Quoth Richard Dawkins: “I am proud to have presented the [AAI] award to Bill Maher”

“There are the handful of people there who know what a kook Dawkins is and how he is not a champion of reason by any stretch of the imagination. Then there are those who seem receptive to his anti-“Western” medicine method.”
Don’t you mean Maher? I’m not aware of Dawkins being anti-Western medicine.

Man, the pedants are fast. The post was up less than a half hour, and they’re already out. I think it was fairly obvious from the context in my addendum that I meant Maher, and in fact I fixed it before I even saw those comments. It’s fixed, OK?

I guess that’s what I get for blogging too fast.

I am proud to have presented the award to Bill Maher. I especially like the sting in the tail where he makes as if to say something concilatory about decent, moderate Muslims: They only want to be left to subjugate their women in peace (or words to that effect)
I like RD, I like most of his ideas. But reading those words make me want to slap him. I am totally disgusted. Similar remarks about Muslims can be found aplenty on any BNP/far right forum.
Richard Dawkins, you should be ashamed of yourself. F***k you, you rascist.

Y’know, in the feminist movement, the criteria for allies and association is much more strict. The only reason I mention this is that Richard Dawkins is quite fond of talking about how to better model Atheism after gay rights movements and how to better take the message out into the world using feminist tactics.

But, feminism and gay rights movements spend time discussing what it means to be an ally from the outside and what undermines efforts from the inside. I don’t really care either way about things like the AAI or their prize since I’m not particularly enamored of the idea that Atheism is a group activity. However consistency is appreciated. Either Atheism is mostly about rational thinking, or it’s mostly about being anti-establishment. Dawkins needs to sort out his priorities.

I’m with Orac on this one. The core value to uphold is science: the conviction that we can advance our understanding of the universe in which we happen to find ourselves through the application of our senses and our reason. Atheism is a byproduct of reason, as it has served us so far. It is not an end in itself.

It’s simple: evolution and atheism is Dawkins’s thing, medical quackery isn’t.  I’ve noticed this bias before even with some science bloggers.  It’s frustrating, especially to see Dawkins continuing to miss the point even after it’s been explained to him again and again.

There’s one thing I’d really like to know from any atheist/evolutionist who supports Dawkins’s position on this – if Michael Behe (say) was filmed effectively debunking (say) homeopathy, and if Orac wrote approvingly about that, and suggested that Behe be given an award for promoting science or such like, would you agree with that?  Or would you oppose it because of Behe’s anti-science approach to evolution? And if you would oppose it, please explain why this is different.   Dawkins?  Anyone?

Orac is quoting the criteria out of context to prop up his argument.

If we look at the full criteria for the award (from Wikipedia)

The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins

Notice the “and/or” part, something which Orac did not bother to tell his readers.

The Richard Dawkins Award is awarded primarily for people who promote atheism and oppose theism/religion. It is not a science or even a rationality award, but an atheist award. Bill Maher did this with this show and movie, and thus deserves the award.

The fact that he is a crazy anti scientific kook when it comes to medicine is largely irrelevant in this context, just like the fact that Penn and Teller are global warming “skeptics” or the fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a conservative (both who are previous winners of the award) is largely irrelevant when it comes to an atheist prize, even though these positions are deplorable from any scientific or rational standpoint.

The error Orac seems to be making is that he seems to be under the impression that just because you are an atheist, you agree on other issues that are at best only marginally related. This is clearly not the case, because there are millions of deeply religious Buddhists who are atheists and who can probably argue successfully against theism, yet subscribe to wide range of superstitious beliefs.

To claim that a successful atheist like Maher does not deserve an atheist reward because he anti scientific kook when it comes to medicine is like claiming that a brilliant economist should not receive an award in economy, just because he is a crazy creationist.

Orac would have had a point if the award was a rationalist award or a science award, but it is not. The entire argument is a non sequitur. Also not that the Richard Dawkins award is given out by Atheist Alliance International (AAI), not Richard Dawkins personally.

I’m a fan of Dawkins, but I agree that this was not a good call. They should have nominated Maher, awarded it to someone else and then told him the reason he didn’t get it was because of his position on vaccines. (But that video of Maher’s on the South Park fiasco was pretty funny.)

