Dawkins Demolished

[amateur51]

Oh. The bit you missed out from your quote? I assumed you hadn't noticed it

A detention never did me any harm! (I only ever had one )

Ha!

Relying on the diagnostic skills of Dr Strabismus now are we?!

[french frank]

Don't know if this has been picked up, but it's Dawkins v. Rowan Williams in the Sheldonian on Thursday of this week, video link available ...

Shades of Russell v. Copleston on the Third Programme in 1948.

[Lateralthinking1]

Don't know if this has been picked up, but it's Dawkins v. Rowan Williams in the Sheldonian on Thursday of this week, video link available ...

I had no idea about this when I said they were similar. It confirms my view.

I watched a clip earlier in which he was saying that evolutionists are treated like holocaust deniers. Having read Jean's comments earlier, I wanted to find out more about his perspective on Jewishness. Very mixed I thought.

It was scripted. In the middle of it, he spoke of "a phenomena". This didn't sound learned.

Then I watched another clip of his views on the gay gene. He spoke of it as if it had been proven, which it hasn't. To some extent that is fair enough even though he is a scientist who might be expected to discuss science.

But what staggered me was that he said it could have worked like this, or it could have worked like that, or a third option could be something else. The interviewer accepted every speculation because of who he is.

It was like listening to a radio clairvoyant when someone rings and sounds awful.

Clairvoyant says "I think you've recently been in hospital". The caller says "remarkable, yes". Clairvoyant then suggests "your leg" and then sensing a short pause adds "or your shoulder". The caller says "well........" and the clairvoyant says "no, I can see it now clearly, it is your neck". The caller says "it is my neck - that's brilliant."

Actually, mostly, he reminds me of a television evangelist. He's big business.

[scottycelt]

Don't know if this has been picked up, but it's Dawkins v. Rowan Williams in the Sheldonian on Thursday of this week, video link available ...

Shades of Russell v. Copleston on the Third Programme in 1948.

That 1948 debate seems to be on a wholly different level from what we are usually presented with today, FF ... absolutely towering stuff!

As my good friend on here, Amateur51, might put it ... 'many thanks for that!'

[John Skelton]

An argument could equally be made that the failure by some intellectuals to criticise the practices in some Islamic theocracies that are demeaning to women and oppressive to homosexuals - on the grounds that to do so would be cultural imperialism - is a sort of racism of a different kind, one that suggests that this kind of treatment in Islamic countries is acceptable because it is part of the culture ("this is what these people are used to"). But to make that argument of course would be to fall into the trap of 'intolerance of cultural difference', the accusation the leninology blog levies at Dawkins.

Of course that argument could be made. Nor would Richard Seymour justify "the practices in some Islamic theocracies that are demeaning to women and oppressive to homosexuals" by invoking 'tolerance of cultural difference'. But I'd suggest "Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil" isn't a promising start to making that argument. It's rather non-negotiable (as well as bigoted nonsense).

[french frank]

That 1948 debate seems to be on a wholly different level from what we are usually presented with today, FF ... absolutely towering stuff!

As my good friend on here, Amateur51, might put it ... 'many thanks for that!'

Dawkins v. Williams as a contemporary re-match was one of the debates I hoped would be on R3. Hope it's recorded ...

[Alison]

Yes. It always seems to me that the "Christianity" being attacked by Dawkins is one very specific (probably more to be found in North America than in Europe) kind of naive literalist Christianity, and which is (of course) absurd and easily attackable - but very far from the much more subtle, sophisticated, flexible, resonant, metaphysically interesting and thoughtful kind of understanding and approach which I find among the various Christians (Catholic and Anglican) whom I encounter.

Belated thanks for such a well made point !

[scottycelt]

An argument could equally be made that the failure by some intellectuals to criticise the practices in some Islamic theocracies that are demeaning to women and oppressive to homosexuals

Yes, indeed it could ... just as an argument that the failure of some 'intellectuals' to criticise the ruling making it mandatory for adoption agencies having to accept gay couples as appropriate adoptive 'parents' is every bit as 'demeaning' to not only many Christians, but, I suspect, quite a few atheists as well ... ?

