Free Choice, Atoms, And Evangelism

Yesterday on Butterflies and Wheels, Ophelia Benson weighed in on a conversation that I have found entirely surreal. A religious man named Neil Ormerod from Australia attempted to take Richard Dawkins down a peg, and he wrote what looks like a very excellent article on the subject. However, when one delves into the article, it doesn’t hold much water. Ophelia does a great job of poking it with sticks, and I suggest you read both.

In articles like this, I can’t help but think back to my grade 11 high school production of Shakespeare’s As You Like It. During one scene, Jaques speaks at great length describing his encounter with Touchstone, who is a fool. While my buddy Damien was doing this monologue, the court of Duke Senior (played by me! ZOMG!) sat listening. During rehearsal, the teacher asked, “What are you doing right now?” of one of the actors. He responded, “I’m just listening”. She laughed and said that you have never just listened to a thing in your life. You listen and fidget. You listen and think of a counter-argument. You listen and wonder about whether or not the cute girl wants to date you. “Just” is a figment of our imagination.

In his argument, Ormerod uses this same dismissive approach. Yes, Dawkins believes (if I’m not mistaken) that we are made up of atoms in motion, and that our activities are reducible in principle to the laws of physics. But there’s a lot more to it than that, isn’t there? If we are merely atoms bumping around, how do we learn anything? Yes, we are a collection of atoms. But the old Systems Analyst in me knows that a system is a collection of parts who work together to accomplish a larger purpose. Focusing on the parts misses the capabilities of the system.

When someone gives you two (and only two) options to choose from when deciding something as complex as the motivations of a person, they’re usually full of shit. People are ridiculously complex, and summing anyone up in a single sentence is probably not going to be very accurate.

Personally, I think that Dawkins is trying to persuade readers to understand their own irrationalities. When you know something is irrational, you certainly are well within your rights to continue to believe it, but the hope is that people would be able to confront their irrationalities and get past them. Ormerod’s argument might hold some water if Dawkins had said instead, “Religious readers who open this book will be atheists when they put it down, or they are not functioning humans”. But he didn’t.


This entry was posted in general by biguglyjim. Bookmark the permalink.

About biguglyjim

Like a caterpillar that spins a coccoon and emerges as a walrus with a mohawk, Big Ugly Jim has become something unexpected. Raised a fine young Christian boy in the city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Jim began to question his teachings, first evaluating the wisdom of other religions and eventually realizing that none of them seemed any more accurate than any other, and not a one of them made a lick of sense. Today, Big Ugly Jim is a musician, a Business Analyst with Large Oil Company Whose Name Is Not Important, a music promoter with the Calgary Beer Core, a writer of fiction and non-fiction, a prick, an atheist, a father, an ex-husband, a role model, a horrifying vision in a red speedo (or at least he would be, if ever that happened which IT WOULD NOT), an announcer, and soon to be an officiator of weddings. Also, he's nice and does dishes. Jim continues to live in Calgary, spreading his filthy doctrine of free, critical thinking and appreciation for music.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>