Emil Karlsson,

Your version of the selection criteria says that
“who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage”.

It seems apparent from this that the “and/or” is a separator conjunction for the sequence of writings, media, the arts, film, stage. In other words the selectee does not have to use all these media (do media include media?). Only one or more is sufficient.

The semicolons separate the criteria. Or, to give a slightly edited version:

The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions

1– raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance;

2– who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge;

3– who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy;

4– and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins

Or, to summarize, they need to raise public awareness of nontheism, advocate increased scientific knowledge, teach acceptance of nontheism, and mirror the nontheism of Dr Dawkins.

Bill Maher fails badly on number 2. It should have been a major embarrassment to AAI and certainly was for Dr Dawkins. IMHO, he should have learned his lesson and not commented on this one.

By the way, do you know if AAI is planning to change their name to Nontheist Alliance International (NAI) since that seems to be the term they prefer?

@sophia8

You do realize, of course, that Muslims are not a racial group, but a religious group. Saying that making fun of Islam is racism is about as accurate as saying that making fun of midwifery is sexism.

@Fiona

It’s great that you’ve found yourself a good man. It’s weird how the further you get from what the actual tenets of the religion are, the better a person you become. While it’s impossible to establish causality (is he good because he ignores big parts of the Qur’an, or does he ignore big parts of it because he’s good?) religion can be highly beneficial as long as you completely ignore the stupid parts. Good on you, and good on him.

I’ve seen Maher’s new season’s shows: perhaps the public chastisement last Autumn has had some effect.He’s been soft-pedalling the woo,even when having guests like Arianna Huffington and restauranteur Alice Waters(prime candidates for woo-ful conversation).I don’t know if he’s actually *learned* anything or, more likely,fears the ridicule from the likes of Chris Matthews,his writers, and the audience.((I *do* have a *tiny* bit of sympathy for him: we’re about the same age and both grew up in lovely,quasi-suburban Bergen County,NJ: in the ’70’s,newspapers and local(NYC)TV were rife with histrionic reporting on toxic dumps,contaminated rivers, and air pollution.I think he hasn’t recovered from the assault.))

@TheChemist

I frankly disagree. The simple fact that most Muslims belong to a handful of racial groups does not make an anti-Muslim statement an anti-immigrant statement. On the contrary, since there is not a single race that Muslim people belong to, it is absurd to call criticism of Muslim faith a racist statement. If I am in the United States and I decry the stupidity of Christianity, just because you (or someone else) might interpret me as attacking white people doesn’t make that the case. My beef is with the teaching and the actions of those who follow the teaching, regardless of what colour their skin is or what their country of origin is.

Using the word “racism” to apply to all bigotry is a gross misuse of the word. There are actions and policies that are specifically motivated by ethnic origin, not country of birth. If, for example, I am a native Brit who is born of Iranian immigrant parents, it is my ethnicity that is being assaulted when I am called a terrorist. To say that all bigotry is racism is to equate all manner of prejudice to being racially motivated, which it most certainly is not.

Many members of my own racial group are Muslim, and I rant anti-Muslim with the best of them. Does that make me a self-hating (race)? Others are Christian, and I decry Christian stupidity and political over-reaching. Is that similarly racist?

It is perfectly valid to criticize the teachings and practice of a horrific philosophy, regardless of what the genetic makeup of its adherents is. To suggest that an attack on Islam is necessarily an attack on people of Persian/Arab/Indian extraction is a flawed and incorrect assertion.

@Pablo, you are still confusing “atheism” with “pro-science rational skepticism”. They are not the same. Maher does mirror the uncompromising nontheist life-stance, but this has nothing to do with medicine, just atheism.

@Orac, I noticed that you tried to defend your quote mining (which I concede that you successfully did) but failed to reply to my criticism that your argument was a non sequitur but proceeded to comment on something that was not even essential to my argument.

Yes, Maher does not fulfill all of the criteria (even though he advocates increased scientific knowledge in fields like evolution, so he does fulfill this criteria to some extend), but neither did Penn and Teller (global warming “skeptics”) or Ayaan Hirsi Ali (conservative). What they did was fulfill most of the criteria, the most important of which was advocating atheism/opposing theism.

