Richard Dawkins is wrong

[avevale_intelligencer]

"If this post works correctly, any supporter of Dawkins who opens this post will be an opponent of Dawkins by the time they finish reading."

So how did that sentence make you feel?

Did you perhaps think "Now hold on just a cotton-bud-picking minute here, matey boy. Am I not a reasoning being? Don't I have both the ability and the sovereign right to make up my own mind of my own volition? Is he saying that his words have the power to alter my thinking, subvert my free will and convert me without my consent, and if they fail to do so that's simply because they're malfunctioning? Does he claim to have some Jedi mind trick that can infallibly turn people around a hundred and eighty degrees? Would it perhaps not have been slightly more persuasive to say that his post would provide me with more information on the subject which might possibly influence my opinion?"

If you did, then perhaps you then thought "Right, monkey, let's see what you've got," and are reading this post now with all your defences up and your mind clenched against any sneaky spell or cantrip I might have embedded within these syllables. Or maybe, if you were more like me, you decided that it wasn't worth the risk and didn't click on the cut-tag at all. Either way, by putting that sentence up there I have certainly defeated any chance I might have had of persuading you of anything.

And yet it is with a sentence very similar to the above load of piffle that Richard Dawkins opens "The God Delusion."

Dawkins makes two mistakes here, I think (though I am not so confident as to say I am sure). Firstly, he believes, or believed at the time he wrote that book, that ideas are stronger than the minds that contain them. He it was who coined the concept of the meme, and before that he wrote about religion as being a "virus of the mind" which could infect "even the best minds," whether they wanted it to or not. Clearly, in making that somewhat grandiose claim about "The God Delusion," he was articulating the same belief about his own ideas; that they would invade and conquer any mind exposed to his words, and clean out all vestige of religious thought like a white tornado. Bang, and the God is gone. I've never believed in memes myself, being rather big on free will, and I don't share his view of religion, or atheism, as a disease passed on by talking...but I am not so confident as to say I might not be wrong. And that is why, despite my firm belief in giving all sides a fair hearing, I have not read any of Dawkins' books and do not intend to do so. Just in case. I like choosing what I want to think.

And the other mistake he makes in advancing that ineffably smug, condescending vaunt about his book, is in being disastrously wrong about people. Because the number of confirmedly religious people who will read that book with an open mind, once they have read that sentence, is, I think, vanishingly small. Just as the number of Dawkins supporters who will have read this post without their hackles being up and all their gun ports open will, I suspect, be close to nil.

Fortunately, I have no interest in converting anyone. And, quite possibly, neither does he. Which raises the question of why he said it in the first place...but that's beyond me to answer.

A friend has pointed out to me that there are much more pleasant ways of engaging my passionate nature than starting internet arguments about irresoluble issues, and that friend is quite right. All I can say is that this thought grabbed me in Waterstones and would not let go till I'd articulated it. I am sorry if any part of this post has caused offence. None is intended.

Comments

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

There are much more pleasant ways of engaging your passionate nature than starting internet arguments about irresoluble issues.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

You know, you're not the first person to say that to me.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

You do realise, don't you, that Dawkins has said he know he can't convert convinced religious people, but the book is for those who already have doubts?

I also think you will find that he nowhere suggests that memes are stronger than the minds that originate them. Just that, like genes, they are subject to natural selection.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

In that case, I would suggest that the sentence:

"If this book works as I intend, religious readers
who open it will be atheists when they put it down."

could have been considerably improved by the addition of the words "if they want to be." And then I would not have been impelled to write the aforegoing.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

"If this books works as I intend..."

Well, of course that is what he intends. He isn't stupid enough to think that is how it will work all the time. And, if you go to his website, you will find letters from ex-religious folk who say the book worked for them, so what he intended happened, if not to everyone.

My own problem with The God Delusion is that it says little that I didn't already know and had thought through myself. Reading a book that just affirms what you already know/believe is ego-massaging but little else. It's why it's not as good as, say, The Selfish Gene or The Extended Phenotype.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

"So how did that sentence make you feel?"

It made me feel "He's up to something, probably something interesting. I wonder what?" (Click)

In both your case and Dawkins', it seems to have been a dramatic attention-grabbing narrative device, not intended to be taken literally.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

That's probably it. I hope you weren't too disappointed.

Oh No He Isn't

[lewis-p-bear.livejournal.com]

Smug yes, Wrong No

Re: Oh No He Isn't

[griffen.livejournal.com]

This.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

I thought "well, he clearly thinks he's got a good argument, let's give it a chance and see if it holds water. I wonder if he's got new facts for me?"

I don't think I'd get defensive about such a statement unless I were already defensive about the belief or attitude you were challenging.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Ah. That's probably my problem. Being certain of nothing but wanting to be can lead to defensiveness.

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

Personally I think he's quite right, of course faith is irrational. That's the point of faith. It's not something that you can look at and hold, it is the evidence of things not seen. What bothers me about this man is that he figures if you are religious you have to be stupid. What was that word some one used, oh yes his smugness.

A lot of wrong and bad things have been done in the name of religion, in fact things still happen that way in some countries, people try and force their values on others because they think it's good for them. This is very often done in the name of religion, this is wrong, very wrong. Unless people are getting hurt then people need to bug out. This reply is getting out of hand,

To answer your question. I googled him I listened to part of an interview, and then remembered him from a BBC special I'd seen a few months back. I man is irritating to the nth degree in his smugness and supposed superiority. But he's not wrong, faith is irrational. That's kind of the point of faith if it had a rational base it wouldn't be faith.

