Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins may well be the next Carl Sagan. Like the late, great Sagan, Dawkins writes popular science books and is increasingly seen on TV. Unlike Sagan, he's not coy about his atheism. And that's only helping his popularity. His newest book "The God Delusion" is a New York Times best seller and is the #2 selling book on Amazon.com. (Read the first chapter here.) In its cover story this month, Wired magazine calls Dawkins "the leading light of the New Atheism movement."
We have Dawkins to thank for the term "meme" to describe how Darwinian principles might be extended to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. For better or worse, bloggers know about memes - you can't stop evolution!I heard Dawkins speak at the Palace of Fine Arts Theater this evening. From the applause, the laughter, and the questions-from-the-audience segment, it seemed as if every one of the 1000+ attendees were atheists. Could this be the start of a bold new coming-out-of-the-closet movement?
The BBC has produced a two-part documentary on Richard Dawkins, and titled it "The Root Of All Evil?" (a title chosen against Dawkins' wishes - they even rejected his proposed compromise, "The Root Of Some Evils.") These are powerful and provocative episodes, and here they are for you to watch. Go get a cup of tea, sit back, and prepare to think. (Look for a segment with now-disgraced Pastor Ted Haggard in Part One.)
The Root Of All Evil, Part One: The God Delusion (47:51)
The Root Of All Evil, Part Two: The Virus Of Faith (42:54)
22 comments:
i like the comparison between dawkins and sagan.. i've been thinking that they have many similarities too.
have a fun read!
I saw a special he was on, on PBS
I don't think Richard Dawkins wants is for us to think, rationally and maturely, since his book encourages all wobbly, fallacious-ridden argumentation dressed up as science. I’ve pointed out some of the more obvious inconsistencies and flaws in my review of the book at
http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2006/11/review-of-god-delusion.html
Hi Free Thinker,
Here's my two bits on this intractable debate. Hope you and others can appreciate my efforts to provide a key to a true solution for humanity's seemingly never-ending cycle of struggle and despair.
Analyzing the Creator Debate
Did you ever consider that atheism arose because certain people saw that religious characterizations about the nature of an omnipotent "God" were seriously flawed and then concluded that religion and the Creator were the same things? This is the exact same conclusion at the base of religious beliefs; namely that the Creator and religion are inseparable. Consequently, both atheists and religious followers are arguing over a flawed assumption without considering that other possibilities negate the common core conclusion of both groups. These arguments are actually over religion and whether it represents a reliable model of reality. The answer to this question is of course not. Religion is not only flawed, it is purposely deceptive! Though atheists are certainly sincere in their conclusions, the fact remains that they and religious followers are locked in a debate that cannot be won by either side because both base their positions upon whether the same flawed premise is the truth. In order for this debate to conclude with a truthful answer, a greater level of discernment is required.
One apt clarifying question is, if someone tells lies about you, does that negate you or make you a liar or a lie? Certainly, the image cast about you would be a false one, but that is their image, not the real you. Consequently, faulty religious assertions about the Creator of this universe do not negate the existence of a Creator. Considering the possibility that this universe is not by chance leaves the door open to how it arose, which leads us to seek what could have created and maintained it. Since neither religion nor science has yet adequately answered this question, it is safe to conclude that those who argue about the Creator based on either are most certainly wrong about one or more aspects. Therefore, another point of view and additional knowledge are required.
Read More...
This comment might not read terrifically intellectually, but I have heard Dawkins speak and he truly is compelling. I think that his Amazon sales rank might not necessarily mean that there are throngs of Atheists waiting to jump out of the closet, but that there are certainly a lot of people who are interested in his perspective. I have wandering, wavering beliefs and sometimes am just not sure, probably because I am drawn to social Darwinism.
My feeling is that there are people who sense the reality of a Godless cosmos, but I think that psychologically, a great many of us still need something to believe in. It's the way I feel about denial: very often comfortable.
Just last night I was looking through the Barnes & Noble Christmas catalog and I told my partner I wanted Dawkins' latest book that they were advertising, and she said, "oh yeah, I've heard him on NPR." I can't wait until I can find a stretch of time to view the clips. Thanks for this post!