The point is that the Richard Dawkins Award is an atheist award, not a rationalist or science award and thus, Maher deserves the award. Yes, Maher is a crazy quack when it comes to medicine, but a skilled atheist and that is the (primary) reason for which he was awarded the prize.

This is something that Orac fails to understand and appreciate. Even though all pro-science rational skeptics are atheists by definition, all atheists need not be pro-science rational skeptics and the latter is not a requirement for being a skilled proponent of atheism. You can still criticize the argument from design without knowing anything about evolution (like Hume did). It helps of course, and from a PR stand point, Maher was a bad choice, but it is not a necessary criteria for being a skilled proponent of atheism and deserving atheist awards.

@Emil

Your point that the award is not a scientific award is a fair one; however, the larger point of the post is that if you arrive at your conclusions through a non-rational process then you are contravening (rather than simply failing to be exemplary in) the other criteria. If I am an atheist because I received enlightenment from a celestial vision, that inherently runs against the pro-rationalist stance that Dr. Dawkins takes.

Since one of the criteria is increasing public knowledge about science, and Maher actually decreases such knowledge, Orac’s criticism of granting him an award that is at least partially based on that criterion is fair.

@Ian and @Scott

You’re both sort of missing the point I was trying to make, or possibly I wasn’t making it very well: Common misuses of language notwithstanding, Dawkins does engage in gross bigotry without regard to the implications and potential ramifications of his statements. The essential nature of an argument, and bear in mind Dawkins isn’t always making an argument with his shotgun remarks, has no bearing on where they lead people. Does the racist beating of Sikhs post-9/11 have anything to do with the essential (not fundamentally racist) arguments made against Islam? My answer is yes. The lack of a direct relation does not mean there is no relation, and that there is no responsibility on the part of people releasing specific memes into the wild.

Getting hung up on whether it’s racism or bigotry is to try and move attention from his statements altogether, since both categories of behavior are equally objectionable anyway- and often have the same effects.

If you want to continue to have the argument of how to categorize his remarks- do so, and I’ll be munching popcorn on the sidelines while I wait to have a discussion about whether they were appropriate, reasonable, harmful, or acceptable.

Also, you seem to have interpreted what I said as, “No one should insult Islam or they’re racist.” Which is so NOT what I said.

(As an aside, I compulsively put an apostrophe in “Dawkins”, I don’t know why, and try to proofread, but please excuse it if it pops up.)

@ Emil:

The criteria ALSO explicitly say “advocates increased scientific knowledge.” In fact, they give it equal standing with “raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance”. Your argument is therefore entirely incompatible with the award’s stated purpose!

The point being made here is that the award is being given in a manner quite inconsistent with its stated criteria. If the stated criteria were modified to be consistent with those actually being used, we wouldn’t have a problem with it.

@Scott

1. It is an atheist award, not a rationalist or science award. It is entirely possible to be a atheist who happens to be irrational in another field of inquiry.
2. That criterion is only one of four criteria, the other three being directly related to atheism.
3. The award is handed out by an explicitly atheist organization, the AAI.
4. Maher has advocates increased scientific knowledge in some fields, such as evolution, even though he is a complete quack when it comes to medicine.
5. Maher has successfully promoted atheism in accordance with the other four criteria.

I absolutely do concede that Maher did not completely fulfill all of the criteria stated, but that he, in my opinion, fulfilled enough of them to be a worthy winner.

Yes, I agree, it should be reformulated to avoid this confusion.

@Pablo

I use the following definition of “quote mining”: taking a passage is removed from its surrounding matter (“out of context”) in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

Wikipedia uses “quote mining” and “quoting out of context” as equivalent, and I did as well.

When I conceded that he was not quoting out of context, this means that I also conceded that he was not quote mining either, since these two are in many ways equivalent.

I do apologize for the misunderstanding.

Yes, I agree, it should be reformulated to avoid this confusion.

Then as far as I’m concerned, we’re fully in agreement.

Man, what a weird coincidence that that the Richard Dawkins Award is being given out by a fellow with the same name!

They obviously don’t know each other, because the Presenter Dawkins doesn’t realize that the Eponymous Prize Dawkins would obviously object to his prize given to someone who “doesn’t always talk sense about medical matters”.

