…and this is a 
More misplaced Dawkins furor
Category: Godlessness • Politics
Posted on: January 6, 2007 3:55 PM, by PZ Myers
Richard Dawkins sure does a fine job of placing sticks of dynamite under people's chairs and blowing them up. I've been out of town and I haven't even had net access for the past day, so nobody can blame me for this latest round of anti-atheist outrage going on in these parts.
Dawkins' latest op-ed suggesting an alternative reason for not assassinating people like Saddam Hussein was more than enough to provoke frantic scurrying in these parts. Barbara calls him a "fundamentalist atheist" (that tired old slander), Chris is horrified that Dawkins seems to feel "justified in objectifying Hussein" (scientific curiousity being so much more awful than the political objectification that goes on), John talks about "the value of justice over science" (where, of course, the non-scientific approach has certainly demonstrated its nuanced appreciation of justice in this case), and Mike simply agrees with the critics.
I'm not impressed with the complaints. I don't see that Dawkins was suggesting that the only reason Hussein should have been spared was because of his utility as a guinea pig; what is clear from the very first sentence of his piece was that there are many valid, obvious objections to the executions, and that all he was doing is adding one more small objection. I think that what he actually did was toss out one example of a purely scientific motivation for committing a moral act, the sparing of a man's life, as part of the whole parcel of demonstrating that an atheist's and scientist's position is not an amoral one. I am amused at the people who are freaking out over his comments, as if they represent some horribly evil idea, when the contrast is with a bunch of people who joyfully killed a man while chanting politial and religious slogans. Get some perspective here; who has committed the amoral act?
Just to be on the up and up, Dawkins bounced the op-ed off me and some other people before publishing it. I suggested that there were a lot of people who had their minds made up and weren't going to react positively to the suggestion at all (yes, I am prescient), but that it was a novel twist that might resonate with a minority of the readers. I did disagree with one thing; I didn't think studying Hussein would have taught us much. I said,
I'd be more inclined to see a study of the political and social environment in which tyrannical thugs, which are dime-a-dozen, can rise to power as more productive than trying to figure out what's going on in the head of a petty dictator.
Now that I think on it, though, I realize that we're also in the middle of demolishing that political/social environment and putting an even more pathological one in its place, so maybe Iraq is one big scientific experiment. Not a benign one like Dawkins' suggestion that actually makes an excuse for not killing someone, but a grand nation building experiment that in the mind of the anti-science right justifies mass murder and destruction.
Again, I'm baffled by the reaction to a hypothetical observation that demands that we don't kill, compared to the ongoing massive moral imperative to kill without regret.
Comments
When it comes to Dawkins, I tend to land on the side of the so-called "Neville Chamberlain atheists" more often than not, but I too was baffled by the reactions to Dawkins' piece. Some people, it seems, are just chronically disposed to interpreting Dawkins in the most uncharitable manner possible.
Posted by: Dave Carlson | January 6, 2007 4:22 PM
Reality is a scientific experiment. Don't they know what science is? The HORROR! Imagine wanting to study something rather than kill it, burn it, and dance on its ashes.
Anyway, folk can scream over this because Dawkins actually presented reasons, and that pins him down. Mistake. It's much harder to attack vague sentiment. What do supporters of the execution present as reasons? "Justice"? Waving a magic word around doesn't actually explain a damn thing. One side can be lambasted for their reasons for making the guy live, because the other side don't give - or apparently need - real reasons.
An appeal to humans' natural desire for revenge is easy. Why would they bother with reason?
Posted by: SmellyTerror | January 6, 2007 4:23 PM
You may disagree, but it's odd to call my dislike for Dawkins, and disagreement with his op-ed, "anti-atheism," given that I'm an atheist. An atheist of a different sort, it's true, in that I treat atheism as a life and moral decision rather than a scientific one, but still an atheist, and a pretty zealous one at that.
Also, I stated in my post that I'm anti-death penalty in all cases. I don't think states should be in the murder business in any way, shape, or form, be it "legal" executions, less than legal assassinations, or unjust wars that result in tens of thousands of civilian deaths. If Dawkins were simply advocating that we not execute Hussein, that is fine, but as I pointed out in my post, even if we accept the most charitable interpretation of Dawkins' letter, governments keeping people around simply because they find them useful, for scientific purposes or whatever, is a dangerous way to go too.
Posted by: Chris | January 6, 2007 4:26 PM
You lot are slowly winning me around to your argument that Hussein should have been kept alive.
I still think we run the risk of agonizing over the fate of Hussein- whilst forgetting the thousands of nameless victims that he had killed and/or tortured.
Well- I'm sure you haven't forgotten them- but let's keep things in perspective.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | January 6, 2007 4:28 PM
Shris: When science replaces religion, it becomes more and more like religion, and in the minds of its worshipers, can justify the same sorts of inhumanities.
You don't call that atheist bashing? sure, it might the the "other kind of atheist", but I really can't see how it can be read in any other way.
...keeping people around simply because they find them useful, for scientific purposes or whatever, is a dangerous way to go too.
