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 7 of 20)
91. Sorry I keep posting the poem, but it always sems to fit so well... Whenever he is really frothing at the mouth, he just demonstrates the hypocrisy of his perverse version of faith. So I have to post the poem. After all, one of his frothy fits inspired it...
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:09PM on Jul 23rd 2008
92. David Sloan Wilson (Distinguished Professor in the Departments of Biology and Anthropology, Binghamton University) says:
"Time will tell where Dawkins sits on the bell curve of open-mindedness concerning group selection in general and religion in particular. At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion."
Ouch, that's gotta hurt Dawkins. This from a fellow Atheist and evolutionist.
Jay at 3:12PM on Jul 23rd 2008
93. Why would Dawkins want to debate a man who believes dead people come back to life and fly off into outer space. Then this dead guy is waiting up there in outer space to fly back with angels no less and save the world some day. What are you asking Santa for this year DD?
Larry at 3:20PM on Jul 23rd 2008
94. I am truly baffled by Tom Gassett. His posts seem to indicate that he's an agnostic who's not tied to any one religious dogma. Be he hates all the "atheist posters" with such a rabid passion.
Tom can you clarify?
Ryan Anderson at 3:21PM on Jul 23rd 2008
95. I see a person that constantly calls others stupid as a person who is very insecure about his own intelligence. He needs to think of everyone else as stupid. If they're not after all, it means that he's the idiot, and he can't even consider that possibility, not with that ego. >>>>>
Damn, Brian. I think you might have me there.
What about someone who *thinks* most people are morons, but doesn't *tell* them?
Is that still insecurity?
See, most people I meet every day *are* morons. That's why I come here to read what ya'll are saying. There is a much higher proportion of intelligent people here than there are in real life. At least in the South. :)
Doofus Lurker at 3:30PM on Jul 23rd 2008
96. Wow - seems Shelly Ann Gasset's personality has once again taken over Tommy Ann. Everyone say it with me...
you sthtupid tursth!
T.Brough at 2:54PM on Jul 23rd 2008
xxxx
wow, has it been 28 days already?
Clif Kuplen at 3:33PM on Jul 23rd 2008
97. Larry said:
"Why would Dawkins want to debate a man who believes dead people come back to life and fly off into outer space."
Hmmm, why would Dawkins right a fucking book on such a topic if he doesn't think it as a worthy topic? Answer that one Larry. You'll find that the answer you give to this question is the exact answer to your own question as to why he should debate.
Jay at 3:34PM on Jul 23rd 2008
98. I meant demonize in the sense of making them inhuman, dehumanizing them so that everybody and their little sister wants to see them burn>>>
Look you idiot. Before religion there was no need to demonzie or make inhuman your enemies ... get it? The strong did what ever they pleased. The only law, before the Lords law, was nothing more than might made right. It was after organized religion that one needed to demonize an enemy before you could burn it. Before religion it was just throw another one on the barby. To say that a huge part of religion is to demonize others is to be blind to the moral compass ... I.E the humanity religion gave us. The vast majority of humans believe in God and God's goodness. You only see that religion (the most powerful force for good in human history) is often used and abused by man to create great evil. Blame the men, stupid ... not religion. You completely miss what most of humaity understands, must be a stupid atheist ... or just stupid.
Thomas J Gassett at 3:35PM on Jul 23rd 2008
99. Sorry I keep posting the poem, but it always sems to fit so well... Whenever he is really frothing at the mouth, he just demonstrates the hypocrisy of his perverse version of faith. So I have to post the poem. After all, one of his frothy fits inspired it...
Godless Heathen Brian
>>>
You're a pathetic little shutin that pisses all over this board every damn day of your godless meaningless life. Thanks for the proof. LMAO
Thomas J Gassett at 3:37PM on Jul 23rd 2008
100. Hmmm ... why couldn't people share resources, etc. instead of killing each other for them? No matter the reason, it is still a self destructive solution taken as opposed to a peaceable one.
Shannie at 3:40PM on Jul 23rd 2008
101. Wow - seems Shelly Ann Gasset's personality has once again taken over Tommy Ann. Everyone say it with me...
>>>
Another pathetic little turd and its childish word games lightweight in. BFD
You freaks are like a pack of dogs ... you bark at all the strangers and piss on any opinion that doesn't smell just like yours, and you've found comrades that are as pathetic and stupid as you are. So you polute this blog with worthless bullshit. NO wonder you like it here ... it's just like your life!
Thomas J Gassett at 3:41PM on Jul 23rd 2008
102. I am truly baffled by Tom Gassett. His posts seem to indicate that he's an agnostic who's not tied to any one religious dogma. Be he hates all the "atheist posters" with such a rabid passion.
Tom can you clarify?
>>>
I'm not a 'pure' anything. I'm a deist that believes while God might not take much interest in us, that we can tap into 'God's power' to make our lives better. I tap into that force through the religion I was born into. It works for me.
My problem is with pompous fools that claim to be athiest, while all they do is attack allegorical bible stories. It's stupid, and when your pompous and stupid ... I'm going to have a problem with you. When you think you're something special, like Godless and his fellow turds, but exhibit nothing but shallow spew ... I'm going to have a big problem with you when you turn your ignorant childish spew on me. GEt it?
How's that for clarification, stupid?
Thomas J Gassett at 3:49PM on Jul 23rd 2008
103.
Hmmm, why would Dawkins right a fucking book on such a topic if he doesn't think it as a worthy topic? Answer that one Larry. You'll find that the answer you give to this question is the exact answer to your own question as to why he should debate.
Jay at 3:34PM on Jul 23rd 2008
Dawkins writes in the first few pages of his book that he wrote it for people who are questioning their commitment to a religion. He wrote the book to help them deprogram themselves. That doesn't mean he sees any value in debating whether or not god exists. I would think he would only engage in such a debate if he thought it would help someone escape an organization that practices cult-like training of children. At any rate, that's more or less what he refers to in his book when he argues that there is no such thing as a Catholic child or a Muslim child; but rather a child of Catholic parents or a child of Muslim parents: the child doesn't get to choose their religion based on reason, or even their own preferences.
Lukas at 3:57PM on Jul 23rd 2008
104. You freaks are like a pack of dogs ... you bark at all the strangers and piss on any opinion that doesn't smell just like yours,
===================================================
Dont forget, we hump all the bitches!!!!!
CaptainCack at 3:53PM on Jul 23rd 2008
105. Dawkins writes books on religion in general Jay. He does not believe in God.... I believe in God Jay, I just don't like all you Christians, Muslims and all the rest of the cults you belong too screwing things up with your nonsence.
Larry at 3:54PM on Jul 23rd 2008