Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher: The Dynamic Duo of Demonstrably Deleterious Delusion

The first Dynamic Duo of which I wrote consisted of Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell. This, part 2's, tag-team consists of Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher. The two teamed up on Bill Maher's show (HBO Broadcast Transcript, Episode #613, April 11, 2008). I present a succinct version of the discussion below.

The Good Book??? An Atheist Altar Call!!!:
Bill Maher asked about Prof. Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion":

MAHER: Why this book and why now?
DAWKINS: …I think especially in America, there has been a tendency for God to rule the roost in a way that, I think, people are rightly getting fed up with. And when a group of books come along and challenge that, people warm to it….
MAHER: Okay, that's fair. One or the other. Now, you write in your book, "If this book works as I intend, readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." How is that going for you, the rate of conversion? [laughter] Do you have people come up to you and say, "You know, I used to be a believer, and I read your book, and now I'm not"?
DAWKINS: …people who maybe were sort of vaguely sitting on the fence, and who didn't feel very strongly about it one way or the other…they realize that they've been atheists all along; they just didn't know it.

Indeed, pop-culture in particular loves anything that rocks the boat, shocks the establishment, rages against the machine, etc. Richard Dawkins is certainly not ashamed of proselytizing for his worldview as he intended "The God Delusion" to convert people to atheism. Bill Maher encouraged his thusly, "hopefully, someday, it'll be by the bed in every hotel in America." Previously, Richard Dawkins had expressed similar hopes for Sam Harris' book "The End of Faith," stating that it "is one of those books that deserves to replace the Gideon Bible in every hotel room in the land."1
It is difficult to believe that such a poorly researched and reasoned book should be considered powerful enough to convert anyone to atheism. And indeed, as admitted above, Prof. Richard Dawkins' biased sample shows that it had an impact mainly amongst the fence sitters. They "didn't feel very strongly about it one way or the other" so why not opt for utter lack of accountability (to name one possible motivator)?

I refer to biased sample due Ben Stein's interview with Richard Dawkins in the movie "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed." Richard Dawkins asserts that people feel liberated and relieved when they realize that God does not exist. Mr. Stein asks him how he knows that, he is after all speaking with an empirical scientist. Richard Dawkins responds that he receives letters from people to that effect. To which Mr. Stein states that there are some 8 billion people in the world and asks, "How many letters do you get?" Obviously, the sorts of letters that Richard Dawkins receives to that effect are of a very particular sort having been written by people who were motivated to contact him in order to either thank him, or buddy up to him, or congratulate him, etc.

The High Rating:
1-----------2-----------3-----------4-----------5-----------6-----------7

MAHER: …in the book, you establish a scale of one-to-seven, of atheism…one, being someone who is utterly certain there is a god, and seven being someone who is utterly certain there is not…But, you yourself say you're only a six. Can you tell us why?
DAWKINS: I think any scientist would be unwise to commit himself to saying there definitely is not anything. I mean, I can't definitely commit myself to saying there are no fairies. I'm pretty sure there are no fairies. [laughter] But, I think it would be unscientific to do what the extreme religious people do and say, "I know there is a god." I can't say, "I know there is no god." I can't say, "I know there are no pink unicorns." [laughter] So, a six, maybe 6.9 is reasonable. [laughter]

This, again, is reminiscent of "Expelled" when Richard Dawkins set the probability of God's existence to 1%. Although, upon being asked "How do you know?" he, of course, admitted that he did not know (find quote here). Now, he is establishing his atheism at 6.9 out of 7. His reasoning is valid enough but, as we shall see (and as I have shown here) Richard Dawkins may pay what I will refer to as "lip service" to the scientifically and logically mindful 1% probability of God's existence while arguing, writing, and drawing conclusion as if he was 100% certain that God did not exist.



Personal Incredulity:

MAHER: Right. And, one reason I think yourself and so many others are beginning to speak out against organized religion is…because it's ridiculous! [laughter] It's just ridiculous! [applause] There's a talking snake in the Garden of Eden! And people fly up to Heaven bodily! It's just ridiculous! [laughter] So, my question is, how do you explain bright people - and there are many - come on, we have to admit this - I talked to your friend, the scientist, Francis Collins, discovered the Human Genome - how does a man go to a lab all day, and then at home, go home and believe in the talking snake? How do you explain that phenomenon?
DAWKINS: Well, Francis Collins didn't discover the Human Genome. He was the head of the worldwide operation that discovered it. So he was an administrator. He's a very good scientist, too. But, don't - don't say he was the one who discovered the Human Genome. It was a team effort, and he was the administrator who organized it.
MAHER: [overlapping] Okay, but he's a bright guy.
DAWKINS: Well, yeah, I guess he's a bright guy. [laughter]…Francis Collins is a much brighter guy than Tony Blair. [laughter] I give him that. [applause] But, when you meet a scientist who claims to be religious, if you say, "Do you really believe in the talking snake," most of them will say, "No." Most of them will be religious in a much more nebulous sense than that…but I don't think you'll find he believes in the talking snake.
MAHER: I interviewed him and he absolutely does. [laughter]
DAWKINS:He does?!...Well, look, in that case, he goes right down in my estimation. He's not a bright guy! [laughter] [applause]