Dawkins didn't say he should be kept alive purely for research. He said there were lots of reasons, and that he was adding one more.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | January 6, 2007 4:31 PM
Oh, come on. His very first sentence demonstrates that you are wrong: he's not advocating keeping people around simply because they find them useful — he's only offering one more reason among an openly acknowledged many. It's not merely a charitable interpretation, it's an openly stated premise from word one.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 6, 2007 4:33 PM
Well, it seems that people are dying to find evidence that will validate other opinions they already hold; that is why some of these critics "clearly" read into Dawkins rather insipid article meanings that I cannot fathom in any way.
I don't think that any comparison is being made between Dawkins sugestion and what has transpired; comparisons are being made between his suggestion and... something else.
Posted by: valhar2000 | January 6, 2007 4:35 PM
Among a certain kind of Christians, intentions count for everything while results are almost irrelevant. Our glorious leaders invaded Iraq with the intention of creating a friendly, democratic, and peaceful nation-state; therefore, the invasion was justified, and the unfortunate results in no way diminish the moral appropriateness of the intentions - or so the reasoning goes.
This is the same phenomenon. Whether a man is killed is irrelevant, what matters is what we intend to do and how we intend to do it. What we actually do, and how we actually do it, doesn't matter.
Thus, killing hundreds of thousands of people (and creating conditions for hundreds of thousands more to be killed) is fine as long as we didn't mean to do it. Intending a man to act as a guinea pig is a horrible atrocity.
By now, you've probably guessed what I think should be done with such people.
Posted by: Caledonian | January 6, 2007 4:42 PM
Isn't slippery slope a standard fallacy of argument? Chris seems to have thrown a can of WD-40 and a pound of melted butter on his downward slope.
Posted by: mjh | January 6, 2007 4:43 PM
Chris,
If Dawkins were simply advocating that we not execute Hussein, that is fine, but as I pointed out in my post, even if we accept the most charitable interpretation of Dawkins' letter, governments keeping people around simply because they find them useful, for scientific purposes or whatever, is a dangerous way to go too.
Oddly enough I was just in the process typing up a post for my own blog (URL embedded in name below) on why slippery-sloping is usually a bad form of argument. As PZ said, there are a myriad of reasons for keeping Hussein alive, and I don't see Dawkins challenging that anywhere in his op-ed.
And yes, it is the "most charitable" interpretation of Dawkins to say that he doesn't advocate torture a la Joseph Mengela. Perhaps it is this overwhelming tendency to assume is some kind of atheist Nazi that PZ has in mind when he uses a term like "anti-atheist".
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 6, 2007 4:43 PM
Me, from above:
Perhaps it is this overwhelming tendency to assume Dawkins* is some kind of atheist Nazi that PZ has in mind when he uses a term like "anti-atheist".
*Fixed.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 6, 2007 4:45 PM
Even if he were suggesting that we should reduce punishments like this to -only- to get useful information, I hardly see the problem. Such practices are a core component of our justice system. Someone gives us useful information, and we take the death penalty off the table. In other cases, we agree to let people out of jail early. Where were all these objectors when Jack Abramoff made a plea deal because of all the information he could give us?
Posted by: Tiax | January 6, 2007 4:48 PM
I don't understand how these people can read the worse interpretation of Dawkins' article. I read it a couple of days ago and totally agreed with him. I've written about the same exact thing on my community board, especially after a friend was murdered, and didn't get such kneejerk responses from right-wingers! As part of my entire argument against capital punishment, the desire to "study" these mass murderers, et al. is purely practical and very well may be of sociological benefit. You can't ask questions of a dead person!
We already do this with endless questionnaires, studies, focus groups with regular people, plus interviews with famous murderers in prison. I have seen all the Manson family interviews, and Manson, for instance, and I've always been very curious how these people think after years. Do they finally have a sense of remorse? Were they truly psychopathic, etc. etc. It's not to use people as "guinea pigs" in any other way then we use each other now. It's simply one more "useful" reason to the larger issue of why we shouldn't have state-sponsored killing in the first place.
I personally would have no sense of justice or closure by killing the person who murdered my friend. I would perhaps feel something upon hearing him in future years come to grips with what he's done. I see no problem with submitting to brain scans (as we do with non-criminals!) to perhaps learn something useful in that way about the psychological underpinnings of criminals. This is already being done!
I understand the need to not want to "romanticize" criminals by providing them forums to go on talking, and I understand some victims' need for retribution, but I don't agree with it. I don't think Dawkins' view on this is an atheist's view - I see it as more of a pragmatic view on the subject of capital punishment and ONE MORE REASON NOT TO EXECUTE PEOPLE.
Geesh, thanks for raising my blood pressure. People who start going off about scientists and using people as guinea pigs in some Dr. Mengele-nefarious way are really reading much to into this.
Posted by: Observer | January 6, 2007 4:48 PM
Well, that explains a lot. Perhaps if Dawkins were to hire some real PR experts, they'd have the gumption to tell him when it's best to just keep his trap shut long enough for the aftershocks to die down.
