Exaggerate the Awe
by MikeGeneFor some time, it has been my opinion that Dawkins' famous talk and poetic writing about the "grandeur of science" is mostly disguised anti-religious propaganda (just doing my own bit of "consciousness raising," mind you). I have noted, for example, that Dawkins' continual obsession with attacking religion and American presidents does not fit well with the idea of man who is so enthralled and mesmerized by Nature. I make these arguments here and here. Whatever. But now Dawkins has strongly supported my opinion:
I wanted to write The God Delusion six years ago. American friends counselled against, and my New York literary agent was horrified. Perhaps in Britain you could sell a book that criticized religion, he said. But in the US, don't even think about it. He hated to admit it, for he was an atheist like most American intellectuals, but religion was off limits to ridicule. You had to respect religion even if you didn't subscribe to it. Wendy Kaminer was exaggerating only slightly when she remarked that making fun of religion is as risky as burning a flag in an American Legion Hall. Concentrate on science, my American friends advised. Hands off religion. Let the grandeur of science speak for itself, and religion will die a natural death by ignominious comparison. I gave way and wrote The Ancestor's Tale instead.
So as you can see, Dawkins wanted to write The God Delusion and had to settle for the The Ancestor's Tale as a second choice. What's more, it sure looks like the The Ancestor's Tale was intended as something that would attack religion obliquely, where Dawkins would do his best to play up the "grandeur of science" in the naïve hope that "religion will die a natural death by ignominious comparison." It sure looks to me as if he views evolution and science not as an end that inspires him, but as a means to an end - the death of religion. This is a consistent theme that will help us understand his arguments and shallow perspective of evolution.
September 24th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Hi Mike,
Your title is Exaggerate the Awe
(or soon will be when you fix typo)
Is it your claim the Dawkins exaggerated something, somewhere?
If so, what?
I haven't read The Ancestor's Tale yet so I can't judge that for myself.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2006 @ 11:37 am
September 24th, 2006 at 11:39 am
LOL. Thanks!
Comment by MikeGene — September 24, 2006 @ 11:39 am
September 24th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Hi Mike,
Excuse me if I wasn't patient enough, but…
You provide evidence of Dawkins' motives. Even the links talk mostly about the fact the Dawkins is hiding his motives. Here, you point out evidence that the hidden motives are no longer hidden.
Ok, now what?
Where is the bloody knife?
What did Dawkins exaggerate?
His own feelings?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2006 @ 11:55 am
September 24th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Dawkins says:
One has to wonder why Dawkins would think that a sense of the grandeur in science should be so compelling? After all wouldn't he view that sense as an evolutionary adaptation to increase control? Or something like that. The more we know about science the more we can control our environment. Those who have that control would have their genes selectively favored. Pretty inspiring, huh?
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 24, 2006 @ 11:56 am
September 24th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Hi TP,
Not much. He simply supported my original hunch. Dawkins has this reputation of finding "spirituality" in science, waxing poetic as he talks about nature with pretty words. I think it is mostly a staged performance designed to sell a product "“ like one long, slick commercial. Or like the way some religious people act very religious only when other religious people are watching.
Life is a hall of mirrors and full of illusions. Sometimes I can't help but notice the big ones.
BTW, TP, I won't have the time today that I did yesterday and tomorrow it's back to work. So please don't feel slighted/ignored when I break away later on.
Comment by MikeGene — September 24, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Hi Mike,
Like a headlining a thread about Dawkins starting with the word "Exaggerated"
Thank you for the heads up. In fact, my family is prying me away from the pC is as we speeeeaaaakkk…
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
[...] When a scientist like Dawkins decides on attacking religion directly, how can God's defenders1 put up a fight without getting all entangled in a scientific consideration of the evidence? By putting the right spin on Dawkins' arguments, of course. It sure looks to me as if he views evolution and science not as an end that inspires him, but as a means to an end - the death of religion. This is a consistent theme that will help us understand his arguments and shallow perspective of evolution. [...]
Pingback by Heaven is not the sky » Blog Archive » How to spin — September 24, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Mike, I don't understand what you mean by 'shallow perspective of evolution'. Can you explain a bit more?
Comment by Odd Digit — September 27, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
October 26th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
"Exagerrate" in "Exaggerate the awe" would perhaps refer to Dawkins' apparent insincere focus upon the "awesomeness" of nature, and upon the tendency of motives such as his to "exaggerate", for effect, whatever one believes will succeed in "attacking" one's enemy (in the case of Dawkins, that "enemy" would be religion, in particular Christianity). Thus, Dawkins' motivation to attack religion (admitted by him) suggests that his focus on the "grandeur" of nature and science isn't quite objective, nor uninfluenced by his desire to "defeat" the religion "meme". Thus, it is likely "exaggerated".
Comment by Douglas — October 26, 2006 @ 9:39 pm