I don't consider Dawkins to be a very rigorous thinker. "Memetics' and the "Selfish Gene" are bordering on pseudoscience if we're talking about evolutionary biology. They are propostions that seem to me more in the field of communication science/semiotics or sociobiology, which is merely sociology for all sentient animals. I don't know of any hypotheses based on these propositions, let alone any testing and evidence for or against it. If someone does, I'd like to be enlightened. Dawkins himself avoids the question.
When 'The God Delusion' came out, I didn't have a clue what all the fuss was about. I remember his Christmas Lectures on BCC, and enjoyed them very much (no memes, just the basics of evoltunary biology as it was known at that time), and wondered why he had written a book on religion all of a sudden. (Ah! Waitaminute! Wife left him and became catholic, taking daughter with her. Could that have something to do with it?)
I was also unaware of the level of ignorance in the USA about evolution. I remember Carl Sagan writing about it in "The Demon Haunted World", but that was in the 1980's. Frankly, I still don't get it. I'm still wondering if all those creationists are just trolling. I mean....nobody believes that the Earth is 6000 years old anymore, right? (Yes, I seem to be wrong, but I still find it hard to comprehend). I also just don't understand how anybody can take talking snakes, virgins getting pregnant without having a hump and people raised from death (unless they weren't really dead) seriously. Maybe my world view is limited. I don't know anybody who believes that, and those people include religious jews, christians and muslims.
Besides, I didn't get the dichotomy between science and religion. The person who (indirectly) taught me about evolution was an anabaptist with enlightenment ideals. His name was Pieter Teyler, silk merchant and filthy rich. He collected fossils, minerals, scientific instruments and art. In his testament he wished to have his capital used for the education of all people, and so his friends built a museum and collected some more fossils, scietific instruments and art. It was there that I saw my first mammoth skulls, cave bear and the first fossil of Archaeopterix ever found.
And what about Gregor Mendel (Augustinian monk) that contributed as much to the theory of evolution as Darwin did? George Lemaître (Big Bang theory and catholic priest)? Their religious views didn't seem to interfere with doing solid scientific research.
I personaly don't understand why someone would believe in gods (I seem to lack the 'religion module' in my brain), but I'm not bothered if someone else does, as long as they don't bother me with it. For obvious reasons. But as I said, my world view is/was somewhat limited. In my country the churches are NOT exempt from paying tax and haven't been since the 16th century when we kicked the Spanish out. There are a few exceptions to this such as the Nieuwe Kerk in Amsterdam, but that one isn't owned by the protestant church anyway. It's owned by the municipality of Amsterdam and subsidized by the state because the royals have their ceremonies there. Now you know why so many churches have had to close in the Netherlands.
In all fairness, I must also admit that Dawkins personally said to me that the Netherlands are an exception. But here again I don't think he's entirely accurate. The church doesn't play a big role in Scandinavia either.
What I do think is good about Dawkins is that he gave a voice to people (apparently mostly in the USA) that felt discriminated because they are atheists. But I really wonder if he's doing them a favour. Both his book (God Delusion) and debates lack nuance, are sometimes factually wrong and I've heard him throw out a logical fallacy often enough. What I see happening are 'tit for tat' debates (with sometimes ludicrously wrong statements on both sides) that doesn't do much to foster more tolerance and understanding between atheists and theists. It might even radicalize both sides, although I'm not sure about that. Is that what we call 'sound, reasonable thinking'?
26 Apr 2013, 4:36 pm
