Andrew Brown joins the brawl
Andrew Brown joins in the war on the ‘new’ atheists.
The ideas I claim are distinctive of the new atheists have been collected from Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Jerry Coyne, the American physicist Robert L. Park, and a couple of blogging biologists, P Z Myers and Larry Moran. They have two things in common. They are none of them philosophers and, though most are scientists, none study psychology, history, the sociology of religion, or any other discipline which might cast light on the objects of their execration.
How on earth does he know that? How could he know that? I suppose he could have asked all of them, and they could all have answered him, and all have agreed that they don’t ‘study’ (by which Brown presumably means to say they know nothing whatever about) psychology, history, and the sociology of religion…but I suspect that he didn’t and they didn’t and didn’t. I don’t know that, but I suspect it, not least because I think if he had gotten their confirmation he would have said so. Short of asking them, how would he know it? How would he know what seven people do or do not read about and discuss and otherwise inform themselves about? He doesn’t (of course) say. It’s the Chris Hedges school of journalism: just make stuff up, no need to offer evidence or documentation or quotation.
Brown offers ‘propositions’ that he claims are distinctive of the ‘new’ atheists and not of the good old kind who used to pass out toffee apples on Brown’s way to school. Or something.
There is something called “Faith” which can be defined as unjustified belief held in the teeth of the evidence. Faith is primarily a matter of false propositional belief.
Um…yes. Is it not true that faith can be defined that way? Is that a self-evidently and grossly inaccurate defintion of faith? It’s not an exhaustive definition, certainly – but is it a wildly offbase one? Not that I can see, but apparently Brown thinks it’s whacked.
Science is the opposite of religion, and will lead people into the clear sunlit uplands of reason. “The real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition” [Jerry Coyne]
Um…so he can’t follow what someone says even when he is quoting it and has it right in front of him? Look at it. Jerry Coyne says one thing and Brown seems to think he said another – and that’s by way of illustration. Well no wonder he gets everything wrong – he can’t grasp the meaning for the extent of even one sentence.
And the others aren’t much better.
Oh look – I’ve read some of the comments now and there’s Richard Dawkins saying (someone pointedly asked why Brown hadn’t included Dennett) –
The reason Brown fails to mention Dan Dennett is obvious, and entirely typical of him. It is simply that he would then not have been able to say “They are none of them philosophers”.
Exactly. The guy is not what you’d call an honest fighter.
Dennet commented too. Andrew Brown didn’t come off very well in this particular round.
He’s really extraordinary. He says in a follow-up piece today that Dawkins asked ‘whether the state should not have a right to remove the children of fundamentalist Christians to protect them from their parents’ beliefs,’ with a link to the page from TGD where he is supposed to have said that – only he doesn’t say that. He quotes Nicholas Humphrey in an Amnesty International address considering the possibility that parents should not be allowed to teach their children certain things – it says nothing about removing them and Dawkins isn’t the one who said it. Dawkins says it needs a lot of qualification. Someone called Brown on this and he simply said Dawkins said exactly what he (Brown) said he said.
That’s extraordinary.
Steve Jones (author of Darwin’s Ghost, you know, also of part of the Kitzmiller article here) chimed in later with a rather acid comment. Brown is not winning a lot of friends with this.
I thought I was the only person who found Brown to be basically a paid troll at the Guardian. Enjoying the performance in the CiF comments, Ophelia.
It was Richard Dawkins who pointed it out. Dennett’s comment on Brown comes a bit later.
I’ve been trying to understand where Brown is coming from for some time – had an email correspondence with him a year or so ago. He takes John Gray seriously. I know of no other person who actually takes Gray seriously. It must be something in the water.
Too quick. Didn’t notice your remark on Dennett’s comment. I particularly liked this remark:
A good Kantian point, that.
It’s true, you know, most clergy are really atheists at heart. That’s why they have to be orthodox than thou. I have been wondering about church’s and other religious institutions right to ask people to sign statements of doctrine which they are expected to hold for the rest of their lives. There seems to be something intrinsically dishonest about that. But it does make for a big stick. I think churches should be liable for the support of clergy who ‘lose their faith.’ I wonder if there’s anything in law that could enable this. I hope so. It’s time to break this particular closed shop. I’ve always wondered why women want to belong to it. (By the way, in my experience women priests are more fundamentalist than men. Perhaps it’s a kind of defence.)
Clearly you and I are not the only ones, Tom – the guy is getting a pasting. Richly deserved.
He did a quite snide Guardian piece on Michael Ruse’s unauthorized circulation of Dan Dennett’s emails to him (Ruse), a few years ago, but I didn’t know he was this bad.
It seems to me I know of someone else who takes John Gray seriously…but I can’t think of who it is!
Errr . . .
. . . John Gray?