Tuesday, May 29, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version

Print | Comments |

Dawkins' Christmas card list

by James Randerson, Guardian

Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_randerson/2007/05/dawkins_christmas_card_list.html

author

Don't ask me to cosy up to religious moderates when there are other enemies of the Enlightenment to contend with, argued Richard Dawkins at Hay.

Science, and the rationalist movement in general, face a "sinister challenge" from leftwing thinkers who promote cultural relativism, according to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.

He told a packed Hay Festival audience that although the threat from creationists and the religious right is well-documented, science is also under threat from the other end of the political spectrum: "I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism - the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged."

As an example, he cited Kennewick Man, the 9,000-year-old set of human remains found on the banks of the Columbia river in Washington State in 1996. The view of local native Americans that Kennewick Man was their ancestor, despite strong scientific evidence to the contrary, initially held sway, and they were able to put a stop to research.

Fellow panelist for the "Guardian Science Experiment" was the geneticist, Steve Jones, of University College London. Speaking to the event's tag line "Have we abandonned the enlightenment?", he reserved special venom for the animal rights movement, which he attacked as "stridently anti-rational".

He particularly objected to the claim that research on animals does not work. "The standard claim made again and again is that research on animals has killed millions of people ... scientists are fooling themselves in suggesting that it works," said Prof Jones.

The truth is the opposite, he said. Millions of diabetics, for example, are alive today because of the availability of insulin. The hormone was discovered through research on dogs.

"That's what I find most uncomfortable - the denial of scientific truth because of pre-formed beliefs," said Prof Jones. "That is what the enlightenment was set up to prevent and that is what I strongly feel has come back."

Earlier in the debate, Prof Dawkins had revealed that last year he received a Christmas card from the archbishop of Westminster - although not one from President Bush.

The third panelist, the President of the Royal Society, Sir Martin Rees, felt that he should grasp this olive branch with both hands because scientists needed to form an alliance with moderate faith groups in order jointly to fight fundamentalist religion.

"He should send Christmas cards to a few more archbishops," said Prof Rees, "on the grounds that if we give the impression that science is hostile to even the kind of mainstream religion that we have in this country, I think it will be more difficult for us to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiment that are really important."

But with Prof Dawkins now seemingly set on training his formidable intellectual artillery on politically-correct lefty thinking, the chances that he will expand his Christmas card list to cuddly archbishops seem pretty remote.

Posted: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 29 of 29 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #45821 by jimbob on May 29, 2007 at 10:54 am

"He told a packed Hay Festival audience that although the threat from creationists and the religious right is well-documented, science is also under threat from the other end of the political spectrum: "I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism - the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged."

...and he's right, and perhaps RD (and all of us) should make more of this?

I'd argue that the common thread is belief in doctrines -- religion probably being the most pervasive, but others (cultural relativism, political doctrines, etc.) being causes of the same problems.

I'd even submit that a better than usual response to the "Stalin/Pol Pot/et al., were atheists!" comment would be "yes, but they were all doctrinists!" (and the penalties for heresy and apostacy were the same too).

In short, religions aren't the source of ALL evil, but broadening the concept to "doctrines" gets much nearer to covering most.

Other Comments by jimbob

2. Comment #45822 by savroD on May 29, 2007 at 11:00 am

RD is right on spot here. The truth about animal experimentation though is one of the oldest in the book... You see, animal experiments and LESS EXPENSIVE, and therfore quicker. I think I would feel a little better knowing a medication that saves my life was not derived at the expense of animals' suffering. As far as animals for food.... I expect in the future meat growing on factory vines thanks to stemcell Research & Development!

Other Comments by savroD

3. Comment #45828 by pewkatchoo on May 29, 2007 at 11:05 am

I have to agree with you Jimbob. But we should not make to many enemies to early. We are still a seeming minority, even in secular Britain. One battle at a time. The extreme left, even more so than the extreme right, don't like their dogma being held up to questioning in any way.

A bit of care needs to be taken with this tack.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

4. Comment #45829 by pewkatchoo on May 29, 2007 at 11:07 am

savrod: Perhaps we should develop cows that can talk and want to be eaten! Perhaps I should patent that idea.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

5. Comment #45831 by BicycleRepairMan on May 29, 2007 at 11:10 am

"In short, religions aren't the source of ALL evil, but broadening the concept to "doctrines" gets much nearer to covering most."