Poor Presenter Dawkins! If only he could understand the criteria for the award of the Dawkins Prize as well as Orac, he wouldn’t be in such an embarrassing position.

@The Chemist

I must confess that my familiarity with Dawkins’ work extends only to The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth, so if you are referencing some specific anti-Islamic claims he’s made outside of those books, I will have to concede your greater familiarity with his work. However, if what he says outside his books is consistent with what’s in his books, then calling Dawkins a racist is drawing from an empty well.

J.D. Salinger is not responsible for the murder of John Lennon, even though Mark David Chapman claimed to have derived his inspiration from reading The Catcher in the Rye. If I publicly criticize the Canadian government’s stance on removing abortion funding from the foreign aid budget, I should not be held responsible for the person who kidnaps the Prime Minister to extort the reversal of the bill. It is completely fair to level reasonable criticism against a philosophical stance, but that does not put you in the camp with those who commit illegal or immoral acts as a result.

The author of a meme is not responsible when the meme is mis-applied; where they are culpable is when they fail to speak up against the misappropriation of their work. Similarly, if an author deliberately advocates violence, then he/she is part and parcel with the committed acts. If Dawkins fostered anti-Sikh sentiment and then failed to distinguish his philosophy from that of the actual racists (provided they cited him as an influence, or the reasonable connection can be made), then one could make the argument that he is partially culpable. If that is the case, then your argument has merit. I am open to seeing evidence of this.

My concern is that when people cry “racist” at inappropriate times, it dilutes and obscures the meaning of the word. Racism is a real-life phenomenon happening in all corners of society, and its repeated invocation out of context of its real meaning strips away our ability to identify and ameliorate it.

Richard, just admit the award is for atheism and has nothing to do with science or increasing scientific knowledge, and it’ll be a whole lot easier!

Dawkins doesn’t have anything to do with choosing the winner or anything, does he? I think what you mean here is for the AAI to stop the pretense that it has anything to do with science. It’s their award, named for RD.

@Pablo

I have already admitted that a previous argument I used, namely “Orac is quoting out of context/quote mining” was wrong, showing that I am nothing like an anti-vaxxer. Furthermore, you are making a logical fallacy called “guilt by association”, which means that your position is invalid.

You still do not seem to grasp that the Richard Dawkins reward is an 1) atheist reward, 2) given out by an atheist organization that has 3) the vast majority of the criteria is solely related to atheism, that 4) Maher has promoted atheism successfully and that 5) Maher has promoted some science (though not in every field), so he partly fulfills this criterion as well. Yes, Maher is a quack when it comes to medicine, but this is simply not relevant for an atheist award.

Thus, the only rational conclusion is that he deserves this price. Your position is like arguing that a successful economist does not deserve an award in economy because he is a creationist. An absurd position, to say the least.

You still do not seem to grasp that the Richard Dawkins reward is

O contraire

But unlike you (at least at the beginning of this discussion) I am aware of the criteria given for the Dawkins award, which you even provided (though you misread it). One of those criteria is “increase scientific knowledge.” Two things:

1) Orac’s contention, one that I agree with, is that actively working against vaccination, germ theory, and science medicine is a utter failure in the aspect of increasing scientific knowledge. We aren’t just talking about someone who holds nutty beliefs (among the many reasons your economist analogy fails) but this is someone who uses the media (you know, the “and/or” part you didn’t understand) to actively DECREASE scientific knowledge! He sits on his show and spews anti-scientific nonsense, for pete’s sake.

2) What “scientific knowledge” has he really increased? Does he know anything about the science of evolution? Or does that consist of mocking the religious and insulting IDists because of their religion? I’m not saying these are non-Dawkins activities or anything, but they aren’t really “increasing scientific knowledge.”

Being a quack about medicine is one thing. But how can advocating quack medicine be considered increasing scientific knowledge in any way?

Again, if the AAI drops the scientific knowledge part of the criteria, all is fine. They might as well do it, because it appears their cheerleaders are ignoring it anyway.

This is all part of a cunning plan. While still maintaining his stridency credentials amongst the atheists, Dawkins is practicing just enough accommodationism that one day he may be allowed entry into Castle Mooneykirsh, and then… but I’ve said too much already.

