Richard Dawkins gets children to consider aliens and assures them that aliens would side with atheists.
“If we ever meet life from another planet…I’d also be prepared to put my shirt on the bet that they will have evolved by the way equivalent of Darwinian Natural Selection.”
This is certainly charming but how, precisely, is this science? This is philosophical worldview adherence. A scientist is telling children that he would put up his own shirt on the bet. Actually, that is not much of a wager. What Richard Dawkins is presenting is a faith based belief.
Following is Richard Dawkins’ answer to the question “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?“:
“I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.”
He may believe this and it may actually be true, but should not be presented to impressionable children on the basis of authority and under that fa&#a7;ade of science.
There is an odd fascination with aliens amongst the New Atheists. Dan Barker attempts to prove, in a very troubling argument, that rape is not absolutely immoral by appealing to alien rape voyeurs. Sam Harris mirrors the imaginative sci-fi tale that Richard Dawkins presents to children. In their quaint tales the aliens always side with atheists. Sam Harris seeks otherworldly approval by imagining that there might be “complex life elsewhere in the cosmos.” If there is, they might have developed a more sophisticated understanding of the universe than us. If they have done so, then they might be even less impressed by the contents of the Bible and the Qur’an than atheists are (see #8 here). Richard Dawkins likewise retreats into the realm of sci-fi and encourages children to imagine, along with him, what vastly superior beings would say to human:
“They’ll probably find us pretty childish, but they will be quite kind about our science. They’ll pat us on the head and say, “Well, what you know about Universe is pretty much correct. You got at lot to learn yet, but you are doing fine. Keep it up.” That’s what they would say if they were talking to our scientists. What if they were talking to our best lawyers or literary critics or theologians? I doubt if they’d be so impressed. They might be… their anthropologists, the equivalent of their anthropologists might be interested in us, but they would be bound to notice that our cultural beliefs are very local and parochial; not just by their standards, their universal standards, where they certainly would be, but even by our own standards. Because what people believe on our planet depends so much on whereabouts on the planet they happen to be born, which is a fairly odd thing.”
That’s right children if aliens exist they may be scientifically/technologically superior. And if they visited us they would more impressed with our scientists than with our theologians. Furthermore, these aliens would notice that our cultural beliefs are very parochial by their universal standards.
Richard Dawkins has quickly moved from believing in universal Darwinian orthodoxy to universal standards regarding cultural beliefs. And yes, “universal” and “cultural” are counter distinct for the very reason that one is “universal” and the other “cultural.” He may believe this and it may actually be true but should not be presented to impressionable children on the basis of authority and under that facade or science.
‹ Richard Dawkins – Children in the Atheist’s Den, part 7 of 8 up