More tiresome guff
This is getting to be an entire cottage industry, or maybe not even so cottage, this enterprise of saying ‘that Richard Dawkins and those other militant fundamentalist atheists are insulting and patronizing and rude and aggressive while the rest of us are tolerant and respectful and kind and good.’ Now it’s Robert Winston’s turn to take the same old guff out for a spin.
“I find the title of ‘The God Delusion’ rather insulting,” said Lord Winston, “I have a huge respect for Richard Dawkins but I think it is very patronising to call a serious book about other peoples’ views of the universe and everything a delusion. I don’t think that is helpful and I think it portrays science in a bad light.”
But if other people’s views of the universe and everything are in fact a delusion, is that really something that should never ever ever be pointed out on the grounds that it is insulting and patronizing? Should a mistake never be pointed out? Should a delusion never be called a delusion? Should all mistakes and delusions and illusions be sheltered from disagreement in that way? If so – why?
Lord Winston…will argue for a more conciliatory approach to religion in a public lecture at the University of Dundee tonight…”The reason I’ve called it the Science Delusion is because I think there is a body of scientific opinion from my scientific colleagues who seem to believe that science is the absolute truth and that religious and spiritual values are to be discounted,” said Lord Winston. “Some people, both scientists and religious people, deal with uncertainty by being certain. That is dangerous in the fundamentalists and it is dangerous in the fundamentalist scientists.”
But do they? Do they seem to believe that science is the absolute truth? Do they ever in fact say that, or anything that really resembles it? Not that I’ve seen – they tend to say the opposite: that one of the great things about science is that it’s not ‘absolute,’ that it is always subject to change if better evidence comes along.
People keep doing this – extrapolating from what Dawkins and others say in order to claim that they are saying something different and much sillier; but that is not a good thing to do (whatever your ‘religious and spiritual values’ are); it’s not legitimate; it’s not even helpful, not even to people who do think Dawkins is all wrong, because it addresses phantoms. Who is portraying what in a bad light? I’m not sure it’s Dawkins.
Lord Winston, who is a practising Jew, said the tone adopted by Prof Dawkins and others was counterproductive. “Unfortunately the neo-Darwinists, and I don’t just mean Dawkins, I mean [the philosopher] Daniel Dennett in particular and [neuroscientist] Steven Pinker are extremely arrogant. I think scientific arrogance really does give a great degree of distrust. I think people begin to think that scientists like to believe that they can run the universe.”
Right, that’s just what people begin to think; a trio of Darth Vaders trying to run the universe, that’s Dawkins and Dennett and Pinker. You bet.
The philosopher AC Grayling at Birkbeck College, London, dismissed Lord Winston’s arguments as “tiresome guff”. “Belief in supernatural entities in the universe … is false, and in the light of increasing scientific knowledge about nature has definitely come to be delusional,” he said.
Yes but we’re not allowed to say so.
I knew that would make you head ‘splode when I read that on the way to work :)
The only valid critique of Dawkins et al is that the apparent ferocity of their arguments may put off some of the religious who might otherwise be amenable to rational argument. It can be argued that calling someone an idiot or saying religious education is child abuse is generally going to make a believer immediately hostile and stop listening to you.
It’s a tactical criticism, more ‘conversions’ might be achieved if one uses less confrontational language.
Of course that is not what Winston is arguing, and Dawkins is not quite the Rottweiller he is made out to be (I said ‘apparent ferocity’ quite deliberately).
“Lord Winston…will argue for a more conciliatory approach to religion in a public lecture at the University of Dundee tonight…”
Lord Winston’s pioneering work on in vitro fertilization results in the destruction of non-implanted embryos. Quite a few people of a religious disposition think this is murder. Does Lord Wilson advocate a ‘conciliatory’ approach to these people?
And if we do say so, we are accused of being just like those religious nuts we disagree with. We’re “fundamentalists” and “dogmatic.” We’re treating reason or science as a “faith” position.
But we’re not. Not even a little.
Why am I not surprised that the very subject of my latest published essay (well, web published, which is a different thing) has popped up again on in the media and on B&W?
*sigh*
I listened to a podcast from the Times today (from the Oxford Literary Festival I think) where Winston spends an hour spouting very similar guff to the article.
He refers at one point to ‘genetic fundamentalists’ who he claims believe genes are the be-all and end-all of human development(this is a paraphrase). But I don’t know of anyone who’s ever said that, or who thinks that. For a professor who must have some quite detailed knowledge of genetics to make such a crude characterisation really put me off him.
He also thinks evolution is still only a theory, albeit one which is ‘probably right’. As opposed presumably to the ‘theory’ of Genesis? The whole speech was really rather muddle headed.
I think if you subscribe to the Oxford Literary festival podcast at
http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/audio_video/podcasts/
you can hear it. There’s a much more interesting speech by Steve Jones on the same feed, btw.
“But if other people’s views of the universe and everything are in fact a delusion (…)”
But whether they are is irrelevant, isn’t it, as to regards the “insultingness” of the book title? Whether Dawkins or you or anyone else sincerely believes that they are, is all that matters. It makes for enough ground to proclaim the opinion whereever one would want to.
Obviously I disagree with you, Dawkins and Grayling on the fact of the matter, but not on the issue of the purported insult.
“Whether Dawkins or you or anyone else sincerely believes that they are, is all that matters.”
No, I don’t think so. Sincerity is not enough. The issue is one of having good reasons to believe that they are, not sincerity.
Although – I guess I see what you mean; the sincerity rules out the ‘insulting’ charge. Yes, maybe.