I completely agree, the problem is, say that to a theist and he goes, "See, I told you religion isnt bad!" and he then thinks he has won the argument. The only way I know is to say, "forget stalin for 2 seconds, this is how YOUR religion fucks shit up, and thats a problem"

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

6. Comment #45832 by PaulJ on May 29, 2007 at 11:12 am

But with Prof Dawkins now seemingly set on training his formidable intellectual artillery on politically-correct lefty thinking, the chances that he will expand his Christmas card list to cuddly archbishops seem pretty remote.

I send cards at Christmas. Not many, but those I do send I make myself from my own photographs, and they rarely include any Christian symbolism. An example of such symbolism that I happened to use a few years ago was a picture of the steel cross made from girders at Ground Zero in New York City. It was more an illustration of my travels that year, rather than an implication of seasonal significance. (If I had intended such significance I would probably have waited until Easter. But I don't send Easter cards -- does any atheist?)

Other Comments by PaulJ

7. Comment #45833 by jimbob on May 29, 2007 at 11:13 am

A bit of care?!! But then I guess those Marxists ARE nice folks (oops, forgot about those millions of dead people!).

Maybe you are right? We wouldn't want the religious folks to label us A folk as rabid left wingers, eh?

;-)

Other Comments by jimbob

8. Comment #45834 by BicycleRepairMan on May 29, 2007 at 11:13 am

"Perhaps we should develop cows that can talk and want to be eaten! Perhaps I should patent that idea."

Too late, you need to see this video:
http://richarddawkins.net/video/growingUpClip2all.mov

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

9. Comment #45839 by NMcC on May 29, 2007 at 11:32 am

jimbob

I'm always intrigued when people like you attribute the murders of the Stalinist regime to 'Marxists'. I've read quite a lot of the writings of Marx and I can't remember reading anything he wrote that would give the slightest encouragement to anyone to engage in mass murder.

Maybe I just missed that bit. I was wondering if you could tell me where in Marx's writings this is to be found. I'd be grateful.

Other Comments by NMcC

10. Comment #45848 by doodinthemood on May 29, 2007 at 11:44 am

To say that Stalin killing people is a discredit to Marxism would imply that Hitler killing people is a discredit to capitalism. Neither is true.

And as someone who isn't keen on animal research, I would like to say that I recognise the effectiveness of it, but would pursuade that the reason of this is because of a lack of will to continue research into alternatives. Rather than disrupt animal experimentation, I think that supporting alternative ideas which could, with time, overtake animal experimentation for effectiveness is preferable.

Other Comments by doodinthemood

11. Comment #45886 by agki on May 29, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Read "Higher Superstition : The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science" by Gross and Levitt to get an idea about the utter rubbish of post-modernism and its attacks upon science. It is not only the right-wing loonies like the deceased fat bigot Falwell that we have to worry about.

Other Comments by agki

12. Comment #45915 by blueollie on May 29, 2007 at 3:40 pm

I still think that people like Dawkins are making a mistake by attacking the religious left. Not all of us believe in miracles; in fact there are many of us at my church (Unitarian-Universalist) who neither belive in a personal god nor believe in supernatural stuff at all (e.g., myself and my minister!)

Many of us go to this church just to better center ourselves for our day to day lives, and many of us learn techniques (prayer and meditation) to help us live our current lives better and more selflessly.

Another example: one religious tradition has provided us with a good exercise (yoga). For example, one doesn't need to believe in "charkas" to practice "down dog" and benifit from it. :-)

Yes, some in our church do believe nonsense and subscribe to post-modernist stuff like agki comments on (e. g., Newton's Principa being called Newton's Rape Manual).

But many of us on the religious left are repulsed by such nonsense.

Other Comments by blueollie

13. Comment #45928 by ? on May 29, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Yea, I go to a Unitarian church, too, and get a lot out of it. Its basicly a supportive liberal society and an open forum for the discussion and exploration of ideas of all kinds (philosophical, religious, scientific, etc.)

Since all the congregations are self-governing and autonomous, its hard to make generalizations. I've heard of some dominated by liberal Christians, some that are almost like New Age sects and others that are purely humanist and drop the name "Church" for "Fellowship" and are somewhat hostile to the ones that continue use of religious language.

My local group is a huge, messy mix of everything and we pride ourselves on debate and disagreement. You can pretty much come out and say that you find certain ideas absurd and people will debate it with you instead of getting "offended" and withdrawing.

Other Comments by ?

14. Comment #45929 by RickM on May 29, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Rees is nuts. We should play nice-nice with the moderate theists; holders of the same irrational, schzotypal magical belief in the supernatural as the extremists. As if a moderate god is a little valid.

Other Comments by RickM

15. Comment #45944 by blueollie on May 29, 2007 at 5:51 pm

RickM, as someone who lives in the United States, I think it would be a great improvement if we can get the superstition out of our science classes!

