Dawkins Foundation Attacks Unreason

Does everyone also get bent out of shape about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Templeton Foundation, the Nobel prizes?

[Something extraordinarily stupid.]

Another dynamic speaker is Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I wish Professor Dawkins luck, but I fear it is 300 years after the Enlightenment, and unreason seems to be increasing, not decreasing. He (and we) have a long, hard row to hoe.

Now that I've seen them speak, I am more convinced than ever that education fixes religion problems. .

Thanks again, Peter Henderson! Work are being a bit over cautious in restricting internet access lately, so I doubt they'll let us download Real Player, but I've saved the address and hopefully I'll get my pc at home on line & fixed up in the next week or so. Thanks. :)

Not sure if this has been posted already, but here is the web address of the new RDF site.

http://richarddawkins.net/foundation,ourMission

I am sorry - I did not mean to imply that they were more rational during the Enlightenment, only that irrationality seems to be on the increase right now. But maybe it is just getting louder.

Oh great. So the debate in the UK is solidifying into atheism vs creationism instead of science vs pseudoscience. There is no way on God's green earth that good life science education can benefit. So in singlemindedly promoting a militant atheism agenda in the UK they're going to be "promoting" science by inevitably causing a great social science control experiment. What happens to the public knowledge of, and appreciation for, science when life science is thoroughly compromised by "equal time" creationism? No wonder the DI is so excited.

Here's a bit of reason for you. How about you get your culture war the hell out of my biology. Idiots.

So the debate in the UK is solidifying into atheism vs creationism instead of science vs pseudoscience.

Re: Comment #148931

I'm sorry, but that's plain crazy. The general population will not be cloning Dawkins in their minds and catagorizing his statements alongside Richard Dawkins #1 or Richard Dawkins #2. His statements regarding science will be judged right alongside his statements about religion thus limiting the amount of work the creationists will have to do in order to make use of his statements.

The general population will not be cloning Dawkins in their minds and catagorizing his statements alongside Richard Dawkins #1 or Richard Dawkins #2.

Oh great. So the debate in the UK is solidifying into atheism vs creationism instead of science vs pseudoscience.

— Mike

Speaking of which, where is Dawkins' research?

— Robert O'Brien

Perhaps he, like the DI, conducts it in some secret, underground laboratory (No doubt he rents space to Myers, which explains his absolutely anemic publication record.)

My comment was more directed at PT readers, who sometimes have difficulty with the multiple personalities of Dawkins

Andrew McClure on December 6, 2006 4:34 AM (e) It is good, at the least, that finally somebody's going to be making an organized attempt to move against the new British creationists. Let's see what comes of that.

Crabbed age and youth cannot live together:
Youth is full of pleasance, age is full of care;
Youth like summer morn, age like winter weather;
Youth like summer brave, age like winter bare.
Youth is full of sport, age's breath is short;
Youth is nimble, age is lame.
Youth is wild, age is tame.
Age, I do abhor thee; youth I do adore thee;
O! my love, my love is young:
Age, I do defy thee: O! sweet shepherd, hie thee,
For methinks thee stays too long.

Let's cut to the chase, folks.

Richard Dawkins is the poster boy among both creationists and IDers (and I imagine quite a few moderates -- who VOTE) of "Evolution = Atheism."

He has done us no favors in defending science education here in Kansas by being that.

As "they" understand it, Richard Dawkins ('the' spokesperson for science in the world) says science = atheism. Therefore (the reasoning goes), that's what all scientists think.

And that contributes to the widespread belief that science (evolutionary biology in particular) is a huge worldwide conspiracy to establish a secular (read: atheist) worldview in society. That would, they "reason," lead to students thinking that since they're descended from apes, and not specially created, they can act like apes (e.g., rape, kill, cheat, lie, etc.).

Of course, all this is ridiculous to people outside their closed world. But it is very real to them, and a subject that moderates don't know what to think about.

Personally? I wish Dawkins would keep up his excellent writing about science and shut the hell up about religion. He has no credentials in religion. And anyone who thinks de-religioning people by mocking them is a reasonable goal is seriously deluded.

