Richard Dawkins on the influential Jewish lobby
by KrauzeRichard Dawkins' ability to lecture others about only believing in things supported by sufficient evidence just took a big dive. From an interview with the Guardian:
When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.
October 9th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Hi Krauze,
Is the best evidence you have for alleged hypocrisy of Richard Dawkins?
One can learn tactics from Genghis Khan without agreeing with one iota of his philosophy
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 9, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Indeed, this doesn't seem like much evidence of hypocrisy on Dawkins' part. More an illustration that he's pretty much out of his depth when it comes to talking outside his field of expertise. Which, by the way, I'm going to assume is biology. It certainly isn't sociology, politics, philosophy, or - and really, this ought to be apparent by now - atheism.
Comment by nullasalus — October 9, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Yeah, I don't think this illustrates a hypocrisy problem, since Dawkins isn't intentionally trying to believe whacky, irrational, and mildly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. I'm sure he believes he's being perfectly rational. What it illustrates is a credibility gap. When trying to decide whether to take him seriously when he goes on about rationality and not believing without evidence, it's helpful to know what he apparently means by that.
Comment by Deuce — October 9, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
From Dawkins's quote: "So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."
I believe Krauze's point is that the evidence of history is that atheists in power have not been exactly user friendly: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Chairman Mao, to name a few. Did these atheists make the world "a better place" I think not. Dawkins conveniently overlooks the atrocities to humanity committed by atheists when trying to make the case it is only those inspired by their "irrational" religious beliefs mess up the world. Sorry Dickie, the evidence of history doesn't favor the atheists on this one any more than those who have used "religion" as a cover for their equally abominable behavior! So, Krauze is right, Dawkins's cred on this issue is not very good!
Comment by DonaldM — October 9, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Dawkins is just getting harder to parody by the day. His whole shtick would be hilarious if he and others didn't take him so seriously.
As it stands it is just tragic and pathetic.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 9, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Ah, yet another example of Dawkins embracing beliefs with rather pathetic levels of "evidence."
Comment by MikeGene — October 9, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Anthony Esolen has (what I think to be) a good Christian critique of Dawkins here:
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — October 10, 2007 @ 9:00 am
October 10th, 2007 at 11:41 am
That is what both amazes and concerns me. Dawkins and those of his ilk claim the high road of reason, logic and scientific evidence, but somehow manage to toss all of that out the window when it doesn't serve their arguments. Those who live by logic and reason die by logic and reason. One doesn't need to mention God, Religion or the Bible to defeat Dawkins's pathetic argument on logic and reason alone. Why none of the so-called intellectual elite call him on it, is beyond me!!
ID detractors will spare no amount of ink or electrons to castigate any argument by an IDP that is deemed poorly reasoned or commits a logical fallacy, but when one of their own does exactly the same thing…nary a word!! To me, that shoots their credibility as critics right out the window!
Comment by DonaldM — October 10, 2007 @ 11:41 am
October 10th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Hi DonaldM,
Thank you for your comment. I found it entertaining.
Now, if only we could find an ID proponent who doesn't "..mention God, Religion or the Bible to defeat Dawkins's pathetic argument [but relies] on logic and reason alone."
How about someone presenting a detailed hypothesis proposing that there is no such thing as randomness, just interconnected quantum effects?
Something to think about.
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 10, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Guys, I hate to make such a long post, and to do anything defending Dawkins, but Dawkin's statement is not unfounded. There are good reasons to say, from a non-interventionist perspective (vote Ron Paul!), that this lobby has had a malefic influence. From the AIPAC website:
A Voice for the U.S.-Israel Relationship
For more than half a century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong. From a small pro-Israel public affairs boutique in the 1950s, AIPAC has grown into a 100,000-member national grassroots movement described by The New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel."
Political advocacy is one of the most effective ways in which AIPAC works to accomplish its mission. Each year, AIPAC is involved in more than 100 legislative and policy initiatives involving Middle East policy or aimed at broadening and deepening the U.S.-Israel bond.