Posted by: jb | January 6, 2007 4:50 PM
Well, that explains a lot. Perhaps if Dawkins were to hire some real PR experts, they'd have the gumption to tell him when it's best to just keep his trap shut long enough for the aftershocks to die down.
Well sure, but controversy has good effects. For one it increases traffic to the SB website, which means they can charge higher premiums for advertisement space, and thus stay here longer so we can yell at each other about the next controversy. :)
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 6, 2007 4:59 PM
Can I argue for a moment about Dawkin's actual points, and not the reaction to them? Thank you.
I tend to agree with what he says: there is still a void in understanding why and how people come to do immoral, violent things to their fellow men. Not that the field isn't a topic of research, nor that we don't understand anything about it--the Stanford prison experiments and the Milgram experiment come to mind in particular, suggesting that evil can flourish under a mere deference to authority, rather than a specific intent. There's still much to learn.
That said, I also agree that Saddam Hussein probably would not have taught us much: who would have been surprised to find out that he was a sociopath who justified his violence by blaiming the victims and elevating himself? By all accounts, it sounds like he came from the Idi Amin/Augusto Pinochet/Khmer Rouge school of dictators; it also sounds like he was no outlier (in terms of motivation) in the long, unpleasant history of such rulers. Nonetheless, such dictators are (happily) rare enough that we ought to be content to have the chance to capture one alive and study him.
Now such considerations are academic, and all we can do now (beyond analyzing the information that we already have on Hussein) is try to claim that we will "never again" allow such dictators to flourish. That's worked out real well so far, hasn't it?
Posted by: ThomasHobbes | January 6, 2007 4:59 PM
Chris seems to have some problems with science. See Where Rampant Scientism Takes You and What is Scientism? for examples.
I've asked him to provide us with a single example of knowledge that we can all recognize as valid without utilizing the scientific method.
Let's see what he says, shall we?
Posted by: Caledonian | January 6, 2007 5:01 PM
The problem with Dawkins' op-ed isn't that it's morally corrupt; it's that it's so silly and naive. Neither Saddam nor Hitler were uniquely evil or cruel; many, many people throughout history and now have been and are no less cruel.
Dawkins's claim that "most people can't even come close to understanding how any man could be so cruel as Hitler or Hussein" is preposterous and unsubstantiated sentimental twaddle. Most people come to contact with enough evil and hatred in their everyday life to make it quite possible to extrapolate that experience to the scale of a Hitler or a Saddam.
Psychologists have had access to various abnormal and abhorrent people (mentally ill, prisoners, sexual offenders, etc. etc.) for many decades now, and haven't gotten much in the way of objective science from that; in fact, the nontrivial conclusions they have drawn seem to point towards the potential for evil being present in all of us, very common, very much near the surface (see the Stanford prison experiment). Frankly, psychologists are mostly busy pursuing much more sensible problems than "struggling to understand how an individual human being could be so evil" - that's Hallmark-channel understanding of psychology. Besides, there's absolutely no reason to think any kind of questioning of Saddam would yield anything but self-serving propaganda.
I'm reminded of one of the closing scenes of the movie, "Starship Troopers", where brave human researchers poke a captured "thinking bug" with sharp needles, trying to understand its psychology. Dawkins googly-eyed-happy picture of a swarm of social scientists in white coats, questioning Saddam and learning oh-so-much hard data about human nature, is painfully ridiculous.
Posted by: Anatoly | January 6, 2007 5:02 PM
MJH:
I must inform you that I am going to steal that way of putting it. Fucking brilliant. :D
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 6, 2007 5:05 PM
Anatoly,
I don't think Dawkins' op-ed focuses so much on inherent psychological tendencies as the environment in which normal humans can kill, maim, torture, etc. many others without apparent conscience. Perhaps you can read minds, but I myself have no such tendencies. And I think that ameliorating our lack of understanding of such things is important. Nothing "googly-eyed" or "Hallmark" about that.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 6, 2007 5:09 PM
Anatoly, the second part of Dawkins' sentence you quote is the kicker:
That is is the important question Dawkins raises. The acts of Hussein hardly compare to the daily "evil" we all encounter in our daily lives, which amounts to historically trivial things like someone cutting you off in traffic, greedy employers, or a bar fight or whatever.
Posted by: mjh | January 6, 2007 5:11 PM
I agree -- that is ridiculous. However, since it's you who has brought up needles and white coats and intentionally conjured up a scene from a SF movie, let's not put the blame on Dawkins.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 6, 2007 5:13 PM
Quite an interesting analog. Of course, unlike the arachnids and other bugs who couldn't help but obey the 'brain bug' in Starship Troopers, the people who do Sadda
m's bidding (gassing, shooting, hanging, poisoning, espionage, propaganda, etc.) are just as culpable and responsible as Saddam himself. And in that scene of the movie, they aren't trying to understand it's psychology as much as it's biology, when they jam that instrument in its face. Hell, it was more of a poke, if you paid attention. The "two needles' were two talons of a big mechanical claw, that once inside spread open and a gouge went to work on the bug from the middle of the instrument.