In other words, where does all this very subjective 'demeaning' end ... ?

[subcontrabass]

Dawkins v. Williams as a contemporary re-match was one of the debates I hoped would be on R3. Hope it's recorded ...

It appears that it will be recorded:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/diary.php/116/debate-with-archbishop-rowan-williams-and-professor-richard-dawkins

I fear that they will simply talk past each other. Dawkins' knowledge/understanding of Christian theology is so limited as to make dialogue very difficult.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, indeed it could ... just as an argument that the failure of some 'intellectuals' to criticise the ruling making it mandatory for adoption agencies having to accept gay couples as appropriate adoptive 'parents' is every bit as 'demeaning' to not only many Christians, but, I suspect, quite a few atheists as well ... ?In other words, where does all this very subjective 'demeaning' end ... ?

Before all this veers off into another religion versus homosexuality thread, I would like to provide a clip about the gay gene as an example of Dawkins's non-intellectualism. The clip is at the end of this post. Intellectual argument should be robust. I don't see robustness in the clip. It might even indicate his broader theories on evolution may not be all that wonderful when closely scrutinized. He is something of a name. Therein is the perceived authority. I'm happy not to be. Here is the demolition.

His first point is that male hunters had a need to have other men looking after their women and children. The only ones they could trust were those who would not be sexually threatening to their women and hence themselves. He doesn't explain why the females - whose strengths he tellingly sees as irrelevant - would not have been able to protect themselves and their families. Many can and do in the animal kingdom but he chooses not to mention it. Interestingly, the less than "butch" - his word for the hunters - and hence more domesticated, men are not only caring and sharing. They have the ability to kill off almost single-handedly armies of attackers. Some guys! Furthermore, while male hunters are by definition predatory, according to Dawkins there is no sexual predatory instinct whatsoever from the hunters towards the ordered around males. The loyalty of the latter is also unquestioning. For in this scenario, they know their places. They accept that the hunters are unequivocally heterosexual, even though curiously unlike them hunters need support from male team members. They also accept that the hunters are intellectually right in organizing such an arrangement. If such points seem somewhat far fetched, there is also the question of possession. In a liberal society, where sex is often more casual and hence less possessive, one might expect there to be somewhat less need for his homosexual protectors but actually there is more homosexuality rather than less. A similar argument can be applied to community size. The first point of his theory continues with a claim that because these "uncles" sit with the families, the gay gene is passed on via the children. I find the phrase he uses rather creepy. He refers to the gene being "in the bodies of" those children. He moves swiftly to argument two before the interviewer can ask how. In fact, he agrees that it is all very logical, just as Dawkins wants it.

Before moving on to that point, it is worth commenting on the phenomenon of competitive drive. Dawkins has it and so do the hunters in his theory. It can be found everywhere from the schoolyard to the stock exchange. In most societies it is essentially a metaphor for shafting, whether present in straight men, gay men, bisexual men or women. That is shafting as opposed to constructive sex that is rewarding to both parties, either because it is procreative or loving. Shafting is generally unlikely to be protective and only has one beneficiary, whether among hunters or in the modern business world. The ones who drive the hardest will leave the driven in their wake. A successful killing in the derivatives market is only different from a one night stand in that the latter is more overtly physical. In the modern world, the greyer area is fun. However, mostly that is an excuse. It is largely prevalent in societies where shafting for economic gain is necessary or acceptable and is a kind of counterpoint to its harshness that everyone can believe. The order is identical but it is wrapped softly in crumpled sheets. In other words, it is a con trick. I only mention this because any academic liberal worldview is a shaft just as conservative intolerance is a shaft. They may be two sides of a coin but are nonetheless still the same coin. The coin is generally only in one person's pocket. Certainly, both take an overly positive view of their own human motivation. They thrive on distinctions and opposition. They also believe that human behaviour must always automatically accentuate survival when sadly much of the evidence is to the contrary. Count the casualties. While women are often the victims, one of the interesting things about homosexuality is that it is a bit of a linguistic illusion. In men, it combines two very different kinds of individual and seeks to present them as the same. This apparently works for gay people but it is particularly helpful to heterosexuals. They can displace their motivational drives into that concept and make them seem benign.

