Posted by Hemant Mehta in Dilbert creator Scott Adams is answering questions for the Freakonomics blog.
He’s said some increasingly crazy things about atheists and evolution.
This brings me to atheists. In order to be certain that God doesn’t exist, you have to possess a godlike mental capacity – the ability to be 100% certain. A human can’t be 100% certain about anything. Our brains aren’t that reliable. Therefore, to be a true atheist, you have to believe you are the very thing that you argue doesn’t exist: God.
I’ve been trying for years to reconcile my usually-excellent bullshit filter with the idea that evolution is considered a scientific fact. Why does a well-established scientific fact set off my usually-excellent bullshit filter like a five-alarm fire? It’s the fossil record that has been bugging me the most. It looks like bullshit. Smells like bullshit. Tastes like bullshit. Why isn’t it bullshit? All those scientists can’t be wrong.
If you are new to the Dilbert Blog, I remind you that I don’t believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism or invisible friends of any sort. I just think that evolution looks like a blend of science and bullshit, and have predicted for years that it would be revised in scientific terms in my lifetime. It’s a hunch – nothing more.
In another post:
My track record of predictions has been fairly good this week:
1. DNA evidence shows that ape-human fossil records have been badly misinterpreted. (Nailed it.)
Wrong on every count.
PZ Myers has argued against Adams’ points a number of times.
If you’d like to make Adams answer questions on these subjects, feel free to call him out on it.
[tags]atheist, atheist, evolution, creationism, Christianity, fundamentalist[/tags]
You’re confusing “don’t understand his point” with “wrong.”
I’d ask Scott Adams why Dilbert has gotten so cynical and boring. And I’m no fan of PZ Myers, as you might have noticed.
Evolution sucks, get over it!
I can never understand why people listen to people like Scott Adams when he’s talking about things like evolution. It makes just as much sense as listening to the recent string of musicians coming out against nuclear power.
Wow such a concise argument. I’ve never thought of it that way . . there MUST have been a creator. My eyes have been opened!!
I don’t get why people care or get bent out of shape about the Scott says. He writes a semi-funny comic that rehashes the same material over and over. From reading the interview it seems he likes to make up his own definitions for words (atheist for example) and then destroy the strawmen he sets up in a condescending manner.
It’s pretty clear
(1) that Adams doesn’t understand the meaning of the term “atheism”,
(2) that Adams’ argument against atheism is self-refuting, since it is based on the assertion that nothing can be known with certainty. This sweeping assertion, if true, itself cannot be known with certainty to be true — requiring us, apparently, to take an “agnostic” position regarding such an assertion, or indeed regarding any non-tautological assertion whatsoever, and
(3) that Adams is blithely unaware of the gaping logical holes in the Pascal’s Wager argument and espcially in his own employment thereof, since it requires him to believe what he does not believe (as thought that were possible), and indeed to hold contrary beliefs at the same time (e.g., to believe in the existence of God because God might punish him for not believing, and to disbelieve in the existence of God because God might punish him for believing).
Adams needs to turn his “bullshit detector” on his own argument here.
I think Gadren said it best :why is it Scott Adams thinks he has any kind of authority to speak on this topic?
Gadren said
Agreed…and as always we, the general public, are the best part of the joke.
I would say that every one of the commenters here is more adept at rational thought than Adams and yet not a one of us has been able to spin our doodling careers into the public face against atheism (second only to Chuck Norris of course *bows head respectfully*).
I’ve always said that if Atheism is good enough for God, then it’s good enough for me.
Doesn’t this mean that Adams is an atheist? What other ideas are there about biodiversity aside from creationism and natural selection?
The worst part about Scott Adams isn’t that he’s a giant pile of Suck. No, it’s his legion of toadying fanboys who mob sites that criticize The Great Scott Adams and scream that “Oh, he’s just joking! It’s a joke! You don’t understand the joke! Waaah!”
From what I’ve read of his “serious” writings, I’m afraid he doesn’t really have an alternative explanation, but rather a sort of “anything goes” attitude to science. His talk of the double-slit experiment, affirmations, and psychics leads me to believe that he takes a sort of “What the Bleep” attitude to reality.
I recommend Steven Dutch’s lengthy response to Scott Adams, “Suckered by Intelligent Design.”
Mr. Adams is probably bullshitting with what he says, but if he’s not, then I think his bullshitometer needs a calibration or a software update. Doubting everything that’s counterintuitive is probably a prudent response most of the time, but when you’re an ignoramus on a particular subject, it’s wise not to spew on about it.
[...] Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert, answered readers’ questions on the Freakonomics blog. Here are a couple of the exchanges: Q: I’m interested in your comments on evolution. If you have read PZ Myer’s deconstruction of your opinions on evolution, I think they point out not only your misconceptions, but also those of a large number of people unfamiliar with theory. [...]
Anyone read Adams’ e-book “God’s Debris”? I read it a few years ago and rather enjoyed it.
[...] isn’t anything new. In fact, some of you have brought it up before (and thanks to Krista for reminding me about [...]
I loved the Dilbert comic for years and would eagerly look forward to visiting my dad every other weekend because, among many other awesome things my dad did, he always saved the funnies from the Herald Tribune for me (not to mention the weekly Dave Barry, which rocked).
A few months ago, a friend told me that he had a really funny blog as well. So I checked that out and I enjoyed it for quite a while. Then he made a post that essentially joked about rape. This was back when the girl in one of the private subcontracted companies in Iraq claimed to have been raped by several of her coworkers and then kept locked up. Adams made light of it and essentially said that this would be completely impossible and that she was obviously lying (forgive me if my memory is crackling, I’m pretty sure it was something to this effect).
That was that. Not only is it completely not funny, it’s also just not true. That’s when MY bullshit meter started going off. I had no interest in a Scott Adams who would stand up on his soapbox and lecture about things he knew nothing about as though he were some sort of authority.
And while it is usually my policy to separate art from artist, I just haven’t been able to enjoy Dilbert since.
Sorry, but I prefer the Scott Adams of Adventure International fame.
\SAY YOHO
My understanding is that when Scott Adams talks, his tongue is firmly in his cheek! Most of it is not meant to be believed.