How Richard Dawkins Communicates Evolution (Surprise, It's Not the Same Thing as Atheism)

You would be forgiven for not knowing what goes on daily in the science-centered blogosphere--but a recent fracas there casts a lot of light on the ongoing (if not unending) battle over the relationship between science, religion, and atheism.

It all started like this: Richard Dawkins, the author of the million-selling The God Delusion and the top dog of the so-called "New Atheist" movement, has a new book out on evolution entitled The Greatest Show on Earth. In the course of promoting it, he has been doing media interviews; and in one of them for Newsweek, Dawkins was quoted making statements that seemed to suggest a more moderate stance on the subject of science and religion than he is otherwise known for [italics added]:

Are those incompatible positions: to believe in God and to believe in evolution? No, I don't think they're incompatible if only because there are many intelligent evolutionary scientists who also believe in God--to name only Francis Collins [the geneticist and Christian believer recently chosen to head the National Institutes of Health] as an outstanding example. So it clearly is possible to be both. This book more or less begins by accepting that there is that compatibility. The God Delusion did make a case against that compatibility in my own mind.

It is a tenet among Dawkins' many followers that science and faith are not really "compatible" in the sense of being ways of thinking that go together logically or consistently; so this statement appeared noteworthy. So, for that matter, did Dawkins' apparent defense of Francis Collins--who has been regularly criticized by the "New Atheists," despite his strong scientific credentials.

Granted, it's also possible Dawkins was misquoted, or not allowed to provide enough nuance in the interview. But there was more [italics added]:

I wonder whether you might be more successful in your arguments if you didn't convey irritation and a sense that the people who believe in God are not as smart as you are. I think there is a certain justified irritation with young-earth creationists who believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old. Those are the people that I'm really talking about. I do sometimes accuse people of ignorance, but that is not intended to be an insult. I'm ignorant of lots of things. Ignorance is something that can be remedied by education. And that's what I'm trying to do.

Actually, in The God Delusion Dawkins certainly made it appear as though he thought religious folks were somehow mentally lacking. For example, in the book he casts aspersion on "the weakness of the religious mind."

And the quotation above also suggests yet another divergence from The God Delusion. In that book, Dawkins denounced the "Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists"--those, like the prominent Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller, who defend the teaching of good science in schools but nevertheless go easy on religion, or are themselves personally religious. Now, however, it doesn't appear as though these moderates are such a problem in Dawkins' mind--instead, it's the older enemies, the creationists and "intelligent design" theorists, who matter (foes the "Neville Chamberlains" have done much to help combat).

Once again, it's important to note that Dawkins might have been misquoted by Newsweek, or not permitted to provide enough nuance about his views in the interview--but that's what he was quoted as saying.

I and another blogger, Joshua Rosenau, understandably jumped on this, because the remarks seemed contrary to other things Dawkins and his various followers have said. Based on these words quoted in Newsweek, we wondered whether Dawkins might be changing his views and becoming more of an "accommodationist" on the subject of science and religion. (I also suggested--as I do again above--the possibility that he might have been misquoted.)

Predictably, Dawkins' many followers and defenders were up in arms about this, and claimed the great science popularizer was being misrepresented. That, however, seems rather over-the-top. We're well aware what Dawkins is on record as having said and written in The God Delusion, which is after all a text that, love it or hate it, has been incredibly influential. The point is that in light of what he wrote there, his more recent words suggested the possibility of some intellectual movement, or at least a different emphasis. That's no small matter given the way some in the American scientific and atheist community have been radicalized and inspired into a new combativeness towards religion lately, in significant part thanks to Dawkins.

But here's where the story gets really interesting: Dawkins responded strongly to the comments about his Newsweek interview, and to the suggestion that he might be changing his views. He did not engage in any discernible distancing from what he'd been quoted as saying, but he also rejected the idea of a shift in position:

How utterly ridiculous. All I was saying is that it is possible for a human mind to accommodate both evolution and religion because F. Collins's mind seems to manage the feat (along with lots of vicars and bishops and rabbis). I also needed to make the point that TGSOE [The Greatest Show on Earth] is not the same book as TGD [The God Delusion] because many interviewers who are supposed to be interviewing me about TGSOE have simply ignored it and gone right back to assuming that it is the same book as TGD.

