Dawkins likes to be bombastic. It tends to polarize the audience and really get a lot of attention. Don’t be fooled. He is selling something here. His books. And to do so he needs media attention. Being cooperative, kind worded, bland and milqtoast isn’t going to garner much attention nor spark any interest in reading his books.
I’m willing to bet he sells quite a few books to believers who are outraged by him, either to try and find errors in his text, or simply to destroy it to sooth their injured feelings.
And just done in a way that looks exactly like it would if god weren’t a factor. You can trade the genes and the generic heritage and you can study the random combination and mutation of genes. You can explain every last bit without god. Adding “god did it!” to the equation has exactly zero explanatory power, and is on the exact same logical level as marvelling about the light bulb fairies every time you flip a light switch.
Now if you want to say that this is a good intermediate step in the fight against ignorance - baby steps to get them first to stop being blatantly counterfactual until eventually they can see the the lack of necesity for god at all - I can see that as a valid practical approach. But it shouldn’t be praised as a rational model on which to build your world view, because it isn’t.
You’re saying that Dawkin’s attitude and his comments, when taken as a whole boil down to evolution proves there is no god. But that’s not a good summary of his position. As far as Dawkins is concerned, there is no god. No preconditions, no qualifiers, nothing. He also is a huge proponent of evolution as he sees it as making the most sense of why life is the way it is. It does not displace god as an alternate theory, as far as Dawkins cares, there is no god theory. But, he is aware that a lot of people DO use god to explain why life is the way it is, and he’s making the point that if why life is the way it is is a sticking point for you, don’t worry, we have a better, more sensible model in evolution. If evolution were revealed to be a crock of shit tomorrow, Dawkins would not become religious as he views god as being a logically inane concept from the get-go. So, to sum up, “Evolution exists therefore there is no God” is not an accurate summation of his position. “There is no god. Evolution more ably answers questions than god, anyway.” is.
IME, people believe in a God for any number of reasons:
[ol]
[li]the idea is comforting to them[/li][li]the idea is so fundamental to their worldview (e.g. due to how they were raised) that anything else is inconceivable[/li][li]they are ignorant of science[/li][li]they are suspicious of simplicity[/li][li]they’re predisposed to a teleological worldview[/li][/ol]
It doesn’t really have anything to do with providing real answers. “God did it” isn’t an explanation with any substance–it’s a placeholder for just such an explanation.
Or convince anyone. Sucking up to the believers never works; it still makes them hate you while simultaneously being humiliating. Firmly stating your disbelief and criticisms might actually get the attention of a few, or at least force them to acknowledge that people who disagree with them actually exist. And it asserts the atheist position as one that deserves to be taken seriously, instead of something held by groveling supplicants that can be sneered at and dismissed.
Again: only when you are trying only to explain the physical process of how live evolves from a to c to z. If you are interested in explaining why life exists at all, adding “God did it” explains everything quite nicely. (For those who believe)
For you and your world view because what you would like to see explained is different than what other people would like to see explained.
A large number of people who are not you and do not think as you do believe that there must be a reason for life to exist. A reason that is deliberate. It makes sense to them that life is part of a purpose, a plan. They want that to be true. “God did it” works for them for that reason.
People who don’t believe in God don’t relate to that question or some people’s need to have it answered. That would be the divide here.
He definitely knows how to title his books for attention: “The Selfish Gene” “The God Delusion” and that shining example of “I’m not saying evolution proves there is no god!” scholarship “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design”
Not to mention, as I realized in high school, while the catholic church’s official stance may be that of theistic evolution, your run-of-the-mill on the ground churchgoer could be believing something wildly different. I’ll never forget when my 9th grade biology teacher skipped the chapter on evolution with the comment, “We’re not learning this because as catholics, we believe Jesus created the Earth.” Which is of course neither good science nor good theology.
This is a different issue, and different believers will give somewhat different answers. The only point i’m making in the context of this discussion is that believers DO find meaning in “god did it”, so as long as that doesn’t conflict with the facts of evolution, why make it part of the discussion when to do so will only alienate believers from accepting scientific fact as a way to preserve their belief in a creator?
I think it interferes with advancing the truth of science…
This statement appears to have no basis in fact. The turning from science has been a very recent phenomenon that has nothing to do with anyone “staying quiet,” but rather arose from an aggressive campaign by the far Religious Right.
This statement also appears factually flawed.
Teachers refusing to discuss evolution have tended to be those who were Creationists who chose not to teach state mandated curricula. And even that phenomena is one that arose slowly in the late 1970s with the rise of the political power of the Religious Right. There is no long period in which science teachers were silent on the topic or inserted “God” into the lectures.
I cannot think of any case in which a teacher, using a standard text book, ever went along with the “God did it” scenario. I am sure that in a few areas where Fundamentalist Christians composed upwards of 80% of the population, teachers dragged God into the discussions, (or simply denied the information in their own texts), but the notion that teachers in the majority of the country were catering to a “God did it” explanation for many years is simply something that you need to believe without there actually being any reason for the rest of us to accept. And unbeliever scientists have never been silent on their views.
I have heard stories from various people that they were taught using texts that asserted that evolution “proved” that there was no God and I have never found a text that actually said that. You asserting the reverse is no more believable. I have seen a lot of the biology texts from the middle of the twentieth century and they generally fail on the side of being mildly Lamarckian/teleological or simply not being sufficiently clear as to how evolution works, without taking any sides in the matter of religion. Extremists on both ends tend to portray the texts as being tools of their opponents, while the actual texts tend to fail to support either side. The texts that I have seen and the teachers about whom I have heard have all simply provided the legitimate explanation for Darwin’s Theory without getting involved in the God discussion, at all. The rare exceptions have been teachers in recent years who avoided teaching evolution because their views ran counter to those of the majority of their students’ parents–and that goes in both directions: while evolution deniers make up a very slight majority of the U.S. population, (differing from, say, the 1960s, when evolution was generally accepted), it is only by a few percentage points and there are many places where the majority of the local population prefers their biology courses to stick to science.
A campaign that worked in large part because so few people dared raise the slightest objection. And it’s not the “far religious right”, creationism is mainstream in America.
Since when? Teachers in general have been afraid to talk about evolution.
No, the power of religion to silence science has gone up and down; remember the Scopes Trial? But I’d hold that 1970s-present does constitute a “long period”.
They did that when they refused to even mention evolution and let religion fill in the blanks.
It doesn’t matter much what the textbook says when the teacher never uses that section.
I’m not convinced that Dawkins motives are rooted in conversion.
I am however intrigued that you seem to think militant atheism or supplication are the only alternatives.
I just think Dawkins has a message he feels strongly about, enjoys the spotlight and verbal jousting, and discovered it is a marvelous way to make bank.
Back that up with some statistics, or admit that you are pulling it out of your ass. And when you say “in general”, I want to see statistics that say the majority of teachers are afraid to talk about evolution. That’s what “in general” means.
In CA, for instance, it is part of the required curriculum from 1st - 8th grades, whenever biology is taught and is part of the standardized tests given to students.
Apparently I have managed to live my life outside of the mainstream. I suspect your wording here is intentionally vague, but I would like you to clarify a bit. Are you suggesting that most everyday Americans believe that all animals and features on the planet were created exactly as they are today?
Do you think Richard Dawkins will ever retract his no-god stance? He’s much, much too proud. His intellectual vanity is too great. Same goes for his Creationist opponents.
Personally, I don’t think it’s worth all the fighting and bad blood. It’s not worth it.