Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
My longtime readers know that I have long been on friendly terms with Francis Beckwith. Though we are on opposite sides of many important disputes, I have always enjoyed an amicable relationship with Frank and I consider him, as my father likes to say, both a gentleman and a scholar. My longtime readers also likely know that I have a long been on somewhat strained terms with Richard Dawkins despite being on the same side in most of those same disputes and despite my enormous admiration for him as a writer and a scientist. So when I see that Beckwith has written a critique of Dawkins in First Things, I have to take a look.
Alas, the critique turns out to be quite disappointing. I think Beckwith is essentially beating up a straw man version of Dawkins' argument. The subject is Dawkins' lamenting of Kurt Wise's "turn to the dark side", rejecting science to hold on to a literalist interpretation of the Bible (one that Beckwith himself does not hold, incidentally). Wise, for those who do not know, is a young earth creationist geologist who did his PhD under Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard, and was openly creationist while doing so. He's really quite brilliant.
Beckwith quotes a comment by Dawkins where he expresses disappointment at Wise wasting his obvious abilities doing Christian apologetics rather than real science. After recounting a bit of Wise's career, Beckwith writes:
Dawkins is disturbed by Wise's judgment and its repercussions on his obvious promise as a scholar, researcher, and teacher. Writes Dawkins: "I find that terribly sad . . . the Kurt Wise story is just plain pathetic--pathetic and contemptible. The wound, to his career and his life's happiness, was self-inflicted, so unnecessary, so easy to escape. . . . I am hostile to religion because of what it did to Kurt Wise. And if it did that to a Harvard educated geologist, just think what it can do to others less gifted and less well armed."
Beckwith then goes on to argue, in essence, that Dawkins has no grounds for making such a statement because, as an atheist, he must reject what he regards as the grounds for the statement:
Of course, some Christians may be just as troubled as Dawkins. So one need not be an atheist to raise legitimate questions about Professor's Wise's intellectual and spiritual journey. But, given Dawkins' atheism, there is something odd about his lament, for it seems to require that Dawkins accept something about the nature of human beings and the natural moral law that his atheism seems to reject.Let me explain what I mean. Dawkins harshly criticizes Wise for embracing a religious belief that results in Wise's not treating himself and his talents, intelligence, and abilities in a way appropriate for their full flourishing. That is, given the opportunity to hone and nurture certain gifts--for example, intellectual skill--no one, including Wise, should waste them as a result of accepting a false belief. The person who violates, or helps violate, this norm, according to Dawkins, should be condemned, and we should all bemoan this tragic moral neglect on the part of our fellow(s). But the issuing of that judgment on Wise by Dawkins makes sense only in light of Wise's particular talents and the sort of being Wise is by nature, a being who Dawkins seems to believe possesses certain intrinsic capacities and purposes, the premature disruption of which would be an injustice.
So the human being who wastes his talents is one who does not respect his natural gifts or the basic capacities whose maturation and proper employment make possible the flourishing of many goods. In other words, the notion of "proper function," as Alvin Plantinga puts it, coupled with the observation that certain perfections grounded in basic capacities have been impermissibly obstructed from maturing, is assumed in the very judgment Dawkins makes about Wise and the way by which Wise should treat himself.
But Dawkins, in fact, does not actually believe that living beings, including human beings, have intrinsic purposes or are designed so that one may conclude that violating one's proper function amounts to a violation of one's moral duty to oneself. Dawkins has maintained for decades that the natural world only appears to be designed. He writes in The God Delusion: "Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that--an illusion."
But this means that his lament for Wise is misguided, for Dawkins is lamenting what only appears to be Wise's dereliction of his duty to nurture and employ his gifts in ways that result in his happiness and an acquisition of knowledge that contributes to the common good. Yet because there are no designed natures and no intrinsic purposes, and thus no natural duties that we are obligated to obey, the intuitions that inform Dawkins' judgment of Wise are as illusory as the design he explicitly rejects. But that is precisely one of the grounds by which Dawkins suggests that theists are irrational and ought to abandon their belief in God.
This is quite unconvincing. It is clear to me that Beckwith is presuming grounds for Dawkins' statement that simply aren't necessary. One need not accept the notion of "designed natures" in order to find someone wasting their talents a sad thing. It appears to me that Beckwith is confusing this by calling one's abilities "gifts" rather than "talents" or "aptitudes", but that is not a premise that Dawkins shares, not is it necessary in order to ground Dawkins' opinion.
It simply isn't necessary that one take a teleological view of the various aptitudes that individuals have in order to also take the view that it's a good thing when one develops one's talents and uses them to the fullest. It no more requires a belief that God gave those talents to the individual than it requires a belief that every individual has a destiny created by The Force, a la Star Wars. One can justify such a judgment of disappointment on any number of grounds, the most obvious being pragmatic - it's disappointing that he didn't put his prodigious talents to good use because he could have helped advance our understanding in any number of ways. There need be no grand purpose or single "human nature" in order for one to legitimately express disappointment.
It seems to me that Beckwith is arguing against an entirely different warrant for Dawkins' statement than Dawkins himself would offer. In debate terms, we would say that there's no clash going on. He's not really engaging Dawkins' argument, he's engaging the basis for the argument that Beckwith would have if he were reaching the same conclusion. But one can reach the same conclusion from very different starting points and if you aren't engaging the other person's real starting point, as opposed to the one you're falsely claiming that it must be, then you aren't really engaging the argument at all.
Comments
Beckwith posted a link to his article at Right Reason, and commenters there are also shredding his argument...
Posted by: Bill Snedden | June 22, 2007 9:57 AM
I agree that Beckwith is simply projecting a position onto Dawkins which Dawkins need not (and apparently does not) hold. This sort of projection is often seen by theists attempting to shackle the atheist with some unheld principle which can then be attacked, although usually not as well written as the current example.
When Reuben Fine, one of the finest American players in hiostoy, left chess to pursue a career in psychology back in the late 40's, it was remarked at the time, 'a great loss for chess, at best a draw for psychology'. One can appreciate the pain of a loss of great talent, especially when its self-inflicted, regardless ones religious views. Its not the dereliction of duty that is lamented, its the loss of what might have been. God only has something to do with that if you choose it.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 22, 2007 10:02 AM
hiostoy = history
Posted by: Dave S. | June 22, 2007 10:04 AM
It seems to me Beckwith's position also displays the most common arrogance of theists.
"If you don't believe in God then you can have no morals, life has no purpose, and life doesn't matter, and everybody can just do absolutely whatever they want, like kill, take drugs, rape, and listen to REO Speedwagon."
It's a pity that humanists, who have had religious beliefs shoved down their throats all their lives, can't seem to get more than a handful of moderate theists to even bother to try to understand what humanism really is or advocates, because if they did they wouldn't blather such nonsense as Beckwith does above.
And finally, it is a FACT, not a THEORY, that REO Speedwagon sucks. To deny the total suckery of this band is to engage in the sort of relativism that leads to people denying the miracle of a Frank Zappa guitar solo.
Posted by: Skip Evans | June 22, 2007 10:05 AM
I've never been impressed with Beckwith's writings. IIRC, he seems to base a lot of his arguments around the assumption that presuppositional apologetics (or something similar to it) is true.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | June 22, 2007 10:09 AM
Sounds like some poor thinking on both parts. I quite agree with you that Beckwith is disagreeing with a strawman. At the same time, for Dawkins to use Wise's choice not to pursue a certain career path as justification for disliking religion seems specious.
Dawkins claim that Wise has wounded his career and his life's happiness seems to be the same strawman that Beckwith is committing -- because Dawkins finds this wounding, so must Wise. But is there any evidence that Wise -- the person who must after all live his own life - is wounded or unhappy with it?
Posted by: PennyBright | June 22, 2007 10:19 AM
Bill: Your link doesn't work.
Skip:
I agree.
It's time to take that ship into the shore, and throw away the oars, forever.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 22, 2007 10:24 AM
Part of the problem here seems to be the roots of our language and culture in theism - not just Judeo-Christianity, but all the way back to some guy in the sky drumming on a log to make thunder. Theism is implicit in our language in ways big and small. An atheist can't say he "believes" something to be true without a theist jumping on that as a hypocritical sign of the atheist's "faith." Throwaway phrases like "Thank goodness" when you escape a misfortune or "Bless you" after a sneeze are taken to mean that our atheism is merely an intellectual pose. Even a large percentage of curse words are forbidden to us - we can use scatological terms, and some profanity (despite the root of that very word), but uttering a casual blasphemy like "God damn it!" makes us appear to be closet Christians. The old cliche "There are no atheists in foxholes" speaks to this prejudice - implying that we're merely taunting God by pretending to disbelieve, but when the chips are down, we'll fall in line and start praying.
In this case, Dawkins' unfortunate choice of the word "gifted" to describe Wise opened him up for attack. To be gifted presumes someone (er, Someone) provided the gift. But other terms he could have used - talented, for instance - just don't carry the same weight. Short of developing a new language (an obvious absurdity), I don't see a fix for it. We'll just have to keep clarifying our positions despite the handicap of a language designed by our opponents.
Posted by: BobApril | June 22, 2007 10:26 AM
Yeah, I noticed that...it worked in the preview, though so I'm not sure what went wrong. Here's the full URL: http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/06/the_irrationali.html#comments
Posted by: Bill Snedden | June 22, 2007 10:30 AM
PennyBright says:
Well Beckwith does quote Wise as saying ---
"Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science."
That last sentence doesn't sound particularly cheerful. Maybe Wise doesn't regret the choice, but that is not the point.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 22, 2007 10:32 AM
BobApril says:
Simply ask those people what day of the week it is. Since each of those is named after some pagan god, your accuser might be hard pressed to answer without appearing hypocritical.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 22, 2007 10:38 AM
Actually if I remember correctly, the story goes something like young scientist is raised religious, comes to the university, excels at science and finds joy in it. Gets PhD but starts to notice that science is in conflict with his beliefs. The young scientist becomes tormented between believing in the scientific version and the religious version. Finally he concludes that science is wrong and rejects it.
Dawkins feels that it is religions fault that someone who was such a great geologist could feel so tormented and finally just pull away from science.
So I don't think its Dawkins projecting onto Wise some kind of wound, I think there was some serious heartwrenching stuff actually happening.
Posted by: Robert | June 22, 2007 10:41 AM
Dave S. quotes Beckwith, quoting Wise:
Interesting that he would use that quote, that we see as damaging to his position. I suspect that in the religious mode of thought, the reverse is true - seeing Wise's sacrifice of his dreams and hopes for his beliefs gives him additional credibility and respect. While to Dawkins, and to me, it is merely a sad and painful waste.
Also, Dave, thanks for the "weekday" suggestion. I'm eager to use it!
Posted by: BobApril | June 22, 2007 10:48 AM
To be gifted presumes someone (er, Someone) provided the gift. But other terms he could have used - talented, for instance - just don't carry the same weight.
Ooh, unintentionally funny on several levels.
For one thing, the English word "talent" comes from the Latin term for a unit of weight.
For another, the use of "talent" to denote skills or capabilities is derived from Jesus's parable of the talents. In that parable, "talent" literally refers to a sum of money, but metaphorically it is the skills and resources that God gives to people. So, I think that "gifted" and "talented" both have assumptions about a giver lurking just below the surface.
Posted by: Nick | June 22, 2007 10:52 AM
PennyBright:
"Dawkins claim that Wise has wounded his career and his life's happiness seems to be the same strawman that Beckwith is committing -- because Dawkins finds this wounding, so must Wise. But is there any evidence that Wise -- the person who must after all live his own life - is wounded or unhappy with it?"
IIRC, yes, in The God Delusion, Dawkins recounts the story in some detail, and it seems clear that the journey to creationsim was quite a painful ordeal for this guy. Again, IIRC, Wise pretty much came right ot and said that he had to sacrifice his dream of academic success as a geologist in favor of creationsim. I'm at work so don't have my copy of the book, but that was the gist of it. I'm sure someone else can clarify.
Posted by: Ethyl | June 22, 2007 10:54 AM
@Dave S.: It's time to take that ship into the shore, and throw away the oars, forever.
Um... why is there coffee sprayed all over my keyboard? :-)
Posted by: Norm | June 22, 2007 10:56 AM
Nick, I really wish I could protest that it was intentional...but you're right, it wasn't. It certainly made me laugh, though, thanks. It also adds to my point - even when I'm consciously trying to avoid theistic words, I can't manage it.
Posted by: BobApril | June 22, 2007 11:11 AM
No problemo.
For reference ---
Sunday - Named for the sun
Monday - Named for the moon
(Maybe not gods exactly, but still pagan/astrological symbolism)
Tuesday - Norse god Tiw (Ziw, Tyr), god of war.
Wednesday - Norse god Woden (Odin, Wotan), father of gods.
Thursday - Norse thunder god Thor.
Friday - Norse goddess Freya, goddess of love. Or possibly after Frigg, wife of Odin.
Saturday - Roman god Saturn, god of harvest.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 22, 2007 11:14 AM
Dave S quoted Wise saying:
This is an interesting quote. At face value, it is squarely at odds with that quaint notion popular among creationists that science affirms what the Bible says.
I would think that if he were convinced that creationism is demonstrably true, then his hope would be that science would be a necessary part of the demonstration. Yet it seems like he has all but abandonded hope of that being possible.
Maybe I am reading too much into it and he just is saying that he knows being a creationist will reflect badly on him and that he would never be respected. I just have a hard time imagining a creationist, and a scientist no less, not having hope that science will support his beliefs.
Posted by: Leni | June 22, 2007 11:22 AM
Kurt Wise is unusual for a YEC in that he does actually criticise the poor arguemnts other young earthers use, and readily admits a solid scientific basis for YE is just not there. For instance I believe he has criticised the use of Haldane's Dilemma on the grounds that whatever trouble its supposed to make for evolution according to his benighted YE peers, it makes vastly more problems for the creationist model. He was once quoted as saying most creation science is garbage. He also apparently wrote in an e-mail in 2003, "I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant."
His most famous quote:
Posted by: Dave S. | June 22, 2007 11:37 AM
Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science."
Funny, that... I had an epiphany in my late teens, after a period as an atheist even, but it didn't mean I threw away all reason. If anything, the opposite.
And what gave him the idea that he had to throw out the Bible if evolution were true? The basic thrust of Christian theology stands, whether you believe Original Sin really goes back to eating that goddamn fruit, or whether it's just a metaphor for human beings' ability to fuck things up big-time (an ability I think nobody would deny, atheists or not).
Those words in italics, particularly the last sentence, are among the most dismal and depressing I have ever read. Please, God, may they not actually have been said.
Posted by: Justin Moretti | June 22, 2007 11:54 AM
An unconvincing critique by Beckwith. Dawkins is criticizing Wise's refusal, out of fear and self-abnegation, to fulfill his own creative potential and construct for himself a meaning and purpose for his life based upon known facts and truths about the world, in order to follow a puritanical and out-dated, constricting view of the universe.
We should all mourn that!
Atheists do believe in intrinsic purpose! "Purpose" is a human concept, a social concept, emergent with consciousness, not handed down to us from above by some Great Bore in the Sky. I have always had a sense of my intrinsic purpose. It is religious believers who largely don't. I figured that out very young, surrounded as I was by kids in a church youth group who were more messed up and confused than I could ever be. I was no trouble as a kid. I didn't need religion to tell this nerdy bookworm to "stay away from drugs," and blah, blah. (What I got out of church was, basically, exposure to popular music.)
Why is Beckwith, who is an intelligent man, choosing this particular fight? It only makes him look ridiculous!
Posted by: Kristine | June 22, 2007 11:59 AM
Skip Evans wrote:
Funny you should mention that, I was just talking about that with a friend last night. REO Speedwagon pisses me off more than just about any band on earth and the reasons are actually analogous to the Kurt Wise situation. Until about 1981, REO Speedwagon was one of the great rock bands on the planet. If you only know them from their shitty last-dance-at-the-prom ballads, go back and listen to their mid-late 70s stuff. 157 Riverside Avenue, Flying Turkey Trot, Golden Country, Son of a Poor Man, Riding the Storm Out - this was a kickass band. And then....they went to hell. They turned in to the bastard child of Dan Fogelberg and Air Supply. And you wanna hear the worst part of it? I was dragged to see them at a county fair in about 1996 by a girlfriend. My best friend promptly declared me to be the world's biggest pussy. Who was I to argue?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 22, 2007 12:18 PM
Thanks to everyone who gave me more background info about Wise - it does sound like Dawkins view is justified. I'll have to add the God Delusion to my reading list.
Posted by: PennyBright | June 22, 2007 12:21 PM
I find it quite ironic that Beckwith chooses this to criticize Dawkins. Dawkins take on Kurt Wise, is what actually really increased my respect for Dawkins. In it, I see not just a lament for a career wasted, I see a profound compassion for Kurt Wise. Indeed, it seems entirely analogous to the genuine compassion that many theists feel towards unbelievers that they think are relegating themselves to hell.
To be sure, I don't like the patronizing. I don't like it when theists do it, I don't like it when people like Dawkins or Dennett do it. But I respect it, because it is born of genuine compassion, showing that these people genuinely care for others.
And I think that Skip Evans is spot on in his assessment of Beckwith's position. It smacks of the notion that atheists just aren't capable of having the same compassion, or love, of their fellow man, that Christians are called by faith, to have. Of course, that argument fails in the face of Dawkins, Dennett, Sagan, Tyson and countless other atheists.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 22, 2007 1:19 PM
I agree with Ed's comments regarding REO Speedwagon being a great band whose went commercial which resulted in temporary fame but lost their core audience and quickly became irrelevant even to what they were before they sold out. Styx, the J. Geils Band (Centerfold), and the Doobie Brothers (Minute by Minute) all went through similiar transitions with Styx matching the time period with Paradise Theater.
1981, the year REO's album Hi Infidelity hit #1, was the only the year where I thought Rock & Roll had a chance of actually dying out; a horrible notion to consider because I was only 21 at the time. The music that year that was pushed on us by the media was atrocious and even great bands were promoting awful albums (e.g., AC/DC "For those about to Rock" & "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap", and Van Halen's "Fair Warning"). Consider the other #1 albums of that year, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number-one_albums_of_1981_%28U.S.%29.
Thankfully IMHO it never got worse than 1981. One bright spot that year was Stevie Nick's "Bella Donna", an album that sounds as fresh and relevant today as it did then.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 22, 2007 1:41 PM
I've read a lot of theology, and honestly, I've yet to come across any that isn't just embarrassingly specious on its face.
What I find so amazing about theological arguments against natural explanations is that they never get around to explaining anything. For all his incredible arrogance about how one cannot explain things like morality without God, for instance, what's Plantinga's "superior" explanation? It basically boils down to "oh, I don't have to explain it: it just is that way because, er, god is really giant and says so." I'm open to this stuff providing some real insight into things like morality and consciousness, but honestly, what a disappointment.
Freed from the supposedly confining and insufficient strictures of "materialism" that they complain about endless, you'd think that theologians would be able to offer something better than "it just works, I don't have to explain it."
Posted by: plunge | June 22, 2007 1:48 PM
Michael-
I have to disagree with you about Fair Warning. I think it's the most underrated Van Halen album and one of my favorites.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 22, 2007 2:06 PM
I think 1990 was worse. Dominated by Paula Abdul, MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice...even an appearance by Milli Vanilli. Thank god for Sinéad O'Connor and Bonnie Raitt.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 22, 2007 2:12 PM
REO Speedwagon's song "Let's Bebop" was one of the greatest songs ever
Posted by: Randi Schimnosky | June 22, 2007 4:49 PM
Beckwith's criticism of Dawkins is just another in a long history of believer criticisms of atheism that amount to "from my world view, your conclusions are inconsistent". Yes, but he doesn't have your world view. It's just another example of how many believers can't wrap their mind around someone really, truly, not believing in gods.
As for the more alarming part of this thread:
Ed incomprehensively said: Until about 1981, REO Speedwagon was one of the great rock bands on the planet.
In a time with the likes of U2, REM, the Clash, Pretenders, Elvis Costello, and the Police, among many others, producing timeless music still often heard today (as opposed to REO), I can only surmise that you left out the "1,000" in your statement, as in "one of the 1,000 great rock bands". But then again Ed, you had kind things to say about Van Hagar, quite possibly the most artistically inept commercially successful act of the last half century. Skip Evans had it right: Oreo Speedcookie sucked, first wretched song to last.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 22, 2007 5:43 PM
You all need to listen to some Pigface. I recommend Gub. It would mellow you out. And end these silly arguments about REO SpeedWagon, Milli Van Halen, Styx Abdul, and whoever all those folk are.
Posted by: llewelly | June 22, 2007 7:17 PM
Beckwith isn't attacking a strawman. He is attacking Dawkins' exact position. He is saying Dawkins has no moral basis for saying Kurt Wise ought to do this or that without appealing to natural law based in divine teleology. This, of course, is ridiculous in that it both endorses a horrid view of ethics and neglects one of the umpteen other ethical views Dawkins does have access to as an atheist.
Posted by: Jason S. | June 22, 2007 7:40 PM
It seems to me Beckwith's position also displays the most common arrogance of theists.
More like the common desperation than the common arrogance. The best they can do is make a case for why people should at least pretend that their god is real. That's the best they got, and they run that baby for all she's worth. Oh yeah.
Posted by: 386sx | June 22, 2007 7:44 PM
Jason S wrote:
Nonsense. Dawkins wasn't making a moral argument at all. He was not arguing that Wise had acted immorally, only that he had made a bad choice.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 22, 2007 7:53 PM
I agree with Ed's comments regarding REO Speedwagon being a great band whose went commercial which resulted in temporary fame but lost their core audience and quickly became irrelevant even to what they were before they sold out.
Oh please. Let them make whatever the music they want to make. Oh my gosh I better not whistle any catchy tunes I don't want to be accused of selling out, OH MY GOSH HOW HORRIBLE!!!
Posted by: 386sx | June 22, 2007 7:56 PM
I agree with Ed's comments regarding REO Speedwagon being a great band whose went commercial which resulted in temporary fame but lost their core audience and quickly became irrelevant even to what they were before they sold out.
You make it sound like that's a bad thing or something. If they are irrelevant then at least they aren't selling out. The more relevance to the more people equals the more selling out they have to do. One thing I noticed about all the musicians up there Mr. Heath is that all of them makes money from selling music and that all of them are in show biz. Hrmmm.
Posted by: 386sx | June 22, 2007 8:10 PM
386sx says:
I'm not a music expert, but becoming irrelevant and losing your audience doesn't sound like a good thing.
I don't think these two are mutually exclusive. In selling out there is no guarantee that you will succeed.
Not necessarily true. An artist can become more relevant to more people by simply expanding their fan-base (say through word of mouth), whilst maintaining the core musical principles that got them relevant in the first place. That's not to say the artist cannot ever change. Artists can and do change when they feel what they want to express in music demands it, Bob Dylan going electric for instance (although he was accused of selling out too). But selling out means to change with the intent of becoming more popular and to make more money - to go commercial for the sake of going commercial as it were.
Errr...yes. I fail to see the point. Obviously they need to make some money, as do we all. The point is that selling out means that making more and more money becomes a focal point...that it becomes the primary goal and is accomplished by deliberately changing your musical style to one you know sells better. But again, this may work out or it may not.
REO Speedwagon did get high selling one album out of it. But where are they now? I'll tell you exactly where they are. They're in Fort Worth Texas, getting ready to play at Billy Bob's, World's Largest Honky Tonk tonight.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 23, 2007 7:35 AM
I'm not so sure he took the wrong career move. Theres plenty of 'darwinist' scientists around fighting for a tiny number of tenured positions while quite clearly the number of creationists who have scientific qualifications (no, not Kent Hovind or Casey Luskin) is tiny. Going down this career path makes a lot of sense in career terms. Obviously I don't think it was purely a pragmatic decision on his part but its wrong to assume that it is simply career suicide given that in contrast to many of his evolution believing contemporaries he is probably one of the very few with a secure long term job.
Science isnt always about the pursuit of unadulterated knowledge sometimes people want things like a long term salary and the ability to buy a property and raise a family - a factor the rest of the population takes for granted but not scientists.
Posted by: MartinC | June 23, 2007 11:17 AM
Of course Dawkins was making a moral argument. He was saying Wise ought to have behaved in a different fashion. And the fact that he didn't, along with what caused him to behave differently, is something worthy of contempt and lament. He justifies hostility towards religion *because* religion causes people to behave in ways he regards as undesireable. That is, by its very nature, a moral argument. It employs moral terminology and makes moral pre/proscriptions. He is saying, "I am right to be hostile towards religion, because it is a corrupter of minds that wastes precious talent and resources that could be utilized in more desirable ways."
I don't think Beckwith was wrong for sensing for Dawkins needs a moral basis to think that one is justified in opposing something if it causes people to behave in ways that are "sad, pathetic, and contempible." Beckwith is wrong to think that the only (sound) way to achieve such a basis is to accept his untenable, philosophically laughable really, view on ethics.
Posted by: Jason S. | June 23, 2007 11:19 AM
Jason S wrote:
So what? That does not make it a moral argument. A basketball coach telling a player he should not have given up his dribble with a double team coming is also telling someone that they "ought to have behaved differently"; that hardly makes it a moral argument.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2007 12:06 PM
The attack may say a lot more about Beckwith than Dawkins. Beckwith has drifted from sect to sect, and now seems to have washed up in Catholicism, the most authoritarian sect of Christianity. Clearly, this is a man whose moral compass needs the extra pull of dogmatism; he has realized, as so many others have realized, the Bible alone does not provide a clear moral stance on anything.
So now he looks at Dawkins, a man whose ethical stances are crystal clear, yet based on nothing more than logic and a keen understanding of the world. Of course Beckwith is going to resent that. The Church does not merely dismiss people who try to ground ethics a-theistically; it actively attacks them. Obviously, if you're selling a product of dubious quality, it's important to make sure everyone knows the competition is worse.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 23, 2007 1:37 PM
"So what? That does not make it a moral argument."
Yes it does. Saying someone ought or ought not do anything is a moral claim by its very nature. That is what morality is. A statement that takes the form "X ought to do Y" is an ethical statement. If you think these kind of statements can be true or false, then it is an ethical proposition. Any sort of "ought" is an ethical term. You can only support these kind of statements by reaching to ethical argument. Dawkins argument clearly takes this form.
"A basketball coach telling a player he should not have given up his dribble with a double team coming is also telling someone that they "ought to have behaved differently"; that hardly makes it a moral argument."
He is making a moral claim. He is saying the person ought to act in such a way that they behave in a way conducive to winning the game. That's a moral prescription that requires one to have some sort of basis for saying a person ought to try and win the game.
Take another example:
Fact 1: Dropping Jimmy from the roof will break his legs
Fact 2: ?
Claim: You ought not drop Jimmy from the roof.
You can't get to the claim without employing some sort of value-based bridge between the fact that Jimmy will have his legs broken and the claim that you ought do something that will result in his legs being broken. There is a gap between the "is" of fact 1 and the "ought" of the claim.
You're example is no different. What changes is that instead of "legs will be broken" the issue is "we'll be more likely to not win." It's implied, but it is there. But so what? Why ought you behave in a way that is conducive to winning? That's what coach is saying, but on what grounds is he saying it? You can't answer that question without injecting some sort of moral value that goes something like, "one ought to try and win the game."
Posted by: Jason S. | June 23, 2007 3:52 PM
Jason S wrote:
Thank you for demonstrating your idiocy right up front so no one need bother to engage your any longer.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | June 23, 2007 4:00 PM
"Thank you for demonstrating your idiocy right up front so no one need bother to engage your any longer."
My "idiocy" is taught in basic philosophy (of ethics) courses across universities and is near universally accepted by the relevant academic community. Your position is about as respectable - and respected - as young earth creationism is in biology. It's an interesting contrast when you consider the position to be so self evidently false that insulting dismissals will do. Maybe you should email one of your readers who knows what they are talking about before you insert you foot in your mouth. Yes, prescriptions of any sort (i.e. x ought y) fall under the domain of meta/ethics as that is what the field is about.
Posted by: Jason S. | June 23, 2007 8:46 PM
Put another way, Beckwith is saying that if Dawkins says one ought to use their faculties in a certain way, Dawkins needs a rational basis for making ought-based claims about how people should use their faculties *if* Dawkins is to be taken as rational. Beckwith claims does not have rational access to such a basis, because it requires one acceppt that faculties are intended by a creator to be used in certain ways. It's not a good argument, but it is not committing an informal strawman fallacy as you argue.
Posted by: Jason S. | June 23, 2007 8:57 PM
The worst REO song still kicks the ass of the best Christian "rock" song.
That goes for Christian "metal" too.
*shudder*
Posted by: twincats | June 23, 2007 11:57 PM
twincats -
While it would be wrong to claim that the fair bulk of Christian "rock" and "metal," generally suck, there are and were, some pretty damned good ones too. A lot of it is far better than the worse REO, some is even better than the better REO. . .
Posted by: DuWayne | June 24, 2007 1:11 AM
Obviously, Dawkins is making a morally prescriptive claim: That it would be better for science (or Mankind, or the universe; there must be some frame of reference) if Wise stayed in geology rather than following a career in art, music, or Christian apologetics. So far, Beckwith's argument is sound, although he does not address it clearly.
Here he goes off the rails by assuming that the only frame of reference is morality as defined by a Creator God. This simply does not follow. There is nothing even to prevent the referent from being relativistic: Utilitarian systems certainly suggest that situational ethics can function effectively in a society, although with relatively high transaction costs.
So I agree with Jason S that Beckwith starts from a solid foundation.
As for REO Speedwagon, its repeated mention here has undone years of therapy. I attended a concert around 1982 which caused me to lose my faith in humanity. Still, they were better than Styx.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 24, 2007 5:42 AM
I don't pay much attention to bloviators such as Beckwith (I had enough of the horse manure that was shovelled by the philosophy instructors when I was at University, in our "basic education requirements"), but I'll admit that Dawkins isn't doing his side any good with his irasciability. Dawkins can come across as being rather obnoxious.
It isn't so much what you say, as how you say it. Dawkins should learn that.
Posted by: raj | June 24, 2007 6:23 AM
Dawkins isn't doing his side any good with his irasciability.
Frequent are such assertions, rare-to-nonexistent is any supporting evidence.
The worst REO song still kicks the ass of the best Christian "rock" song.
High praise indeed.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 24, 2007 10:44 AM
DuWayne, I agree that your argument can certainly be made since I have admittedly not heard every Christian rock song out there (or even every REO song.)
I should have said "in my opinion" since that's all it is.
I'll also add an admission: That music is part of what dislodged me from Christianity to begin with. I've always loathed guitars at church services (even as a teen) and clung tenaciously to my beloved baroque church music, which I still love.
Conversely, when I hear a catchy rock tune where the lyrics start blathering about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, something dies inside me and the song is ruined. The only thing that cheers me up is thinking about the South Park episode where Cartman starts his own Christian rock band.
Posted by: twincats | June 24, 2007 2:51 PM
twincats: I always knew we had something in common. I got a new version of the Bach St. Mark's Passion yesterday, so I'll be in a good mood for the rest of the evening.
My solution to the "lousy music in church" syndrome was to join the choir: I enjoy singing, so at least I get something out of the tripe. The other thing that I hate are the canned background tracks that folks sing along with. If I want %^&* karaoke I'll go out on Saturday night, not Sunday morning.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 24, 2007 4:25 PM
Science Avenger | June 24, 2007 10:44 AM
Just to let you know, I agree with Dawkin's arguments, and have long made the same. But I have been put off by the way I have heard him make them. I can imagine how others, who are fence-sitters, might react to his irascibility.
It's an issue of framing. Read some of Lakoff.
Posted by: raj | June 25, 2007 5:32 AM
Yes, I am familiar with the arguments. What I am not at all familiar with are specific instances of things Dawkins has said, and actual data showing these things had a deleterious effect on the efforts to normalize atheism in society. From what I have seen and read of Dawkins (and that is quite a bit), my opinion is that he is interpreted the way he is (irascible and such) simply by discussing religion as we might any other subject around people used to religion being treated with kid gloves, if not given an outright pass entirely from straightforward critical scrutiny.
People in American society are so used to having different rules applied to religion vs everything else, that just treating them the same way makes you look like a radical. I once walked up on an alter in a church while milling around at a wedding rehearsal waiting for the minister to show up, and caused quite a scene. I wasn't touching anything or making obscene hand gestures. I was simply curious what was up there and went and had a look. I saw it as no more invasive than it might be to poke your head into an empty office, but these people reacted as if I were about to take a ceremonial dump. Granted, we were in Alabama, but it isn't that much better here in Texas.