Unlike Dawkins, I have attempted over the past several years to understand what makes fundamentalists (Biblical literalists, the ones who have the most trouble about science) believe the way they do. It is a more complicated subject than Dawkins and other anti-religionists believe. It has little to do with rationality, and it will not be changed by an appeal to rationality or attacks on "stupid" beliefs.

Dawkins calls religious beliefs and the people who believe them "stupid," or "idiotic." When people are attacked for their beliefs, do they give up those beliefs, or do they hold to them that much more tightly?

I do believe good public education about science and evolution, in time, and it may be a long time, will overcome anti-science. But it will take empathy, and working with religious leaders who support science, and not attacks on religion itself. Be practical, not ideological, like "them."

Of course, all this is ridiculous to people outside their closed world. But it is very real to them

I do believe good public education about science and evolution, in time, and it may be a long time, will overcome anti-science. But it will take empathy, and working with religious leaders who support science, and not attacks on religion itself. Be practical, not ideological, like "them

Liz Craig wrote: Personally? I wish Dawkins would keep up his excellent writing about science and shut the hell up about religion. He has no credentials in religion.

It is a more complicated subject than Dawkins and other anti-religionists believe.

Richard Dawkins, being the public face of evolutionary biology, was expected to fall under the NOMA approach or something similar, and to pretend that religion is only opposed to reason in its extreme forms. That he did not do so is a matter of, as I see it, personal integrity. That he explicitly makes the case for his views in The God Delusion is an act of respect and kindness for religious people struggling to make sense of the condescending NOMA (Science deals with what is real, religion deals with "meaning" whatever that means).

One doesn't have to be an expert in astrology, palm reading and ghost exorcisms to demonstrate what a waste of time these things are, and it would be perfectly reasonable to point out that such things are unreal. We are living in a world where the rejection of science due to religion has an impact not only on education, but on larger issues like global warming, destruction of natural resources, and mass extinction. Religions have not brought these things to the forefront, and have instead turned a blind eye to them. Theology and its priorities are slow to evolve with new knowledge, and therefore religion is inherently stagnant and rots decision-making powers from the inside at this crucial moment for humanity.

Richard Dawkins sees the big picture. He doesn't have to believe he will win the war to know that it's worth fighting.

He has done us no favors in defending science education here in Kansas by being that

you mean you are intellectually unable to beat down a strawman created by the creationists themselves?

If so, then I'd say don't blame Dawkins, and don't blame the creationists, blame yourself.

You do know the best way to defeat a strawman is, don't you?

. It has little to do with rationality, and it will not be changed by an appeal to rationality or attacks on "stupid" beliefs.

ahh, i see, you've fallen under the spell of the creobot's own strawman.

snap out of it.

indeed it is more complicated than just religion, and if you had tracked Hamilton, Wilson, Dawkins etc., as they worked on developing theories of the evolution of social behavior, you might see that for yourself, and have a clearer picture of the strawman you are both fighting against, and apparently propogating with your own ignorance at the same time.

why do you think the new "dawkins institute" will indeed be conducting research on the underlying psychology that contributes to rejection of reason to begin with?

perhaps its BECAUSE they realize the issue is about more than just "religion", eh?

You're spending too much time analzying the fundies using their own terminology, and not enough time looking outside the box to see the long line of folks who have already analyzed the behavior for decades.

ya know, there was a decent interview with EO Wilson that was published in last month's Seed magazine you might want to read to get a bette perspective on the background of folks like Wilson and Dawkins:

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/10/the_synthesizer.php

believe me when i tell you that these guys know more about religion and philosophy than you give them credit for, and you sure make it sound like you are taking the creobot's word for it rather than finding out for yourself.

I wish Dawkins would keep up his excellent writing about science and shut the hell up about religion. He has no credentials in religion. And anyone who thinks de-religioning people by mocking them is a reasonable goal is seriously deluded.

— Liz Craig

One doesn't have to be an expert in astrology, palm reading and ghost exorcisms to demonstrate what a waste of time these things are, and it would be perfectly reasonable to point out that such things are unreal.