That scene was about torture in the name of science. It cannot be compared to that scene you are suggesting. And your need to characterize Dawkins as naive is very telling. It seems that the only protest you can manage against Dawkins is that there is a better time, some better way to do things other than being direct and honest. In which case, it is you that is naive.
Posted by: Aerik | January 6, 2007 5:18 PM
But that's precisely what people seem to think of as 'scientists': white coats, probing, and a lack of any kind or moral or ethical sense.
Most of "Nazi science" wasn't science, and wasn't even useful. Now, the Japanese conducted all kinds of unethical experimentation while they were in China, and we made all kinds of deals to get our hands on their research because we weren't willing to do what it took to acquire that incredibly useful knowledge - precisely because our researchers wouldn't agree to do those things.
Posted by: Caledonian | January 6, 2007 5:23 PM
Do all sociopaths gain control over a nation? No. Do you know how he did it, and how he maintained control? No.
...and how can you hope to learn that now? A seance?
Maybe he wouldn't have given us anything useful. Maybe the methods that have worked so many times on other imprisoned murderers would not have worked on him. Maybe. But we'll never know now, will we?
Posted by: SmellyTerror | January 6, 2007 5:23 PM
mjh,
It just so happens that "the important question Dawkins raises" has been studied. Historians wrote many volumes on how people like Saddam, Hitler or Stalin come to power and retain their hold on power. Note that Dawkins implicitly, and erroneously, claims this question to be psychological (the previous sentence sets up the one you quoted with 'the most important research... is psychological'). The question has been studied by historians, sociologists and philosophers (ever since Ortega y Gasset), but not so much by psychologists.
Take Pinochet. Has his staying alive and very much in his right mind for 15 years after giving up power helped social sciences much? Did we learn a lot of very important hard data about Pinochet's coming to power, or the functioning of the junta, from the man himself? (I'm sure neither Dawkins nor you would advocate torturing Saddam to get information out of him, hence the distinction of Saddam being a prisoner and Pinochet a free citizen is somewhat irrelevant to this analogy). Have psychologists suffered a huge loss with Pinochet's demise the other day? Someone must surely write an op-ed!
Posted by: Anatoly | January 6, 2007 5:25 PM
Observer wrote:
The Kingdom of Noise is ramping up the attacks against Dawkins
and other vocal evolutionists/atheists. That is what happens
when you get in the way of the misuse of religion as an
instrument of political will.
Expect the swiftboaters and other gunmen of the predatory
cult that has the reins of power in America to show up
soon....
Posted by: Dark Matter | January 6, 2007 5:25 PM
...and how can you hope to learn that now? A seance?
I'll provide the Ouija board and the Slayer records, if anyone is interested. We won't get answers, of course, but the music will be teh darkness!!!!11one
Posted by: mjh | January 6, 2007 5:26 PM
One also wonders how these critics would have perceived the very same article written by a non-scientist nor by Dawkins. Does everyone understand that non-scientists and ordinary people hold Dawkins's exact view on this issue? By people who are not so fogged up by revenge even for the most hideous specimens of our species?
My admiration for Dawkins is only growing as people jump on the often precarious tightrope of language. If he maintains his poise against some of these contentious pile-ups, he's going to be one of my personal heroes of the 21st century.
Posted by: Observers | January 6, 2007 5:28 PM
Observers,
Does everyone understand that non-scientists and ordinary people hold Dawkins's exact view on this issue?
Your ability to tap into the collective conscious of non-scientists and "ordinary people" (oh my) is uncanny, and is matched only by Dawkins' piercing insight into "most people"'s ability to imagine evil.
Posted by: Anatoly | January 6, 2007 5:34 PM
Its like when Charlie shot Ethan on Lost. That pissed everyone off, because they wanted information about him!
Posted by: Abigail | January 6, 2007 5:37 PM
Anatoly: It just so happens that "the important question Dawkins raises" has been studied.
Oh, it's been studied! Well, that's all right then, we can all stop. Never mind, fellas! IT'S BEEN STUDIED! Go home, all you historians. Never mind, psychologists. We already know everything there is to know about the subject. It's been studied, don't you know!
Anatoly, do you honestly think that historians would put no value on the most primary of primary sources? And do you not see the informational difference between Pinochet, who dedicated the last years of his life to avoiding conviction, and Saddam, who was never going to get out of prison?
Do you think that free serial killers provide anything like the information provided by those who are interviewed in prison?
Honestly? Or are you being dense on purpose?
Posted by: SmellyTerror | January 6, 2007 5:37 PM
Anatoly,
I would think (agree?) with you that it is a question for sociology, not psychology, on that matter, and thus Dawkins' comment was at least misdirected, if not erroneous. I only know Ortega y Gasset from a quote in the liner notes of a Fugazi record, though.
But re: topic, that does not explain the odd and vitriolic response to Dawkins' op-ed here.