Yes, the larger war is against superstition itself, but sometimes the war and the individual battles start small.

So, if the moderate theists help us kick creationism out of the classroom (as they did in Arkansas in 1980; the civil suit was filed by clerics), I am willing to join with them on that.

I am not saying that we should say that we agree with their nonsensical positions no more than I agree with those in my "church" that believe in healing crystals, dousing, and the like.

(no, I am not making that up...I wish that I were)

Other Comments by blueollie

16. Comment #45952 by LeeLeeOne on May 29, 2007 at 7:12 pm

To comments #45915 and #45928:
You must have recently received your newest UU World Magazine. As a volunteer of office services for a local UU, I have found the vast majority are, like myself, atheists who really are just simply great people seeking to educate themselves! Understanding (which may or may not lead to tolerance), which requires self-education of past history and current events (and so much more - maturity is hard work), are some of the most popular topics for discussion. Mr. Sam Harris and Dr. Richard Dawkins, have undoubtedly and quite obviously encountered, through their writings and lectures, that ignorance plagues us all (esp. as Mr. Harris discovered in the above-noted discussion). Encourage continued education in your UU chapters; education from grammar/middle school until death is the key to unlock the gates to true freedom for all people; a freedom of religion.

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

17. Comment #45955 by Robert Maynard on May 29, 2007 at 7:31 pm

NMcC said:

I'm always intrigued when people like you attribute the murders of the Stalinist regime to 'Marxists'. I've read quite a lot of the writings of Marx and I can't remember reading anything he wrote that would give the slightest encouragement to anyone to engage in mass murder.

As you will know, Marxism frames the class struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Communism necessarily requires the dismantling of all centralised institutions, like businesses and churches.
Not being the guy who had to carry this out, the implications of this are absent in Marx's idealistic writings. Absent too, is much advice for how to deal with people who resist these changes.
The extension of these ideas into violent repression did indeed stem from Stalin's twisted ideology, which were later adopted and modified again by Mao. [Here's a brief description of Stalin's contribution to Marxism, for anyone interested]

..So people who say that are technically mistaken. However, I don't think this should excuse Marx and Marxist philosophy entirely. The class struggle and the necessity of dismantling large parts of societies to establish communist states kind of inevitably imply some kind of repression of people who don't like these bad ideas - whether or not Marx foresaw it.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

18. Comment #45992 by rokort on May 30, 2007 at 1:35 am

pewkatchoo wrote:

I have to agree with you Jimbob. But we should not make to many enemies to early. We are still a seeming minority, even in secular Britain. One battle at a time. The extreme left, even more so than the extreme right, don't like their dogma being held up to questioning in any way.

A bit of care needs to be taken with this tack

I agree. Here in the Netherlands in 2002 we had a guy destined to become the new president: Pim Fortuijn. He rocketed himself into the political light and found a lot of support amongst the Dutch by saying things like "Islam is a retarded faith". Taking a stance against the agenda and the amount of Muslims in Holland gave him overwhelming support and, "of course", resulted in many enemies and death-threats as well.

Only 9 days before the elections he was shot to death. Point blank in the head, 5 times. A ruthless assassination. Everybody expected a muslim to be the killer, but it turned out to be a leftwing animal-rights activist - according to this killer because Fortuijn didn't want to shut down Mink farms when he would become president...

Now i don't want to make things sound worse than they might be, but there's just too many looneys on this planet for comfort.

Other Comments by rokort

19. Comment #46007 by Luthien on May 30, 2007 at 2:31 am

2. Comment #45822 by savroD on May 29, 2007 at 11:00 am
...As far as animals for food.... I expect in the future meat growing on factory vines thanks to stemcell Research & Development!

I would worry about the quality of meat produced in this manner, as it would be missing all of those trace elements that we need tiny amounts of to remain healthy (in larger amounts they are toxic). I'm not even sure we KNOW exctly what trace elements we need (does anyone here know anything about this?). I would feel much better if cows were out eating the grass, and picking up these things as they go.

Other Comments by Luthien

20. Comment #46012 by Veronique on May 30, 2007 at 2:40 am

This was my comment on a thread about the debate with Hitchens and Hedges reported on Alternet.

My comment was in reply to some bloke who said that Islam was evil and need to be destroyed by force. He said: 'Of course Alternet and its readers are always quick to bash Christianity et al into the ground and just as quick to apologize for Islam as "everyone knows it is a religion of peace."

Islam is by far the most dangerous religion on Earth and it should be destroyed by force.

