Here, Then There, Then Somewhere Else
Lot of people around saying weird things today. Is there something in the water?
Andrew Brown for instance. He seems to change direction with every paragraph, and much of what he says in the process seems snide and silly.
It is hard being an atheist with a sense of proportion. No one in this country will persecute you and it’s not really very hard to disbelieve in God, but the temptation to strike attitudes in front of the universe persists…Thus, Daniel Dennett writes early in this book: “I for one am not in awe of your faith. I am appalled by your arrogance, by your unreasoning certainty that you have all the answers” – and he’s not talking about Richard Dawkins.
Oh, ha ha, that’s so amusing. But what is so dang arrogant about Dawkins? He’s sometimes blunt (and a good thing too), but arrogant? Not particularly, not unless you simply assume that it’s arrogant to think there’s not much reason to believe religion gets things right. But why assume that? And why call Dawkins arrogant when one could call Ted Haggard arrogant instead? But there’s this dopy truism that Dawkins-is-arrogant, so it has to be trotted out to strike attitudes whenever religion is criticised. Temptation to strike attitudes yourself.
So, after the preliminary pep-talk to the choir, he gives a very forceful and lucid account of the reasons why we need to study religious behaviour as a human phenomenon: apparently this programme comes as a tremendous shock to those Americans who have never heard of Hume, William James, or even Terry Pratchett.
Yes – and? Your point is? Surely not that such Americans don’t exist? So what, then?
Dennett understands there are vast differences between primitive or animist religions and the sophisticated beliefs of a modern Jesuit.
Sophisticated – hmm. Sophisticated in what sense?
Richard Dawkins might regard Romney’s professed beliefs as evidence of simple insanity. Dennett sees that their status is more complicated and interesting than that.
Did Richard Dawkins once give Andrew Brown a decayed olive at a dinner party or something? What’s his problem? What’s with all the straw man stuff? Dawkins might regard Romney’s professed beliefs as delusional (and so would I), but as evidence of simple insanity? That looks like a silly spiteful canard, to me.
Few of us in this culture are in favour of fanaticism; but it is obviously possible to be a fanatical atheist, so it turns out to be fanaticism that’s the problem, not religion.
Uh – what? Where does that ‘so’ come from? For that matter, what does that entire sentence mean? It seems to say three quite random unconnected things, while pretending they are somehow linked. The ‘but’ doesn’t make any more sense than the ‘so’ does. Well, who knows, maybe Brown has been chatting with Michael Ruse.
Do you deny that there are forms of ‘fanatical atheism’ – eg state sponsored suppression of religious belief?
No, not particularly, but that sentence is still a train-wreck.
Mind you, I’m probably a fanatical atheist myself in your terms. I wouldn’t support state-sponsored suppression of personal belief, but state-sponsored suppression of imposing one’s belief on one’s children could be another matter – if nothing else worked to discourage it.
three quite random unconnected things, while pretending they are somehow linked.
That’s the Michael Moore school of journalism, pioneered in academia by Noam Chomsky. High priest today is Robert Fisk. But Moore gets all the money.
You write: “Dawkins might regard Romney’s professed beliefs as delusional (and so would I), but as evidence of simple insanity? That looks like a silly spiteful canard, to me.”
I just finished watching Dawkins’ TV special, “The Root of All Evil?” and in Part 2, anticipating the objection that Paul’s doctrine of original sin should not be construed literally, he says: “Oh, but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? ‘Symbolic’?! So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a nonexistent individual? Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than: barking mad.”
While I don’t think Dawkins believes that Christians are actually insane, if a plain-speaking rationalist gives himself license to exhibit this kind of hyperbole, then perhaps we should not criticize Brown too much for taking him at his word.
Though I appreciate Dawkins’ uncompromising offensive on irrationality (he serves as a proxy champion for my own views), it puts him in a precarious position where it is easy to fall into hypocrisy. I think we also risk hypocrisy if we don’t hold him to the standards he espouses.
Fair point. I watched Part 2 a couple of weeks ago and haven’t watched it again yet, so I didn’t remember that.
Still. To be fair, I think he’s saying the doctrine is barking mad, not the people who accept it. But also to be fair, I can’t be sure of that.
I disagree that it’s hyperbole though. I think he’s exactly right. The stuff that believers accept, including the example that Dawkins points out, is barking mad, and would be seen as such in any other context – Heaven’s Gate for instance, or Jonestown, or David Koresh’s fun-loving gang. I think it’s not hyperbole but strictly accurate to point out that the doctrines of the “great ancient” monotheisms are every bit as loony and absurd as those of the newest cult. And it’s worth pointing out, because even some rational, non-theist people don’t accept that – they really do seem to think that the passage of time somehow rubs off the lunacy. But it doesn’t. A batty belief doesn’t become less batty simply because ten or twenty centuries have passed.
Ah, Ophelia. You have to admit that Christianity is not quite as insane as…Scientology. Or Falun Gong, which promises its followers that their guru will cleanse the earth of the inappropriate real soon (almost, almost mind you, sympathize, with the Chinese government)
Brian, I think that’s a question of taste in comedy and what we’re used to more than relative degrees of insanity. Cleansing the earth of the inappropriate might not seem like a bad thing. And if you’d grown up with the tenets of Scientology and were suddenly confronted with Christianity without any preparation you might find yourself holding your stomach in agonising laughter (“She got pregnant how?!” “The wafer is what?!”). Conditioning is often more important than we’d care to admit, whether or not we believe. We’d still do more of a double-take at someone dressed as the Creature from the Black Lagoon than we would at someone dressed as Santa Claus, at least in certain situations.