Richard Dawkins and Douglas Adams

Published on April 30th, 2007

Douglas Adams reads a section from one of his Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy books.

38 users responded in " Richard Dawkins and Douglas Adams "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Ben Waymark said, on April 30th, 2007 at 9:11 am

Ahh… Richard Dawkin’s Good Bless him…the man that proved that you needn’t be religious or a communist to be a fanatic….

# 2 Misanthropic Scott said, on April 30th, 2007 at 9:48 am

This is an excellent reminder of the fact that Richard and Douglas were close friends. The God Delusion is actually dedicated to the memory of Douglas Adams.

# 3 Lauren the Ghoti said, on April 30th, 2007 at 10:02 am

Whilst differing greatly in content and tone, the writings of these two, if made universally available, would undoubtably raise humankind’s aggregate IQ by a not insignificant amount.

Strewth.

# 4 Misanthropic Scott said, on April 30th, 2007 at 10:08 am

#3 – Lauren the Ghoti,

Possibly. It’s a little tough to tell. One just might need to be in the correct mindset for proper appreciation already. Perhaps for Dawkins it would help to start with some of his or Gould’s books on evolution and maybe some general physics before diving into something as controversial as The God Delusion. It helps to have an understanding of what science actually is before getting into how it makes the concept of a personal deity both irrelevant and harmful.

# 5 Phil said, on April 30th, 2007 at 10:34 am

@Ben Waymark

Huh? I guess you haven’t read Dawkins’ The God Delusion then. It’s an incredibly level headed, rational, and logical argument against the believe in ‘gods’ and supernatural fantasies. Try reading it before you attack the man who was recently voted the most important intellectual in the UK.

# 6 Johnny Canuck said, on April 30th, 2007 at 11:16 am

#4 I think you have to pick Dawkin or Gould as they disagree on some fundamental issues. Having read both I favour(favor) Dawkin’s world view. There is even a book written about their differing views “Dawkins vs. Gould : Survival of the Fittest “.

Just proving the closer you look at something the bigger and more complicated it becomes.

# 7 ECA said, on April 30th, 2007 at 11:23 am

REAd the BOOKS, forget the movie…

# 8 Jim W. said, on April 30th, 2007 at 11:35 am

From the Scripture Mr. Dawkins reads God gives meaning to human existence. To care for each other and the Earth. By trying to refute this is Dawkins saying that there is no meaning to life? That 42 is just as legitimate an answer as any other? That there is no meaning to life?

Also, quoting fiction to try and prove the Bible as fiction seems a little questionable to me in the logic department. Wouldn’t quoting a factual book to prove the “fiction” of the Bible be more logical?

/ intellectual argument from a “religious nut”

# 9 John S said, on April 30th, 2007 at 11:38 am

The story about the young girl and her interpretation of the reason for flowers point out how difficult for someone from the non earth religions to be an “envirenmentalist”. The belief that god created earth for the benefit and control of man means anything we do is ok because earth is ours to take advantage of. People who oppose are heretics.

John S

# 10 Ben Waymark said, on April 30th, 2007 at 11:39 am

@Phil:

Have indeed read the God Delusion. The book opened by saying that he doesn’t understand why he should respect the views of people he doesn’t agree with. He then goes on to mock pretty much all religions. He makes a some good, rational points then blows them up by generalizing about all religion and spiritual beliefs based on a mish-mash of different theologies spanning six thousands years. When you start by mocking the opposing view point and conclude by generalizing about them and making a fragmented units into a whole you set yourself up as a fanatic.

I couldn’t care less if he has studied at Oxford, or how many prestigious awards he has, or how good his scientific knowledge is. He writings are religion have all the hallmark of a fanatic and just kinda annoy because I think there are some very good points he makes about the arrogance of many religious leaders but then he clouds them in his own arrogant and mocking tone!

-Ben.

# 11 Infami said, on April 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am

One of my favorite Adam’s bits
(No I don’t believe in ID and I think neither did he)

“The Babel fish,” said The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy quietly, “is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

“The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’

“`But,’ says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’

“`Oh dear,’ says God, `I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

# 12 CanadianGuy said, on April 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm

I did read The God Delusion and the only conclusion that a rational person can glean from it is that Dawkins is a person filled with hate. He presents no logical arguments against a creator. In fact if a religious person had written such a book it would be classified as hate speech.