AIPAC works to secure vital U.S. foreign aid for Israel to help ensure Israel remains strong and secure. AIPAC is working to promote strategic cooperation between the two nations, to develop sound U.S. anti-terrorist policies, to share homeland security techniques and technologies, and to stop rogue nations such as Iran from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
These efforts are critical to Israel's security and to American interests in the Middle East and around the world. In addition to working closely with Congress, AIPAC also actively educates and works with candidates for federal office, White House, Pentagon and State Department officials, and other policymakers whose decisions affect Israel's future and America's policies in the Middle East. AIPAC keeps political leaders and citizen activists apprised of critical developments affecting the U.S-Israel relationship through publications such as the Near East Report adn continually updated news and issues analysis.
Creating Citizen Advocates
While building support in Washington is essential, AIPAC is found wherever the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship could be affected. AIPAC has a network of 10 regional offices and nine satellite offices that help pro-Israel activists from Missoula to Miami learn how they can affect Israel's future and security by promoting strong ties with the United States.
Throughout the year and around the country, AIPAC sponsors exciting events and educational programs featuring leading members of Congress, policymakers and top analysts. AIPAC also works on hundreds of college campuses, teaching student activists how to answer Israel's detractors and how to use political involvement to build support for Israel.
The core of AIPAC's mission is building a base of citizen advocates who team with our expert staff to educate America's elected officials, policy makers and opinion leaders. But we also engage in many important initiatives to ensure that whatever the future holds, AIPAC will be positioned to effectively promote the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Among our most recent efforts is the Synagogue Initiative, which makes AIPAC information and staff available to congregations across America. AIPAC also reaches out to Christian, Hispanic, African American and other key community leaders to help ensure that Americans remain committed to a strong and vital U.S.-Israel relationship.
About our Organization
AIPAC is registered as a domestic lobby and supported financially by private donations. The organization receives no financial assistance from Israel, from any national organization or any foreign group. AIPAC is not a political action committee. It does not rate, endorse or contribute to candidates. Because it is a lobby, contributions to AIPAC are not tax deductible.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 10, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
TP
You're kidding, right? Did I mention God, Religion or the Bible in pointing out the fallacy of Dawkins's argument from the quote in the OP? No.
Here's another example: According to Dawkins, a universe superintended by a diety would look much different from one that isn't (meaning our universe). This is from his book "The God Delusion". How does he know that? Well, it turns out he has no argument at all…its a mere assertion. Even though in the several pages prior he makes the claim that God is an hypothesis like anything else, and subject to scientific investigation and reasoning, he doesn't subject his own hypothesis to the same standard. It woul be interesting to see how Dawkins would construct an experiment to determine or confirm that a universe superintended by a diety would look much different from one that isn't. I'd especially like to know how it would be falsified!! The point is, he defeats his own argument by conveniently withholding his own hypothesis from scientific testing. You will note I didn't have to mention God, Religion or the Bible to point this out.
Comment by DonaldM — October 10, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Hi DonaldM,
Excuse me for implying that you or other ID proponents weren't capable of employing logic and reason sans God, Religion and the Bible. In a way, I consider myself a proponent of ID Science. I am a critic of the ID Movement.
Arguing against "Dawkins's pathetic argument" is easy, defeating it requires offering an alternative IMO.
However, in my thread hopping I could have gotten things confused that you were talking the big picture when you were only dealing with one specific argument.
If that was the case, consider this an apology.
————————————————————————————————————————-
"We think these concepts have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides."
(from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 10, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
If there isn't a God, or a Mind that is even more fundamental to the universe than matter and energy, then why trust that logic/reason or any of our cognitive faculties can yield true information about the universe; or that we even have the ability of getting close to reality in our attempts at knowledge.
Comment by Doug — October 10, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Hi Charles,
I don't see much in the quoted text except for an advocacy group playing up its own influence, as any advocacy must to keep the donations flowing.
