Some of the best YouTube stuff I've seen was last night when I watched Dawkins for an hour and a half talk about his anti God diatribe "The God Delusion" in Lynchburg Virginia, of all places, to Liberty University students, of all people. This stuff was classic. Unfortunately, by today its been completely removed from the site. (So I put up this BBC report instead).
Its difficult to overstate the salience of Dawkins message at this time in age. With the three largest terrorist organizations in the world - Zionist Israel, Fundamental Islam, and Christian America being responsible for 95% (in no way a scientific stat) of the badness that radiates nightly from the evening news - the timing couldn't be perfect.
Dawkins refutes the argument for the existence of God, but more than that criticizes all religion, and the way of thinking that creates unsubstantiated faith. He basically dismisses anyone who believes something not supported by empirical evidence, and therefore does not rationally lend itself to belief.
His ideas, natural skepticism, and support for the scientific method as the best form of acquiring knowledge are themselves a great testament to secular humanism, a philosophy I myself have been reading about. This world view is probably very close to what E.O. Wilson called "scientific humanism" of which he said "Its the only world view compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world". I would like to add that secular humanism, judging by its tenets (all on Wikipedia) is the only world view compatible with our true identity as human beings, given our biological reality. We are a product of this earth, and governed by its physical laws. Sadly, many modern humans have lost their connection to biology, to nature. We look to God to satisfy our thirst for spirituality and placate our feelings of uneasiness about the deeper questions in life - like why are we here.
It is my idea that this quest for 'wholeness' that leads many to a religious life is the result of our disconnect from nature. John Livingston may call it our 'domestication'. As civilization began, humans started seeing themselves as dominant in our relationship with nature, and in turn now we wonder who dominates over us. The evidence for this comes from Aboriginal people who really still have the spirituality and relationship with nature we all once had but lost. Where as we speak of 'resources', they speak of land, fish, wildlife with reverence - as extensions of themselves. They identify. Not unlike the way some identify with God.
Everything we need to satisfy our curiosity about where we came from, why we are here, questions of morality, philosophy, value..that all can be answered using the material that has been present on this earth since its creation. Dawkins speaks to this when he emphasizes empirical evidence as the basis of belief.
I don't know if he ever said it, but I get the feeling Dawkins considers blind faith in God a mental disorder, irrational to the point of being psychotic. It is true that someone proclaiming the flying spaghetti monster is his saviour may be considered a little coo-coo. In principle this is no different than proclaiming God is your saviour, since there is the same amount of evidence in support of the existence of both - none.
Now think of the psychotic fervor driving so much of the violence in this world. Biblical arguments have prevented any sort of reasonable agreement in the Israel - Palestine issue -- the REAL source of middle east unrest. Dreams of another Caliphate and Americans converting to Islam keep the suicide bombs coming. And in America, a well meaning, genuine will to do good in the world on the part of many, being challenged by Godly fanaticism that has percolated into the nooks and crannies of the government to bring us terms like "Holy Warrior" reminiscent of the Crusades. Do I have a point or what??
Dawkins is, after all, at the far end of the Atheistic scale. I do not agree with him on a few points. One major one is his assertion that the scientific method is the only way of knowing to be used in all instances. Of course science has its realm. Scientists frame problems in a technical way and find technical solutions. But not all phenomena can be tested scientifically. Some questions, such as about the existence of a higher being, are not scientific ones at all. If God makes himself known to us on a "personal level" and you can feel him "in your heart" -- this is an entirely subjective perception. You cannot apply science here to know the truth. It just has to be left alone. This is the realm of religion - which is far more to blame for encroaching into the realm of science, but Dawkins does the opposite and encroaches on the realm of religion. Questions about the cosmos, and its limits, beginnings..are also often just too difficult for science. Here religion has its place, outside our ability to perceive and test. Here religion should be given some respect, even if its beliefs have only a minutely small probability of being correct.
As a scientist foremost, Dawkins in his talk in Lynchburg, totally left out the influence of culture on people's beliefs. He said he cringes at young kids 4, 5 years old being referred to as "Christian children" or "Muslim children". After all they are too young to understand these ideas. However, he does not see that indeed they are children of religious culture, brought up with values and traditions that blur the line between religion and culture. This theme is missing from his critique.
Anyway, I'm sad you all cant see him snap when told by a student that Liberty University has dinosaur bones dated 3000 years old.
