Dan Gardner wrote a column in the Ottawa Citizen [Those fanatical atheists]. He makes so much sense I'm just going to quote several paragraphs and let everyone see what every rational person should be saying. This is the effect Richard Dawkins is having and I think it's about time.
Then there's the problem on the other side -- among the atheists such as Richard Dawkins who have been labelled "fanatics." Now, it is absolutely true that Dawkins' tone is often as charming as fingernails dragged slowly down a chalkboard. But just what is the core of Dawkins' radical message?[Hat Tip: PZ Myers]
Well, it goes something like this: If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so.
That's it. That's the whole, crazy, fanatical package.
When the Pope says that a few words and some hand-waving causes a cracker to transform into the flesh of a 2,000-year-old man, Dawkins and his fellow travellers say, well, prove it. It should be simple. Swab the Host and do a DNA analysis. If you don't, we will give your claim no more respect than we give to those who say they see the future in crystal balls or bend spoons with their minds or become werewolves at each full moon.
And for this, it is Dawkins, not the Pope, who is labelled the unreasonable fanatic on par with faith-saturated madmen who sacrifice children to an invisible spirit.
This is completely contrary to how we live the rest of our lives. We demand proof of even trivial claims ("John was the main creative force behind Sergeant Pepper") and we dismiss those who make such claims without proof. We are still more demanding when claims are made on matters that are at least temporarily important ("Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" being a notorious example).
So isn't it odd that when claims are made about matters as important as the nature of existence and our place in it we suddenly drop all expectation of proof and we respect those who make and believe claims without the slightest evidence? Why is it perfectly reasonable to roll my eyes when someone makes the bald assertion that Ringo was the greatest Beatle but it is "fundamentalist" and "fanatical" to say that, absent evidence, it is absurd to believe Muhammad was not lying or hallucinating when he claimed to have long chats with God?
16 comments :
Larry, I agree that this guy is a great voice. I sent him an e-mail of support and thanks.
I live in the Bible Belt in Texas, and to see writings like those of Mr. Gardner is eye candy for me.
I also emailed a notes of thanks and appreciation. Hope his column is widely disseminated.
Well, it's a pretty sloppy article, whatever you think of its thesis. Just to take a couple of examples ...
And for this, it is Dawkins, not the Pope, who is labelled the unreasonable fanatic on par with faith-saturated madmen who sacrifice children to an invisible spirit.
Zowie ... that's got to be about as big a straw man as I've seen recently.
We demand proof of even trivial claims ("John was the main creative force behind Sergeant Pepper") and we dismiss those who make such claims without proof. We are still more demanding when claims are made on matters that are at least temporarily important ("Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" being a notorious example).
"Still more demanding" on proof of WMDs in Iraq? Now there's a stunning rewriting of history - there were few demands at all, and assertions were accepted pretty well wholesale. I suggest that the recent history of Iraq is rife with too much acceptance of claims and not enough demands for evidence.
Why is it perfectly reasonable to roll my eyes when someone makes the bald assertion that Ringo was the greatest Beatle ...
Very weak point to end off with. That's a matter of opinion and judgement, not a matter for which you "demand logical proof."
I agree with his thesis, but I'd be embarrassed to write anything that is argued so poorly.
Much as I appreciate and agree with Dan Gardner's message, I wish he had not picked transubstantiation as a central example.
John Wilkins once wrote a nice explanation of the doctrine, although I'm afraid it was a talk.origins post rather than something on his blog. But the Wikipedia article says the same thing.
Basically, the Catholic Church agrees that any material test (like the DNA test) of the Host will show it is unleavened bread. They have pretty much always understood this - transubstantiation is supposed to take place when the Host is consecrated, not when it is consumed.
Now I don't think transubstantiation deserves a great deal of respect, since it amounts to an unfalsifiable claim. But it's not fair to paint Catholics as idiots who can't tell the difference between bread and meat.
