Dawkins is "is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion." So says David Sloan Wilson. That should get some fireworks started on this 4th.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
In an essay at the Web site of Skeptic magazine, David Sloan Wilson, author of Darwin's Cathedral, concludes that when it comes to a scientific understanding of religion, Dawkins is "just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his…
David Sloan Wilson, an atheist himself, has a few things to relate to 'angry atheists' like Richard Dawkins.
I piss off atheists more than any other category, and I am an atheist. One of the things that infuriates me about the newest crop of angry atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, is their denial…
You know a scientist has made it to the "big time" when they are given the opportunity to write to a general audience. Some thinkers, such as Richard Dawkins, have made their name via popularization. Others, such as E.O. Wilson, only became notable figures outside of academia after having…
At the AAAS meetings in Chicago two weeks ago, I was privileged to be on a panel with such luminaries as Olivia Judson, David Deamer, Neil Shubin, and this year's winner of the AAAS Award for the Public Understanding of Science, Ken Miller. It was a great occasion, and afterward I got to shake…
Wilson gets his $$$ from the Templeton Foundation. I always get the impression he is angling for a Templeton Prize.
I challenge you to find any commentary on the possible benefit of religion in which Wilson does not use Jainism as his example. He has supposedly studied dozens of sects, so why always the same example?
Although I may not have agreed with a lot of what he said it was actually good to read a criticism of Dawkins that wasn't the Courtiers reply or a whine about that nasty man who insulted nice Jebus.
Whew. For a moment, I thought you meant E.O. Wilson and the world had gone mad.
Even as a "Neville Chamberlain atheist" I think Dawkins is just being straightforward, not hateful or angry. And many things the religious do certainly deserve anger, though it is generally counterproductive to give in to that temptation.
There are others who fit the "angry Atheist" stereotype far better than Dawkins, and who are doing us no favors.
You do the article a disservice by quoting that particular sentence. The article as a whole is a pretty thoughtful review of the scientific study of the adaptive value of religion. His primary criticism seems to be that Dawkins does not take the empirical study of religion as a social phenomenon seriously enough; which, unlike 95% of the muck thrown at Dawkins, may be fair criticism.
I find particularly intriguing the thrid-order theory that religion might be negatively adaptive for invidividuals, positively adaptive for groups, and negatively adaptive for societies that contain those groups. Obviously, if you admit group selection, you have to look at differential selection at different levels of the hierarchy of social groupings. It's a real can of worms.
I too cheer, finally, the appearance of a substantive criticism of Dawkins' book. Took long enough.
I don't know that Wilson was using Jainism in the "here's a good thing about religion" way but instead referred to it because, amongst his randomly chosen sample, it posed a particular problem for group selection theories.
Personally, I loved the article as much if not more for its foray into group selection theories as for its substantive criticism of Dawkins. I've wondered when reading some of Dawkins' work (and that of other individualists) why group selection has been dismissed so readily. I'm just a science nerd not a scientist, so I assumed I was missing something. I'm definitely going to seek out Wilson's books and the work of some of the others he mentioned.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Richard Dawkins is only an evolutionist in the same way he is a gravitationist. He is however an Evolutionary Biologist and Zoologist. He is a respect scientists yes. Does this mean he can't express his views on other issues?
On E.O. Wilson, he mentions at forthcoming review article. Not clear if it is a response to Dawkins or a review of emerging research on between group selection and altruism.
Perhaps David Wilson could have been more explicit about this, but part of the criticism that he advances is that when Dawkins argues against religion, that part of Dawkins' criticism ignores work in evolutionary biology that Wilson cites in the Skeptic article. If Dawkins wants to argue against the work Wilson cites, than by all means he should do so. For an evolutionary biologist to ignore his field to advance a personal perspective is at least problematic, if not hypocritical.
Whether altruism arose in our distant forebears via kin selection or group selection is irrelevant to the question of whether evidence exists in the natural world to support the notion of a jealous, interventionist deity who can bless a warlike country or inflict diseases upon homosexuals.
I'm rather puzzled by those who are saying "finally, substantive criticism . . ."
Wilson, of course, is eminently qualified to make these particular points, but have you read Scott Atran?
And though he's no specialist in the area, H. Allen Orr has already made similar complaints about Dawkins's book. As have other, non-scientific commentators.
