NEWS
Atheist urges logic, evidence for truth
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Pratha Muthiah:
- Search committee holds last forum (March 7, 2008)
- Stanford aid program to fully waive tuition (February 25, 2008)
- Journalist calls 2008 a ‘year of peace’ for Israel (January 30, 2008)
- Low salary could hinder search (January 25, 2008)
- Law forbids alder, liquor connection (December 13, 2007)
Related Stories:
- New billboard warns city 'Beware of Dogma' (October 3, 2007)
- Horowitz event sparking protests (October 22, 2007)
- Physicist ponders composition of matter (December 14, 2005)
- Reparations debate to kick off tonight (December 3, 2001)
- Prejean condemns capital punishment (February 16, 2005)
by Pratha Muthiah
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Richard Dawkins, world-renowned evolutionary biologist and
atheist, repeatedly urged University of Wisconsin students and community
members to think critically about the universe during his lecture at Memorial
Union Theater Tuesday night.
Dawkins, the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public
Understanding of Science at Oxford University, and author of international
bestseller “The God Delusion,” spoke to the full-capacity theater about the
importance of evidence and logic in seeking truth, which he said faith cannot
provide.
“In science, we believe things because we’ve looked at the
evidence,” Dawkins said. “[T]he consolation value of a belief does not have
anything to do with truth. It cannot give human comfort.”
Dawkins, who is on a March tour of
six universities across the country, feels that students need to think for
themselves when it comes to religion and science.
“I really do
want to counter the evil of the misinformation about science which has been
going about among students,” Dawkins said. “I care passionately about the
truth, and I think that the existence or non-existence of a god or gods is a
scientific matter. … I think
universities are the right place to engage in these discussions.”
According to Dawkins, belief in the supernatural is a
delusion and only the workings of nature can be considered divine. Dawkins described
the idea of the “Supreme Watchmaker” — the argument that the intricacy of the
universe necessitates a maker just as a watch does — as “one of the most
superficial, plausible, bad arguments against Darwin.”
Dawkins also attacked religious indoctrination, saying
children cannot critically examine religion and forcing them to participate in
religious activities is a form of child abuse. He urged audience members to
raise communal consciousness about the perceived dangers of religion and
protest the inculcation of views on humanity and moral values to children who
are too young to form their own beliefs.
Dawkins said religion can be replaced with science, since
scientific study can effectively satisfy the same psychological need religion
is said to fill.
According to Memorial Union Theater employee John Vanek, the
lecture was highly successful with at least one hundred students and community
members were left at the door without seats.
Vanek, a UW senior and a self-proclaimed atheist, thought
that Dawkins’ lecture was effective in conveying the atheist message of logic.
Sophomore Jason Hiquet also felt the lecture was a great way
for the community to learn about the logic behind atheism.
“I thought it was a great presentation,” Hiquet said.
“[Dawkins] really represented his ideas articulately and as fairly as he could,
having the opinions that he did.”
When asked what one message he wanted students to walk away
with after Tuesday’s lecture, Dawkins said it was the importance of evidence
and thinking for oneself.
“Think critically for yourself,” Dawkins said. “Don’t
believe what people tell you unless they give you the evidence. What is the
evidence? How do you know what you’re being told is true? Is it from faith,
revelation or scripture? If it’s any of those things, forget it. Always go for
evidence.”
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 6:15am):
How dare this Dawkins character speak ill of God, or Buddha, or any of his noodly underlings! Religion and blind faith have brought humanity its greatest achievements. Do you really think a godless society could have the strength, conviction, and determination to carry out a really effective genocide? I think not. That takes a real leader, someone god-like, I would think, and we owe it to our children (well, the non-gay ones, at least) to ensure that God and other delusions are there to provide guidance for our future wars and conquests.
- Germain Q. Stemme
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 7:38am):
This guy is my hero.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 8:48am):
the guys a ma ma moron.
ill give you guys your futile life perspective that has no room for wonder or hope or any of the other touchstones that have propelled human will and built character all thru history.
ya lets just forget that now in our feverish haste to become more technological as we destroy our planet or fall victim to MAD or turn in to medicated/repaired/engineered robots with no regard for the numinous.
So all you who dont believe in God, have a good rest of your life deluding yourself and never realizing Why you are alive. Spend the rest of your lives caw cawing like bitter babies about what is really Life, and meanwhile I'll find goodness and strength in my faith, and if you don't understand that yet hopefully you'll be open enough as to be able to understand it when you're ready.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 9:39am):
@8:48,
Whatever gets you through the day, dude, keep doing it. Life is what it is. You choose to believe in the flying spaghetti monster and others don't.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 10:30am):
The proposition Dawkins espouses can be applied to itself. Here I am, an imperfect human being, with imperfect information, and imperfect powers of reasoning. How can I know that the proposition Dawkins presents is accurate and true? Like me, Dawkins will live a short time on this small planet. Given the expanse of the universe, and the billions of years that have passed since its beginning, Dawkins, like me, will have personally observed little of all that has transpired. Like me, he likely would stare at a blackboard filled with equations relating to cosmology, and not be equipped to understand or criticize them. Like me, then, he must rely on other imperfect human beings, having imperfect and limited knowledge, and imperfect reasoning powers to construct, criticize, and refine such equations, philsophies, concepts, etc. In other words Dawkins, like me, must, at some point, have faith in the truth of what he believes. I too have faith. I have faith that one mode of existence of a Trinitarian God died in the form of a man 2000 years ago; that this man was resurrected; that by virtue of this death on a cross there is a Way, a different Way, to live. That the power to live in this way is through the work of Jesus Christ, and through the power of another mode of existence of this Trinitarian God, the Holy Spirit.
