Okay, I can do this. I’ll address Gregg:
Your piece mischaracterizes TBW, and your defense of this criticism was inappropriate and inaccurate. I don’t think you intended to mislead anyone, but I do think you haven’t recently read the book and you certainly don’t know (or remember) what it’s about. I think you made big mistakes that you should own. I will respect that if you decide to do it.
Steve, that’s a much friendlier, respectful, charitable yet still clear way to express your point, rather than immediately casting aspersions on someone and connecting it with their being a Christian apologist. Thank you for writing this.
The verification of miracles “does not appear in any form” in TBW?
So, what do we mean by a miracle? A miracle is something that happens, but which is exceedingly surprising. If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its hand at us we should treat it as a miracle, because all our experience and knowledge tells us that marble doesn’t behave like that. I have just uttered the words ‘May I be struck by lightning this minute’. If lightning did strike me in the same minute, it would be treated as a miracle. But actually neither of these two occurrences would be classified by science as utterly impossible. They would simply be judged very improbable, the waving statue much more improbable than the lightning. Lightning does strike people. Any one of us might be struck by lightning, but the probability is pretty low in any one minute (although the Guinness Book of Records has a charming picture of a Virginian man, nicknamed the human lightning conductor, recovering in hospital from his seventh lightning strike, with an expression of apprehensive bewilderment on his face). The only thing miraculous about my hypothetical story is the coincidence between my being struck by lightning and my verbal invocation of the disaster.
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 159
I think a reasonable person can read the above passage as talking about miracles and their verification.
I don’t. Read it again. Read it in context. It’s not about miracles. It’s really clear that it’s not about miracles. (Spoiler: it’s about improbability.) I thought we had made progress in this discussion by reaching an agreement that Gregg is confused about what the book is about. Was I wrong about that?
As Dawkins says in the beginning of this chapter:
Chance, luck, coincidence, miracle. One of the main topics of this chapter is miracles and what we mean by them. My thesis will be that events that we commonly call miracles are not supernatural, but are part of a spectrum of more-or-less improbable natural events. A miracle, in other words, if it occurs at all, is a tremendous stroke of luck. Events don’t fall neatly into natural events versus miracles.
Dawkins literally titles the chapter “Origins and Miracles”. He is talking about miracles - namely trying to argue that miracles are really just improbable events. I’m not defending Dawkins’ thesis or criticizing it, or even necessarily agreeing with Gregg’s reading or comments. I’m just saying, it’s not right to say that miracles is not talked about in TBW.
And that’s not what I wrote. Since you have chosen pedantic defense of gross mischaracterization, I conclude that your words about charity and respect above were mere cynicism. Peace out. I’m sure it will be just a week or so before the next time someone trots out Dawkins.
This is what you wrote and what I was responding to:
I think it’s odd that once I actually started quoting passages of the book that are relevant to the matter of whether Dawkins can be read as talking about the verification of miracles in TBW, you respond by saying that a passage in the chapter titled “Origins and Miracles” is actually not about miracles but improbability, and when I contest that you say that it’s “pedantic”.
Once again, I’m not defending Gregg’s particular take on Richard Dawkins. I’m defending his right to read Dawkins without having his character assassinated based on a disagreement of his reading. If you think his reading is wrong, go ahead and argue that, with clear evidence.
As a comparison, lots of people misread the GAE book and/or model. Yet I wouldn’t support calling them liars. I would try to correct their misconceptions and misreadings instead.
I do not see any equivalence. And I don’t even see a close connection.
I would fully agree with the first of those assertions. I would never assert the second of them.
How is using the scientific method and objective facts a form of “faith”?
Am I imagining Dawkins connecting those two ideas in various presentations?
That is not a facetious question. I’ve listened to Dawkins make similar statements in interviews and lectures. Or are my recollections mistaken?
I realize that the debate at hand is about what Dawkins specifically said in the aforementioned book—but surely @davidson’s understanding of Dawkins’ position is not unwarranted.
