Dr. Robert T. Bakker's thoughts on ID and Atheism in schools.

Hi RAZD I'm interested in your last point. I must confess that I lean towards the Dawkins style of militant atheism - not because I'm arrogant or think that believers are somehow inferior, but because I think, like Dawkins, that religious beliefs shouldn't be given the 'free pass' they now enjoy when it comes to promoting their particular brand of nonsense. Organised religions (be they Christian or Islamic) wield a lot of political power and are extremely vocal and militant themselves. I actually admire Dawkin's 'in your face' no nonsense approach.The only time that I have read anything of Dawkins that I considered 'over the top' was his comment "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)". The reason I didn't like this comment is that I think that the majority of evolution deniers who are aware of the data (i.e. are not ignorant) continue in their beliefs, not because they are stupid or insane, but because they have been heavily indoctrinated by their religious upbringing. I thought Dawkins really let himself down on that one. I was therefore happy to read an article here in which Dawkins, in addition to defending his inital comment, adds a fifth category.... ...which now reflects my thoughts on the matter.Note, by the way, that Dawkins' original comment, viewed by many to be his most inflammatory, is aimed at evolution deniers, not at those with religious beliefs per se.Finally, I would like to ask you for examples in Dawkins' books where he has made 'many .... comments that are not justified by the facts'. I have read all of his popular works and haven't noticed these comments. I'd like to go back and check to make sure I'm not reading with rose-tinted glasses.Cheers,SteveN

Hi BradI thank you for your very quick reply but I'm afraid that, like a few others here, I really have a hard time understanding exactly what you're saying sometimes. I have also read most of Gould's popular works and, although admiring greatly his writing style, found that I totally disgree with his view that religion and science are two non-overlapping aspects of the universe. I also found the much-hyped 'fight' between Gould and Dawkins concerning he role of PE in evolution to be a storm in a tea-cup. I may be totally wrong, but I seem to remember that Dawkins does not dispute the probability of long periods of stasis between periods of rapid evolution. He just thinks that this is obvious and disagrees with PE being promoted as a 'new' and important advance in our understanding of evolution.I'm sorry if this doesn't address your points but to be honest, despite reading your post three or four times, I can't quite figure out what your points are. Maybe one of the more experienced members here can paraphrase it for me?Cheers,SteveN