# 13 Lauren the Ghoti said, on April 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

#6 – Johnny Canuck

“I think you have to pick Dawkin or Gould as they disagree on some fundamental issues. Having read both I favour(favor) Dawkin’s world view. There is even a book written about their differing views “Dawkins vs. Gould : Survival of the Fittest “.”

You beat me to it; I was just fixin’ to mention to M Scott that I’m with him, except for the mention of Gould. A great scientist inside the confines of his specialty, when he spepped away from it, the Marxist idelogy kicked in and he could be a surprisingly dishonest hack. Will supply a few refs later, if you like…

#10 – Ben Waymark

“…
He then goes on to mock pretty much all religions….”

Well, if you were paying close attention to the greater overall theme at the root of all of his words on the topic, you will’ve noticed that he takes great pains to demonstrate that, despite the differences great and small between all the hundreds of various schools of religioous belief, they all have the same factor in common, which is what makes them religions, and therefore makes them invalid; not one of them has, as I have put it before, one single fragment of a subatomic particle of evidence to lend it any credence whatsoever.

IOW: they are the same, no matter how they differ – none has the first bit of evidence to support it, and none ever has. And that tells anyone who grasps even the most primitive concept of probability that the likelihood of any of them being correct is so astronomically improbable as to not be worth consideration by any sane person. And when the inconceivably vast volumes of evidence against them is added to the mix, it is the safest bet in the Universe that religion is what reason shows it to be: a construct of man’s own primitive creation, nothing more.

Eckancar, Mormonism, Zoroastrianism, Scientology, Catholocism, Judaism, Christian Science, Buddhism – they appear to be quite different; some crackpot, some quite sensible, some incredibly dull, some quite fascinating, some dimwitted and some highly intellectually refined – but they are really all the same, just irrational products of imperfect human minds. And that’s the only evidence that exists for any of them.

# 14 tcc3 said, on April 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pm

I dont know if I’d lump Buddhism in there. It doesnt demand a specific faith, nor subservience or belief in any deity.

Really more of a philosophy than a religion.

# 15 tcc3 said, on April 30th, 2007 at 3:15 pm

I dont know if I’d lump Buddhism in there with the others.

It doesnt require a partucular faith, nor subservience or belief in any deity.

Its really more of a philosphy than a religion.

# 16 Jim W. said, on April 30th, 2007 at 3:15 pm

With all the book recommendations floating around this thread may I suggest The Case for Christ By Lee Strobel, a former atheist who sets out to disprove the Bible to his wife and ends up finding a a LOT of evidence that proves the Bible true..

# 17 Bruce IV said, on April 30th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

@13 – I’d echo 15, there is in fact, reasonable, logical arguments for the validity of Christianity.

@9 I am a Christian, and always interpreted humanity’s dominion over the earth more as a stewardship than an empire. To make an automotive analogy, we’re just leasing the place, and should return it with a minimum of wear and tear.

# 18 OhForTheLoveOf said, on April 30th, 2007 at 3:46 pm

#16 – Don’t just say there are… enumerate them.

# 19 Misanthropic Scott said, on April 30th, 2007 at 4:27 pm

#6 – Johnny Canuck, & #13 – Lauren the Ghoti,

Gould and Dawkins disagree on whether religion and science can coexist. They do not disagree on any significant point of evolution of which I am aware. I have read both extensively but have not read the particular book about them that you read.

I was suggesting that Gould would be a good introduction to some real science for someone who doesn’t want his/her religion challenged. After they understand what science is, they could perhaps understand the arguments about both the uselessness and actual harmfulness of religion.

#16 – Jim W.,

I have already read one incredibly silly book on apologetics. I returned it to its owner with large post-it notes stuck in nearly every page. I think I didn’t leave a single point unanswered. I find it interesting that there is this whole sub-culture of alleged scientists and skeptics that suddenly find religion based on some supposed scientific evidence. Personally, I pointed out at a number of different points that Ralph Muncaster, the author of the book that was called something like A Skeptics Search for God, was never anything like a skeptic. He took so much stuff at face value without ever researching any of it then we heard a smattering of ridiculous contradictory information, found god. Do you think your book is any different?

