Atheist Richard Dawkins' Fairytale Thinking

By Selwyn Duke

If ever there was a man who was out of his depth, it's biologist Richard Dawkins.  For those who don't know, Dawkins is a standard bearer for the atheist movement.  He travels around the world arguing against faith, intelligent design, and just about anything indicating even in some tangential way that something may exist beyond the material fold.  It's a bizarre obsession, really, and I can assure you that what lies at the heart of it isn't at all scientific, but emotional.  But more on that at another time.

Dawkins is out of his depth for the same reason many scientists are when commenting on such matters: Having a great scientific mind often isn't synonymous with possession of a great philosophical one.  Yet, being highly intelligent, "great" scientists (supposedly, anyway), they overestimate themselves.  They lack humility and wisdom and fail to recognize that, as an old commercial pointed out, just because you're good at one thing, doesn't mean you're good at everything.   

Consequently, Dawkins often makes very foolish statements.  One was in this Washington Times article, in which the scientist questions whether or not Harry Potter books and other fantasies written for children might have a pernicious effect.  Said he:

"Whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know.  Looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious effect on rationality, I'm not sure.  Perhaps it's something for research."

In saying this, Dawkins contradicts his own world view.  By subscribing to classical evolution, he tacitly admits he essentially does believe that frogs can turn into princes.  In fact, he believes in something as miraculous as any creation story, that a single-cell organism turned into man.

If he would say in response that it is not at all the same thing because evolution took billions of years, he is not just wanting as a philosopher but perhaps also as a scientist.  For scientists tell us just what the best theologians do, which is that time is an invention of man; the latter would say that "God is outside of time," whereas Albert Einstein once called time ". . . a handy illusion."  Thus, whether an event occurs quickly or slowly is irrelevant.  (I treated this in a soon-to-be-published piece on evolution for the New American -- the December issue, I believe.)  The great philosopher G.K. Chesterton once addressed this in a very profound way, writing:

An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one. The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail, would not be any more soothing . . . .  The medieval wizard may have flown through the air from the top of a tower; but to see an old gentleman walking through the air, in a leisurely and lounging manner, would still seem to call for some explanation. Yet there runs through all the rationalistic treatment of history this curious and confused idea that difficulty is avoided, or even a mystery eliminated, by dwelling on mere delay or on something dilatory in the process of things . . . . The ultimate question is why [things] go at all; and anybody who really understands that question will know that it always has been and always will be a religious question; or at any a rate a philosophical or metaphysical question. And most certainly he will not think the question answered by some substitution of gradual for abrupt change.

Dawkins descended into even greater silliness when interviewed by Ben Stein for the documentary Expelled.  When Stein asked him how life originated to begin with -- something evolution cannot explain -- Dawkins admitted that he didn't know and theorized, get this, that perhaps highly-evolved aliens (not the Mexican kind) were responsible.  Stein's comeback was ingenius; without missing a beat, he said he had no idea that Dawkins believed in intelligent design.

But Dawkins' musing was anything but ingenius.  After all, even if such aliens exist, citing them doesn't bring us any closer to answering the question at hand.  For we would still have to ask, from where did the aliens come?  How did this life originate?  You might as well, when asked where life comes from, just respond, "From its parents."

Of course, a secularist may counter that we can't explain where God comes from, but my response is simple.  Christianity may not be able to explain whence the divine comes, but it does explain the origin of life.  No materialist creed can even explain the latter.  Thus, you may disagree with the Christian explanation, but there is something that cannot be denied:

As far as the truly important matters go -- the origin of life, the nature of right and wrong (consider reading the linked piece) -- Christianity explains far more than evolution does.   

               © 2008 Selwyn Duke -- All Rights Reserved

Comments

[bobxxxx]

"In fact, he believes in something as miraculous as any creation story, that a single-cell organism turned into man."

To an uneducated person like yourself it might seem like a miracle that a simple living cell could eventually, after more than 3,000 million years, evolve and branch out into the millions of species alive today, including the human ape species, but this is what happened, and all biologists, not just Dawkins, knows that's what happened because of the evidence, especially the extremely powerful and undeniable evidence from molecular biology and genetics which you know nothing about. You know nothing about biology but for some reason you think your total ignorance of science is equal to the knowledge of the entire scientific community. Well, guess what, your ignorance is not equal to knowledge. You know nothing and biologists laugh at people like you for the same reason they laugh at flat-earthers.

So believe in your magic fairy if you want, but when it comes to science which you know nothing about, I suggest you shut up about it unless you enjoy disgracing your religion and being laughed at.

