An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

[madthumbs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLIAyOl7Poc

I accidently say "The Selfish Gene" at 2:46. My mistake. I meant "The God Delusion."

I anxiously await your response.

Not just that, but Science points to Intelligent Design. Belief in Intelligent Design does not require religion: Religion requires it. We do not have to choose the oppo-extremes we're presented with.

[intruder]

VERY good!!!!

[zero1]

"Evangelical Guru", so true, exactly what Dawkins/Dennett/Harris and rest of them are.

Don't expect your letter will be responded to, but it was eminently worth writing.

Nice one. :)

[gizmocrystal]

Well Done!

That man and his kind have caused me nothing but confusion and upset for a long time now.:mad:

[intruder]

The following is from Arthur M. Young's "Which Way Out and Other Essays", 1980

Modern Idolatry

"The cumulativeness that makes science the unique phenomenon it is and the glory of our age is misleading. It seems to imply that there is something called science which is an entity in its own right. This science with a capital S takes on an authority; it becomes a kind of institution. It is said that new discoveries are made by science, predictions are made by science, progress is made by science. And so on.

In point of fact, science never discovered anything. People invent microscopes, telescopes, dynamos, spectroscopes, inferometers. People discover electricity, gravity, calculus, new planets, and new elements. But when they have done so (and very often it is years before the accomplishment is acknowledged), credit is given to "Science".

We don't speak of "Art" as having "discovered" impressionism or photography or motion pictures. Nor do we think of "Music" as having developed the pianoforte. But we even credit science with discovering things which were initially denied and rejected by the science they later "became".

People don't believe in ghosts anymore. At least they say they don't. But everybody believes in science. And science is a ghost. Like most ghosts it is not only scary, but is used by some people to scare other people. Science, in the sense of discovering the things that make up the body of modern progress, does not exist, because science did not discover or invent anything.

We are concerned here with the nature of science as a component of our culture. In its role as custodian of the creative insights and discoveries of individual persons it deserves our admiration and support. Insofar as it channels the thinking of the many - whether these be the professional scientists as members of the order, or the public to whom the pronouncements of science have an authority that cannot be challenged - it is quite a different thing. It must be questioned in much the same way as the abuses of the church were questioned in previous centuries.

Science, ghost or not, does exist as the embodiment in communicable form of the findings of hundreds of creative individuals whose individual accretions have built up an edifice of scientific tradition. It was this that enabled Newton to say, "I stood on the shoulders of giants." And it is this that enables even a college freshman to do calculus. As such, it is both a great contribution and also a great encumbrance. The more monumental science becomes, the more it constitutes a massive prejudice, or more correctly a blanket endorsement of the unthinking inertia of credulity. Science, once the avocation of a few pioneers, is now common agreement, not merely among the hundreds of thousands of personnel on research teams, the engineers, the white-collar class (who are actually no longer an elite financially, numerically, or hierarchically), but to the man in the street, who looks to science to tell him what to think and what to believe. Science has become the church of today. And like the Christian Church that it has replaced, it interprets the initial teachings for its own salvation and preservation.

We must, of course, see a merit in the stabilizing influence of science as a conservative body of opinion, and recognize that creativity needs a flywheel, that all new ideas cannot be indulged but must meet the test which conservative science imposes on innovation. Science as a body of agreement controls the machinery of production and of proliferation which can expand innovation, and innovation has no God-given right to these means.

Creativity, innovation, and invention per se are basically irresponsible and inconsistent, and recognize no vested interests. Nor do they make any concession to necessity or expedience. If the means of production and of dissemination were entrusted to the erratic muse of innovation nothing would be accomplished. Trains would not run, airplanes would fly on random schedules and to unexpected destinations. So the conservatism of science is on the whole a good thing, provided it does not completely blot out the innovation which supplies its continued renewal. In the larger sense, however, we must question this dogmatic aspect of science. I refer to its influence in our culture in replacing religion as an authoritarian doctrine to guide man's philosophy.

Now it is true that the view that science can tell us how to get out of our moral predicaments is not one in which scientists as such commonly indulge. If scientists take a stand on a moral issue, they can do so as humans but not as scientists. Even as psychologists their function is to show how the implications of one thing lead to another, rather than to say what ends man should pursue. Scientists usually disclaim any role as moral advisors, and with the exceptions of certain enfants terribles and their followers, whose opinions and zeal are their own, science is not trying to stage a takeover. Mostly, scientists find the elevation of "Science" into a religion for the layman an embarrassment.

How, then, can we disabuse the layman of the notion that science has the answers to his genuine hunger for moral truths and abiding values? The modesty of scientists on this subject only leads to the suspicion that they are holding back.

Perhaps the blatancy of advertising has developed in the layman a suspicion of anything that asserts that it has the answer, and makes him more certain that this lies where he's told it doesn't. Certainly the impressive progress of science (which we repeat was achieved by people and not by science) makes him feel that that which discovered penicillin and quasars can tell him the answer to such questions as whether or not God exists.

But Fleming, who discovered penicillin, would probably say he was as puzzled
as anyone about these questions, which are, in any case, not within his competence as a scientist. In fact, when we do find a scientist setting forth his opinions on such subjects, he is more likely to lose his standing as a scientist than to gain acceptance as a philosopher. There are exceptions; many good scientists are also philosophers and have made contributions to the spiritual quest. But again, this is people, it is not science.

Our questions about man's ultimate nature may well be asked in the "spirit of scientific inquiry," but we might begin our inquiry by asking what restrictions the term "scientific" places on the questions we can ask.

It might be better to just ask."

[madthumbs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGm4kCgh6zI

I've got a video response already written to what I KNOW, based on the calibur of criticisms in the comments of the last video, will be people's complaint. Just placing my bet.

[intruder]

2 mad thumbs up!!

[octopusrex]

Can anyone tell me in one phrase what Richard Dawkins wants?

[madthumbs]

Can anyone tell me in one phrase what Richard Dawkins wants?

One word: "fame"

[zero1]

One word: "fame"

Yup, that's the answer right there...

[romas]

Good one :)

Narrow minded fools in both camps.