1. How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics

Comment #11939 by Clive Bradley on December 8, 2006 at 10:19 am

Comment 9554 by Richard Dawkins: "Clive Bradley seems to be making a nasty little insinuation that what I said requires 'defence'."

Nasty insinuation wholeheartedly retracted, if that's what it was. The question you are asking, as a question, is perfectly reasonable. You are, of course, treading into very controversial territory, though, so the outrage seems a bit disingenuous.

What I was referring to, anyway, was a tendency I detect on this site for some people to treat the Professor a bit too much like an infallible hero.

2. How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics

Comment #9547 by Clive Bradley on November 25, 2006 at 5:02 am

Assuming comment 9524 is the real Richard Dawkins, and still left wondering what he thinks about eugenics, I am intrigued to know what the various members of the RD fan club leaping to the defence of their hero now think, knowing he evidently didn't write it in the first place.

3. I don't believe in Richard Dawkins

Comment #3425 by Clive Bradley on October 28, 2006 at 2:02 pm

Aiyer: "I sometimes wonder if Mr. KENAN MALIK is letting his Muslim conditioning obstruct his vision. I notice that many of my moderate Muslim friends talk freely, criticize various aspects of politics but when one turns, a bit of, that critical attitude towards certain very glaringly crude aspects of Islam , they feel offended and start defending very passionately."

Do you know anything at all about Kenan Malik? This is an extraordianary thing to say, verging, quite frankly, on racism. Just because someone has a Muslim name...

4. I don't believe in Richard Dawkins

Comment #3409 by Clive Bradley on October 28, 2006 at 11:02 am

Soapy Sam and toni

The conflicts in Israel/Palestine and Northern Ireland are, most certainly, secular in origin and cause.

Take Israel/Palestine. The source of the conflict is over land from which Arabs were expelled in 1948 and 1967. Whatever the rights and wrongs of those wars, what the Palestinians want, in one way or another, is land back, and the establishment of a nation state.

There has always been a substantial Christian Palestinian minority (although it's true few of them now live there). Some Palestinian leaders have been Christian. There are plenty of Israeli Jews who are not religious.

As Kenan Malik rightly says, it is the degredation of politics - and the marginalisation of secular political forces - which has given this conflict more of a religious colour. But it remains at root a secular conflict - the answer to which, surely, is for democratic *national* states (that is, a Palestinian state alongside Israel) to be created.

To consider this a religious conflict is to mislead both about its causes and about its solutions. (Moreover if you think the solution requires first persuading all Israeli Jews and all Palestinian Arabs to be atheists, the prospects are surely bleak indeed).

5. Sermons and straw men

Comment #3163 by Clive Bradley on October 26, 2006 at 3:38 am

johnc

I find myself with mixed feelings about much of this. In these debates, I tend to agree with you - "provisional" truth against absolutes, and so on.

But in arguments after the screening of "The Root of All Evil" I found myself defending Dawkins: when someone's telling you the earth is 6,000 years old, it seems pretty reasonable to say, "No it's not. It categorically is not." That truth is provisional isn't really to the point in *that* argument.

It's the context of the debates, of course. But as for TGD itself, it seems to me it presents the case provocatively, forthrightly, robustly - and entertainingly - with very good reason. A more nuanced, subtle argument would be in a different kind of book.

6. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2786 by Clive Bradley on October 23, 2006 at 12:51 pm

Andrew Brown has written a book, partly, about Dawkins ("The Darwin Wars"). So I think you'll find he's read his other books.

7. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2756 by Clive Bradley on October 23, 2006 at 9:08 am

I'm with Johnc on a lot of this. And I don't think he's been either arrogant or pseudo-intellectual. These are perfectly valid arguments which require proper debate.

Theology may be a non-subject in the sense that it refers to God, who does not exist. But the early history of philosophy, for instance, is wrapped up with theology. I'm not talking only about Christian philosophers. But Bertrand Russell, whom people have mentioned here as a good role model, devoted a substantial part of his History of Western Philosophy to an account of - and engagement with - philosophical thinkers who were Christian theologians, too. And that tradition laid the basis for the modern scientific method.

