This kind of clear, accessible relation of everyday observation to real science is what Dawkins became known for, excels at, and what I wish he would stick to. His strident anti-God rhetoric elsewhere does much to damage the reputation of evolutionary science, turning it from a widely-accepted theory into a symbol of the inevitable triumph of rationality over irrationality, to be fought tooth-and-nail by religious zealots everywhere.
What I don’t get is why critics of Dawkins always seem to use words like “strident” or “shrill”. He always has been very polite where I’ve seen him talk. His criticism of religion would certainly be considered very mild mannered if it were – for example – directed at a political party. I’m genuinely confused when many religious people seem to go pretty nuts when they are confronted with Dawkins’ (hilarious) chapter on the old testament. Who in their right mind would be offended by that?
We have nothing against high profile scientists expressing their opinions about politics. We should have nothing against scientists expressing their opinion about religion.
I would consider it anti-religion rhetoric, not anti-God. How strongly can one oppose something they don't believe exists? And which god exactly would he be opposing?
I'll be more sympathetic to your point of view when 40% of Americans no longer believe the Earth is <= 6,000 years old and that humans were created in their present form.
Religion is voluntary stupidity, and stupidity has consequences for civilization. Dawkins understands that, having seen it firsthand.
"Earth is <= 6,000 " and evolution are interesting choices. I'd have included reincarnation, astrology, yoga as a spirtual practice, "spirtual energy" and possibly "evil eye".
One interesting thing about my list is that believers are more likely to be Democrat/Independent than Republican and Liberal/Moderate than Conservative. (In most cases, Democrat more than Independent and Liberal more than Moderate.)
We see the same thing wrt "In Touch with the Dead", ghosts, and fortune-tellers.
Things are a little different wrt personal mystical experiences. (Dems and Repubs are tied at 50% while Independents are somewhat less likely while the order is Conservative, Liberal, Moderate.)
See http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=490 , specifically "Beliefs of Demographic, Political, and Religious Groups" and "Supernatural Experiences" (about half-way through).
No one is trying to force reincarnation, astrology, yoga, or voodoo into public-school science classrooms, though. Astrologers weren't behind Proposition 8, and New Agers have been responsible for relatively few outrages-of-the-week as well.
When these things happen, these groups too will come under attack by the reality-based community.
Ah yees, the folks who think that fire can't melt steel....
While evolution and age of earth are important, they aren't directly relevant much of the time.
If you're going to argue that competence outside of biology and geology depends on whether one believes in evolution and earth age, you get to explain why believing in ghosts and other such things doesn't have a similar effect.
And yes, ghosters and the like do push things on the public schools.
Hint: it's not about evolution, or cosmology. It's about respect for the scientific process.
Cultures that have respect for the scientific process thrive.
Cultures that don't, don't.
It's that simple. (The US is actually a rather startling exception, if you look at a graph of popular religiosity versus any number of metrics of a healthy, successful society.)
Ah yees, the folks who think that fire can't melt steel....
WTF...?
And yes, ghosters and the like do push things on the public schools.
Gonna call "citation needed" on that.
About the closest thing I can come up with is the occasional group of morons demanding that schools shut down their WiFi networks due to allergies to the radiation, or what-have-you. Same stupidity as religion, different manifestation. It all comes down to lack of respect for processes that actually improve our lives, in favor of ones that contribute nothing but BS.
> Hint: it's not about evolution, or cosmology. It's about respect for the scientific process.
I agree completely. What part of ghosts, yoga as spiritual, etc do you see as respecting the scientific process?
> (The US is actually a rather startling exception, if you look at a graph of popular religiosity versus any number of metrics of a healthy, successful society.)
You're assuming that religiousity taints all. It didn't have that effect on Knuth (who is extremely religious).
That's why I pointed out that not believing in evolution or "old earth" isn't necessarily a handicap. You can argue that it is, but then you get to explain Knuth and deal with ghosters and the like. (Surely you're not going to argue that creation and new earth are the only misbeliefs that matter.)
>> Ah yes, the folks who think that fire can't melt steel....
> WTF...?
A significant fraction of "the reality based community" consists of "truthers". One of their core beliefs is that 9/11 didn't happen the way it looked like it happened is because the planes "just" spread fire through the world trade center. However, they insist that something else took the buildings down because "fire doesn't melt steel". (They apparently don't know that different things burn at different temperatures and melt isn't necessary.)
> Gonna call "citation needed" on that.
You don't think that ghosters participate in the body politic?
I don't describe myself as religious as that to me has connotations of order and regulation that I don't ascribe to. However, I am a man of faith (I believe we all rely on faith in some way) - I've directly experienced God and as a Christian most people would pigeon-hole me as "religious". I have not directly experienced or observed evolution. I find macroevolution to be too large a leap based on the evidence I've seen.
You describe me¹ as adopting voluntary stupidity. Could you give me some pointers as to where I'm being stupid.
---
¹ I'm assuming "religion is voluntary stupidity" to mean "all those with religious faith are choosing to be stupid".
Yes, but I don't have time right now - suffice to say I have as much faith in the external existence of the world as in the existence of God. I'm quite skeptical (in the metaphys sense, not quite pyrrhonic though) but as much as I experience through sense data the world and by extension other minds; as much as that I believe in the triune God of Christianity (but not all the details, many I'm agnostic on).
You describe me¹ as adopting voluntary stupidity. Could you give me some pointers as to where I'm being stupid.
When you say "I am a man of faith", followed by "I find macroevolution to be too large a leap based on the evidence I've seen," you're demonstrating that you hold an inconsistent worldview. You demand an arbitrary, apparently-unmeetable standard of "evidence" from your biology teacher, while giving your anecdotal, irreproducible, and wholly subjective experience of "God" a free pass. That's stupid.
However, your writing doesn't suggest any innate cognitive handicaps. That's why I'm assuming the stupidity you exhibited above is voluntary. It's something you could overcome with education and disciplined thinking, if you wanted to.
giving your anecdotal, irreproducible, and wholly subjective experience of "God" a free pass
I only give my experience of God the same free pass as I give my experience of reality. Yes it's subjective.
Has anything ever happened to you that you mentioned to someone and they simply said "don't believe you"? For example I met Tony Blair on the beach once and my flatmates didn't believe me - hardly an impossible scenario - as it is communicating other experiences. For some reason we don't each recognise our experience of God or experience Him as directly.
I don't think my standards for biological evidence of macro-evolution are impossible to meet.