Has the furor over the great Dawkins.net-gate subsided already? After all the sound’n’fury back in February, the last couple of months have been suspiciously quiet…

zoe writes:

Clearly Maher is wrong on this one issue, but attempts to silence him or complain about his award (for atheism awareness) by passionate pro-vaxers are disturbing.

Not aware of anyone here who advocates “silencing” Maher. And as has been noted multiple times here, if the award really is solely for atheism awareness, simply amend the award criteria accordingly (currently they give a prominent place to raising scientific awareness) and there’s no argument.

‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ Complete and utter crap logic with no ethical or intellectual integrity required.

And being disgusted at someone’s social and religious views is not a phobic response when those views espouse misogyny, violence, and hate.

You know who else has stuff to say about Muslims, but kooky views in other fields? Pat Robertson. Is this the standard we should be using?

Am I the only one who wonders if people are confusing “moderate muslim” with “liberal muslim”?

One questions to the defenders of the “or” in the awards criteria, can a Nobel price winning strong secularist, who just happens to personally believe in God, win the price, based on the 2 first criteria? You can definitely fulfill the first two without getting your personal believes involved.

@Orac:

Top stuff.

I’m appreciative that you’re one of the few prominent skeptical voices to consistently call Maher on his bullshit.

It absolutely matters how he arrives at his ideas. When Maher takes intellectual short-cuts (e.g. the enemy of the enemy is my Best Friend Forever), it’s indicative of laziness. It provides ample incentive to ignore him on any issue of import.

Maher has long been a braying jackass, though, so the element of disappointment isn’t there for me when I hear his dillrod blatherings.

Dawkins and Sam Harris have lost a lot of credibility by the association. Both of them clearly view Maher as an “important” “skeptical” voice, which speaks volumes. They’re both stained with Maher-Shit until they prove otherwise.

I’d argue that Christopher Hitchens, who seems fairly friendly with Maher, is a different animal altogether. I think Hitchens is amused and entertained by the trite absurdity of Maher’s show and appreciative of whatever alcoholic/Hollywood starlet hijinks play out afterwards. I never get the impression that Hitchens gives a damn about Maher’s opinion on anything of substance.

@sophia8

Ignoring for a moment the hypocritical racism of your comments about AWBTDTP, is there some comment that he made about Muslim people that I am not aware of? Saying that Islam is a morally and intellectually bankrupt philosophy is not the same as saying that people from the Muslim ethnic groups are inherently morally/intellectually bankrupt. What are these casually racist statements he’s purportedly made?

Raising Islamic theocracy is entirely appropriate when criticizing Islam. Your analogy is completely meaningless – the FGM practitioners don’t do those things because they believe it is required of all African people. They’re not using a philosophy of African-ism to justify their atrocities. If they did, and the rest of the African community didn’t say “WTF are you talking about? These people do not speak for us” then you might have some kind of a point. But they don’t, and you don’t.

To paraphrase Orac paraphrasing The Princess Bride: Racist – you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

As a religious scholar, immunologist, bacteriologist, and preventive medicine expert, Mr Bill Maher makes a mediocre political comic. He used to be funny when he stuck to topical humor. He now presents as a vulgar, “F bombing” loudmouth… he is some sort of crude NOT FUNNY version of Cliff Claven combined with Andrew Dice Clay… all the stupidity and none of the comedy… running off at the mouth, spouting fiction and fabrication to defend wild assertions.

He was on one of the group around the table network “news shows” this past Sunday… running his mouth like an expert on off shore oil drilling, marine cleanup technologies, and alternate energy sources. I was able to tolerate about 11 minutes before the gag reflex overruled me.

For what it’s worth, Maher bristles at being labeled a germ theory denialist:

While we’re on the subject of bacteria, let me say clearly I understand germ theory also — I believe they also covered that in Microbe Hunters — nor have I ever said I was a “germ theory denier.” What I’ve been saying is that Western medicine ignores too much the fact that the terrain in which bacteria can thrive is crucial and often controllable, which shouldn’t even be controversial. I don’t care what Louis Pasteur said on his death bed — it was probably, “Either the curtains go or I do” — that’s not the point!

Maybe if it was brought a little closer to home, Dawkins would get it. What’s Mr Maher’s position on Stephen Hawking’s condition?

