A New Movement Among Us
by MikeGeneI encourage everyone to download session 9 of the Beyond Belief seminar, as it is very informative. First, you'll see Sam Harris give a rather mundane, anti-religion talk. But then it gets interesting. Next up, is James Woodward. It seems pretty obvious to me that Woodward is disgusted with what he has been watching and felt compelled to throw together a new intro to his talk, where he has to teach the scientists how to do basic science. Then comes Mel Konner, who put together an excellent talk that echoes Woodward and truly spanks Dawkins and Harris.
Of course, I am biased here. Both Woodward and Konner make the same basic point I have been making about Dawkins and his followers for years. Put simply, Dawkins has abandoned science and the scientific approach when it comes to his condemnation of religion and his solution to the Religion Problem. Dawkins and Harris substitute emotionalism, rhetoric, anecdote, and stereotype for science. Yet they posture as Ambassadors of Science.
Then came the discussion, with Woodward and Konner on one side of the table, and Harris and Dawkins on the other side.
Another point I have been making for years is this. All this talk about ID as a "threat to science" is mostly overblown emotionalism. There are many reasons for this. One of them is that the "ID Movement" has always been on the outside. Consider, for example, how easy it was for those in academia to prune away the Polanyi Institute. Instead, I have argued, that if we are to talk about "threats," the more insidious threat would be the way the scientific community reacts to the perceived threat. Why? Because such reactions come from inside the halls of academia. So let's get to that discussion.
There is a very crucial point in the discussion and it is this "“ Harris accuses Woodward and Konner of being part of the problem, lumping them with the religious extremists. Remember when Harris made this claim?
It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum. There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality.
Well, he makes the same basic point about Woodward and Konner, placing them on a "continuum with religious extremism," providing religious extremists "immense shelter" and "tacit endorsement."
So get this. When it comes to extremists like Harris and Dawkins, creationists and IDists are not all of the problem. The problem also includes the theistic evolutionists, such as Ken Miller. But the problem is bigger yet. It also includes those "wimp" agnostics. But it's even more than this. It also includes atheist scientists who don't agree with Harris and Dawkins about the radical agenda to rid the world of religious belief. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Wow.
What we have here is a genuine Movement. A true, bona fide anti-religion movement. And it is being hatched within the scientific community and scientists are being enlisted to join the Movement. This is much different than the ID Movement, composed of outsiders with only a small smattering of scientists who were easily pushed to the outside with Decrees and peer pressure. This is a movement made up of people that are deeply embedded within mainstream academia. Extremists like Harris, Dawkins, Moran, and Myers are not going away. They are actively fishing for disciples and converts. From within the halls of academia.
And this is not a "threat to science?"
I told you the post-wedge world would be very interesting.
November 23rd, 2006 at 7:13 pm
[...] Telic Thoughts on Beyond Belief conference. What we have here is a genuine Movement. A true, bona fide anti-religion movement. And it is being hatched within the scientific community and scientists are being enlisted to join the Movement. This is much different than the ID Movement, composed of outsiders with only a small smattering of scientists who were easily pushed to the outside with Decrees and peer pressure. This is a movement made up of people that are deeply embedded within mainstream academia. Extremists like Harris, Dawkins, Moran, and Myers are not going away. They are actively fishing for disciples and converts. From within the halls of academia. [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » The threat to science — November 23, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
November 23rd, 2006 at 8:23 pm
The real irony of Dawkins and Harris making the case the way they do, is that they will actually do far more damage to science than could ever be done by "creationists", if they persist in doing this.
Doesn't really bother me, but if they really cared about science they should probably try and do things that are actually in ther interest of the discipline rather than trying to hijack it to support their pet philosophy.
But given Dawkins' support for animal rights terrorists, it isn't really a surprise that he doesn't really care about science and just cares about enforcing his own personal brand of religious orthodoxy.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 23, 2006 @ 8:23 pm
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Why can Creationists &/or Intelligent Design advocates solve Sudoku Number Puzzles so quickly?
THEY JUST PUT A "G" IN ALL THE EMPTY SQUARES.
It's just a matter of faith! It's the same method creationists resort to in trying to prove their unsustainable "intelligent design theory". Creationists can just stop searching for reality by just assuming all gaps in current understanding and/or knowledge of evolution must be filled with a (G=god) solution. As Prof Richard Dawkins explains in chapter four of The GOD Delusion; "If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default must fill it." Saves them having to think and question I suppose.
Much like the progress one makes by eliminating the possible numbers in each square as a Sudoku puzzle is solved, "gaps shrink as science advances and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide." This of course "worries thoughtful theologians" however the greater worry for scientists (and the rest of us) is that groups through politics or fear will walk away from the "essential part of the scientific enterprise [that is] to admit ignorance."
Nothing is more dangerous than a, "˜I have all the answers' arrogant preacher followed by a bunch of non-thinking "˜god-botherers' driven by blind faith who absolve themselves from their societal responsibilities with the comfort of unquestioning feeble-minds!
