February 14, 2007
Thank You, Richard Dawkins
Sean Carroll makes the case for Richard Dawkins' approach to the defense of atheism, although I'm not sure I would use the word "arrogant" here.
In other words, by being arrogant and uncompromising in his atheism, Dawkins has done a tremendous amount to make the very concept of atheism a respectable part of the public debate, even if you find him personally obnoxious. Evidence: a few years ago, major newsmagazines (prompted in part by the efforts of the Templeton Foundation) were running cover stories with titles like Science Finds God (Newsweek, July 20, 1998). Pure moonshine, of course — come down where you will on the whole God debate, it remains pretty clear that science hasn’t found Him. But, within the range of acceptable public discourse, both science and God were considered to be undeniably good things — it wasn’t a stretch to put them together. Nowadays, in contrast, we find cover stories with titles like God vs. Science (Time, Nov 13, 2006). You never would have seen such a story just a few years ago.
This is a huge step forward. Keep in mind, the typical American thinks of atheists as fundamentally untrustworthy people. A major network like CNN will think nothing of hosting a roundtable discussion on atheism and not asking any atheists to participate. But, unlike a short while ago, they will eventually be shamed into admitting that was a mistake, and make up for it by inviting some atheists to defend their ideas. Baby steps. Professional news anchors may still seem a little befuddled at the notion that a clean, articulate person may not believe in God. But at least that notion is getting a decent public hearing. Once people actually hear what atheists have to say, perhaps they will get the idea that one need not be an amoral baby-killer just because one doesn’t believe in God.
For that, Richard Dawkins, thank you.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 11:06 AM | Permalink
Comments
My God (my G-d) who gives a hoot?
Yhou want to believe, go ahead. You think religion hogwash, ok too. Just leave those alone who do not believe as you do
an do not deprive them of their rights and impose your views on them.
Is Dawkins abraisive? ok.So too Pat Robertson. I prefer to read Dawkins than listen to Robertson, so filled with hate for those who he distains...that is his religious leaning, right?
Posted by: fred lapides | Feb 14, 2007 11:29:53 AM
I agree, Fred. Dawkins, unlike Pat Robertson, doesn't appear to want anyone dead.
Posted by: Bill Ectric | Feb 14, 2007 1:17:01 PM
Writer after writer in the queue of apologiea for the materialist worldview continues to offer the same conflation of science and rationalism. It's getting boring; why must we keep reading that science can prove that everything can be proven by science? With apologies to Julian Jaynes, this is like saying that a flashlight searching a room has shown there is no darkness in there. It offends me as an atheist, and I cannot believe I'm alone on this.
Dawkins "tone" is problematic, yes, but not merely because one catches more flies with honey. It is problematic because it pretends to a position of objective reasonableness that brooks no scrutiny, and marginalizes any contrasting perspective as potty.
Dawkins and the other "New Atheists" (I prefer the term "Vulcanist") will humbly protest that are operating outside the influence of ideology, a territory which is conveniently mapped as whatever intellectual space they happen to occupy.
Dawkins, Weinberg, Harris et al have had every oportunity to clarify thier remarks on God and religion as referring only to the literalist strain, sometimes called fundamentalist, and they consistently refuse, stating quite plainly that people who follow the tenets of a religion mythically instead of literally are "giving cover" to the extremist factions by legitimizing the religious paradigm. There is only one narrative we may cleave to, and that is the one presented by scientific orthodoxy.
This is not argument, it's intellectual hegemony.
Posted by: Deets | Feb 14, 2007 2:21:07 PM
That's very well said, deets. Hear hear!
Posted by: timothy Don | Feb 14, 2007 3:37:42 PM
Giving arguments against a philosophical position, for example, a religious or secular world view, is not the same thing as depriving the holders of that position of their rights, or "imposing one's views" on them.
The problem is that very few people have had good philosophy courses. If they had, they would have become used to vigorous argument over first principles, and would not have such tender intellectual defenses. Good heavens! You would think that someone like Dawkins, who very vigorously argues for his philosophical positions, is bashing people over the head with a baseball bat or something. Try to grow a bit thicker skins, people!
As for those who think that religion provides an alternative source of knowledge to science, let's see some examples of what kind of knowledge it provides. Every religion disagrees with every other one; in fact, many religions enjoy very bitter controversies within their own ranks over what is true and what is false. What kind of knowledge is this, that can't even agree on what is true?
Posted by: JonJ | Feb 14, 2007 4:37:03 PM
JonJ,
I have read The God Delusion, and I did not find the philosophical arguments particularly "vigorous." It helps when you get to dismiss any philosophy which doesn't address your chosen worldview, as RD does, for example, by characterizing continental philosophy as "Franco-phoneyism." Quite vigourous!
Anyway, it's nice for you to call me tender. It is Valentine's day, after all.
Posted by: Deets | Feb 14, 2007 7:17:53 PM
Dawkins may be too radical in his approach, but at least he is taking one.
Posted by: beajerry | Feb 14, 2007 10:36:41 PM
The problem is not religion, but faith and foundationalism. There is no more scientific basis for American Constitutional law than for Catholic doctrine, yet people spend their lives in the interpretation of both. I doubt that Dawkins would complain about the behavior of professors of law.
The origin of law is religious law, and the function of religion is to give that that law foundation. To think of religion as scientific rather than social function is to miss the point (regardless of what believers might feel obliged to argue)
The foundation of our system of government is a document and before that an amorphous set of principles. Some people even in the modern era want to base those principles on a solid foundation. But there is no foundation to society other than society itself and the values it chooses, for whatever reasons it chooses them.
Dawkins, Sokal, Weinberg Dennett and others are foundationalists of one sort or another, without being able to define exactly what that foundation is. The search for truth? But truth is a metaphysical construct. Better to describe science et al as the search for facts and the desire for facts as akin to the desire of the mountain climber to find an even higher mountain. This is romantic teleology as foundation. Science is merely the mechanism. Weinberg is a Zionist. What are the values behind his Zionism? More lives were saved in the 20th century by improvements in basic public health then by high tech research, but research feeds the romance of knowledge and water treatment plants are banal and practical. Technicians are not often romantic icons.
We live by the stories we tell ourselves, and some people like their stories simple and taken for granted. Weinberg sees himself -and his zionism- as he wants to be seen. Donald Rumsfeld doesn't go to church much and isn't very religious, but he still manages to be delusional. Academics have lives and imaginations almost entirely circumscribed these days by the limits of their specialty and yet they generalize about the world at large. Americans generalize about the interests and values of other countries based on the logic of Americans. These are all foundational values, and most of them are shallow and stupid.
What are the values behind the idea of the rule of law? What are the values behind the rule of science as described by Dawkins and others: the rule of experts? Are there any values at all besides the conflation of technological and moral progress? How does this resolve the problems of the politics of Rumsfeld or Weinberg, or the cop (or country) who says "I am the law."
This entire discussion, foundation vs foundation, is absurd. Go back to high school and try again.
Posted by: Seth Edenbaum | Feb 15, 2007 11:35:37 AM
Alvin Plantinga reviews Dawkins here:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/global/printer.html?/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
Posted by: Pseudonym | Mar 1, 2007 6:32:56 PM
Post a comment