I sympathize with politicians who have to watch every syllable they utter for fear it will be misused by somebody with an agenda.

If Dawkins isn't really changing his views, that's perfectly fine, and it's nice to have the clarification. We all know that brief interview snippets aren't always fully representative of a person's positions. Still, the Newsweek quotations remain pretty striking for someone who has read The God Delusion, and it would be nice to have further clarification on some of the points raised above.

But what's truly noteworthy is where Dawkins hints as to how this all happened-e.g., he's got an evolution book to sell now, and he's sick of people thinking it's an atheism book, so he's trying to steer interviewers away from that, and seems frankly annoyed that they don't get the difference:

I also needed to make the point that TGSOE [The Greatest Show on Earth] is not the same book as TGD [The God Delusion] because many interviewers who are supposed to be interviewing me about TGSOE have simply ignored it and gone right back to assuming that it is the same book as TGD.

In other words, Dawkins appears to be grappling with a communication problem. Linking together atheist advocacy and the defense of evolution, as he has done so prominently, poses a pretty big problem when you hit the US media with a new book on the latter. After writing a million-selling atheist "consciousness-raiser" and "come-out-of-the-closet" book, is it at all surprising that Dawkins now finds his evolution book being prominently linked to atheism in the media mind?

In this context, perhaps what's really going on is that Dawkins would like to promote his new book without too much religion-bashing attached to it. And given what he's now trying to achieve--to communicate about the science of evolution, which is a very important objective--that's a very wise thing to do. If Dawkins wants to change minds about evolution, and break down barriers, it makes a heck of a lot of sense to move to the center on religion, and not alienate religious believers or the U.S. media any more than he has to.

Dawkins' followers may complain that the master is being misrepresented, but the truth is that Richard Dawkins may be something else: a savvy, adaptable communicator.

 

Follow Chris Mooney on Twitter: www.twitter.com/UnscientAmerica

Comments

[Write4U]

Interesting question about evolution.
If God's Laws are immutable, then it follows that human evolution depends on the mingling of female DNA with male DNA (to create variety). The offspring may be male or female but contains DNA from both parents. It is also true that in the absence of male DNA the offspring can never be male. It is possible for a female to have offspring, but it is always female and a clone of the mother. A rare species of salamander has this ability, but this species is at an evolutionary standstill.
Question: If Mary was a virgin (no male DNA) when she conceived of Jesus, Jesus would have had to be a female clone of Mary???

[research]

Hawkins is asking the wrong question.

What is it that so many people find in religion?

Is there a core phenomenon that all the religions are interpreting?

Might it be the collective consciousness?

Neural Network theory posits a factorial increase in intelligence with the number of neurons.

Further, multiple neural networks connected even with relativity low bandwidth, act as one larger neural network.

Thus a group of people also constitute a single huge mind.

The worlds population constitute a mind beyond comprehension, and capable of "Memorizing" people in the "afterlife" .

God is the idealization of the best the collective consciousness can be.

Within this context, afterlife, sin, praying, god all makes sense.

[krypton86]

...and by Hawkins, you mean Dawkins, correct?

Anyway, you make a number of claims in your comment which do not necessarily logically follow one after the other.

- "multiple neural networks connected even with relativity low bandwidth act as one larger neural network. Thus a group of people also constitute a single huge mind."

While this may be anecdotally true, it can't be literally true unless we're able to define the idea of "bandwidth" in relation to the epistemological relation between (at least) two people (historically, this has been a monumental unsolved problem in philosophy). This fundamental issue must be addressed before you can make any further claim about collective consciousness. I therefore reject the claims which follow your argument about groups of people constituting a "hive mind" of sorts, because I don't see any strong evidence that individuals act as independent nodes of a larger neural network, at least not in the sense that I understand neural networks. Perhaps you can demonstrate why I'm mistaken with further clarification?

[research]

Dawkins, old eyes.

there have been several measurements made of the "bandwidth" of various human modes of communication, such as speech, about 2-20 kbytes/sec, vision, 1-10 Megabytes/sec, you can also look at the neural signal bandwidth of the nose, touch and taste.