[Sevin]

you, sir or madam, are mistaken...to put it nicely. totally incorrect. what lies behind Dawkins' passion about the subject of your uninformed opinion is called REASON...critical thinking, logic, science, fact and proof. your side has nothing. nada. zilch. zero. your side relies on FAITH. look it up, as you don't seem to know the meaning. your side can never prove anything. your side ALWAYS loses ALL the debates.

i think many superstitious believers don't understand why some atheists, Dawkins included, have a short fuse when it comes to this subject. it is because intelligent, informed, educated individuals find it difficult to lower their intellect to such a juvenile level and discuss topics like talking snakes and walking on water.

your side is superstitious and believes in the supernatural...miracles and magic. you believe that a book of fiction, written by barbarians nearly 2000 years ago, in the middle-east yet, where their culture is still barbaric, to be true. that's all fine, but you believe all this on FAITH.

there is absolutely no proof of any of any of it. no proof that Jesus Christ ever even existed. indeed the tale of a virgin birth around the winter solstice are many and go back WAY before the Christ child, which eludes to it not even being original. many believe that he is a fictional character.

so if you find solace in childish superstitions and fairy tales and it makes you a better person or makes you feel better...then good for you! but please refrain from insulting the intelligence of Dawkins and the rest of us who base our lives on the real world and modern science, instead of 2000 year old myths, thinking, culture and ignorance.

FYI...the earth is NOT the center of the universe, as was believed in biblical times. the earth is NOT only 6000 years old, as the bible attests, but approximately 4.6 BILLION. the earth is also NOT flat, as was believed by those close to the word of god, as in the bible.

7

[Rob Willox]

The assumption always made is that philosophy and theology have some additional validity when compared with the scientific process.

Is is because it is purely a cerebral process primarily and doesn't need an empirical base unlike science.

Is it the arrogance of philosophers and theologians that appeals to the unthinking and ignorant in providing answers to these supposed unanswerable questions of our existence.

Science is based on evidence and reason, tested and confirmed, rather than supernatural mumbo-jumbo by the foolish and ignorant.

[Robin Edgar]

"For those who don't know, Dawkins is a standard bearer for the atheist movement."

Yes, my own term for Richard Dawkins is pompous ASS as in Atheist Supremacist Spokesperson. . . To be fair to atheists I expect that many of them, possibly even a majority of them, would much prefer if Richard Dawkins had not set himself up as a "standard bearer" for the atheist cause. I am confident that some atheists consider Richard Dawkins to be a public embarrassment. In light of their hard-line dogmatic "true believer" brand of "New Atheism" Professor Richard Dawkins and his ilk, such as P. Z. Myers and Christopher Hitchens et al, can be quite justifiably described as being "fundamentalist atheists", or even Atheist Supremacists. . . You might enjoy my adaptation of Gilbert & Sullivan's 'The Major General's Song' into 'The Atheist Supremacist's Song'. Needless to say a certain amount of Intelligent Design and natural selection was involved in this evolution of what is also known as 'I Am The Very Model Of A Modern Major General'.

http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-richard-dawkins-very-model-of.html

[John Sutton]

What a nasty little christian you are. You display the same bitter malevolence we find in your putrid bible of the unpleasant and impossible.

But why do I bother.Your comments reveal a superficial knowledge of Dawkins ideas along with a deep misunderstanding of their consequences.

To deal with all of this we would need to take you back to your childhood and re-educate you. We might then enable you to free yourself of the religious misinformation which so distorts your world-view.

I take heart in the knowledge that, although we are faced with hoards of indoctrinated religious idiots in the present, the mountains of evidence for a world without supernatural intervention continues to grow for the benefit of future generations.

[Walt]

Boxx, Sevin, Wilcow and Sutton,

I must say I admire your faith and the most feverish defense of your understanding of the origin of man. Faith and fervency as you display seem a parallel to religion. You see we are not that different...You believe in theory stacked upon, hunch upon hypothesis: all neatly wound together with a vitriolic desire to be right. You call this reason. I call it blind faith considering the mathematical unlikelihood of the evolution fairy tale. You present certain stereotypes of the Christian.
You seem to think we all believe the Bible is a complete historical record. Not so, the first couple of chapters of Genesis are in my account a curious record of this creation. There are a number of hints in the account that would lead the thinker to believe a Day is not a 24 hr period. This theory is not to discount the ability of God to do so in one day or six, God has time on his hands or perhaps not.