A lot of people have said essentially the same thing: there's plenty of fairly good work on religion out there answering some of the same questions Dawkins takes on--Atran, Wilson and Boyer just to name the obvious ones--and Dawkins largely ignores them and rants on. Not the makings of a good book.
Though Wilson is measured throughout the piece, the conclusion is fair to quote: Wilson is saying that Dawkins has made a poor job of it and is essentially just depending on his reputation as a scientist to give undue authority to what are essentially his personal opinions about religion. Which is a disservice to science.
This is one point Dawkins makes in his book. One on which many of his critics would agree with him. But Dawkins writes about a number of other things than your angry sky god. And it is mostly about these things that critics have taken issue with him.
If all you are interested in is the angry sky god than I'd have to say Dawkins's book is superfluous: it had all been done already and better by Russell, Twain and even Gore Vidal.
The section of Dawkins book that deals with the evolutionary causes of religion is speculative and outside Dawkins field of study. As I recall, he even says this in the book. As such, it is hardly surprising that someone who actually studies this field might take issue with it. However, the important fact is not whether he got the details right, but rather that it might have a biological cause at all, either adaptive or as a by-product. The point is that we are predisposed to believe in religions without regard to the likelihood of their being the truth.
What distinction is it you are trying to make?
And look, one of the central questions of Dawkins's book is "What good is religion?" And his answer seems to be "Well, I don't like religion, so none whatsoever. Quite the contrary."
Dawkins wouldn't have had to embark into a new field of specialty, just read and absorb 2 or 3 solid books by people who have made it their specialty. But he was apparently more interested in collecting quotes from crazies.
Wilson basically criticizes Dawkins for dismissing groups selection as an evolutionary factor.
However, as Wilson notes, that has nothing to do with religion. Dawkins has always, and in all his works strongly resisted group selection, no matter in which context.
Wilson basically attacks Dawkins position on groups selection, a position he has held troughout his career which he now also applies to relgion. It would be misleading to say Wilson specifically goes after the God Delusion (I know, it IS a review of the book, but I hope you understand what I mean - just read Wilson's piece)
I think if Dawkins and Wilson would both read Howard Bloom's "The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into The Forces of History," then they would have a lot more to agree about.
Just because religion is adaptive doesn't mean it good for us. Remember what kind of world we are adapting to, a world of continual war and predation.
Not that they would admit it -- arguments are profitable for both parties and as Tegumai Bopsulai points out, Wilson gets his $$$ from the Templeton Foundation.
The mention of the Templeton Foundation grants seems to be offered only to suggest Wilson is some not respectable as an academic. Please, if anyone has any proof of that, just put it out there. As far as I can tell he took two of them, both quite small. So what? Meanwhile Dawkins has become a minor industry. Does that make him more or less credible since his money comes from large for-profit publishing houses?
If anything, the Wilson piece is urging Dawkins to do more science and use less rhetoric which seems both mild and fair.
Trinifar wrote:
The article in the eskeptic is evidence enough. It's not about his academic research, it's about this popular presentation, an interpretation of the data that seems to ignore a lot. For example, David Sloan Wilson goes on about religious believers being happier and more productive than atheists -- but he doesn't say much about the majority of scientists, especially the more accomplished and productive ones, being atheistic. That was all a very slanted polemic. He doesn't note that the more atheistic European countries have lower crime and murder rates.
But, yes, once you get past that the criticism against Dawkins -- underestimating group selection -- is probably valid.
I don't think David Sloan Wilson, no matter what data he gets, will write a book that gets this reaction:
Condemn the publisher and author for inciting religious hatred.
Brian Utterback wrote:
What do you mean "we" god-boy? ;->
Maybe Al Sharpton, but not me.
Just because religion is adaptive doesn't mean it good for us. Remember what kind of world we are adapting to, a world of continual war and predation.
Best point in this thread, Norman. I often wonder how people who know so much about evolution can forget that successful adaptation is not innately "good."
Robert S.
Thank you.
And if you like that point I have more points in my blog... from HELL!
Robert and Norman,
If religion is an adaptation to war and predation (and the general rules of cultural evolution apply), then war and predation are independent of religion. In other words, war and predation existed before religion and thus, will probably exist after it. Whether religion is good or evil, thefore, is a completely separate issue from the moral judgments we'd place on war and predation. Also, religion's value as an adaptation will be measured solely by whether it is more or less likely to ensure survival within this context--on the different levels of individual, intergroup, and intragroup selection.
