Alex's space

Richard Dawkins on Religion, Channel 4

Firstly I am not a massive fan of Dawkin’s approach, sometimes. I have read most of his books and seen some of his lectures. He is incredibly eloquent and writes impressively on evolutionary theory. But at least, as he says, his understanding is based on evidence and scientific method, so if he is proven wrong he can adapt to a new level of understanding, be it via a gradual (Popper’esk) change, or a massive shift (Kuhnian).

So all that withstanding, his program tonight on Religion being the base of all Evil was fascinating.

The main point it highlighted is that there is really very little difference from the Christian Right in America to any other Fundamentalist religious group. all in all very scary.

Perhaps the most scary was that the ‘free thinkers’ agnostics or atheists he met in America had to practically meet in secret!

I loved the Bertrand Russell Orbiting Teapot analogy …

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Bertrand Russell, “Is There a God?” commissioned by, but never published in, Illustrated Magazine (1952: repr. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Volume 11: Last Philosophical Testament, 1943-68, ed. John G. Slater and Peter Köllner (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 543-48, quoted from S. T. Joshi, Atheism: A Reader

From Wikipidia on Richard Dawkins:

Dawkins is known for his outspoken manner, which some would call blunt or even abrasive, and this carries over to his statements on social issues and religion. This has offended some people who would otherwise generally agree with him.

On the advice of his late colleague Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins refuses to participate in debates with creationists because doing so would give them the “oxygen of respectability” that they want with the public; Dawkins argued that creationists “don’t mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public.” (A Devil’s Chaplain, p. 256)

So it does seem a little odd that he has taken this step to confront people pushing intelligent design so publicly.

So anyway my sixpence’s worth, evolutionary theory good, ID bad. (said with the same religious fervour as creationists believe in ID)!