Posted by: mjh | January 6, 2007 5:39 PM
"Most people come to contact with enough evil and hatred in their everyday life to make it quite possible to extrapolate that experience to the scale of a Hitler or a Saddam."
Quite possible to, sure.... but most people still don't. Why else is it so common to call murderers "inhuman" and "monsters?" You can often see people arguinig for capital punishment by saying that "these people aren't human beings, they're monsters."
Killing each other comes in about third after eating and screwing on the list of what it is people do.
That's why we can't keep these people around - if we get too familiar with them it might start to sink in that he's just a guy who did what probably 15 or 20 percent of men would have done if in his position. We might start to see similarities between that guy and some of OUR guys in leadership.
And then we'd be unable to keep telling ourselves that "it can't happen here" or "our culture is the better one" or that we wouldn't have behaved like the average German or any of the other lies we tell ourselves.
Posted by: craig | January 6, 2007 5:42 PM
When I was in grad school my then-hero Dawkins - along with other 'sociobiologists' - was unfairly vilified by certain intellectuals as a proponent of (or, at best, for helping lend support to) Social Darwinism and other ultra-reactionary politics, dogmatic genetic determinism, and worse. Much of this criticism came from the left of center.
Since then, those baseless charges have receded and today Dawkins is under fire from both left and right for quite different reasons. Some of these current attacks are without merit or are overblown, like the 'Saddam Hussein research' controversy.
However, I believe that Dawkins is naïve about both the role of religion and the ability of our current state of scientific knowledge to solve social problems, and this sometimes leads to ill-advised rhetoric on his part. As an atheist and scientific rationalist, I largely agree with Mel Konner's criticism of Dawkins and Harris.
Posted by: Colugo | January 6, 2007 5:45 PM
People post so fast...Dark Matter..."The Kingdom of Noise" is an apt expression. The same Kingdom with that noisy "War on Christmas," for instance, despite that I saw plenty of nativity scenes, despite that me, "raging hardcore atheist," went to my parent's church and sang and read along with all of them without melting like the Wicked Witch of the West. I could go on, but "instrument of political will" has always been the case as is evident in the Bible...at least in what I studied in the gospels.
There is a lot of noise out there and not enough listening. So, is Dawkins so labeled now that everything he writes about will be perceived as an "fundamentalist atheist" diatribe? If that's the case, then these people have small minds in which there's little room to grow intellectually.
Posted by: Observer | January 6, 2007 5:46 PM
ST,
My point is not that the question's been studied, it's that Dawkins seems ignorant of who it is that's been studying it (namely, not so much psychologists, no; but then Dawkins's op-ed displays quite feeble understanding of psychology, doesn't it? In Dawkins's world, psychologists go around studying evil by interviewing past dictators. In the real world, psychologists prefer to study, you know, psychology).
Now, Saddam. If he were left alive (by the way, the crude spectacle of his execution was appalling, and he definitely should have been sentenced to life in prison - just not for the reasons Dawkins cites), historians might possibly find him a valuable source of information. It's a very uncertain "might" - it's much much more probable that he'd continue to spew self-serving propaganda. What would be his motivation to tell the truth about his reign, his crimes, his coming to power, exactly? Past experience tells us that historians haven't found primary sources very reliable when recounting the times of their evil deeds and crimes.
So yeah, historians - a very very uncertain "maybe". Psychologists? Not so much. "Understanding evil"? The Hallmark-channel school of silly twaddle attacks.
Posted by: Anatoly | January 6, 2007 5:48 PM
First off, most atheists don't treat science like a religion. Dawkins and PZ do. That's why I've criticized them, not atheism, or atheists in general. Given that there are all sorts of atheists, and lots of different forms of atheism, criticizing philosophically naive rationalists can't possibly constitute "anti-atheism."
Second, as John Hawks put it in an email to me, arguing that Dawkins' letter advocates something that's not as bad as Mengele, and is therefore not bad, is pretty absurd. I may have used the equivalent of a slippery slope argument, which amounts to "I don't like the idea of the government keeping people around just because they're useful" (it's not really a slippery slope, but I'll give you your bad reasoning, for the sake of argument), but at least I have a standard that isn't "If it ain't as bad as the Nazis, it ain't bad."
Posted by: Chris | January 6, 2007 5:53 PM
I don't agree with Dawkins about there being great potential in the study of people like Saddam but I don't feel all hysterical about my disagreement with him. Some study would be fine with me and maybe even somewhat useful. We study the psychology of serial killers, do we not? But I don't think we would learn anything from studying Hussein that would help head off people like him and even if we did, the politics and power involved would make it impossible to apply that knowledge in any useful way. Besides, I think that "they" are not so different from "us", that is why they are so frightening. It's not about the psychology of one man, it's about a society, politics, power, oportunity and lots of stuff like that. No one runs a government alone or commits mass murder alone. Dawkins is naive to think that those with the power to study Saddam would be interested in history. Most just want to shut him up, and they did.