Mind you, I favor a more non-interventionist foreign policy and would vote for the goldbug if I was a US citizen. But I think any pro-Israeli policy has more to do with the country's status as the lone democracy in the region, rather than some influential Jewish lobby.
Comment by Krauze — October 10, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Well, sure, but I hardly think that Dawkins has no support for his statement. Originally named the "American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs", the New York Times described AIPAC on July 6, 1987 as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East." The article also stated that: "The organization has gained power to influence a presidential candidate's choice of staff, to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country, and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals." Look, you don't have to be a bigot to be aware of or even dislike AIPAC as perhaps the most powerful lobby in Washington, and a representative of a foreign power. They are the major reason we send billions of dollars a year in various forms to Israel and our leaders support that country almost without question. So, while Dawkins is an idiot to even consider that the abraisive ideas of hard athiests could ever gain as much support in the USA or the world as Jewish, at least as they themselves claim, lobbies, he is not a bigot pointing out their influence, nor does that, in itself, do anything to harm his credibility, in my view.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 10, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I think there's a lot of interesting things going on with Dawkins' quote, small as it is. But one seems to have slipped under the radar.
Is he honestly suggesting that when it comes to Israel, only the religious jews are hawks? And if so, is it possible this man now lives in a world where religious people are effectively bogeymen?
Comment by nullasalus — October 10, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Add paranoid antisemitism to the list of Dawkins' traits. The New Atheists are looking more and more like the monsters we thought were defeated in the last century.
Comment by Stuart Harris — October 10, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Stuart Harris:
I will remember your name once we are in power.
Comment by Raevmo — October 10, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
That's impressive. If the past is any indication, you'll need to memorize millions of those.
Comment by nullasalus — October 10, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
The Dawkins' quote really gave me chuckle. While it may be true in certain circumstances that a small group can have a significant impact on the whole, they do so because they either have something important to offer or at least they have developed some sort of broad support.
I would be curious to know what Dawkins thinks an atheist organization can offer that others couldn't. Atheists don't have a monopoly on reason or the inclination to follow the evidence. Is there something special that an atheistic organization could offer that would garner it some power.
Further, power brokers have to have a base of support. To do that you just can't go around pissing the majority of people off. That is exactly what Dawkins has done. I think it's quite ironic that Dawkins wants atheists to have a seat at the table (which they should) but then sabotages any chance of it by alienating most of the people in the world. Strange.
BTW, I also think it is tragic that Dawkins is also alienating the religious world from science. He's the Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. So what is helping people understand about science? That it's against religion and that religious folk are irrational and backward. Either he just doesn't understand how to really accomplish something in the real world or he's just an egotist who doesn't care.
Comment by Steve Petermann — October 10, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Oh yeah would be a better place for sure! … no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
Comment by Farshad — October 10, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Goddamn it, man! I'm trying to make a point that Dawkins should not be judged stupid based on this alone, and give some information on AIPAC in the least biased way, and you go and start getting all sig heil on these boards. Granted, no one has flamed me yet, but just my luck people are going to lump me in with your idiot threats.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 10, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Krauze:
The goldbug?
Comment by Bradford — October 10, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Raevmo's sense of humor is a bit snarky. I don't think he intended it to be anything else.
Comment by Joy — October 10, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
(Vote) Ron Paul (!) is in favor of returning to the gold standard for currency.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 10, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
If I have misinterpreted Raevmo, that is unfortunate. Unfortunately, there are actually people who would be serious in writing such things.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 10, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
You're on the list too, Charles. One way ticket to Siberia.
Comment by Raevmo — October 10, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Well, now, if you'd included the wink, I wouldn't look like an ass right now. At least, not for more than my opinion.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 10, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Hey, Charles, for what it's worth, I agree with your analysis. The Jewish lobby in the US is very powerful without a doubt. I'm of Jewish origin myself [not practicing the nutty rules mind you], and some of my distant relatives got killed by the (Christian) Nazis, so I can afford to make fun of Jews (and Christians at the same time), hahaha.
