>Does anyone know if Dawkins ever made a quote (in his book or in public
>statement) to the effect that evolution disproves God, or that the
>universe is all there is (like Sagan did), or something similar?
>
>Thanks!
>Wendee
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~ Wendee Holtcamp -- wendee@greendzn.com ~~
> ~~ Environment/Travel/Science Writer ~~ www.greendzn.com ~~
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece
> of the continent, a part of the main. -- John Donne
Wendee,
You may already be familiar with the web site entitled "World of
Dawkins" <http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/>. This site has a lot of
information about Dawkin's quotes and ideas. Specifically look up his
quotes regarding God/religion
at <http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/quotes.htm >. Quotes are taken from
several books, such as "Blind Watchmaker" and "Selfish Gene".
There is an excerpt about a lecture regarding the existance (or
improbability) of God at
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/religion.htm
that can be summarized as saying that the "God hypothesis" is superfluous
and doesn't really explain anything. Some of it is quoted below. Dawkins
is making a strong case for agnosticism, if not athiesm. He obviously
feels that the universe is all that there is, and there is no supernatural
realm.
Personally (as a Christian) when I read quotes like these, I feel that
faith is needed because we cannot always expect to find physical evidence
to positively support what we believe. Jesus says in John 20:29 "blessed
are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Regards,
Dale Stalnaker
>Improbabilities
>
>I want to end by returning to science. It is often said, mainly by the
>"no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the
>existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is
>best to keep an open mind and be agnostic.
>
>At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak
>sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out,
>because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies.
>There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence
>for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be
>agnostic with respect to fairies?
>
>The trouble with the agnostic argument is that it can be applied to
>anything. There is an infinite number of hypothetical beliefs we could
>hold which we can't positively disprove. On the whole, people don't
>believe in most of them, such as fairies, unicorns, dragons, Father
>Christmas, and so on. But on the whole they do believe in a creator God,
>together with whatever particular baggage goes with the religion of their
>parents.
>
>I suspect the reason is that most people, though not belonging to the
>"know-nothing" party, nevertheless have a residue of feeling that
>Darwinian evolution isn't quite big enough to explain everything about
>life. All I can say as a biologist is that the feeling disappears
>progressively the more you read about and study what is known about life
>and evolution.
>
>I want to add one thing more. The more you understand the significance of
>evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and
>towards atheism. Complex, statistically improbable things are by their
>nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things.
>
>The great beauty of Darwin's theory of evolution is that it explains how
>complex, difficult to understand things could have arisen step by
>plausible step, from simple, easy to understand beginnings. We start our
>explanation from almost infinitely simple beginnings: pure hydrogen and a
>huge amount of energy. Our scientific, Darwinian explanations carry us
>through a series of well-understood gradual steps to all the spectacular
>beauty and complexity of life.
>
>The alternative hypothesis, that it was all started by a supernatural
>creator, is not only superfluous, it is also highly improbable. It falls
>foul of the very argument that was originally put forward in its favour.
>This is because any God worthy of the name must have been a being of
>colossal intelligence, a supermind, an entity of extremely low
>probability--a very improbable being indeed.
>
>Even if the postulation of such an entity explained anything (and we don't
>need it to), it still wouldn't help because it raises a bigger mystery
>than it solves.
>
>Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose
>out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile
>explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to
>explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that. We
>cannot prove that there is no God, but we can safely conclude the He is
>very, very improbable indeed.
----------------------------------------------
Dale K. Stalnaker
NASA/Glenn Research Center
Power & Propulsion Office
dale.k.stalnaker@grc.nasa.gov
PHONE: (216) 433-5399
FAX: (216) 433-2995
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 12:54:06 EDT