rich, and keeping profits to better themselves, not the people they were supposed to be serving. This led to a great rift within the church causing a division among some of its most loyal servants. During this time the strengths and loyalties of key reformers and supporters of the church would be tested, resulting in their roles to either repair a broken church or start a new religion of their own: Protestantism.
Was Calvin doing evolution or de-evolution of the church Dinesh?
JimCO at 8:09AM on Jul 23rd 2008
21. Dinesh; I couldn't agree more with your post today. Religion is a man made invention created in response to environmental conditions.
Where I disagree is that you apparently believe the totalitarianism of Calvin is acceptable if it has a measurable benefit to a society.
Couldn't a similar argument be made in favor of Soviet Russia?
Ryan Anderson at 8:35AM on Jul 23rd 2008
22. this may be the most literate-sounding post I've read from DD, so I suddenly understand why he gets to go on t.v. and argue with people....but I see that it's all just literate-sounding bushwah, even though it sounds like an intellegent, historical argument. It really is just words.
I am fascinated by the evolution of the church in history, but just because the Calvin folks used "religion" to control the people of Geneva,it doesn't prove that God controls morals or morale. Nor do stories about how Calvinists used "religion" (laws) to keep social order negate the validity of biological evolution.
The fact is; when religion no longer controls the mass of people, we will have to find something else to do it. Will morals survive the death of the church? will evolution? ha ha
abbot at 8:45AM on Jul 23rd 2008
23. Abbot; "this may be the most literate-sounding post I've read from DD..."
I agree, but he's just restating David Sloan Wilson's argument.
Ryan Anderson at 9:03AM on Jul 23rd 2008
24. As Servetus was not a citizen of Geneva, and legally could at worst be banished, the government had consulted with other Swiss Reformed cantons (Zurich, Bern, Basel, Schaffhausen), which universally favored his condemnation and the suppression of his doctrine, but without saying how that should be accomplished.[22] Martin Luther had condemned his writing in strong terms. Servetus and Philip Melanchthon had strongly hostile views of each other. Most Protestant Reformers saw Servetus as a dangerous radical, and the concept of religious freedom did not really exist yet. The Catholic world had also imprisoned him and condemned him to death, which apparently spurred Calvin to equal their rigor. Those who went against the idea of his execution, the party called "Libertines", drew the ire of much of Christendom. On 24 October Servetus was sentenced to death by burning for denying the Trinity and infant baptism. When Calvin requested that Servetus be executed by decapitation rather than fire, Farel, in a letter of September 8, chided him for undue lenity[23], and the Geneva Council refused his request. On 27 October 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake just outside Geneva with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. Historians record his last words as: "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me."[24]
The common view of the age, that heretics like Servetus should be subject to punishment, was explained by Calvin as follows:
Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.[25
Yes, that Calvin was such a lover of humanity. "Question my god? gather up some wood, people, we're going to have a bonfire...."
ex-christian at 9:04AM on Jul 23rd 2008
25.
Hmmm....
The LAW of Geneva was that Servetus could at worst be banished. It's funny how religions change laws when their power is questioned.
It's interesting to note that at his burning, a copy of his heretical book was chained to his leg.
Question our doctrine? Want to do it in print?
ex-christian at 9:16AM on Jul 23rd 2008
26. Personally I'm pro-skub. Anyone who is anti-skub is obviously wrong and needs their facts straight. If only they would better understand skub, then we wouldn't have so many problems.
Tony Messinger at 9:20AM on Jul 23rd 2008
27. DD you are a liar, then again that’s how the delusional cope with the modern world.
This is an outright lie: “I appeared Monday on the Riz Khan show on Al-Jazeera with Richard Dawkins”. Check the tapes. There was no 3-way conversation nor did you “appear with”. Dawkins. The interview with Dawkins was mutually exclusive from your little chat with Khan.