Scott, you opened your comment saying, "Well, it's a pretty sloppy article, whatever you think of its thesis." You ended your comment saying, "I agree with his thesis, but I'd be embarrassed to write anything that is argued so poorly."
Your calling the article "sloppy" and "argued so poorly" suggests to me that you failed to see that the article was not intended to be fact-filled objective rigorous argumentation.
I think his thesis was made clear early on when he says, "But a series of books doing quite well on bestseller lists -- by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and, soon, Christopher Hitchens -- argues it's time to be a lot less deferential to faith, and I have to say I find it hard to disagree." Personally, I read this as telling us two critical aspects of his thesis. One is that these books argue that our tendency to heap respect on religious faith should be reduced. The other - revealed by his using "I" in "I find it hard to disagree" - is that he forewarns us that his discourse will be subjective. So, he quite honestly alerts us at the outset that his approach will be one of subjective rhetorical persuasion, and not a potentially mind-numbing series of formal logic propositions insipidly strung together. He concurs with the books and he justifies for us why, from his understanding of the current state of the world, that is the case.
In your comment, Scott, you say, "Zowie ... that's got to be about as big a straw man as I've seen recently" in response to Dawkins being labeled an unreasonable fanatic while the Pope is not. Note that the paragraph before the comparison, the statement "the Pope says that a few words and some hand-waving causes a cracker to transform into the flesh of a 2,000-year-old man," is actually correct; the Pope truly maintains that, so, I think calling your quoted statement a "straw-man" mischaracterizes the situation.
Gardner's brief reference to weapons of mass destruction was not a rewriting of history at all. His point is merely that we demand literally no evidence whatsoever for any contention handed down from religion, while for the WMD issue, it was at least considered a necessity to put up show-trial evidence (I'm a US citizen, and it seems to me that thinking non-Americans should be scared to death to think that a US President took office with prior intentions to start a war regardless of what evidence could be contrived. For many thinking Americans like myself, abject fear and powerlessness well up at the thought that for this President and his supporters the imperative of satiating the greed of oil barons and war profiteers will be done by sacrificing our sons and daughters - for me both my son and daughter would draft-eligible. Remember, our Congress never declared war, so this purely a war of personal discretion).
Scott, you say that you would be embarassed to have written this piece. I, myself, would be proud to say I had written the piece. The conversational style is accessible and timely, so, that over morning coffee, Gardner's readers can fully grasp his personal endorsement of the arguments in the books mentioned. The piece relies on examples from recent common knowledge, so, most readers won't be left out, won't be left wanting for a reference librarian, and won't be left to google their way to understanding where Gardner stands on the issue of our being unduly respectful of the "ridiculous quackery" called religious faith.
Well put, Russ.
Gardner's piece was just fine.
russ:
...the article was not intended to be fact-filled objective rigorous argumentation.
Then I have to say he was magnificently successful.
If you accept that level of sloppiness and misrepresentation as worthy of authorial pride, then I guess you and I will just have to disagree.
I think transubstantiation is a fine example of a religious claim, taken very seriously by many people, that is as silly as the idea that there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn perched on my left shoulder inspiring my writings. The doctrine states that to all appearances (which would include physical and chemical tests) the stuff continues to be bread and wine, but somehow has the miraculous substance of Christ's body. It is treated by priests and laity with suitable reverence (eg you can't throw the leftovers or crumbs in the garbage, there are special rules for what to do if an animal eats some, or if a communicant vomits,etc). The question being raised by Dawkins (and Gardner)is why it is conventionally considered uncouth for anyone to draw parallels with the 5-year-old who cried when you sat on the chair where her imaginary friend was.
Yes, Gardner was terrific. No, transsubstantiation wasn't a good choice. (Prayers had been a better example, because the church probably won't, and in any case can't, make them unfalsifiable.)
Though what I like best is that he "came out" as a reaction to those fantastically successful troublesome atheistic authors he mentions. It is hard to argue with success.
