The Emotional Scientist
by MikeGeneRichard Dawkins explains the recent rash of atheistic books. According to him, publishers everywhere have been frightened by Bush and "are now falling over themselves to bring out atheistic books from which they would have run a mile only a few years ago."
He continues:
Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell (thoughtful and persuasive as we have come to expect of that scientifically savvy philosopher) is selling very nicely, as are Sam Harris's scintillating and more militant The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation (books whose almost every sentence makes you want to phone somebody up and read it out to them). Another that I am looking forward to is God: the Failed Hypothesis "“ How science shows that God does not exist, by that lucid and knowledgeable physicist Victor Stenger, due out early next year.
On the other side, of course there have always been huge numbers of religious books. You can't get away from them. But works like Francis Collins's The Language of God, and Alister McGrath's Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life are a significant departure. They amount to an anxious backlash against the newly emergent scientific atheism. The same could be said of Ann Coulter's barbarically ignorant Godless: the Church of Liberalism. As an outsider, I observe American culture polarizing fast, and religion is at the center of the action.
Notice the sense of entitlement. A bunch of "scholars" can write scathing attacks on religion and if someone else writes a book suggesting otherwise, religion is blamed for the polarization. If there is a polarization, why is it that a push for atheism/secularism is not at the center of the action?
Anyway, Dawkins abandons the scientific approach. Instead of determining if there has been a statistically significant increase in the writing of such books over a defined period of time, Dawkins paints targets around arrows by cherry picking six books that confirm his preconception "“ "American culture is polarizing fast," and "religion is at the center of the action." Geez, maybe it's just that more books are being published about more topics.
America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers.
It's fundamentalist vs. fundamentalist. The Christian fundamentalist argues that America was founded in Biblical Christianity. The Atheist fundamentalist argues that America was founded in secularism.
The political ascendancy today values embryonic cells over real people. It obsesses about gay marriage, ahead of genuinely important issues that actually make a difference to the world. It gains crucial electoral support from a constituency whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be "˜raptured' up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds. More extreme specimens actually long for a world war, which they identify as the "˜Armageddon' that is to presage the Second Coming. Sam Harris, in Letter to a Christian Nation, hits the bull's-eye as usual:
It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ . . .Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.
Please. Sam Harris is an emotional thinker whose grasp of history leaves much to be desired. And since he is ignorant of history, he repeats it. In the 1980s, there were plenty of people like Sam Harris, warning that Ronald Reagan was going to lead us into Armageddon against the Evil Empire. Emergency! But in 2006, we can now look back and chuckle at such irrational hysteria.
The only thing we learn from the way that Dawkins cheerleads for Harris here is that both men are Afraid. They see the world through the lens of Fear, giving way ultimately to Paranoia. The "scholars" are at it again.
Does Bush check the Rapture Index daily, as Reagan did his stars? We don't know, but would anyone be surprised?
Hey, I would be surprised and I bet millions more would be likewise. The reason Dawkins would not be surprised is because his Lens of Fear is calibrated by the Fingers of Stereotype. After all, what are we to make of a scientist and critic of American politics who doesn't get his facts straight? It was Nancy Reagan who checked the stars. Oops.
My scientific colleagues have additional reasons to declare emergency.
Yes, Fear is common even among many of his "scientific colleagues." We have explored their Fear and its irrational basis for some time. For example, while many critics have been hyper-ventilating all these years, I have taken a scientific approach that has been validated.
Ignorant and absolutist attacks on stem cell research are just the tip of an iceberg. What we have here is nothing less than a global assault on rationality, and the Enlightenment values that inspired the founding of this first and greatest of secular republics.
The melodrama is getting hysterical. So Dawkins sees himself as a champion against the "global assault on rationality." He stands for reason and enlightenment! Look, if Dawkins really believes there is a global assault on rationality, what is he going to do? Reason with those out to destroy reason? Or abandon reason and Enlightenment values in order to eliminate The Ignorant Ones? It looks to me like Mr. Enlightenment has himself a dilemma.
Science education "“ and hence the whole future of science in this country "“ is under threat. Temporarily beaten back in a Pennsylvania court, the "˜breathtaking inanity' (Judge John Jones's immortal phrase) of "˜intelligent design' continually flares up in local bush-fires. Dowsing them is a time-consuming but important responsibility, and scientists are finally being jolted out of their complacency.