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

And I think he's quite wrong in assuming that anything not rational is wrong and should be dropped, and that anyone who doesn't do so is wrong or crazy -- this being the impression I've received of his attitudes from those who have read him, as I have not.

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

Yup, and I'm quite unlikely to read him, I have an issue with the general assumption. That I'm stupid, wrong or crazy simply because I can't show him proof that God exists. I have never claimed that I can do that. Sigh.

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

I have doubts about everything. I have doubts about doubting.

I think the big obstacle here is that everyone assumes other people think the way they do. They react out of fear. Not everyone is a natural either/or believer or disbeliever. I'm not belief-prone. I'm a born agnostic. I read all kinds of wild and woolly books, but I'm not persuaded to believe any of them. I'm only understanding them with my all-too-human brain which is prone to stupidity at disturbing intervals. lol

We're all perceiving the world through imperfect vessels. I don't know what the hell is really going on, and neither does anyone else. All we can do is arrive at a likely scenario, given the facts as they stand ... the facts as we understand them. And there we are back at first base.

[batyatoon]

Your opening sentence made me laugh, largely because I recognized the Dawkins-paraphrase.

I have some respect for atheism as a philosophy, but very little for Dawkins. He gives his views a bad name.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Actually I have found Dawkins very readable and fun.

I think he is smeared a lot by people who haven't actually read his work, or who have read only quotes taken out of context for the purpose of making him look bad.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I've found him annoying and illogical, as well as up to his ears in hyperbole. If I want to read serious critique of religion, I read Daniel Dennett.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Daniel Dennett has been deeply influenced by his mate Richard Dawkins, and Dennett spends a lot of time defending him in Darwin's Dangerous Idea. (And a lot of time knocking Gould and Lewontin, but that's another story.)

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but Dennett makes more sense in how he goes about it.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

His arguments against the spandrel business are taken almost directly from Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

From what I've seen his tone, however, is not taken from Dawkins, and that makes all the difference. Going up to someone and saying "I believe this, you may find it useful or interesting" will get people a lot less annoyed than saying "you are stupid or deluded, let me tell you The Truth and then you will Believe" (which seems to be the technique used by Dawkins and religious missionaries and salesmen).

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Being nice hasn't worked over the last fifty years or so. Why should it just be the atheists who STFU? How about the Pope - it would be nice if he told the truth once in a while.

Dennett is regarded as one of the 'four horsemen' of current atheism, and can be just as abrasive as Dawkins in debate.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Being nice and S-ing TFU aren't the same thing, and even so nobody's saying it should just be the atheists.

But see my comment to sodzilla--I wouldn't presume to tell Dawkins how he should argue, even if I thought he would listen. I simply comment that if catching flies is his aim, the Sarson's isn't necessarily the best tool for the job.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Dawkins is the Glenn Beck of atheism. His rhetoric is embarrassing and his logic flawed even when I think he's right about his main point. Try reading more sensible atheists rather than using inadvertent strawmen by going after the one at which most atheists turn up their noses.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

This man (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse) seems to share a lot of my concerns, and says nothing to which I would take exception.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Ruse is an idiot.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Ah, that explains it.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Just getting my own back. If others can call Dawkins arrogant and smug without citing evidence, I can do the same to arch-accommodationists Ruse and Mooney and Brown.

You can have 'em. I prefer Benson and Blackford and Coyne and Greta Christina.

[earth-wizard.livejournal.com]

I always preferred Stephen Jay Gould over Dawkins. Why? Gould was never a dogmatist, and never shoved his ideas down one's throat. Gould was an atheist as well, but a gentle one, one that knew both sides of the coin and studied it not to belittle it like Dawkins, but to realize why humans in their evolutionary path chose to use such interesting tools as religion, ritual, and communal expressions of the spirit to explain the unexplainable.

Dawkins on the other hand throughout most of his books has always been a dogmatist and belittled all who do not agree with him on scientific or philosophical matters. And, what is sad, is he is not much of a philosopher, either. Even his science is open to dispute, yet according to him it is a solid ediface without any leaky pots. A thinker of the one idea, a candle with no flame in it...

Hey, and I'm an atheist, yet Dawkins gives us a bad name with his religious proselytizing and zealotry. My opinion is and has always been to let people do what they will as long as it doesn't encroach upon my right to do the same... ah! democracy, what a grand idea!

[sodzilla.livejournal.com]

The insidious thing about this line of reasoning is that it comes close to the good old tone argument. I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that if I'd just engage, say, sexist assholes (like Dawkins) oh so gently and politely, instead of telling them "hey, that thing you said about how women aren't rational was kind of jerkish", I'd be "much more successful" in persuading them, and it's every bit as annoying as the initial provocation in most cases. So I had a reflexive reaction against saying Dawkins can't be direct and provocative if he likes.

On the other hand, the analogy is imperfect, because 1) Dawkins IS aiming to persuade Person A to his line of thinking, rather than just indicate to B, C and D that A's behavior is unacceptable, and 2) religious people don't hurt anyone. (At least not simply by dint of being religious.)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

As far as I am concerned, he can be as direct and provocative as he likes. I think it's a mistaken approach to what he's trying to do and that it hurts his cause in the long run, and many of the comments here seem to bear me out, but it's his choice.

I do understand how annoying and irrelevant the tone argument can be when one is genuinely angry, and I wouldn't now advocate it in those circumstances. (I used to. I learned better.)