Does it:

* point out that science hasn’t answered absolutely everything?
* make statistical claims of improbability based on wild calculations?
* discuss the physical constants of our universe?
* point out all of the “predictions” of the old testament that came true?
* point out that the Jesus story seems to match the predictions of the OT?
* ignore the fact that the most recent prediction of the OT was in a time frame that predates the earliest known copy of the OT?
* ignore the fact that statistical and legal proofs are not science, which is held to a far higher standard?
* ignore the fact that Jesus was well learned in the OT and would have easily been able to make the predicted statements from memory?
* ignore the historical (not as strong as scientific) evidence that Jesus may never have even actually existed and instead been an allegory?
* ignore the fact that creationism completely and utterly fails to explain anything because in order to explain complexity it first postulates the pre-existence of even greater complexity?

# 20 Lauren the Ghoti said, on April 30th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

#14 – tcc3

“I dont know if I’d lump Buddhism in there with the others.

It doesnt require a particular faith, nor subservience or belief in any deity.

Its really more of a philosphy than a religion.”

Yeah, I’ll agree that that’s arguable, to a point – but Buddhism does entail belief in sacred things and in entities existing outside of nature and the laws governing it.

And simply put, for the purposes of the discussion of the clash of science and beliefs antithetical to science, because of it’s inclusion of supernatural phenomena, Buddhism qualifies as religion.

# 21 John Paradox said, on April 30th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Did you know your robot can hum like Pink Floyd?

J/P=?

# 22 Mike said, on April 30th, 2007 at 6:38 pm

#19

“* ignore the fact that statistical and legal proofs are not science, which is held to a far higher standard?”

If we follow you forays into the global warming discussions around here, that higher standard most generally boils down to: the theory with the most agreement by others is the correct one; even though throughout human history, consensus has hardly guaranteed truth.

“* ignore the fact that creationism completely and utterly fails to explain anything because in order to explain complexity it first postulates the pre-existence of even greater complexity?”

Of the many arguments against biblical creationism, this hardly seems to be one of much consequence as we, ourselves, are examples of greater complexity being able to create things of lesser complexity. As for me, I’m actually hoping this little universe of ours is just the class project of some extra-dimensional high-school kids.

# 23 JohnMo said, on April 30th, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Nice to hear Adams reading of his own work — from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe IIRC. The animal in question was portrayed by Peter Davidson (AKA The Doctor #5) in the BBC TV series. The more recent movie was a total travesty.

#10 (and oodles of others): The “not a shred of evidence” line that is Dawkins’ mantra wears me out. I think a clearer statement would be to say that there is no scientific evidence of a standard the individual finds acceptable. Despite many efforts on both sides to argue Christianity scientifically, the reality of that faith lies in whether one accepts the testimony of the people who witnessed Jesus firsthand. The fact that one was not present to witness something does not preclude the possibility that something happened. Neither does the fact that something cannot be reproduced prove that it did not happen. At the same time, someone else stating that something happened does not make it so. Dawkins has made his examination of the world around him and religious histories and finds the evidence unconvincing. That does not mean there’s no evidence to consider as he so often protests.

# 24 Ben Waymark said, on April 30th, 2007 at 11:22 pm

#13

not one of them has, as I have put it before, one single fragment of a subatomic particle of evidence to lend it any credence whatsoever.

We could argue until the season turned into years and probably never see eye to eye on the existence of sentience that is greater than ourselves. There are many things people don’t agree on, even scientists from Oxford don’t agree on anything. The point with Dawkin’s isn’t so much about his evidence as the fact that not only does he refuse to respect the beliefs of others, but he mocks them. And that is wrong. Sometimes you have to accept that people hold different views from you, and even if you their views are crap, you respect their right to believe them. If you don’t, you become a fanatic. Like Dawkin.

# 25 OhForTheLoveOf said, on May 1st, 2007 at 5:36 am

#23 – the reality of that faith lies in whether one accepts the testimony of the people who witnessed Jesus firsthand

No one has witnessed this Jesus first hand. No one. No you haven’t.