Comment by Raevmo — October 10, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Now, see, the Nazis were more practicing a secularized religion derived from old Norse mythology than anything else. Certainly, the Order of Thule, which had much involvement in their founding and symbology, was an occult order of a distinctly Teutonic emphasis, and I don't think characterizing Nazism as Christian is really fair. Franco's Spain certainly held to that moniker, but that there were Christians in the Nazi party doesn't have much to do with the ethics they formulated for themselves.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 10, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Are you kidding? The SS had "Got mitt uns" on their belt buckles. Don't you know, Jews are guilty of deicide (killing the mythical Jesus). However, I don't blame the Christian religion for the atrocities of the Nazis. Evil is in all of us.
Comment by Raevmo — October 10, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Only anti-semitic fringe lunatics think that "the Jews" control U.S. foreign policy. Yet Dawkins believes it. Add this to the fact that Dawkins wants to reopen the discussion on eugenics and it is pretty clear what sort of person Dawkins is.
Comment by Jehu — October 10, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Jehu:
Yeah, Dawkins is a Nazi bastard. He must be related to the Bush family, that owe their fortune to collaboration with the Nazis.
Comment by Raevmo — October 10, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
They do look more and more like that don't they. Heck now the anti-semitism comes up, we already have the hatred of religion especially the idea that religion should place limits on behavior.
Maybe the "scarlet A" will end up being the 21st centuries swastika.
Comment by thesciphishow — October 10, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Jehu wrote:
Jehu,
Feeling the need to do some damage control after this fiasco?
Comment by keiths — October 10, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
And "brites" apparently
Then again, anybody stupid enough to take that moniker would tend to be a fringe looney anyway, so this is just confirmation of what is already obvious
Comment by thesciphishow — October 10, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
October 11th, 2007 at 12:14 am
And you call Dawkins paranoid?
Dawkins is guilty of sloppy expression, nothing more. He needs to watch that, given the army of dweebs ready to amplify any questionable thing he says to ridiculous proportions. In the quote, replace "Jewish" with "pro-Israel" and "monopolize" with "exerts a huge influence". The result is a statement that is controversial but also undeniably true (FWIW, I belong to the large subset of Jews that does not support AIPAC),
Does anyone seriously think that Dawkins is antisemitic? Or as the above quote tries to have it, morally equivalent to Hitler? If so, you are deranged.
This reminds me of the earlier efforts that took Dawkins' t-shirt sales as evidence that he was about to raise some kind of fascist army.
If this sort of stuff is the best the armies of religion can muster against Dawkins, then God help God.
Comment by mtraven — October 11, 2007 @ 12:14 am
October 11th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Dawkins certainly has some Naziesque tendencies, and I believe he hates religious Jews… along with every other religious person. Like any person with such a deep-seated guilt/daddy complex, Dawkins indeed carries the seed of horrific oppression in him. Fortunately, he possesses neither any great charisma nor relevance beyond his narrow fan base, so he doesn't pose much of a threat.
The scarlet A will not become this century's swastika simply because, unlike National Socialism or other fascistic movements, there is no greater cause to inspire, no dramatic flair, nothing. For all their horrors, the Nazis knew how to put on a show. Their leader was a charismatic if rather crazed speaker. Even truly athiestic movements, such as Communism, had a proletariat to replace the "German race (whatever the hell that means)" for inspiration. Only small and bitter men will really be militant about athiesm, people who want everyone to have to share in their deep disappointment and despair at life.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 11, 2007 @ 1:28 am
October 11th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Charles:
What on earth makes you believe that Dawkins hates all religious people? The vitriolic anti-Dawkins propaganda (such as often spewed on this board) has clearly done a good job in deranging you. Perhaps Dawkins hates what religion does to people (in his view), but to claim that he hates all practitioners is absurd.