Following Melinda's comment:
Predation is ubiquitous throughout life. Could carnivorous plants be said to practice predation?
Warfare exists in ants and chimpanzees (possibly other species), in addition to humans. Neither ants nor chimpanzees appear to have religion.
I've not read The God Delusion, but I have read nearly all of Dawkins' other books. I have read Pascal Boyer on religion, but not Wilson's Darwin's Cathedral (started but got distracted) or Atran's In God's We Trust. One of the reasons for Dawkins' great success as an author is the fact that he's an incredibly good writer, witty and entertaining.
1) Wilson naturally uses the review to thump his own tub (group selection) but the general point at the end is mean to extend beyond the particular points made above.
This doesn't mean "you didn't properly consider group selection." This means "you didn't properly consider anything that would make this science."
2) On adaptations not being "good": I didn't use the word "good" in the moral sense but in the utilitarian sense--is it good for anything? Does/did it get some job done? Does/did it help people survive? That's a discussion Dawkins likes to short circuit.
3) Who cares if Wilson writes a book that rises to someone else's epater le bourgeois standard? Personally, I'd have thought twice about the Templeton money, but Wilson seems to me to be a fairly straight shooter. Claiming, as he does, that religion must be investigated seriously is not supportive of belief in religion.
Melinda Barton wrote:
Yes, they will exist after religion is gone - if it ever does go. However, the cultural environment has changed, for one thing we have enough nukes to destroy our planet several times over.
I don't like the pairing of "good/evil." That's pairing is often a clue to tell if someone has fallen victim to the Manichean delusion. The Manichean delusion is the self-anointing of "us" as good and "them" as evil. Everything you do is good, everything your proclaimed enemy does is evil.
The opposite of "good" is not "evil" -- the opposite of "good" is "bad." Good is something that fulfills its role well, a sharp knife is a good knife, a dull knife is a bad knife. The opposite of "evil" is "love." Love is nurturing and caring and helping while evil wants to kill and cause pain, cause damage, halt plans.
"Good and evil" don't speak to our real values.
The problem with my non-Manichean definition is that doing evil can be a necessity in war, and sometimes in life. Every act of creation is also an act of destruction...
But what worked in the past may not work in the future.
Oran Kelley wrote:
I do. If you're afraid of shocking and offending you may shy away from uncomfortable truths.
It's too early to tell, but that "just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation" line is not a good sign. I don't think it's fair to Dawkins.
It's not too early to tell on Wilson: read his stuff.
As for the Dawkins comment: he means that Dawkins is making great use of his scientific mojo to push forward a work that is of a pretty low intellectual standard.
I think Orr's discussion of the book is pretty revealing in this regard. (With the exception of the 747 argument, which, frankly, is too moronic to argue about--Orr should have known better.)
However, the cultural environment has changed, for one thing we have enough nukes to destroy our planet several times over.
This is true, but neither the creation of nuclear weapons nor the dropping of them on Japan had anything to do with religion. So, nuclear winter is just as likely due to political and economic upheavals as religious ones. In fact, much of what is going on now is based just as much if not more on political and economic considerations as on religious ones.
As for "good and evil", I don't really think of morality as an either/or proposition but a full spectrum of possibilities. The phrase is just an easy semantic shortcut.
But what worked in the past may not work in the future.
This is self-evident, but again, religion will be correctly judged by its adaptability to that future situation.
I dont' really believe that religion is an adaptation to war and predation. As Brad pointed out, both are present in the rest of the animal kingdom while religion is not. Obviously any social system will adapt itself to changing circumstances to some extent, but I don't think religion exists solely because humans had to adapt to war and predation. After all, humans who live in isolated peaceful cultures with no external enemies and no social unrest still have religions.
My comment was intended simply to show that even if religion is an adaptation to war and predation, it is not the sole or primary cause of it as Dawkins seems to argue. In fact, war and predation are more likely to be completely independent of religion with people using religion to justify their decisions afterwords. (Note that I say "seems" as I've picked up "The G-d Delusion" but haven't had a chance to read it yet. I'm going on interviews of Dawkins, many of his essays (which I have read) and exerpts from his books.)
That last paragraph may not be clear enough. What I mean is that even if religion is an adaptation to war/predation, it cannot be blamed for war/predation.