Not a “shred of evidence” is correct. Your so called witnesses are what smarter observers call delusional.

At any rate, your primitive silly little beliefs would not bother me were it not for the fact that your judgemental and neo-facsist little bretheren envision a theocracy complete with morality police… At least the right wing side of your clan. Therefore, Xians are not just the harmless little churchgoers who clog the Ihop on Sundays… They are a dangerous militant group hellbent on setting back humanity’s progress to at least the Dark Age level.

# 26 JohnMo said, on May 1st, 2007 at 7:28 am

#25 – No one has witnessed this Jesus first hand.

So it is your position that Jesus did not exist at all and that thousands of people, followers and nonfollowers alike, who did see him personally were all delusional? It’s your call whether you accept the testimony of those who were there at the time, but to deny that anyone at all had firsthand experience with a historical figure like comes off as just as delusional as you suggest others of being. Maybe you’re one of those that thinks the holocaust and the moon landings didn’t happen either.

# 27 OhForTheLoveOf said, on May 1st, 2007 at 8:43 am

26 – The first book of the New Testament was written about 100 years after the alleged death of Christ. Where are these eyewitness accounts?

But I’m talking about today. No one ALIVE is a witness to anything. Plenty of the Glaze-eyed call themselves Witnesses and that is what I was refering to. There is nothing to have witnessed. Grandpa was sick, they prayed, Granpa got better. They didn’t witness Jesus. They witnessed an old sick guy get better (and he’s still doing great and going fishing this weekend). A drunk driver crashed into Jill’s Honda, ripping it in half, but Jill walked away with only a few cuts. Jesus? No, physics. Obviously, the car was struck in a way that prevented serious injury to the driver despite massive body damage.

Moreso, our observational understanding of the natural universe alone tells us the the miraculous tales of healing the sick and magically creating foodstuffs is absurd.

And don’t drag the holocaust or the moon landing into this. Those are events with actual documentation, evidence, records, living witnesses, filmed footage, etc… Your Jesus is likely to have never existed, but if he did, he was the son of Joseph (or whoever got it on with Mary), and a mortal.

# 28 Jim W. said, on May 1st, 2007 at 9:48 am

Anyone interested in a more detailed debate should google “historical proof Jesus”. you’ll find links to both sides of the argument, including a Wikipedia article. And we all know that if its in Wikipedia it must be true.

I recommend reading the first 4 links and the 8th (Wikipedia) personally.

# 29 JohnMo said, on May 1st, 2007 at 9:50 am

27 – The NT books of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses within their less-than-100-year lifetimes.

You are correct — no one ALIVE is a witness to much of anything that happened more than 100 years ago. Miraculous things were witnessed and the story recorded by eyewitnesses. It’s only absurd if it didn’t happen and we have no way to prove whether it did or not.

What details of the 20th century that are facts to us today will be dismissed as legend and delusions in another 2000 years because it will seem absurd to the people of the future?

# 30 Misanthropic Scott said, on May 1st, 2007 at 10:26 am

For the Jesus as Myth debate, here’s a really good web page. It’s not proof, of course, neither legal nor scientific. But, it does give reason to doubt whether the man ever existed at all.

http://tinyurl.com/34amgh

For me, sections 3, 4, and especially 8 cast huge doubt.

#19 – Mike,

Your first point demonstrates a lack of understanding of science. Your second has it backwards. I’m not saying that complex beings, like ourselves can’t create simpler beings. I’m saying that complexity and apparent design come from long periods of cumulative selection. The god hypothesis presupposes the existence of complexity without offering a mechanism for its creation.

Cause and effect are violated completely by quantum mechanics. Things pop into existence from the quantum soup, so to speak. But, they are not complex highly intelligent creatures that can create whole universes at the rate of one a week.

The god hypothesis flies up its own asshole in endless recursion. There must be a god creator and a god creator creator and a god creator creator creator, etc.