Human nature is real. Spirituality is real. The emotional needs that lead many people to embrace religions of various sorts are real. And the benefits of spirituality are no less real than the dangers and downsides. If you're not willing to understand these real things, and listen to the people who understand them, then you have nothing to contribute to the debate. And if you're not willing to understand the exact nature of other people's beliefs, than you cannot possibly understand a very important aspect of the nature of those who believe them.

Just what credentials are required to discuss religion? Since every one of the thousands of religions ever invented have come from someone's imagination, any scientist, bishop, or drooling idiot can be an expert in religion.

So anyone can be an expert on what other people imagine? Sorry, that's horseshit. I could just as easily say the same for French fiction, since that, too, results from imagination. Anyone here wanna regale me with their expertise on French fiction? That shouldn't be too hard -- it's all made up!

Excuse me while I belabor the obvious: If you want to learn about science, you listen to someone who has studied and/or worked in science; if you want to learn about politics, you listen to someone who has studied and/or worked in politics; if you want to learn about music, you listen to someone who has studied and/or worked in music; and if you want to learn about religion, the rational thing to do is to listen to someone who has knowledge and/or experience in religion.

Why do so many atheists refuse to do this, and instead confine their "study" of religion to people who have no expertise in religion, and don't even care enough to learn or discuss its particulars? The answer is simple and obvious: they don't really want to understand religion; they only want to reinforce their own prejudices.

I've seen this argument before but no one ever explains what is so complicated about it. Just because someone has a psychological need to cling to an imaginary personal belief system doesn't make it complicated.

Argument from ignorance, incomprehension or incredulity is invalid, remember?

Richard Dawkins...was expected to...pretend that religion is only opposed to reason in its extreme forms. That he did not do so is a matter of, as I see it, personal integrity.

So clinging to a simpleminded picture of a complex subject, and refusing to address reality in its "pathetic level of detail" is now a matter of "personal integrity?" Puh-lease -- I don't hear anyone here praising the "personal integrity" of Jerry Falwell or Fred Phelps.

When a scientist of Dawkins' caliber refuses to employ the rational inquiry of which we all know he's capable, that's not "personal integrity;" it's hypocricy.

Dawkins calls religious beliefs and the people who believe them "stupid," or "idiotic." When people are attacked for their beliefs, do they give up those beliefs, or do they hold to them that much more tightly?

Damn good question, Liz. And the answer is, they take it as "persecution," for which they've been conditioned for centuries, and simply shut out the mockery, along with anything else the mockers might have to say. The sensible way to reach out to people of faith is to choose our battles wisely, show them the respect we want them to show us, show them reason without the insults, attack the most irrational and indefensible nonsense, and keep the audience focused on those particulars.

Katarina: thanks for the link. There's lots of interesting comments here. I haven't had tome to read it all, but here's some excerpts that might prove useful here...

Richard Atran:

I find it fascinating that among the brilliant scientists and philosophers at the conference, there was no convincing evidence presented that they know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that scientists have a keener or deeper appreciation than religious people of how to deal with personal or moral problems. Some scientists have some good and helpful insights into human beings' existential problems some of the time, but some good scientists have done more to harm others than most people are remotely capable of...

The belief that science can or should replace religion as a major factor in motivating and shaping --- rather than just informing --- politics or ethics, and by so doing steadily improve the human condition, is itself a delusion. The speculations I heard in the conference, about what religion can or cannot do and what the motives or consequences of religious belief are, have been almost entirely supported by the smallest of data sets, usually a N of 1 --- the speculator himself or herself --- and only on the basis of that person's selectively uninformed opinion. Imagine if you tried to do science this way, you'd be met with embarrassment and bewilderment, not lauded or applauded...

University of British Columbia psychologists Ara Norenzayan and Ian Hansen have recently shown, for some 10,000 subjects surveyed in several countries and continents, that although believing "my God is the only God" increases the odds of scapegoating by 32%, simply believing "there is a God" decreases the tendency to blame others for one's troubles by 45%. These researchers also show that atheists with exclusivist beliefs are just as likely to scapegoat others as Christians, Jews or Muslims.

