Dawkins Demolished

[french frank]

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.

It will be interesting to see if he is tackled on this by Williams on Thursday.

[vinteuil]

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.

I agree; Dawkins doesn't seem to have an awareness of the issues which philosophy and theology are trying to address.
It may well be that "religion" is not "the right answer" - but I don't get the feeling that Dawkins gets near to an understanding of what the existential "questions" might be.

[aeolium]

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/

No, they don't at all, except to those who wish to read such interpretations into them. Francis Galton was an out-and-out supporter of eugenics which later in his life was widely fashionable among many intellectuals. To read racist or eugenicist interpretations into Dawkins' work is perverse unless you have evidence in his writings to support the case. Isn't the comment about atheism in Africa simply a realistic assessment of the strength of cultural traditions there (not to mention serious legal sanctions against such freethinking in many African societies where there are severe penalties for blasphemy or apostasy)? It really is an extremely tenuous interpretation to infer that Dawkins meant Africans were in some way genetically incapable of atheism.

And as for the Islamophobia with which you charge Dawkins, isn't this really an attempt to privilege Islam - a belief-system - from criticism? Using a term like that makes it sound like homophobia or some kind of hatred directed at people for characteristics they cannot avoid. Yet it is the belief-system, and the practices associated with it, that Dawkins is attacking (and not uniquely or in a discriminatory way: he attacks all theistic belief-systems). We do not talk about Communismophobia or Zionismophobia (though the charge is often made that anti-Zionists are anti-semites). It's quite true that since the start of the 'war on terror' there have been increased attacks on Muslims, especially from far-right groups. But Dawkins makes it quite clear that his criticism is of the belief-system and not the people who believe; he admires some Muslims, such as Zaki Badawi, and has great sympathy for those classes of people within Islamic societies he believes to be discriminated against such as women, young girls and gays.

Are you saying that Islam is to be 'off-limits' from criticism, on the grounds that any criticism fuels the anti-Muslim hysteria of some tabloid papers and the far right? Dawkins attacks Judaism too - does that make him anti-semitic? Should we refrain from criticism of Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories on the grounds that such criticism hits at the essential cultural beliefs of Jewish people resident in Israel, and may fuel anti-semitic violence here?

Any belief-system (including of course atheism), and the practices which flow from it, ought to be open to criticism in a free society, preferably in a forum for rational debate. If it is not open to free criticism and debate then the field is left open for the prejudiced and blinkered.

[amateur51]

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.

Oh so they'll discuss the latest trends in evolutionary theory, you reckon?

[amateur51]

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 ... ?

Oh dear scotty - no-one is 'making it mandatory for adoption agencies having to accept gay couples as appropriate adoptive 'parents'.

It only applies if they want to take public money for so doing. Seems fair to me

[John Skelton]

And as for the Islamophobia with which you charge Dawkins, isn't this really an attempt to privilege Islam - a belief-system - from criticism?

No it isn't. There is a very great difference between criticising Islam (hopefully with rather more attention to detail and intellectual subtlety than simply treating Islam as some monumental, unvaried, blob) and writing: "Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil." That's not criticism, that's blanket condemnation. And it's not the sort of thing someone could write accidentally or carelessly. It's not a slip of the fingers on the keyboard. Unless an allegorical / scriptural interpretation is now being proposed for what Dawkins has to say about Islam.

(Islam and threat: http://freethoughtnation.com/contrib...the-world.html "I'm reasonably optimistic in America and Europe. I'm pessimistic about the Islamic world. I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world, and I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there.")

Dawkins doesn't speak in a vacuum, and the above remark fits exactly the discourse of clash of cultures, war of civilisation, enemy within, threat to our way of life. Because Dawkins is a great scientist and because his hostility to religion appeals to many on the broad 'left' doesn't alter the fact that he is a prolific contributor to the rhetoric of Islamophobia. If Melanie Phillips made such a remark the reaction here would be very different, I suspect.

Are you saying that Islam is to be 'off-limits' from criticism, on the grounds that any criticism fuels the anti-Muslim hysteria of some tabloid papers and the far right? No. I'm saying that Dawkins speaks the language of the tabloids and the far-right, but with greater politeness.

Dawkins attacks Judaism too - does that make him anti-semitic? No. But I've never seen Dawkins call Judaism "an unmitigated evil."

[amateur51]

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)

At a guess I'd say that Dawkins believes that ALL the major religions are 'an unmitigated evil' but I agree with you that that statement as it stands is rather crass and open to a number of interpretations.

[Lateralthinking1]

The End of The World

Dawkins on Harold Camping's belief that the world would end on May 21, 2011 -

Why is....the Washington Post giving space to a raving loon? I suppose the answer must be that, unlike the average loon, this one has managed to raise enough money to launch a radio station and pay for billboards. I don’t know where he gets the money, but it would be no surprise to discover that it is contributed by gullible followers – gullible enough, we may guess, to go along with him when he will inevitably explain, on May 22nd, that there must have been some error in the calculation, the rapture is postponed to "please send more money to pay for updated billboards". So, the question becomes, why are there so many well-heeled, gullible idiots out there? Why is it that an idea can be as nuts as you like and still con enough backers to finance its advertising to acquire yet more backers until eventually a national newspaper notices and makes it into a silly season filler?

