Dawkins Misrepresents Konner
by MikeGeneHere is a brief snippet where anthropologist Melvin Konner fisks Richard Dawkins over the notion that religion is child abuse. The clip also shows Dawkins complaining about Konner and demanding an apology. The funny thing is that it becomes clear Dawkins wasn't paying attention to Konner. He accuses Konner of accusing him of indoctrinating his daughter, yet Konner said no such thing (replay the video and check for yourself). Oops, there is a lesson in this.
Don't misrepresent someone when the camera is running.
December 28th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Dawkins seemed really angry that people on his side were not enthusiastic with his ideas and held as much admiration for Dawkins and Dawkinsian ideas as Dawkins does for himself and his own ideas. The angry outburst by Dawkins demanding an apology for something Konnor did not do seems part of Dawkins anger toward those who will not follow him.
PS
For reference, Konner was paraphrasing the Puritan Lord Protector of England, Oliver Cromwell (who made England a Republic) writing to the Presbyterians of Scotland. Cromwell wrote: "I BESEECH YOU IN THE BOWELS OF CHRIST THINK IT POSSIBLE YOU MAY BE MISTAKEN."
Konnor said in the video, "with apologies to Oliver Cromwell…I beseech you in the shadow of Charles Darwin…"
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 28, 2006 @ 11:30 am
December 28th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Hi Salvador,
It does look like Dawkins was angry at Konner. But overall, I think his views were well-received at the conference. Konner, who is a working scientist and an atheist, was put in the position of being a spokesperson for the opposing side. And I don't think Dawkins is used to this type of criticism and this type of critic.
BTW, it's important for people to realize that Sam Harris accused Konner of being part of "the problem." This is further evidence of their extreme extremism.
Comment by MikeGene — December 28, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
But religion is child abuse, not for ALL children… but I certainly have seen the effects of children who were pre-disposed to be depressed because of their sensitivity to injustice and human suffering get overloaded by religious parents and commit suicide.
I study this for a living and I do agree with dawkins that religion is child abuse TODAY. Before we understood the rules and constraints history must obey religion in ages past could get away with mass deception because humanity was simply too ignorant and too weak… and today humanity still is. Human beings are severely limited creatures, and this is a fact that people do not like to acknowledge too visibly or look at too closely. A retarded person is not going to be of the same value to society economically and otherwise as someone more intellectually competent for instance, to take an 'extreme' example.
The truth is religion has sever consequences on children, especially when they become adults. Go over and read some posts @ http://www.ex-christian.net/ some of them will rip your heart out, and hammer home the fact that yes virginia… religion to certain phenotypes is enormously harmful.
Comment by Frozen1 — December 28, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Konner accuses Dawkins of being "a grown man, using statistics, trying to drive a wedge between a six-year-old and Santa Claus."
This is an outright fabrication by Konner. Dawkins is right to demand an apology. Look at what he actually wrote in Unweaving the Rainbow:
Later in the same paragraph:
It is ludicrous to twist this, as Konner does, into "the spectacle of a grown man, using statistics, trying to drive a wedge between a six-year-old and Santa Claus."
Mike, I know you're eager to discredit Dawkins. All the publicity he's receiving, plus his book's continued presence on the NY Times bestseller list (#8 as of Christmas Eve), clearly grates on you. But you're only damaging your credibility by falsely accusing him of a lie — an accusation which, even if it were true, would be utterly tangential to the truth of his ideas.
One of the things I like about Telic Thoughts is that it is more serious in tone than Uncommon Descent, and less likely to indulge in smears and character assassination. Please don't let your emotions cloud your judgment when it comes to Dawkins.
Comment by keiths — December 28, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Hello Frozen,
Welcome to Telic Thoughts.
I'm afraid your anecdotal approach is far from convincing. For one thing, it is easily matched by anecdotes that tell the opposite story. Second, your claim isn't based on a good experimental design. For example, you write, "children who were pre-disposed to be depressed because of their sensitivity to injustice and human suffering get overloaded by religious parents and commit suicide." To make this claim, what's your sample size and how were they selected for analysis? How did you determine they were "pre-disposed to be depressed?" How do you know that the same phenotype might not also commit suicide for a variety of reasons not related to religion?
Instead of isolated stories tied together with an agenda, you need scientific evidence, Frozen.
Finally, you claim that you "study this for a living." Yet I should point out that, after reading some of your posts, that you don't come across (to me, at least) as someone who is objective and fair-minded about this issue. Furthermore, anyone one can claim expertise on the internet. You would need to point to your peer-reviewed publications if you want to be treated as an expert.
Comment by MikeGene — December 28, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Hi Frozen1,
Ok, so what makes you different?
Comment by inunison — December 28, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Hi Keiths,
Not at all. I think Dawkins is wonderful symbol/metaphor for something that is more significant to me. For years, critics have preached about "the evidence" and postured as objective judges wanting only "the evidence." Dawkins himself is a leading proponent of this posture. Thus, I am more than pleased to contribute a teeny tiny portion of the limelight to his extremism, as it helps to confirm a position that I have held for some time "“ it is NOT just about the "evidence."