So anyone can be an expert on what other people imagine? Sorry, that's horseshit. I could just as easily say the same for French fiction, since that, too, results from imagination. Anyone here wanna regale me with their expertise on French fiction? That shouldn't be too hard --- it's all made up!

— Raging Bee

Human nature is real. Spirituality is real. The emotional needs that lead many people to embrace religions of various sorts are real.

So clinging to a simpleminded picture of a complex subject, and refusing to address reality in its "pathetic level of detail" is now a matter of "personal integrity?"

As for Spirituality, ask three different people from three different religions what spirituality is, and you'll get three different answers... So if we can't even agree on what spirituality is, how on earth could we ever hope to identify who the "experts" on the topic are. Again, Dawkins seems to have as much credibility as anyone else on this subject. At least he has apparently spent a bit of time thinking about it...

Ask three different people to look at St. Paul's Cathedral from three different directions and describe what they see, and you'll get three different answers. Does this mean we can never hope to identify who the experts on St. Paul's Cathedral are?

If all you wanted to say about French Literature is "Hey, it's fiction!" then effectively, you already know enough about the topic.

No, that just means you don't care enough about the topic, and can't pretend you have anything useful to say about it.

Same same for religion, which is all Dawkins is really saying.

If that's all Dawkins is saying, then he's contributing nothing to a complex and ongoing debate, and there's no reason to waste any time with him.

That's the trouble with being closed-minded: you can't even come up with a convincing excuse to be closed-minded!

The problem with Dawkins' approach is that most people don't care about reason - they aren't motivated to follow it, they're motivated to use it to reach predetermined conclusions. Dawkins himself does this - he thinks God doesn't exist and that the belief that he does exist is damaging to human society. But one cannot use reason to demonstrate conclusively that God doesn't exist, just as one cannot use reason to demonstrate consclusively that God does exist. Yet Dawkins pretends that "reason" leads ineluctably to his preferred conclusion. It's actually unreasonable, in my opinion, to think that it's possible to argue people out of their religious beliefs.

It's all well and good to promote reason, but the prior question is, "what's my motivation?" Reason cannot answer that question.

After scanning the titles in a local bookshop, Oxford University geneticist Richard Dawkins discovered that "real science" was "outnumbered three to one by pseudoscience."

That statement right there demonstrates just how clueless Dawkins is about the real world.

Pls see Dean Morrison's comment, no. 148969, above. I had to approve it because of the number of URL's Mr. Morrison cited, and it apparently was recorded with the date and time he submitted it, rather than the date and time when I approved it.

Ask three different people to look at St. Paul's Cathedral from three different directions and describe what they see, and you'll get three different answers. Does this mean we can never hope to identify who the experts on St. Paul's Cathedral are?

Ha! I predict another 400+ post thread...

STJ wrote:

if you want to use that as an analogy, then from your perspective, you must be standing outside the cathedral, looking the opposite direction from it and trying to describe what you see.

And your point...?

as has been said to you many times before, you simply haven't the slightest clue what Dawkin's background in this subject area is, since you have never deigned to read any of his works.

It has not been "said" to me; I have honestly admitted it myself, and repeatedly explained why. First, what I read of Dawkins in the interviews he himself gave convinced me he is clueless about religion; and second, of all the people who have defended Dawkins here, and on Ed's blog, NONE of them have quoted an example of Dawkins' writing that contradicts my initial assessment of his competence. The cluelessness and logical fallacies I found in Dawkins' own words are daily reflected in the comments of his defenders. Given this ongoing pattern, I see no reason to believe I'm missing anything by not reading Dawkins' books.

Besides, if you read the page Katarina cited, you'll find I'm not the only one criticizing Dawkins' take on religion.

Dawkins wants to create people that are skeptics in all aspects of their lives. Once someone has been "tainted" by religion, it's very difficult to achieve this, but one can always hope to reach people before ideas have become too fixed.

What a rigid, counterproductive, defeatist attitude. If Dawkins has that attitude going out the door, then he's doomed himself to failure -- we're ALL "tainted" by religion, whatever that vague word is supposed to mean. As they say in war, you're defeated when you think you're defeated.

