Dawkins' declaration of war

Richard Dawkins 's book "The God Delusion" and his vigorous campaign to get other atheistic scientists to actively repudiate all forms of religious belief is attracting a lot of attention.

(For those who haven't been following this: Dawkins won't even tolerate those who tolerate religious moderates. In his view, giving comfort to any form of supernatural belief means you are also giving comfort to the fundamentalists.)

For a good backgrounder on this campaign, the lengthy Wired article from last month was pretty good. More recently, a New York Times article talks about a conference where Dawkins sought to rally the troops against religion.

Well written anti-Dawkins material can be found in the reviews of Terry Eagleton and Marilynne Robinson. Criticism about how Dawkins treats Stalinism and Nazi Germany so as to try to paint them as not really the product of atheism is well dealt with in Dinesh D'Souza's article here. Even those who are generally sympathetic to his cause often express concern that he is far too stroppy in his rhetoric and is actually hurting the cause he promotes.

He refuses to accept even the "non overlapping magisteria" argument (the view that religion and science are fundamentally about different things, and therefore can co-exist peacefully.)

One of the stupidest comments about all this I found being made by a physicist blogger Sean Carroll over at Cosmic Variance:

Scientists who do try to point out that walking on water isn’t consistent with the laws of physics, and that there’s no reason to believe in an afterlife, etc., are often told that this is a bad strategic move — we’ll never win over the average person on the street to the cause of science and rationality if we tell them that it conflicts with their religion. Which is a legitimate way to think, if you’re a politician or a marketing firm. But as scientists, our first duty should be to tell the truth. The laws of physics and biology tell us something about how the world works, and there is no room in there for raising the dead and turning water into wine. In the long run, being honest with ourselves and with the public is always the best strategy.

Does this guy, who knows so much about dark energy and cosmology, know so little of religion that he does not even understand the definition of a miracle? Fortunately, some of the comments following this post did make the point:

It seems to me a little absurd to criticize scientist for not jumping on things like virging [sic] birth or walking on water. The whole point of these miracles is that they are, precisely, miracles. They are once in a lifetime occurances that take place by divine intervention. I don’t think science has anything to say about that: a non-reproducible, one time event that is by definition outside the natural realm. Evolution is an entirely different game, as it concerns the development of species in a natural way. It can (and has) been tested.

The other point I want to make about is all this is the irritating way atheists like Dawkins talk up the "inspirational" aspects of science and nature. Look at this from an interview with Dawkins:

QUESTION: Professor Dawkins, at the start of your talk, you said that the traditional religions were not only false but also failed to provide a deeper meaning than science and in that sense were not more soulful. I agree with that, to the extent that they attempt to provide an explanation, but another thing that the religions do is give comfort to people if they lose people in car accidents or to cancer and so on, and as far as I've experienced it, the scientific view cannot give people this kind of comfort. So in that sense the religions, even if they're false, are more soulful. And I wonder how you would respond to that.

Dawkins: ....although science may not be able to console you in the particular case of a bereavement from a car accident, it's not at all clear that science can't console you in other respects. So, for example, when we contemplate our own mortality, when we recognize that we're not here forever and that we're going to go into nothingness when we die, I find great consolation in the feeling that as long as I'm here I'm going to occupy my mind as fully as possible in understanding why I was ever born in the first place. And that seems to me to be consoling in another sense, perhaps a rather grander sense. It is of course somewhat depressing sometimes to feel that one can't go on understanding the universe; it would be nice to be able to be here in 500 years to see what people have discovered by then. But we do have the privilege of living in the 20th and very soon in the 21st century, when not only is more known than in any past century, but hugely more than in any past century. We are amazingly privileged to be living now, to be living in a time when the origin of the cosmos is getting close to being understood, the size of the universe is understood, the nature of life in a very large number of particulars is understood. This is a great privilege; to me it's an enormous consolation, and it's still a consolation even though it's for each one of us individually finite and going to come to an end. So I'm enormously grateful to be alive, and let me take up what Steve was talking about, the question of how you can bear to get up in the mornings. To me it makes it all the more worthwhile to get up in the mornings -- we haven't got that much time, let's get up in the morning and really use our brief time to understand why we're here and what it's all about. That to me is real consolation.

Or as Physicist Steven Weinberg has said:

...the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless...

and:

Though aware that there is nothing in the universe that suggests any purpose for humanity, one way that we can find a purpose is to study the universe by the methods of science, without consoling ourselves with fairy tales about its future, or about our own.

Isn't this at heart an extremely elitist view? Fine if you are a scientist, or an autodidact, but what about people who don't have that intrinsic interest or the ability to learn much about, or contribute to, the advance of science?

Maybe it is easy to overstate the importance of religion in the West today, as apart from declining church numbers, we all know people who more or less successfully avoid the "big issues" for most of their lives. But Dawkins and his pals are keen to destroy even any subconscious level of optimism that people may have absorbed from religion (namely, that there is meaning and purpose to the universe, and each person is intrinsically valued not just because other humans deem it so, but because it is true at the transcendent level.)