"groups of people constituting a "hive mind" of sorts, because I don't see any strong evidence that individuals act as independent nodes of a larger neural network"

You don't count all the social groups that people have created, from the marriages, churches, companies, countries, world organizations as "hive" activity?

You don't see rumors, panics, fads, social standards, fashions, cultures as collective manifestations?

[Hirnlego]

Makes no sense at all. If there is something called a "collective consciousness" then its the moral zeitgeist which constantly moves on. This is discussed in the God Delusion.

On why we believe..this should be interesting for you, plenty to dig into:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

[research]

"moral which constantly moves on"

The usa now tortures, wages war for profit and has a plutocracy for sale to the highest bidder, sound like the moral zeitgeist has move on for quite a ways.

People have intrinsic morality for the most part, Empathy. That's why immoral groups become lord the flies situations, a reversion to primitive instinct.

How do you teach the proper relationship with community and society? With good "moral" teaching often a religion.

"god" is the idealized complete collective entity, and folks have different ideas about what that should be. cultural Personalities.

[worldlyhick]

Science is the way of looking at the world that is useful to explain and maybe use mechanisms of natural phenomena in a way that may be useful to those of us who live in the here and now. When you start bringing a Supreme Being into the "box of tools" that is science, what purpose is that going to serve?

The issue of God has no place in a scientific questioning. What possible use could "Well, God did it" have in building a workable, useful theory of the universe?

If scientists want to worship their God that doesn't prevent them from being thorough in their research and shouldn't prevent them from being objective. If it does, they should not be scientists.

[shallyv]

There's no god (made in man's image really) pulling any strings or punishing or rewarding anyone. There's only the Supreme Consciousness, which is what Jesus referred to when he said God is a Spirit. That Consciousness is in all living creatures, whether animal, bird, insect, bacteria, whatever! Evoltion is just Consciousmess manifesting itself however, whenever, in whatever!
We have free will but with free will comes consequences. Those consequences are what we experience, whether personally desirable or undesirable. But it's not the experience that matters but how we CHOOSE to react to the experience. All, each of us, truly possesses are our memories, out labour and our power to CHOOSE. If there's anything else, please let me know. I'd really appreciate it!

[shallyv]

The Supreme Consciousness (Jesus' God, a Spirit, which is NOT the Jewish tribal man-made god, Jehovah) has always existed and will always exist regardless of any expansions or contractions of the material universe!

[JShankel]

And you know this...how? Or what evidence is there in support of this conjecture?

[krypton86]

You sure do like exclamation points. And Jesus. I guess combining the two for you must feel like Oscar the Grouch feels when he's rolling in garbage and insulting someone at the same time. I'll bet that's awesome. For Oscar, that is.

[valkyrie607]

And therefore has no need to meddle in the mundane material affairs of science. Leave evolution alone, religionistas!

[SionShankel]

Wait so your idea of god exists but not the Jewish one? That is phony or man made...but yours is not man made?

[shallyv]

The physicists tell us that there was a Big Bang when an infinitessimally small 'speck' (atom, whatever) suddenly exploded or expanded to create this universe, and that this universe is accelerating in its expansion until there will be, some time in the future, billions of years from now, a Big Crunch when it will contract and be once more infinitessimally small again. Then there could possibly be another expansion again. Therefore, there could have been expansions (and contractions) prior to the one that created this universe.

Don't we have to take this all in faith? WHO was there to observe this?

There are only two entities in the universe! The material universe, which, naturally, includes our bodies (brains intact), and Consciousness. There can be no material world without a Consciousness of it! There can be no Consciousness without the material world to be consciousness of.

[JShankel]

Best theory right now is that there is no Big Crunch coming. The expansion of the universe is accelerating, not decelerating. But yes, there could have been many big bangs and crunches before our universe was formed. We have no direct evidence of this, but it is a popular hypothesis.

And no, we don't have to take this on faith. Again, no one is saying you MUST BELIEVE any of this. This is the best explanation we have given the evidence we have seen. We very well could all be quite wrong about it.

Faith is belief in something regardless of evidence. Science doesn't ask you to believe anything. It just suggests conclusions based on data and stated assumptions.

You don't have to have faith in gravity. You're stuck to the earth no matter what is in your head.

