A Den of Vipers
by MikeGeneGeorge Johnson reports on a meeting where many scientists, including Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, gathered to bash religion. Luckily, there were some clear-thinking scientists who were present. One such scientist is anthropologist Melvin Konner. According to Johnson's report:
[Dawkins] own take-no-prisoners approach (religious education is "brainwashing" and "child abuse") was condemned by the anthropologist Melvin J. Konner, who said he had "not a flicker" of religious faith, as simplistic and uninformed.
This is the first time I have seen a scientist criticize Dawkins' pseudoscientific notions of religion as child abuse.
Apparently, all the religion bashing was too much for Konner.
By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of "a den of vipers."
"With a few notable exceptions," he said, "the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?"
His response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. "I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side," he said, "and that you generate more fear and hatred of science."
Sounds, er,"¦.interesting. You can see these presentations here.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:06 pm
I love to hear stuff like this humdinger from our buddy Sam Harris:
Now Sam Harris is making a claim that the findings of science disprove the idea that the human personality survives death, and mocking any beliefs to the contrary. However, there has been a fair amount of scientific research into this question. And in fact, there is scientific evidence for the survival of consciousness hypothesis. And it is not difficult for anyone to do a little bit of personal investigation into this question.
So why is it that people like Dawkins, Harris and Weinberg refuse to look at science that gores their sacred cows?
Comment by MatthewCromer — November 21, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:24 am
Ole Steel Toes ought to've been there. He wouldn't be so weak, even for a millisecond.
Comment by mb — November 22, 2006 @ 1:24 am
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:50 am
We ran this social experiment for two generations with catastrophic results and I was unfortunately object of it. I am surprised that highly educated and intelligent people are so ignorant or at least prejudiced.
Comment by inunison — November 22, 2006 @ 2:50 am
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:54 am
inunison says:
Which experiment was this?
Comment by Odd Digit — November 22, 2006 @ 8:54 am
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:48 am
Odd Digit,
Religion free societies in Eastern and South Eastern Europe.
Comment by inunison — November 22, 2006 @ 9:48 am
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:15 am
Sorry, inunision – there were no 'religion free' societies there. Perhaps officially members of the governing Party required allegiance or a declaration of atheism (i.e. in order to join the Party). But religion (including Christianity, Islam and Judaism) was still believed in, acted upon and organized (even if underground) throughout Eastern and South Eastern Europe. (Please note that I am currently living in Eastern Europe and discussed this theme with someone even this very day!) The Den of Vipers referred to in this thread don't actually have a 'replacement' for religion, though a few are actively recruiting for alternatives to religion, usually in the name of Science and Reason (sometimes Progress), as if this is something new or necessary and feasible for all (civilized) people. Banishing religion from the public sphere as they advocate is similar to the tactics you refer to in your post.
Arago
Comment by g arago — November 22, 2006 @ 10:15 am
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:40 am
Sorry, g arago – Communism was a social experiment whose goal was "religion free" society. Of course religion was alive and well, even being suppressed from the public life, many times by brute force. Education, media and every other aspect of public life was 100% religion free. Just what above mentioned scientists wish for. Results of such experiment are there for all to see. That is why I think they are ignorant and for most part they don't know what they are talking about. They are the real anti-science type.
Comment by inunison — November 22, 2006 @ 11:40 am
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:50 am
inunison says:
Ah, I thought you meant communist societies, I just wanted to be sure. There are a few glaring problems with your line of argument.
What is being suggested in that quote is not a 'religion free' society, it's actually an 'alternative church'.
And neither atheism nor science is the same thing as communism.
And as g arago mentions above, the 'religion free' societies you mention were not 'religion free' at all.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 22, 2006 @ 11:50 am
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:02 pm
inunison says:
That appears to be your private definition of what communism is. The definition that most other people use is more like this:
Communism doesn't even have to be religion free, as the existence of religious communism attests. I can even quote you communism as practised by Christians in the Bible if you want (Acts 4:32-35; see also 2:42-47).
Comment by Odd Digit — November 22, 2006 @ 12:02 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Hi mb,
"Ole Steel Toes ought to've been there. He wouldn't be so weak, even for a millisecond."
