Richard Dawkins to appear on Al-Jazeera

[-TheCodeCrack-]

The Dogma of Materialism

Posted Jul 18th 2008 1:10AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Controversy, Atheism



My Las Vegas debate with Christopher Hitchens continues to attract attention and comment. If you'd like to read an account of the debate, you can do so here.

Also on Monday July 21, at 4.30 pm Eastern time, I'll be debating Richard Dawkins (yes, Richard Dawkins!) on Al-Jazeera (yes, that Al-Jazeera). This is a noteworthy development because Dawkins has so far refused to debate me. But now we're appearing together on the Riz Khan television show, which I understand has some 25 million viewers worldwide. If you want to watch Monday's debate live you can watch it here. The segment will also be posed on the web and I will link to it on this blog.

I also hope that, upon seeing for himself that I am not a Hitlerite kind of speaker, Dawkins will summon up the courage to step into the public arena with me. Like one of the atheist commenters recently said on Dawkins's own website: all the best spokesmen for unbelief have gotten a whipping from this D'Souza guy and it's now up to Dawkins to try and redeem the reputation of atheism.

Given that my thoughts are currently focused on how to deal with Dawkins, I'm going to post here on a question that seems to mystify him and many other scientific atheists. These fellows wonder: if there is reasonably good evidence for evolution--as, by the way, both Dawkins and I believe there is--why do around 50 percent of Americans refuse to accept it? The conventional wisdom among Dawkins and others is that Americans oppose evolution because they are religiously committed to a literal reading of the Book of Genesis.

But there is a much better explanation of why Americans reject evolution: the idiotic claims of leading champions of evolution who are promoting an atheist agenda. Consider Dawkins himself, rebutting the claim that there are significant "gaps" in the fossil record. Dawkins concedes that there are such gaps, but then writes this: "The gaps, far from being anoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect."

In other words, the absence of evidence for evolution is itself proof that the theory is correct! This is so bizarre that it makes one wonder what the presence of evidence might do to this theory. Would a complete fossil record without gaps be evidence against Darwinian evolution, as we hear that Dawkins and his fellow biologists "exactly" and "positively" expect that such evidence should not be present?

Dawkins finally puts his cards on the table by saying of evolution: "Even if the evidence did not favor it, it would still be the best theory available." And if Dawkins is dismissed as a crank, here is Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker making the same point. "Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."

We have here the weird spectacle of so-called scientists who are so wedded to a theory that they cannot even imagine it not to be true. This is a level of dogmatism that would embarrass any theist. Even the strongest religious believer can imagine the possibility that there is no God. So how can these self-styled champions of reason adopt so closed-minded an approach?

The short answer is given by Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, who in a 1997 essay in the New York Review of Books makes a revealing admission: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant proises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment--a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation for the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori commitment to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

And you thought I was making this stuff up! No wonder Americans are skeptical of these apostles of skepticism. They are peddling their own metaphysical dogmas in the name of science, even though few are as honest as Lewontin in admitting it.

Link

[helloheathens]

This guy sounds like an idiot, so I cant wait till Dawkins wipes the floor with him.

[Joseph Frantz]

D'Souza has not crushed his opponents. I didn't watch his debate with Hitchens, but he was destroyed by Daniel Dennett. It wasn't even close.

[plyons]

"But there is a much better explanation of why Americans reject evolution: the idiotic claims of leading champions of evolution who are promoting an atheist agenda. Consider Dawkins himself, rebutting the claim that there are significant "gaps" in the fossil record. Dawkins concedes that there are such gaps, but then writes this: "The gaps, far from being anoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect.""

Does this twit know what a fossil is? Or even how they form? I could spend time refuting (after I'd stopped laughing) all his points, but life's too short. Bring it on prof. this guy couldn't have beaten anyone in an argument. Surely? Sounds like hype to me.
On a different tack. Why has RD backed out of the agreement with Gould not to debate creationists?

[Simmons]

I am disappointed that Dawkins agreed to this debate. This will only further provide D'Souza with the undeserved attention and air of respectability that he desperately craves.

How can you possibly expect to have a reasonable discussion with someone as loud, obnoxious and ignorant as D'Souza? It's easy to "lose" a debate against someone who sticks their fingers in their hears and shouts "I can't hear you!"