Posted by: yiela | January 6, 2007 5:54 PM
I challenge these assertions. Explain to us what it means to treat something "like a religion", and then defend your claim that Dawkins and PZ have done that.
Posted by: Caledonian | January 6, 2007 5:58 PM
mjh,
But re: topic, that does not explain the odd and vitriolic response to Dawkins' op-ed here.
Is it really odd? Contrast with what PZM writes: "Richard Dawkins sure does a fine job of placing sticks of dynamite under people's chairs and blowing them up."
The way I see it, if you throw vitriol at people, you get vitriol back. Much (most?) of flaming directed at Dawkins probably comes from creationists of various kinds, and those religious people who find his vitriolic attacks on religion offensive. But some of it surely comes from people like myself who are neither IDers nor religious zealots, and dislike Dawkins's arguments not because they're offensive, but because they find them offensively stupid: reductionist in the unreasonable extreme, lacking in knowledge, imprecise, all vitriol and no wisdom, downright rah-rah silly, etc.
Posted by: Anatoly | January 6, 2007 6:00 PM
First off, most atheists don't treat science like a religion. Dawkins and PZ do.
No they don't. That's your strawman, based entirely on erroneous conceptions of what Dawkins and PZ are specifically criticizing about religion. And furthermore, you have still failed to provide an example of this glorious and rarefied religious belief that Dawkins fails to address, or this non-scientific knowledge (about the empirical world, presumably) you constantly allude to.
but at least I have a standard that isn't "If it ain't as bad as the Nazis, it ain't bad."
Man, Chris, you just can't leave the strawmen at the door, can you?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 6, 2007 6:01 PM
Isn't slippery slope a standard fallacy of argument?
It is, but that doesn't mean that it is always incorrect to warn that some action might be the first step on a slippery slope. It just means that it does not give logical proof that something will be the case.
Posted by: Coathangrrr | January 6, 2007 6:02 PM
A non-executed Saddam might have yielded more information in court. Neither a Mengele style lab nor a psychologist's sofa would have been needed.
Posted by: Tilsim | January 6, 2007 6:04 PM
But some of it surely comes from people like myself who are neither IDers nor religious zealots, and dislike Dawkins's arguments not because they're offensive, but because they find them offensively stupid: reductionist in the unreasonable extreme, lacking in knowledge, imprecise, all vitriol and no wisdom, downright rah-rah silly, etc.
Needless to say that upon challenge none of these claims have been validated Dawkins detractors. You are welcome to, as outside of the narrow context of his recent LA Times op-ed I'm curious about hearing responses. Beating your chest in an Eagleton-esque fashion doesn't count.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 6, 2007 6:05 PM
Ultimately, Dawkins may not be important for his reasoned arguments, but his ability to make the headcases go totally bonkers and drop the facade of rationality and reasonableness.
Once they abandon the defensive camoflage, it's easy to see them for what they are.
Posted by: Caledonian | January 6, 2007 6:08 PM
I just got thru reading the Mahablog, and it was disturbing (I'd have commented there, but the post was closed).
This bugged me:
Unfortunately, like every other fundamentalist atheist I've ever encountered, he is profoundly ignorant about religion as a whole. The small part of religion he knows and writes about is not representative of the whole.
Wait: isn't this the same guy who went to interview nutjobs like Haggard, that Jew-turned-Muslim, the Hell House guy, & the Hebrew convert?
He might've gone in w/some preconceptions, but most 'fundies' don't even BOTHER to go to ANY length to show both sides of the coin. At least, in my limited experience.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | January 6, 2007 6:13 PM
How can you defend this horrid creature, PZ? I mean, just look at him, that rabid, hateful, too-strident atheist! You can see the bloody foam forming around his fangs!
Posted by: Joshua | January 6, 2007 6:14 PM
Caledonian- I agree completely. And it's fun to watch, isn't it?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | January 6, 2007 6:18 PM
I do? But I thought I hated religion and despised all who practice it! This is so confusing.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 6, 2007 6:20 PM
Chris said,
I see an entirely different argument. PZ says:
"Dawkins' latest op-ed suggesting an alternative reason for not assassinating people like Saddam Hussein..."
Perhaps if I considered the end result of judicial trial, conviction and sentencing for mass murder to be "assassination," I too would want to save tinpot dictators from their well deserved fate.
Posted by: jb | January 6, 2007 6:21 PM
Those aren't real religious people.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 6, 2007 6:22 PM
Dawkins deniers find reality not to their taste. Since they cannot change reality, they replace it with fantasy. Dawkins is undermining their self-delusion, which makes their hatred of him understandable. But still wholly shameful. Although they have lost the capacity to feel shame.
You know, it's nice to have heroes again.
Posted by: BitterOldCynic | January 6, 2007 6:23 PM
Perhaps it there had BEEN a real trial, rather than what actually happened- a US-manipulated farce combined with a Sadrist revenge fantasy come true- it would look less like an assassination. And in that case perhaps the despicable Saddam would not now be attaining martyr status in much of the Arab world.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | January 6, 2007 6:23 PM
I was musing out loud how the article may have been perceived if it was written by a non-scientist and not Dawkins. I am a non-scientist and an ordinary person. I don't see Dawkins's ruminations on this Saddam/execution issue as anything having to do with atheism, but I see people making it so and/or overreacting. What was your point to me?