Who was there to observe it? We are. We see the evidence of it right now in the cosmic background radiation and the red shift of distant objects, which increases with distance.

You see the smoldering remains of a house, you infer that it burned down. You may be wrong, but there's no better theory until more evidence is gathered.

[tryandgetsomecommonsense]

Surprise! Dawkins is just trying to make money on his flawed beliefs ....again.

I won't waste my money on his greedy so-called science book -- because I have no doubt he doesn't answer nor address the REAL scientific questions that he can't answer.
1) there is no proof for evolution
2) evolution of one species to another has never been observed or documented
3) change within a species (mutations) NEVER add genetic information -- it's always a genetic loss. (so you can't claim anything has ever "evolved" to a higher genetic level).
4) with the rate of expansion in our universe proven - if our world was even one million years old...we would have started out so close to our sun that the earth would have burned up before any life would have been able to survive.
There are many more....which I'm sure Dawkins doesn't bother to address....because these questions PROVE evolution is statistically and scientifically impossible. No religion or atheism necessary.

[JShankel]

1) yes there is, as much "proof" as any other scientific theory

2) yes there has, in ring evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

3) this is a meaningless statement. Mutations are the transformation of one piece of information into another. Natural (or artificial) selection filters useful mutations from harmful ones. It is the selection process that creates the increase information.

4) the expansion of the universe is a macroscopic phenomenon which only affects the distances between large clusters of galaxies. Universal expansion does not apply to the solar system or even to our own galaxy as the expanding force is greatly overwhelmed by gravity in these situations.

[krypton86]

I commend you for this, JShankel, but I doubt this will do any good. The one common theme of every conversation that I've ever had with a YEC is their complete imperviousness to information that they don't like. The truth value of what you say to them couldn't matter less. If you demonstrate that what they say is simply not true, Ad hominem and appeal to authority won't be far behind their failed arguments.

[Katiebar]

In your point #3 above, you use the term "selection". i am curious as to what you attribute the selection process to? In other words, I assume a "selection" requires a "selector". What or whom do you see as the selector in this process?

[Katiebar]

The example of Ring evolution is very weak at best, though interesting The real question is not how two species of gulls found love, but how the fish became the gull.

[danielmoulton]

As I write I am currently half way through Richard Dawkins' new book and he has answered all of your questions. The REAL question that needs to be answered is why you do not want to read it? Afraid you might learn something? Or, perhaps, that if you do read it you wont be able to regergitate the same old misconseptions and falsehoods apparent in you comment.

[darthmaul]

Try and live up to your own handle - The reason Dawkins is having so much trouble is because of people that refuse to see the overwhelming evidence for evolution. People like you. I can see why Dawkins and others are frustrated.

Our ancestors didn't have the benefit of the science, communication and overwhelming research evidence supporting evolution that we have. The fact that so many people in the US still believe in the biblical "theory" (make-believe story) is a sad indictment of our own intelligence.

[Romeover]

People ask me from time to time if I "believe in evolution".

I look at them and shake my head in bafflement.

Evolution is not something you "believe" or "don't believe". It's a theory that explains observable phenomena; it is a theory which you either understand or do not understand.

Tryandget: you obviously do not understand either the theory, or the collection of observable phenomena which the theory seeks to explain.

[Hirnlego]

"so-called science book"

so you turn to pseudo-science.

[Write4U]

God and Potential in an historical context.
The word God, to describe an unseen single precondition for Reality, is much older than
the word Potential, and has been in use for thousands of years. It is the reason why the
word God is so pervasive in our society. Even Insurance companies use the term “Acts of God”.
Actually it was even preceded by the notion of multiple Gods and even before that some higher order
animals acted in a manner which might be interpreted as defensive of an unseen force (threat).
During a monsoon, the Alpha in Chimpanze family, may run around, beat his chest and swing a stick in a display of power and warning to this unseen enemy which throws water at him and makes him wet.
By the orderly way God (prior to the word Potential) becomes manifest, it was assumed that God was
an Intelligent Entity, with purpose and intent and was defined as “God, the Creator”. Even at that time
there were different names to describe the same thing. Native Americans called it “The Great Spirit”.
During the (ongoing) development of scientific objective observation, the word Potential was invented
by the scientific objective mind, to describe the same single universal condition, using the scientific
definition of Potential as “That which may become Reality”, but without the assumption of intelligence.
Thus in strict scientific language the RELATIONSHIP of these observations may be expressed as
Potential=God and God=Potential, with the contextual qualification that Potential has no intelligence.

[retest]

So, thereby, the Transitive Property of Equality:
Potential=God
God=Potential
Potential=No intelligence
God=No intelligence

[Write4U]

yep

[krypton86]

There is no scientific definition of potential that even remotely resembles what you claim here. You are using a colloquial definition and claiming that it is a scientific one. In physics, there are different kinds of potential energy. They do not "precede reality" as they are manifestations of very real energy stored in physical systems. Your entire premise is nonsense.

[Write4U]

Websters: Potential: That which may become Reality (among other definitions as you describe)
The recognition that there is a precondition to Reality itself is a most profound concept, both spiritually and scientifically. It is a fundamental question.
If there is a precondition to reality itself, then potential is the single common denominator in the universe. Perhaps this more philosophical than scientific, but.....

[Write4U]

In Religion, the common denominator of all events, past, present, and future, is identified as God, the Creator. I assume that any reasonable person does not see God as a bearded human on a golden throne, but as the invisible force which governs universal events.
In Physics, the single common denominator of all events, past, present, and future, is “Potential”
Webster’s Dictionary defines Potential as “that which may become reality”
It follows that, while not all potential becomes reality, all reality, past, present, and future, are preceded by Potential, including the Big Bang. (a little known fact is that the science department of the Vatican (Holy See) has not disputed the Big Bang theory as it does not conflict with religious Creationist viewpoint).
But if Potential is not yet real, then what is it?
We must first look to Quantum as the basic formation and propagation of reality. Reality happens in little chunks as described in the Quantum Theory. But if each quanta is a single instant in time/space, then how does it change? What is the force that determines the next altered reality? One might argue that energy is the driving force, but energy is also delivered in quanta and is always preceded by Potential.
Can we conclude that Potential is the “medium or condition” which fills the infinitely small space between quantum events, the invisible force which governs universal events? This would in fit the definition of God the Creator, excepting Purpose and Intent.

[joanjourne]

Write4U...
I think it's a bit muddled, semantically, to ask "But if Potential is not yet real, then what is it?".
Seems to me you're confusing the meaning of the word 'potential' (with a small 'p') and the word 'Potential' (with a capital 'P') the way it's used in the scientific sense. Kind of like confusing the word 'hamlet'---meaning a small village---with Shakespeare's 'Hamlet'.
'Course, I may be wrong. Potentially.

[Write4U]

I am no linguist, but I'll try to clarify the use of capital P in my paradigm of Potential.

We use the word "real" (adjective) in many local applications, but the word Reality (noun) is a generality to identify all that is real. It identifies a physical universal condition.
Similarly, the use of the word "potential" (adjective) is applied to local conditions, including science (i.e. potential energy), which has a value relative to an action in a physical reality.

In contrast, I was trying to convey that there is a non-physical extra-universal condition, a basic metaphysical construct which is independent of space/time. This I identify as Potential (noun). It is the most general definition of the word (Websters: that which may become reality). Thus, Potential : "That" which may become Reality"
The general point here is that Reality (past, present, and future) is always preceded by Potential.

[beinghuman]

Richard Dawkins has indeed written a book about evolution and not about atheism. It should not be a very hard thing to understand that evolution and atheism are two quite different things, even though almost all atheists accept evolution as a scientific fact.
This thing does not however make evolution an property of atheists only, as it is a scientific fact that has nothing to do with ideologies.
Richard Dawkins rightly fears that the false idea of evolution being in some way connected with atheist ideology is a major obstacle in accepting it as a indisputable scientific fact, such as it nowadays already really is in the real scientific community. So he wants to make clear that these things are not connected at all, in a way some religious leaders are claiming.
A comparison will illustrate this situation: The fact that most atheist believe in the theory of Plate tectonics also does not make it an atheist dogma, it is just a scientific fact that most atheists can approve of.
Continental drift however differentiates from the evolution only in that it does not threaten age-old central religious claims of the nature of things. Religions would of course oppose also the theory of Plate tectonics if it would threaten their sacred iron-age beliefs.

