RICHARD DAWKINS' "The ROOT OF ALL EVIL"

[irir123]

Prof Richard Dawkins tackles the epidemic of irrational, superstitious thinking which is blotting the light of logic and evidence. After garnering tips on psychics' entirely earthly trade secrets from the illusionist Derren Brown, Dawkins attends a seance and confronts the medium. Time and again, the interviewees appeal to personal revelation or second-hand anecdote to justify their belief.

[kid-glove]

Looking back, I think it's a feeble attempt compared to his richly detailed books. But it's still considered a supplement to his other works. There is another short little conversation with Dawkins as a spin-off of BBC Brief History of Disbelief, called 'Atheism Tapes'.

[equanimus]

What do you guys think about this piece by John Gray?

[complicateur]

Great article equanimus. Thanks for sharing. It seems the debate terms need to be rephrased.

[kid-glove]

Equa,

Thanks for positing it. I follow Guardian for contemporary topics and debates. I read this piece and cringed when it fist came out. Here's a comment in Guardian blog which perfectly encapsulates what I make of this drivel.

Of the many silly responses to "the new atheists", this is one of the silliest. Gray clearly hasn't bothered to read the atheist books he criticises, because he makes one obviously false claim after another about them. He also clearly doesn't understand biology, or even science in general, or for that matter logic.

For example, after making the false, and cringe-inducing, claim that Dawkins "recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage", - thus demonstrating not only that Gray hasn't read the God Delusion but also that his understanding of the theory of natural selection doesn't go beyond the comic-book level - Gray then hilariously immediately goes on to contradict this by (finally) correctly saying that Dawkins believes that religion is a memetic virus, which actually is harmful to the individual who contracts it.

If Gray will trouble himself to read the relevant passage of "The God Delusion", he will find that Dawkins's view is actually that religion is an accidental by-product of other traits which do confer benefit to individuals. Natural selection most assuredly does not teach that every ubiquitous trait must confer "evolutionary advantage", as Gray apparently believes.

Gray also says that the theory of memes is not a proper theory; in fact, he says, it is as unscientific as intelligent design. Gray thus demonstrates that his ignorance extends beyond biology to science in general. Reasonable people can disagree regarding the plausibility and usefulness of the theory of memes, but it is a theory: it provides an explanation for natural events in natural terms, and while it may be difficult to test, it is certainly testable in principle. To compare this to intelligent design, which simply maintains that whatever came about in a way we can't understand must have been the work of God, shows a lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is. Intelligent design is not just untestable in practice but in principle, since it deliberately posits something which is in principle outside any possible experience. Therefore ID is not a theory, but memetics most assuredly is.

Gray also falsely says that all of "the new atheists" believe that "over the long run, the advance of science will drive religion to the margins of human life", and then compounds his error by citing Christopher Hitchens as a prominent proponent of this belief. Actually, not only is it not the case that all "new atheists" believe this, but Hitchens is a perfect example of someone who emphatically believes the contrary, having said not just in "God is not Great" but also in many other fora that he is convinced that religion will never be eradicated.

And of course, like all good religious apologists, Gray can be counted on to trot out the "Hitler and Stalin were atheists, so that proves atheism is evil" meme. (Yes, I said meme.) For the umpteenth time, Hitler was a Roman Catholic, and his partners in crime were a motley assortment of Catholics and PAGANS, not atheists. Hitler regularly invoked not just God but specifically Jesus in his speeches and had the slogan "Gott mit uns" put on the belts of his soldiers. Hitler never left the Church, nor did the Church consider him in any way an apostate; in fact, it ordered that his birthday be celebrated as a public holiday. And Stalin's communist regime was based on a God-emperor religion; the fact that Stalin didn't call it a religion doesn't change its essential characteristics.

I could go on and on, but one would have to write an essay as long as Gray's to list all of his errors. Clearly, essays such as Gray's lack any honest intellectual purpose; they are merely intended as thumb-sucking reassurance for religious folk loath to rouse themselves from their dogmatic slumbers.