I did not accuse Dawkins' of lying. You may have missed where I make a distinction between lies and misrepresentations.
No problem.
Speaking of UD, I have to wonder about something. Let's say that one day you check out UD and you find a link to a petition at the top of the page. You check out the petition and it is petitioning Congress to make it illegal to teach evolution to anyone under 16. And when you look, you see that William Dembski has signed it.
Now be honest with yourself and ask, "How would the "science blogs" react?"
Y'see, if we stick to empirical reality, no one in the ID Movement has petitioned the government to make the teaching of evolution illegal. But the Philip Johnson-type leader of the Anti-Religion Movement has petitioned his government to make the teaching of religion illegal.
Comment by MikeGene — December 28, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Mike wrote:
Come on, Mike. You're telling us that this entire breathless post was merely to announce that Dawkins had misinterpreted Konner's remarks?
Besides, your lie/misrepresentation distinction is idiosyncratic, and not one that most English speakers would draw. As dictionary.com notes under the definition of 'misrepresent':
If your intent was not to accuse Dawkins of lying, you could have made that clear by titling your post "Dawkins Mishears Konner", "Dawkins Unintentionally Misrepresents Konner", etc. Somehow I gather that it doesn't bother you if readers take the more invidious view.
And that brings us back to the original question. Konner claimed that Dawkins was trying to "drive a wedge" between the girl and Santa Claus.
Do you agree now, based on the Dawkins quote I provided, that this was not what Dawkins was trying to do?
Should we expect to see a post entitled "Konner Misrepresents Dawkins" soon?
And if "driving a wedge" between the girl and Santa Claus is not tantamount to indoctrinating her that Santa doesn't exist, then what is?
Dawkins is right on this one, Mike. You and Konner are wrong.
Comment by keiths — December 28, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Keiths,
I'm not sure why it is you think my blog was "breathless," but yes, the point was to show how Dawkins thought he heard something that was not there and responded accordingly. As people who read my blogs know, this is a common theme I hit on (i.e., the most important example is hearing "God" when "ID" is spoken). In this case, Dawkins gets all righteous and demands an apology for something that did not exist. Good thing Konner is not a creationist.
Dozens and dozens of critics have been misrepresenting my views/claims for years. When I point out the incidents, you won't find me accusing them of lying. To lie involves intent and I don't think that Dawkins knew Konner did not claim he was trying to indoctrinate children in atheism. I think Dawkins actually believes Konner made that claim. It's what his mind 'heard.'
Konner's talk was filled with lots of subtle humor and it seems clear to me that this was a humorous intro/transition to the more serious point about child abuse. Let's consider the quote:
Yes, I agree this is comical. "She dropped the subject without pursuing it" is especially hilarious.
LOL. It's a scientist matching wits with a six-year old. And he won!!
Comment by MikeGene — December 28, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
KeithS, suppose someone wants to state that Professor Dawkins has, as a matter of objective fact, made a misstatement about what Konner had said, but does not wish to opine one way or the other about Professor Dawkins's mental state in doing so (perhaps because the person characterizing Dawkins is not a mind reader). Your suggestions of "mishear" (if that's a word) or "unintentionally misrepresents" don't work because both of them presuppose a particular understanding of Professor Dawkins's mental state in making his erroneous characterization of Konner — precisely what he wants to avoid. I think Mike Gene's choice of words, something like "misrepresents" or "mischaracterizes" is precisly what one would want to pick for a single-word description of the charge. I think your insistence on importing a deceptive mental state into Mike Gene's characterization is tendentious, and is not even supported by the dictionary you cite (which only speaks of a statistical correlation with deceit, and does not assert that it is part of the meaning).
With respect, I think your merits argument in defense of Dawkins also doesn't work. One can argue whether Dawkins's suggestions to the girl did what Konner said — attempted to "drive a wedge" by suggesting that the mother's story about Santa Claus was impossible — but that has nothing to do with whether Konner said that Dawkins had tried to "indoctrinate" anybody. The "wedge" comment had nothing to do with indoctrination; Konner (right or wrong) was implying that Dawkins shouldn't have tried to interfere with the mother's false statements about the Santa Claus character to her daughter. There wasn't a hint that Dawkins's effort to do so involved any "indoctrination." In short, whether or not Konner's actual claim was justified as you assert it was not (and even as to that question I believe the answer is not as simple as you make it out to be), that has nothing to do with whether Dawkins's characterization of Konner was accurate or not. I think any reasonable listener can see that it was not.
CThomas
Comment by cthomas — December 28, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Hi Mike,
Feel free to move this to the memory hole after you've read it; its not really on topic.
I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate what you and the others have accomplished on this blog. It's a voice of fresh air in a debate that is increasingly ugly and childish. Your posts and replies are almost always intelligent, reasonable, and patient - which really sets the tone for the entire conversation. You don't patronize or belittle people, and even when someone needs a smack-down you do it with respect.