[retest]

Well, actually, it does. The YECs (Young Earth Creationists): you know, the great deluge is true and the planet was created in seven days, and it's about 6,000 years old. They not only include the fundamentalist christians, but the fundamentalists of all three Abrahamic religions.

You have these Republican toadstools like Shimkus, Boehner, Rohrabacher, Barton, and everyone's favorite - Bachman (to name just a few).

[tryandgetsomecommonsense]

YEC's are the only ones that put on a blindfold and let science speak for itself.

with all of the proven flaws in dating-methods -- I can't believe anyone still thinks people believe their "millions of years" crap.

[Write4U]

Yes, and the mode of transportation in those days were dinosaurs.

[tryandgetsomecommonsense]

"accepting it as a indisputable scientific fact, such as it nowadays already really is in the real scientific community. "

excuse me.....is that why over 800 University professors -- WHO NOW HAVE TENURE -- have signed on to a paper stating they have real scientific problems with evolution...and feel science has to do more investigating before they rely on Darwin's conclusions any more....

- and do you realize how stupid your comparison of "evolution" and "plate tectonics" is...???? Wow. One [evolution] has never been observed or proven...and the other [plate tectonics] is easily observed and studied. Do you really think people are so naive to think your sloppy comparison proves anything?

[JShankel]

Tenure at which universities? How many of them have the words "heritage" in the title?

The theory of evolution is accepted pretty much universally by biologists. A few crackpots does not a scientific revolution make.

There are many disputes over the specifics, many different hypothesis about how this or that element of life evolved.

But there is no scientific theory of origins that has anything like the acceptance of evolution.

[Romeover]

The comparison of evolution and plate tectonics is not stupid. Both are theories that were developed to explain observations. Both are remarkably successful explanations.

Your statement that plate tectonics are easily observed and studied is incorrect. The mechanisms of plate tectonics are concealed far below the surface of the earth, and must be inferred from observations and measurements, just as the mechanisms of evolution are inferred from observations of animal morphology and studies of DNA.

[raker]

Catholics have been reconciling god and science forever, or at least since I went to St. Ann Margaret's many moons ago, where we learned about evolution. One of the fundamentals the nuns taught us was that science and creativity come from the minds of human beings, but it was god that enables us to think and reason, thus making it all possible, thus making god the author of it all. Something like that. And there was something about a milk bottle...

Today I'm a "new atheist," wishing never to hear another word about anyone's religious beliefs, and never to set foot inside a church. No more polite tolerance of ludicrous and harmful dogma for me. Reason is the only way to go.

[emerywood]

I wondered if Dawkins considers Buddhism, Hinduism and all other religions in this world the same
as Christianity. People outside the Western world are also very religious, although they didn't know anything about Jesus Christ or the Bible. And they don't have any idea about evolution either. To them,
religious belief is more like a tradition and the only reason many of them believe in something is
they believe they could be benefited from their belief. There is no connection or debate whatsoever
between religion and evolution in their mind. Perhaps, ignorance is really bliss and superstition
is actually religion to many.

[Liberal Angel]

Atheism is not a monolith. It is not any more unified, than theism is. Science is not something that can ever speak on the existence of anything beyond space/time, and matter/energy. It's my personal understanding that materiality, and spirituality are two sides of the same coin. There's a world of difference in the existence of God (or whatever one calls the Source of All Being), and our religious (or irreligious) views and beliefs about Him. Much the same way there are many types of governments, and views about them. They are part of a larger category, organization. It's impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. I don't like to use the verb "to exist" in reference to God, because I don't think God "exists" in the way that material creatures (or ostensibly spiritual creatures) exist. There's no way to ever box Infinity into one single thing. We don't have an existential verb that aptly fits God. Religion is something different. You can demonstrably prove or disprove some religious claims, but you can't aply that to God. Just because I don't believe there was ever a world wide flood, doesn't mean the story of it has no basis in reality. No one has all the facts, and we can't say that people have not had spiritual encounters with the Divine.

[elmerfude]

Having read all your comments, I think you have a very mature understanding of god, religion and science. I guess I come down as a pantheist also. I think Jesus was also particularly based on his statements in the Gospel of Thomas which did not make it into the Bible because they were only discovered in 1945 at Nag Hamadi.