Comment by Raevmo — October 11, 2007 @ 4:51 am
October 11th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Dawkins uses his rather large micriphone to call religious people "faithheads." He also likens religious parents to child abusers.
Comment by MikeGene — October 11, 2007 @ 7:05 am
October 11th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Not very diplomatic but it doesn't mean he hates them.
Some of them, yes. But again, where is the personal hatred?
It's just the tired old trick of calling your opponents angry or consumed by hatred, so they look more unreasonable.
Comment by Raevmo — October 11, 2007 @ 7:24 am
October 11th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Dawkins wrote a book called The God Delusion. He thinks all religious people are stupid, ignorant, or evil. He takes a whole classification of people, which includes rather a large majority of people, and openly states he thinks he's better than them. He is enlightened. We are benighted. This sense of superiority, this belief that most other people are dangerously deluded, makes for an excellent first step to tyranny. Dawkins IS a hateful man.
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 11, 2007 @ 11:47 am
October 11th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I don't think this quotation in any way established anti-semitism on the part of Dawkins. The idea of Jews controlling U.S. foreign policy is unfortunately rather widespread*, and I suspect Dawkins simply parrotted it as something "obvious", without giving much thought about it. If anything, I think it shows Dawkins' lack of imagination - a serious incapacity to imagine how his own words come across, how they might be seen as at least on a slippery slope, similarly as I think his anti-religious polemics are marked by a lack of imaginativeness - an incapability of conceiving how other people may reasonably disagree with him, and an unwillingness to actually find out what they think.
Remember that Dawkins was part of that awful campaign of the British Guardian newspaper to have people write to denizens of Clark Country, Ohio, to tell them to please vote for Kerry. I think the notion that a British professor telling an American how to vote might be regarded as just a mite arrogant was simply lost on Dawkins.
Politically, Dawkins seems to be a decent, moderate liberal - and I tend to find his stances usually more sympathetic than those of Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens. There's just some kind of naivite in the way he throws around ideas while apparently having no notion of how they might be received. Kind of like he hasn't quite figured human beings out yet. Perhaps his failure to acknowledge religion isn't about perfectly factual assertions about a supermen in the sky is rooted in the same thing.
Comment by MerlijnDeSmit — October 11, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
October 11th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
What's the asterisk for, Merlijn?
Comment by Charles Foljambe — October 11, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
October 11th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Charles: I made a footnote in my original draft, pointing out that the whole notion of the "Jewish lobby" kind of overestimates unity among Jews - there's a lot of religious and non-religious Jews active in the anti-war movement, highly critical of Israel, etc. I deleted the "footnote" as the issue was a bit tangential. But I forgot to delete the asterisk.
Comment by MerlijnDeSmit — October 11, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
October 11th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Some links to SciBlogs on this subject:
Respectful Insolence - Orac's Take
Jason Rosenhouse on the Issue
Comment by Joy — October 11, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
October 12th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Keiths,
Thanks, I was unaware of the hoopla. Hilarious. Peter Irons, PZ Myers, and the rest of the howlers at Pharyngula are being quite ridiculous.
It is apparently lost on them that Jehu is a Hebrew name.
I wrote that Irons was a "militant athiest" who worked "under the guise" of protecting "Jews and athiests" and "consitutional law." In other words, I accuse Peter Irons of NOT genuinely being motivated to defend Jews, athiest, and the consitution. Sorry, but that is not anti-semitic.
Maybe athiests don't know what anti-semitism is, but accusing someone of NOT caring about Jews is NOT anti-semitic. On the other hand, claiming the Jews monopolize US foreign policy and seeking to reopen the discussion on eugenics, as Dawkins does, certainly smacks of anti-semitic nut jobism.
Comment by Jehu — October 12, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
October 12th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
What a bunch of lemmings they are over at Pharyngula. It really proves what I have been thinking about them all along.
Comment by Jehu — October 12, 2007 @ 2:56 pm