The trouble with Richard Dawkins
Professor Michael Ruse is an eminent philosopher of science.
He's the author of numerous books and a full ten-year professor at the University of Florida
He spent a careers observing and commenting on the cultural struggle between creationists and evolutionists.
And a vowed unbeliever, he nonetheless argues, for a space for religion and science
to engage in respectful, informed dialogue
and for oponents to appreciate each other's intelectual history
Now that's an idea.
Professor Ruse believes that Christian faith can be reconciled with evolutionary theory
and as we found out, he has some very harsh criticisms
for Richard Dawkins and the new atheists.
- It's funny you should mention that because I want to talk about
a particular scientist who does some philosophy of science in his book
and I've heard you say "there are few things more simple than 'The God Delusion' of Richard Dawkins"
- JAJA. As I said, "makes me ashamed to be an atheist" was the phrase I used
- What do you mean by that, It's simple or simplistic?
- It's not simple, it's simplistic.
I mean there is nothing wrong with "kiss, keep it simple, stupid"
I mean one of the virtues of science is simplicity. The trouble with Dawkins
I mean... maybe this is envy... the guy sold 3 million copies of the book
I wished I sold 3 million copies of one of my book.
I mean. the trouble is he just doesn't take the things that he's talking about seriously.
I differ to nobody in my admiration for Dawkins' book "The selfish gene"
which he published 30 years ago
about the nature of genetics.
Now. I don't care whether you agree with the book or not.
But it seems to me that that is a serious attempt to understand aspects of the nature of biology.
Now, somebody comes along and a woman called Mary Mitcheli
did justice and comes and says "oh, that must be stupid
because genes cannot be selfish".
I think Dawkins has got every right at this point to say
"hang on a minute, I know that. I'm using a metaphor".
Look at what I'm trying to do with this metaphor and see...
Now. you may disagree with what I'm trying to do
but at least try to understand what's going on.
I think Dawkins has a perfect legitimate case there.
Now, I want to say equally that the theologian, religious person or the philosopher.
to a certain extent, this is a tough word.
I think that they have equal right to turn to Dawkins and say
"look, if you're going to criticize this, fair enough
but try to make an effort to understand what the position is".
Now, I think a classic case would be Dawkins going off to the cosmological argument
the causal argument, you know...
"everything has a cause. the worid is a thing. therefore the worid must have a cause
call it God".
Ok, you know, philosophy 101 undergraduate response "What caused God?"
We all do it, We all being there.
And, you know, I mean it's a good question.
but you know, it's not the end of the argument.
Dawkins, then, triumphantly says "there you are
bad argument, let's move on".
- Well in fact he thinks he found a new argument that disproves God to a high probability.
- Right, push with the cosmological argument for a moment.
You know and I know that Christians, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas
spent a lot, I mean, they knew this...
and so what they were trying to do was articulate a notion of God who would be first cause.
You know, the whole notion of asceity
God as a necesary being, ascey.
you know God's esence is his existence.
Now, if Dawkins wants to say, as David Hume would say.
that the whole notion of necessary being doesn't work or something like that
then let's talk about that, let's argue that.
I'm inclined to think it might be right, but at least let's, you know.
have the honesty, not the honesty, the intellectual integrity
to look at this things and look at the responses that the Christian philosophers,
let's just say the Christian philosophers, have made,
You may want to ruffle them up but it's like "selfish genes", at least do your homework.
Now, the trouble with Dawkins is, I think, that
he doesn't get to that point. Now, sure, I mean...
Dawkins he's got, you know, a fused nature of things.
I mean, you know, that "the God of the Old Testament is an ethnic cleanser"
and you know, to be perfectly honest, the God of the Old Testament is a bit of an ethnic cleanser.
But, of course, you know and I know
let us put to the traditional Christian, what I mean the Christian of Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas and Luther and Calvin
knows these things right down the line, and what they do is work with this
you work with how the whole notion of a God was revealed gradually to the Jews
and obviously does not become manifest in some full sense at least until Jesus, if not until Saint Paul
I mean we can argue about the Jesus-Paul issue, but you know exactly what I mean
I mean the point is Christians have got some grown up responses to these sorts of things
And I think that Dawkins does a serious disservice to the cause of non-belief
by not being prepared to take seriously the kinds of things that believers believe in.
I mean, of course, who honestly thinks for instance that it's going to be okay for you
to just say "oh well I'm gonna take one of my kids and take him up to the highest point
in Sidney and sacrifice him", I mean, you know.
is every Christian in Sidney say "Oh John, what a wonderful manual!"
All they gonna say "Let's get this guy to a psychiatrist as quickly as we can".
So this is the point I want to make.
Not whether or not Christianity works.
I mean, frankly, I'm not sure it does for me.
But whether the Christian can at least articulate a reasoned defense
which we can then argue about.
That's basically the trouble I have with people like Dawkins.
