Tuesday, November 24, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Darwin and the case for 'militant atheism'

Richard Dawkins - TED Talk

(CNN) -- On November 24, 1859, the first edition of a book that would shake the most deeply established beliefs about life was published in London. What would eventually be known as "The Origin of Species" was the opening shot in a debate that hasn't ended, even 150 years later.
In a series of books starting in 1976 and in his 2002 TED Talk, biologist Richard Dawkins has explored the implications of Darwin's work. In "The Selfish Gene," Dawkins wrote, "Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over 300,000 million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin."

Read More http://edition.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html

Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 17 of 17 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #434515 by alabasterocean on November 24, 2009 at 3:28 pm

A year 2002 TED talk - it's time for a new TED talk. I wrote, filled in the form, recommending TED to invite Mr Hitchens to talk about the necessity of debate.

Other Comments by alabasterocean

2. Comment #434516 by Jos Gibbons on November 24, 2009 at 3:29 pm

This video is an odd justification with this interview, although both are excellent, something that cannot be said of the introduction. Why can’t any article about RD get its facts right? The title is far from the only, or even the worst, error.

What would eventually be known as “The Origin of Species”

Well, in the sense of people getting its name wrong, yes ...

for over 300,000 million years

3,000 million years

[RD] says belief in evolution is not compatible with religion

That’s an exaggeration; while RD has said evolution renders God an unnecessary postulate, he has also made it clear evolution does not strictly disprove God.

There’s no room for a God in the world as he sees it

He just thinks there probably isn’t any god, but he’s prepared for evidence to the contrary.

According to Dawkins, life was not created by an intelligent designer

This is not RD-specific; all scientists agree with this, with the following interesting exceptions: (1) Some creationists are technically scientists, but refuse to behave like them. Their numbers are negligible. (2) Some religious scientists think one or two moments in life’s history involved divine intervention, such as abiogenesis, but they certainly think everything in between was design-free.

Read why another writer believes evolution and faith can be compatible

Shermer’s opinions on the evolution-religion relationship are pretty much the same as RD’s. CNN is trying to exaggerate tiny differences in emphasis at most into full-blown polarisation.

15 years

More like 20, I’d think.

Alfred Wallace had independently come up with the idea of evolution

It was natural selection up with which they both came*; evolution was an idea considered by quite a few thinkers, but how it would work was a mystery. (*That’s what happens when you can’t end clauses with prepositions!)

Read the view of an advocate of “intelligent design”

What a shame Meyer doesn’t give a model for how intelligent design would work, or a proposal of the designer’s origin, or any good examples of things that even defy explanation by natural selection, let alone require explanation in terms of intelligent design. Why should IDiots be more deserving of space here, incidentally, than say Lamarckians, who at least propose a mechanism that could (sort of) work?As for the interview, I feel compelled to share this wonderful little soundbite:

Evolution is almost universally accepted among those who understand it, almost universally rejected by those who don’t.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

3. Comment #434522 by Dhamma on November 24, 2009 at 3:47 pm

On the Origin of Species was released 150 years ago today, where's the celebration?

Other Comments by Dhamma

4. Comment #434523 by Spinoza on November 24, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Jos, end your damn sentences prepositions with!

Other Comments by Spinoza

5. Comment #434526 by Sally Luxmoore on November 24, 2009 at 3:56 pm

The debate has moved on. It is interesting to hear the shocked laughter in the audience.
Now, these ideas are more current and less shocking.
It's working!

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

6. Comment #434543 by Jos Gibbons on November 24, 2009 at 4:58 pm

Comment #434523 by Spinoza

I think I shall in the future. My stab at that "rule" (which a Bishop invented purely for euphonic reasons) is similar to Churchill's comment on the practice of ending sentences with prepositions ("Up with this I shall not put"), although I doubt I'll go as far as your not-quite-like-Yoda-but-similarly-weird syntax. I am reminded of an exchange in a cartoon in which one character answered another's query by saying they're not using certain items because they'd cost money, "which is something we're out of". A third remarked, "Anger is no excuse for ending a sentence with two prepositions." Personally, I say the more the merrier.