Although Dawkins is a bit of a raver if you read Pascal Boyer's "Gods, Spirits and the Mental Instincts that Create Them", Dawkins 'emotional' approach is also needed.
caliibre
Comment by caliibre — November 23, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
calibre, you said:
That is of course false. Any reasonable minded person would admit that advances in molecular biology have made the probability of abiogenesis ever more distant. The more we understand the minimum complexity of life, the possibility it arose by chance becomes ever more absurd. In other words, advances in knowledge have made the gap of life from nonlife larger not smaller.
Of course, I see no sign that you are a reasonable person, you appear to be a Richard Dawkins fanboy. I expect that you will start raving about ribozymes. Spare me. I have had enough of the RNA world fantasy. Anybody that believes that RNA world is answer to the problem of abiogenesis refuses to think.
Comment by Jehu — November 23, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Hello caliibre,
This is just rhetoric and stereotypes. First of all, ID is not creationism and it is not about detecting the existence of God. Second, I do NOT adopt the position that "if an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that a designer, by default must fill it." Dawkins' knowledge about this issue is very superficial.
Yes, in Dawkins mind, the existence of God is tied up in his ability to find "evidence" for God and the type of "evidence" he needs is some gap that can never ever possibly be filled. You need to remember that Dawkins was religious when he was a boy and he gave up his religion when he was a boy. Thus, when he thinks about God, he still thinks like a boy.
That's not a bad description of the Anti-Religion Movement.
In other words, the end justifies the means.
Comment by MikeGene — November 23, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
November 23rd, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Mike, you're dead on! I've made the same points myself in other venues. My label for this (and I hope it catches on) is that Dawkins, Harris and those of their ilk attack what they call 'arguments from ignorance' with 'arguments from arrogance'. That's all it is. How conveniently Dawkins and Harris toss aside all the rules of logic and reason in order to make thier hand-waving assertions based on stereotypes and bias. It is fact free philosophy and method free science. Dawkins screed The God Delusion is nothing more than one long argument from arrogance. Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation is a short one. Neither of them offer one iota of fact, scientific or otherwise, to back a single claim about faith that they make.
Worse, Dawkins actually argues in TGD that there's no reason for God to be beyond science. He argues for what he calls 'the God hypothesis'. Then after making this claim, and discussing the wonders of the scientic method, he make an astounding statement. He writes that a universe superintended by God would look much different from one that wasn't. However, he doesn't offer one whit of science to back it up. Well, what's sauce for goose is sauce for the gander. If God is to be a scientific hypothesis so is Dawkins's claim. So, where's the scientific data and experimental research to confirm the claim? Nowhere to be found.
And this is just one example from dozens like it throughout the book.
This is the classic 'fact-value split'. The idea that 'faith' is somehow 'irrational' isn't supportable either philosophically or scientifically. In perpetuating this myth, Dawkins, Harris and those like them only show utter ignorance about what faith really is and what it entails. And, as with just about everything else they say, they offer no science to back up the claim.
If they really want to usher in this brave new world of an atheistic utopia where science and reason reign supreme, then reason and logic, and the rules they follow need to be carefully followed. Instead, those rules are violated at will. Hardly the makings of a logical society. Perhaps they need to spend more time on Vulcan.
Comment by DonaldM — November 23, 2006 @ 11:32 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 12:18 am
Hi, MikeGene,
Very threaty post. You pooh-pooh the coming theocracy, but expect us to worry about the coming a-theocracy? Please.
Comment by Aagcobb — November 24, 2006 @ 12:18 am
November 24th, 2006 at 12:35 am
Hi Aagcobb,
You must have skipped over the qualifiers. I said if we are to talk about "threats." Then, I noted "the more insidious threat.". In other words, if someone wants to complain about "threats to science," then comparatively speaking, the type of extremist agenda envisioned by Dawkins and Harris, coupled with the witch-hunter "you're either with us or against us" mentality, is more of a threat to science than anything like the ID movement.
As one scientist claims, "Public understanding of science will not be advanced by people like Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, and Ken Miller. They are subverting science in order to make it conform to their personal religious beliefs. (Which, by the way, conflict.) They are doing more harm to science than those who oppose it directly from the outside because the Theistic Evolutionists are subverting from within. It is sad that they are being supported by people who should know the difference between rationalism and superstition."
Did you see that, people? Simon Conway Morris is doing more harm to science than the ICR and DI.
Comment by MikeGene — November 24, 2006 @ 12:35 am
November 24th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Mike, I think you are giving him too much credit here.
Dawkins' understanding of religion would only charitably be compared to the understanding a small child has. It seems to be significantly less than that.
Jason
Comment by thesciphishow — November 24, 2006 @ 12:38 am
November 24th, 2006 at 12:50 am
I think Dawkins was around 14 when he converted. And I'm not trying to be mean or snide. His arguments are just fancy, smooth ways of saying, "God, show yourself to me!" I would imagine that many adolescent believers go through that stage. When the demonstration fails to materialize, they abandon their religion. And from then on, when it comes to the Big Guy, their mind is frozen at that stage.
I believe that both PZ and Dennett have the same childhood conversion experience. That's why they think science has something important to say about the existence of God.
Comment by MikeGene — November 24, 2006 @ 12:50 am
November 24th, 2006 at 3:02 am
Fair enough Mike. I wonder how if they realise how much they are damaging the enterprise of science by their insistence on making it synonymous with atheism.