Scott, we await your scholarly and most erudite writings.
Have any?
I think transubstantiation is a fine example of a religious claim, taken very seriously by many people, that is as silly as the idea that there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn perched on my left shoulder inspiring my writings.
On your left shoulder? Heretic!
theo bromine, you've zeroed in on the correct response to transubstantiation. Torbjörn showed that Gardner could have made the point better by talking about prayer instead.
Some here seem to feel that Gardner's reference to Transubstantiation is a superficial, uninformed, blow-off of the dogma. However, I think that rebuttal has a whiff of the Courtier's Reply to it -- that there's a "sophisticated" version of the dogma that deserves better. If Transubstantiation is untestable, that's only because it is couched in an obsolete metaphysics that conveniently insulates it from any objective test. All Gardner is saying is: either submit your claim to test, or admit you're talking nonsense.
"I think transubstantiation is a fine example of a religious claim, taken very seriously by many people, that is as silly as the idea that there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn perched on my left shoulder inspiring my writings."
I'm not sure what it is about atheists and unicorns. Actually, I do. It's an appeal to ridicule. If someone actually said that they had an IPU on their shoulder (left or right), everyone would have the same basic response: "You're freakin' nuts!" So, whatever our opinions of the rationality of various religious beliefs, if they seemed as silly as believing in unicorns, then there wouldn't be so many religious people.
Children stop believing in faeries, dragons, unicorns and invisible friends not because they have developed the reasoning capability to judge them as lacking evidence, but because all segments of mature society will reinforce the fact that those things are not real. Some parents might think it cute for their 12-year old to still believe in Santa Claus, but they'd be competing with every other possible influence on that child that says that he is a figment of his imagination.
Religious belief doesn't have anything close to that level of competition for a developing child. So it should be no surprise that so many make it to adulthood before they ever question their religious upbringing. No one ever told them that it was silly for a rational, thinking adult to believe in the Resurrection or any other religious idea.
I think that promoting rational thought is essential, and I try to do so in my science classroom. However, I've said before here (though it's been a while since I've posted) that we should consider our target audience before we whip out the stronger rhetorical techniques that are logically questionable. If we intend to persuade people open to new ideas, then ridiculing their current beliefs is more likely to get their back up than get them thinking. Debating with a fervent fundamentalist is another story. Pointing out the silliness of their positions without holding anything back might get those watching the debate to think about their own views in a new light.
I used to be a bit at odds with the "angry atheists" such as Dawkins, PZ, and Larry. But I see now the usefulness of their style of confronting the religious with the inconsistencies and irrationality of their beliefs not only with no sugar-coating, but with plenty of jalapeno peppers. Being the mild-mannered nice-guy that I am, however, I'll stick to subtle persuasion to approach the world rationally. I will then hope that the people I influence will stop letting religious thought creep into their thinking on issues that are better dealt with rationally.
jasontd,
If I'm reading you right, you seem to be saying that the rhetorical tactic of equating god(s) and religious dogma with childhood myths is ineffective because of this:
"Children stop believing in faeries, dragons, unicorns and invisible friends not because they have developed the reasoning capability to judge them as lacking evidence, but because all segments of mature society will reinforce the fact that those things are not real."
But the point of the analogy seems to be that such things objectively belong in the same category because they fail on an empirical/rational level. That, IMO, makes the tactic more likely to be effective, not less. People think analogically and metaphorically, and it's bound to strike a cord.
And having a "mature society" that "reinforces the fact that these things [religion] are not real" is pretty much what I and the rest of the New Atheists aim for
"If Transubstantiation is untestable, that's only because it is couched in an obsolete metaphysics that conveniently insulates it from any objective test."
Hmm. I don't know diverse churches interpretation of this, but the lutheran church around here seems to think it is symbolism. So there are versions that doesn't drag metaphysics into it.
Post a Comment