[equanimus]

I'm not sure about Gray, but I've to admit that I've not read The God Delusion (or any of the books written by one of the New Atheists)! But I don't think Gray is being an apologist for religion here.

[kid-glove]

While no 'apologist' himself, he takes potshots, but the argument reeks of cynicism, and his views on Dawkins book is wrong(ly interpreted) at many levels. He deceives to be middle-ground, but if you read the books, and double check the facts, you will be convinced of his intentions. With this piece, he is the one guilty of partaking in 'high ground'. Sheer hypocrisy!!

[irir123]

This is equally good:



"In this two-part documentary, Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins examines how religious faith is gaining ground in the face of rational, scientific truth. The program takes you to some of the world's religious hot-spots, both in America and the Middle East. Dawkins meets with religious leaders and their followers, as well as scientists and sceptics to examine the power of religion. Interviews with former Pastor Ted Haggard, the novelist Ian McEwan, the former Bishop of Oxford, and others offer valuable insights into the global impact and consequences of faith in the 21st century.

Along with his million-copy bestseller The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins' Root of All Evil? has helped inspire people of reason worldwide to say "Enough is enough!" Our modern world is the product of a long march from ignorance and fear to the Enlightenment and beyond, always guided by the power of science and reason. To now abandon our endeavour toward progress and knowledge for faith and superstition puts humanity in peril. "

[kannannn]

Looking back, I think it's a feeble attempt compared to his richly detailed books. But it's still considered a supplement to his other works.

Agree. The programs do no justice to what he wants to convey, either due to time or content constraint. I too prefer his books and articles.

Apropos Gray, I can breakdown his arguments into three essential parts (Dawkins is mentioned where appropriate):

1. It is in human nature to be religious and it doesn't make sense for New Atheists to try to wipe out religion ( it is never going to go away)

2. The arguments atheists make against religion are themselves based on themes already covered by religions.

3. The argument of atheists that religion is the cause of human mistreatment is wrong. It is not religion that causes human misery. It is humans themselves. So, atheist are no atheist, humans are going to continue to be killed.

As for 1, I think Gray is largely right. In fact, as Gray points out, Dawkins says much the same in 'God Delusion' and clearly lays down the reasons this is so from a evolutionary point of view (the theory of dualism coupled with the intentional stance - more on this if anyone's interested). But Gray's understanding of Dawkins stops right there. Dawkins himself agrees in 'God Delusion' that meme theory is not yet universally accepted. Meme theory is not necessarily science, but it attempts to explain social phenomena through evolutionary concepts. It is still in early stages and trying to equate it with ID, which is nothing but a euphemism for creationism smacks of ignorance. As for Dawkins' suggestions to stem the passing down of religious memes, I don't see what the problem is. When did promoting the ability to reason become to be equated to religious indoctrination.

Wrt 2, religion has been around for thousands of years. So, yes, it has covered all social themes, but not necessarily in a positive light. So, it is not what the themes are but how they are covered. Equating freewill as espoused by atheists with freewill as tackled in Bible is taking it too far. Gray is seeing continuity where there are none.

3. May be, but that is the point many New Atheists make. That any belief without reason is dangerous. The massacres committed by so-called atheists does not stem from atheism, but from tyranny and a desire to rule without opposition. That they were atheists was just incidental. Gray also argues that many religious beliefs are based on typically secular revolutionary views (I recommend Jason Burke's 'Al-Queda' for a more insightful comparison between the two phenomena). Yes, he is right, but only partially. Religious extremists may be fighting for justice or may be fighting for just their religion. The former is common to all oppressed people, from Palestine to South America. That doesn't prove anything about atheism. The latter is what New Atheists are concerned about. As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.

I understand and agree with some of Gray's arguments. But, I think he is trying to paint every idea and thought process with the same cynical brush, without much evidence to back him up.

[kid-glove]

Brilliant dissection of the core points of the article. Could never have put it as succinctly.

"trying to paint every idea and thought process with the same cynical brush, without much evidence to back him up."
-That's exactly why that article is irritating.

