The Mystery of the Unbelievers

It looks like Richard Dawkins will be promoting himself in an upcoming Gnu propaganda film:

Yet there is a mystery about this film.  While it would be interesting to find out who produced this film and who gets the profits, I have in mind something even more mysterious – of all the atheists out there, why is Dawkins teamed up with Lawrence Krauss?  If you watch the trailer, you’ll see both of them introduced as The Dynamic Duo of Science.  So if Dawkins is Batman, why is Krauss Robin?

To grasp the mystery, simply check below the fold.

Back in 2005, Lawrence Krauss wrote an open letter to the Pope and he was able to get  Francisco Ayala, a religious scientist, along with Ken Miller, a Catholic, to co-sign the letter.  So what did Krauss write?

At the same time, he rightly recognized that the spiritual significance that one draws from the scientific observations and theory lie outside of the scientific theories themselves.  In this sense, claiming that evolution definitely implies a lack of divinity, and/or divine purpose in nature is as much an affront to science as it is to the Church.

What’s this?  Claiming that evolution definitely implies a lack of divinity, and/or divine purpose in nature is an affront to science?  Er, that’s what the other member of The Dynamic Duo of Science claims.

Krauss also wrote this to the Pope:

 Scientists have been pleased to see a convergence between the views of the Catholic Church and the scientific community on these issues, in particular on the compatibility between the results of scientific investigation and Church theology.

Holy Cow, Batman, Dawkins himself has told us just the opposite.  What’s going on here?

Luckily, Krauss explains his letter and intentions and it turns out he is an accomodationist!

My letter to the Pope was actually the second round. The first piece I wrote caused my wife to say I totally sold out. That piece was for the Times, arguing that science and religion were compatible. (emphasis added)

Take that, Jerry Coyne and Victor Stenger!  Not only did Dawkins, the award winning, renowned evolutionary biologist pass over you guys for a role in his movie, but the other member of the Dynamic Duo said you guys are just plain wrong with your incompatibility assertions.  And there’s more:

Evolutionary biology exists, it happened, and it describes the universe. Whether you take it to mean, as Richard Dawkins might, that there is no God, or, as two religious biologists that I got to sign on my letter to Pope Benedict — that there is a God — it’s up to you.

Just what I have been saying on this blog.  Atheism is not some scientific result or finding.  It is nothing more than a personal opinion.  Dawkins says there is no God and two religious biologists say otherwise.  And Krauss is entirely correct in noting that science cannot resolve the disagreement.

And:

but the lack of evidence for design doesn’t mean that the world wasn’t designed, or that there’s no purpose in the universe. Whether you believe that, again, just like LeMaitre, is a philosophical. I tend to see no evidence for design and see no reason that the universe is designed, but that’s a personal view.

But I do worry about scientists who take this one step further and say, because there’s no evidence for design there was no design, because that is a non-scientific statement. And the minute you’re making it, you’re getting on the same ground, the same water, as the intelligent design advocates — who are trying to misrepresent science. So we have to be very careful about the fact that science has limits.

Yes – “no design” is a personal view.  Someone needs to tell that to Dawkins.  As for worrying about scientists who take this one step further and say, because there’s no evidence for design there was no design, that’s Dawkins.  And Coyne.  And Myers.  And Stenger.  And yes, Dawkins, Coyne, Myers, and Stenger all “are trying to misrepresent science.”

Robin even has some words for Batman:

That’s the point that I tried to explain to Richard Dawkins, when we were up in Buffalo together at a meeting. Dawkins  and I hate to put words in his mouth, but we discussed this) gave a talk in which he said something to the effect that religion is bad science. That’s a disastrous thing to say. I totally disagree with it, because it exactly plays into the hands of those people who want to suggest that religion is somehow scientific.

Very good.  Yes, Dawkins does say disastrous things and I am glad to hear Robin “totally disagrees” with Batman.  In fact:

I believe that it’s vitally important, and this is where I disagree with Dawkins as well — and maybe Dennett a little bit — it is vitally important not to needlessly offend certain religious sensibilities in one’s writing.

Good, but we know Dawkins does NOT think this is vitally important.  In fact, Dawkins stood before a large crowd of atheists and encouraged them to mock and ridicule religious people.

But I came away from this saying that we should respect people of faith who are honest about the faith, and who try and accommodate, obviously, what we know about the world.

Did you hear that Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Coyne?  You two need to “respect people of faith who are honest about the faith, and who try and accommodate, obviously, what we know about the world.”

So one member of the Dynamic Duo, who co-stars with Dawkins in the upcoming atheist propaganda film thinks Coyne is all wrong about his signature incompatibility argument and Dawkins is dangerously wrong for misrepresenting science.  One has to wonder if Chris Mooney is jealous that Krauss got to be Robin.

But something seems wrong.  That trailer shows no hint of a movie where Dawkins and Krauss are opposed to each other.  What’s going on?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in New Atheism, Richard Dawkins and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Mystery of the Unbelievers

  1. TFBW says:

    Has Dawkins anointed a successor? An accommodationist successor? Krauss must certainly have oodles of charisma for Dawkins to like him despite that. Or has Krauss renounced is accommodationist ways?

  2. eveysolara says:

    My speculation but perhaps also, obviously , Robin can explain he has somewhat of an explanation as to how the universe can come from nothing. Which is a question he gets a lot. In the simplest form, when anti-matter meets matter it becomes nothing, now reverse it and there you go.

  3. Crude says:

    My speculation but perhaps also, obviously , Robin can explain he has somewhat of an explanation as to how the universe can come from nothing. Which is a question he gets a lot.

    No, he has no such explanation. He can explain how you get something from something. He got hammered for seeming to suggest he actually did have such an answer, and ultimately backed off by saying that the title was meant to be provocative, but that he doesn’t answer the actual (philosophical) question mentioned on the cover of his book.

    The result was that Dawkins, who was presenting the book as having eradicated God from cosmology on that front, ended up looking like an ass due to his contribution to the book. And he already looked a bit odd, since he previously held up Hawking’s book as the book that killed God in cosmology – but Hawking was endorsing M-theory, and Krauss is a string theory skeptic.

  4. eveysolara says:

    I’m not qualified to judge either way, many point was that if you’re going to skip around the world proclaiming gods don’t exist, have your bases covered, which is why batman has grown rather fond of robin.

  5. eveysolara says:

    many =my

  6. Bilbo says:

    i before e except after c

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s