Douglas,

An interesting analogy. I think my version would have Orac playing chess. The question is whether Dawkins is playing go or tic tac toe?

RE Mahers comments in post #68: This actually proves the point: Not only does Maher not understand evidence based medicine, he doesn’t understand what denialism is. Note again Maher’s completely irrational belief that one can “control the terrain”, by which he means control all the facts about ones body and whether and when it gets exposed to the vast amount of microbial fauna in the microverse. This statement alone shows just how out of touch with science Maher actually is. He clearly doesn’t get it and I strongly suspect he views all matters of fact as simply questions of politics. I find Maher a usually above average comedian and generally agree with his takes on religion, but as Orac says ” He appears to have come to them (his “right” views) because they are contrary to his political enemies.” I wish instead of giving him awards or back slapping him people like Dawkins and Harris would take him aside and explain to him what science based medicine is and why facts are not just what your politics supports.

I find it ironic and hypocritical that Maher would criticize Muslims for subjugating women. Maher is certainly no feminists ally nor a champion of women’s rights. He shouldn’t get a medal and a cookie for being slightly less misogynist than religious groups. In fact, I know of many religious people who are less misogynist than he is. I’m a skeptic and a feminists and he doesn’t fit into either of those groups. He’s certainly not progressive and he’s only “liberal” because he hates conservatives.

Maher is totally sexist. That is reason enough to be ashamed of giving him a skeptics award. Is woman hatred ‘rational’? Or is it only ok if you denounce the way those brown folks over yonder are doing it?

I blogged about this a long time ago.

http://skeptifem.blogspot.com/2009/11/bill-maher-and-white-dude-privilege-of.html

Ian : Ignoring for a moment the hypocritical racism of your comments about AWBTDTP, is there some comment that he made about Muslim people that I am not aware of? Saying that Islam is a morally and intellectually bankrupt philosophy is not the same as saying that people from the Muslim ethnic groups are inherently morally/intellectually bankrupt. What are these casually racist statements he’s purportedly made?

I don’t know, this maybe ? : “I especially like the sting in the tail where he makes as if to say something concilatory about decent, moderate Muslims: They only want to be left to subjugate their women in peace (or words to that effect). ”

“moderate Muslims“; “They”. How you can construe this as not referring to Muslim people I can’t imagine.

And let off with the “racist” thing already; I personally agree with sophia’s use of it, but even if you don’t quibbling over the term is a harmful smokescreen. Do you think that Dawkins’ statement is innocuous and doesn’t reflect or contribute to harmful prejudices against groups of people ? Then defend that position, don’t pretend you’re arguing over semantics.

catgirl : I find it ironic and hypocritical that Maher would criticize Muslims for subjugating women. Maher is certainly no feminists ally nor a champion of women’s rights. He shouldn’t get a medal and a cookie for being slightly less misogynist than religious groups. In fact, I know of many religious people who are less misogynist than he is. I’m a skeptic and a feminists and he doesn’t fit into either of those groups. He’s certainly not progressive and he’s only “liberal” because he hates conservatives.

QFT. When reading the thread I was so wrapped up thinking of different kinds of bigotry and how they mesh so that an apparent abuse of language can be justified (like talking of anti-Muslim racism, or Iranians being victims of anti-Arabic prejudice, or Obama being black even though his ancestors on his father’s side weren’t slaves in the US)… I totally didn’t see that little bit of incongruity.

Here’s a quote from Maher:

“I’m not an atheist. There’s a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn’t believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don’t need. But I’m not an atheist, no. I believe there’s some force. If you want to call it God… I don’t believe God is a single parent who writes books.”

Has he since changed his mind?

I think I’ll just recycle something here that I posted at Pharyngula in September last year.

For me, atheism is simply the logical extension of more important endeavours such as rationality, critical thinking, science and skepticism and I’d think very carefully before supporting tactics that undermine these tenets in pursuit of an atheist ‘win’.

@duckie

Did you read Orac’s article? Go back and read it, rather than just the title.

@ duckie…

NOOOOO!!! Don’t listen to them! Don’t read the entire post!

[conspiratorial whisper]*It will blow your mind!*

@Todd W.