You seem to think we all believe the earth is only 6000 years old. Not so! Again, Genesis presents many odd references thorough that one may in a day of relevance discern a bit more insight. If these tidbits of intrigue were omitted the account may have been written more believable for the past generations...God could have been more box able and easier to sell.

Although it is unlikely we will convince one another in the constraints of this media I want to bring one more thing out in the open. There is no question Jesus existed. His life and times were recorded by many other historians and such than just the Biblical account. There is far more evidence of his life than of many people and events that are not of dispute. I will omit the additional references to make the point, that unless you consider the evidence without preconception you will likely prove nothing but your lack of understanding.

Why does the opening of the mind and evidence scare the establishment? I am sure this could lead to a new teat of grants.

[Chris]

It blows my mind why an atheist like Mr. Dawkins, along with his supporters who posted here, give a rat's behind whether someone chooses to have faith in a divine creator. Why travel the country, like an evil Santa Claus, attempting to steal and destroy the faith of others?

I also don't understand why many in the scientific community believe the theory of evolution necessarily destroys the Christian faith? To us, God is timeless. The creation story was laid out in a way easily understood by the masses. 7 days to the almighty God could easily be 4.6 billion years. I believe in God. I believe in evolution. They don't conflict with me.

But Mr. Duke raises a good, oft glossed over point. Science can in no way prove how the Earth was created, or the universe for that matter. "Big Bang," great one. What caused that? Why? Where did the single cell organisms originate? Why Earth? Why was Earth the only planet where life began and flourished? Are we to believe that a place of such breathtaking beauty, of such striking contrasts, which contains such a wide range of abundant life, happened completely by accident? And yet, couldn't be reproduced anywhere else? Sure, there could, somewhere, be a planet like ours... we almost certainly wont find it in our lifetime.

You can hold onto your science and revel in your lack of faith. Please refrain from trying to destroy the faith of others.

[Harry T.]

I’m an old man. I’ve traveled around the world. I’ve seen a lot of things. Some of them were marvelous. But none of them were miraculous. No talking snakes, nobody walking on water, raising the dead. I’ve been in the Navy and saw some pretty big ships. But none so big you could fill it with two of every life form on earth. And I’ve never see a whale swallow anybody either.

But, I understand that there are those who believe those things happened. Well, okay that’s not hurting anybody I suppose. I think that there are a lot of people who go on this site who think that way. Often they are the same people who demand logical, reasoned arguments supported by evidence and chastise liberals because liberals think emotionally. There lies a big contradiction, as I see it.

They believe all of these miraculous things happened because they are written in the Bible, which is a kind of source book for unlikely events. And mostly, they believe them because they feel that they happened. So how are their conclusions different from what drives liberal thinking?

I don’t know. I’m sure someone could come up a high toned argument that the two are different. If you’ve ever been around any lawyers, you’ll know that a man can make a pretty strong argument for almost anything. So, it’s entertaining to hear the endless “what came first the chicken or egg” arguments.

I guess what I’d like to know is; if you question the reality of a snake having a conversation with a woman or a whale swallowing somebody and after the effort, spitting him out; why would you believe the equally astounding (Biblical or) Creationist theory of how the world began?

It just seems that some things make sense and some don’t. That is, unless you’re thinking emotionally.

[W. Tieff]

There seems to be a recurring pattern of both the Left and the Right to single out only a handful of discreditory examples with which to build an argument. This only serves to make reasoned debate and the search for Truth more difficult.
Now as to Reason vs. Faith, when argued by Science in one corner, and Religion in the other... it doesn't help that so many people tend to subscribe to limited Sunday-school bible stories as the primary interpretation of Judeo-Christian record. This goes for either side. Really, how difficult was it 1,000, even 500 years ago to explain away nature's machinations, both fortunate and unfortunate, as the work of a deity? Very. It took little personal effort to surrender all hope and malice to Providence and the Almighty, as there was little in the way of an alternative. Today, however, there is chemistry and biology and engineering. Great advances in scientific explanation, which serve to remove the mysteries that have both pleased and plagued mankind for millenia. And yet the canon texts remain, their lessons adhered to by millions. How could this be, when it is so much more difficult these days to invest the reasoned mind in the mutual funds of Faith? Maybe it's because the more difficult the task, the greater the return of investment; made all the more meaningful, precisely BECAUSE of its improbability. But by no means should the investment be cashed out in favor of a dispassionate, clinical answer. That would be like buying high, and selling low............... not very good advice.