(Of course the scientific method grew in *opposition* to religious authority, too. But it wasn't straight forward).

What is perplexing about this discussion is that many of its participants seem to think that to make this point - which is partly what Eagleton is doing - means you are defending theology in the sense of arguing for God.

Coupled with that is a lot of complaint that people can't understand what Eagleton is saying. I don't doubt he could learn some lessons about lucidity from Dawkins. But for the most part I don't think his review is difficult to understand. Some science, it has to be said, is utterly incomprehensible to most people, including me. That doesn't make it, ipso facto, pretentious, pseudo-intellectual, or whatever. (It doesn't make it right, either, of course). And I do think there's a strain of criticism of Eagleton in this thread which is pretty anti-intellectual (in both senses: philistine about ideas, and dismissive of people who are academics).

I tend to agree with Dawkins on NOMA. But Gould was certainly right, against Dawkins, in one sense - a far greater desire to understand *why* people look to God and priests; the social conditions which encourage belief (another of Eagleton's points). Dawkins often seems to think it's just because they haven't had atheism explained to them properly. And while proper explanation will obviously help, the world is a more complex and difficult place.

8. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2632 by Clive Bradley on October 22, 2006 at 9:26 am

mndarwinist

My point was that given the obvious similarities between apparently religious conflicts and national conflicts which have no religious dimension, it might be superficial to regard the former as 'religious' in the first place.

And for certain, if you think the solution to the Irish conflict, or Israel/Palestine, is to persuade everyone to be atheists, I think you are wide of the mark. Both, surely, require a democratic, that is, political, solution which satisfies the national wishes of the different peoples. I would certainly like everyone to be atheists. But to centre your understanding of what's happening on religion alone is, I suggest, very misleading.

And no, I can't really think of a 'bad atheist' who didn't call themselves a Marxist (unless you count Hitler, but Dawkins covers that, reasonably convincingly). But I'm really not sure where that gets you. The attempt to persuade religious people that atheists are all very nice, and the only murderers in history are believers seems to be utterly misconceived.

It is right to persuade people of the possibility of a humanistic morality. Indeed, I would argue it's a *stronger* basis for morality than either received textual wisdom, the fear of hell and brimstone, and whatever. I don't see it's necessary, or plausible, to suggest that atheism is a sufficient requirement for moral behaviour.

9. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2629 by Clive Bradley on October 22, 2006 at 8:37 am

Well, in my view neither Stalin nor Mao were even remotely about the 'rule of the proletariat'. And I don't understand what you mean by "you take that our, and nothing is left". Power is left, the power of the state; the exploitation of the population. The "rule of the proletariat" is a rather abstract, ideological notion, in the context of the USSR and China, anyway.

There are conflicts around the world which do not have a religious dimension - I've mentioned the Kurds, in Turkey and elsewhere. I could mention Darfur, where both 'sides' are Muslim. And I could go on. South Africa wasn't a religious conflict, was it?

10. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2626 by Clive Bradley on October 22, 2006 at 8:18 am

Andrew - well, as in many conflicts, they'd know each other by their names. (Scott, you're a protestant; O'Leary, you're a catholic). And you must know the old joke - a guy from Northern Ireland tells his neighbour he's an atheist. "Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist, or a Catholic atheist?"

And for sure there have been political figures on the Republican side who are atheists to all intents and purposes (like James Connolly).

I'm not disputing that religion is a factor in this conflict, as in others. But Dawkins does rather talk about it as if that's all there is to it.

11. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2621 by Clive Bradley on October 22, 2006 at 7:49 am

First, I am a Marxist (of a particular species which is very hostile to Stalinism, but that's another story). But I am on the wing of these discussions, if I can put it like this, which is less inclined to dismiss religious belief.

Stalinism persecuted religious people in the name of atheism. (Not *only* in the name of atheism, but it's silly to say it had nothing to do with it).

Second, my earlier point was about not reducing every conflict in the world to religion. Of course there is a religious element to the conflict in Ireland, as, say in Israel/Palestine. But these are basically national conflicts, with more in common with, for example, the conflict in Turkey between Ankara and the Kurds (in which both sides are Muslims), than religious wars of the past like the crusades or what have you.

