Sorry for how long this is. I meant it to be a paragraph, but got carried away…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard Dawkins is one of the ?New Atheists?. The others are Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. They have some interesting things to say, and each has a different perspective on religion. Dawkins and Dennett are proponents of the ?Brights? movement, and Hitchens and Harris have been extremely critical of it. I think that what makes the ?New Atheists? new is their desire to engage and debate religious people and convince them that their beliefs are incorrect. Most atheists, as far as I can tell, are more polite, keeping to themselves about religion or the lack thereof.

A lot of the New Atheists? arguments are sort of retreads of Marx, Freud, and Bertrand Russell, and each has his strengths and weaknesses. Overall, I find them ultimately unconvincing, because whether a particular religion?s claims are actually true or false, religion is a vital part of society and probably a necessary one. Atheists often point to European countries as examples of how people can be moral without religion, but while individuals can definitely be moral without religion, it is unclear whether society can be self-sustaining without it. As Mark Steyn argues pretty persuasively in America Alone, Europe is in the throes of a demographic death spiral, and this is probably due, at least in part, to the decline of traditional, religious values (selflessness, sexual mores, etc).

At any rate, Dawkins is an evangelist of a sort, because he sees religion as actively harmful and wants it eradicated. Given his premises, he actually takes a pretty logical position, just as the mission of Christian evangelists is logical, given the premise that individuals are worthy of damnation (and bound for it) without the redemption offered by Jesus.

That said, I think that Dawkins?s premises are far off the mark, which is one reason that his stridence is so offensive, unpalatable, and off-putting. His pop science writing is quite good (Here I appear to disagree with Neil), and he has made some excellent documentaries (Growing Up In the Universe is very good). The God Delusion provides some excellent food for thought, but many of his assumptions and conclusions are, in my opinion, incorrect. Religion is not, on a fundamental level, harmful to humanity or society. It is a universal component of society and appears to be simply part of being human. Obviously, particular religions or religious practitioners are abusive, harmful, or both, but this is true of every other human characteristic. Dawkins shows his ignorance about religion (and politics) when he talks about the disproportionate power of the ?Jewish lobby?.

In God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens alternates between making excellent points and being intellectually lazy; he often cuts corners or oversimplifies the subject that he is criticizing. While very sharp and easily the best debater of the four, he is also the most friendly toward religion, recently declaring his appreciation for believers? prayers for his recovery from cancer (while simultaneously disbelieving their efficacy). More than anything, he seems to enjoy having a good subject for debate, and religion offers the best topic around.

Sam Harris?s book The End of Faith is worth reading. It makes some very sharp points against Islam (although anyone who wants a personal account of the horrors if Islam should read Harris?s friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali), but his knowledge and reasoning are a bit more questionable when it comes to U.S. politics.

The least-known of the New Atheists, Daniel Dennett provides arguments that could, in the long run, most effectively undermine religion. He sees is as a natural phenomenon and argues that it should be treated as such by academia. His book Breaking the Spell is the least reader-friendly of the New Atheists? books, but it contains some interesting ideas.

A couple of points of disagreement to things that others have said: Evolution by natural selection is falsifiable (Popper also asserted that it is not falsifiable, but I think that he changed his tune later in life). It has made many falsifiable predictions, particularly at the genetic level. Where its predictions have missed the mark, it has adapted, but no one has found a counter-example to the general theory of natural selection, and most modern biology would fall apart without it. I highly recommend Sean Carroll?s book The Making of the Fittest, which looks at evolution by examining DNA and includes a great profile of the Soviet pseudoscientist Trofim Lysenko.

The assertion that speciation (often misnamed macroevolution) has never been demonstrated might have been true 100 years ago, but scientists have been able to observe it experimentally since then. The problem, as I understand it, is that the work is so highly technical that it is beyond the ken of most lay persons (self included).

Here?s part one of a conversation between Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris. It?s pretty interesting.

It’s my understanding that a lot of macroevolutionary theory is falsifiable, particularly related to genes, DNA, RNA, mitochondria, etc. I’m no expert, though, and gladly concede the point that Dawkins dwells a bit much on some of the more speculative issues in evolutionary biology. A lot of his work between The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion is openly geared toward arguing against theism, which is unfortunate.

Anyway, your point about anthropogenic global warming is spot on and made me laugh. Thanks, Neil, and merry belated Christmas.