I guess it is only for the benifit of all, that they continue to out themselves like this.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 24, 2006 @ 3:02 am
November 24th, 2006 at 3:27 am
Isn't it funny how the same "the enemies from within are more dangerous than those openly attacking us" rhetoric is used to argue that ID is a bigger threat than animal rights terrorism?
Comment by Krauze — November 24, 2006 @ 3:27 am
November 24th, 2006 at 4:14 am
That is scary and sounds very facist. The first time I heard that argument was from a white supremacist skinhead, who told me the real problem was not minorities but white race traitors who were simpathetic to minorities. This is the same logic Dawkins and his ilk use.
Comment by Jehu — November 24, 2006 @ 4:14 am
November 24th, 2006 at 4:20 am
What coming theocracy? I do not know a single Christian who is interested in a theocracy. I do not know of a single Christian who says raising children athiest is worse than sexually abusing them or knocking their teeth out. I don't know a single Christian who wants to outlaw athiesm. Yet athiests say these things about religion.
Comment by Jehu — November 24, 2006 @ 4:20 am
November 24th, 2006 at 5:03 am
Mike,
this is very perceptive:
I think it's an interesting hypothesis when applied to most religious people instead of Dawkins. Thus, when religious people think about god(s), they still think like children. Like the children they were when they learned about their god(s).
Comment by Odd Digit — November 24, 2006 @ 5:03 am
November 24th, 2006 at 5:19 am
Mike,
I think it's actually more of a threat to religion myself.
I think it's a minor threat to science in that it can lead to (stupid) people labelling all scientists as militant atheists. This is of course not the case, as can be clearly seen by the reaction of Konnor and Woodward above, and the existence of a large number of scientists who also happen to be religious.
After all, Dawkins et all are not actually attacking science and science education in the way that the DI were, so they are nowhere near the level of 'threatiness' that the DI managed to achieve towards science (towards religion is another matter).
When he sticks to science, Dawkins is an excellent educator. Personally I think he's much more persuasive when he's sticking to the science than when he starts banging the anti-religion drum.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 24, 2006 @ 5:19 am
November 24th, 2006 at 5:54 am
thesciphishow:
As I commented here a few months ago:
Wish Dawkins et al could stop this nonsense for a while and listen a bit to their critics. Maybe they could learn some real issues regarding religions, metaphysics and spirituality! At least this would help them develop better tactics against their opponents.
Know thy enemy!
Comment by Farshad — November 24, 2006 @ 5:54 am
November 24th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Except you've missed the point.
Dawkins, Dennet and Harris have a childrens sunday school understanding of religion because that is all they got.
Adult believers have grown beyond this childs understanding. Which I think is why they think Dawkins, Harris, etc, would be funny if they weren't so serious.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 24, 2006 @ 8:53 am
November 24th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Mike,
You might as well argue that we have no reason to reject the existence of Santa Claus. After all, we were young when we gave up believing in him. Thus, when we think about Santa Claus, we still think like children. We're rejecting a childish caricature of Santa Claus, not the real Santa Claus, who requires a more sophisticated and nuanced approach.
The truth, of course, is that our thoughts don't ossify once we form an opinion. Most of us can give a better and more complete account now of why we don't believe in Santa Claus than we could when we were ten. Likewise, Dawkins clearly did not stop thinking, reading, or reasoning about God and religion the moment he made the shift from theism to atheism.
Comment by keiths — November 24, 2006 @ 10:07 am
November 24th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
When I first became interested in ID it was because I thought the movement was a threat to science as traditionally and properly practiced. Recent events and the ability of the DI to be it's own worst enemy with help from friends like the Dover school board have caused that concern to evaporate. Now, my greatest concern for science is what I have to call these idiots like Dawkins, Harris, Myers, etc. and their actions. I don't use the word "idiot" carelessly or often. So, I am glad to see those within science taking them to task. This is something for the community of science to work out. I hope they have the wisdom and courage to do it.
As an aside, while I think most of ID as practiced in America is creationsim, I have been pleasantly surprised to find another version of ID which is practiced here, which is not creationsim, but rather in company with historical and philosophical telic thinking.
Comment by bj — November 24, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Hi MikeGene,
I take it from this response to my post that your answer to this rhetorical question,
would be no, its not a threat to science. I agree with you. The issue is not actually about scientific research; after all how could one formulate a grant proposal to falsify God, and who would fund it? So its not about the thousands of scientists around the world doing actual research; its only about the small handful of science populizers who write books for mass audiences, such as Dawkins and Ken Miller. Call me a cynic if you like, but I see this as an issue about market share for books, much as AiG criticizes the DI since they are fighting for the same consumers, creationists.
Comment by Aagcobb — November 24, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Jehu:
Well, what do you expect from those who only deal in stereotypes? This is nothing more than a typical strawman argument that they (Dawkins, Harris, et.al.) then set about beating up. Perhaps they benefit from the excercise, but they certainly don't advance their "arguments". When one argues from arrogance, as they do, then why bother to fairly represent the arguments you are attempting to refute? Arguments from arrogance are non-starters and should be treated as such!