Comment #434526 by Sally Luxmoore

Do you really think so? If only an analysis of audiences across time had been done to test that. Sadly, commentators' whines have apparently not diminished in any similar manner. But we'll get there eventually, whether it takes 5 years or 5 decades. (Any longer than that will probably not be fast enough to save us all.)

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

7. Comment #434549 by Bernd_M. on November 24, 2009 at 5:13 pm

This was realy a nice talk. Thank you R.D.

Other Comments by Bernd_M.

8. Comment #434715 by Alternative Carpark on November 25, 2009 at 12:59 am

Damn, I was expecting a new talk. Saw the old one ages ago.

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

9. Comment #434731 by njwong on November 25, 2009 at 1:56 am

2. Comment #434516 by Jos Gibbons on November 24, 2009 at 3:29 pm
What would eventually be known as “The Origin of Species”

Well, in the sense of people getting its name wrong, yes ...

I think this is nitpicking. There is nothing wrong in referring to the book as "The Origin of Species". Look at the title page of the 1st Edition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_origin_of_species

Most people would read the title as "The Origin of Species".

Quote from Wikipedia article:
...For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species...

Other Comments by njwong

10. Comment #434741 by godsbelow on November 25, 2009 at 2:43 am

Superb speech, Richard! Bold, articulate and very funny - Bravo!

Other Comments by godsbelow

11. Comment #434743 by godsbelow on November 25, 2009 at 2:51 am

Also:

'We who are Atheists are also Afairyists and Apotists.'

That one needs to go on an RDF shirt!

Other Comments by godsbelow

12. Comment #434757 by SaintStephen on November 25, 2009 at 5:33 am

This was superb. Our animated, pugnacious, and prescient Professor in 2002, prophetically setting the stage for his own rise to prominence with TGD in 2006.

"The man was a hero." -- is what future generations will say about Richard Dawkins. "While most of the world's elite thinkers remained mute on the subject of religion, their vocal cords effectively severed by fear and the politics of fundraising, Dawkins simply maneuvered himself into a position of strength, a position where he could savage religion literally at will and still make money for his foundation while doing so." Making millions for unabashedly speaking the Truth, and having people line-up by the thousands to hear you? Not a bad gig.

If I didn't love this man so much, I would hate his guts.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

13. Comment #434775 by Follow Peter Egan on November 25, 2009 at 9:10 am

2. Comment #434516 by Jos Gibbons

(*That’s what happens when you can’t end clauses with prepositions!)

4. Comment #434523 by Spinoza
Jos, end your damn sentences prepositions with!

Never, ever, end a sentence with.

Nice to revisit this video. Enjoyed the strident call to arms by Richard at the beginning (though it was a bit tongue in cheek).

I think the zeitgeist has made incremental shifts to our side since then, even if the religionists are upping their game. At least the debate is all the rage, and not likely to return to the previous status quo of atheists knowing their place, and shutting up and putting up, any time soon.

Good work, Richard et al.

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

14. Comment #435927 by lesliedellow on November 28, 2009 at 12:58 am

Well Richard Dawkins may think the Pope and Kenneth Miller are deluded in thinking that evolution and religion are antithetical to religion, but they are not the only ones who would disagree with him about that:

"Dear Sir

It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.— You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

==========================
Charles Darwin, no less.

Other Comments by lesliedellow

15. Comment #435928 by Mark Jones on November 28, 2009 at 1:04 am

Comment #435927 by lesliedellow

Rest easy; Dawkins also considers that a person can be a theist and an evolutionist, as Darwin thought. He believes that Kenneth Miller exists, for example.

EDIT: clarity

Other Comments by Mark Jones

16. Comment #436329 by SyDaemon on November 29, 2009 at 9:12 am

"...strengthen student's faith in evolution"?

It seems that Mr Comfort can only think in terms of "faith" and not reason.

Other Comments by SyDaemon

17. Comment #436786 by the_ultimate_samurai on November 30, 2009 at 9:46 am

"the highest offices of this land are barred to those who are both intelligent AND honest"

they are barred to those who are honest regardless of intelligence.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

Reload Comments | Back to Top