Anyhow, his point two is that the men who are trusted to stay at home with the women and children are secretly bisexual, hence the women bear their children and the gay gene is passed on in that way. He doesn't explain how those men would be bisexual rather than heterosexual other than being perceived to be gay by the hunters. He also ignores any possibility that the hunters could have ever perceived of a concept of male bisexuality. If it really was the case that some males paraded their homosexuality while being "sneakily" heterosexual, they clearly were a very rare breed. More normally it would be the other way round. Even had such men existed, it is very difficult to believe that they established a pattern of behaviour that lasted through the centuries. In some eras, such behaviour would have guaranteed their demise. So it is all very selective but then he admits to knowing little about bisexuality, particularly when his argument hits dodgy ground. The interviewer seeks to answer his questions but his main point isn't one that Dawkins wants to hear. He says that most bisexuals he knows are women. Because the theory has nothing to say about bisexual women, Dawkins ignores it. Again, he doesn't really think that women are relevant except where they need to be protected. It is yet another example of that character trait. He is after all an omnipotent male sort of. Arguably, the need for omnipotence can compromise the masculinity but obviously there is no evidence to date to prove it is compromised in him. Earlier, the interviewer asks if the gene will die out in a climate where homosexuality is open. The reply is a mumble that is neither a yes or no. He says it won't happen in the next twenty years, not that a timespan was suggested. The problem is not only that when consumed by his own sense of authority he is wildly speculative. It is also political. Being a hunter himself of lucrative business and the limelight, he doesn't want headlines quoting him as saying gay people will die out. What would happen to book sales?

At that point, he again says something odd along the lines of "but what the serious objection might be". It seems to make no sense in the context and he clearly isn't objecting to gay people so the objection has to be that the point just made is somewhat troublesome for him. He is seeing some of the fans he enjoys as becoming angry and drifting away and therefore the dialogue has to be quickly sidestepped. Specifically, he asks a question about the percentage of men who are bisexual. It is almost as if he's thinking that gay men can make themselves dispensable rather like women are dispensed with albeit in another sense. Suddenly it is only bisexuality which matters because only that has relevance to heterosexual reproduction. The gene has magically mutated in his theory and become bisexual. So to point three which is essentially that the gene can be gay in some circumstances and not in others. Much depends on the environment. That sounds like a get out clause if ever there was one. If environmental factors can be incorporated into the gene theory, then any influence they are shown to have cannot be a threat to the gene theory. It is safely protected from any rational aggression. In fairness, the point convinces more though all the bluster detracts from it and it is an afterthought. In reality, DNA is just a language in the making. This is all it has ever been, much like the chemical periodic table. You can use it in a myriad of ways practically. It can also be helpful as material for a theorum. But, in a nutshell, as an intellectual exercise, Dawkins's discourse in the clip is pure flim-flam and that would be true even if the elusive gene had been discovered.

This ludicrously lengthy piece of mine is certainly not an argument for creationism and against evolutionary theory. However, when aspects of the latter seem to be argued so unconvincingly, is it any wonder Dawkins has a need to attack something? Inevitably, that something is religion. It would be useful if someone like him could find a theory that was socially cohesive. Somehow I doubt his type has the means. The fathers of all rarely let in alternative viewpoints. Their style often unwittingly is divisive. I cannot understand how anyone can think that he has all the answers to how the world came to be. Still, he is the poster boy for several lobbies and he tells them what they want to hear. Some god is always wanted even if it is a slightly mad relation. Dawkins is clearly adept at pulling the strings but then so were Swaggart and Falwell. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0.

[aeolium]

But I'd suggest "Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil" isn't a promising start to making that argument. It's rather non-negotiable (as well as bigoted nonsense).

I agree, though it's not unusual to see similarly exaggerated statements (especially in blogs) about, for instance, capitalism or communism, without qualifications about their achievements or merits. I really don't think Dawkins is a racist, though, from what I've read of his work.

Don't know if this has been picked up, but it's Dawkins v. Rowan Williams in the Sheldonian on Thursday of this week, video link available ...

ff, thanks for that - I shall look out for it.