Now it looks like Dawkins is on the DI payroll, as he agrees that the Dover decision is only a temporary setback. You would think a true scientist would attempt to modify their perspective on the world when a data point as significant as Dover comes along.
Anyway, my favorite example of a scientist being jolted out of complacency comes from this scientific analysis:
These events prompted me to take ID seriously, and this movement scares me. Now I feel like a jogger in the park at night who realizes that she is far too isolated and that the shadows are far too deep. At first I ignored that faint rustling behind me, convincing myself it was just wind in the leaves. Louder noises made me jump and turn around, but I saw nothing. Now I know that I and my colleagues in science are being stalked with careful and deadly deliberation. I fear my days are numbered unless I act soon and effectively. If you are reading this, the chances are that you are in the same position.
Back to Dawkins:
For years they quietly got on with their science, lamentably underestimating the creationists who, being neither competent nor interested in science, attended to the serious political business of subverting local school boards. Scientists, and intellectuals generally, are now waking up to the threat from the American Taliban. The God Delusion is my goodwill contribution from across the Atlantic to that awakening.
LOL. Yes, I'm sure as the Forces of Light do battle with "the American Taliban," they will appreciate Dawkins altruistic sacrifice of attempting to show that Science and Evolution translate as Atheism. Will the NCSE endorse and sell this book on their web page? Let's call this the Dawkins Delusion.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Hey Mike,
I didn't understand this paragraph, can you explain it again?
It's deeply ironic to see any ID advocate complaining about that. It's the concise definition of Dembski's entire 'body of work'. Although I'm not actually going to disagree with your conclusion
What do you think? (I assume you're not identifying yourself with one of the two fundie groups you mention above…)
I'm not sure All The Capital Letters mesh that well with complaints about melodrama… I agree that Dawkins is being melodramatic, but then so are you.
Have you actually come up with any evidence that doesn't already have a better explanation yet?
Looks like Dawkins at least does have a sense of history. After all, 'creationism', 'creation science', 'intelligent design' and now 'teach the controversy' - just rebranding the same old garbage time and again. And Dawkins is right, there are still struggles going on in various school districts in the US about ID and 'teach the controversy'. It's just that now there's a big stick called Dover to help a bit on the pro-science side.
Comment by Odd Digit — October 27, 2006 @ 10:12 am
October 27th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Odd Digit, your thoughts are so original. Will you please spare us in future, we've heard this before? And by posting such comment you just proved Mike's point.
Comment by inunison — October 27, 2006 @ 10:59 am
October 27th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Hey, it's just another of those "inconsistencies" Dawkins finds necessary in order to function in life.
Comment by Douglas — October 27, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
October 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
OD
ID did serve to make people pay attention to what was being taught to teenagers under color of law, which resulted in removal of the atheistic metaphysics that had been bundled with the science in ever increasing doses for years. That's a good thing, since neither metaphysics is legal to teach in public schools as science.
Dawkins, Harris, Dennett [et.al.] can continue preaching to the choir via the public media, and other humans will continue to choose what they believe. That's fair.
Comment by Joy — October 27, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
October 27th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Hi OD,
You write:
I'd say Dawkins' sense of history is deficient. The problem is that he maintains the same threat level (or even increases it) when the historical data undermine the basis for feeling threatened. Let's take your continuum: Creationism "“ creation science "“ intelligent design "“ teach the controversy. According to this continuum, it begins with teaching evidence against evolution and the teaching of the Bible to public high school students. From there on, over time, the goals become increasingly watered down. First, this gets watered down to teaching evidence against evolution and evidence for a global flood and young Earth, with no mention of the Bible. This gets stripped down into teaching evidence against evolution and evidence for intelligent design, with no mention of the Bible, a global flood, or a young earth. This then gets further diluted as nothing more than teaching evidence against evolution, with no mention of the Bible, a global flood, a young earth, and intelligent design. That's a long, long way from the ambitious goal of teaching the Bible!
What you call "rebranding" I would call incremental retraction or retreat. The religious threat has been increasingly neutered to the point where they struggle to get the remaining crumb of their original agenda enacted, with little-to-no hope of getting beyond that crumb if they succeed.
People like Richard Dawkins want us to overlook such developments, as it is in their interest to play up the "threat" as part of their own emotion-based, anti-religious, agenda.
Comment by MikeGene — October 27, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
October 27th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Actually, Mike, I think you're too hard on Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett. Their tireless efforts have demonstrated something of immense importance for science and the public knowledge: Given enough time, three monkeys with typewriters *can* write the same book over and over again.