Then again…hmm…Suppose a priest titled a book ‘The Delusion of Allah’ and an imam titled a book ‘The Delusion of Jesus’ – would the sincerity of the priest and the imam mean the titles were necessarily not insulting? Hmm…I’m not sure! That’s not the word I would choose, but I would suspect there was an intention to insult people of Enemy Religions.
I’ll have to think about this some more.
I always liked Winston, but my opinion of him has fallen somewhat by his flagrant misuse of the term “neo-Darwinists”. Or does he have a problem with the modern synthesis as well?
“Neo-Darwinist” is a very stupid term. What’s the difference between a neo-Darwinist and a Darwinist? Is there such a thing as an ur-Darwinist?
I admire Winston’s accomplishments, but this argument is very tiresome and, as far as I know, has yet to be backed up. Does anyone have an example of someone who’s said “well, I was going to endorse science and become an atheist, but Richard Dawkins’ choice of language really put me off the idea.”
It’s absurd.
I also don’t think accusations of “fundmentalism” or “militancy” are legitimate in the least.They actually fly in the face of reality. Dawkins and even Sam Harris have consistently stated that if there were some evidence of a God, they would alter their opinions. Where’s the militancy?
When have you ever heard a Pope or Imam come out and say “well, since there’s no evidence, I’m sort of re-considering this God thing I’ve been into.”
Anyway, I agree, OB, it’s all terribly frustrating.
RA: “neo-Darwinism” as I have always used it, and interpreted it, refers to the modern synthesis of evolution and genetics (thus the vast majorty of contemporary biologists are “neo-Darwinists”). Perhaps it’s not quite so strictly defined, and I’ve just not noticed/realised when people use it differently?
OB: “Although – I guess I see what you mean; the sincerity rules out the ‘insulting’ charge. Yes, maybe.”
Why does “sincerity” rule out the charge of being “insulting”? (If that is indeed, that was the gist of the remark.)
I don’t accept this at all!
“…who seem to believe that science is the absolute truth and that religious and spiritual values are to be discounted…”
Two problems here:
First, the bracketing of “religious and spiritual”, as if they are necessarily linked.
Second, the claim that Dawkins and others discount spiritual values.
Ah, the sincerity problem again…
But, as I used to say when teaching (and did it annoy the “literary” arts-“educated” types in the staffroom) – but the SS and the NKVD were completly sincere, and so were the inquisition” – and I might add the xtian wingnuts in the USA and the muslim nutters.
They are all sincere.
And mad.
And wrong.
And murderous.
I do not know enough about Lord Winston’s work, but I have watched and enjoyed several of his TV programs. One is “Child of Our Time”, which my wife and I watch because it follows children born in 2000. My elder son was born in 2000, so the program resonates with us. However, my esteem for Winston dropped after the program where the following 2 phrases were uttered next to each other (I’m paraphrasing a little but this was the gist). “It is an advantage to be in a faith school”, and “but this school is failing”. I can’t for the life of me figure out how a scientist could read that out without immediately having his head explode.
Following that, this latest “guff” is no surprise.
I can’t see sincerity as excluding insult – in fact I would adopt the reverse of Merlijn’s position on this. Dawkin’s sincerity (and even his rightness) on the question of the delusionality of religious belief does not rob his book’s title of its insult.
The one place I do concede to Winston is that calling believers ‘delusional’ (as the title does by implication) is indeed pretty insulting. Not wrong, but definitely insulting! A different title would indeed have been more ‘tactful’.
Of course, tact is not required any more than respect – save from the point of view of framing (or spin, to be less charitable).
RA, Joe Dunckley; I think Lord Winston meant ultra-Darwinist, rather than neo-Darwinist. Would make sense given the examples he’s using.
A quick check of Amazon sales figures suggests that few have been put off by the title of Dawkin’s book.
So there’s the scientific evidence disproving Winston’s vacuous theory. His elevation to the peerage and position as a TV ‘personage’ both seem to have had an extremely deleterious effect on his capacity for coherent thought.
The insult thing…It seemed to me (after my first reply) that I had perhaps missed Merlijn’s point. It’s not a point I would make, precisely because I think the whole ‘sincerity’ thing is irrelevant and misleading; but I did want not to misread his point. I took that to be that stating a ‘sincere’ belief is not insulting because the intention is to state the belief, not to insult. (Although, how would anyone determine what the intention is? I don’t know.)
I’m sure merlijn will be along to clarify.
‘You have an unsightly growth on your face’ gratuitously said by a stranger on the street is insulting.
The same words said by a doctor prepared to remove the growth are not.
But what if the stranger in the street is also a doctor who intends to point out that the growth is both potentialy malignant and easily removable? Is that still insulting?
Should the doctor consider that, although the growth may be malignant it is possible the person has come to terms with it, sees it as part of their essential self, and would be insulted by any mention of it? If so should they then stay silent, let it proliferate rather than risk offence?
http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=bst&media=MP3S&type=Movies&movie=Young_Frankenstein"e=hump.txt&file=hump.mp3
(Sorry about the cumbersome link, I don’t know how to do all that clever HTML stuff.)
And what if the thing on the face is contagious? Or, again, what if the thing on the face is something that can be intentionally handed on to other people, especially children, who are susceptible to it if caught very young? What if the thing on the face can be handed on to children and it can also interfere with their education?
I have seen Lord Winston speak about this sort of stuff on t.v.he is not as wacy as he sounds,what he seems to fear is science that respects no moral bounderies i.e. like the nazi scientists,I think he works in the i.v.f field so his conserns are not completely without merrit.