You seem to want complex reasons for what I think is simple curiousity and utility to interviewing and studying such criminals as they remain incarcerated. Executing someone is certainly the simplest thing to do. Perhaps there wouldn't be such useful benefit to the field of psychology, but people are sure fascinated with watching these interviews when they come out. Gawking at a hanging, gawking at an interview...what serves us best? Who? If nothing is gained from studying such an individual, what's lost? They rot in prison. What else do you get but revenge if you execute him?
Posted by: Observer | January 6, 2007 6:25 PM
Remember Leopold and Loeb?
Leopold died in prison in a knife fight. Loeb earned an M.D. behind bars. Eventually released, he moved to Puerto Rico to stay out of controversy. There he became a noted birder, contributing to our knowledge of birds, and he worked in public health, preventing perhaps a million premature deaths by some estimates at his death in 1971.
The tapestry of a life is made of many colors of thread -- some threads are silver, some gold, some are red, some are green, white, yellow, blue, and gray. Some are black.
Isn't it extremely odd that so many who profess to be Christian, have given up all hope that a murderer might gain redemption or salvation?
Dawkins wonders what humans can learn if we look. Some who question science say "don't look." It's troubling that any others of a more rational bent might join in the call to avert our human drive to learn from our mistakes, and even from others' errors.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 6, 2007 6:29 PM
Is it really odd? Contrast with what PZM writes: "Richard Dawkins sure does a fine job of placing sticks of dynamite under people's chairs and blowing them up."
But Dawkins tends to bend over backwards, almost to the point of annoyance (consider the caveats to creationist quote-miners in The Ancestor's Tale, for example), in addressing the sillier yet most common objections to his claims.
That Dr. Myers compares Dawkins' writing to a stick of dynamite directly below the ass does not convince me, or most other readers, I bet, that Dawkins is being "offensively stupid."
And when I wrote "odd," it does seem odd that most of Dawkins' opponents consider him to be an arrogant asshole. He covers his own ass well, and speaks/ writes with specific language and reasons for such. Presenting a well-reasoned argument does not equal being an asshole.
Posted by: mjh | January 6, 2007 6:29 PM
First the "other ways of knowing" nonsense in your "scientism" posts, and now accusing people of treating science like a religion. I hate to say this, but you're starting to sound dangerously like a new-age woo.
Seriously, what does it mean to treat a process like a religion? Can you explain it to me without horribly mangling the definition of "religion"? With examples, preferably.
Posted by: Davis | January 6, 2007 6:31 PM
Ed Darrell, you rock!
Posted by: Observer | January 6, 2007 6:39 PM
I don't think there would have been much reaction to Dawkins post if it had been written by anyone else. Really, it was pretty tame opinion. People that don't like Dawkins are having to do a lot of wild fan waving to blow this up into much of a flame. This is an example of the society wrecking, amoral ravings of a fundamentalist Atheist?
Posted by: yiela | January 6, 2007 6:48 PM
LaBonne said,
So... you believe Nuremberg was orchestrated collective "assassination" as well? And while you're at it, what's the word you use to describe what happened to Hitler and Saddam's victims? I call it "murder," just so you know.
Posted by: jb | January 6, 2007 6:50 PM
I agree! Now acknowledge who supported Hussein during his murders.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 6, 2007 6:52 PM
mjh,
But Dawkins tends to bend over backwards, almost to the point of annoyance (consider the caveats to creationist quote-miners in The Ancestor's Tale, for example), in addressing the sillier yet most common objections to his claims.
It's true that Dawkins tends to address the sillier objections.
That Dr. Myers compares Dawkins' writing to a stick of dynamite directly below the ass does not convince me, or most other readers, I bet, that Dawkins is being "offensively stupid."
No, but it does hint at his writing being vitriolic, hence it's puzzling to me that you're so puzzled over the vitriol of the response.
And when I wrote "odd," it does seem odd that most of Dawkins' opponents consider him to be an arrogant asshole. He covers his own ass well, and speaks/ writes with specific language and reasons for such. Presenting a well-reasoned argument does not equal being an asshole.
Consider, then, the possibility that your assessment of Dawkins' presenting "well-reasoned argument" is mistaken; then, perhaps, what seems odd to you will not seem so odd anymore (although I wouldn't go as far as an "asshole").
Take the op-ed we were talking about. Where's the "well-reasoned argument"? I see a hodgepodge of ludicrous misinformation about what psychologists study and silly cliches about the mysteriously unique eeeevil of a Saddam or a Hitler. Far from "covering his own ass well", the writing is sloppy and riddled with erroneous or unsubstantiated claims. The central argument, while perhaps barely plausible on its surface, is easily contradicted by available historical evidence. We've had, perhaps not many, but some cases of past dictators and other evil men of power remaining either free citizen out of power (like Pinochet) or even incarcerated prisoners (like some of the Nazi leaders for many years, or Manuel Noriega even now). Is there any evidence that psychologists tried to question/interrogate/interview them, learned much from their words, advanced the science? Not to my knowledge. Is there even evidence that historians found them very useful as primary sources? Not really. Dawkins has no case.
