Dawkins Tanner Lectures at Harvard

A while back Ted Davis asked if anyone was planning to see Dawkins speak
at Harvard on November 19, 20, 21. As luck would have it I was there for
the History of Science Society meeting. I attended the second lecture
and the seminar on Friday.
I found the talk and seminar immensely entertaining, in fact too
entertaining to take any extensive notes. I believe tapes will be
available at some point. Here are just a few observations.

The first talk was on "The Science of Religion". I did not get to Boston
in time to see this one, but Dawkins allegedly argued that religion is
not itself a direct evolutionary adaptation but rather is a by-product
of cognitive faculties that are not any more subject to much in the way
of selective pressure. Steven Pinker spoke about this at some length in
his commentary.

The second talk, which I did attend, was on "The Religion of Science".
Dawkins began by distinguishing "Einsteinian" religion from supernatural
religion. He granted that he shared with Einstein a sense of wonder at
the regularities and splendor of nature, and in this sense he could be
considered "religious". However, he went to great lengths to distance
himself from any linkage to supernatural religion. He went on to argue
that there are several reasons for preferring the rationality of science
to the less trustworthy aspects that distinguish religion from science
as a way of knowing. Religion typically relies at some point upon
tradition, authority and revealed texts rather than evidence and reason.
There were many interesting asides along the way. A questioner argued
that Dawkins had characterized religion too narrowly and that religious
thinking is not always as dogmatic as he portrayed it. Dawkins professed
not to understand the question which was rather unfair.

At the seminar the next day there was quite a bit of discussion on the
possibility of rational religious belief led by Yale philosopher Keith
DeRose. His ideas can be found at:

      http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47

Dawkins was predictably not very impressed by this and was more
interested in Pinker's comments on how religious ideas may act as memes
that manipulate believers who harbor these "parasitic ideas" that
survive through natural selection in an "ecology of ideas".

Sorry this is so sketchy, but I'll scan my memory more closely if anyone
has questions.

Cheers,
Jim Hofmann
Cal State Fullerton
jhofmann@fullerton.edu
Received on Wed Nov 26 13:27:46 2003