I'm sure that documentary's already been broadcast on Britain's Channel 4, unless you're meaning whatever channel BBC has over in America. It was really interesting, very important piece about Religion's affects in society. Not too sure I like his militant approach to Atheism, takig such a harsh stance is not the most open philosophical position to be standing in.
I believe in God, no doubt. How can you look at all the wonders of the world, the fish in the oceans and the birds in the sky and not? Having said that, I do have a major problem with organized religion. Thanks for the vote!
i'm visiting, after you paid a visit to my blog. thanx for leaving a comment. I'm not sure what to say about this, subject. . so i think i'll just bow out gracefully. Just wanted to say 'hello'!
Hey FreeThinker - Long time no talk. It's is getting late, but I will be sure to check out these two video - they look interesting. Someone posing as Richard Dawkins was posting on my blog for quite some time and he seem to represent much of Dawkins views - but after a while he couldn't handle the TRUTH anymore. :>
In the meantime, try to check this out => INTERVIEW WITH AN ATHEIST and let me know what you think. I actually thought of you when I saw it since you are smarter than the average Atheist.
Be in touch!
Did you catch his "guest appearance" on South Park recently? Very funny.
Hi Freethinker,
I do believe in God, however I don't believe in extreme religions, especially if it's pushy.
I have heard of Richard Dawkins, first, from South Park, but it does seem to me that he is a very popular guy. I wouldn't be suprised if some groups find his book to be controversial.
Good morning FreeThinker –
Okay, so last night I totally planned the evening around watchings these two documantaries. I even got a cup of tea (pepsi actually), some cheese and crackers, and all my kids stitting on my lap ready to watch. At first I could understand where Dawkins was coming from with organized religion and how lame it is for Catholics to be receiving supernatural miracles at some water fountain. If God was really in the business of doing miracles these days, why wouldn’t He just go the the cancer ward at children’s hospital and heal all the suffering kids? It's not going to happen because miracles produce disbelief, not the other wat around.
Now I completely agree that a lot of evil has been done in the name of religion, but Dawkins lost ALL credibility with me when he started spouting off “facts” that the earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs have been around for millions of years. At this point I had to shut the video off and shake my head in disbelief.
Perhaps Dawkins isn’t aware of this recent finding? => Scientists Find Soft Tissue in T-Rex Fossil
Or maybe he never actually studied the hundreds of => SCIENTIFIC Reasons Why Our Earth is NOT Billions of Years Old ?
Either way, when he makes such outrageous claims against God, faith and religion – then combined with this garbage – It’s not even worth my time to watch. Sorry.
FT – No doubt you are a smart guy, but Richard Dawkins is nothing but an overeducated FOOL!
"For the FOOL has said in his heart, there is no God."
I would be interested in hearing your take on those two links above.
Dear Freethinker,
You've visited my blog before, and I'd like to invite you back. Please visit http://www.knittingandpraying.blogspot.com
And, I'd also like to recommend a book for you to check out when you have some time. The book is *The Language Of God - A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief* by Francis S. Collins, MD, Ph D. Dr. Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project and is now director of the Human Genome Research Institute at the NIH.
I think if you read my most recent blog post, you'll see that I'm not exactly what you originally thought I was when you made your first comment.
Have a wonderful weekend.
Shelly
RE: "For the FOOL has said in his heart, there is no God."
And - Matthew 5:22
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: BUT whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Tsk tsk - off to hell for you buddy.
Hello
I notice that you posted on Kathy's blog and I wanted to see what you have to say. You remind me of a good friend, who holds much the same ideology as you do. I'm not sure where I stand on many things, I guess I'm still hammering that out, but I'm always open to hearing/reading what others think, especially if they are open minded.
Spirituality is a huge thing for me, but I don't think that it has to be contradictory to at least some of the tenants of Atheism. I have not heard of Richard Dawkins but am intrigued to learn more.
TooManyTribbles ~ Let's remember that Carl Sagan sort of "paved the way" for rational thought and science to be a part of popular culture.