It is true, I think, that the references in the God Delusion to Ireland, and some other political conflicts, are superficial. It's still a good book. But it has its shortcomings.

12. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2588 by Clive Bradley on October 22, 2006 at 12:59 am

I take your point, too, Brian.

Matt:

But one very good point Brown makes is about, for instance, Northern Ireland. It is simply not true that 'religion' in and of itself is the cause of killing in Irish history. 'Catholics' and 'Protestants' are also people who see themselves as 'Irish' and 'British'; and the killing was about whether or not Ireland should be a single, independent country. Religion is the gloss on this, not the cause.

I'm not true that OBL is entirely about religion, and not about politics, either.

Sri Lanka, which has been mentioned, is not primarily a religious conflict, but a national one (the Tamils want independence).

We do the atheist case no favours by dissolving all complex social and political phenomena into one 'bad thing'

13. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2583 by Clive Bradley on October 22, 2006 at 12:25 am

Yes, I get the point about how atheists are seen in the US. And I think the part of the God Delusion which is about how morality doesn't depend on God is very good.

But it is true that Stalin, for instance, persecuted religious people partly in the name of 'atheism'. Or anyway I don't see what's to be gained by trying to redefine everything to show that he persecuted them for some other reason. Why can't you just say 'I'm not saying atheism is a *guarantee* against terrible actions; but neither is belief in God. And not all atheists are like Stalin.'?

14. Dawkins the dogmatist

Comment #2575 by Clive Bradley on October 21, 2006 at 11:48 pm

It seems to me a very weak argument against religion to insist that atheists are wholly benign, and if they do bad things do so in the name of something other than their atheism. What possible difference does this make to the argument against religion?

I believe religion is wrong. I also believe beating your children is wrong. It isn't necessary to claim either that beating your children is a religion, or that child-beaters only do so in so far as they are religious - or whatever - for the argument about religion to stand.

I believe showing compassion for people is right. It isn't necessary to claim either than no religious people show compassion, or that they only do so in so far as they are not religious, for the argument against religion to be true.

I don't see how you can construe a review which sets out at the beginning that it agrees with the atheist argument as an apology for religion. It simply says that *Dawkins'* arguments against religion are flawed. I don't agree with Brown that they're so flawed. But it strikes me that many commenters on this site are extraordinarily defensive. Not every criticism of your hero is de facto a defence of your enemy.

15. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2372 by Clive Bradley on October 20, 2006 at 11:58 pm

Thanks to all for responses. (Not sure what gave away the North America in your case, Greywizard. Think it's just a general sense from the site).

As a matter of interest, I have come across a completely different account of the organisation of the universe - provided by the late Nobel Prize winning plasma physicist Johannes Alfven. He argued - I am not remotely competent to judge it - that the basic (simple) workings of plasma gases can explain everything without reference to the Big Bang, multiple universes (actually that might be anachronistic: he died in the late 1980s I think), etc.

Not sure I understand the 'universe as pure maths' idea. But there is an argument, isn't there, that given the circumstances in whch our minds have evolved - ie for life on earth, not out in the cosmos - we might be simply unable to 'do the math' for out in the cosmos, or the maths are less pure, more determined by the workings of our earthly minds, than we think. I suppose you can never know the answer to that.

And to Mad Hatter's point by point rebuttal of Eagleton. I agree with a lot. I'll comment on just one of your points.

The evil consequences of science and technology are controllable. Hopefully! But recent reports suggest we might be too late in terms of environmental destruction; the threats posed (among other things) by the melting of the ice caps to the Gulf Stream, its consequences for climate change - etc - these are 'evil' (though not deliberate) consequences, which we need to sort out urgently. Is global warming a greater threat to the world than fundamentalism? Obviously, on one level it's a stupid question: they're both bad. But I think Eagleton's point, which to me stands, is that Dawkins doesn't address it.

16. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2341 by Clive Bradley on October 20, 2006 at 4:23 pm

Greywizard

Thanks. And this is an interesting thread.