(Also, that kinda sounds like the IDers' excuse for teaching their fake science in high-schools before the actual science is done: they have to indoctrinate the kids before the evil Darwinist establishment "taints" their impressionable young minds.)

As for Spirituality, ask three different people from three different religions what spirituality is, and you'll get three different answers... So if we can't even agree on what spirituality is, how on earth could we ever hope to identify who the "experts" on the topic are. Again, Dawkins seems to have as much credibility as anyone else on this subject. At least he has apparently spent a bit of time thinking about it... Ask three different people to look at St. Paul's Cathedral from three different directions and describe what they see, and you'll get three different answers. Does this mean we can never hope to identify who the experts on St. Paul's Cathedral are?

continuing from above:

And lest any simpletons should suppose that I'm speaking "for religion", I most assuredly am not. I'm more with the European/Nietzschean mode of thought, that Xian religion itself managed to desacralize the world (of course it had help from other currents) and to produce atheists of the kind that Dawkins and Krauss are, that is, people who can't even comprehend the spiritual mind or how it works.

Dawkins' advocacy for atheism is something that has been too long lacking in the US, but his naivete regarding religion and its causes is far too common here. With one hand Dawkins gives, with his uneducated attacks on the religion that he almost completely fails to understand, he takes away.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Once again, Dawkins has never argued that science or reason can "conclusively" prove there is no "god." (Whatever the heck undefined collection of attributes "god" is supposed to represent and, contra RB, that god-believing religionists can't seem to agree on that grab-bag of attributes is not a measure of Dawkins' ignorance, but of the religionists' lack of precision.)

We're still seeing very little in the way of evidence--quotes in context authored by the man himself--from the anti-Dawkins whiners to substantiate their claims about Dawkins' views. Just a lot of talk, talk, talk about what they imagine Dawkins' views to be.

Is that how we do things around here now?

Steviepinhead: my comments on Dawkins, along with a link to his interview with Salon, are here:

http://motherwell.livejournal.com/77504.html

Also, Katarina posted a link to a dialogue in which others take issue with similar statements.

You want fries with that?

Now where's YOUR evidence that we've misunderstood Dawkins?

Well, let's start with the LiveJournal guy, RB.

Do you actually find most of his (or her--I don't care) paraphrases and responses to the Dawkins' interview quotes fair? Or compelling?

Which of those points in particular?

Which of the statements by Dawkins in particular really rile you?

I don't find, in the context of this debate, that throwing out a link to a critique of an entire interview really advances our discussion very far.

You didn't ask me to advance the discussion; you asked for quotes from Dawkins that support the criticisms that people like myself have made of them. I have complied by providing a link to an article that contains another link to the Salon interview I mentioned before. (Yes, you have to use the mouse-button twice, rather than once, to get to Dawkins' actual words. Sorry to make life harder for you, I was responding in haste.)

As for my specific criticism, read the LJ article -- it's mine. Long story short: he uses guilt-by-association to blame religious moderates for "enabling" extremism, regardless of said moderates' actual deeds. He also explicitly rejects the "non-overlapping magisteria" doctrine that keeps science separate from religious belief.

I've also talked about this in the earlier "Holy Wars" post on PT.

I was rather amused when Dawkins used the f-word in response to a reproach by Neil DeGrasse and left everyone else in the room speechless. Apparently he was quite jet-lagged. (I can't remember which session), and here's the link again. Lots of hours of viewing, but much is worthwhile.

http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html

Ha! I predict another 400+ post thread...

Unlike Dawkins, I have attempted over the past several years to understand what makes fundamentalists (Biblical literalists, the ones who have the most trouble about science) believe the way they do. It is a more complicated subject than Dawkins and other anti-religionists believe.

— Liz Craig

Dawkins calls religious beliefs and the people who believe them "stupid," or "idiotic."

— Liz Craig

I do believe good public education about science and evolution, in time, and it may be a long time, will overcome anti-science. But it will take empathy, and working with religious leaders who support science, and not attacks on religion itself. Be practical, not ideological, like "them."