I disagree. Based on previous experiences when someone criticized his hero, I'd expect PZ to strike the martyr pose, complaining that he and Dawkins are being marginalized and forced into silence.
Comment by Krauze — November 22, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Yes, of course that is the primary definition of communism. But so what? I hate to see these kinds of infantile objections that attack syntax instead of the actual point being made. In this case, the relevant point is that communism (or Marxism if you prefer) as practiced in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union as well as China sought to establish a religion free society based on science using Darwinism as there basis for origins. We got to see the fruit of atheist morality in living color. Lovely wasn't it?
Comment by Jehu — November 22, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Now, does Odd Digit really believe atheism and Communism are not intimately connected? And please spare us your dictionary definitions about Utopian idea of Communism. Those individuals who applied Communism to their society had to exterminate religious thinking because it is so diametrically opposed to Communistic ideology. For Odd Digit to even suggest Communism can be implemented apart from atheism exposes the true ignorance of history. And before you put words in my mouth again, I do not believe and I never claimed that atheism or science is the same thing as Communism.
Now, does Odd Digit really believe early Christians were communists? Communism doesn't end with economic and political reform. By definition, it further demands the abolition of both Religion and the Absolute Morality founded upon Religion. The irony is that Communism supposedly attempts to enhance civility within society, but removes all notions of Absolute Morality, the very cornerstone of civility. Furthermore, after Communism is instituted by the people, the system becomes Totalitarian, resulting in greater oppression of the people it was designed to "serve." This fact is well documented throughout the history of Communist nations. But don't take my word for it, take it from these two primary sources: (1) The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, and (2) Principles of Communism, by Friedrich Engels
Comment by inunison — November 22, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Krauze,
Good point.
Comment by mb — November 22, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:50 pm
From the conference: ""Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization."
So, isn't this pernicious religion, and all the irrationality out there, really a matter of bad memes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memes
And, don't bad memes get weeded out through natural selection, according to Darwinian evolution? Certainly something this dangerous and destructive cannot last.
Since the topic of Marxism was raised, this reminds me of one aspect of their theory. The march of history, according to Marx, was actually all part of science, and the Capitalist Class would be replaced by the Proletariat, sure as Hydrogen and Oxygen combine to make water or microRNA controls the expression of certain genes. However, Marx could not wait for the inevitable, so he and his comrades needed to speed the process by stirring things up a bit. The rest is history.
And now, in a similar fashion, the Materialists masquerading as your garden variety scientist must intervene and take an active role in removing this religion weed, even though it will be naturally selected out anyway. Can't sit back and wait, can we Sir Richard?
Oh yes, irrationality of all sorts that endanger the very foundations of science must be moved out of the way for true "progress" to be made. Parents, be warned, you shall not teach your kids about God. You shall not include baby Jesus or Santa Claus in your "winter festival". No resurrection or Easter bunny for you during your "spring festival". No Rosh Hashanna or Yom Kippur, no Ramaddan, none of it.
Why? Because we know better. You are irrational, we are rational. You are subjective, we are objective. You are supersitious, we are realists. We are, in short, just a lot smarter than you, so blahhh!! And we who are few in number must make decisions for all you, because you cannot be trusted to make your own mind up.
Yep, inunison, deja vu all over again!!
Comment by Ekstasis — November 22, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Igor Shafarevich's argument (samizdat essay "On Socialism" and book "Socialism") is that socialism ("communism") is the attempt to reduce human society to its biological roots, as understood in the context of evolutionary thought (not necessarily "Darwinism"). Shafarevich compares an idealized socialist society to an ant colony. Strictly speaking, socialism is an attempt to roll back the "evolutionary clock." Since it is common for evolutionary "theorists" to deny any directionality or any notion of progress in the evolutionary process, socialism can hardly describe itself as either "progressive" or "anti-progressive." But plainly (and it is Shafarevich's "anti-evolutionary" theme) that socialism (or communism, whatever ya want to call it) is not merely "anti-progress" but "anti-human." It is the socio-economic and political doctrine that humans are just, comparable to, insects. Socialism is the rejection or denial of humanity"”i.e., those aspects of our own specific (as in "species") attributes that distinguish us from, say, insects. Again you recognize the common theme in evolutionary thought.
