richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
T H E G O D H Y P O THESIS 67NOMA - agree that science is completely non-threatening, becauseit is disconnected from religion's claims.Another prominent luminary of what we might call the NevilleChamberlain school of evolutionists is the philosopher MichaelRuse. Ruse has been an effective fighter against creationism, 39 bothon paper and in court. He claims to be an atheist, but his article inPlayboy takes the view thatwe who love science must realize that the enemy of ourenemies is our friend. Too often evolutionists spend timeinsulting would-be allies. This is especially true of secularevolutionists. Atheists spend more time running downsympathetic Christians than they do counteringcreationists. When John Paul II wrote a letter endorsingDarwinism, Richard Dawkins's response was simply thatthe pope was a hypocrite, that he could not be genuineabout science and that Dawkins himself simply preferredan honest fundamentalist.From a purely tactical viewpoint, I can see the superficial appeal ofRuse's comparison with the fight against Hitler: 'Winston Churchilland Franklin Roosevelt did not like Stalin and communism. But infighting Hitler they realized that they had to work with the SovietUnion. Evolutionists of all kinds must likewise work together tofight creationism.' But I finally come down on the side of mycolleague the Chicago geneticist Jerry Coyne, who wrote that Rusefails to grasp the real nature of the conflict. It's not justabout evolution versus creationism. To scientists likeDawkins and Wilson [E. O. Wilson, the celebratedHarvard biologist], the real war is between rationalismand superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism,while religion is the most common form of superstition.Creationism is just a symptom of what they see as thegreater enemy: religion. While religion can exist withoutcreationism, creationism cannot exist without religion. 40I do have one thing in common with the creationists. Like me,
68 T H E G O D D E L U S I O Nbut unlike the 'Chamberlain school', they will have no truck withNOMA and its separate magisteria. Far from respecting theseparateness of science's turf, creationists like nothing better than totrample their dirty hobnails all over it. And they fight dirty, too.Lawyers for creationists, in court cases around the Americanboondocks, seek out evolutionists who are openly atheists. I know- to my chagrin - that my name has been used in this way. It is aneffective tactic because juries selected at random are likely toinclude individuals brought up to believe that atheists are demonsincarnate, on a par with pedophiles or 'terrorists' (today'sequivalent of Salem's witches and McCarthy's Commies). Anycreationist lawyer who got me on the stand could instantly win overthe jury simply by asking me: 'Has your knowledge of evolutioninfluenced you in the direction of becoming an atheist?' I wouldhave to answer yes and, at one stroke, I would have lost the jury.By contrast, the judicially correct answer from the secularist sidewould be: 'My religious beliefs, or lack of them, are a privatematter, neither the business of this court nor connected in any waywith my science.' I couldn't honestly say this, for reasons I shallexplain in Chapter 4.The Guardian journalist Madeleine Bunting wrote an articleentitled 'Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for RichardDawkins'. 41 There's no indication that she consulted anybodyexcept Michael Ruse, and her article might as well have been ghostwrittenby him.* Dan Dennett replied, aptly quoting Uncle Remus:I find it amusing that two Brits - Madeleine Bunting andMichael Ruse - have fallen for a version of one of themost famous scams in American folklore (Why theintelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins,March 27). When Brer Rabbit gets caught by the fox, hepleads with him: 'Oh, please, please, Brer Fox, whateveryou do, don't throw me in that awful briar patch!' -where he ends up safe and sound after the fox does justthat. When the American propagandist William Dembskiwrites tauntingly to Richard Dawkins, telling him to keep* The same could be said of an article, 'When cosmologies collide', in the NewYork Times, 22 Jan. 2006, by the respected (and usually much better briefed) journalistJudith Shulevitz. General Montgomery's First Rule of War was 'Don't marchon Moscow.' Perhaps there should be a First Rule of Science Journalism: 'Interviewat least one person other than Michael Ruse.'