Comment by DonaldM — November 24, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
aagcobb
Good question. I would agree with you that the very idea, scientifically speaking, is preposterous. Yet, that doesn't seem to phase Dawkins who insists in The God Delusion and elsewhere that there's no reason that the concept of God shouldn't be treated like any other scientific hypothesis. Apparently Dawkins thinks that one could construct a fundable scientific research program to either comfirm or falisify the Almighty One. What he doesn't tell us is how he thinks that would go.
So, I have to ask, how is it that one who holds forth science and scientific reason as the answer to all things, could suggest something as seemingly silly as hypothesizing and then scientifically testing God? And, as I noted in my earlier post, Dawkins follows this up with the claim (hypothesis?) that a universe superintended by God would look much different from that isn't. But again, he offers no suggestions as to how such an hypothesis is to be tested, falsified or anything else. Nor does he provide any references to research studies that he himself or anyone else has conducted that confirm this hypothesis. If science and scientific reasoning is to be the measure of all things, as Dawkins et.al. suggest, then you'd think they'd be a whole lot more careful in their application of it to thier own hypotheses and claims about reality and the universe.
"Because we're smart and we said so" is not a good exampe of science in action!! Arguments from arrogance indeed!
Comment by DonaldM — November 24, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Caliibre's post should be Memory Holed. All he did was take a topic from his blog and paste it here. It has nothing to do with the topic that it's attached to.
Comment by Doug — November 24, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Hi Odd Digit,
You write:
There is one drawback here. The average non-scientist is far more likely to know about Dawkins or Harris than Konner or Woodward. You can expect the perception of scientists as "militant atheists" to grow.
Here we disagree. We were told that the DI was going to change the way science was done, leading to a world where scientists would look for supernatural explanations when faced with an explanatory difficulty. Of course, that was just never going to happen. The DI was always on the outside trying to impose its agenda on science. With Dawkins, it is different. He is on the inside. His agenda is not to change the way science is done, but to coerce/seduce scientists to behave and think as non-scientists while representing science. Added to this is the willingness to label fellow scientists as "traitors" for not sharing in his agenda and perception.
I will once again recommend the Beyond Belief session mentioned above. As I sat there watching Konner speak, it became clear he has making very good points. I wondered if Harris would at least acknowledge some of the points and promise to give it more thought. But when Harris speaks, he acknowledges nothing and begins to accuse Konner of being part of the problem. Harris is NOT thinking like a scientist, but he thinks he IS. He can maintain this delusional state because the topic of religion does something to his mind. What if this trait becomes common? The thing to watch is whether this new anti-religion movement fizzles as a fad, whether the scientific community will react to it as it did with the ID movement (decrees, anyone?), or whether the anti-religion movement flourishes and the college admission and tenure decision advice (and more) of Moran and Myers is boldly proclaimed by the scientific community.
Consider this claim again and let it sink in:
Collins, Miller, and Morris are accused of subverting science from within. This is an accusation from a mainstream scientist who waves the Flag of Science. Factor in the #1 Science Blog, who wants to deny tenure to "creationists" regardless of all the other metrics.
And remember, in his mind, Miller is a creationist.
Comment by MikeGene — November 24, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Hi keiths,
You write:
It is true that thoughts don't necessarily ossify once you form an opinion. But I maintain that when it comes to religion and God, Dawkins the man still thinks like Dawkins the boy. Religion as the root of all evil? Religious parents as child abusers? God, show yourself to me!?
Comment by MikeGene — November 24, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
"With Dawkins, it is different. He is on the inside.""”Mike Gene
On the "inside" of what? Not science. Dawkins is not a scientist. He hasn't done any original scientific research in more than thirty years.
A billionaire bought him a chair at a university, which doesn't make him a scientist, but a lecturer, and I'm not even sure he's even required to give lectures to fill the chair.
Dawkins is the author of popular books–mostly books popularizing other peoples ideas. E.g., The Selfish Gene, that made his reputation, made widely accessible to a reading audience with little or no scientific background or knowledge the ideas of William Hamilton, Robert Axelrod, John Maynard-Smith, etc.
But being the author of a popular book about science doesn't make you a scientist either. It might make you an "insider" of the literary world. But that doesn't make him a "scientist" anymore than it makes Joan Collins a scientist.
Dawkins is a cartoon character. If he hadn't actually been born in Disney World the IDers and other creationists couldn't have done better if they invented him themselves out of pure celluloid.
I don't know why you bad mouth him so much–you plainly need him ('cuz ya got nothin' else) and can't live w/o him!
Comment by Rock — November 24, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
November 24th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Of course the idea that religion is the root of all evil is ridiculous (just as ridiculous, in fact, as the Biblical idea that the love of money is the root of all evil). But Dawkins does not believe this. As the Wikipedia article on The Root of All Evil? states,
I think Dawkins was remiss in not insisting on a different title, because many people have jumped to the same conclusion you did regarding his opinion on the matter. But the fact remains that he does not believe that religion is the root of all evil.
Regarding the idea of religious indoctrination as child abuse: Dawkins chose an unnecessarily inflammatory way to express his idea, but the idea itself is not all that far-fetched. Many of us consider it child abuse when a Christian Scientist rejects medical treatment for a seriously ill child, or when a Jehovah's Witness refuses a much-needed blood transfusion for a son or daughter. In both cases the parents are acting out of love in what they believe to be the child's best interests, but they are nevertheless doing harm. My sense is that this is how Dawkins sees the religious indoctrination of children.
