Darwinian view of Dawkins' atheism

Oren Glick

The intensity of emotional response, apparently a projection of hostility, by so many from the scientific community to Dawkins' God Delusion is astounding (as in Irwin Tessman's article "A Darwinian View of a Hostile Atheist," January/February 2008). The level of "hostility" expressed in Dawkins' book appears mild compared to numerous reactions to it. Dawkins may indeed be angry; his "righteous indignation" is not without considerable warrant. But hostile? There is a difference! I don't see hostility in Dawkins; I do see it in Tessman.

Tessman's choice of words and expressions in characterizing Dawkins and his work are largely pejorative and ad hominem, not well reasoned, not descriptive or evidence-based. To wit: Dawkins is "a militant atheist." The word delusion in the title "sets a belligerent tone." (How about "Hostile Atheist" in Tessman's title?) Tessman quotes a long list of negative adjectives from page 31 of the book characterizing the God of the Old Testament. He calls this "classic Dawkius." (Note that he does not claim there is no evidence in the biblical record to support these characterizations, not for a single one of them. His intent is to be dismissive, not to show error.) Dawkins "has his crosshairs on the personal God." Tessman, without reason or evidence, discredits polling data on "belief in God" as a "publicity game" and says "Dawkins invents a nearly subliminal version of the game." Dawkins "recklessly implies;" Dawkins is in "a take-no-prisoners mode" It is this language not Dawkins' that smacks of hostility.

As a scientist, I find hostile, emotional responses such as Tessman's to Dawkins and his book frankly an embarrassment. More charitable, thoughtful, and reasoned responses can be found coming from the religious community. As evidence of one, I would like to quote from portions of the Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, responding to a questioner in his "Q & A" email program (November 28, 2007) concerning his view of Dawkins and his book:

   I think Professor Dawkins is both brilliant and an incredible
   communicator. The definition of God that he rejects is the same one
   I reject.... Traditional Christianity has been buffeted by the
   insights of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Freud and
   many others. They have destroyed the credibility of much of our God
   talk. Richard Dawkins points that out in powerful ways, feeding his
   conclusion that God is a harmful delusion that ought to be
   dismissed. I agree that God is in fact a delusion and ought to be
   dismissed.... I am glad his book is so popular. I think it feeds
   the very debate that the religious tradition of the West needs to
   have. J.B. Phillips, another Englishman, once wrote a book entitled
   Your God Is Too Small I believe that is the great problem facing
   contemporary Christianity. Richard Dawkins helps to make sure we
   face that problem and, for that reason, I welcome his book.

What an interesting response by a theologian to one who is "completely scornful of theologians" and who has a "defiant dismissal of theology"!

Oren Glick

Social Psychologist

Portland, Oregon

Author Irwin Tessman responds:

Oren Glick seems to me to have read much in my article that I don't recognize.

Upon reading "A Darwinian View of a Hostile Atheist," I became more interested about expressing my view regarding a scientist being either an atheist or a religious person. It seems to me that either represents certainty. In my view, science does not involve certainty. Therefore, a scientist who does not compartmentalize thoughts and beliefs and is a consistent thinker must be an agnostic.

John E. Hendrix, PhD

Emeritus Professor

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, Colorado

As scientists and skeptics we seek to base our beliefs on reason and evidence and pounce upon those, such as creationists, who appear to do the opposite. In your last issue, Irwin Tessman describes Dawkins' vitriolic efforts to do just this.

Toward the end of page 39, Tessman criticizes Dawkins' use of high-profile atheists to boost his case, asserting that "nothing in science gets resolved by authority but rather by the voice of reason." Unfortunately this claim is quite false. For instance, Eddington's "proof" of relativity was patently nothing of the sort (the data were dreadful). Nevertheless, the scientific establishment was happy to accept it because it was "endorsed" by J. J. Thompson and critics were ridiculed by the London Times. In a similar manner Pasteur's germ theory quashed Pouchet's spontaneous generation not through logic and reasoned argument, as is commonly thought, but by political leverage at the Paris Academy. Given the state of knowledge at the time, Pouchet had good evidence against Pasteur's germ theory but lacked an unbiased platform to air his views.

Tessman's argument draws on minor details in The God Delusion to accuse Dawkins of lacking objectivity. This is hardly necessary since the book oozes bias and vitriol from the title onward. Why then does Tessman devote three paragraphs of petty points to "uncovering" the bias in Dawkins? Could it be that as skeptics we can't bear to acknowledge that science can be overtly unobjective? Yet history shows that even eminent scientists have based their ideas on preconceived notions and could be unforgivably biased in their treatment of competing theories. While attacking proponents of the irrational we must acknowledge the lack of logic also manifest in ourselves.

Rob Campbell

Cold Spring Harbor Lab

Long Island, New York

Irwin Tessman writes: "While in his take-no-prisoners mode, Dawkins asks what it is that religion has taught us. His answer: nothing. In this he goes up against Stephen Jay Gould."

NOMA has taught us that dialogue rather than dominance is the most productive course to pursue. This piece misreads Gould's NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) principle and delegitimizes his approach to so-called "war" between science and religion, transforming him into an unwitting compatriot with religionists. This word war appears in the subtitle: "a new chapter in the warfare of science with theology," and thereby sets the tone of the essay.

Gould uses "Magisteria" (in his Rocks of Ages, 1999) in a way that emphasizes different methods of study rather than methods by which human beings can ultimately answer "objective questions about how the universe works (empirical questions)" and conclusively answer "the ultimate questions: why am I here, what is the purpose of life, what is the basis of morality?" That is, NOMA examines approaches to parallel but nonoverlapping empirical problems on the one hand, and subjective philosophical and ethical problems on the other.

Gould never assumes that empirical questions are within the purview of the theological magisterium. This would break two of NOMA'S stipulations, the magistetias': (1) equal status and (2) independence.

Curt Claus

Gordonsville, Virginia

COPYRIGHT 2008 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning