Joined: May 2006
|Hmm. I think your conceptualization of Dawkins' latest effort makes sense, but do we really know if this was the intent and specific strategy? |
I doubt it that it was his intent and specific strategy, at least with respect to the creationism wars themselves. However, Dawkins may very be aware of specific strategies by some groups (notably, some environmental groups) to create outlier organizations which tend to legitimize the groups previously considered to be "radical". He may himself be trying to be one of those outliers for atheism.
It's not for me to know his mind, though, and I tend to take him at face value (since it's easier)--that apparently he tries to use reason on those who do not use reason very well, especially where religion is concerned. He knows the problem with that approach, but he seems not able to prevent himself from using tactics that do not directly work on most people.
But I value his approach as bait for the promoters of the "new science" of Paleyism, which was all that I meant in my earlier post. I have never thought that most of us ought to be like Dawkins, or even that we should all be non-religious. However, the ID-type of religionists will label all of us as intolerant materialists without the slightest bit of evidence, which is why it is so welcome to me to have someone around who positions himself as being fairly intolerant of religion, like Dawkins (for instance, I could not imagine the government stepping in between parents and children in the matter of religion as Dawkins suggests). It becomes all the harder to project the lie that we're simply trying to destroy religion when we act so differently from the one who (apparently, at least) really is out to destroy religion, rather than to try to moderate religion via reason and science as I would like to do.
I've always thought it was counter-productive for the rest of us to try to inhibit PZ Myers, Dawkins, and Dennett, since if we succeeded in shutting them up the only non-theists to paint as intolerant of religion would be us. And however absurd that accusation is, in the absence of any well-known militant atheists such a claim would be plausible enough to many naive individuals.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy