I (and apparently Jim Lippard) went to see Dawkins' talk based on his The God Delusion, which I have critiqued before. I was impressed at the technique. It was definitely the very best Revivalist Sermon I have seen. I was not impressed by the content, nor by the fact that Dawkins was playing for laughs, applause and identification of Us versus Them.
In particular I was annoyed that those of us who do not condemn someone for holding religious beliefs were caricatured as "feeling good that someone has religion somewhere". Bullshit. That is not why we dislike the Us'n'Themism of TGD. We dislike it because no matter what other beliefs an intelligent person may hold, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society, we simply do not care if they also like the taste of ear wax, having sex with trees, or believing in a deity or two. Way to go, Richard. Good bit of framing and parodying the opposition. Real rational.
I noted with interest that he seems to have abandoned his claim that an agnostic is somebody who has an evenly balanced probability assessment of the existence of God, which is total crap. But he failed to say if that meant he now accepts that while atheists and theists alike are making knowledge claims, agnostics simply aren't. I doubt it.
What I most came away with was that he sets it up that one simply cannot understand the existence of religion, and so must treat it as an evil, immoral, or simply irrational thing. Apart from begging the question (since he is so fond of talking about logical errors), it makes the origins of religion a miracle. Now Dawkins is fond of miracles. He has said that evolution begins with the first replicator, ignoring the fact that replication systems are complicated things that cannot appear, as it were, by fiat. It's a scientific miracle as he presents it [I believe there is a better, evolutionary, account of replication, which Dawkins cannot, because for him replication is the sine qua non, the necessary precondition for evolution].
If we demonise the God of the Old Testament, as he does, one is left wondering why in the hell the Hebrews ever wrote that book in the first place. Of course, the evolution of the Old Testament is a complex social process, beginning, I believe, from a henotheism in which YHWH and El (two distinct deities in the beginning) were tribal gods among other tribal gods (that is, they acted as social totems). On that basis one can easily explain why the OT deity is jealous, a bully and so on - the other sort of religion, ethical monotheism as it is sometimes called, was centuries in the future. But Richard doesn't want to understand; he wants to demonise, diminish and eliminate the Enemy, so as to make the Bright Us, the ones with the Red A, confortable. As you say, Richard, simply because a belief makes us comfortable, doesn't mean it is true.
And while we're on truth, let's stop pretending all this talk of truth is scientific and not religious in itself. Scientific ideas are tested or not, reliable or not. They are never True, just good enough. To talk about Truth is to help yourself to the trappings of religion under the counter, as it were. And this is the final point I want to make about Dawkins on religion: he is trying to produce exactly the same effects as religion does. Social cohesion, derogation of the Other, ideas that everyone can take for granted. I wish it were the case that he was taking the scientific approach here, but at best he's using the cachet of science to promote his quasi-religion.
To clarify: I don't think there's a god or a higher power. I think we need to have freedom for all from the tyranny of religious extremism and absolutism. I think religions should not have exceptional standing in a secular society. And I think that includes the rhetorical polemics of Richard Dawkins. It isn't a religion yet, but it's not from a lack of trying on his part. If you want free-thinking, then think freely. Don't just kneejerk react to religions around you: think.
Stumble It!
Comments
I predict a fight in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...
Posted by: John Lynch | March 7, 2008 1:40 AM
Why they wrote it has nothing to do with why we demonize Him. Dawkins is absolutely right in demonizing that miserable rotten excuse for a God. There's no redeeming value in Him, and he serves as a piss poor example for any civilization. As Thomas Paine said, a cruel God makes a cruel man. Do I have to list all the horrifying verses here? Do we need to offer up a burnt sacrifice so that the aroma "pleases him"? I can tell you one thing, He's caused nothing but misery and pain in my family and in my life, and I wish he'd never been invented.
Posted by: jeff | March 7, 2008 2:49 AM
Bravo for calling out Dawkins -- a fine take-down of his polemical excesses and his abuse of the idea of rationality.
However, I think it is incorrect to call what he is doing religious or pseudo-religious as such. It seems to me that what Dawkins and those allied with him are doing is creating a political movement. In this sense, the vilification of religion they engage in is an expressly political reaction to the way politics has come to be used by the religious in recent decades.
Of course, any sufficiently fervent political movement is functionally equivalent to religion in the kind of Us vs Them mentality it produces in the minds of its followers. So the kicker is: by according religion such a uniquely heinous place in the bestiary of human irrationality, they end up discounting well-tested models from neurology and social psychology which show that the irrational aspects of religion are manifestations of general mechanisms of human meaning generation (and distortion) which can occur in many contexts, and thus fail to take into account how our empirical, rational account of human irrationality affects their own position. In other words, by making religion the Anti-Science, they effectively disregard a good deal of what science currently tells us about religion.
Posted by: plover | March 7, 2008 4:30 AM
Posted by: UO | March 7, 2008 6:35 AM
I've been going around with the True Non-Believers over at Larry's place about the incongruity of the righteous indignation displayed by them about religion and believers, when they necessarily deny absolutist moral codes, a point raised by John Haught:
www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4497
While I think Haught is wrong about atheism necessarily resulting in nihilism, I think he's right about the failure of the most-recently-famous-atheists (I wouldn't want to hurt their feelings by calling them "New Atheists," given how considerate they are of others) to think through their moral positions.
Posted by: John Pieret | March 7, 2008 6:46 AM
Nonsense. I'm in a bit of a rush, but I'll just bring up a few points:
'...no matter what other beliefs an intelligent person may hold, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society...'
First of all, Dawkins' point is that if you accept the importance of science, you shouldn't believe in the supernatural. Second, the reason he wrote The God Delusion is that so many religion people don't accept the importance of science or the need for a secular society! How could you have missed this?
'What I most came away with was that he sets it up that one simply cannot understand the existence of religion...'
Well, perhaps you've misunderstood. He devotes an entire chapter of The God Delusion to attempting to explain the existence of religion. Did you miss this too?
'Now Dawkins is fond of miracles. He has said that evolution begins with the first replicator, ignoring the fact that replication systems are complicated things that cannot appear, as it were, by fiat. It's a scientific miracle as he presents it [I believe there is a better, evolutionary, account of replication, which Dawkins cannot, because for him replication is the sine qua non, the necessary precondition for evolution].'
This is total, utter crap as well. Have you read The Blind Watchmaker? In it, Dawkins goes into detail about Cairns-Smith's Clay Theory, which is as much of an evolutionary account of replicator production as I've ever heard. You really haven't been paying attention.
To describe Dawkins' ideas as a 'quasi-religion' is also sheer lunacy. I normally really enjoy your blog, and I'll continue enjoying it - but you seem to have been really confused over this one.
Posted by: Stuart Ritchie | March 7, 2008 7:28 AM
How do you define a 'knowledge claim,' out of interest?
Posted by: MartinM | March 7, 2008 7:58 AM
John, I can only speak for myself, but in your closing you make the case that those of us who post the Scarlet A on our sites are doing so to demonstrate our Superiority. Yours is a claim based on a generalization, and not accurate at least in my case. It is to tell people that I am not afraid of being known as an atheist. That is it.
Are you demomising those of us in the Out Campaign?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | March 7, 2008 8:43 AM
Excellent post, John. I'm always astounded by the huge presuppositions Dawkins makes, which he just assumes are self-evident and require no further discussion.
Which, as you point out, is the mark of a faith-based movement.
Posted by: John Farrell | March 7, 2008 8:53 AM
No, John was quite specific that he was taking about "the rhetorical polemics of Richard Dawkins," not making a claim about all atheists. If, as you say, it doesn't apply in your case, then John's objection does not apply to you.
It might be well to remember not to lump all religionists into one group either.
Posted by: John Pieret | March 7, 2008 8:59 AM
Martin: I cannot speak for John Wilkins, but traditionally, atheists are those who claim to "know god does not exist" whereas agnostics are those who claim to "lack a belief in a god". So using those traditional uses, atheists are making claims about their knowledge whereas agnostics are making claims about their beliefs. Of course atheism can also be defined as "without theism" which does not necessarily imply a knowledge claim, and agnostics can vary between those who claim there simply isn't good evidence for a religious belief to those who claim religious views are inherently unknowable.
Posted by: Levi | March 7, 2008 9:00 AM
What I think is a far more interesting question is whether it is actually possible to remain entirely pragmatic and consistent in ones views?
I simply don't believe that any of us "do not care" what other people think or how they act, as long as they are not harming others. We may not care about a particular issue, but I am skeptical about such wide-ranging claims. You would really have to define harm, first and foremost, and then find a consistent method of measuring it and quantifying whether we are justified to not be bothered by it. Do you believe that people should be allowed to harm themselves, for instance, and how should we measure this, consistently and fairly? It really does require some sort of bias, in my opinion.
You would need a fair amount of faith in "free will" to not care what people do, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society. I'm not sure that we can know for sure whether beliefs are harmful, either to the individual or society as a whole, and whether we are justified in speaking out against that, but that really does work both ways, does it not? And how would you show that accepting science and secularism is more justified than having concern about religious belief? Ah, its all about personal preference, really, isn't it?
While I agree that Dawkins over-stretches and gets things wrong, I am yet to be convinced that a pragmatic approach has ever affected real and lasting change in a society, especially when there are a large number of people who are determined to do as much damage as possible (as we would see it, of course). If anything, the approach in most countries seems to be moving towards sensationalism, in all areas. I really despise it, to be honest, but I am at least willing to accept that it is the reality, and that those who want to make a difference may sometimes have to be willing to work within the confines of that reality, as opposed to what we would all wish the reality to be.
As long as people are consistent in complaining about both sides I guess that you can get away with it, but we also must recognize that even those who hold benign and liberal views are benefiting from the work of the more zealous, on both sides. It's nice to not have to get your hands dirty, of course, but none of us would presumably complain about the amount of people that Dawkins has motivated to support science and secularism? Again, if he has motivated more than another person, overall, are we justified in criticizing the other? Of course, you can say that he has also alienated many people, but then we are really at a stalemate, talking about personal experience again.
Many secular philosophers, by the way, have attempt to reclassify Atheism as an absence of belief in deities. That is why I would call myself an Agnostic (can't know, don't particularly care) Atheist (live my life as if there are no gods). You can call me what you like, though.
Posted by: Damian | March 7, 2008 9:04 AM
I have to go with Stuart Ritchie...I didn't hear the speech, but in typical Dawkins (not sound bites) he is careful with his words and non-absolutist (except science trumps religion).
Certainly a there is less of a battle against the simple religious person who is not an extremist, but if that person can't analyze the probability that his religion accurately reflects reality, how is that person making other political decisions which affect the rest of us?
Society will be better off when people use rational thinking to reach their conclusions. De facto, religion must become extinct.
Posted by: gbruno | March 7, 2008 9:20 AM
The actions of Dawkins have suprised and saddened me, his books (after Gould's) expailned evolutionary theory rather well. I still prefer Gould as he was the better writer and less seemingly driven by his own importance.
Defending science is one thing, creating enemies out of possible allies is another thing altogether.
Dawkins, in my opinion, is creating enemies for Science while trying to evangelise his own beliefs using his Scientific credentials as his authority and to buttress his claims to speak for Science.
He may be incredulous about religious beliefs and find their probability low (arguement from incredulity?) but to insult those who don't agree with his beliefs and urge others to do the same seems silly to me; unless his aims are other than defending Science.
Luckilly for me, I didn't need Dawkins and his ilk to tell me what Science is & isn't; if I did then Science would very likely have lost a supporter.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | March 7, 2008 9:34 AM
Posted by: brtkrbzhnv | March 7, 2008 10:27 AM
C.W. -
We can't have a society where all beliefs are treated equally. That would be anarchy.
Those who fail to accept that their beliefs are not supported by evidence, have to be criticized.
And if you would have not supported Science, than please do away with your electricity, your purchased food, your present and future medical care, your automobile, etc.
Enjoy your life.
Posted by: gbruno | March 7, 2008 10:32 AM
While I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you, it does piss me off slightly that so many people (seem) to think that it is perfectly natural that we have cut down half of the worlds rain forests so that religious people can all indulge in their activities, and yet, when those who don't believe in deities decide that it might be useful to provide some counterbalance to that, many people are offended by it, all of a sudden.
It reminds me of one of the criticism's that I have read of those of a liberal persuasion (of which I could be included, though I don't really label myself, politically). I do think that there is a tendency for some people to, on the one hand, rail against a particular view with a passion, while not being entirely consistent when considering an opposing position, for fear of offending, and it is often for reasons that are entirely patronizing, as well. Now, that could rightly be claimed of Dawkins, also, but it could really be claimed of all of us, in my opinion.
I don't think that Dawkins claims to be speaking for science, to be honest, and he has said that he is willing to accept that he may be making it more difficult for people to win some of the battles against creationism. But would you also accept that the softly, softly approach, while putting out individual fires quite well, has not exactly been very successful in its attempt to turn the US in to a more scientifically literate and secular society? If anything, there is more fundamentalism in both the US and the rest of the world than ever before. I guess that I just don't see how anyone can think that Dawkins is obligated to agree with those who think that the approach has been working. He clearly isn't.
And, I rather think that some people will be offended regardless of what you do, and that it really isn't worth worrying about. If a person is so easy to alienate, simply by writing a book that opposes their religious views, I am not convinced that they are worth relying on in the first place. There have been something like 15 books written in opposition to the "new Atheists", and yet, I simply can't imagine that Dawkins would be so offended by that, that he wouldn't work with each and every one of those people to defend science. We really should be defending freedom of speech, at all costs, and not the freedom to be offended, in my opinion.
Posted by: Damian | March 7, 2008 10:33 AM
We dislike it because no matter what other beliefs an intelligent person may hold, so long as they accept the importance of science and the need for a secular society, we simply do not care if they also like the taste of ear wax, having sex with trees, or believing in a deity or two.
Unfortunately there's a negative correlation between valuing science and the need for a secular society and "believing in a diety or two".
And you didn't just whip out the ol' "atheism is just another religion" canard, did you?
Posted by: Derek James | March 7, 2008 10:45 AM
The OT God would be just fine if he stayed back there -- an ancient Early Iron Age tribal deity, just like many others. No one nowadays would bother to rail against him any more than anyone wastes breath demonising the capricious Greek gods: he'd be just another historical curiosity. But in fact, YWHW/El -- in all his vengeful, spiteful, blood-thirsty glory -- is still the God worshipped by far too many people, many of whom are otherwise quite decent and civilized. I think it's worth asking those people to take a long hard look at the kind of deity they tolerate, or are having pushed on them from certain pulpits.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 7, 2008 10:59 AM
First of all, Dawkins' point is that if you accept the importance of science, you shouldn't believe in the supernatural
Not only do I accept the importance of science I spend a very large part of my waking hours, and even some of my sleeping ones, studying, thinking about and trying to untangle and understand its history (yes I really do dream about my work!) but who the fuck is Dawkins to tell me or anybody else for that matter what I should or shouldn't believe?
Excellent post by the way Mr Wilkins.
Posted by: Thony C. | March 7, 2008 11:03 AM
As so often, those who reject the idea that Dawkins is trying (not the first to do so) to start a quasireligion demonstrate by their indignation at such a critique of their Hero the very thing suggested.
No, I don't think atheism is a religion, or need be. It is simply a knowledge claim that there is no God or gods. As a knowledge claim it need not be based on certainty, but it is based on warrant.
Agnostics, as I have interminably argued before, hold that at least some of these knowledge claims are unwarranted. Dawkins does a nice end run around those claims by asserting (but not sticking to it) that he's not interested in these "pantheist" gods (and it's "panentheism, Richard; at least get the terminology right and stop your strawmanning of these views), but then he asserts that all religion is to be rejected. It goes one way or the other - ether you are arguing against all deities, or you aren't. You cannot isolate yourself from critiquing some respectable (and adhered to) views, and thens ay that you have shown that all religion is somehow irrational.
A knowledge claim is just the assertion that one has, to some degree of certainty, knowledge that things are or are not. Atheists say they have warrant for holding there are no gods. Agnostics say that, no matter what they might think about Thor, teapots in orbit, and so forth, there are at least some views one is neither warranted to assert the truth of, nor deny it.
I don't like intellectual banners calling the faithful to rally beneath them. Dawkins sets up several.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | March 7, 2008 11:34 AM
Stuart Richie wrote:
And that position itself is utterly unsupportable by science, and it's why Dawkins and the others in the latest Hate All Religion Mantra Movement have fallen off the wagon.
The fact is that I agree that if you cannot provide a test, some means of modeling an alleged phenomona and some method of falsifying it, there's no reason at all to accept its existence. That being said, the nature of many supernatural claims is such that, whether designed to be that way or not, they cannot be measured or dismissed by empirical means.
This whole culture war Dawkins is trying to start is a sort of evangelicalism. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn whether the guy next to me is Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim. As long, as John says, he accepts the secular society we both live in and isn't out to destroy science in favor of his own beliefs, then there's no quarrel, beyond perhaps the sort of cheap coffee shop banter.
Sitting around and mocking other peoples' beliefs for no better reason than to make your own worldview look better to me is the most smug, pointless and rude of activities. This isn't about going after Creationists and IDers. This is about jerking chains in a psychic masturbatory process. I have about as much interest in listening to Dawkins spout off some anti-theistic line as I do in listening to some Evangelical Preacher spew rhetoric about the evils of secularism. In both cases they're missing the point.
Oh, and I am a full-blown atheist.
Posted by: Aaron Clausen | March 7, 2008 12:05 PM
Don't you believe in equal under the law?
Do we all have to agree with your viewpoint?
What evidence? You mentioned evidence in another blog but didn't supply any evidence that God doesn't exist.
Scientists, using scientific methods, seek to model the natural world and do a very fine job.
If you believe that the material world is all there is no worries, but that belief isn't science. It is simply a belief.
Why should others who believe otherwise be of any concern to you as long as they aren't anti-science or anti-secular state?
Just an aside. Just because someone is unversed in science doesn't mean that they are anti-science. In fact it is those unversed in science that we should be trying to reach out to and ranting on that Science = Atheism doesn't help. Especially as it is untrue.
Oooo steps back in stunned amazement and horror; give up my car how terrible :o) Shock I'm converted to your 'rational' viewpoint-not.
I wrote that 'if I was reliant on Dawkins to tell me what Science was' as I'm not the case doesn't arise.
The point was that, as an aid in the defence of science, I do not believe that Dawkin's methodology helps.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | March 7, 2008 12:16 PM
#17 Damian,
As a minor enviro-nut anyone chopping down rain forest is subject to villivication in my book, especially those crazies chopping down forest to grow crops to create 'environmentally friendly fuels'.
I don't disagree with opposing those I disagree with, nor others arguing for their beliefs.
If Dawkins rages against those not in agreement with his beliefs good luck to him.
My main disagreement is with the claim, that is implicit in TGD and in his polemics whilst holding a Chair specifically calling for the public understanding of science.
He may claim to have been speaking ex-cathedra (i.e. not as a scientist), but I have never seen him write or say so and in TGD he does go on about how science doesn't support religion. Why it should I've no idea.
I suppose it depends on his aim. Teaching those unversed in science about how science develops hypothesis, tests them against the natural world and then improves the hypothesis seems to me something relevant to the public understanding of science. It would also help in defending science from those who are anti-science.
If his aim is simply conversions then perhaps he should be up front and not trade on his scientific credentials.
Obviously he won't give a fig for what I think, he knows he is right just as I think he is wrong.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | March 7, 2008 12:37 PM
Oh, simple religious people like Theodosius Dobzhansky, R.A. Fisher, Owen Gingrich, Ken Miller, Barak Obama, Pope John Paul II, et al.?
We'd be better off trusting politics to people who make simplistic categorizations of human beings in all their complexity?
Posted by: John Pieret | March 7, 2008 12:40 PM
C.W.
You don't have to do anything except die. You can believe what you want. But conclusions drawn from scientific inquiry have led us to our modern advances in technology. Not religion. That is a fact, not a viewpoint.
There are an infinite number of beliefs anyone can have. If they are not provable, what's the point? That's fantasy, it is anti-science at its core. And if you can't understand that, then it scares me if you vote, though we have a secular state. I'm concerned people like you vote based on fantasy and that can harm me.
Science=atheism=abigfootism=aastrology=ahomeopathicmedicinism=atoothfairism=acasperthefriendlyghostism
Dawkin's methodology fills certain gaps. Others have a more hard line approach, others less.
The truly religiously deluded will require some form of treatment once the biological cause of their impairment is pinpointed. Godspeed.
Posted by: GBruno | March 7, 2008 12:45 PM
J.P. -
We're best off trusting politics to people who have demonstrated with their past experience, their historical depth of logical thinking and the apparent logic of their proposed plans that they are the best candidate.
But it is a subjective evaluation for each voter.
Posted by: GBruno | March 7, 2008 12:51 PM
Aaron: "This whole culture war Dawkins is trying to start is a sort of evangelicalism. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn whether the guy next to me is Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim. As long, as John says, he accepts the secular society we both live in and isn't out to destroy science in favor of his own beliefs, then there's no quarrel, beyond perhaps the sort of cheap coffee shop banter."
Perhaps a lot of these issues would go away if people would focus on *actions* and *behaviors* more than beliefs (though of course beliefs have very strong indirect effects on actions and behaviors). But the culture wars already exist, and Dawkins didn't start them. There are constant attempts by politically active religious groups to break down the wall of separation between church and state, and the Bush administration has succeeded in knocking some of it down. Alliances with religious people who recognize the value of secular society is essential to combating these abuses, of course, but I didn't hear Dawkins say anything last night in opposition to such alliances.
I see Dawkins' Out Campaign as one for political recognition of the legitimacy of nonbelief, which I think is a worthy endeavor, at least here in the U.S., where we currently don't have many politicians willing to publicly agree. Instead, we have had presidents and Supreme Court justices who have explicitly stated that nonbelief doesn't merit Establishment Clause protection (e.g., Bush Sr. and Scalia).
I have my own skepticism about the feasibility or desirability of forming a cohesive group solely on the basis of lack of belief in gods, but I'm glad there are people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, Hirsi Ali, and others who are outspoken public defenders of nonbelief. In my opinion, far too many religious believers do not think critically about their own religious beliefs, and public spokesmen getting media attention will provoke some of them to do so. (I think the same problem exists, but to a far lesser extent, among nonbelievers--most of them got there from somewhere else as a result of reviewing their own beliefs, as the recent Pew Survey shows.)
"Sitting around and mocking other peoples' beliefs for no better reason than to make your own worldview look better to me is the most smug, pointless and rude of activities."
To characterize all criticism of religion in this manner is inaccurate and dishonest. I don't think this accurately describes anything in Dawkins' lecture.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | March 7, 2008 1:06 PM
We can also take into account the logic of people who make or support political statements to the effect that "religion must become extinct."
Posted by: John Pieret | March 7, 2008 1:10 PM
Behavior matters.
While I was drafting the rest of this comment Jim Lippard wrote: "Perhaps a lot of these issues would go away if people would focus on *actions* and *behaviors* ..."
Actions and behaviors. Behavior matters.
The act of communicating ideas is a behavior. Persuading is a behavior. Attempting to persuade is a behavior. A persuader's behavior matters -- as much and sometimes more than the ideas communicated.
Effective persuasion involves behavior as well as ideas. Some persuaders see this and behave accordingly. Unfortunately the values of the culture of science can obscure that causal relationship, and that impairs the persuasive ability of some participants.
Regardless what would-be persuaders wish to believe, what many audiences demonstrate is:
Behavior matters.
Posted by: etbnc | March 7, 2008 1:19 PM
J.P. -
Please do. Let me add to the list of things which should become extinct (other than as amusements):
1. Astrology
2. Alchemy
3. Santa Claus, the reindeer, the elves
4. Homeopathy
5. The Cowboys were the good guys the Indians were the bad guys
6. Religion...oooppss, already said that. Superstitions.
Or vote for someone who wants those types of things to thrive. Please vote rationally.
Posted by: GBruno | March 7, 2008 1:20 PM
Hasn't he called them "enablers" of the "bad kind" of religion (or is that solely PZ's trope)? He calls other atheists, such as Eugenie Scott, "Chamberlain atheists" if they want to make common cause with religious people in support of science. I guess "heretic" was already taken.
But do we want to fight them by adopting the same tactics as our "enemy"? At what cost?
Posted by: John Pieret | March 7, 2008 1:22 PM
Unless he has down a sudden about-face, Dawkins has always said that he does not really care what kind of supernatural beliefs individuals hold so long as they do not force their beliefs onto others, especially their children. It doesn't look like that point has been made yet in this thread.
Additionally,Dawkins is mocking supernatural beliefs because he feels that said beliefs should be not be held in higher regards than other beliefs, such as political ones. Some people will be turned off, but no one is suggesting that his method should be the only method, and neither is he. His methods have positively influenced at least some people: http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner
Posted by: mlf | March 7, 2008 1:26 PM
John Pieret wrote:
The cost will be secular society, I suspect. Which ever side of this particularly idiotic and nasty debate that gets the higher ground is out to promote their orthodoxy, and we know what happens to losing orthodoxies.
Posted by: Aaron Clausen | March 7, 2008 1:30 PM
Ah, the petito principi. Assume that religion is worthless and then assert that it should be treated as worthless. The problem with your list is that, in a very real sense, astronomy and chemistry grew out of astrology and alchemy and, therefore, have the same sort of superficial similarities to those things as religion does to belief in Santa Clause. Your list would suggest that we should also vote against science ... if it had anything to do with logic in the first place..
Posted by: John Pieret | March 7, 2008 1:31 PM
Have I written otherwise?
Why not?Can you prove that only the material exists, no of course you can't it is one of your suppositions.
This isn't a claim that religious people can't be scientists is it?Or will you raise the cognitive dissonance canard for them?
Why should my beliefs harm you?Actually I don't hail from an officially secular state.
Secular in practice though.
Would you deny people the right to vote because they don't conform to your ideology?
Just because you write it doesn't make it so.Seems a tad authoritarian.
Science is Agnostic on the God question.
Gaps in what!?Will this 'treatment' be enforced, if so how?
Don't you believe in liberty and an individuals right to choose?
No more Rights of Man.
So how are you different from the wannabe theocrats?
Posted by: Chris' Wills | March 7, 2008 1:32 PM
mlf wrote:
I've been hearing enough varying reports on Dawkins' behavior that I do wonder. On the one hand, he can be quite reasonable and accomodating, but then I hear accounts by people like John who have seen or heard him and he can be quite vitriolic.
I'm beginning to suspect that Dawkins tailors his message to his audience.
Posted by: Aaron Clausen | March 7, 2008 1:33 PM
J.P. -
The non-religiously impaired dump astrology and alchemy for astronomy and chemistry. We also dump religion for philosophy.
Science is based on fact. Nothing else my list was. That's a fact!
Posted by: Gbruno | March 7, 2008 1:45 PM
John Pieret: "But do we want to fight them by adopting the same tactics as our "enemy"? At what cost?"
Which tactics are you referring to? Dawkins giving public lectures explaining why he believes what he believes, and criticizing religion?
If your objection is to Dawkins speaking and writing books, and you would also object to the 19th century orations of Robert Ingersoll and Thomas Paine's authorship of _Age of Reason_, then I am in vehement disagreement with your position.
The country I live in is one where things like this and this are happening.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | March 7, 2008 1:47 PM
Wilkins, you would make a great atheist. I actually used to think you were, with the monkey pic, and all.
Would be nice if you and Richard could have a little sit-down to discuss all of his shortcomings... :)
Posted by: Scholar | March 7, 2008 1:48 PM
C.W. -
No you don't have to pay taxes. There will be repurcussions if you don't, but you don't have to.
I can't only the material exists. So, what's the point?
Religious people can be scientists, just like murderers can be doctors. It doesn't make religion true or murder right.
Gaps in communication approaches.
I'm not a theocrat, because I don't claim my approach originates from a make-believe, imaginary being. I don't know if the treatment will be enforced. It won't be the first time treatment is imposed on people for mental debilitation. It would likely be a matter of degree.
Posted by: GBruno | March 7, 2008 1:56 PM
John Pieret: "Hasn't he called them "enablers" of the "bad kind" of religion (or is that solely PZ's trope)? He calls other atheists, such as Eugenie Scott, "Chamberlain atheists" if they want to make common cause with religious people in support of science. I guess "heretic" was already taken."
I haven't seen or heard Dawkins say anything like that--I certainly disagree with that view. Last night, Dawkins seemed quite ecumenical about both varieties and activities of nonbelief, and that he had no objection to religious belief of the Einsteinian sort, aside from not seeing the point of it.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | March 7, 2008 1:57 PM
One almost expects, from Dawkins' most fervent supporters, shouts of "Amen, brother!".
Posted by: Susan Silberstein | March 7, 2008 2:02 PM
No,
"Amen, professor!"
Posted by: GBruno | March 7, 2008 2:16 PM
I thought it was "QED, professor!"
Posted by: Jim Lippard | March 7, 2008 2:27 PM
Excellent John! I love your phrase: "...the very best revivalist sermon I have seen..." It is long past time that the tactics of these 'Atheist' types where revealed for what they are.
Theism is an irrelevant concept - irrelevant to absolutely everything. The attachment of an 'A' as a prefix to theism in no way changes the irrelevancy. Far too much of the time and energy of otherwise extremely intelligent people is spent standing on soapboxes screaming that there is no great troll in the sky! Dawkings and his disciples would do well to follow the example of Siddhattha Gautama, a very early true sceptic who, it is said, when asked about the Gods and afterlife replied (to paraphrase a translation of the written memory by one of his disciples) "There are many things that I have not spoken of: consider them as things I have not spoken of. Your responsibility is to the condition in which you find yourself."
As I understand Siddhattha he is simply imploring us to stop wasting time worrying about irrelevancies and fantasies and get on with the real job!
Posted by: Tim | March 7, 2008 2:38 PM
Tough to get on with the real job in a democracy where most of the citizen's fantasies prevent them from voting in a rational manner.
That's why we shout!
Posted by: GBruno | March 7, 2008 2:56 PM
GBruno wrote:
Perhaps you're not a theocrat, but you're a would-be autocrat. As I said, if I had to choose between you and a theocrat, I'd choose neither, because both of you, in fact, are enemies of secularism, and of the right of man, as established in the Enlightenment, to believe as his conscience will allow.
History is filled with individuals and groups who have taken upon themselves the role of supreme arbiter of what is true or otherwise. It's a scary road, and I can tell you that, though an atheist I am, I would stand beside the Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, the Buddhist, the Animist and the Hindu when your Thought Squads came along to take them to the re-education camps.
Posted by: Aaron Clausen | March 7, 2008 3:09 PM
John Pieret:
I think that's Sam Harris' line -- one of a number stupid things he said in The End of Faith. It's possible that my affection for Dawkins comes from the fact that I read TGD immediately after Eof -- and it was so damn much better. Where Harris just tosses off claims, Dawkins at least tries to argue the point (and also doesn't go haring off after his own brand of incomprehensible mysticism as some sort of replacement for the mysticism he is shooting down).
So let's be careful in this thread not to blame Dawkins for things that were actually said by other "New Atheists".
Not one of Dawkins' better moments -- pretty much Godwinned that discussion. He says lots of really good stuff, but occasionally sticks his foot rather badly in his mouth, eg: the Chamberlain thing; Jewish influence on US foreign policy; keeping Saddam for study; and some self-regarding blather he said on Steve Paikin's show (which is way too long to get into here).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 7, 2008 3:11 PM
As an Englishman myself, this kind of thing really isn't the issue over here that is in the US. In terms of religion, our two countries are probably at polar opposites. Religion is looked upon suspiciously in the UK, particularly in politics, but even in public life in general. Again, why is Dawkins (or anyone else, for that matter) required to think of the US, at the detriment of the same number of people in Europe, say?
Also, many people are not consistent in their condemnation. It seems that Ken Miller (and Francis Collins, to a lesser extent, as well as many others) are applauded for giving religious convictions a veneer of scientific credibility, as it is seen as an attempt to "persuade" others to accept science. That really grates with me, to be honest, as the opposing view has already had more than 2000 years, and who knows how much literature, in its support.
If I am honest, I have no idea why Dawkins book has been given so much attention, anyway. There are so many better books out there about non-belief, and I agree with many of the criticisms of Dawkins, but I notice that not too many people have complained about Victor Stenger's book, which really does claim to be a scientific critique of religion and the question of God's existence.
I am also less than impressed with what seems to be one-sided claims of inconsistency in Dawkins views, when it is perfectly obvious to me that those who are making them are really arguing from personal preference, to a large extent. Many people that I have come across really are grateful for what Dawkins has done, both in his science writing and with the latest book. That doesn't make his views correct, of course, but too many people have only considered those who might be "offended", and to hell with those who haven't dared to be themselves for 50 years of their life. I can't support that, I am afraid.
Posted by: Damian | March 7, 2008 3:17 PM
Not much to add, but it's nice that some people here don't deify Dawkins and understand that being an atheist doesn't mean hating everything about every religion.
Of course, the biggest loudmouth on the scienceblogs site is a bit too thick to get this message.
Posted by: bsci | March 7, 2008 3:18 PM
Jim Lippard: "I haven't seen or heard Dawkins say anything like that--I certainly disagree with that view."
Actually, it's right in The God Delusion itself.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 7, 2008 3:31 PM
I take exception to a few key aspects of Rev. Richard Dawkins's ideas. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. One of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that if you think that the average working-class person can't see through Rev. Dawkins's chicanery, then think again. I can promise freedom-lovers everywhere that my priorities, observations, countermeasures, and predictions are not in any manner similar to those embraced by Rev. Dawkins. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that Rev. Dawkins is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Rev. Dawkins is masochism. Why? It is bootless to speculate on the matter but it should be noted that some people I know say that Rev. Dawkins believes, in his elitist delirium, that everything is happy and fine and good. Others argue that we are now stuck with a jaded Stalinism bearing a human face -- that of Richard Dawkins. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that he focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, Rev. Dawkins attempts to twist and distort facts to justify his feelings but that just goes to show that he hates it when you say that the core ethic of his cabal has been its brash, unyielding nature, its unquestioning loyalty to Rev. Dawkins, and its eternal war footing constantly spoiling for a fight. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having Rev. Dawkins shriek insults at you.
From what I know of Rev. Dawkins's apologues, he is saying essentially three things:
1. A plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance.
2. Character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization".
3. Children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet.
Obviously, all three of these are surely impractical. It seems ironic that Rev. Dawkins's adept at spinning lies, given that he exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up his obvious inferiority.
I could go on and on about Rev. Dawkins's special form of hooliganism but you get the general idea. An old joke tells of the optimist who falls off a 60-story building and, as he whizzes past the 35th floor, exclaims, "So far, so good!" But it is not such blind optimism that causes Rev. Dawkins's lackeys to think that they can sound the standard "they're out to get us" call and rally Rev. Dawkins's pals, who are legion, to put a licentious spin on important issues. With this letter, I hope I have made my views crystal-clear: Rev. Richard Dawkins is immovably entrenched in his pugnacious, flagitious philosophical positions.
Posted by: Lev | March 7, 2008 3:31 PM
Swami Lev, get real. You are misstating Dawkins so grossly that it's not worth getting into detail.
Remember the religious guy who fell off a cliff, yet barely hanging onto a limb called up to his friend for help. The friend asks, "Would you like me to pray"? To which the religious guy says, "I'd prefer a rope".
Posted by: GBruno | March 7, 2008 3:42 PM
It's kind of amusing in a sad, ironic way, that the people who say religion ain't so bad are using the word 'religion' as an epithet against others.
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | March 7, 2008 3:46 PM
#49: I have commented on Stenger here. He at least makes sure that he restricts his attack to actual and specific religious doctrines.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | March 7, 2008 3:46 PM
And what evidence do you have for your claims, Lev? I certainly have ammunition against Jim Lippard's claim that "it's truth that is the closest thing to sacred for Dawkins," such as Dawkins' distortions on the Founding Fathers or his straw man of Thomas Aquinas' fourth way (which he didn't even need to make since the real faults of the fourth way are enough to knock it down), and that's only a partial list. So far, I can't see anything to justify how Dawkins is masochistic.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 7, 2008 3:47 PM
JJ Ramsey, my point is that he presents himself as a Christ like figure for his flock and delights in the ridicule, scorn and vitriol he naturally, and appropriately, inspires.
Rev. Dawkins's arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. Not only have slaphappy self-promoters decided to glorify their ipse dixits by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives but their manifestos are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. I want to express our concerns about Rev. Dawkins's naive precepts. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Why does Rev. Dawkins have to be such a party pooper? Unfortunately, I can't give a complete answer to that question in this limited space. But I can tell you that Rev. Dawkins's plan is to bask in the ignorant shine of Bulverism. Rev. Dawkins's helpers are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes turning con artists loose against us good citizens. That's all I have time now to write. If you want to get more insight into Rev. Richard Dawkins's mentality, though, then study the details of his opinions. Try to see the big picture: It will amaze you. It will take your breath away. And it will convince you that it has been a long-standing observation of mine that Rev. Dawkins often compares himself to Jesus, usually on the grounds that I'm trying to crucify him for speaking the truth.
Posted by: Lev | March 7, 2008 4:01 PM
As I intend to be uploaded perhaps I needn't die either
Point is you have made a non-scientific claim.
You claimed non-scientific claims are irrational.
To make it clear; science only investigates the natural world, that is its raison detre. It doesn't prove that only the material exists.
Doesn't make them false or wrong either (though I do tend to oppose murder in principle).
Ah, communication. No I don't consider villifying others as useful forms of communication; except to reinforce the concept of them and us. I asked why you are different from a wannabe theocrat, I didn't say that you are a theocrat.Religious people and murderers aren't by their natures always inimicable to science. Atheists can torture and kill as well.
This was based on your rather outlandish claims of curing those who held religious beliefs.
A very dangerous road you want to walk down.
Illiberal and autocratic.
I hope that I'ld stand by those who don't agree with you if you or those who think like you gain power, just as I hope that I'ld stand by you if someone wanted to cure you of your beliefs against your will.
Sadlly, it appears that you think curing people who hold opinions you don't agree with is OK.
Liberty isn't for the few or the self righteous only and freedom of thought and expression are essential liberties.
These liberties include the right to be wrong.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | March 7, 2008 4:14 PM
C.W. -
Save it for the church.
You will die.
There is no evidence for anything but the natural world.
Religion is false, people who believe in superbeings are wrong to do so, based on logical conclusions derived from the preponderence of the evidence.
Dawkins doesn't villify others (meaning religious people, he has villified Hitler, Stalin, etc.) He villifies believing in something unsubstantiated by evidence.
People are treated everyday for their mental delusions. When the delusions result in a certain degree of harm to the rest of society, the delusional may be held against their will, either in a mental facility or a prison, depending on what they've done. Nothing new about that.
We all have the right to be wrong, but we don't have the right to hurt society by striving to be wrong.
Posted by: GBruno | March 7, 2008 4:26 PM
Lev: "it has been a long-standing observation of mine that Rev. Dawkins often compares himself to Jesus"
Then you should be able to cite an example of this.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | March 7, 2008 4:33 PM
He proposes that his acolytes wear garments bearing the phrase "atheists for Jesus" in support of his actions.
Posted by: Lev | March 7, 2008 4:41 PM