Dawkins Demolished

[Flosshilde]

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?

Don't be silly - of course Mr GG doesn't mean that.


And your comment in an earlier post -
"the likelihood that some "holy fool" could ever have the technological means to end the world is vanishingly remote."

isn't really accurate - Israel's atomic arsenal might not be enough to 'end the world', but it can contribute, & their present process of softening up opinion in preparation for an attack on another set of 'holy fools' which might, or might not, be developing nuclear weapons isn't exactly helping.

[Lateralthinking1]

I still think my points convey the essence Flosshilde but fully accept that your factual arguments - post 239 - convince.

[Bryn]

Well I consider Dawkins to be a mitigated evil, mitigated, that is, by the effective lack of clout in his Islamophobia, and some of his scientific output.

[John Skelton]

Don't be silly - of course Mr GG doesn't mean that.

If Mr GG doesn't mean that I don't have any idea what he does mean . Why is it important to realise that Dawkins doesn't follow a pacifist creed which demands redistribution of wealth?

And your comment in an earlier post -
"the likelihood that some "holy fool" could ever have the technological means to end the world is vanishingly remote."

isn't really accurate - Israel's atomic arsenal might not be enough to 'end the world', but it can contribute, & their present process of softening up opinion in preparation for an attack on another set of 'holy fools' which might, or might not, be developing nuclear weapons isn't exactly helping.

I think it's accurate. If that happens it will happen with the support of the states and orders which Dawkins finds 'hopeful'; and, again, the technology to end human life absolutely (if it exists) is concentrated in those states - specifically the USA. Any reading of North American politics which sees it as a struggle between enlightened peace loving secularists and religious crazies is, IMO, puerile. As well as inaccurate.

[Flosshilde]

If Mr GG doesn't mean that I don't have any idea what he does mean . Why is it important to realise that Dawkins doesn't follow a pacifist creed which demands redistribution of wealth?

I don't know what Dawkins' views on communism are.

I think it's accurate. If that happens it will happen with the support of the states and orders which Dawkins finds 'hopeful'; and, again, the technology to end human life absolutely (if it exists) is concentrated in those states - specifically the USA.

Are you factoring in the 'end timer' christians who are keen (to put it mildly) on Israel's policies in the middle east as they see them as a means to bring on Armageddon (& who do wield some lobbying power)?

Any reading of North American politics which sees it as a struggle between enlightened peace loving secularists and religious crazies is, IMO, puerile. As well as inaccurate.

Quite - enlightened peace loving secularists are non-existent politically in the USA. It's quite possible that the next President will be a religious crazy.

[Serial_Apologist]

Dawkins should be made to reply to why he singled out Islam as an unmitigated evil.

I doubt very much if Rowan Williams will put this question to him.

In Dawkins's defense - insofar as we can infer political intent in his statements - Islam has no "command structure" or accountable authority, so scripture, the issue of fatwas etc, is at the individual initiative. If Dawkins was asked, my guess would be that he would reply that most nominally Christian states act as secularist as regards free discussion around atheism. Well, (pace Flosshilde), at the moment....

[heliocentric]

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?

Nothing should be "off-limits" from criticism. But the fact tha Dawkins begins by asserting that Islam is an "unmitigated evil" is not criticism, it's prejudice. Frankly I'm surprised to see a scientist, who in his own field would be very precise about vocabulary, even use an ill-defined word like "evil", let alone up the ante with "unmitigated". What it shows, as I said before, is a total lack of willingness to come to an understanding of the forces at work in the world and how their oppression and violence might possibly be overcome. As Terry Eagleton says here, "Dawkins strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq, but preaches a self-satisfied, old-fashioned Whiggish rationalism that can be wielded against a benighted Islam. (...) Whether they like it or not, Dawkins and his ilk have become weapons in the war on terror."

[John Skelton]

I don't know what Dawkins' views on communism are.

Mr GG: 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. As you, of course, know . I don't understand why Mr GG thinks it important to realise that Dawkins isn't pretending to be a Christian. I don't know what Dawkins' views on communism are, though his views on other matters (and "Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life") don't suggest much sympathy. Why do you think communism is pacifist, by the way?

Quite - enlightened peace loving secularists are non-existent politically in the USA. It's quite possible that the next President will be a religious crazy.

What is non-existent politically in America is a mainstream political movement that challenges the great corporate and defence industry interests in America and which runs against a definition of American foreign policy which promotes those interests. Religious crazy or not.

From this thread it would appear that for some on the broad 'left' it's perfectly OK to be a reactionary who espouses a view of the world as a clash of civilisations provided you are rude about religion.

[Flosshilde]

The claim that Islam is 'evil', or 'illiberal', compared with Christianity, is interesting. One point that can be made (not as an excuse or in defence of acts of beliefs that we might find repugnant) is that Islam as a religion has existed for around 600 years less than christianity, & comparing it with some of the actions of the church in the 15th century might put Islam in perspective. Given another 600 years who knows how Islam might evolve?