— Liz Craig

7. Charitable giving by secularists to humanitarian good causes. Major disasters like earthquakes or tornados prompt a desire by decent people of all persuasions to help. I, for one, am always anxious that my money should go to help the disaster victims but should not fall into the hands of missionaries or other church-based organizations. Even if these organizations do eventually pass it on to the victims, they often do so with strings attached. Some of us are keen that no proportion of our donations should fall into the hands of missionaries. RDFRS will hope to maintain a list of charities, worldwide, which are certified free of missionary or church contamination.

— RDF website

Not all religious moderates are the same, Liz. Your approach might work with some of them. But for many, a good dunking in the toilet bowl of life is just what they need.

So tell us, greg, what have YOU accomplished in that regard? How many religious moderates have you "dunked" in the "toilet bowl of life?" What results can YOU show for your valiant efforts?

RDF website wrote:

7. Charitable giving by secularists to humanitarian good causes...Even if these organizations do eventually pass it on to the victims, they often do so with strings attached...

If Dawkins has evidence of such misuse of donations, he should either go public with them, so we can all know which organizations to avoid; or (if they're breaking the law) take it to the cops. Assuming, without discussion, that all religious-charity organizations are untrustworthy merely because they're religious, helps no one.

Katatina: I've been reading Harris' response to Atran's comments. Bloody 'ell, does he even understand how stupid he sounds? Can't he argue with anyone without misrepresenting his statements?

It's when he thinks that the religion issue among humans in their cultural and social existences boils down to "true" or "false", that he's clearly out of his depth in the subject.

Harris apparently doesn't believe there could actually be a new question he hasn't already considered. He is like an answering machine, playing the appropriate response when anyone pushes its corresponding number.

BTW, I found his book Letter to a Christian Nation too boring to finish. This guy is not very creative, and he certainly doesn't respect the intelligence of his audience. Not like Richard Dawkins, who is imaginative, articulate, and well.. I have a bit of a crush on him right now so I'm biased. Bee, if you haven't read anything Dawkins has written, it's really your loss.

So tell us, greg, what have YOU accomplished in that regard? How many religious moderates have you "dunked" in the "toilet bowl of life?" What results can YOU show for your valiant efforts?

— Raging Bee

If Dawkins has evidence of such misuse of donations, he should either go public with them, so we can all know which organizations to avoid or (if they're breaking the law) take it to the cops. Assuming, without discussion, that all religious-charity organizations are untrustworthy merely because they're religious, helps no one.

— Raging Bee

I was rather amused when Dawkins used the f-word in response to a reproach by Neil DeGrasse and left everyone else in the room speechless. Apparently he was quite jet-lagged. (I can't remember which session), and here's the link again. Lots of hours of viewing, but much is worthwhile.

It is a more complicated subject than Dawkins and other anti-religionists believe.

— Liz Craig

Yes, I should have mentioned that, RBH.
But the mere fact that he used it... well, he's got meatballs.

Why would I need to click the mouse twice if you like the rationale of the link that I reach on the first click, RB.

That's all I was trying to find out. Needless to say, I found most of that critique as unfair and unpersuasive as I have found your (of Dawkins, that is; I almost always agree with and enjoy your critique of trolls and IDists!).

We can debate specific examples if you like. Or, if you're not interested in advancing the discussion, that's fine too...

Long story short: [Dawkins] uses guilt-by-association to blame religious moderates for "enabling" extremism, regardless of said moderates' actual deeds. He also explicitly rejects the "non-overlapping magisteria" doctrine that keeps science separate from religious belief.

— Raging Bee

raging bee,

As for you, you're too stupid to bother with. Your supposed fisking of Dawkins' Salon interview is just a juvenile game of gotcha. If you truly don't understand that when Dawkins said "You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible" he meant only that one cannot be certain that God does not exist because there is no disproof, not that one cannot legitimately hold a positive belief that God does not exist that does not rise to the level of certainty, then your reading comprehension ability is so limited you probably don't understand anything else the man has written either. But I think you probably did understand it perfectly well and simply chose to misconstrue "positive atheist" in order to claim that you had caught Dawkins in a contradiction. The rest of your post is similarly idiotic. I guess its title ("Surprise -- Atheists can be Stupid Bigots Too!") should have clued me in to the level of intellectual seriousness I should have expected from it. You certainly haven't displayed the slightest interest in any kind of serious good-faith debate of Dawkins' position in any of the comments of yours I have read in PT.