I'd still wager Dembski's scotch that Dawkins is serving the role most oppressed segments of society have needed in history: a very loud, direct voice, calling bullshit on what has gone on for too long. I'd argue the courage that gives the rank and file American atheist to stand up and (gasp) be up front about what he does and does not believe, the same as everyone else, dwarfs the negative effects on anyone's opinion by orders of magnitude.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 25, 2007 1:02 PM
Science Avenger,
Who are these people who are "used to religion being treated with kid gloves?" Before I was a Christian, I would bash Chrsitianity and religion in general with the best of them. And after I became a Christian, I have often had it criticized as nonsense to may face. No kid gloves to be found.
Dawkins is not a trailblazer. People like Bertrand Russell (and many others) have said the same things Dawkins says (And Russell, for one, oh so much more smartly. Russell had substantive criticisms against Christianity that must be taken seriously by Christians, where Dawkins has none that Christians need worry about.) This business of all-of-a-sudden and thanks-to-people-like-Dawkins religion has lost its special privilege is a load of bull--similar to the "(pick one: {Gays, Jews, Moslems, atheists, Christians, wiccans, rednecks...}) are the only people it's still OK to make fun of" nonsense. It sounds good, but it doesn't withstand examination.
People in the west have been soundly criticizing religion for centuries. It's not a new thing. I agree with you that there is no evidence that Dawkins is hurting the cause of normalizing atheism--I disagree that he is actually doing anything novel. It's just the same old same old, and it has been done better.
Posted by: David Heddle | June 25, 2007 1:58 PM
Who are these people who are "used to religion being treated with kid gloves?"
The average person walking down the street who expect, among other things, that when people perform religious ceremonies, you are supposed to treat them reverently, even if you don't buy any of it. The ones who think it's rude to call stupidity stupidity if it's religious. The majority who won't vote for you if you believe in no gods. The bigoted ones who get away with using religiousity as a proxy for good citizenship. In other words, most of American society.
Just watch the evening news and watch how religious topics and people are treated. When was the last time you saw a sportcaster ask a boxer why he thanked the supreme creator of the universe for beating the shit out of his fellow man. Or just watch the movies. How many times have you seen the atheist scientist be the hero? No, it's always the tolerant pious that get that role.
Russell had substantive criticisms against Christianity that must be taken seriously by Christians, where Dawkins has none that Christians need worry about.
99% of Americans don't even know who Bertrand Russell is. Dawkins impact is tenfold greater, because he is fighting in the right arena, which is not academia. It is not about the quality of the arguments. If it were, this would all have been over long ago. And from what I've seen of his arguments, Dawkins has a lot that Christians need worry about, if they ever get around to caring about such things.
This business of all-of-a-sudden and thanks-to-people-like-Dawkins religion has lost its special privilege is a load of bull.
Indeed a load of bull, since no one is claiming that. He's just one of the many on a large, slow moving tide.
People in the west have been soundly criticizing religion for centuries. It's not a new thing.
What is new is that it is getting a very public voice from people very prominent in the media. The negative commentary on Falwell's death was unprecendented in my 30 years of watching the evening news, and I look forward to more slight changes.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 25, 2007 2:33 PM
Science avenger,
I think you are living in a dream world. Neither I nor any Christian I know expects you to treat our religious ceremonies "reverently." At most we expect you to treat us respectfully--that is, we don't expect you to barge into our churches and disrupt our services. But that is not what Dawkins does. He doesn't call "stupidity stupidy if it is religious." He, in effect, calls religion stupid period--which if not a stupid argument in and of itself is certainly not an intellectual one. Which, again, is why he is not even in the same league as someone like Russell. And this is your so-called "kid gloves" treatment? Why should a sportscaster challenge an athlete who wants to give credit to God, or Allah, or Gaia, regardless of the circumstances? Is he supposed to editorialize during an interview? If the athlete gave all the credit to hard work (which many do) and then the sportscaster criticized him for not thanking his creator, then you'd have a point.
We can agree on that point.
No, Dawkins has no argument that Christians need worry about, at least not that I have read. Do you have an example? Russell, on the other hand, attacked Christianity from its own premises--for example the problem of Parousia delay-which is indeed something Christians had to resolve. Dawkins is more along the lines of "you have to be stupid to believe this crap," a childish criticism, by comparison. Russell, and others, have tried to argue that Christianity is self-inconsistent--a powerful approach. Dawkins and most of the so-called new atheists just beg the question by declaring it irrational. Again, tell me one argument that Dawkins makes that challenges Christian theology. Preaching to the choir, which is what Dawkins does, is not a substantive criticism.As for the religious not voting for atheists--that's a personal choice and has nothing to do with the special treatment you allege. I suspect many atheists would not vote for an overtly evangelical Christian. Is that bigotry? I'd say not. People have always voted for people like themselves.
Possibly true. On the other hand, Falwell himself was unprecedented in that he hideously blended evangelical Christianity with right wing politics. The criticism, from my perspective, was not that he was a Christian but that he was such a misguided Christian. When Billy Graham dies I predict we won't see the same kind of response--even though Graham's theology is similar to Falwell's.Posted by: David Heddle | June 25, 2007 3:22 PM