Hi RAZDThanks for your thoughtful reply and your kind welcome. I did actually delurk a couple of weeks ago by starting a thread in the biological evolution forum here about the species definition. Thanks also for your link to 'Project Steve', but as I mentioned in the thread referred to above, I've 'been there, done it, got the T-shirt' (literally). I am also the proud 'co-author', along with Stephen Hawking and a couple of Nobel Prize laureates, of a paper entitled The Morphology of Steve. Great fun!Concerning your two Dawkins quotations, I'm afraid to say that I agree wholeheartedly with him. The first just reiterates the problem many people (including, I know from experience, some Christians) have with reconciling the concept of a loving, caring God with the abject misery caused by such things as the recent Tsunami catastrophe. Some of my religious friends told me that they had a big problem with this one and basically had to fall back on the 'ours is not to question the ways of the Lord' excuse. The second quotation suggests that '...a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils..'. I can see how that might be an affront to those who are religious, but from my point of view, I think that 'a case' can indeed be made. It's difficult to deny that some of the 'evil' in this world (i.e death, suffering, murder, war etc) stems from faith and it's also undeniable that many people derive a lot of comfort and happiness from their faith. I would contend, however, that although losing one's faith could bring misery, it is quite possible to be happy and content if one never had it in the first place. I could make a semi-serious and flippant analogy to tobacco addiction: smokers who try to quit are quite miserable, but those that never smoked in the first place are quite happy without cigarettes. The end result of faith, compared to a world where faith never existed in the first place, might therefore indeed be negative. Anyway, to get back to the main point, I don't see how these quotes from Dawkins constitute cases of '.... comments that are not justified by the facts', but this might be just my rose-tinted spectacles at work.I must disagree with two of your other comments. The first because I consider the only logically valid position given the absence of evidence (and yes, I know that this does not constitute evidence of absence) for God is to assume that he/she/it does not exist. I similarly 'reject' the existence of fairies, ghosts, telekenesis etc. However, if strong evidence of God's existence came to light, I would accept it. In other words, I don't 'believe that God is impossible', I just don't think that there is any evidence for the God Hypothesis. I doubt very much that you are agnostic with regard to Invisible Pink Unicorns (may Her hooves never be shod) or Flying Spaghetti Monsters — am I right? Again, I must beg to differ. I think that our perception of how the universe works should be based on evidence (plus logic etc.). We don't actually know how likely it is that life will arise under any given conditions (I suspect that it is very common in the universe), but as you say, it has happened at least once, showing it to be some degree of likelihood and not impossible. This one occurrence has not been demonstrated for God, though, which in my mind relegates Him to the realm of Invisible Pink Unicorns (not impossible but very unlikely). If, by agnostic, you mean that science should not totally reject something as being impossible without proof that it is indeed impossible, then I would agree wholeheartedly (and I am a scientist, by the way). If, however, you mean that all hypotheses not proven to be false should be treated equally seriously, then I must strongly and vehemently disagree. There is a spectrum of possible explanations for most phenomena ranging from 'almost certainly true' (e.g. evolution) to 'patently ridiculous' (e.g. the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Some ideas do not merit serious consideration, even if there is no direct proof that they are false. I personally rank God along with the FSM in terms of 'likelihood of being true' and you apparently have a different ranking system, which is fine. I personally think that your approach is not very reasonable, but I'm happy to 'agree to differ'. After all, I am a Dawkins-like militant atheist .Thanks again for your feedback. This is all most enjoyable, I must say!CheersSteveN

Hi RAZDThanks again for your thoughtful reply. I see now what your point of view is. I was making the same mistake that Dawkins is apparently making in using the term 'faith' to refer to religions such as Christianity and Islam. I'm afraid my knowledge of Zen and Buddhism (looking at your sig) is virtually zero so yes, the statement may be a little overstated. However, he doesn't say (and neither do I) that faith is always evil or that those with faith are evil people - because the vast majority are certainly the opposite of evil. It's the fact that faith can drive people to do evil or to justify evil that he is referring to. I do agree, however, that he could have worded it in a more precise fashion. I don't think that's really a fair interpretation of what he wrote. He says 'I thought believers might be disillusioned...', i.e. from his (logical) point of view, he would expect believers in an omnipotent and benevolent God to be troubled by the implications of the Tsunami catastrophe. This was certainly true for a number of my religious friends, so I don't see this as an inaccurate portrayal.From the rest of your post, some of which I agree with and some with which I am going to have to agree to disagree, I have the impression that you may misunderstand the basis of my atheism. I did not actively choose to disbelieve in one or more of the many Gods that Mankind has worshipped throught the ages. I just don't see any reason for believing in any of them. I agree that the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are deliberate parodies of religious belief, but I could have just as easily substituted Odin, Zeus, Ra {snip list of over 1000 Gods} and made the same point. 'Absence of belief' is not the same as 'belief in absence' and so I do disagree quite strongly with your perception that atheism is just another belief system with no better basis than religion. You might be falling into the same trap that you accuse Dawkins of falling into: of falsely attributing your perceptions to those without faith Anyway, I enjoyed hearing your point of view and I have learned from it. I don't actually think that you have demonstrated Dawkins to have made 'comments not justified by the facts' but I agree that he could be a little more precise in making his points. Our viewpoints (I really don't like the word 'belief') don't appear to be so very different: I'm quite happy in a universe without Gods, you prefer one started by a non-interacting creator - which in practical terms amounts to the same thing, I think.Cheers!SteveN{Edited to correct typos}This message has been edited by SteveN, Sun, 14-08-2005 12:22 PM