[Serial_Apologist]

The claim that Islam is 'evil', or 'illiberal', compared with Christianity, is interesting. One point that can be made (not as an excuse or in defence of acts of beliefs that we might find repugnant) is that Islam as a religion has existed for around 600 years less than christianity, & comparing it with some of the actions of the church in the 15th century might put Islam in perspective. Given another 600 years who knows how Islam might evolve?

But we are where we are......... nothing stood in the Chartists' way from fighting nascent capitalism. This thread seems to have evolved into asking us to criticise Dawkins's defense of secularism against a religious ideology historically rooted in the pre-capitalist order and thererafter unchanged.

[MrGongGong]

If Mr GG doesn't mean that I don't have any idea what he does mean . Why is it important to realise that Dawkins doesn't follow a pacifist creed which demands redistribution of wealth?

Because (and to repeat I'm not a "follower" of anyone !!) there is a deep hypocrisy at the heart of much "christianity". From what I understand christians should renounce all acts of violence (for example) yet we see the leaders of the churches praying for the military and justifying acts which are completely counter to what they apparently espouse.

If you REALLY believe what it says in the book then why not act accordingly !

[aeolium]

As Terry Eagleton says here, "Dawkins strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq, but preaches a self-satisfied, old-fashioned Whiggish rationalism that can be wielded against a benighted Islam. (...) Whether they like it or not, Dawkins and his ilk have become weapons in the war on terror."

It's a curious description, as most of the Whig thinkers were Christians of some kind, and it's hardly an old-fashioned rationalism since his view of religion (at least as representing a truthful account of human origins) depends to a considerable extent on scientific developments, particularly in evolutionary biology and astronomy. Eagleton lazily agglomerates the views of Dawkins and other different writers such as Amis, Hitchens and Grayling as if they are identical - they are all, to Eagleton, Western supremacists. Yet I have not found anywhere in Dawkins' writings (and I am talking about his books here) a claim for the supremacy of Western thought - unsurprisingly, since as a scientist he depends on the work of scientists all over the world. And I suggest that he would argue that America was not very much less 'benighted' than societies where Islam holds sway, in that religious opinion is such a powerful force in politics and society there. 'Airy dismissal of religion as so much garbage'? Dawkins has in fact argued his case fairly extensively in The God Delusion and has been prepared to argue it in open debate with a number of distinguished theologians, rabbis, imams and churchmen (as he is doing in the forthcoming debate with Rowan Williams). If his is an 'airy dismissal', then it will surely be easily put down in that debate.

[John Skelton]

Because (and to repeat I'm not a "follower" of anyone !!) there is a deep hypocrisy at the heart of much "christianity". From what I understand christians should renounce all acts of violence (for example) yet we see the leaders of the churches praying for the military and justifying acts which are completely counter to what they apparently espouse.

If you REALLY believe what it says in the book then why not act accordingly !

But I don't see the relevance of that to this discussion. Or of: "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."

Are you saying that Dawkins isn't fundamentally pacifist and has no interest in the poor and that's OK because he doesn't claim to be a Christian? If this was a thread about how adequately most Christians are Christian it would be relevant; otherwise it seems to have stumbled in from elsewhere (unless you are saying that it's wrong to criticise Dawkins for not being Christian, in which case I wasn't aware anyone had done that).

[heliocentric]

his view of religion (at least as representing a truthful account of human origins) depends to a considerable extent on scientific developments, particularly in evolutionary biology and astronomy.

I don't think it "depends" on them at all; I think it's a "happy coincidence" as far as he's concerned that his views on religion are not inconsistent with the current state of scientific theory. If his views "depended" on those things you would expect all scientists to be convinced atheists like Dawkins, which they aren't.

As for Dawkins as a Western supremacist - if you don't see that emerging from everything he has to say about geopolitics, from his views on Islam to his views on Africa, then I wonder what you would infer from those views. Of course he will understand that scientific insights come from all over the world, but he would see all of those scientists as representing the superiority of (Western) "Enlightenment values", so that his view of things isn't put out of joint by the fact that there exist scientists in non-Western places.

And as for the USA being almost as "benighted" as the Islamic world, all the superstitious stuff is encouraged there to keep the masses compliant (the sense in which religion is "useful" according to the neocons' mentor Leo Strauss), while at the same time that country contains far more research scientists and far more funding for their work than any other.

[John Skelton]

This thread seems to have evolved into asking us to criticise Dawkins's defense of secularism against a religious ideology historically rooted in the pre-capitalist order and thererafter unchanged.

I'll leave this alone now - but where has that happened here? My criticism of Dawkins isn't that he defends secularism: I think he has every argument when it comes to teaching 'Creationism' or similar in 'faith schools'. My criticism is of his deployment of the tropes of Islamophobia, his participation in the 'clash of civilisations' discourse, and his extraordinary claim that Islam is "an unmitigated evil." I can see nothing in Dawkins to suggest that he has any problems with the economic / power relations in capitalist societies, or the disproportion of economic and military force between the 'West' and much of the world. Particularly those parts of the world where he locates unmitigated evil (when it's not the enemy within, of course). It's the kind of logic which finds powerless people the greatest threat to 'our' security, etc.