I can give some evidence of this belief. Ultimately, however, my belief, like Dawkins' belief, rests on faith. But my faith is bolstered, over time, by the fact that God, through Christ, and in the Power of the Holy Spirit, is changing me, so that I'm more and more willing to deny myself in order to love others. I'm more and more willing to seek to be a better steward of what I have in time and material, and of this planet's resources generally. I would like to have an internal character where I would be willing to die so that another, even an enemy, might live. I know who I am, and I believe that this change is coming from without--and so is evidence, for me, of the transformational power of God's love, through the work of Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. My job is to pray, to read and understand the teachings of Christ--to be, in effect, his apprentice in the world today. Is this supernatural? Absolutely. And I believe it to be true. I wish Mr. Dawkins all the best, but hope and pray that he sees more clearly the limitations of human reasoning, science, and the fact that he, like me, has observed and understands very little of all of that has transpired since the beginning of time. And so, like me, like all of us, must step out in faith . . . but into what?
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 11:21am):
8:48...
I'm not sure of what faith you are referring to when you posted, however, Iâll assume it is of Abrahamic origins.
You stated, "ya lets just forget that now in our feverish haste to become more technological as we destroy our planet."
How quickly do you forget that it isn't our strive to become more and more technological that is destroying our earth, in fact technology is one of those things that made use realize what, in fact, we ARE doing to the earth and how we can fix it.
And, how soon you forget godâs intentions...
Genesis 1:26-28
"26 Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.' "
I dont blame technology for the destroying of the earth, i blame the ideologies that stem from faith that put man on a falsified hierarchy above all other living organisms on this earth for its destruction.
Iâll assume that you have never taken a course on evolution because for you to state, âill give you guys your futile life perspective that has no room for wonder or hope or any of the other touchstones that have propelled human will and built character all thru history,â means that you fail to recognize the sheer amount of wonder that is encapsulated within evolution. I urge you to research mimicry and coevolution and try to comprehend the sheer amazement and wonder that is within each of these aspects of evolution.
Iâll paraphrase an anecdote Dawkins used in his lecture last night:
Theory âAâ has lots of evidence
Theory âBâ has no evidence
Theory âAâ can not explain âXâ at this time
Therefore, theory âBâ must be correct.
With this I beg to ask you, who is actually deluding themselves? You, a person who simplistic arguments like âgod did itâ and dedicates your life to the hope that there is a man sitting in the cloudsâlooking over your every action, passing judgment on the way in which you think and act; as you wish, hope and pray that if you live your life with the goodness of your faith that you will live forever in a gated community in the clouds after your death.
Or is it a person like me, who realizes the absolute complexity of this world and universe in which we live and doesnât solve its existence with a simple-minded argument like âgod did itâ and doesnât need giant men in clouds to live a happy life and finds goodness and strength in the sheer fact of just being ALIVE.
The time you waste congregating and trying to figure out how to make this invisible person in the clouds happy, I spend living my life to the fullest wishing for not a selfish ending in a community in the clouds, but an ending that is just thatâan ending. However, I will end my life with the full knowledge that I lived a good life, and the nutrients that make up my body will aid the survival of another organism and give back to the earthâof which I owe everything.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 11:35am):
I never understood how religion is supposed to add meaning to life. When in fact it does the opposite. When you think that this time on Earth is all you have, you appreciate it and want to make a difference while you can. Believing in an eternal afterlife makes this time so irrelevant why should we care about it? Anyone who believes in an eternal afterlife clearly has no understanding of eternal and should take a calculus class.
Lentz Upshaw (March 12, 2008 @ 12:31pm):
I find it interesting after reading the God Delusion that Dawkins encourages students to think critically and look at the evidence in order to make their decisions about God and about what is true, because the element that is conspicuously lacking in the God Delusion is scientific evidence that takes into account all of the evidence and not merely the evidence that supports his perspective. For a good look at the holes in Dawkin's logic and "scientific" reasoning towards the non-existence of God Google Alister McGrath or better yet check out his book "The Dawkins Delusion." If you look into Dawkins further I think you will find that many who would agree with Dawkins that there is no god, would disagree with his methodology and use of science to come to the conclusions that he does.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 1:38pm):
Dawkins co-stars in a major motion picture with Dawkins and Ben Stein that releases this spring. It's called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."
Dawkins makes a fool of himself in that movie.
