The ID Report

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Ever since American Microsoft billionaire Charles Simonyi paid for his chair at Oxford in the Public Understanding of Science, zoologist Richard Dawkins has promoted atheism and an extreme form of Darwinism as the best way of doing science. In recent years, however, he has become best known for using his chair to promote atheism, rather than for promoting science ideas. His actual ideas, the selfish gene and the meme (a hypothetical mental variant of the hypothetical selfish gene) have not fared well under analysis, but no matter. He promotes atheism, and for many people, that is enough.

Dawkins has had plenty of time in recent years for a bestseller, The God Delusion and a variety of media interviews against traditional religious beliefs, both with fans and with skeptics.

Here he is, sounding off on Book TV and getting trounced at Vere loqui:

Dawkin's whole discussion of the naturalistic explanation of religion assumes that such an explanation renders the beliefs thus explained illusory. But if a naturalistic explanation for a belief renders it illusory, and all beliefs can be explained naturalistically, then atheism too can be explained naturalistically, and is therefore illusory. He who lives by naturalistic explanations must die by them.

All of Dawkin's explanations seem stifled and contrived by his own ideological materialism. He uses his naturalistic world view as a Procrustean bed into which he tries to fit everything, however much he has to hack and stretch it to fit. And what a small bed it is.

The second problem with Dawkin's book is the condescending tone with which he dismisses the arguments of those with whom he disagrees. One religious argument is "amusing, if rather pathetic," another "a joke," another "silly," and another "a grotesque piece of reasoning." This glib attitude particularly plagues the section of the book dealing with the traditional arguments for Christianity.

In either case, Dawkins makes clear that anyone who thinks that there is a mind or purpose behind the universe is not to be appeased:

Scientists divide into two schools of thought over the best tactics with which to face the threat. The Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school focuses on the battle for evolution. Consequently, its members identify fundamentalism as the enemy, and they bend over backwards to appease 'moderate' or 'sensible' religion (not a difficult task, for bishops and theologians despise fundamentalists as much as scientists do). Scientists of the Winston Churchill school, by contrast, see the fight for evolution as only one battle in a larger war: a looming war between supernaturalism on the one side and rationality on the other. For them, bishops and theologians belong with creationists in the supernatural camp, and are not to be appeased.

He belongs to the latter school, of course, so the clergy who accommodate Darwinism will get no quarter from him, even if they can sneak by National Center for Science [Darwinism] Education . His intolerance has been noted by almost everyone, and a number of thoughtful critics have come forward - as might be expected in any situation where they are free to do so.

For example, Marilynne Robinson writes in Harpers's, regarding his most recent book :

It is never a surprise to find Dawkins full of indignation. In his new book, The God Delusion, he has turned the full force of his intellect against religion, and all his verbal skills as well, and his humane learning, too, which is capacious enough to include some deeply minor poetry. Truly this book is a sword which turneth every way, to judge by the table of contents at least. There is no doubt in Dawkins's mind that the evils of the world are to be laid at the doorstep of the church, mosque, and synagogue, and that science must be our salvation. It is the "God delusion," which has afflicted almost everyone almost anywhere through the whole of recorded time, that has made us behave so badly. And Science (by which he really means his version of Darwinism) is our potential rescuer from this vale of tears. We need only to become more Dawkins-like in our thinking. This is a fairly cheery view of things beside others on offer, at least as regards the ongoing life of the planet, which he seems to assume.

Indeed, fellow Darwin fan H. Allen Orr, echoes the disappointment,noting,

The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. This is, obviously, an odd thing to say about a book-length investigation into God. But the problem reflects Dawkins's cavalier attitude about the quality of religious thinking. Dawkins tends to dismiss simple expressions of belief as base superstition. Having no patience with the faith of fundamentalists, he also tends to dismiss more sophisticated expressions of belief as sophistry (he cannot, for instance, tolerate the meticulous reasoning of theologians). But if simple religion is barbaric (and thus unworthy of serious thought) and sophisticated religion is logic-chopping (and thus equally unworthy of serious thought), the ineluctable conclusion is that all religion is unworthy of serious thought.

The result is The God Delusion, a book that never squarely faces its opponents. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins's book (does he know Augustine rejected biblical literalism in the early fifth century?), no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions (are they like ordinary claims about everyday matters?), no effort to appreciate the complex history of interaction between the Church and science (does he know the Church had an important part in the rise of non-Aristotelian science?), and no attempt to understand even the simplest of religious attitudes (does Dawkins really believe, as he says, that Christians should be thrilled to learn they're terminally ill?).

In fact, the book is quite clearly a screed written by a man who knows that his fans will adore him no matter what he does or says.

Fellow atheists have complained about his "deadly certitude", but no matter. Dawkins has a ready answer. He assures the world that his critics are not humble, like him.

Waiving the question of Dawkins is proud or humble, one may very well ask two questions: Is his view of life promoted at public expense in textbooks and science standards? And what would happen to a person - even an atheist - who decided, on the basis of evidence, that radical atheistic materialism is not true?

The answer to the first question is probably yes, and the answer to the second question is the subject of the next installment. What if an atheist is NOT a radical materialist? Is he protected by his atheism or is he just dog meat?