As for God showing himself, I am not aware of what Dawkins has written on the topic. Speaking for myself, I think it is entirely reasonable to expect that if God exists, if he provided us with our intellects, and if he wants us to believe in him, that he supply persuasive evidence of his existence. If he fails to do so, the responsibility for our mistaken disbelief lies with him.
On the other hand, God may choose to remain hidden. But an invisible God who hides himself is indistinguishable from a God who doesn't exist, just as an invisible Santa Claus who hides himself appears the same to us as one who doesn't exist at all. The parsimonious choice is to doubt the existence of both until they choose to reveal themselves.
Comment by keiths — November 24, 2006 @ 11:04 pm
November 25th, 2006 at 12:02 am
Hi keiths,
You write:
I could accept the explanation depending on the content of his documentary. Was it an even-handed exploration that also considered evil not associated with religion? Did it discuss any of the good that has come from religion? Or did it simply cast religion as an evil?
Sure, in those cases, the children die. However, the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science should not be carelessly using the term 'child abuse.' Is he familiar with the literature about child abuse? Does he have an idea what real-world child abuse does to a person? I've already briefly touched on this.
The reason Dawkins purposely floats this "child abuse" meme is because of his anti-religion agenda (yes, it is now clear he has a socio-political agenda). He believes the best way to eliminate religion is to get parents to stop raising their children in their religion. By trying to get more people to connect religion with child abuse, he believes he is taking a step in that direction. It's "consciousness-raising."
Is it really that simple? Okay, let's assume Dawkins says he won't believe in God until God provides him with persuasive evidence. In other words, God must effectively bow before Dawkins to sufficiently convince him, as Dawkins sits as the judge. Now, of course, the subservient deity should also be eager to provide a reproducible demonstration, because Dawkins, in the role of god-scientist, might not trust his own mind, perceptions, or memory. But then again, what convinces Dawkins might not convince a Dennett. So god better check with him too. Etc. Then once done, others might come along and wonder, how do we know this magician-like god is not some super-smart, super-advanced alien trickster? "If god was God," the philosophers and scientists might say, "he should be able to prove he is not an alien." And what about the religious people who no longer want anything to do with this deity who seems desperate in trying to convince skeptics he exists? Instead, they long for a God.
Sorry, but from a scientific perspective, I need to see the following experiment to assign much weight to the "persuasive evidence" argument. Take two large, diverse populations of people. One group serves as the control and the second group is shown an empirical demonstration of God's existence. Then, follow and study both groups over time. Would there really be a difference between the two?
If you ask many theists, they will tell you that hidden from the microscope and telescope is not the same as hidden from their life. As for Santa, he would just be one more thing in our universe. And yes, I know Christmas shopping season is upon us.
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2006 @ 12:02 am
November 25th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Hello Donald,
You write:
I think you are right. When it comes to religion, Dawkins' arrogance means he has nothing more to learn. He has reached the point where he has both pronounced judgment and sentence. He is now on a mission.
BTW, if you want the "argument from arrogance" to catch on, I would suggest writing up a thoughtful essay that traces the cause of arrogance and the implications of arrogance. Don't write it simply to beat up on Dawkins; write it, in an even-handed manner, so that it anyone can read it and learn from it.
"When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities" "“ David Hume
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2006 @ 12:04 am
November 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
I've noticed that some of the presentations and responses are on YouTube. If someone were to make some clips of Woodward's and Konner's presentations as well as the highlights of the round-table discussion, that would make it easier for people to watch it.
Comment by Krauze — November 25, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
November 25th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Hi Mike:
Good suggestion. I'll have to give that some thought. And thanks for the great quote from Hume. I'm sure I've run across it before, but hadn't remembered it.
Comment by DonaldM — November 25, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
November 25th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Hi Keith,
"Many of us consider it child abuse when a Christian Scientist rejects medical treatment for a seriously ill child, or when a Jehovah's Witness refuses a much-needed blood transfusion for a son or daughter."
Sure, but that wasn't the context in which Dawkins made his remarks. As his example of an abusive religious upbringing, he chose an anonymous fan having nightmares of a dead friend of hers being in Hell. In other words, instead of some practice of a fringe cult, Dawkins is targeting a major teaching of most of Christendom, labelling it as child abuse.
Comment by Krauze — November 25, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 4:43 am
Krauze wrote:
Hi Krauze,
You seem to be arguing that a mainstream Christian practice, by definition, cannot be abusive. I would argue that the criterion for abuse should be whether a practice causes significant harm to a child, not whether it is widely accepted or practiced. Female genital mutilation is the norm in parts of the world, but it is abusive nonetheless.
Intent is also not the issue. The Christian Scientist and Jehovah's Witness of my earlier example think they are doing what is best for their children, as do the parents of a genitally-mutilated daughter.
Parents who warn their children about the terrors of hell are (usually) doing so out of love, to spare their children a horrendous, eternal fate. Those of us on the outside who see hell as a superstition think that the children are being terrified for nothing.
I was raised as a conservative Lutheran. We were taught that a person's state of belief at the moment of death determined whether he or she was saved. I remember lying in bed, not sure of whether I "truly" believed, and afraid to fall asleep lest I be snatched away to hell.
Did it ruin my life? No. Nevertheless, I would certainly not wish that anxiety on other children.
From a rhetorical standpoint, Dawkins was unwise to use the term "child abuse" in this context, as it has only hardened the resistance to his ideas. Objectively, however, putting the fear of hell into a child probably does constitute child abuse.
Comment by keiths — November 26, 2006 @ 4:43 am
November 26th, 2006 at 5:30 am
Hi Keith,
"You seem to be arguing that a mainstream Christian practice, by definition, cannot be abusive."
Then my response was badly phrased. I was just clarifying that when Dawkins was calling religion child abuse, he wasn't refering to some gastly practices that most people would recognize as abusive, but to something widely recognized as a normal and relatively benign part of a Christian upbringing.
"Intent is also not the issue."
No, and I haven't invoked it. You're the only one talking about intent.
"Nevertheless, I would certainly not wish that anxiety on other children."
Kids get anxious over all kind of things. I think a divorce causes a lot more anxiety in a kid than being taught about Hell, yet I would never label divorce child abuse.
"Objectively, however, putting the fear of hell into a child probably does constitute child abuse."
Since you were told about Hell, does that mean that you were abused by your parents? Should your parents have been told that unless they stopped telling you about Hell, the authorities would take you away?
Comment by Krauze — November 26, 2006 @ 5:30 am
November 26th, 2006 at 5:37 am
Hi Mike,
Each of us sits as the judge. Each of us must decide, based on the evidence, whether he or she believes that God exists. By your reasoning, then, God bowed before all of those who now believe in him.
True. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he knows what it would take to convince any particular individual of his existence. Indeed, he knows what it would take to convince everyone of his existence. By providing a certain amount of evidence, he determines who will believe in him and who will not. We can therefore conclude that if an omniscient and omnipotent God exists, he does not want everyone to believe in him, since he is only willing to provide evidence that is sufficient to convince some of his existence.
I think the dilemma is unavoidable. How do you know that your God is not a super-smart, super-advanced alien trickster?
Being omnipotent, he should be able to conceal the seeming desperation from anyone who would find it fatal to his or her faith, if he truly wants everyone to believe in him.
Yes, but we all know about the dangers of anecdote as evidence. There's a terrific paper by Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard, that addresses people's tendency to credit God for positive events in their lives. The paper is titled The Illusion of External Agency and can be found at http://tinyurl.com/27udv .
Comment by keiths — November 26, 2006 @ 5:37 am
November 26th, 2006 at 11:44 am
keiths:
Yeah. So do Mother Goose and Grimm. Not to mention closet monsters. Reading Hansel and Gretel to a child is abuse. Letting them see a Disney movie is child abuse. And should they happen to catch a life insurance commercial on television they'll need therapy for years!
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Let's just lock them alone in dark, padded cells until they're 18! That way when Grandpa dies, they'll never know. Who needs parents? We can just strap 'em down and feed 'em carrots and spinach through tubes in their noses – no big scene at dinner! Keep their blank slates blank, that way they'll be sure never to learn how to think for themselves.
This is blatant, sincerely offensive garbage. Dawkins can't have my children, but maybe yours will appease his appetite.
Comment by Joy — November 26, 2006 @ 11:44 am
November 26th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Hi Keiths,
Yes, but as someone who was raised as a conservative Lutheran, you should know the form in which this service occurred "“ a man crucified on the cross.
Yes, it surely looks like God, if He exists, is not obsessed with convincing everyone He exists. Perhaps He wants something more than that. Like I said, I take more of a "scientific" approach here. It would be interesting to see worlds where everyone is completely convinced that God exists. What did it take to convince them all? Was it worth it? Perhaps God's omniscience comes into play "“ this world, with the hidden God, is the best possible world according to his intentions.
Yes. What is thus also unavoidable is the entrance of faith.
Again, I have no reason to think it would be worth it.
I agree. But often times, anecdote and personal experience is all that we can have. For example, there is an encyclopedia of knowledge about MikeGene that only MikeGene can have. Science cannot ever access this truth that I know to exist. Some of it could be shared by MikeGene's testimony, but then, MikeGene would be dependent on other's faith to know that truth. Take something simple "“ did I smile last evening and if so, what made me smile and why did it make me smile?
Comment by MikeGene — November 26, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Hi keiths,
If you are to speak objectively, where is your evidence? Child abuse is something that has been studied by the scientific community for years. Such abuse is not something that people generally grow out of and forget. On the contrary, the abuse seeps into all aspects of their mental and physical well-being, such that they continue to suffer (in detectable ways) from the abuse well into their older years."
It took me about five minutes of searching the literature to find this:
If Dawkins's hypothesis is correct, we would predict, controlling for all other variables, that people who were brought up in a religious household were more likely to "to be depressed, to experience other types of psychiatric illness, to have more physical symptoms (both medically explained and unexplained), and to engage in more health-risk behaviors than their nonabused counterparts" than those raised in a purely secular household So why is it that scientist Richard Dawkins does not provide the evidence and the studies?