Comment by Deuce — October 27, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
October 28th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
I agree with Mike and Joy. The retreat on the part of creationists is remarkable. In my view, that is simply a function of scientific facts having their way. Young earth, global flood, etc. are inaccurate. On the other hand, the intermingling of materialistic metaphysics with science instruction, especially in high school, is inappropriate. If the ID movement has resulted in a greater realization that this is happening, then, I think, that is good. Let's level the playing field and let people decide for themselves.
As to the Dawkin's phenomenon, I wish his rhetoric was less hostile regarding religion. But, it is a blow that religion can parry. He comes under the heading of "this too shall pass." He's really not worth the obsession that some religious folk have with him. You have to get used to opposition, no matter what it's nature.
Comment by bj — October 28, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
October 28th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Hi bj,
Welcome to TT. You write, "As to the Dawkin's phenomenon, I wish his rhetoric was less hostile regarding religion. But, it is a blow that religion can parry. He comes under the heading of "this too shall pass." He's really not worth the obsession that some religious folk have with him. You have to get used to opposition, no matter what it's nature."
I agree that people should not obsess on Dawkins, but then again, it makes no sense to ignore him. He is, after all, quite influential among many, and is very aggressively promoting the anti-religious ideas he outlined in his book.
Also, I would note that is it not the hostility of his rhetoric that is the main problem. Many of Dawkins arguments/observations are simply bogus and thus beg for a reply. And in some cases, Dawkins crosses the line from hostility into sheer bigotry (labeling religious parents as child abusers, for example). When celebrity members of Academia promote hate and bigotry to the general public while posturing as Ambassadors of Science, those who value science, reason, and tolerance need to speak out.
Comment by MikeGene — October 28, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
October 28th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Thanks for the welcome Mike,
My interest in ID is more of the Telic Thoughts brand, and I am looking forward to your book. I have read many threads as a lurker. And I do agree with all you have said. In fact, I think Dawkins should be vigorously opposed in a reasoned and assertive manner. But, I do think he may be at the zenith of his influence. Just an opinion. Balancing critique of his beliefs and manner is coming in from many different venues now. Of course, he will always have a choir.
I think he's doing more harm than good right now. He is a good writer. I wish he would put his skills to use in helping the general public understand the nature of science.
Comment by bj — October 28, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 12:57 am
bj,
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. All the evidence points to a young Earth, and to a global Flood. In fact, the evidence for a global Flood is overwhelming.
Comment by Douglas — October 29, 2006 @ 12:57 am
October 29th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Hi Douglas,
I make it a policy to refrain from arguing about YEC theology. But, I do really hope your worldview is working for you. I mean that. For me, I trust the discipline of professional geologists on this. Old earth. No global flood.
bj
Comment by bj — October 29, 2006 @ 9:50 am
October 30th, 2006 at 6:34 am
Hello Mike,
I agree largely with what you say, apart from the last part of this statement:
That crumb you refer to is this thin edge of the DI's infamous wedge, and as the old saying goes 'if you give them and inch they will take a mile'. So I disagree with the 'little-to-no hope of getting beyond' bit.
I also still have a couple of problems even with the slightest crumb:
First problem - what evidence against evolution? There is no evidence out there that I am aware of to trouble the core mechanisms of evolution.
Second problem - if there was some evidence that cast doubt on the core mechanisms of evolution, then it should (and would) be dealt with in the scientific realm rather than the school classroom.
The challenge was laid down to ID (and any other would-be science) right at the start - publish or perish. Show us your emprical evidence, your repeatable experiments and your falsifiable predictions and we'll believe you. And if your research is confirmed then eventually it will be published as established science in school textbooks too.
Comment by Odd Digit — October 30, 2006 @ 6:34 am
October 30th, 2006 at 6:52 am
Hi Odd Digit,
"That crumb you refer to is this thin edge of the DI's infamous wedge, and as the old saying goes 'if you give them and inch they will take a mile'."
Yes, I believe it's the same old saying employed by some members of the Religious Right, when they argue that if we allow gays to marry, we'll soon be wedding people to kids, pets, and corpses. It's funny how, no matter where it starts from, fanaticism always ends up looking the same.
Comment by Krauze — October 30, 2006 @ 6:52 am
October 30th, 2006 at 7:10 am
Krauze,
HIV denial and evolution denial. It's funny how, now matter where it starts from, fanaticism always ends up looking the same.