I am an "evolutionist," but I reject this monumentally stupid (scientifically false) and devastatingly pernicious doctrine.
Religious beliefs is, of course, one thing that distinguishes humans from all other animals (as far as we know). Never mind those statements that to a dog his owner is a "god," or when I step on a bug I'm acting like a god. Indeed, evidence of religious beliefs is one way paleoanthropologists distinguish definitively human remains from animal remains. (We know, e.g., that Neanderthalers were human because of the way they often buried their dead, indicating to us that they had religious beliefs"”belief in an afterlife.) Socialism (and some forms of evolutionism) seeks to repeal this definitively human characteristic.
We (humans) are different. This should be the source (and inspiration) of evolutionary thought and it should be its very strength"”that it can explain how and why we are different. But instead it leads to evolutionary thought being the inspiration for unspeakable crimes against humanity. How don't know how to explain that.
Comment by Rock — November 22, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Dawkins has been very clear about this: he sees religions as memes that are very effective at replicating themselves, but are nonetheless bad for society as a whole. This concept has biological analogues like the transposable elements that litter the human genome – these elements have developed sophisticated mechanisms for copying themselves within the genome, but in most cases they do no good, and in some cases do active harm, to their hosts.
Evolution (both cultural and molecular) simply favours short-term replicative prowess, which does not always correlate with the best long-term outcomes for an organism.
Comment by Mesk — November 22, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Jehu says:
That's so wrong it's actually funny. You don't know who Trofim Lysenko was, do you? I suggest you go and read about him…
Comment by Odd Digit — November 22, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 5:48 pm
inunison opines:
Apart from religious communism, sometimes also called communalism.
Go type "religious communism" into Google, you never know you might actually learn something.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 22, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:27 pm
What, is this revisionist history? What 'speeding of the process' by 'his comrades' are you referring to? Lenin in Russia, Mao in China? Marx was long dead by then!
I don't know who inunison represents as an 'object' of social experiment (i.e. what [South] Eastern European nation he comes from), but the person I spoke with today was baptised in/to a Christian Church during a time when a 'religion-free' society was supposed to be operating 'behind the iron curtain'. Social reality is not quite as simple as the naturalistic scientist would wish to have it appear.
It seems that the same rose-coloured views of reality are being used here against Marxism (from a 'viktor's' viewpoint) that are used to imagine a 'religion free' society. Friends, there simply isn't a 'religion-free society' anywhere in the world! (But don't let Mike catch you saying there could be a religion-free IDist who might be living-without-knowing!)
Are you serious Rock or are you, as you note of yourself, just FOS? Did you mean that 'socialism' is/could be 'scientifically false;' a 'doctrine' as opposed to _____ we might ask? Or did you mean to suggest that evolution is pernicious? The highest scoring nation-state on the planet according to the human development index (HDI) for the past SIX YEARS is socialist! Please don't return us to Cold War (us vs. them) U.S. mentality too abruply or we may shudder at the speed of re-entry.
Arago (the viper tamer)
Comment by g arago — November 22, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:42 pm
p.s. yes, Rock, I agree that 'evolutionary thought' is 'not necessarily Darwinism.' Just let's keep that quiet between us around here since Mike and Joy and Krauze are predominantly anti-Darwinists (c.f. Joy's anti-DD category), while at the same time they are all evolutionists of one stripe or another, just as those in the 'den of vipers' recently at a conference in California!
Comment by g arago — November 22, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Hi inunison,
You write, "I am surprised that highly educated and intelligent people are so ignorant or at least prejudiced." Yes, I think that is the take-home message here. And what you learn is not to be surprised. Just remember there is another word for these people "“ peer reviewers.
Comment by MikeGene — November 22, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:13 pm
g arago said "What, is this revisionist history? What 'speeding of the process' by 'his comrades' are you referring to? Lenin in Russia, Mao in China? Marx was long dead by then!"