So, where's the well-reasoned argument?
Posted by: Anatoly | January 6, 2007 6:58 PM
I call you "moron", just so you know. Non-morons know about elementary things, such as two wrongs not making a right.
By the way, perhaps you've never heard Churchill's reaction (I assume you don't think he was a Nazi sympathizer but one never knows with morons) to the victor's justice on display at Nuremberg. He remarked to "Bomber" Harris (the man responsible for the wave of firebombing that culminated in Dresden- who would indeed have had reason to worry): "You and I must take care not to lose the next war!"
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | January 6, 2007 6:58 PM
Acknowledge the BFEE? Why? I know what it is and what it does. That's the beauty of launching major warfare to further your family's gun-running empire. You get to kill the bad guys (and tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of relatively innocent other folks) while never having to say you're sorry.
Or was that "love" ?
Posted by: jb | January 6, 2007 7:02 PM
It's subtle, so I'm not surprised you didn't get it. Dawkins could say "hello" and people would act like he was threatening to blow them up with a bomb.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 6, 2007 7:03 PM
It's subtle, so I'm not surprised you didn't get it.
I don't think you're very good at subtle. Sorry.
Dawkins could say "hello" and people would act like he was threatening to blow them up with a bomb.
Really? Well then, it must be real easy to show an example of such a thing happening.
Posted by: Anatoly | January 6, 2007 7:13 PM
LaBonne said,
Non-assholes know how to add, just so you know. Making Saddam Hussein's life no more valuable to science or humanity than any one of the tens of thousands he murdered. Are you just disappointed that he had only one life to give, or merely suffering the letdown of judicial anticlimax?
By the way, if I had been in a position of power per Saddam or Osama, I'd have had them both assassinated years ago.
Posted by: jb | January 6, 2007 7:32 PM
Tyler,
Needless to say that upon challenge none of these claims have been validated Dawkins detractors.
What do you mean by 'validated'? Surely you can grant that some reasonable people happen to disagree with Dawkins. Or is it your view that it's apriori unreasonable to disagree with Dawkins?
You are welcome to, as outside of the narrow context of his recent LA Times op-ed I'm curious about hearing responses.
If you're asking for more recent examples of what I think is wrong with Dawkins's style, I'd cite his dishonest quotemining of Einstein on atheism, and his metaphor of religious people being "atheists about all gods but one". I argued against both some months ago in comments on Pharyngula. But of course, you might find my arguments unpersuasive.
In the non-recent category, I remember as especially ludicrous Dawkins' analogy, in "Blind Watchmaker", where he
tries to explain how natural selection can cause complex structures to arise from simpler ones. He does that by talking of a hypothetical computer program that tries to arrive from a meaningless sequence of letters to a specific line from Shakespeare by changing the sequence one letter at a time, 'generation' after 'generation' - set up so it always chooses the right letter from the specific target sequence. I mean, it's hard to think of anything less like natural selection than a process that tries to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, by comparing its steps with that conclusion! I felt there were many other faults in that book, but that one really stood out; it was unclear to me ever since how one can take Dawkins seriously as an elucidator of anything.
I'm afraid, however, that a few random examples is all I'm good for; I'm not a Dawkins fanatic, I don't follow the man's writings closely, etc. I simply happen to have a very unfavourable opinion of his arguments and writing, and I'd bet there're quite a few others like me out there, who are neither creationists nor religious zealots, but feel the same way.
Beating your chest in an Eagleton-esque fashion doesn't count.
Agreed.
Posted by: Anatoly | January 6, 2007 7:45 PM
Anatoly, I think this John Hawks guy's overblown crapola of a post to Dawkins's article is a perfect example of Dawkins saying "hello."
Off The Rails
Perhaps, it's perspective: I've contemplated this issue and think that justice is served in the apprehension of a person, not executing them, and I want to know what they think in years to come, so I didn't read all this odd "science vs justice" paranoia nonsense that John Hawks is going on about - I sense the meat of what Dawkins is saying. Hawks uses the phrase "complete revulsion"...over this? Isn't that what PZ is reacting to? I just don't know how anyone could find Dawkins article worthy of "complete revulsion." (My views then are completely revolting, too, I guess, gee whiz.)
Posted by: Observer | January 6, 2007 7:46 PM
Chris of Mixing Memory,
The near-universal reaction to your post on Dawkins' article on Saddam has been that you've basically gone off the deep end and are making scurrilous accusations about Dawkins' motives and character that have no foundation in what he actually wrote. But you're still defiantly defending your ludicrous "interpretation" of the article. For goodness' sake, get a grip.
Then again, since you proudly describe yourself as a "Dawkins hater," I guess we shouldn't be surprised.
Post