Of course, now that Dawkins et al. have made it clear that some scientists have an anti-religious agenda (where their Science is a Trojan Horse for this agenda), we could not really trust any research that did show a correlation without first making sure the researchers don't have the anti-religious agenda. This goes back to the "threat to science" theme.
Comment by MikeGene — November 26, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Joy wrote:
Wow, Joy, you're really worked up over this.
Noone is suggesting that children be shielded from all fears and anxieties. It can't be done, and it wouldn't be healthy. But does this mean we should subject our children to a gratuitous fear of hell?
Fairy tales, Disney movies and closet monsters aren't real, as parents assure their children. Imagine by contrast the effect of being told by your parents that hell is real, a place of horrible suffering, where unbelievers (including your best friend, your Uncle John and maybe even you) will spend eternity. There is no comparison.
Comment by keiths — November 26, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Better still, how about a world where God reveals himself to every honest seeker? Where the evidence for God is as good as for, say, the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun? There would still be holdouts, akin to today's Flat-Earthers, but at least honest, rational skepticism would no longer be a barrier to belief. Every rational person who approached the question with an open mind would reach the same, positive conclusion.
This Panglossian approach has the disadvantage of explaining everything, and therefore nothing. Whatever exists, good or evil, expected or unexpected, suggestive of God or of his absence, is all for the best, and was intended by God. Under this scheme, even a world absolutely devoid of evidence for God could be explained away as being for the best in some larger sense.
Why is faith unavoidable?
And if your belief in God ultimately depends on personal, subjective experience, then you presumably understand and perhaps even agree that I should not, rationally, believe in God, given that I have not had those same subjective experiences.
But I would ask, given what we know about anecdotes, cognitive biases and illusions, and the neural basis of religious experiences, how it is that you are certain that your subjective experiences are indicative of God's presence, rather than of some more mundane cause?
Comment by keiths — November 26, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
keiths:
Gee, keiths. I've known way too many girls-to-women who firmly believed Prince Charming was going to show up as if by magic and whisk them away to the castle to live happily ever after. Some of them suffered great harm to their own ability to make a living (never bothered), some of them made horrible man-choices forever after, and some of 'em end up dead or embittered because they finally get "too old" for Prince Charming.
Conversely, I've never known anyone male or female whose life was ruined by belief in hell. Do you? Please provide some real psychological analysis here, and make the connection for us. If all you've got is that someone might not commit murder because they're convinced their God will send 'em to hell if they do, why in the world should I mind?
Sometimes (to be honest) it looks to me like hell scares the Dawkins', Harris' and PZ's a whole lot more than it scares religious believers. In fact, on a psychological level I sometimes think it's these very people who "dare" God to send them to hell (and it's really their worst fear). But then again, I've always thought fire and brimstone types have other psychological issues and need the threat of eternal damnation to fill some sort of Mommy/Daddy role.
If that were true (just for argument's sake), where is the abuse? Is that why they blame God (God-as-abuser)? This could explain a lot of the self-projection involved in these ridiculous claims of child abuse. "Big-Daddy God" didn't come through for them when they were 12 (maybe their own parents were lax or uninterested) and they're still in teen rebellion mode.
I find that rather unimpressive, but I've some experience with rebellious teens. Quite a few of them never do grow up.
Comment by Joy — November 26, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
"Better still, how about a world where God reveals himself to every honest seeker? Where the evidence for God is as good as for, say, the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun? There would still be holdouts, akin to today's Flat-Earthers, but at least honest, rational skepticism would no longer be a barrier to belief. Every rational person who approached the question with an open mind would reach the same, positive conclusion. "
Sounds great. Exactly like the world we live in.
Comment by StephenA — November 26, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Your point being?
Do you really think that something counts as abuse only if it ruins a child's life?
Joy, if you're unable to address the substance of their arguments, please spare us the psychologizing. Remember, that tactic can be directed just as easily at believers (particularly the Big-Daddy God idea). If you think Harris and Dawkins are wrong, show us by pointing out the flaws in their thinking, not by pretending to have exposed their "self-projection" and their "teen rebellion mode".
Comment by keiths — November 26, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
November 26th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Hi Keiths,
One more round before the work-week overtakes me.
Sounds great, but what does that entail? How does one change the world such that one variable is changed, while everything else remains the same? Can it really be done? For some reason, I'm reminded of the movie, The Butterfly Effect. He kept changing the past to change the present and every time he did this, he purchased something at the cost of something else. Finally, he was forced to reach his final choice "“ to give up the relationship.
Anyway, why think "belief in God" is so important? As Harris would be quick to tell you, those who brought down the Twin Towers believed in God.
You imagined a possible world by invoking omniscience. I just followed through on it.
You mentioned one unavoidable dilemma. Perhaps it goes even deeper than that.
Sure. If there is a God, it's something you'd have to work out with him. I'm just pointing out that there is much truth in the world that science cannot see. I know this to be true because I know that so much of MikeGene is hidden from science. Of course, this is true for us all.
There is no certainty there.
What I am certain of is the simple fact that people, with all their powerful science, cannot see all of reality. I know this because of all the little things.