My comment was directed to the atheists trying to defend Dawkins’s support of Maher winning an award connected to “increased scientific knowledge.” (If it was just about atheism, no one would care about him receiving it or not.) I wonder, though, if some people have the believe that increased atheism would lead automaticallly to greater “scienfitic knowledge” among people. As Orac shows in this post with Maher that with disbelief doesn’t come knowledge.

Is Belief in God Reasonable?

Related topics:
HAVE you wondered why everything from atomic particles to vast galaxies is governed by precise mathematical laws? Have you reflected on life itself—its variety, its complexity, and its amazing design? Many attribute the universe and the life in it to a great cosmic accident and evolution. Others give credit to an intelligent Creator. Which viewpoint do you feel is more reasonable?
Of course, both viewpoints involve faith. Belief in God rests on faith. As the Bible says, “no man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) Likewise, no human saw the forming of the universe or the commencement of life. Nor has anyone ever seen one kind of life evolve into a higher kind or even into a different kind. The fossil record shows that the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and have remained virtually unchanged.* The key question, therefore, is this: Which faith sits on a firm foundation—faith in evolution or faith in a Creator?
Is Your Faith Based on Solid Evidence?
Genuine “faith,” says the Bible, is “the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Hebrews 11:1) The New English Bible renders the verse this way: “Faith . . . makes us certain of realities we do not see.” No doubt you can think of a number of unseen realities in which you firmly believe.
To illustrate: Many respected historians believe that Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Jesus Christ once lived. Is the faith of these historians sound? Yes, for they can point to authentic historical evidence.
Scientists too believe in unseen realities because of the “evident demonstration” that those realities exist. For example, the 19th-century Russian chemist Dmitry Mendeleyev became entranced with the relationship between the elements, the basic building blocks of the universe. He realized that they had certain things in common and could be grouped by both atomic weight and chemical properties. Because of his faith in the order of the groups, he drafted the periodic table of the elements and correctly predicted the existence of a number of elements unknown at the time.
If ancient structural design is attributed to humans, to whom do we attribute design in nature?

Archaeologists draw conclusions about earlier civilizations, often from items that have lain buried for thousands of years. Imagine, for example, that an archaeologist has unearthed dozens of carefully cut stone blocks of precisely the same size neatly aligned on top of one another. They are also set out in a distinct geometric pattern that does not occur naturally. What would the archaeologist conclude? Would he attribute his find to coincidence? Most likely not. Rather, he would interpret it as evidence of past human activities, and that would be a reasonable conclusion.
To be consistent, should we not apply the same reasoning to the design manifest in the natural world? Many people have taken that view, including respected scientists.
Blind Chance or Purposeful Design?
Years ago, British mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Sir James Jeans wrote that in the light of advancing scientific knowledge, “the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.” He also stated that “the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician” and that it provides “evidence of a designing or controlling power that has something in common with our own individual minds.”

Albert Einstein
Other scientists have arrived at a similar conclusion since Jeans penned those words. “The overall organization of the universe has suggested to many a modern astronomer an element of design,” wrote physicist Paul Davies. One of the most famous physicists and mathematicians of all time, Albert Einstein, wrote: “The fact that [the natural world] is comprehensible is a miracle.” In the eyes of many, that miracle includes life itself, from its fundamental building blocks to the amazing human brain.
DNA and the Human Brain
DNA is the genetic material of all cellular organisms and the molecular basis for heredity.# This complex acid has been compared to a blueprint or a recipe, for DNA is packed with information, which is encoded in chemical form and stored in a molecular environment that is capable of interpreting that code and acting on it. How much information is stored in DNA? If the basic units, called nucleotides, were converted into letters of the alphabet, they would “occupy more than a million pages of a typical book,” says one reference.
In most organisms, DNA is bundled up into threadlike bodies called chromosomes, which are safely stored inside each cell’s nucleus. The nuclei, in turn, have an average diameter of about 0.0002 of an inch. Think about that—all the information that produced your unique body is found in tiny packages that have to be observed under a microscope! As one scientist rightly said, living organisms have “by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known.” That’s saying something when you reflect on the memory capacity of computer chips, DVDs, and the like! What is more, DNA has by no means revealed all its secrets. “Every discovery reveals a new complexity,” says New Scientist magazine.%
Is it reasonable to attribute such perfection of design and organization to blind chance? If you were to stumble across a highly technical manual a million pages thick and written in an efficient, elegant code, would you conclude that the book somehow wrote itself? What if that book were so small that you needed a powerful microscope to read it? And what if it contained precise instructions for the manufacture of a self-repairing, self-replicating intelligent machine with billions of parts, all of which had to be fitted together at precisely the right time and in the right way? To be sure, the notion that such a book just happened would not even enter one’s mind.
After examining current research on the inner workings of the cell, British philosopher Antony Flew, once a leading champion of atheism, stated: “The almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), [show] that intelligence must have been involved.” Flew believes in “following the argument no matter where it leads.” In his case it led to a complete change in thinking, so that he now believes in God.
DNA is like a microscopic book that contains precise instructions for intelligent life