I have not heard him say/write “replace antiquated religious belief with faith in science.” Humanists like Steven Pinker (and me) do want to replace religious belief, especially the kind that scrambles good minds (cf this very conversation) but I associate “replace with science” talk with Sam Harris. BUT it’s certainly possible that Dawkins has said this. It sounds silly and simplistic to me.
EDIT: Oops should have completed this: “Humanists like Steven Pinker (and me) do want to replace religious belief, with humanism, …”
Specifically against Paley’s famous watchmaker argument. But explaining how something can evolve instead of being designed has nothing to do with replacing religion with science. Among other reasons because not all design is thought to be done by some sort of entity being worshiped in some religion.
No, it does not. There’s nothing there about religion, and there’s nothing there about replacing religion with science.
To put that into context, here’s what Dawkins writes:
I am a biologist not a chemist, and I must rely on chemists to get their sums right. Different chemists prefer different pet theories, and there is no shortage of theories. I could attempt to lay all these theories before you impartially. That would be the proper thing to do in a student textbook. This isn’t a student textbook. The basic idea of The Blind Watchmaker is that we don’t need to postulate a designer in order to understand life, or anything else in the universe. We are here concerned with the kind of solution that must be found, because of the kind of problem we are faced with. I think that this is best explained not by looking at lots of particular theories, but by looking at one as an example of how the basic problem - how cumulative selection got its Start - might be solved.
Here’s What Dawkins writes in the introduction:
This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet. I wrote the book because I was surprised that so many people seemed not only unaware of the elegant and beautiful solution to this deepest of problems but, incredibly, in many cases actually unaware that there was a problem in the first place!
The problem is that of complex design. The computer on which I am writing these words has an information storage capacity of about 64 kilobytes (one byte is used to hold each character of text). The computer was consciously designed and deliberately manufactured. The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones. Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand ‘electric wires’ connecting them to other neurones. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. No, on second thoughts I don’t give up, because one of my aims in the book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it. But having built up the mystery, my other main aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution.
Again, nothing about religion, and nothing about replacing religion with science.
I’ve read him charitably, and he has confirmed that I am reading him accurately. He should be reading Dawkins charitably too.
It’s easy to understand why. His reflexive hostile reaction to Dawkins, his attribution to Dawkins of arguments Dawkins never made, and his demonization of Dawkins, are not an inscrutable mystery.
I have never seen him make such an argument in any presentation. On the contrary, I am certain he would object vehemently to the idea that science and religion are simply equivalent belief systems in which one places “faith”, and that science can be swapped out for religion because it serves the same functions.
So you agree with me that Dawkins’ actual statement in BW (not the statement you misattributed to him), is equivalent to saying that “We don’t need to postulate a rain god in order to understand rain, or the entire evaporation/condensation cycle”? Do you agree that we don’t need to postulate a rain god in order to understand rain, or the entire evaporation/condensation cycle?
@sfmatheson and @Jonathan_Burke, thank you for bringing this to our attention. @davidson, thank you for making the correction.
For anyone interested, this very recent interview covers Richard Dawkins’ views on relevant topics but with an AI implications perspective.
Lex Fridman interview of Richard Dawkins
It seems that we could attach “without requiring a designer” to almost every theory in science. A chemistry textbook explains how atoms interact without requiring a designer. A physics textbook explains how planets move about a star without requiring a designer. Does anyone think a physics textbook is trying to replace religious faith with faith in science?
Just once, I’d like to see an apologist engage with arguments rather than doubling down, complaining about tone, and flouncing out.
Is that too much to ask for?
To our host; “faith in science”? Really? Conflating then different meanings of the word faith, to try to drag science down to the level of religious belief in terms of evidence is just the lamest argument there is.
Yeah, I agree. This one got off to a bad start because of the author’s major mistakes. His defensiveness is to some extent understandable but the failure to own the mistakes is disappointing.
Meh, isn’t that just semantics? The purpose of the forum (and the site) is contact between faith and science.