Melinda Barton wrote:
Not all wars, but all predatory religious cults and those wars where true believers fly airplanes into skyscapers and where suicide bombers shout "God is great" before blowing themselves up.
You confuse a tactic of unequal warfare with religion. If Al Quaeda or the Palestinians had a standing military of any reasonable size, I doubt very seriously they'd be using suicide bombers. Unless of course, they had to even the playing field in one particular arena. The Japanese kamikaze, for example, were suicide bombers used to even the playing field between a weak Japanese navy and the more advanced American navy. By the way, suicide bombings actually began with the Tamil Tigers, who are Marxist, anti-religious and nationalistic. Not only do they use suicide bombings, they also issue their men cyanide capsules so they can commit suicide rather than be captured. The Irish nationalists considered the tactic but rejected it because the strong Catholic proscription against suicide would have prevented it from being a successful tactic.
Many political scientists believe that the current resurgence in terrorism and even in radical Islam is based in Arab nationalism. Irshad Manji, author of The Trouble with Islam, has quite a few interesting things to say about the role of Arab nationalism in extremist forms of Islam.
Lots of words for a simple point: This is far more complicated than just "religion" and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we can actually find tactics that'll work.
Norman Doering: "I don't think David Sloan Wilson, no matter what data he gets, will write a book that gets this reaction:
Condemn the publisher and author for inciting religious hatred."
From the link that you gave:
Now I don't necessarily trust that the quote in question does not exist. However, it is pretty clear that Bloom is being condemned not just for inciting religious hatred, but of twisting the facts. And if Wilson wrote a book that didn't get such a response, that would arguably be a good thing.
That said, I can't say that I'm too impressed by Wilson's article, though, since I'm a bit suspicious of group selection myself.
Aargh! The part, "Interestingly, Bloom fails to reference the quote from the Holy Quran - for a simple reason:
the quote does not exist."
is supposed to be part of the block quote above.
I've just finished reading the first four chapters and so far, I have to support Wilson's conclusion. Dawkins is intellectually dishonest as well as scientifically irresponsible and unethical.
The fact that he quoted the prayer study as "evidence" against the efficacy of prayer was a huge tipoff. I don't know if he believes this himself but he fails to note (as would be required of any honest person) that the study is scientifically invalid and its results meaningless. Before anyone concludes that I'm simply unhappy with its results, I'll point out that there were two studies conducted under the same methodology with two different results. Both are invalid.
Imagine if a study of the efficacy of Drug X for the management of chronic pain was conducted by the same methodology. You have the double-blind control set-up BUT the experimenters know that most of the patients across all groups are taking Drug Y for the duration of the study. Drug Y is also for the management of chronic pain. Despite knowing this, the experimenters do not ask the patients to stop taking Drug Y so that the efficacy of Drug X can be adequately measured. I think you'd condemn the experimenters as unethical and irresponsible. You'd conclude that the study's results are meaningless. And you'd probably condemn any scientist who cited such a study in his own work despite its fatal flaws.
The prayer study was conducted using just this methodology. I, for one, condemn the experimenters as unethical and responsible. By extension, I condemn Dawkins as unethical and irresponsible for citing it. As for the intellectual dishonesty, reasoned debate doesn't permit us to imagine a whole host of ulterior motives for our opponents. The only reason to commit such a logical fallacy is to dishonestly bolster one's own argument at the cost of the honest representation of one's opponents. Dawkins does jsut this many times.
I've got my thoughts on my blog now: Atheist vs. Atheist
Scientific Definition Of Religion
A.
From a posting of mine in an evolution discussion forum, written and meant with complete respectful sincerity, at
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=19160&st=0&#entry286766
Religion, A Human Evolution Definition
"A religion is a human artifact for survival of a specific human cultural phenotype, comprising cultural tool-kit and technique ascribed by its adherents to be of higher esteem and benefit than other human cultural survival plans".
B.
Wondering if religious persons who also "accept" science would accept this definition, even with steady unwavering respect and commitment to their religion. IMO such acceptance would contribute respect to religion and to religious persons.
Sincerely thinking so.
C.
Major Conceptual Hierarchies:
- Religion is a progeny of culture, which is a biological entity, like
- Technology is a progeny of science, like
- Biology is a progeny of evolution, like
- Universal Evolution is a progeny of Energy
Dov Henis