# 31 Mike said, on May 1st, 2007 at 12:28 pm

#30, no, Scott, my first point was just a cheap critique of your standard rebuttal for people with opinions contrary to yours that humans are the cause of global warming is to say “well, all real scientists are in consensus, so that makes it fact. And if some don’t agree, either they aren’t relevant or are in the pocket of an oil company”

As to the second… you’re apparently so blind in your desires to argue against people’s belief in a God, that you didn’t even stop to notice that my comment was simply challenging your logic in saying to the effect “God can’t exist because that requires complexity being created by greater complexity.” I certainly didn’t claim any belief that universes can be created in a week… or even two… so why you continue to bring it up is beyond me. And complexity is relative anyway, I would say a new system that allows for evolution is already more complex than one that mirrors ours in every way except is static and can not.

And yes, any notion of a God does lead to recursion. “Who created he who created me?” But our universe itself has its own similar questions. Where does our universe originate and reside? Is it sitting in a bell jar on a desk in some greater universe outside of ours? And how about that universe? It never ends. But it does provide the potential for good fiction I suppose.

# 32 OhForTheLoveOf said, on May 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm

#29 – It’s only absurd if it didn’t happen and we have no way to prove whether it did or not.

What’s absurd is that you think Mary was a virgin… Or Jesus rose from the dead… Or he could heal lepers with just a touch of his hand… Or that any of the BS, that never happened before and never happened since, happened then.

It’s also absurd that all these myths and legends are stolen from other myths and legends and you guys never seem to notice that.

It’s also absurd that these threads always seem to attract people who only comment on their pet issues. How about you guys lend an opinion to non-Jesus thread? And try not to invoke Jesus when commenting on fuel cells or Windows Vista bugs or whatever.

You know… it’s all just absurd.

# 33 alberto waldo said, on May 1st, 2007 at 2:00 pm

food for thought, cool video

# 34 Misanthropic Scott said, on May 2nd, 2007 at 3:31 am

#31 – Mike,

Actually, the universe doesn’t really have exactly the same issue. The stuff of the earliest universe could have popped into being from the quantum soup in some way without violation of any current physical theories. There are many questions about this, including the bit about not being able to understand the very first 10^-43 second. Why is there mostly matter rather than antimatter? What is the dark matter? What is the dark energy? Are there more spatial dimensions? Science may or may not be able to answer such questions.

Religion teaches us not to ask.

God/FSM/whatever, as a complex being, would require a much more detailed explanation than quantum soup because he/she/it is not simple and fundamental, but is of the type of complexity that takes a very long time to create through processes like natural selection that can indeed lead to complexity.

# 35 Aden said, on May 2nd, 2007 at 6:48 am

we miss you Douglas… it’s a sad place without you here.

# 36 Tsee said, on May 8th, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Bravo, Douglas, we all so miss your wit. Bravo, Richard, for daring to speak against illogical ideas and for being intelligent enough to be coherent.

# 37 Michael said, on May 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm

So, you object to Dawkins ridicule of irrational beliefs. Suppose I were to have a devout belief in the Man on the Moon who mines cheese and sends it to us in convenient, individually wrapped packages? You’d ridicule my beliefs, and rightly so.

Every scientific fact and metaphysical philosophy in the world is subject to scrutiny except religion. People take great exception to having their beliefs questioned. Dawkins knows this and pokes at it to demonstrate how people assign a special protected status to religions that it just does not deserve.

Someone doesn’t agree with you, and is telling you in such a way that you have no doubt why. Poor you. Get over it and move on. If you insist on maintaining your faith in a belief system that has no verifiable data to back it up, that’s your own lookout. Just don’t expect someone else to respect it just because you believe it.

“We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.” -Mark Twain

# 38 graeme stuart said, on June 12th, 2007 at 9:45 am

“Someone doesn’t agree with you, and is telling you in such a way that you have no doubt why. Poor you. Get over it and move on. If you insist on maintaining your faith in a belief system that has no verifiable data to back it up, that’s your own lookout. Just don’t expect someone else to respect it just because you believe it.”

Michael, I have not read where anyone has said that ‘others’ should expect someone else to respect (their views)… The point made is at the heart of any humanitarian argument: one doesn’t have to understand or respect the views of others; however, mockery is a negative contribution to growth in our evolving society and always will be.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!