Next: Part 8: Profiles in militant atheists - Sam Harris and Letters to a Christian Nation

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

A pundit frequently sought by the media to speak against traditional religion on behalf of the current atheist campaign is perennial neuroscience grad student Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation.

From what I can tell, Harris is misplaced among professional materialist atheists. As David J. Theroux notes, he has bought into a variety of New Age and Eastern beliefs such as reincarnation. That has subjected him to many materialist attacks. Remember, materialists "know" that there is no soul .

Harris's dilemma has a simple explanation: He is in neuroscience, and he knows perfectly well that neuroscience does not confirm materialism. That fact is regularly updated at my new neuroscience blog, the Mindful Hack.

Yes, yes, many neuroscientists are convinced materialists. But that doesn't mean that neuroscience confirms the success of materialism any more than the fact that mid-twentieth century Russian leaders were convinced communists confirms the success of Marxist economics.

It just means that the people who are fronting the party line can cause any amount of trouble for dissenters. I have it on reliable evidence that many atheists are indeed gunning for Harris.

Is Harris really an atheist? Yes, but here's the deal: He is an atheist of the traditional, NON-materialist variety. Many people, particularly American Christians - and for very understandable reasons, as we shall see - do not realize that many atheist traditions are non-materialist. (Many atheistic traditions are also pacifist and/or tolerant of other faiths.)

The skinny: Theism means believing in God (or gods). Atheism means not believing in God (or gods). Atheism does not - in principle - mean believing that human beings are merely meat puppets or that there is no free will. That sort of belief is properly called materialist atheism.

The stress here should be put on "materialist." The materialist honestly believes that humans are merely animals with accidental big brains. Darwinism is the materialist's creation story because it supports such an explanation, where almost no other system of belief would.

Eastern traditions such as Buddhism, however, are completely different. For them, mind comes first and is distinct from the brain. Thus, Buddhism can - and does - accommodate belief in gods but may not consider them essential to salvation. So one could be a Buddhist and an atheist - but no serious Buddhist could be a materialist.

Thus, to me, the puzzle is not why Harris is a non-materialist atheist. That is not even uncommon. Historically, most atheists have been non-materialists. Materialist atheism only became common in the twentieth century, with the advent of the "meat puppet" approach to humans, which owed a lot to Darwinism. No, the puzzle is, why does Harris want anything to do with the materialist atheists? They view him the same way they view anyone who thinks that the universe is top down instead of bottom up.

Angry secular humanists have certainly responded to Harris's enthusiasms for non-materialist ideas and a variety of Christians have also responded.

But Harris is only an incidental target for the materialist Darwinian atheists (and I am not even sure why he remains in their company). As we will see, traditional Christians are their primary real target.

Next: Part 9: Darwinism and militant atheism

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Last November, the Center for Inquiry/Transnational got started, sharing a home in Amherst, New York, with the Council for Secular Humanism and the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), publishers respectively of FREE INQUIRY and SKEPTICAL INQUIRER magazines.

For these people, science is applied materialism, and they are very concerned about developments that challenge that perspective, including the intelligent design controversy. Indeed, to judge from the press release, anyone who thinks that "evolution" is neutral on the question of religion, as Darwin lobbyists routinely claim, should know better.

Indeed, Darwinist PZ Myer made this quite clear in his comments on the National Center for Science Education's executive director Eugenie Scott's soothing claims that Darwinism is not opposed to religious traditions:

Take off the comfy cardigan, Dr Scott. Scientists have a role to play in our culture, and it's not as the pleasant, soothing flim-flam artists, mumbling consolation and excuses in return for a donation on the offering plate. We're supposed to be clear-eyed and critical, even when it's easier to play the priest and lie. I think you're doing a bang-up job of accommodating the American citizenry to the fluff and nonsense of woolly religious thinking, but that's not a job that needs to be done, and it's not your job.

And if anyone wonders how Myers would regard a professing Christian, his comments on columnist Mike Adams, who spoke at the University of Minnesota (where Myer teaches) are instructive:

Mike S. Adams, columnist for TownHall, Horowitzian shill, anti-feminist, creationist clown, homophobic bigot, warrior for free speech, professional racist, gun kook, academic-by-accident, beauty contest judge, and just generally contemptible far, far right-wing nutcase.

and that's not the half of it. Go here for some sense of how serious Darwinists view religious types in general. And here is Myers' comments on Catholic Darwinist Ken Miller. In the end, Darwinism cannot tolerate any meaningful non-materialist perspective, and views it as a form of "endarkenment" , not to be tolerated.

Of course, some would argue, not every Darwinist is like that. Perhaps not, but it is a reliable indicator of the true state of affairs that the "moderates" tolerate the "extremists" quite well.
Indeed, the Beyond Belief conference makes the true direction quite clear: Those theistic or Eastern traditions that are willing to morph slowly into materialist atheism, treated as a religion can spare themselves many attacks by increasingly militant atheists, who have, in many cases, found public funding for their cause. Anyone who so much as wants equal time for evidence for non-materialist views faces a storm - made all the foggier by Christian clergy who wish to converge with the materialists. Perhaps such clergy hope to be eaten last?

Next: Part 10: British atheists vs. ID-friendly Truth in Science group

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain (Harper 2007).