MyUtopia ~ Richard Dawkins seems to be everywhere these days. That's good for science, that's good for reason!
Robin ~ You've written a good critique of The God Delusion, but from my view, it sounds defensive (understandable, as you are a theist). Your post reads like a modern Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus: this time it's Yes, Richard, There is a God.
To me, Dawkins' arguments and reasoning are clear - and possibly, a meme. A "good" meme.
Seven Star Hand ~ Thanks for chiming in. You seem to offer a deep solution to the debate, but it may be too deep (or maybe I'm impatient). I can't quite grasp an "executive summary" of your solution.
Liv ~ Agreed: denial is comfortable, but reality is refreshing. I'd encourage you to read up on Secular Humanism: that may be your philosophical home.
VV ~ I hope you had a chance to watch the clips (and read The God Delusion) -- and share your impressions!
Nodders ~ Indeed, Dawkins can come across as militant and brusque, quite different than Carl Sagan's gentle approach. But I think Dawkins is deeply upset with the harm religion can cause, and urgently wants the world to avoid another 9/11.
I must have been mistaken about the BBC. Channel 4? Your television industry confuses me. I rarely watch television here in the US these days. There's so much more choice on YouTube!
Shade Of Grey ~ I don't understand how you can draw a connection between the human ability to perceive beauty and the existence of a supernatural being. What do you "believe in" when you look at things like tornadoes and tsunamis, roaches and rats?
Kathryn ~ Thanks for the visit, the hello, and the graceful bow!
Dani ~ Nice to hear from you again! I need to get caught up on your blog too. I've enjoyed our dialogues. I did watch "Interview with an Atheist" and I'm not sure what the whole point is. The guy is just talking about the Bible and what Christians should follow, and concludes by saying he's an atheist. Hmmm ... well, sometimes, I'll get caught up in a conversation about Christianity and the others assume I'm a Christian ... NOT!
Radio ~ Oh, yeah, when you're on South Park, you know you've made it!
MetalChick ~ Sounds like you will never be a "fundamentalist!"
Dani ~ Thanks for (attempting) to watch the Dawkins videos. Y'know, almost every believer will watch and agree that a particular religious practice is absurd -- but they don't see their own religious practice as absurd. The Catholics seem lame to you, the Muslims seem lame to the Jews, etc. To Dawkins and myself, it's ALL absurd, it's all variations on a supernatural theme.
As for your "creationist" links, they are interesting in a Jurassic Park kind of way, but a possible new minor scientific unexplainable surprise does not negate the overwhelming evidence that our world is much, much older than ~6000 years. Why do you ignore the almost-daily scientific discoveries of our earth and our ancestors going back millions of years?
Knitter ~ Thanks for inviting me back to your blog. Happy 27th anniversary! I read your heartfelt post about how you found the Christian faith when you were at your most vulnerable. You wrote that you were taking a risk by writing it, but it's OK! Hey, I write about my hobbies and interests and I often write quite openly about my own non-belief. It's OK!
As for Francis S. Collins, he's an anomaly among scientists in that he's a devout Christian. I understand his book is more "preachy" than science. Maybe we could swap our books when we're done reading them!
BeepBeep ~ Ah, another contradiction in the Bible. Since I don't follow this book, I have no conflict here, but I'm curious how believers (Dani?) would spin this ...
Faith ~ It's nice to know I remind you of a good friend! I bet your friend, like me, would encourage you to learn more about Dr. Dawkins. I have a feeling you are defining "Spirituality" in a poetic "I am spirited" sense, not in a "I believe in spirits" sense?
Free- Both Spirited and Spirits...but then I guess it depends on how you define both of those things...ahhh, communication via the internet is an interesting thing. :) I do believe in God if that helps, though I know it probably doesn't, since even my own experience of people who believe in God is generally not a good one.
I will ask my friend about Dr. Dawkins, and have him recommend something to read, and then I will let you know what I think. I'm a student and don't have much time to read for pleasure, but some day I will...my stack of books gets higher every day it seems. I will send him your link.
ps - I looked on Amazon and the book "Unweaving the Rainbow" looks like one I would enjoy.