On multiple universes - I know it's an accepted hypothesis in cosmology. But I've read (scientific) criticisms of it. And in any case, it is surely in the spirit of questioning which Dawkins says religion discourages to wonder if an infinite number of unobserved universes are much of an answer to anything... That scientists think they might exist isn't far off an appeal to sacred texts.

I wonder - I throw this out as a question - if this debate (here on this thread) is informed by me being on the other side of the Atlantic, I think, to most of you. According to Dawkins, anyway, atheists are much more of a beleaguered minority in the US than we are in the UK. Things are changing here - as the book outlines. But it's not reached the level it is in the US. I think. So for me there are interesting 'blind spots' in Dawkins' argument; overstatements; simplifications. Whereas, in the US, you see forthright atheist argument is a - if you will - Godsend.

Or am I talking bollocks?

17. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2334 by Clive Bradley on October 20, 2006 at 3:48 pm

This is from a completely lay point of view (I'm not even remotely a physicist):

The problem is that the various qualities of the universe are exactly as they need to be in order for stars, planets, and life (and so, us) to exist. Recalibrate any of it and the universe turns to soup. Right?

If you imagine an infinite number of universes, the weirdness of this vanishes, because it's just that we happen to be in the one where those quantities are what they are.

But if, in order to address a pretty large weirdness about the nature of the universe, you have to postulate an infinite number of unobserved things - I'm not sure that's much more convincing than saying the solution is God.

Dawkins suggests the other answer, too - which is kind of, well, yeah, but that's just how it is. Maybe it is. But you can see why someone predisposed to the idea of a prime mover might think you hadn't crushed them.

18. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2327 by Clive Bradley on October 20, 2006 at 3:20 pm

I have to admit I'm a bit - can't think of the word (shocked?) - by some of the comments here. There is a lot of ad hominem abuse of Eagleton: he writes books about poetry (and other things, by the way); nobody's heard of him (actually he's an extemely well-known literary and cultural theorist in the UK); he's a post-modernist (he is a sharp critic of post-modernism); he writes badly (well, I've read worse).

I thought The God Delusion hit the contemporary spot, and I don't agree with Eagleton's criticisms, for the most part.

But I do think there are a few important questions Dawkins either doesn't address or addresses inadequately, some of which Eagleton mentions.

1. Religious faith has played a positive as well as a negative role in human history, and religious people have not always been a force for evil.

2. Non-religious people, and science and technology, have sometimes been a force for evil.

3. Dawkins tends to regard religion as a bewildering intellectual choice. He doesn't attempt to understand the social conditions which lead people to look to God, or priests (this is Eagleton's reference to Marx and 'the heart of a heartless world'), which is surely relevant to any discussion of fundamentalism. *Why* do people have funny ideas?

4. Some of Dawkins' defences of science - Eagleton mentions the 'multiple universe' solution to problems related to the anthropic principle - are not completely convincing.

To repeat, I am basically with Dawkins - with science, against religion. But Eagleton has raised some legitimate criticisms.

19. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2287 by Clive Bradley on October 20, 2006 at 12:27 pm

I think people are missing the points Eagleton is making.

Dawkins' book does criticise various actual theological positions. It seems to me reasonable to object if his knowledge of the positions he is attacking is superficial. I'm not (and nor is Eagleton) talking about the Bible, but about a body of thought over 2,000 years.

Obviously the main purpose of Dawkins' book is not to be a critique of theology, but to present a basic argument, and I think it does so well. But it is surely true that if part of the reason for writing the book is to persuade 'believers', the case is not helped if those believers see him only attacking weak versions of their argument.

20. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2280 by Clive Bradley on October 20, 2006 at 12:05 pm

I don't know about you but when I was at school we were taught relentlessly how to read poems, the meanings of which aren't always obvious. It's not that weird for a professor of literature to write a book about it.

Eagleton might be wrong about Dawkins' book - I wrote a much more favourable review which has also been included on this site - but he is not writing from a religious point of view. I would imagine Eagleton is also an atheist. That's not his objection to the book. I think if people are going to rebut his argument they need to show either that Dawkins does know more than Eagleton claims about theology, or that it's not necessary to know in detail about theology in order to attack it.

Moaning that he's written a book about poetry is pretty low.