[W. Tieff]

As a correction to the above: "...the work of a deity? NOT very. It took little..."
And BTW, some person who addresses the author of this piece as "Sir or Madam" shows little credibility, much less respect, when arguing against the words of an established (male) Voice. Internet or no, these words and ideas just might be self-evident Truths, and therefore should be considered diligently, not frivolously. Or dismissed out of hand. But that would only validate the author's point. Haha........
Now personally, i can't WAIT to be taken "back to my childhood" to be "re-educated" in the ways of humanist multi-culturalism. Sounds a lot like the Church of Christ that had no meaning to me because I was more enamoured with Legos and Transformers at the time........... The spiritual and intellectual growth only came when I stopped playing with those toys. And now, i officially feel like "little Jacky paper".... goddammit.

[democrat]

Richard Dawkins should stick to science and leave religion to those who believe. Why give God the time of day or the breath to speak about Him if one doesn't believe? I can't rightly recall the author's name, but he was right when he said that it takes more faith to disbelieve in God than it does to believe. I suppose this is the reason that Dawkins and those like him love to speak on something with which they obviously lack a profound knowledge.

[X]

"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live." - Guess Who?

[?]

Sounds like Volitare or Warhol

[x]

Close, but no cigar...Thomas Jefferson!

[Martin]

x, I knew it was Jefferson. The statement was the result of his anti-priest bias. This is why he mentioned priests whenever he made such statements. It was not an atheist statement - Jefferson spoke of God many times. Jefferson was wrong, but his attack was on a specific segment of the religious community. It was not on religion in general.

[X]

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - THOMAS JEFFERSON

[Walt]

X cut and pasted, The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - THOMAS JEFFERSON

Do you think Jefferson said this as a warning of moral decline, or because he held no actual belif in God?

[X]

Walt,
Of course I cut and pasted. Would you be happier if I typed it out? No, I'm afraid he wasn't talking about a moral decline. It was a comment about Christianity. I don't know if Jefferson had a "belif" in God. He kept that "belif" close to himself. I know he wasn't "belif[ing]" a Christian.

[Martin]

x, Jefferson often trumpeted faith. He wrote "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians."

This is from World net daily.

"Jefferson's outlook on religion and government is more fully revealed in another 1802 letter in which he wrote that he did not want his administration to be a "government without religion," but one that would "strengthen … religious freedom."

The article is here - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28006

Not that I think the facts matter to people like x. That's why he's x rated.

[Walt]

X,

Perhaps you should read the whole letter from Jefferson to Adams April 11, 1823 before you get too carried away with the Jefferson quotes to promote your atheism. I think you will find the full correspondence interesting. The quote the X-man so conveniently exploited was a small part of Jefferson’s rebuttal to John Adams regarding John Calvin's doctrinal stances. Jefferson was not so fond of Calvin to say the least, but not at all an atheist.

Sorry for the typo, you must be a high school English teacher.

[U-Know]

Walt:
Try this. They may have some adult education classes that can help.

Home - Nampa Public Schools
(Nampa) District profile, calendar, school web sites, administrative directory, district newsletter, board minutes, lunch menus, employment opportunities, ...
www.nsd131.org/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

[X]

Martin and Walt:

Before you two believers try to burn me at the stake… now come on, if you can’t convert me, I know you would like to; I never said that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist. I just pointed out that he was not a Christian. Can you two at least admit that before you run out to gather kindling?

[Walt]

U-Know,

Thanks, you stalkers are always a great help. You never add much to the dialogue but a help nonetheless.

[U-Know]

Sure.

[Walt]

X,

"...Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus. He who follows this steadily need not, I think, be uneasy, although he cannot comprehend the subtleties and mysteries erected on his doctrines by those who, calling themselves his special followers and favorites, would make him come into the world to lay snares for all understandings but theirs..."

From a Jefferson letter to William Canby

Jefferson was a believer in the "Christian" God. He revered and held sacred the teachings of Jesus. He had a big problem with new (for the day) takes on the Bible and on God. He did not understand nor find it necessary to understand the Trinity. It appears he was one that was truly tired of the cross doctrinal in fighting and over intellectualization of scripture. To consider him a Deist is foolish. The only God Jefferson ever considered in any of his writings was the one of the Bible.

However, all of this I am sure is moot. I do not believe the intent of you posting the tid bit of the Jefferson letter was to prove he was not Christian. The thread you posted on in named,"Atheist Richard Dawkins' Fairytale Thinking” you were trying to imply a revered American founder was an atheist and mocked Christ...he wasn't...he didn’t …you lost.

I don't want to see you burned at the stake, and I would rather see you converted...I prefer to call it saved. But it is your choice, just get the facts right.