Curious Christian

Reflections on culture, nature, and spirituality from a Christian perspective

Skeptics on Skeptics

Published by

Matt Stone

2009-08-17

Came across an interesting article by Michael Ruse, philosopher of biology at Florida State University, on why he thinks the New Atheists are a disaster.

Ruse, a committed skeptic, speaks of the slurs he has received from New Atheist authors like Richard Dawkins, who attack him on account of “although I am not a believer, I do not think that all believers are evil or stupid, and because I do not think that science and religion have to clash.”

Elaborating on this, Ruse states, “Let me say that I believe the new atheists do the side of science a grave disservice … Their treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant … Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group.”

In the process Ruse advances a very interesting argument: “If teaching ‘God exists’ is teaching religion – and it is – then why is teaching ‘God does not exist’ not teaching religion? Obviously it is teaching religion. But if science generally and Darwinism specifically imply that God does not exist, then teaching science generally and Darwinism specifically runs smack up against the First Amendment.

And he concludes by saying: “I have written elsewhere that The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist. Let me say that again. Let me say also that I am proud to be the focus of the invective of the new atheists. They are a disaster and I want to be on the front line of those who say so.”

Give me more old atheists is all I can say.

Tags Atheist

4 responses to “Skeptics on Skeptics”

Steve Hayes

2009-08-17

The following, from a Christian blog that has since been deleted, puts it in a nutshell:
Jan. 8th, 2006 08:01 pm That fool Dawkins
Rational debate about the existence/ non-existence of God, and the ethical implications thereof, is good. It belongs to human dignity to seek to discern what is true.
There is an academic discipline which studies questions such as what constitutes a warranted belief, what religious language ‘means’, whether it has a possible reference and what it means for our conceptions of the good life. That discipline is philosophy. There is also an academic discipline whose remit of study includes the atrocities committed in the name of religion. That discipline is history.
So why, when Channel Four want to air a programme about these issues do they give air-time to a biologist with no training whatsoever in either discipline? Moreover one whose previous pronouncements in this area have only been published because he has piggy-backed on his (justified) scientific reputation and which, considered in their own right, are unworthy of a moderately bright A-level student..
Yet another example of the ignoring of the humanities in mainstream culture and, in spite of the irrationalism of our age, the persistence of the Victorian cult of the polymath scientist. Boo, hiss.

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2009-08-18

An admirable synopsis. But why I like the earlier quote is that it’s coming from an unbeliever. Ruse has no vested interest in defending Christianity. He has no philosophical gripe with Dawkins. He’s condemning Dawkins purely on the basis of poor scholarship.

LikeLike

Reply
Tony

2011-10-21

Ruses’ “interesting question” is not an idle one. Freedom of religion has always pretended a peace where there is none. Pragmatically its been of great benefit for sure. In fact its worth remembering its original intent was to prevent the corruption of religion (by association with government) in contrast to Anglicanism in particular. But it has led to the need for “religion” to be compartmentalised particularly as the scope of the public sphere has grown and this leads to a misconception about what religion is.
Just as much a myth (and just as useful) is the idea that “science” can be the common language of the peace with nothing to say about religion. I give a lengthy sketch of “science” at http://humblewonderful.blogspot.com/2011/10/science-vs-god-and-coffee-table.html?m=0
It’s not value free obviously or it would be anything goes.
Certainly there are a number of philosophers who have talked about sciences totalising metanarrative – its rendering of everything as subjects, its tendency to claim to discover what it creates (ie mental illnesses). Many of these are non-theists (Wittgenstein perhaps, certainly Foucault), as am I.
It shits me that Dawkins just confuses Atheism and Empirical Methodological naturalism. Glad to see others agree.

LikeLike

Reply
Matt Stone

2011-10-22

It strikes me that Dawkins and his ilk could do with a dash of postmodern intellectual humility. While objectivity is a noble thing to strive for it is now widely acknowledged that complete objectivity is a mirage. The claim to have it therefore, should always be treated as ignorance at best and a power play at worst. Maybe Dawkins should read his Kuhn. There is no neutral language, there is no one without bias, and were Atheists to be privileged as umpires of society for 1000 years they would no doubt be just as corrupt as the Papacy was by the end of it. We have to learn to live in harmony despite the fact we can’t always agree. I think Atheists of the older, thoughtful sort are more likely to take a lead in this than the newer, hyperventilating sort.

LikeLike

Reply