Raging Bee wrote: Anyone here wanna regale me with their expertise on French fiction? That shouldn't be too hard --- it's all made up!

...and if you want to learn about religion, the rational thing to do is to listen to someone who has knowledge and/or experience in religion.

Besides, if you read the page Katarina cited, you'll find I'm not the only one criticizing Dawkins' take on religion.

so cohorts implies coherence?

hardly.

you failed previously, and still do, to have any excuse for regailing Dawkins other than your misintrepretations of his postion and works, which you have admittedly never read.

really, it just seems so foolish to me for you to continue to proceed in such a vein over and over again, and it sure does have a parallel with exactly how the creobots argue.

again i ask, why on earth should anyone consider your position on the issue logical or relevant?

Katatina: I've been reading Harris' response to Atran's comments. Bloody 'ell, does he even understand how stupid he sounds? Can't he argue with anyone without misrepresenting his statements?

So tell us, greg, what have YOU accomplished in that regard? How many religious moderates have you "dunked" in the "toilet bowl of life?" What results can YOU show for your valiant efforts?

have you ever considered actually reading Dawkins' books to get background on where he really stands, so you could actually understand his "approach" and then ask the same questions of it yourself?

of course not.

you don't WANT to know the reality of the situation, because you're simply afraid you might be wrong about him.

all of his books and papers and symposia commentaries are readily available. as are those of folks like Hamilton, Wilson, etc., who also have great influence on Dawkins' thinking in these issues.

blind ignorance is a tool of the creobots; the fact that you refuse to educate yourself on that which you consider in "opposition" to your beliefs is quite puzzling considering your efforts on the anti-creationist front itself.

AC --- Well and truely stated! Thank you...

The problem with Dawkins' approach is that most people don't care about reason - they aren't motivated to follow it, they're motivated to use it to reach predetermined conclusions.

The continuing special pleading for religion in all matters is tedious. It is also contraproductive since the unthinking reflex explicitly takes any 'special' claims out of it.

We have also the fact that many atheists like Dawkins started out religious. Their view of their abandoned religiosity is as valid as any other personal view. To make the unnecessarily strong claim that they don't understand any of it is preposterous. It is also demeaning of personal views such as religion.

I would be the first to agree that atheism is not a religion. But it is a worldview, and an atheist analyzing worldviews is nothing remarkable. Religions also makes objective claims, and again special pleading is unwarranted. Finishing off a reductionist analysis, the remaining cultural and psychological aspects of religion are unremarkable studies. And lastly of course reductionism, if that is what Dawkins does, is at least as valid as other analyzes (more so by successes in science).

All of which makes the usual showstopper 'goddidit' and the current showstopper 'godsaidit' rather bleak in comparison.

Anemic? Looks like he's got a couple dozen research articles on there at least. Sure, they're all old, before he switched focus from research to book-writing. Michael Behe's publication record shows the same pattern. Of course, Dawkins doesn't claim to be personally overthrowing a mainstream field of science which has been thriving for more than a century, and Behe does, so there's a bit of difference there in what kind of research record each needs to back him up. And then there's Dembski, whose published mathematical research papers number, what, two?

I am sure he could have made some worthwhile contributions to the discipline.

AC --- Well and truely stated! Thank you...

"By the way, I think it is a shame that Bill did not continue in probability; I am sure he could have made some worthwhile contributions to the discipline."

Maybe, maybe not. I don't see mathematics departments in the prestigious universities wooing him away from the bible colleges. Perhaps that's the problem; maybe he has never been a good scholar, and had to find a small pond in which he could be a Big Fish.

Steviepinhead: my comments on Dawkins, along with a link to his interview with Salon, are here: http://motherwell.livejournal.com/77504.html

— Raging Bee

We have also the fact that many atheists like Dawkins started out religious.