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.
Jud: “However, I’m unaware of any good sociological studies showing atheist/agnostic groups are better behaved toward their fellows than religious groups (with aspects such as size, authority, etc., controlled for). Anyone?”
I remember that in one of the Beyond Belief (2006?) segments, Scott Atran pointed to statistics showing that atheists were at least as likely to scapegoat as the religious.
One of the places where the us-versus-them shows up in Dawkins’ rhetoric is when he uses the metaphor of a war between rationalism and superstition. There is an implicit false dichotomy here, since those who are irrational but not superstitious are neglected. With this way of, ahem, framing the situation, it is easy to think, “Hey, if I’m against superstition, then that puts me on the side of rationalism.” Like hell it does. For example, Dawkins writes in TGD,
The article that Dawkins cites has several red flags, one of them being that it contradicted itself on the birth of Mithras. There are a couple telling things. First, it is telling that it was published in Free Inquiry in the first place. Its staff obviously did not fact-check the article. The second telling thing is that Dawkins didn’t see the red flags. If he had written the book with the attitude, “Hey, I better research my opposition so that I’m not surprised when it throws me curves,” he would have stumbled across the problems that were overlooked by the article’s publishers. Heck, lurking around IIDB would have helped him. Unfortunately, there is a tendency in atheist circles to pass around BS about religion that flatters them (*cough* Brian Flemming *cough*). Then again, it is pretty common for those caught up in the us-versus-them mindset to be ignorant about “them.”
Duckspeaking the pat “Courtier’s Reply” in 3, 2, 1 …
Jud: “However, I’m unaware of any good sociological studies showing atheist/agnostic groups are better behaved toward their fellows than religious groups (with aspects such as size, authority, etc., controlled for). Anyone?”
I remember that in one of the Beyond Belief (2006?) segments, Scott Atran pointed to statistics showing that atheists were at least as likely to scapegoat as the religious.
One of the places where the us-versus-them shows up in Dawkins’ rhetoric is when he uses the metaphor of a war between rationalism and superstition. There is an implicit false dichotomy here, since those who are irrational but not superstitious are neglected. With this way of, ahem, framing the situation, it is easy to think, “Hey, if I’m against superstition, then that puts me on the side of rationalism.” Like hell it does. For example, Dawkins writes in TGD,
The article that Dawkins cites has several red flags, one of them being that it contradicted itself on the birth of Mithras. There are a couple telling things. First, it is telling that it was published in Free Inquiry in the first place. Its staff obviously did not fact-check the article. The second telling thing is that Dawkins didn’t see the red flags. If he had written the book with the attitude, “Hey, I better research my opposition so that I’m not surprised when it throws me curves,” he would have stumbled across the problems that were overlooked by the article’s publishers. Heck, lurking around IIDB would have helped him. Unfortunately, there is a tendency in atheist circles to pass around BS about religion that flatters them (*cough* Brian Flemming *cough*). Then again, it is pretty common for those caught up in the us-versus-them mindset to be ignorant about “them.”
Duckspeaking the pat “Courtier’s Reply” in 3, 2, 1 …
@ Wilkins;
“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.”
I think John W is mistaken because he is accepting a religiously hijacked definition of (T)truth. The very idea of absolute truth is wrong. The real meaning of truth could be debated but to my mind is identical to that scientific correctness JW is claiming is not really true. I would say that even a scientific theory that has been superceded or shown to be inaccurate (e.g. Newtonian mechanics) has more truth in it than any religious statement because it was arrived at through genuine inquiry.
Also, it is wrong of JW to complain that “[Dawkins] is trying to produce exactly the same effects as religion does. Social cohesion, derogation of the Other, ideas that everyone can take for granted.” These are thing that people have invented independently of religion and have likewise been hijacked.
PS – I think Lev is using one of those automatic insult generators that were popular for about 5 mins a few years ago. Lots of character assasination and not a shred of evidence to back up a single one of his claims.
Reclaim TRUTH – ed
C.W. #132-
That’s a problem? I propose that “super-natural” is only called such because we don’t understand how it fits in with the universe. If there is any mechanism which exists apart from what we call the universe which influences this universe, it implies a larger universe consisting of at least our universe and the external mechanism, in which case all our current knowledge is at best a special case of the grander universe.
I never said I was correct in anything. I proposed a definition of “evidence”. Make use of it how you may. At least this method can highlight where you need to direct your attention in argumentation — how they rate credibility of sources.