Here is the link to Dawkins’ interview:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2888,Richard-Dawkins-on-Al-Jazeera-English,Richard-Dawkins
You were the speaker on behalf of Creationism (ugh how embarrassing):
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=51339&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=100
Most likely Riz Khan presented this theme in anticipation of the upcoming Channel 4 series ‘The Genius of Charles Darwin: hosted by Richard Dawkins’. It will be broadcast starting on August 4th in the UK.
DD you constantly taunt Dawkins like a schoolyard bully seeking a fight. Why should Richard engage with you an unreasonable, dishonest broken record that will not think and grow? Your arguments in defense of superstition are trite and without merit.
You and the shrill Ann Coulter don’t want to understand evolution which is not a theory but fact. People like you two seem pathologically stupid and deceitful. Then again lying for Jesus shakes the money maker for so many:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
Intelligence is not found in Creationism, the poster child for the peasant mentality.
Here’s a link to Hitchen’s piece on evolution posted on Slate yesterday. (I am already over the '3' URL limit so go to Dawkins and look it up please.)
DD you constantly pester Dawkins on this blog like a gnat demanding him that he know everything for you. Dawkins is a genius who exists in this time and place. Neither he nor any other scientist on the planet has all the answers TODAY but they keep asking the big questions. How shallow and petty that you refuse to direct the same scrutiny and skepticism at religion, the practice of myth, magic and superstition rooted in primitive Bronze Age science fiction myths, that you do to Dawkins.
DD if you really cared then IMO you would actively lead a campaign of constant persecution and derision of the Vatican. The mob there prides itself on making a fortune on the ‘myth of Christ’. That immoral gang hides out in plain site. The pomp and wealth is a disgrace. Dan Dennett suggested that in the future the Vatican will be purged of priests and the site turned into the European Museum of Roman Catholicism. That is the best outcome for all.
You could ask the pope or any other cleric to answer who empowered them to speak on behalf of something that isn’t proven. Why not lead a campaign to indict clerics for lying to and terrifying children with absurd tales of hell fire and damnation? The Anglican Church is fizzling and dying because it can no longer lie to the people. This is a good thing.
Another of you emotional immature diatribes against those who are free of religious superstition is to another lie saying that we do not celebrate beauty, love or are loved. That is supremely ignorant. We are the artists, scientists, thinkers, inventors and creators.
My last point is that religion is the font of immorality and stupidity. Community moral standards are a constantly evolving zeitgeist. People like you DD for whatever crazy thing that goes on in your head are so spooked as children by lies that you refuse to accept the truth.
This life is it, live it and love it.
LWS at 9:53AM on Jul 23rd 2008
28. Tony; to speak of skub (PBUH) is a heresy. You are a heretic. Die.
Ryan Anderson at 9:53AM on Jul 23rd 2008
29. Religion as survival strategy is not proof of the veracity of religion or even whether religion exerts a positive or negative influence on humans. These are value judgements and while they may be debated philosophically, they do not constitute proof of the existence of god or gods. There have been many myths throughout history in every culture that help form the ethos of the cultures. While this may betray some evolutionary prediliction to create myths that somehow was incorporated in the survival strategy of homo sapien sapiens, it doesn't merit cheerleading these myths or defending any one myth as superior to another. Ultimately, if we end up killing each other off because of these myths it will turn out that this survival strategy wasn't so effective after all. We have only been around after all in our present form for about 100000 years; a proverbial drop in the bucket in the scheme of things.
eric at 9:56AM on Jul 23rd 2008
30. "introduction of checks and balances to curb the suspect tendencies in human nature"
I think this point is interesting... everyone agrees we need these, especially in modern society with its 'weapons of mass destruction'. Why do we have such a self destructive nature? We even destroy other species, despite our knowledge that this is harmful to us and the planet.
One can argue that he or she does not need such checks and balances to 'behave' but obviously some do or we would have no murders, etc.. Why does this self destructive nature persist? Shouldn't we 'know' (evolved?) better by now?
Shannie at 10:03AM on Jul 23rd 2008