Interestingly, there is no real distinction between Dawkins's methods of promotion and Camping's.

Dawkins's own perspectives on the timing of the end of the world -

In our case, as the distinguished astronomer and former president of the Royal Society Martin Rees has conjectured, extinction is likely to be self-inflicted. Destructive technology becomes more powerful by the decade, and there is an ever-increasing danger that it will fall into the hands of some holy fool (Ian McEwan’s memorable phrase) whose ‘tradition’ glorifies death and longs for the hereafter: a ‘tradition’ which, not content with forecasting the end of the world, actively seeks to bring it about. However it happens, the end of the world will be a parochial little affair, unnoticed in the universe at large.

Overlooking the contradiction between massive angst about oblivion and the negation of it to trifling, what strikes me is this. A man who believes wholeheartedly that humans have evolved on the basis of survival instincts seems an unlikely soul to fret about humankind having suddenly lost its instincts for survival. By definition, religion that positively looks forward to the ending of the world is a fundamental part of the entire organism. It cannot be anything else so why don't the scientists trust in the survival instincts anymore, whether there are religious nutters or not? He sounds hysterical to me. Almost unbalanced. Like them!

[subcontrabass]

Oh so they'll discuss the latest trends in evolutionary theory, you reckon?

That could come within the specified subject for the debate, which is ""The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin."

[John Skelton]

[B]Dawkins's own perspectives on the timing of the end of the world -

In our case, as the distinguished astronomer and former president of the Royal Society Martin Rees has conjectured, extinction is likely to be self-inflicted. Destructive technology becomes more powerful by the decade, and there is an ever-increasing danger that it will fall into the hands of some holy fool (Ian McEwan’s memorable phrase) whose ‘tradition’ glorifies death and longs for the hereafter: a ‘tradition’ which, not content with forecasting the end of the world, actively seeks to bring it about. However it happens, the end of the world will be a parochial little affair, unnoticed in the universe at large.

"Ian McEwan's memorable phrase." How they love scratching one another's self-esteem. And it's rubbish, of course. The likelihood that some "holy fool" could ever have the technological means to end the world is vanishingly remote. The societies and States which keep Richard Dawkins and Ian McEwan comfortable and in which they receive their due measure of admiration, on the other hand, do.

[MrGongGong]

I do think that it's important to remember that Richard Dawkins isn't pretending to be a follower of a belief system that is fundamentally pacifist and instructs its followers to give all their money to the poor. Looking at Christianity (and with some notable exceptions ) one can't see much of that going on in many cases one sees precisely the opposite.

[John Skelton]

I do think that it's important to remember that Richard Dawkins isn't pretending to be a follower of a belief system that is fundamentally pacifist and instructs its followers to give all their money to the poor. Looking at Christianity (and with some notable exceptions ) one can't see much of that going on in many cases one sees precisely the opposite.

You mean that Dawkins is a follower of a belief system that is fundamentally warlike and instructs its followers to grab as much money as they can and never mind the poor?

Thanks for the clarification. How do Dawkins' Islamophobic statements fit with that? He thinks a lot of people living in Islamic countries are poor and therefore unenlightened and inferior?

[Lateralthinking1]

Taking out the respective positions and judging it purely on intellectual capability. While I loathed George Carey, I do have some time for Rowan Williams. If he doesn't run rings around him, he will only have himself to blame.

[Flosshilde]

In answer to your second question (in post 233), Lateral, 1) I don't think Hawkins is expressing 'massive angst' about the end of the world - that's what the 'nutters' are doing; and 2) I don't see any contradiction between expressing angst about it, from the point of view of humanity, & believeing it to be a trivial affair in relation to "the universe at large". There's also not really a contradiction between a belief that "humans have evolved on the basis of survival instincts" and believing that extinction will be self-inflicted - for one thing, one person's survival instincts can lead to another person's death, for another, at the moment our survival instincts seem to be focussed on the consumption of energy to support our life. That consumption has, arguably, created a situation where changes to climate will lead to millions of people dying - through drought & famine, and/or conflict caused by competiton for scarece land space & food.

Of course, 'the world' won't end - it will still be a ball of matter circling the sun, probably still with some forms of life (if the proportion of water increases so, presumably, will life in the water, & without us to eat it it will probably manage quite well); it will just be us that ends.


(ps - listening to the ubiquitous Richard Coles at the moment; perhaps Rob should have Richard Dawkins on next week, as balance )

[aeolium]

Dawkins doesn't speak in a vacuum, and the above remark fits exactly the discourse of clash of cultures, war of civilisation, enemy within, threat to our way of life.

But he opposed the 'war on terror' including the Iraq war. The 'clash of cultures, war of civilisation' is typically considered a clash between the Christian West (led by the ultra-Christian America) and Islam, but he is not part of that at all, unlike Melanie Phillips who was fully supportive of America. Surely the 'great struggle' he is talking about there is the struggle to get any acceptance of atheism in the Islamic world, which is not a surprising statement given the limited free expression in, e.g. Iran and Saudi Arabia? I don't agree that Dawkins is on a par with the tabloids and the far right, but then I am mainly going by the books of his I've read and not his blogs.