Only that Karl Marx "took part in the debates of the European workers' movement, in particular in relation with the First International founded in 1864." The First International served as a springboard for the spread of Marxism.
"Marx, then was an absolute materialist (seeing ultimate reality only in matter) and believed that all process occurred through a dialectical system.
He rejected flatly the latter's [Hegel] view that these characteristics of the world-process indicated that it was the teleological unfolding of a design or Idea in the experience of an Absolute Mind or Spirit. The behavior of the world-process, he maintained, did not suggest guidance by a moral plan or purpose. Above all, its material and physical aspects could not be reduced to conscious content and regarded as mental in their essential character. On the contrary, they could only be explained on the supposition that matter in motion, extended in space and time, and existing in and by itself, independent of any mental awareness of or reflection upon it, underlay the phenomenal world (Fuller, Philosophy, p. 371)."
What is quite amazing is that inunison's real life experience does not even give pause to the Utopians among us who live in the world of theories and concepts, divorced from the very real lessons of history. Simply amazing to behold!!
Comment by Ekstasis — November 22, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Dawkins should read "The Gulag Archipelago" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn (spelling?), particularly the part where Solzhenitsyn (spelling?) observes that it was the deeply religious who shone the brightest (note the skewer) in the midst of the darkest persecution. Obviously, all religion is a blight on mankind, and should be eliminated.
Comment by Douglas — November 22, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
November 23rd, 2006 at 2:01 am
Matzke says that Konner's talk was "rambling, disorganized, but ultimately wise critique of the get-rid-of-religion folks." I thought it was very good. Of course, I'm biased, because it's basically the same criticism I have been making for years.
If you want to see Harris/Dawkins suffer a smackdown, check it out.
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2006 @ 2:01 am
November 23rd, 2006 at 8:36 am
Rock,
Speak for yourself.
Comment by Douglas — November 23, 2006 @ 8:36 am
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:10 am
Now, does Odd Digit really believe that Communism can be grasped by reading dictionary definitions?
I can play your game too. Do you actually know the difference between Communism (as I consistently referred to in my posts) and communism? And if you do, why did you choose to conflate the terms?
Comment by inunison — November 23, 2006 @ 9:10 am
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:54 am
That is the United States and all the free world, just try too use your public office or resource for religious purposes and you will be crushed in an instant by the American secular establishment. Does not matter if you have 50.05 or 100 percent of the vote.
Comment by Dan P — November 23, 2006 @ 10:54 am
November 23rd, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Hi Dan P,
I can assure you it was much worse than you can imagine.
Comment by inunison — November 23, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
November 23rd, 2006 at 5:40 pm
inunison writes:
You have still missed the main point that I was making above, which is that the proposal you highlight is for an 'alternative church' and is therefore not 'anti religion'. Continuing with our sideline though:
I live in a former communist country and have done for years.
Consistently referred? Actually you spent he first few posts doing everything but mention the dreaded 'c' word at all. I have a feeling that by Big C Communism you might only be referring to Stalinism, but you could be referring to all forms of Marxism for all I know. So which of the following forms of communism do you class as Big C and which as little c? Marxism, Leninism, Left communism, Trotskyism, Autonomist Marxism, Eurocommunism, Maoism, Council communism, Anarchist communism, Stalinism, Christian communism and Luxemburgism? I'm interested where you think the Hoxhaites fit in as well.
What's your criteria that clearly distinguishes Big C Communism from little c communism?
Comment by Odd Digit — November 23, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 7:01 am
Hi Odd Digit,
My criteria can be found in any English language dictionary definition, that you are so fond of. For instance here
Quite obvious, isn't it? And if you cannot or don't want to put, what Carolyn Porco said, in context of that meeting, don't blame me.
Comment by inunison — November 24, 2006 @ 7:01 am
November 24th, 2006 at 9:57 am
inunison:
No. There are four definitions under that heading. One of those is:
Which I spell with a little c, by the way. So – which of those definitions are you talking about, or are we all just supposed to guess?
Comment by Odd Digit — November 24, 2006 @ 9:57 am