[John Skelton]

I agree, though it's not unusual to see similarly exaggerated statements (especially in blogs) about, for instance, capitalism or communism, without qualifications about their achievements or merits. I really don't think Dawkins is a racist, though, from what I've read of his work.

I take capitalism / or communism very seriously indeed , but making "exaggerated statements" about either does not seem to me that similar to calling Islam "such an unmitigated evil." If Dawkins doesn't recognise how that plays into a discourse of 'war of civilisations' of 'our' values under threat of extraordinary measures of War on Terror then he is indeed remarkably obtuse. I know that he opposed the war in Iraq and supports the war in Afghanistan, but I can't find anything by him critical of the stance that Hitchens took on Iraq (though if it's there I'll be happy to read it). His objections seem to be primarily that there were never any WMDs and the proponents of the war knew that and that Bush et al are 'Christian' thugs.

His remarks on the execution of Saddam I find interesting http://richarddawkins.net/articles/482. Nowhere does it seem to occur to him that Saddam's execution might have been unfortunate for what his trial could have told us about 'Western' contacts and support for Saddam in the past (of which Christopher Hitchens, 1976, wouldn't be the most typical or significant, of course: "sprung from being an underground revolutionary gunman to perhaps the first visionary Arab statesman since Nasser." http://www.newstatesman.com/society/...-iran-hitchens)

[ahinton]

I take capitalism / or communism very seriously indeed , but making "exaggerated statements" about either does not seem to me that similar to calling Islam "such an unmitigated evil." If Dawkins doesn't recognise how that plays into a discourse of 'war of civilisations' of 'our' values under threat of extraordinary measures of War on Terror then he is indeed remarkably obtuse. I know that he opposed the war in Iraq and supports the war in Afghanistan, but I can't find anything by him critical of the stance that Hitchens took on Iraq (though if it's there I'll be happy to read it). His objections seem to be primarily that there were never any WMDs and the proponents of the war knew that and that Bush et al are 'Christian' thugs.

His remarks on the execution of Saddam I find interesting http://richarddawkins.net/articles/482. Nowhere does it seem to occur to him that Saddam's execution might have been unfortunate for what his trial could have told us about 'Western' contacts and support for Saddam in the past (of which Christopher Hitchens, 1976, wouldn't be the most typical or significant, of course: "sprung from being an underground revolutionary gunman to perhaps the first visionary Arab statesman since Nasser." http://www.newstatesman.com/society/...-iran-hitchens)

Saddam's trial, yes - not the only trial that never was but should have been, bin Laden and Gaddafi being two other glaring cases. As to Hitchens, I am increasingly of the view that all too much of what he said and wrote was done for attention-seeking effect and that his glaring inconsistencies of approach seem almost to have emanated from whatever liquid happened to be in the glass in front of him at the time. However and to whatever extent I might disagree with Dawkins, I can at least take him somewhat more seriously than I can Hitchens...

[heliocentric]

I take capitalism / or communism very seriously indeed , but making "exaggerated statements" about either does not seem to me that similar to calling Islam "such an unmitigated evil." If Dawkins doesn't recognise how that plays into a discourse of 'war of civilisations' of 'our' values under threat of extraordinary measures of War on Terror then he is indeed remarkably obtuse.

I think he recognises that very clearly and that it's quite intentional. While Dawkins has done some brilliant scientific work, his statements about almost everything else betray a highly reactionary standpoint, which unfortunately isn't unusual among specialists in genetics and evolutionary biology. (Francis Galton, another incisive scientific thinker, coined the term "eugenics" and strongly advocated its use, for example.) Calling Islam an "unmitigated evil" is a way of attempting to cut off any further progress towards understanding and doing something about the strife in the world, where religions (and not just Islam by any means of course) are used as easily-digested proxies for issues which are basically economic.

[John Skelton]

And as I suggested up-thread Dawkins' "Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future ...." and his little post-imperial map http://richarddawkins.net/discussion...-africa-no-but chime disturbingly with James Watson's ""inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa ... all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really."

Francis Galton and eugenics: http://galton.org/