The human brain has been described as “the most complicated object in the universe”
The human brain too leaves many scientists in awe. A product of DNA, the brain has been described as “the most complicated object in the universe.” Even the most advanced supercomputer looks positively primitive next to this approximately three-pound pinkish-gray mass of neurons and other structures. In the opinion of one neuroscientist, the more that scientists learn about the brain and the mind, “the more magnificent and unknowable it becomes.”
Consider: The brain enables us to breathe, laugh, cry, solve puzzles, build computers, ride a bicycle, write poetry, and look up at the night sky with a sense of reverential awe. Is it reasonable—indeed, consistent—to attribute these abilities and capacities to blind evolutionary forces?
Belief Based on Evidence
In order to understand ourselves, should we look down, as it were, to apes and other animals, as evolutionists do? Or should we look up to God for answers? Granted, we have certain things in common with animals. We have to eat, drink, and sleep, for example, and we are able to reproduce. Still, we are unique in many ways. Reason suggests that our distinct human traits stem from a Being higher than ourselves—that is, from God. The Bible put that thought succinctly, stating that God formed mankind “in his image” morally and spiritually speaking. (Genesis 1:27) Why not contemplate God’s qualities, some of which are recorded at Deuteronomy 32:4; James 3:17, 18; and 1 John 4:7, 8.
SHOULD RELIGIOUS EVILS JUSTIFY DISBELIEF IN GOD?
Many people do not believe in a Creator because of the well-known abuses and corruptions that blacken the history of many religions. Is that a sound reason for disbelief? No. “The excesses and atrocities of organized religion,” says Roy Abraham Varghese in his preface to Antony Flew’s book There Is a God, “have no bearing whatsoever on the existence of God, just as the threat of nuclear proliferation has no bearing on the question of whether E=mc2.”*
________________________________________
* Energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light.
Our Creator has given us the “intellectual capacity” to investigate the world around us and to find satisfying answers to our questions. (1 John 5:20) In this regard, physicist and Nobel laureate William D. Phillips wrote: “When I examine the orderliness, understandability, and beauty of the universe, I am led to the conclusion that a higher intelligence designed what I see. My scientific appreciation of the coherence, and the delightful simplicity of physics strengthens my belief in God.”
Some two thousand years ago, a discerning observer of the natural world wrote: “[God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” (Romans 1:20) The writer—the Christian apostle Paul—was an intelligent man and highly educated in the Mosaic Law. His reason-based faith made God a reality to him, while his acute sense of justice moved him to give due credit to God for his creative works.
It is our sincere hope that you too will see that it is not at all unreasonable to believe in God. In fact, like Paul, may you do more than simply believe that He exists. May you also grow to appreciate—as millions already have—that Jehovah God is a spirit person with endearing qualities that resonate in the human heart and draw us to him.—Psalm 83:18; John 6:44; James 4:8.

@Samora,

You seem to present the argument that it is so mind bogglingly difficult to see how something as complex as the universe, DNA, and people can exist that God must have made everything.

You should consider reading “The Blind Watchmaker”, which discusses this very argument as it applies to biological evolution and shows why God is unnecessary to this process. You might also refer to some of Stephen Hawking’s recent writings that suggest how the universe could have come to be in its current form with no God required.

Note that this is not an attempt to argue either in favor of or against the non-existence of God. However, an argument from incredulity (I and some number of authorities can’t believe it could have happened that way, therefore it must not have) is a very weak argument.