possibly noteworthy wrote:
possibly noteworthy wrote:
I am not a fan of the latest Dawkins book.
flynn23 wrote:
Why not?
It has little to do with the subject argument of his book, and more to do with his attitude and approach. As the first and still current holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, I expect more of him.
The problem with his approach in The God Delusion (which continues to sit in large quantities on local bookshelves in spite of the sellers' offer of the steepest discounts in the store, outside the bargain bins) is that he has largely adopted the strategy of the most vocal and voluminous authors in the American professional political commentariat.
By this I mean that he has essentially given up on trying to change minds. Instead he has decided to content himself, and to proudly declare his campaign a rousing success, based simply on reinforcing the views of those who already agree with him.
I defy anyone to find a self-described religious person who, upon encountering and reading "Delusion", found himself "won over", his mind changed by the experience.
From 2004, I refer you to this P.J. O'Rourke piece in The Atlantic, wherein you'll find the question:
I wonder, when was the last time a talk show changed a mind?
I feel the same way about "Delusion."
Also from 2004, I refer you to Mr. President in West Virginia:
"You can't talk sense to them," Bush said, referring to terrorists.
"Nooooo!" the audience roared.
Finally, I'll refer you to someone who explains it well: Freeman Dyson. In an essay for The New York Review of Books, published in 2006, Dyson reviews Daniel Dennett's book of the same ilk, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon". In conclusion, Dyson wrote:
If we wish to understand the phenomenon of terrorism in the modern world, and if we wish to take effective measures to lessen its attraction to idealistic young people, the first and most necessary step is to understand our enemies. We must give respect to our enemies, as courageous and capable soldiers enlisted in an evil cause, before we can understand them.
I really appreciated that thought, and so that's what I quoted when I originally recommended the piece. (Alas, no one else recommended it.)
But now, in this context, I would draw attention to a different passage:
In the first section, Dennett defines scientific inquiry in a narrow way, restricting it to the collection of evidence that is reproducible and testable. He makes a sharp distinction between science on the one hand and the humanistic disciplines of history and theology on the other. He does not accept as scientific the great mass of evidence contained in historical narratives and personal experiences. Since it cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions, it does not belong to science. He quotes with approval and high praise several passages from The Varieties of Religious Experience, the classic description of religion from the point of view of a psychologist, published by William James in 1902. He describes James's book as "a treasure trove of insights and arguments, too often overlooked in recent times." But he does not accept James's insights and arguments as scientific.
James is examining religion from the inside, like a doctor trying to see the world through the eyes of his patients. James was trained as a medical doctor before he became a professor of psychology. He studied the personal experiences of saints and mystics as evidence of something real existing in a spiritual world beyond the boundaries of space and time. Dennett honors James as an explorer of the human condition, but not as an explorer of a spiritual world. For Dennett, the visions of saints and mystics are worthless as evidence, since they are neither repeatable nor testable. Dennett is examining religion from the outside, following the rules of science. For him, the visions of saints and mystics are only a phenomenon to be explained, like falling in love or hating people of a different skin color, mental conditions that may or may not be considered pathological.
Later, Dyson observes:
Like Hardy and Erdös, Dennett plays the game of breaking the spell by making religion look silly. Many of my scientist friends and colleagues have similar prejudices. One famous scientist for whom I have a deep respect said to me, "Religion is a childhood disease from which we have recovered." There is nothing wrong with such prejudices, provided that they are openly admitted. Dennett's account of the evolution of religion is on the whole fair and well balanced.
In retrospect, I should have given Dyson's article about a dozen gold stars, if that's what it takes to get more people to read it.
Toward the end he writes, of Atta and the other 9/11 attackers:
According to [Marc] Sageman, [author of Understanding Terror Networks] they were motivated like the kamikaze pilots, more by loyalty to their comrades than by hatred of the enemy. Once the operation had been conceived and ordered, it would have been unthinkable and shameful not to carry it out.
On this note, I would like to recommend Clint Eastwood's "Letters from Iwo Jima", which makes it abundantly clear that such feelings of loyalty were not exclusive to the kamikaze pilots. As A.O. Scott of the Times recently wrote:
It is hard to think of another war movie that has gone so deeply, so sensitively, into the mind-set of the opposing side.
Well, then I totally misread you. I thought you were commenting more on THE argument rather than HIS argumentative style. Being an agnostic myself, I think it's hilarious watching people treat this subject as a war of ideology. Particularly between evolution and intelligent design. Idiots. But I totally agree with your observation that most things aren't meant to convert anyone's opinion as much as validate them. You can find this in child rearing books as well.
Any good soldier (ie. one that is trained well) will obey out of duty and loyalty. Else, how could war exist?