It's hard hard hard to keep a civil dialog going on the internet. And that's exactly what I find on Telic Thoughts. A job well done, by you and all.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — December 28, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
I think much of this has to do with Dawkins' seeing everything in terms of extremes. If parents taking their children to church is "indoctrination", then hearing Konner speak of "driving a wedge between a six-year-old and Santa Claus" surely is an accusation about indoctrination as well.
Comment by Krauze — December 28, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Krauze, I'm pretty sure that this is all a part of Dawkins's evil "Wedge Strategy" (i.e., "wedge between a six-year-old girl and Santa Claus"). Will we never arrive at a "post-Wedge world?
Comment by cthomas — December 28, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
KeithS, way to put up the good fight.
They've tried to delete your messages, they've tried to threaten you with banning you, but you don't back down.
People, if we don't stick up to places like telicthoughts and let them know that we stand for science we'll have another Scopes trial again. SOON!
To anyone interested telic = God. Wonder why they use the word telic as opposed to God? Religion in a cheap suit maybe?
If you want to stump any of these people when they start talking about intelligent design just ask them this: who created God. If your question is greeted with, "uhhh, well, hmmm. You see" You'll know they have no answer.
Comment by Sam — December 28, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
KeithS, way to put up the good fight.
They've tried to delete your messages, they've tried to threaten you with banning you, but you don't back down.
When did all this happen to KeithS?
People, if we don't stick up to places like telicthoughts and let them know that we stand for science we'll have another Scopes trial again. SOON!
Sounds like you saw the movie.
To anyone interested telic = God. Wonder why they use the word telic as opposed to God? Religion in a cheap suit maybe?
Or an indication that life can be described as purposeful or directed.
Comment by Bradford — December 28, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
KeithS comments were getting deleted on a thread. Then, because he caught them they put the comments back.
Yes, I saw the movie but the movie is based on true events.
Comment by Sam — December 28, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Yes, I saw the movie but the movie is based on true events.
The movie is highly sensationalized. Hollywood is not a good source for facts.
Comment by Bradford — December 28, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
I never said it was. I watched the movie, read the book and am well aware of the situation as a whole. Thank you.
Comment by Sam — December 28, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
The "Who designed the designer?" question makes me laugh simply because it's so pedantic. It has the maturity level of a three year old's iterative "Why"s without the benefit of actually coming from a three year old's mouth (because we know that they're mostly sincere in their inquiries). God doesn't need to be designed or created, and that anyone thinks this is a serious objection is laughable.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 28, 2006 @ 8:06 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Sam:
Really? Which one specifically? Think carefully now.
Comment by Guts — December 28, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Sam:
oy guvult, you are in over your head here.
Comment by Guts — December 28, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
December 28th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Frozen1,
In the midst of obtaining all your self-proclaimed expertise/experience in the area of the effects of religion on people, have you ever encountered individuals who survived sojourns in what is called the "Gulag Archipelago" Have you ever read Alexander Solzhenitzyn's account, "The Gulag Archipelago", particularly where he mentions, in several places, that those who were the most deeply (and genuinely) religious were best able to endure and handle the injustice and deprivation their circumstances brought them, and that he described them as essentially (figuratively) "shining" in that dark place? Have you ever heard of the experiences of the Western soldiers who were prisoners of the Japanese during the building of the bridge on the River Kwai, and how initially many of them became like animals, but upon having one of their number begin reading portions of the New Testament to them, many became Christians, and their cruel, selfish, animalistic behavior was transformed? True religion is indeed dangerous - to falsehoods and evil.
Comment by Douglas — December 28, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 8:08 am
Sam,
That brought tears to my eyes. What a brave and idealistic, yet ignorant and deluded, person you seem to be.
Comment by Douglas — December 29, 2006 @ 8:08 am
December 29th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Stereotypical response. HA!
I understand biology and it's pretty clear that evolution has occurred. There's a show on Showtime with Penn&Teller where they humiliated the poster boy of ID.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Control F and type "Penn" and you'll find out what I'm talking about.
Comment by Sam — December 29, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Sam,
If Guts' argument was stereotypical, then respond to my comment that the "Who designed the designer?" question is pedantic and essentially a ridiculous question (which, by the way, doesn't have to do with evolution or biology; it's a pseudo-philosophical qualm). Otherwise, you would be wise to bracket that arrogance of yours.
And by the way, how do you get that Duane Gish is the "poster boy of ID" That's one of the most ridiculous things you've said here (and there are a few to choose from).
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 29, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
LOL. I think he is laboring under the stereotype that we don't think evolution has occurred. Let me guess - we're all just a bunch of IDiot, bible-thumpan cretinists!
Comment by MikeGene — December 29, 2006 @ 9:11 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Sam:
Uhh Gish isn't an ID advocate he's a young earth creationist. Like I said, way over your head. The argument you bring up has no relevance whatsoever.
Comment by Guts — December 29, 2006 @ 11:24 pm