[helloheathens]

I am disappointed that Dawkins agreed to this debate. This will only further provide D'Souza with the undeserved attention and air of respectability that he desperately craves.

How can you possibly expect to have a reasonable discussion with someone as loud, obnoxious and ignorant as D'Souza? It's easy to "lose" a debate against someone who sticks their fingers in their hears and shouts "I can't hear you!"

So do you believe that is why Dawkins has not agreed to a debate with this guy hitherto? because he didnt want to give him the respect?

[Szymanowski]

But there is a much better explanation of why Americans reject evolution: the idiotic claims of leading champions of evolution who are promoting an atheist agenda. Consider Dawkins himself, rebutting the claim that there are significant "gaps" in the fossil record. Dawkins concedes that there are such gaps, but then writes this: "The gaps, far from being anoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect."

In other words, the absence of evidence for evolution is itself proof that the theory is correct! This is so bizarre that it makes one wonder what the presence of evidence might do to this theory. Would a complete fossil record without gaps be evidence against Darwinian evolution, as we hear that Dawkins and his fellow biologists "exactly" and "positively" expect that such evidence should not be present?

This is going to be funny...

Just to be absolutely clear, in case Dinesh is reading this:

a complete fossil record without gaps

THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE. IT'S A NONSENSICAL CONCEPT.

If you don't believe me, try writing out a complete sequential list of numbers without gaps.

That is, not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, because there are 9 gaps in that list.
And not 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5, 9, 9.5, 10, because that's 18 gaps.
etc...

A 'gap' is an interesting area of study in which one can work out likely paths of evolutionary development. One does not expect fossils to form from dead animals except in exceptional circumstances; 'gaps' in the fossil record do not (and cannot) provide any challenge for evolutionary theory. A number of high profile 'gaps' have been filled with fossils that more or less exactly match predictions (ah yes, that's what science does, it makes predictions and tests them...).

So what, exactly, was your problem?

Oh, and I understood this when I was twelve, which is not at all exceptional since children tend to be interested in dinosaurs, etc, and this was probably explained in one small paragraph on a plate at the Science Museum.

Please, if you're going to have a 'debate' with an extremely well-respected and experienced scientist, put a little more effort into thinking about your arguments.

[GoodLittleAtheist]

I am disappointed that Dawkins agreed to this debate. This will only further provide D'Souza with the undeserved attention and air of respectability that he desperately craves.

I think it may be, perhaps, a 'debate' in D'Souza mind. It seems to me like they both just happened to be booked on the same show for a particular segment. Hard to say as all there is here is D'Souza's take on it.

[Lisa Bauer]

Is this a joke?

Edit: I suppose not. Riz Khan originally worked for CNN and has had a lot of public figures on his show, such as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky (always a big favorite among Muslims for his views on the Palestinian/Israeli issue -- though emphatically NOT for his religious views!). I suppose there's no reason why Dawkins couldn't put in a (remote) appearance.

[Simmons]

So do you believe that is why Dawkins has not agreed to a debate with this guy hitherto? because he didnt want to give him the respect?

As far as I can tell (and he wrote about it), Dawkins does not debate creationists on the basis that it serves to dignify their views and provide them with undeserved respectability and attention. Although evolution is not the topic of the D'Souza debate, I would have hoped that Dawkins would refuse for the same reason he refuses to debate creationists.

I don't usually come right out and say "X is an idiot." I don't "hate" creationists or even madmen like Fred Phelps, nor do I think that these people are necessarily unintelligent or otherwise impaired - usually I take the position that they are otherwise innocent hosts of a viral belief-set. There are plenty of people I can respect despite their different beliefs, but D'Souza is definitely an exception.

[Armchair]

This is from the Aljazeera site:

Riz Khan
Interactive show letting viewers directly question world leaders, news-makers and celebrities, addressing issues impacting lives around the globe.

Doesn't sound like a 'debate' to me at all.

[Armchair]

Just as an addendum, you can watch D'Souza make a fool of himself live by going to http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/ on Monday evening.

[justwondering]

Oh al-jazeera even! Now it will be interesting to see if they have an interpreter who won't pull a porkie and misrepresent Dawkins with clever editing.

[ashley]

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant proises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment--a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation for the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori commitment to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

EvoWiki: Lewontin on Materialism

Stooping to the level of using creationist quotemines now, are we Dinesh?