- Page 22 and 23: A D E E P L Y R E L I G I O U S N O
- Page 24 and 25: A D E E PLY R E L I G I O U S N O N
- Page 26 and 27: A D E E P L Y R E L I G I O U S N O
- Page 28 and 29: A D E E P L Y RE L 1 G I O U S N O
- Page 30 and 31: A D E E P L Y R E L I G I O U S N O
- Page 32 and 33: A DEEPLY R E L I G I O U S N O N -
- Page 34 and 35: A D E E P L Y R E L I G I O U S N O
- Page 36 and 37: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 31The God of the
- Page 38 and 39: T H E G O D H Y P O T II E S I S 33
- Page 40 and 41: T II E G O D H Y P O T H E S 1 S 35
- Page 42 and 43: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E S I S 37M
- Page 44 and 45: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 39although it ha
- Page 46 and 47: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 41enterprise. Ri
- Page 48 and 49: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 43God; because,
- Page 50 and 51: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 45Anecdotes of s
- Page 52 and 53: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 47Carl Sagan was
- Page 54 and 55: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 49Huxley was not
- Page 56 and 57: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS 51can
- Page 58 and 59: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS 53in
- Page 60 and 61: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 55McGrath goes o
- Page 62 and 63: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 57the Cambridge
- Page 64 and 65: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 59unequivocally
- Page 66 and 67: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 61non-interventi
- Page 68 and 69: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E S I S 63s
- Page 70 and 71: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 65Another typica
- Page 74 and 75: T H E G O D II Y P O T H E S I S 69
- Page 76 and 77: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 71longer based o
- Page 78 and 79: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 73advanced techn
- Page 80 and 81: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 82 and 83: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 84 and 85: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 86 and 87: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 88 and 89: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 90 and 91: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 92 and 93: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 94 and 95: A R G U M ENTS F O R G O D ' S E X
- Page 96 and 97: ARGUMENTS F O R GOD'S E X I S T E N
- Page 98 and 99: A R C U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 100 and 101: A R G U M E N T S FOR G O D ' S E X
- Page 102 and 103: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 104 and 105: ARGUMEN T S FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE 101
- Page 106 and 107: A R G U M E N T S F O R G OD'S E X
- Page 108 and 109: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 110 and 111: A R Ci U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S
- Page 112 and 113: ARGUMENTS F O R G OD'S E X I S T E
- Page 114 and 115: W H Y T II E R E A L M O S T C E R
- Page 116 and 117: W H Y T H E R E A I. M O S T C E R
- Page 118 and 119: W H Y T H ERE AL.MOS T C E R TAINL.
- Page 120 and 121: W H Y T H f ' R i . A L M O S T C 1
T H E G O D H Y P O THESIS 67
NOMA - agree that science is completely non-threatening, because
it is disconnected from religion's claims.
Another prominent luminary of what we might call the Neville
Chamberlain school of evolutionists is the philosopher Michael
Ruse. Ruse has been an effective fighter against creationism, 39 both
on paper and in court. He claims to be an atheist, but his article in
Playboy takes the view that
we who love science must realize that the enemy of our
enemies is our friend. Too often evolutionists spend time
insulting would-be allies. This is especially true of secular
evolutionists. Atheists spend more time running down
sympathetic Christians than they do countering
creationists. When John Paul II wrote a letter endorsing
Darwinism, Richard Dawkins's response was simply that
the pope was a hypocrite, that he could not be genuine
about science and that Dawkins himself simply preferred
an honest fundamentalist.
From a purely tactical viewpoint, I can see the superficial appeal of
Ruse's comparison with the fight against Hitler: 'Winston Churchill
and Franklin Roosevelt did not like Stalin and communism. But in
fighting Hitler they realized that they had to work with the Soviet
Union. Evolutionists of all kinds must likewise work together to
fight creationism.' But I finally come down on the side of my
colleague the Chicago geneticist Jerry Coyne, who wrote that Ruse
fails to grasp the real nature of the conflict. It's not just
about evolution versus creationism. To scientists like
Dawkins and Wilson [E. O. Wilson, the celebrated
Harvard biologist], the real war is between rationalism
and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism,
while religion is the most common form of superstition.
Creationism is just a symptom of what they see as the
greater enemy: religion. While religion can exist without
creationism, creationism cannot exist without religion. 40
I do have one thing in common with the creationists. Like me,