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 5 of 20)
61. Not your religion. It didn't humanize, it demonized. The knights templar, the gnostics, the cathars, the "witches," the protestants, the moslems during the crusades, the native americans... Your faith is a bloodbath, and you can ignore it how again exactly? >>>
You're wrong and you either see it or you are one stupid MF!
Before religion, you didn't need to 'demonize' anyone. Don't you get it stuipd? Without God there are no demons. You didn't need to 'justify' murder, as the struggle between the weak and the strong is all there was. Rape pillage, and murder was the order of the day, you stupid cretin!
Thomas J Gassett at 1:49PM on Jul 23rd 2008
62. 59. Religion humanized our enemies and made it harder to kill them, not easier. You really are one ass backwards clown, Godless
Thomas J Gassett at 1:14PM on Jul 23rd 20
******************************************
And here is a perfect example of how the religious gassett has humanized someone who holds a differing view. I myself, put his/her/its name in lowercase to dehumanize such a vile being.
America's Most Gangsta at 1:53PM on Jul 23rd 2008
63. Clue: Before religion there was only the primal struggle between the weak and the strong. Religion humanized our enemies and made it harder to kill them, not easier. You really are one ass backwards clown, Godless
Thomas J Gassett at 1:14PM on Jul 23rd 2008
I wasn't around then, but today pople use religion to justify strapping bombs to thier chest and blowing up busloads of people or fly planes into buildings. As stated by DD in his post religion is a grea way to control people and often that control is used for warfare.
Despite religion it is still a struggle of weak and strong. To think otherwise is plain stupid. Religion is just another tool the strong use to get the weak to do thier bidding.
tmo at 1:52PM on Jul 23rd 2008
64. Tom: "Psst ... you're not an atheist"
No duh.
Ryan Anderson at 1:52PM on Jul 23rd 2008
65. Despite religion it is still a struggle of weak and strong. To think otherwise is plain stupid. Religion is just another tool the strong use to get the weak to do thier bidding. >>>
Are you clowns really this dense? Without religion all you have is the struggle between the weak and the strong.
To say that religion is just another tool in the struggle is mindnumbingly ignorant.
Thomas J Gassett at 1:58PM on Jul 23rd 2008
66. You really are one ass backwards clown, Godless
-----------------------------
Better than being a backwards ass-clown, Thomas.
Godless Heathen Brian at 1:59PM on Jul 23rd 2008
67. To say that religion is just another tool in the struggle is mindnumbingly ignorant.
Thomas J Gassett at 1:58PM on Jul 23rd 2008
-----------------------------
Said by one of the numbest minds on the internet. Hell, you're a poster child for the mind numbing effects of your faith...
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:01PM on Jul 23rd 2008
68. I've actually long held the belief that there probably is something that could be called a God but whatever it may be is nothing like anyting organized religion has dreamed up.
Since he she or it hasn't shown up I have to assume that not worshiping is God's will. I honor my God by ignoring him.
This makes me an agnostic I suppose, except when it comes to our current organized religions. I don't think they are possible, so in some circles this makes me an athiest. I guess according to Thomas these people are wrong. I really don't care either way.
tmo at 2:03PM on Jul 23rd 2008
69. And here is a perfect example of how the religious gassett has humanized someone who holds a differing view. >>>
You silly fool! Stupid thinks my debate style has something to do with religion and the dehumanization, or humaization of others. Clearly, you should spend your energy on video games or cartoons and leave the debate to those of us that have the proper tools ... like a reasoning brain.
I myself, put his/her/its name in lowercase to dehumanize such a vile being.
Thomas J Gassett at 2:04PM on Jul 23rd 2008
70. Clue: Before religion there was only the primal struggle between the weak and the strong. Religion humanized our enemies and made it harder to kill them, not easier.
xxx
what a quaint little personal fantasy. Give me a date that science would agree is just 'before religion' and before you do that, try defining religion.
Also the idea that religion somehow makes enemies different doesn't wash. Look at US posters from WWII.
I'll leave you to your next robot chicken explosion now. Science certainly didn't do anything to help you with your personal issues, unfortunately.
Clif Kuplen at 2:05PM on Jul 23rd 2008
71. All we have is a struggle between the weak and the strong right now. Religion just allows the weak to feel good about themselves after the strong kick there ass. And allows the strong to be forgiven after they do the ass kicking.
We've evolved to the point where money is the deciding factor, and brains can sometimes beat brawn but it's still strong using the weak or destroying them.
tmo at 2:08PM on Jul 23rd 2008
72. This makes me an agnostic I suppose, except when it comes to our current organized religions. I don't think they are possible, so in some circles this makes me an athiest. I guess according to Thomas these people are wrong. I really don't care either way.>>>
NO, you really don't know much of anything and can't follow a train of thought to save your idiot life. First stupid tells us he believe there might be a god, which is a diest, or theist argument, then it calls itself agnostic, then the silly fool gives up and admits it really dosen't care. What a complete waste of space!
Thomas J Gassett at 2:08PM on Jul 23rd 2008
73. Clue: Before religion there was only the primal struggle between the weak and the strong. Religion humanized our enemies and made it harder to kill them, not easier.
xxx
what a quaint little personal fantasy. >>
Only to a weird little turd like yourself. To those of us with functioning brain cells it's history.
Thomas J Gassett at 2:11PM on Jul 23rd 2008
74. 67. To say that religion is just another tool in the struggle is mindnumbingly ignorant
So religion has never been used to justify violence by one group against another? No religous leader has used the faith to rally his people to a cause? If that is true I guess I'm ignorant. If it's not then I think someone else needs to get fitted for the dunce cap.
tmo at 2:15PM on Jul 23rd 2008
75. 66. You really are one ass backwards clown, Godless
-----------------------------
Better than being a backwards ass-clown, Thomas.
Godless Heathen Brian
>>>
Another cogent post from Godless. With intellects like Godless ... who needs retards?
Thomas J Gassett at 2:17PM on Jul 23rd 2008