[MD] Dawkins' anti-theism campaign

[Ham Priday]

Hi Arlo --

> I'll chime in with my two cents, since you asked,
> but since I am not familiar with Dawkins (beyond a
> passing recognition), I can't really respond to Dawkins'
> directly. So this may be tangental, but so be it...
>
> For me, "theism" is initially divisible into two primary
> camps. First, are those that personally believe in some
> transcendent force. Second are those that further this
> belief by thinking that said transcendent force "priviliges them".

Since Pirsig's name has been linked with Dawkins in several posts here, I
assumed that this evolutionist figure would have some kind of following
among the MD participants.  Possibly I've overestimated his recognition.

I understand your aversion to the evangelistic movements of religious
fundamentalism, and I share your thoughts concerning its tendency to
polarize society.  But I see Dawkins doing much the same thing as a
latter-day evangelist of Darwinism.  He has parlayed his reputation as a
scientist into celebrity status by denouncing what he sees as the one
remaining obstacle to the universal appreciation of 'natural selection'.  I
think using the pulpit of Science to preach the philosophy of objectivism to
an audience of believers is every bit as hypercritical as the fundamentalist
proselytizing Christianity to an Islamic tribe.

I also think that, despite the objectivist's paranoia, mainstream believers
have pretty much incorporated 'natural selection' into their belief system.
Most people don't see evolution as fundamentally incompatible with theism.
So that, in asserting that "the commonest
fallacy about natural selection is that it is a theory of chance," Dawkins
is playing to the agnostics and aetheists of our society, not to believers
who are only too happy to hear a scientist say that "natural selection ...is
the antithesis of chance."  His second premise, "natural selection makes God
unnecessary, but leaves his existence an open plausibility" (strange
substitute for "possibility") is also a neutral statement which doesn't
really support his position.

Dawkins rests his case by saying "the argument from improbability, which
traditionally is deployed in God's favour, turns out to be the strongest
argument against him."  This is the statement that baffled me; I don't see
the logic in such an argument.  It seems to me that if Dawkins wanted to
score points for an anti-theistic ontology, he would have argued that
Creation is "more probable" than previously thought.  As stated, his
argument is not very convincing.

I expected that quoted argument to elicit more reaction from the MoQers.

[Arlo]:
> Like Dawkins, I think it is time we move beyond such
> tribal-social power concerns, and realize that these are not
> institutions of "privilege" but culturally-significant manifestations
> (analogy and metaphor) that may define us and give us meaning
> "as a cultural group", but do not bestow on us any
> "privilege" from above.

I concur with the need to overcome tribal/social divisions that involve
antagonistic belief systems, although this will require more inter-cultural
understanding than the human race has been willing or able to demonstrate to
date.

Of course, as an Essentialist, I believe that we are all "privileged" to be
agents of a supernatural source, and the only "cultural groups" I
acknowledge are those who understand this and those who do not.

Best regards,
Ham