Dawkins says much the same in 'God Delusion' and clearly lays down the reasons this is so from a evolutionary point of view (the theory of dualism coupled with the intentional stance - more on this if anyone's interested)

- I specifically hold this chapter Roots of religion, quite high. Enriching. It was lucidly written with relevant examples and interesting references. I'd credit it for realizing the inherent dualistic thought process (tentative at occasions, but also, in context of art & aesthetics), and in time I have become more of a deadpan Monist. Still, like Dawkins, I'm equally capable of relishing Wodehouse's "Laughing Gas".

Dawkins himself agrees in 'God Delusion' that meme theory is not yet universally accepted. Meme theory is not necessarily science, but it attempts to explain social phenomena through evolutionary concepts. It is still in early stages and trying to equate it with ID, which is nothing but a euphemism for creationism smacks of ignorance. As for Dawkins' suggestions to stem the passing down of religious memes, I don't see what the problem is. When did promoting the ability to reason become to be equated to religious indoctrination

-Dawkins writes in 'Selfish Genes and Selfish Memes',

"I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all toll numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case." (verbatim)

This is particularly true in Gray's case.

Looking to read more on 'memes', 'intentional stance', and nuances of Gould-Dennett debate.

Gray got it woefully wrong about Dawkins being 'convinced' that education in families and schools would 'stop' religion. And that it was un-Darwinian, but fundamentalist view.
Au contraire,

"If neuroscientists find a 'god centre' in the brain, Darwinian scientists like me will still want to understand the natural selection pressure that favoured it. Why did those of our ancestors who had a genetic tendency to grow a god centre survive to have more grandchildren than rivals who didn't? The Darwinian ultimate question is not a better question, not a more profound question, not a more scientific question than the neurological proximate question. But it is the one I am talking about here."

....
(illustrates the self-immolation behavior of moths..accident vs suicide..debate itself being a misfiring by-product of a normally useful compass - that they have nervous systems that steer by maintaining a fixed angle to light rays, a tactic that we notice only where it goes wrong.) he applies similar by-product inference and deduction of religious behaviour in humans. he goes like..

"People not only hold these beliefs with passionate certitude, but devote time and resources to costly activities that flow from holding them. They die for them, or kill for them. We marvel at
this, just as we marvelled at the 'self-immolation behaviour' of the moths. Baffled, we ask why. But my point is that we may be asking the wrong question. The religious behaviour may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful. On this view, the propensity that was naturally selected in our ancestors was not religion per se; it had some other benefit, and it only incidentally manifests itself as religious behaviour. We shall understand religious behaviour only after we have renamed it."

"My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other species, we survive by the accumulated experience of previous generations, and that experience needs to be passed on to children for their protection and well-being. Theoretically, children might learn from personal experience not to go too near a cliff edge, not to eat untried red berries, not to swim in crocodile-infested waters. But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to child brains that possess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, whatever your grown-ups tell you. Obey your parents; obey the tribal elders, especially when they adopt a solemn, minatory tone. Trust your elders without question. This is a generally valuable rule for a child. But, as with the moths, it can go wrong. "

Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses. For excellent reasons related to Darwinian survival, child brains need to trust parents, and elders whom parents tell them to trust. An automatic consequence is that the truster has no way of distinguishing good advice from bad. The child cannot know that 'Don't paddle in the crocodile-infested Limpopo' is good advice but 'You must sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon, otherwise the rains will fail' is at best a waste of time and goats. Both admonitions sound equally trustworthy. Both come from a respected source and are delivered with a solemn earnestness that commands respect and demands obedience. The same goes for propositions about the world, about the cosmos, about morality and about human nature. And, very likely, when the child grows up and has children of her own, she will naturally pass the whole lot on to her own children - nonsense as well as sense - using the same infectious gravitas of manner.

Gray puts it like, "Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory"

He could be excused if he got that 'impression' without indulging much into Dawkins. Wonder if he ever got to read the book in full.

As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.

QFT.