My reply:

'As has been (and currently is) Christianity. Death, destruction and all in the name of bullshit. Any religion that indoctrinates its members into a totalitarianism of belief without the possibility of dissent is disgusting. Islam is the same totalitarian mind numbing belief structure that exemplifies Christianity; not so sure about Judaism.

Force? Destroy? I put the whole lot of you under the same banner of unreason. Live by the rules written by apologists and illiterates to boot? You must be joking! Why would I want to?

I hold that I am able to live my life quite properly, with compassion and empathy for my fellow humans and our cousins - the other primates. I could never adhere to a concept that I am special, listened to by a 'god'. That I hold 'dominion'? What a wank.

Our universe is grand and doesn't seem to stop. We may be the only really sentient beings - I don't know.

I do know that your religious right is as destructive as fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Roman Catholicism, fundamentalist Zionism and any other fundamentalist regime you may care to name (including Naziism and Communism, as practised by the power hungry and non-communist {but let's pretend that we are for 'the people'}power mongers that bubbled to the surface of human greed).

All religion (and anything that states that you have to 'believe') is dangerous and all totalitarianisn is manifestly dangerous. Is there a difference? I don't think so. Sway the masses into a belief system? Yuk, I cannot countenance that at all.

This may be off topic. but not really. I welcome comments on my comment.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

21. Comment #46018 by Russell Blackford on May 30, 2007 at 3:01 am

Veronique: I just love (not) people who think they can destroy things by force. Once you start to use force to resolve a situation, you open up the gates of the unexpected - and the unexpected can turn out to be pretty damn nasty and ugly when it lurches out at you.

To be clear, I'm not a pacifist; there are situations where force is justified to achieve a discrete, realistic outcome ... and when any alternative to using force is even worse. But the idea of deploying the military to wage some open-ended war to end Islam - or any other religion or idea, if it comes to that - is totally barking mad. No one can predict the full ramifications, but we can be totally confident that they'd turn out to be morally catastrophic.

The person you are dealing with is a nutcase.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

22. Comment #46028 by Corylus on May 30, 2007 at 3:27 am

See now this, THIS is why I am atheist.

(Forgot the codified and legitimised discrimination and division between different humans beings. Forgot the inadequacies of the 'proofs' of God. Ignore the lauding of the lack of evidence required for 'faith' and the inconsistencies in 'holy' texts. Piffle to the problem of assigning causation to an interventionist God in a world with physical laws�)

It is not even June and already people are already talking about Christmas!

I hate Christmas, and what's more I really hate the run up to Christmas�

The Machiavellian plots required in order to avoid seeing certain relatives; Cliff Richard through shop speakers; naff decorations; whining, demanding children everywhere; mass production of useless plastic tat; 'comedy' singing model Santas� and all while I am still wearing my summer clothes!

Considering decamping to Iran, Ok I will not be able to follow my normal Christmas ritual of getting blind drunk and snoring my way through the second half of Gone with the Wind/The Wizard of Oz/The Sound of Music (one day I will see the end of those films), but at least I will not have to suffer the above.

P.S. Humbug!

Other Comments by Corylus

23. Comment #46030 by Corylus on May 30, 2007 at 3:37 am

Veronique

I was so busy composing my comedy Xmas rant that I didn't see your letter. Yep, the guy you are dealing with is a dangerous idiot.

At the very least he is making a category error: how does one destroy a belief by force? You destroy beliefs with the production of evidence and/or reasoned persuasion.

At worst he is advocating mass murder... there are indeed some loons out there, sigh.

Other Comments by Corylus

24. Comment #46037 by chapstick08 on May 30, 2007 at 4:02 am

"To say that Stalin killing people is a discredit to Marxism would imply that Hitler killing people is a discredit to capitalism. Neither is true."

First of all communist ideology is to blame for the massacre of millions of people by the pre-Stalinist, Stalinist, and post-Stalinist Soviet regimes. Communism in one sense is simply the ultimate expression of the utilitarian ideal, in which what is good for society is the moral imperative. Therefore people's only duty is to serve this society and this society is in turn to treat human beings as means to its own interest. Rights are automatically void as the people living under such an ideology are no longer ends in themselves, but slaves to some higher purpose. And who is to decide society's interests? In communism, the answer is a completely centralized authority who must use appalling physical force to bend humans into submission to a life that is antagonistic to their very nature, that is, one entirely void of self-interest.

Secondly Hitler was not a capitalist nor did he ever advocate such a system. He advocated an economy based on fascist principles, that is, one under completely centralized authority where the government is given the power to decide who produces what, how much, and distributed to whom. Hardly a capitalist system, the fascist economy has instead much more in common with its supposed ideological opposite, communism.