Perhaps the addendum can be made- “The natural order of the universe being defined as the underlying structure of what we pragmatically call the universe and any and all mechanisms which can and do exert influence over it.” Does that cover my bases?
C.W. #132-
That’s a problem? I propose that “super-natural” is only called such because we don’t understand how it fits in with the universe. If there is any mechanism which exists apart from what we call the universe which influences this universe, it implies a larger universe consisting of at least our universe and the external mechanism, in which case all our current knowledge is at best a special case of the grander universe.
I never said I was correct in anything. I proposed a definition of “evidence”. Make use of it how you may. At least this method can highlight where you need to direct your attention in argumentation — how they rate credibility of sources.
Perhaps the addendum can be made- “The natural order of the universe being defined as the underlying structure of what we pragmatically call the universe and any and all mechanisms which can and do exert influence over it.” Does that cover my bases?
Yes it can be a problem. If all you accept as evidence is that which can be tested by the scientific method you may exclude that aren’t easy to repeat (i.e. very low probability events).
Your first sentence in the above paragraph seems at odds with what follows it.
If our perceivable universe is a sub-set of something larger then the super-natural (that which is beyond our ken) doesn’t have to fit in our universe though it could affect it.
I don’t disagree with the special case idea, though I’m not sure about calling it all the Universe.
So we return to who we trust (credibility).
Interesting and I don’t disagree, not sure what it has to do with evidence though and aren’t we back to naturalism; unless you are saying that everything is natural?
Yes it can be a problem. If all you accept as evidence is that which can be tested by the scientific method you may exclude that aren’t easy to repeat (i.e. very low probability events).
Your first sentence in the above paragraph seems at odds with what follows it.
If our perceivable universe is a sub-set of something larger then the super-natural (that which is beyond our ken) doesn’t have to fit in our universe though it could affect it.
I don’t disagree with the special case idea, though I’m not sure about calling it all the Universe.
So we return to who we trust (credibility).
Interesting and I don’t disagree, not sure what it has to do with evidence though and aren’t we back to naturalism; unless you are saying that everything is natural?
Yes it can be a problem. If all you accept as evidence is that which can be tested by the scientific method you may exclude that aren’t easy to repeat (i.e. very low probability events).
Your first sentence in the above paragraph seems at odds with what follows it.
If our perceivable universe is a sub-set of something larger then the super-natural (that which is beyond our ken) doesn’t have to fit in our universe though it could affect it.
I don’t disagree with the special case idea, though I’m not sure about calling it all the Universe.
So we return to who we trust (credibility).
Interesting and I don’t disagree, not sure what it has to do with evidence though and aren’t we back to naturalism; unless you are saying that everything is natural?
Yes it can be a problem. If all you accept as evidence is that which can be tested by the scientific method you may exclude that aren’t easy to repeat (i.e. very low probability events).
Your first sentence in the above paragraph seems at odds with what follows it.
If our perceivable universe is a sub-set of something larger then the super-natural (that which is beyond our ken) doesn’t have to fit in our universe though it could affect it.
I don’t disagree with the special case idea, though I’m not sure about calling it all the Universe.
So we return to who we trust (credibility).
Interesting and I don’t disagree, not sure what it has to do with evidence though and aren’t we back to naturalism; unless you are saying that everything is natural?
Yes it can be a problem. If all you accept as evidence is that which can be tested by the scientific method you may exclude that aren’t easy to repeat (i.e. very low probability events).
Your first sentence in the above paragraph seems at odds with what follows it.
If our perceivable universe is a sub-set of something larger then the super-natural (that which is beyond our ken) doesn’t have to fit in our universe though it could affect it.
I don’t disagree with the special case idea, though I’m not sure about calling it all the Universe.
So we return to who we trust (credibility).
Interesting and I don’t disagree, not sure what it has to do with evidence though and aren’t we back to naturalism; unless you are saying that everything is natural?
I agree that it’s pointless to demonize people who are religious. If religion makes them bullies or terrorists, that’s another story. I regard them as people who’ve been imprinted in childhood with a deep desire for security or beliefs that were inculcated before they were old enough to evaluate them. It’s as unthinking as a phobia developed in childhood. We don’t make fun of people who are afraid of heights, do we? It’s something that happened to them at a pre-rational stage, so it’s a handicap rather than a fault. Sneering is useless.
I am not sure if Tony Blair has knocked the gate, but Yale opened it. So he is going to hold a teaching post, his subject is R. Top secret?