Madeleine Bunting, on how the militant atheism of Dawkins and Dennett may be backfiring:

...while Dembski, Dawkins and Dennett are sipping the champagne for their very different reasons, there is a party pooper. Michael Ruse, a prominent Darwinian philosopher (and an agnostic) based in the US, with a string of books on the subject, is exasperated: "Dawkins and Dennett are really dangerous, both at a moral and a legal level." The nub of Ruse's argument is that Darwinism does not lead ineluctably to atheism, and to claim that it does (as Dawkins does) provides the intelligent-design lobby with a legal loophole: "If Darwinism equals atheism then it can't be taught in US schools because of the constitutional separation of church and state. It gives the creationists a legal case. Dawkins and Dennett are handing these people a major tool."

There's no room for complacency, urged Ruse over lunch in London last week. Last December's court ruling against the teaching of intelligent design in some Pennsylvania schools may have been a blow, but now the strategy of the creationist/intelligent-design lobby is to "chisel away at school-board level" across the US. The National Centre for Science Education believes that as many as 20% of US schools are teaching creationism in some form. Evolution is losing the battle, says Ruse, and it's the fault of Dawkins and Dennett with their aggressive atheism: they are the creationists' best recruiting sergeants.

Yes. Too many people believe in God for this to be a successful debating tactic. People have to be made to understand that religion and science don't have to be incompatible, and that we don't have to abandon science (as the "science" of intelligent design does) when the going gets tough. As Galileo said, the one tells us how to get to heaven, the other describes of what the heavens are made. Of course, with modern science and rocketry, perhaps science will allow us to do both.

Rand

Amen Brother.

:)

Just could not resist.

Dennis

OTOH, why is it militant atheists' responsibility to tone things down? There will always be someone with bizzare viewpoints, and they'll always be a "foil" for anyone who wants an easy debate. They might as well say what they're thinking.

Instead, I find it strange that this debate has been coopted by parties with extreme viewpoints. Ok, so Dawkins might be a good researcher and writer, but what is he doing representing the evolution side? He is incompetent here.

Never underestimate the ability of humans to believe two conflicting ideas.

OTOH, why is it militant atheists' responsibility to tone things down?

Of course it is! It's just like when we criticize a, say, 'religion of peace', we become responsible for the acts of terrorism done in its name.

(/sarcasm)

It's just like when we criticize a, say, 'religion of peace', we become responsible for the acts of terrorism done in its name.

I don't think that's a good analogy. The point is, that if you want to engage people and persuade them to your point of view, it doesn't help to start out by telling them they're nuts and delusional. Unlike (perhaps) the "religion of peace," it is possible for science and Christianity to coexist--there are many existence proofs of it. We ought to be trying to build on that.

"I don't think that's a good analogy. The point is, that if you want to engage people and persuade them to your point of view, it doesn't help to start out by telling them they're nuts and delusional."

A point I have wasted much time making on Thomas Lee Ellifritz. He seems to be incapable of understanding that insulting people will virtually never pursuade them to your side but simply serve to reinforce their beliefs.

Instead, I find it strange that this debate has been coopted by parties with extreme viewpoints.

That's because, generally, those are the only people who are really interested in the debate.

Same with abortion and almost any other clash on so-called "moral" issues. The overwhelming majority of people, being neither absolutely devoted to morality, nor to pragmatism, regard such issues as curiosities that don't really mean all that much to them.

The point of demolishing someone in debate is not to convince them, but to serve as a warning for uncommitted onlookers. Rationality and a minimal level of civility are required, but otherwise a take-no-prisoners approach may serve best.

Rand's point is that taking no prisoners when you're badly outnumbered is not a good strategy.

Note the difference, say, between blasting certain issues within a faith (eg, treatment of women) that many practicioners may to some degree *agree* with you about, and declaring that they're all idiots for believing anything at all.

In the former, you're alienating a much smaller segment than in the latter, and accepting a dialogue with many of the remainder. Hence, why the government does not talk about nuking Mecca or any such thing, but instead focuses on spreading democracy to Islam, gently pushing on women's rights as it goes.

Transfer that to Christianity, and while you can score points on the margin (eg, women's-place-is-in-the-home), declaring the entire faith to be false is *not* going to win you anything but distrust, dislike, and dismissal.

if the theory of the existence of a god were proven to the extent that the theory of evolution has been, then i think they would teach the existence of a god in schools (though perhaps they would avoid any related dogma). i disagree that dawkins' views opens up a valid legal point for the creationists (or any point really, other than "dawkins is rude" or something).

"Ok, so Dawkins might be a good researcher and writer, but what is he doing representing the evolution side? He is incompetent here."

i think you answered your own question, or perhaps you werent aware of what he writes about. how is he incompetent?