Christians like Darwin are responsible for all scientific discovery due to their dedication to science for thousands of years. Slamming Christians is a foolish way to attract media attention and sell books.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 1:45pm):
As an atheist, I don't particularly care for Dawkins' smug scientific positivism - nor Christians who try to empirically locate proof of the existence of a god. It's called faith for a reason, and saying it should be replaced with "objective" science is like someone insulting a cupcake because it's not a cheeseburger.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 2:07pm):
...And somewhere on the internet, an idiot makes their mark in an online discussion, for everyone to see.
V S (March 12, 2008 @ 2:22pm):
to the "ma ma moron" above.
you must be a literary master of irony. i mean, speaking of being delusional? open enough to understand "it" when you're ready? hilarious.
sorry you can't take things with a grain of salt. so relax.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 2:22pm):
He just believes in one less god than you do.
PS. I don't find much goodness in a superstitious mythology which uses an instrument of torture as the main symbol and an act of symbolic cannibalism as the main ritual.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 2:52pm):
8:48 -
Allow me to pick apart your 'argument'.
'ill give you guys your futile life perspective'
First: the age-old argument that atheists are nihilists. This is not so. One can counter that religious people are nihilists, since they seem to need religion to think their life has any sort of purpose. Your life is what you make it. The touchstones that have propelled human will are ambition, compassion, and drive, not some imaginary friend.
'ya lets just forget that now in our feverish haste to become more technological as we destroy our planet or fall victim to MAD or turn in to medicated/repaired/engineered robots with no regard for the numinous.'
Numinous does NOT equal any sort of deity. The numinous doesn't even exist, as far as I am aware.
'So all you who dont believe in God, have a good rest of your life deluding yourself and never realizing Why you are alive. Spend the rest of your lives caw cawing like bitter babies about what is really Life, and meanwhile I'll find goodness and strength in my faith, and if you don't understand that yet hopefully you'll be open enough as to be able to understand it when you're ready.'
LOL. I know why I'm alive - because I want to make people smarter and I'm not dead and because my parents had unprotected sex. That's why I'm alive, not because of your joke of an imaginary friend. I find goodness and strength in knowledge - there is no way to understand why the fuck you seem to get your jollies on holding tightly in your insecure way to something that doesn't even stand the test of examination.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 7:25pm):
@1:38
Expelled has only been shown to specially selected groups of highly religious people (pastors and such) who are made to sign non-disclosure forms in advance. The movie is made by creationist propagandists who have a history of grossly distorting the truth. Check <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/ahistorical_garbage_from_the_p.php>here</a> to read what I'm talking about. It should also be known that by no means is Dawkins "starring" in this movie. From my understanding he may be interviewed as part of it or quoted or something of that sort (they're very tight lipped about it, seems strange for producers of a movie to not want people to know what's in it, unless they've got something to hide) but he is certainly not "starring." And however he is displayed he is likely taken out of context (never trust an ellipsis in creationist writing), because anyone who has read any of his books knows that he is incredibly bright and anyone who saw him speak last night would know just how brilliant this man is.
Anonymous (March 12, 2008 @ 8:21pm):
"Christians like Darwin are responsible for all scientific discovery due to their dedication to science for thousands of years."
Right, because Muslims, Chinese, Japonese, Inkas, Mayans, Scandinavians, European pagans, and Africans never ever discovered anything in the history of the world. IDIOT. If anything, Christians were responsible for appropriating and conquering the scientific discoveries of others for their own use.
Anonymous (March 13, 2008 @ 5:06pm):
Thank God For intelligent people like Dawkins.
Anonymous (March 17, 2008 @ 12:13pm):
The problem is, I believe, that ethics and moral values have been developed in religious contexts for centuries... but also obscurantism, fanaticism, fundamentalism, intolerance. It´s a contradiction. Time has come for science to address moral issues and neurosciences have a loto to deliver!!!
Anonymous (March 17, 2008 @ 3:47pm):
"Thank goodness" for Dawkins.(Not God !)t's time to ban that word! Suggest we change our vocab and say instead:
God = "You mean your imaginary friend?"
Religion = "Which belief system (there are so many) are you refering to?"
Anonymous (March 23, 2008 @ 11:38am):
A really interesting cover story from WIRED (an excellent magazine of technology and geek culture, for those unfamiliar) is "The New Atheism". One of the editors - himself an atheist - interviews Dawkins, Dennet, and a couple of other notable thinkers and comes to the conclusion that they're actually too polemical for him. IMHO what's particularly hypocritical is Dennett's proposal that there should be a sort of board of censors to stamp out "irrational ideas" - in effect replacing mediaeval-style religious censorship with materialistic censorship. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html
I respect Dawkins as an intellectual - he's definitely made a big contribution to evolutionary biology - but I think he's highly biased and personally bitter when it comes to the question of religion, failing to see any value at all in it. I wish I could have attended the talk but it was sold out. Will have to settle for reading his book.
Also, I'm really sick and tired of the culture wars in Western society...I hope my multicultural country will deal with these issues better when we get around to looking at them. The cornerstone of Christianity IMHO is that God loves humans enough to overturn his own laws to let us live, not that he literally created the world in 6 days from Play-Doh. Both sides of the debate need to be clear about this.
- Shi-Hsia Hwa
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