[longfun]

The Dogma of Materialism

Posted Jul 18th 2008 1:10AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Controversy, Atheism

Dawkins finally puts his cards on the table by saying of evolution: "Even if the evidence did not favor it, it would still be the best theory available." And if Dawkins is dismissed as a crank, here is Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker making the same point. "Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."

We have here the weird spectacle of so-called scientists who are so wedded to a theory that they cannot even imagine it not to be true. This is a level of dogmatism that would embarrass any theist. Even the strongest religious believer can imagine the possibility that there is no God. So how can these self-styled champions of reason adopt so closed-minded an approach?

The short answer is given by Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, who in a 1997 essay in the New York Review of Books makes a revealing admission: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant proises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment--a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation for the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori commitment to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

This man is not even close, it is all about probability or chance calculation, and in the mean time you leave the definitive answer on in this case "evolution" open, the definitive answer is even as a definitive always relative too available fact.
“Probability” simply calculates and gives the possibility to take sides; it does not mean you know the answer or that you are right.
If some people can't grasp this, than this becomes their problem not that of the atheist he does not have to wait for a definitive agreement from religious people, they are living the delusion, not the other way around.

[Richard Dawkins]

As you might expect of D'Souza, he seems to have invented this "debate" out of thin air. The fact is that I am appearing on Al Jazeera this coming Monday, interviewed by Riz Khan. I have long admired Mr Khan, and indeed the whole Al Jazeera English Language Service, which has been rightly described as a class act. D'Souza was never mentioned. As soon as I read his boastful posting, reproduced on our website, I got in touch with the Al Jazeera producer Zeresnaey Abraha who told me the truth: D'Souza happens to be on Al Jazeera the same evening, at a different time. That's what D'Souza means by a "debate". It reminds me of Shmuel Boteach giving a speech in the same session of a Toronto conference as me, and claiming it was a "debate" between the two of us. These people really seem to love crowing about "debates" and in this case it seems to be pure wishful thinking that has led him to invent one.

Richard

[plastictowel]

"god"damnit I was looking forward to some intellectual ass kicking by you professor.
Oh well, I know I'll tune in anyway.

[Doctor Dee]

D'Souza happens to be on Al Jazeera the same evening, at a different time. That's what D'Souza means by a "debate". It reminds me of Shmuel Boteach giving a speech in the same session of a Toronto conference as me, and claiming it was a "debate" between the two of us. These people really seem to love crowing about "debates" and in this case it seems to be pure wishful thinking that has led him to invent one.

Richard

Ah, so the apologists have begun lying about events before they've even happened. Soon they'll begin lying about events before they've been conceived, and they'll have collected the whole set.

[kiki5711]

I was wondering from the start if it was true anyway. I had expected Richard to say something about it first in the forum or at least announced on the front and when I didn't see it, I was like, hmmmm??

[-TheCodeCrack-]

I put a question mark in the title of this topic.

Can someone please think of a more accurate title ASAP?

I don’t like this title if Dinesh is being misleading, which obviously he is. Inventing things again, tish tish Dinesh.

Hurry up though because I have to go to bed soon, in fact, because of this, I give permission to any moderator and/or admin to alter the name of this topic as they see fit.

[-TheCodeCrack-]

Thanks Mods.

I’ve learnt one very important lesson today, don’t trust Dinesh!

[Richard Dawkins]

Re: Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D’Souza on Al-Jazeera?
by -TheCodeCrack- on Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:18 pm

I put a question mark in the title of this topic.

Can someone please think of a more accurate title ASAP?

Josh has already changed the title. Thank you Josh.
Richard

[Gallstones]

I don't get Al-Jazeera English.
I really do wish I did though. I'd like the option of checking in and watching it once in awhile, vs the preponderance of crap pseudo-news we otherwise get.

So, D'Souza's claims are a complete misrepresentation of the facts--ie he's lying? There is no risk of a set up here?

[orpheus]

I just went to Dinesh D'Souza's blog and added a comment with a link to Richard's post in this thread. I hope that was okay to do; I thought it needed to be said.

There doesn't seem to be a link to it, but mine is comment #54 if anyone is interested.

[Simmons]

Looks like you can't expect any form of honesty from D'Souza, even in something as simple as a blog posting. What scum.