[Liberal Angel]

I study a lot about religious thought. Especially Paul Tillich. I find that gospel to be very interesting. Even though it's not part of the Cannon, I feel it has authority. That would be a good gospel for non-believers to read, because I think it's obvious you have to look for the deeper meaning.

[ButImNotSureAboutU]

The question is that we can not say with any certainty that people have had spiritual encounters with the whatever. You can't "prove" a negative. You are making a classic logical error. If a physical person has had an "spiritual" experience that manifests itself in our physical world then we could make a determination. State the problem correctly in order to put into the proper context.

[elmerfude]

What? The world of poetry, art, literature and biographies are full of people who have had spiritual encounters! Every day the churches are full of people who have spiritual encounters. Just because you have not had them, don't assume they don't exist. They don't need to prove them to you or anyone else. Spiritual people could care less whether you make a determination. You seem to think that the logical intelligence is the only one. There are many types of human intelligence.

[Liberal Angel]

In no way am I saying that I understand what happened. I only know I experienced what I experienced. I don't it's necessary for me to explain it.

[Mach8]

"If we begin with certainties, we shall end in doubts; but if we begin with doubts, and are patient in them, we shall end in certainties." - Francis Bacon

[DevonTexas]

It's strangely ironic that those who believe in "god", make their point by arguing against science and, especially, Darwinism rather than presenting something to support their "god". The only argument against science is with scientific facts, not faith.

[Mach8]

See below.

[Liberal Angel]

The same argument can be made about atheist using science to disprove God's existence. Science can neither be used to prove nor disprove the existence of something outside the real of materiality. I don't think it can proven either way, but I also think it depends greatly on what you mean by the word "god".

[ButImNotSureAboutU]

You're wrong here, you don't "prove" a negative. What we can say is that the type of Christianity being accommodated posits "facts" from the Bible that directly contradict geology, biology, physics, astronomy and many other "material" sciences. Many moderate Christians simply overlook "facts" from the Bible and now are either in denial or simply don't understand the foundations of their religion. Those that know the story of Genesis feel that the world had to be created as described or else "original sin" doesn't happen and thus no need for the rest of the story. Dawkins and other atheists confront those that advance this literal interpretation because it is clearly in conflict with science. Where it gets messy is sorting out the rest who either ignore or stand silently as the "creationist" or "intelligent design" crowd do the talking for them. Dawkins is actually trying to wrest control of Christianity from the crazies. The Western world could end up with a theocracy that when challenged by the facts will outlaw the offending. By voicing support for the more liberal notions of spirituality, you are giving cover to the extremists. Mooney is wrong because to stand by silently is to condone. Christians, Muslims and other religions that blind themselves to the material world need to be called out. If you want to cobble together a belief system that includes a god you are going to have to do a better job than the one cobbled together by the Abrahamic religions.

[elmerfude]

Being a scientist, I don't argue against it. But there is still mystery and a numinous impulse at large in creation that cannot be apprehended by sole use of the logical/ma­thematical mind.

[ButImNotSureAboutU]

Really, what do you study? A scientist would say unknown, not enough facts and wouldn't use the word creation. This is exactly what Dawkins is talking about. Can you be disciplined in your science so that your faith doesn't intrude on your science? From your post, it appears no.

[Write4U]

Conversely, one must argue against God in religious language.

A colleague once asked me how I would reconcile the Biblical creation in 6 days, some 6000 years ago, with the current scientifically held view of 14 billion years. My answer was that it was presumptuous and vanity (a deadly sin) to assume that God's day is 24 hours. If God is a Universal God, one of God's days may well be 2+ billion years. The questioner accepted this explanation, without feeling that her basic beliefs were threatened. It was a small step toward reason.
Another question was about Adam and Eve eating from the apple and being cast out of paradise.
My reply was that this was an allegory, where they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge (acquired intelligence) and thus set us apart from the Natural world of animal instinct. Again this was accepted by the questioner without feeling his basic beliefs threatened.
A little known fact is that the scientific department of the Vatican (Holy See) has accepted the Big Bang as not incompatible with Biblical Creation.