Terry Gross interviews Richard Dawkins on his bestseller “The God Delusion.” I have long been a fan of Dawkins’ “The Ancestor’s Tale” even as I am still in the process of reading; it’s a wicked-complicated but thoroughly enjoyable yarn.
I understand where Dawkins is coming from in his assertion that religion and science really are about the same thing. Clearly at least to me, the question of the origins of life have a single correct answer. It’s been wonderfully harmonious to, for a time, compartmentalize the beliefs of religion and the assertions of science as being true in their own realms; it’s highly unlikely that reflects the truth. That’s not to say that God and science cannot coexist, just that neither exists in a vacuum.
Dawkins lays waste to rumors of Einstein’s religious leanings. Conversely, we know that Darwin had come from a place of studying theology before the HMS Beagle. I maintain that neither of those facts has any bearing on either the discussion at hand or the works of each man. And I continue to be slightly uncomfortable with Dawkins’ style: I’m irritated that while he asserts the truth of science, a truth mitigated by empirical evidence and unbiased observations, he is dramatic and condescending. I do not believe this advances his message, which I think otherwise has great merit.
I want to be excited about his message; I believe it’s a compelling argument and important discussion. Time and again, however, I watch his lectures and hear his interviews and am turned off by the often apparent spiteful agenda. This interview on NPR has Dawkins in one of his more diplomatic moods. It’s an enjoyable overview of ‘The God Delusion’.
The link directs to NPR where you can also hear part II of the discussion, an interview with geneticist and evangelical Christian, Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Project.
Richard Dawkins Explains ‘The God Delusion’ here.
evolution
I think Darwin’s background in Cambridge and his theologcal training did have a bearing on later events: he was acutely aware of the power and patronage of the Anglican scientific establishment and it was almost certainly a factor in his decision not to pubish in the 1840s. Gould says his delay wass because he wa scared, van Wyhe at Cambride aserted lat week that it was because he was too busy. I suspect that both were factors, but the ASnglicans were the scientifi establishment in Britain in the mid 19th century and one of the side effects of Darwin’s work was to help secular scientists wrest science from the grasp of the church.
That’s interesting background – I had thought he was eventually compelled to publish because of the emerging work of Alfred Wallace, but your info explains why he was dragging his feet in the first place.
Sorry about the terrible English on my previous comment: the cat used my laptop keyboard as a claw sharpening post and it hasn’t been quite the same since. You’re right: Wallace’s letter was the goad that made him finally publish. I also get the impression that he had become obsessed about piling up evidence and arguments to forestall the inevitable critics, and I think that having been rushed into print the chapter ‘difficulties on theory’ was the result.