Other Comments by chapstick08

25. Comment #46042 by NMcC on May 30, 2007 at 4:16 am

Robert Maynard

Thanks for your reply.

I must say it's new to me to be told that the problem with 'communism' is that it argues for the 'dismantling of all centalised institutions, like businesses and churches'. It's usually argued the other way round; that the problem with 'communism' is that it centralises everything, especially in the hands of the state. Congratulations on coming up with such a novel view.

Of course, 'communism' doesn't argue anything at all, much less what you claim. Individuals, like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao etc have claimed that their actions were derived from the writings of Karl Marx and millions believed (and believe) that this is so. Millions more have argued to the opposite effect. For example, the Bolshevik coup was denounced as anti-Marxist by numerous people at the time. Not only did Marxists in Russia (Martov, and the like) say this but the earliest advowedly Marxist organisation in Britain (the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB)) is on record as denouncing the so-called socialist revolution in Russia as nothing more than a minority coup - and pointed out that this was a policy that Marx (as a supporter of democracy) himself was decidedly hostile to.

Anyway, it's a big subject. The least I'd expect from people like Richard Dawkins is that they don't make comments about Marx and Marxists in the same breath as mentioning Stalin, unless they can back up their views with facts. I have argued on this website that Dawkins referring to Stalin as a 'Marxist' is tantamount to believing that the former 'German Democratic Republic' was a German, democratic republic simply on its own say so. Or is tantamount to believing that Hitler was an atheist simply because theists dishonestly claim that he was. On one British TV programme, Dawkins even pulled from his pocket quotes from Hitler that he'd brought with him specifically to dispute the charge that Hitler was an atheist. I could do the same and disprove the view, which Dawkins is always peddling, that Stalin was a Marxist. Why is it right to do this in relation to Hitler but not in relation to Stalin?

Other Comments by NMcC

26. Comment #46069 by doodinthemood on May 30, 2007 at 6:12 am

"In communism, the answer is a completely centralized authority who must use appalling physical force to bend humans into submission to a life that is antagonistic to their very nature, that is, one entirely void of self-interest."
In Stalinism, yes. In fact your whole post seemed to be referring to Stalinism rather than Marxism. When Marx was writing, he made specific models based around Berlin and Manchester, because he believed these would be the first cities to become communist, and that it would be spontaneous. Marxism is not a set of instructions to revolt, take power and enforce communism. It is an ideology of what will passively happen and emerge. By encouraging a revolt, Lenin went against the basis of Marxism. By maintaining the system dictatorially, Stalin did also.

Other Comments by doodinthemood

27. Comment #46074 by NMcC on May 30, 2007 at 6:26 am

doodinthemood

Fair enough post, for the most part.

Must say though that your comment about Marx devising 'models' of 'communist cities' was so bizarre that it made me splutter...

Other Comments by NMcC

28. Comment #47304 by Robert Maynard on June 4, 2007 at 3:31 am

NMcC:

Congratulations on coming up with such a novel view.

Thank you.

It's usually argued the other way round; that the problem with 'communism' is that it centralises everything, especially in the hands of the state.

..Yes, but that's saying exactly the same thing. You wouldn't be able centralise all power into the "State" unless you dismantled existing "bourgeoisie" institutions that propagate inequality and prolong the class struggle.

How exactly can a communist party say they have consolidated all power in the hands of the State unless there are no independent locuses of power?

Of course, 'communism' doesn't argue anything at all, much less what you claim. [goes on to bemoan revolutionary betrayal of Marxist principles]

I didn't claim much, but what I did was true. Communism "necessarily requires the dismantling of all centralised institutions, like businesses and churches" (I should have added qualifier, "with these institutions being absorbed into the State"), because Marx's ten planks endorse, among other things, the abolition of private property ownership and inheritance, precluding the existence of churches and private enterprise.

Besides this, I thought I'd made it clear that I understood there were distinctions between Marxism and its implementation in Russia and China. Again, I have to say I don't think this absolves Marx of all culpability for how people implemented his philosophy - which is composed of some genuinely misguided ideas.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

29. Comment #113737 by gentle skeptic on January 20, 2008 at 12:21 pm

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx clearly advocated the use of violence. Marx was a paradoxical prophet, a visionary genius who suffered from a profound lack of imagination. The only barrier to implementation of his ideas is the reality of human nature.

"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE BOURGEOISIE lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that THEIR ENDS CAN BE ATTAINED ONLY BY THE FORCIBLE OVERTHROW OF ALL EXISTING SOCIAL CONDITIONS. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."

Other Comments by gentle skeptic

Reload Comments | Back to Top