Comment by MikeGene — November 26, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
November 28th, 2006 at 6:50 am
Hi Mike,
I didn't see the movie, but I'm guessing the character wasn't omniscient, since he kept changing the past and then regretting it. An omniscient, omnipotent God wouldn't make that sort of mistake. His only constraint would be that of logical possibility.
That's precisely why belief in God is so important. The 9-11 hijackers justified their actions via their belief that they were serving God and would be rewarded by him. The existence of this sort of belief therefore matters to everyone in the world, whether they share it or not.
I asked: Why is faith unavoidable?
You said:
The dilemma itself is unavoidable, but how does that make faith a necessary solution?
Subjective experiences can't be observed directly by others, but that doesn't necessarily make them inaccessible to science. Happiness is a quintessentially subjective experience, yet the study of happiness is one of the hottest areas of psychology right now.
Second, it seems like a really big leap from a subjective religious experience to a belief in God. What warrants that leap, especially when we know of mundane causes for what would otherwise be considered religious experiences?
Comment by keiths — November 28, 2006 @ 6:50 am
November 28th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
keiths:
My point being that people are known to believe in things that are not real, all the time. Mythmaking and storytelling are as ancient a proclivity as human beings are ancient. And children are especially prone to investing belief in fictions – one of the most significant measures of maturity is the ability to sift fact from fiction for one's self. Some fictions may be retained, and these tend to shape an individual's understanding of self and the world.
Selection often works where intellect fails to make fact/truth distinctions. Thus a child who believes he can fly off a cliff isn't likely to pass that belief on to his offspring. Yet there have been mature humans who believed they could fly. They're the ones who invented hot air balloons, zeppelins, airplanes, helicopters, rockets and hang gliders [etc.]. The difference is that their belief they could fly didn't reject the fact of gravity. So they devised ways around that fact.
Now tens of millions of humans fly vast distances every day. No belief-in required, just another fact of life.
Concepts like heaven and hell are not stories told about life in the physical world. So despite the fact that some people live in heavenly conditions while others experience hells for all their days and nights on earth, one must first believe that there is life beyond death before one can believe conditions there are the same as conditions here (usually reversed by appeal to 'divine justice'). Then there's the broader concept of karma, where all of it is played out here in the physical world.
Such appeals to ideals nowhere evident in reality represent a human ability to shape absolute concepts in the total absence of physical evidence to support them. We call these "oughts," and it is from these transcendent concepts that morality arises. Brute nature has no room for such ideals. Human beings make room for them.
Do you have any evidence that teaching a child the concept of absolute justice is child abuse?
Okay. Dawkins says teaching a child the religious views of his/her parents is child abuse. We taught our children our religious/spiritual views. They grew up to be fine, well-adjusted people who do not think they were abused by this knowledge.
Dawkins cannot demonstrate otherwise, he merely asserts otherwise because his assertions diminish the value of our lives in his own mind (for whatever psychological reason he chooses to diminish others while aggrandizing himself).
His opinion does not pass muster as evidence in any court of law, yet the charge of child abuse is a very serious legal matter requiring vigorous prosecution and defense. This makes his charge ethically reprehensible by objective measure.
In short, Dawkins is wrong.
Comment by Joy — November 28, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
November 28th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
keiths says: "Second, it seems like a really big leap from a subjective religious experience to a belief in God. What warrants that leap, especially when we know of mundane causes for what would otherwise be considered religious experiences?"
Yes, history is full of recorded events, so what? For example, the disciples of Jesus who witnessed his resurrection from the dead. They all, with the exception of one, subjected themselves to death, mostly by crucificion, rather than admit that Jesus really did not rise from the dead. The final one, John, was boiled alive but survived.
Yes, we know all about the hypothetical "mundane causes" — Jesus did not really die because the Romans botched the job, or someone impersonated him and fooled the disciples, although they were with him practically every day for three years, etc. Or the disciples were willing to stick to a lie despite torture and death due to some special pathological reason that infected them all, those wacked out fishermen. Yep, we have heard all the mundane causes.
Of course there must be some natural explanation, there just had to be. Why? Because only natural things happen, everyone who is anyone knows that. Or at least who I hang out with, and that is all that matters. And no amount of historical examples witnessed by multitudes of people will ever change my mind, because I know better, darn it!! Because I am more of a realist, more of an objectivist, more educated, more intelligent, more rational. Come to think of it, I am so superior that I don't even need or want God if he exists.
Yep, truly a balanced and open minded view, isn't it??
Comment by Ekstasis — November 28, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
December 19th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Watched the beyond belief 2006 seminar and took a few observances from it differently that others.
I think Woodward's comments and talk was great. He gave some honest criticism and constructive suggestions.
Konner on the other hand was a child. He was trying to be funny, I understand, but that was not the place nor the time to do so. He was extremely snide and, frankly, added nothing to the talks.
This was his entire point:
"Most people think these topics are silly. Yes Sam, this is true. Get over it."
I would hope an accomplished and learned person of this guys seeming talent and knowledge would/could rise a little higher, but I will never know because, from this show of child-like behavior, I'll never buy one of his books.
-Shawn
Comment by noggin — December 19, 2006 @ 2:58 pm