This exchange discredits itself on at least two fronts: it is what Richard Dawkins would call an argument from personal incredulity, and it betrays a lack of Biblical knowledge. The argument from personal incredulity is plain to see, "it's ridiculous! [laughter] It's just ridiculous! [applause]…It's just ridiculous! [laughter]…He's not a bright guy! [laughter] [applause]." Stating that it is "ridiculous" takes the place of an argument and sends the audience into fits of laughter and applause, no wonder that when Christopher Hitchens appeared on Bill Maher's show he, as they say in common parlance, flipped off the audience stating, "Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything." If you have ever had the displeasure of watching Bill Maher's show you know this to be accurate as trained seals demonstrate more discernment as to what they will clap about-but I digress.

Note also the criteria by which Francis Collins is judged: sure he was the head of the worldwide operation that discovered the Human Genome but if he believes in a talking snake then he is not a bright guy ([laughter] [applause]). But what if Francis Collins stated that he believed that life on earth originated when lightning struck a swamp? Or that nothing caused nothing to explode for no reason and made everything for no purpose. Or that there are subatomic particles. Or that 96% of the universe is invisible dark matter. Etc. Well, then he would be a brilliant, enlightened, rational, intellectual, scientifically astute, erudite, respectable guy.

The Vociferous Viper:
Now to the talking snake. Certainly some believe that there was a talking snake but there is no real need to do so. And it would not be due to picking and choosing or embarrassment at the modern and logically fallacious denial of miracles. It is generally understood that the "snake"/"serpent" in the garden was lucifer who came to be known as "that ancient serpent" (Revelation 12:9): "You were in Eden, the garden of God" (Ezekiel28:12), he is told. lucifer, the luminescent one, was referred to as a snake/serpent due to his craftiness and due the root word meaning of "practice divination" or "enchantment"/"enchanter." This enchanter was told "On your belly you shall go" (Gen 3:14), being brought down from his lofty state (see Ezekiel 28:12-19 and Isaiah 14:11-19).

Jesus said, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Luke 10:18). This being was also told "you shall eat dust" (Genesis 3:14), playing off of Adam being made from dust, "Adam" meaning dustman/earthling. Thus, we see that with a slight understanding of literary devises and greater contexts the story is actually presenting a complex tapestry and has nothing to do with either a negatively inclined "literal" reading like Prof. Richard Dawkins' and Bill Maher's and also one that does not call for us to pick, choose or reinterpret-we simply take it as it is intended.

Please note that the preceding was irrelevant because if you say, "The Bible does not necessarily imply a talking snake but it was satan in the Garden." The response will be, "Satan?!? That's just ridiculous! [laughter]." Then you continue, "Well, in any case, in the Garden…" "The Garden of Eden?!? That's just ridiculous! [laughter]." So you say, "Alrighty then, so, God was in the Garden with them and…" "God?!? That's just ridiculous! [laughter]," et al, etc., ad infinitum (speaking of ridiculous, see my thought on Bill Maher's upcoming movie "Religulous" here).

The Deathbed Fallacy:

MAHER: And, do you think there's any chance that when the final hour comes for you, when you're on your death bed, you might have a second thought and…suddenly get cold feet?
DAWKINS: I tell you what. When I'm on my death bed, I'm going to have a tape recorder switched on, because time and again, people like me are the victims of malicious stories after they're dead, people saying they had a death-bed conversion when they didn't. There's a story that even Darwin had a death-bed conversion, which is a complete lie, but it's widely believed by - by creationists. And it happens again and again and again. So, I'm going to have witnesses, and I'm going to have a tape recorder switched on. [laughter] [applause] It's not going to happen.

Richard Dawkins is premising his comments upon the deathbed fallacy: whether we look forward to laying in our deathbeds and only then repent or, as in this case, to besmirch God one final time, there is no deathbed guarantee for anyone. We may be alive and kicking one moment and nothing but an ex-bio-organism the next.

Ultimately, this statement goes to show, more than anything else, that Richard Dawkins is absolutely committed to a worldview. He is therefore absolute certainty that the future will hold no discoveries of the supernatural variety, neither scientific nor personal discoveries.

1. 1. Richard Dawkins, in the comments section of Sam Harris' article The Politics of Ignorance