Last night, a member of my astronomy club gave a talk entitled "Is Intelligent Design science?". He was in favor of it. I'd heard the arguments before, but not with such great graphics.
A number of things strike me about ID. First, it's not only Creationism, but a thinly veiled directed attack on science - not just an attack on Evolution. Second, it's not very good religeon. It's a God of the gaps. ID picks on some scientific subject in it's infancy. It makes an argument that some observed feature of biology couldn't possibly have evolved - and claims that God must have designed it. The problem is that, as science marches on, these gaps are filled, and the basis of faith vanishes. This has already happened with the evolution of the eye, and the evolution of bacterial flagellum, for example. Dawkins, and others, argue further. If you must state that God designed it, then you move from a difficult problem to a much more intractable problem. We must assume that God, the designer, is even more complex. Where did God come from? I find this to be the most reasonable argument for the nonexistence of God. So, far from encouraging strong faith, Intelligent Design appears to be a long term faith destroying body of ideas. This stems largely from the fact that the ideas are not just non-science, they're nonsense.
Free - I don't want to be a blog hogg...but I'm intrigued and find myself here more than I expected...if I become annoying, please tell me.
Stephen - Quote: So, far from encouraging strong faith, Intelligent Design appears to be a long term faith destroying body of ideas. This stems largely from the fact that the ideas are not just non-science, they're nonsense.
I agree with you here. As someone who comes from a background of people who believe ID I am always taken back by the incredible lack of scientific proof and non-logical arguments concerning creationism (and quite frankly many other tenants of the Christian faith). As mentioned before, I'm still unsure of my own beliefs in this area, Since I do believe in God, I am both embarrassed by this feeble attempt to explain existence yet desire a much more logical scientific approach that will not destroy my need for a higher power....I guess my quest will continue, and you are helping me in the battle to understand. Thanks
Hi FreeThinker!
You said...I did watch "Interview with an Atheist" and I'm not sure what the whole point is. The guy is just talking about the Bible and what Christians should follow, and concludes by saying he's an atheist.
I guess the only purpose was to demonstrate how atheists know more about Christianity than most Christians do. You fit into that category.
I would have to say that I also think every religious practice is absurd -- especially modern day Christianity. Perhaps not for all the same reasons as you or Dawkins, but it's ALL absurd if you reject the Truth. I don't like to identify myself by a particular religion or attach labels to my beliefs - I simply believe in God the Creator and the literal Truth of the Bible.
As for my "creationist" links, you asked - Why do you ignore the almost-daily scientific discoveries of our earth and our ancestors going back millions of years?
I don't ignore them, FreeThinker - you cannot ignore something that does not exist. We were not around millions of years ago and there is absolutely no evidence that suggests otherwise.
HOW FAR BACK DO THE RECORDS GO?
=> Historical Records - Everything started off fully developed about 2000-3000 B.C.
=> Early Egyptian Records - Manetho's king lists should be revised downward to 3200 to 3600 B.C.
=> Radiocarbon Dates - They are not accurate prior to 1600 B.C.
=> Biblical Records - The oldest history book was Genesis, which Moses wrote about 1510-1450 B.C.
=> Astronomical Records - The earliest recorded solar eclipse is 2250 B.C. This fact is highly significant
=> Writing - The oldest written tablets were Sumerian, dating back to 3500 B.C.
=> Civilizations - All the earliest ones were located in Mesopotamia, which is a little southeast of the Ararat mountains, where Noah's Ark came to rest.
=> Languages - Ancient languages never go back beyond c. 3000 B.C., and radiate outward from Mesopotamia
=> Ancient Historical Records - The oldest dates go back to about 3000 B.C.
=> The Oldest People - They do not go back before c. 3000 B.C., and were located in Mesopotamia
=> Conclusion - Man, whom the evolutionists claim to have come into existence over a million years ago, is said to have "stopped evolving" 100,000 years ago. Why then do we not have at least 100,000 years of civilizations, cities, and human remains?
---------------------
Thanks for your thoughts! Don't be a stranger.
Post a Comment