Do you actually want to address the substance of my comment above or not?
Comment by Odd Digit — October 30, 2006 @ 7:10 am
October 30th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Hi Odd Digit,
"Do you actually want to address the substance of my comment above or not?"
The substance? You mean the "old saying"
Comment by Krauze — October 30, 2006 @ 7:46 am
October 30th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
bj,
Let the following be noted, for the record:
1) You were the one to first bring up the issue of a young Earth and a global Flood (in the context of painting them as "inaccurate");
2) The issues of whether the Earth is "young", and whether there was a global Flood, are NOT theological issues primarily - rather, they are scientific issues, ones which have scientific implications, and which can be scientifically tested/examined;
3) I stated that the EVIDENCE indicates a young Earth, and a global Flood - and this evidence has been gathered, analyzed, and explained by professional geologists, physicists, and other scientists.
Now, you are free to remain on topic, as I have addressed your off-topic, misunderstood or misrepresented, views regarding a young Earth and a global Flood. Thanks for bringing it up.
Comment by Douglas — October 30, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Douglas,
If I was inclined I would certainly stand corrected. Seriously, my apologies if the manner of my commenting offended.
bj
Comment by bj — October 30, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 4:16 pm
bj,
No, your commenting was not offensive. Just wrong, and in need of correction, which I was most happy to do.
Comment by Douglas — October 31, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Douglas,
Please help this topic with a reminder: when was the last time you predicted the end times, i.e. apocalyse was going to happen? In reality, of course, we are still here (which only a few anti-existential philosophers would argue against). Do explain please, whether that prediction was based on science or your personal theology. Was it an example of Douglas Bender being an emotional scientist?
Thanks,
Gregory
p.s. Nice balance so far bj (with the same qualification about 'the nature of' phrase preceding 'science')!
Comment by g arago — October 31, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Gregory,
Do you think you could try to be just a little bit more off-topic and irrelevant? Thanks.
Anyway, before I answer, please define "prediction". And, explain how this in any way has anything to do with my conversation with bj, and his claims that a "young Earth" and a "global Flood" are "inaccurate". Thanks again.
Comment by Douglas — October 31, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
November 1st, 2006 at 9:39 am
O.k. by 'prediction of apocalypse,' I meant someone making a statement that it would happen on such and such a day in 2003, 2004 or 2005. If you have never done such a thing, then fine, let's drop it. But if it is true, however, that you've predicted such a day in a public place, i.e. on-line forum, then I see a fair connection between your telling bj he is (not offensive, just) wrong, asserting that the earth is 'young' and your willingness to make far-reaching predictive statements about the end-of-times based on whim and not science.
The platform suits well - I make it a policy to refrain from arguing about YEC theology either. Mike and Krauze are kind to keep their corner of the tent open for you, if you should walk into their camp from your own.
Surely Mike is on the mark here; it will come into central spaces of the action, if it hasn't already. R.D.'s extreme position is fueling extremism of another type. And when the ID tent does someday split or reduce its proclamations of 'revolution' in the 'science and theology' discourse, then those who are marignalized by science, philosophy and/or theology will be encouraged to rearrange their views.
Comment by g arago — November 1, 2006 @ 9:39 am
November 1st, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Gregory,
I think that I won't again be typing along and start to use the phrase "the nature of" without pausing to think about just what I am trying to communicate.
I had been out of the game of thinking about science/philosophy/theology for many years, when I discovered the ID movement. My biology training which prepared me for an applied science/medical career was taught in a state university, called colleges at the time, by a very nice Christian fellow who, when he came to evolution, simply said to the class that he believed that this was the way God created mankind and then went on to teach evolution. No big deal.
From my perspective, ID is a worldview/cultural movement which tried to use the science class as an entry point. Though I am intrigued by Mike's coming book, it's the worldview aspect of the movement that interests me-the pushback against strict materialism. However, ID's intermingling of "new science", metaphysics and spin tactics in the culture war make it almost incomprehensible. If it could be teased apart (rending the Big Tent) then perhaps a remnant could carry on trying to achieve a more balanced and open environment within which all worldviews could have a place at the table in this country.
Comment by bj — November 1, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
November 1st, 2006 at 7:39 pm
g. arago,
I have never done such a thing. (I am the same Douglas as the Douglas at ARN, in case you were wondering.)
Comment by Douglas — November 1, 2006 @ 7:39 pm