Dawkins the Religionist

When the high priest comes right out and admits to holding a religious worldview based on Darwinism, I think the point has been proven.

Atheist evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins spoke to a packed auditorium at Manhattan’s Ethical Culture Society Saturday night about his best-selling book, The God Delusion , admitting in a Q&A that followed being “guilty” of viewing Darwinism as a kind of religion…

Game, set, match.

There’s more though. At one point he sounds like he might be going senile.

Suzan Mazur: Richard Dawkins.net
recently picked up my story about a meeting at Altenberg in July called “Toward an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis” Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?, which is believed will move us a bit away from the gene-centered view. Natural selection is under attack and the feeling is that the really interesting evo stuff has to do with form, which we currently have no theory for. I wondered whether you were asked to participate in the Altenberg symposium and what your thoughts are about a remix of the Synthesis?
Richard Dawkins: The question is about a recent symposium at Altenberg in Austria.

Suzan Mazur: No. It’s coming up in July. I was wondering if you were invited?

Richard Dawkins: Sorry, it hasn’t happened yet are you telling me?

Suzan Mazur: No, it’s coming up in July, to remix the theory of evolution essentially.

Richard Dawkins: About development was it as well?

Richard Dawkins: You asked the question: Have I been invited?
I’m sorry to say I get invited to lots of things and I literally can’t remember whether I was invited to this particular one or not.


5 responses to “Dawkins the Religionist

  1. I hope this post is ok with you; perhaps you’ll be interested in this: http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=2605&msg=2483282

    This is a synopsis of a Proof of God argument which came to me a couple of years ago. The argument proves that there is a Creator-God by proving that the denial logically and necessarily leads to absurdity. (The argument isn’t a proof of specificly and explusively Christian doctrines, such as the Incarnation; it is a proof that there is a God and that we can know this and know that we know this).

  2. Ilion,
    No complaints here. That’s an interesting post. One part that stuck out for me was when you pointed out that Dawkins doesn’t even believe his own materialist explanation of Basil’s behavior. It shows how untenable the materialist position is and it is why Dawkins has clung to evolution religiously.

  3. That’s one of the points of the fuller argument: ‘atheists’ cling to atheism *despite* the evidence, despite that it is irrational and illogical, and easily shown to be so. And, in fact, they will advance even further into irrationality and illogic to hold onto their denial of God, to resist admitting that this argument proves that atheism is false.

    While it would be wonderful were this argument to convince some ‘atheists’ to admit that God exists (and then *seriously* look at Christianity), I certainly don’t expect that to happen. There are very few ‘atheists’ in the entire world who espouse atheism for rational reasons, so rational arguments are highly unlikely to get them to see the falsity of denying God exists.

    But, they like to assert that they are the epitome of reason and thay we Christians are, ipso facto irrational. This argument ends that charade.

    No, this argument is more for those who already affirm God exists and secondarily for those believing they can sit on the fence forever.

    For those who already affirm God’s existence, this argument shows them that all that “Enlightenment” bilge we are taught in the schools is nothing to be worried about; that it is, in fact, the very opposite of enlightenment.

    For those believing they can sit on the fence forever (while being an ‘atheist’ in practice), it forces them off the fence.

  4. Also, did you read Dawkins’ small article? Do you see/understand my point that he knows and admits that he doesn’t himself believe what he wants to convince others to believe? That is, do you understand that it is not just me asserting this about him, but rather pointing out that he himself says it about himself?

  5. I have actually read that little article myself a while ago and I do remember him saying what you pointed out, which I mentioned in my last comment. It was not something that I really took note of at the time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s